Sitting of 21 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and being returned—
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills. [See page 1245.]

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Derby Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Dudley, Stourbridge, and District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Lochnell Estate Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords]. [Not amended], considered; to be read the third time.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—

1. "That, in the case of the South Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the Naval Works (Portsmouth Barracks Site) Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the Bill be permitted to proceed."

Resolutions agreed to.
South Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [Lords]. Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill to be read a second time.
Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords]; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [Lords]; Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways Bill [Lords]; South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 290.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—City and South London Railway Bill; Romford and District Tramways Bill; Newcastle-on Tyne Electric Supply Bill; Woolwich Borough Council Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring
1296
powers on the Scottish Central Electric Power Company." [Scottish Central Electric Power Bill (Lords).]
Scottish Central Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS
  CHEAP TRAINS BILL.
  Petition from Woolwich, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Glyncymmer, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dunnichen, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL AND LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Urmston, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Leith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Briton Ferry; Glyncorrwg; and Nantymoel; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Monton Green, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition from Glyncymmer, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898, PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877.
  Paper [presented 8th June] to be printed. [No. 265.]
  WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
  Copies presented, of Seven Orders in Council of 9th July, 1903, relating to the ensuing Winter Assizes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  Copy presented, of Report of the President for the Session 1902–3, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Copy presented, of Return of Eviction Notices filed daring the quarter ended 30th June, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ending 31st March, 1903, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers, Assistant Inspecting Officers, and Sub Inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES ACT, 1868.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Trade under Part III. of the Act. Orders for Fishery Grants, 1902–3 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 266.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3036 and 3037 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONSULAR SERVICE (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 3, 1903).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Consular Service, 2nd July, 1903, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES.
  Return ordered, "of the Accounts, as they are respectively made up, of the Metropolitan Water Companies, and of
  1298
  the Staines Reservoirs Joint Committee to the 30th day of September and the 31st day of December, 1902 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 286, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

  BRITISH COLONIES (DUTIES ON IMPORTS).
  Return ordered, "of the amounts received respectively by British Colonies from Duties on Imports in the years 1882, 1892, and the last year published and their population at those periods."—(Mr. Alfred Davies.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Delays in fixing Fair Rents in Limerick.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the reason for the delay in the announcement of the decision of the Sub-Land Commissioner on the applications made to fix fair rents in Limerick on 18th March.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Decisions have been announced in twenty-one out of twenty-six cases heard on the date mentioned. In a number of other cases heard at the same sittings, but on subsequent dates, the work of inspection by the Assistant Commissioners has been delayed by circumstances incidental to the system of rent fixing.

  Exports to Foreign Countries of Cotton and Woollen Goods and Cutlery.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what is the total amount and total value of our exports to foreign countries of woollen goods, of cotton snoods, and of cutlery respectively in 1877, 1882, 1887, 1892, 1897, and 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) If my hon. friend desires this information his best course is to move for it in the form of a Return; but I fear that a good deal of the information asked for cannot be given.

  Relative Prices of Corn in England and Italy.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the price of corn of similar quality per quarter on some recent date in this month in Italy and England respectively, and the rate of import duty per quarter levied in Italy on corn at that same date.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) As the hon. Member's Question refers to prices and duties in Italy as well as the United Kingdom I shall be glad of two or three days time to enable me to supply the information.

  Cotton Trade—Deficiency of Raw Cotton.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the cause of the short time now being largely worked in the Lancashire cotton trade; and, in case that information goes to show that such short time is due to a deficiency in our imports of raw cotton, whether he will use the good offices of the Government with the view of increasing such imports.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am aware of the importance of this matter, but the cotton industry are as well able to form an opinion as the Government as to the commercial position which has caused short time to be worked; and, with regard to the last part of the Question, I may say that the Department is ready to give any practicable help towards increasing the sources of supply of raw cotton.

  Safety of Travelling Public on Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent accident at the Waterloo Station of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, he will take such steps as he deems necessary to secure the safety of the public before the process of electrification of that portion of this company's railway system is completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) An inquiry into the causes of the accident
  1300
  will be held this week on behalf of the Board of Trade. At present I have no information that the accident was due in any way to the process of electrification of a portion of the railway company's lines.

  Superannuation Allowance to Servants of Metropolitan Boroughs.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to a certificate of the district auditor sanctioning a charge against the general rate of the borough of Camberwell in respect of superannuation allowance granted by the Council of that Borough to a road sweeper who had been continuously employed by the Vestry and Borough Council for seventeen years, the auditor being of opinion that as the sweeper in question had discharged a definable office in the service of the Vestry and Borough Council he became, in the absence of any definition to the contrary, an officer within the meaning of the Superannuation (Metropolis) Act, 1866; and whether the Local Government Board will sanction the Metropolitan Borough Councils granting similar allowances in the future until such time as the Acts relating to superannuation have been amended.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been called to the case referred to. I have no authority to decide the legal point involved except upon an appeal to me against the auditor's decision as to some particular charge of the kind mentioned; but I may state that, so far as an opinion can at present be formed on the subject, I am advised that the expenditure in question was lawful. This was the view taken by the auditor, and he accordingly allowed the charge in the accounts. The only effect of sanction on my part to any such expenditure would be to prevent the auditor from disallowing it, and in the circumstances above stated there seems to be no need for any such sanction.

  Smallpox—Isolation or Vaccination of Persons exposed to Infection.
  COLONEL SADLER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will favourably

  1301
  consider the desirability of making an order for preventing the spread of smallpox to the effect that all persons who have been exposed to the infection thereof should be isolated during the incubation period of the disease, or alternatively vaccinated or revaccinated; and further that it should be made an offence to withhold information or give false information in respect to cases of smallpox.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I will consider the expediency of giving local authorities further powers in relation to these matters But legislation would probably be necessary if the subject is to be dealt with satisfactorily.

  Classification of Telegraph Offices.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBERLAYNE: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state in what year the necessary condition on which a telegraph office could be placed in Schedule A was altered from the total number of the established force to the aggregate amount of business done; and if he will state what is the aggregate amount of business required to be performed before a postal and telegraph office can be permitted to enter Group 2.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The transfer of an office from Schedule B to Schedule A, has never at any time depended on the number of the established force, but on the number of letters or telegrams dealt with. The present method of calculation takes into account not only the number of letters and telegrams, but all the other branches of business transacted. It could not, I fear, be properly explained in answer to a Question in this House.

  Kishnieff Outrages—Punishment of Offenders.
  MR. COHEN: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have received any Report from His Majesty's Consul at Odessa concerning the punishment of the authors of the Kishnieff massacres.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) No Report has yet been received.

  Corn Duty—Result to Farmers.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any official statistics showing the approximate extra amount paid to the farmer on account of the corn duty and the equivalent amount paid by him in respect of corn and feeding-stuffs for consumption.
  (Answered, by Mr. Ritchie.) As regards the amount of the corn duty which fell on feeding-stuffs, the best estimate that can be made is that which was given to a deputation by my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury on the 15th May—viz., somewhat over £500,000. As regards the first point in the Question, I have no information.

  Pension for Customs Watcher Charles Upton.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of granting some small pension to a Customs watcher, Charles Upton, who has recently retired from the service at the age of sixty-five and, after serving forty-one years, without pension from any source.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The Treasury have no power under the Superannuation Acts to award a pension to Charles Upton, whose service was unestablished throughout. Upton received a gratuity on retirement of £47 13s. 2d., to which he was entitled under the Superannuation Act, 1887.

  Contempt of Court—Suggested Fresh Legislation.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact that the procedure enabling Judges to commit for contempt of Court has not been regulated by statute, he will advise the Government to introduce a Bill to amend the administration of Judge-made law.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I have nothing to add to the answer made on this subject by the First Lord of the Treasury on the 8th inst.,† to which I beg to refer the hon. Member.
  † See page 32.

  Repair of Irish National Schools Damaged by Storm.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps will be taken to provide funds for the repair of Irish national schools damaged in the great storm of February last.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) I would refer to my right hon. friend's reply to the Question addressed to him on this subject on the 22nd ultimo by the hon. Member for East Galway.†

  Erection of National Schools in Ireland—Report of Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has the Committee to which the question of the revision of the standard plans for national schools was referred by the Commissioners of the National Board yet made a Report; if so, what is the nature of the Report, and when will its effect be communicated to managers who have so far back as two years ago made application for grants for the erection of new schools; and what has been the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Committee inquired into the subject of plans, specifications, and grants for building school-houses. It has made a Report, which, being a Departmental document, it is not proposed to publish. Pending a final decision on the Report, the Commissioners will allow the building of schools in urgent cases to proceed under the old regulations and on the old plans, if the managers prefer that course to waiting for the revised rules and plans.

  Agricultural and Technical Instruction in Ireland—Return of Grants made.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would grant a Return of all sums of money paid by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Industries (Ireland) to each county or borough authority or private individual in each year since the inception of the Department, showing the purpose of such grant and the amount of local contributions in each case, and the source of such local contributions.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 75.
  1304
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) A Return containing all the particulars asked for, which practically cover every payment made by the Department since 1st April, 1900, would be a very voluminous one. Its preparation would involve much time and labour, and it does not appear to the Department that it would serve any useful public object. At pages 98 to 103 of the Department's First Annual General Report for 1900–1901, and at pages 128 to 134 of their Second General Report for 1901–1902, will be found, summarised under a large variety of heads, particulars as to the Department's expenditure out of their Endowment Fund, the Parliamentary Grant, and the General Cattle Diseases Fund, and Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia Account, and further particulars as to the purposes of and mode of administering these moneys are given in the body of the Reports under the various heads of the Department's operations. Similar information will appear in each subsequent Report. Local contributions from County and Urban Councils are derived from the rates, a rate of either a ½d. or 1d. in the £ being levied annually as a general rule. Payments to individuals are made only for services rendered, or as compensation for the loss of swine slaughtered under the Diseases of Animals Acts, or by way of loan for purchase of boats, fishing gear, bulls, stallions, and such like purposes.

  Extension of Mullingar Rifle Range.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities have approved of the extension of the rifle range at Mullingar, and whether an agreement as to price has been arrived at between them and the owners and occupiers of the land required for this enlargement; and whether, seeing that in consequence of the delay in proceeding with the work the regiments stationed in the town have had to be sent at great expense a long distance for the prescribed practice, he can state the cause of this delay, and consequent inconvenience and expense.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The purchase of the land required has not yet been completed.

  Training of Military Cadets after leaving Royal Military College.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to continuing the training of the military cadets after they leave the Royal Military College, either by attaching them as supernumeraries, or by sending them through courses of musketry, equitation, engineering, and topography; and also whether their permanent postings to regiments can be accelerated by absorbing only one supernumerary in every two vacancies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It is intended to give the cadets at the College a thorough training in all the subjects mentioned, and no necessity should arise for attaching them for special courses. A considerable number of supernumeraries have already been allowed so as to obviate as far as possible delay in gazetting, but in the case of candidates who prefer to wait for vacancies in special regiments, considerable extra delay may arise.

  War Office Contracts—Alleged Infringement of Fair Wage Resolution by Messrs. Francis & Son, of Deptford.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a case of illegal infringement of the Fair Wages Resolution of 1891, in connection with the tin plate workers, by the firm of Messrs. Francis & Son, of Deptford, has been brought to his notice; whether he is aware that, according to an undertaking arrived at in 1897, the firm agreed to pay not less than 8d. per hour, whereas they are now paying only 7d. and 7½d., and whether he will use his good offices with the firm in question in the interest of their employees.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The attention of the Secretary of State for War has been called to an alleged infringement of the Fair Wages Resolution. The undertaking referred to applied to a contract in 1897. The present case will necessitate a fresh inquiry, which now awaits particulars which a deputation of the workmen promised to furnish.

  Prior Assault Case.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the police-
  1306
  court proceedings taken against one of the defendants in the recent Stanford Court-martial, and the decision of the stipendiary magistrate thereon at the Marlborough Street Police Court, to the effect that the officer in question had been guilty of an unprovoked assault upon one who was serving a writ, and that, in the magistrate's opinion, the defendant had made a false statement upon oath; and, if so, will he say what proceedings will be taken by the War Office in this case?
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Will my hon. friend kindly refer to my reply to a Question put on this subject by the hon. Member for South Donegal on Thursday, the 16th. †

  The Fiscal Inquiry.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the question of the transit of Canadian corn through America, and of American corn through Canada, in connection with the proposed preferential tariff, will be included in the fiscal inquiry; and if detailed information concerning the facts of the trade will be presented to this House.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the question of transport, both in the colonies and between them and Great Britain, and its bearing upon possible tariff arrangements will be included in the fiscal inquiry which is now proceeding.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) With regard to these Questions in the name of my hon. friend, it would, I think, be inexpedient, on the one hand, to lay down any limits beyond which the inquiry ought not to go, and, on the other, formally to include within it everything which could be described as germane to the subject. If the first course were adopted it might be found that most important topics were excluded; if the second the range of investigation might become almost unmanageable.

  Woolwich Explosion—Provision for Widows and Children of Men killed.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBERLAYNE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of
  † See page 861.

  1307
  the Government to make any provision for the wives and children of the workmen killed in the recent explosion at Woolwich.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) Provision has been made for the relief of the widows and children of the men who lost their lives in the recent explosion at Woolwich.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Military Works Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether, in accordance with the practice pursued in the case of the Naval Works Bill, the Secretary of State for War will now inform the House the gross amount to be asked for in respect of military works?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am not aware of any precedent for doing so, and I should have thought it most inconvenient to forestall a statement to be made in a few moments by a Question put on the floor of the House.

  Irish Tailors and Army Contracts.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the feeling of the members of the Master Tailors' Association of Dublin respecting the present system, under which certain London firms are given opportunities for the supply of uniforms, he will arrange that equal opportunities shall be given to Irish master-tailors in future as was allowed previous to the new regulation coming into force.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The reply which I gave to a Question put by the hon. Member on the 13th instant appears to cover this Question also.† It is not clear what further point the hon. Member is now raising.
  † See Page 400.

  Colonial Imports of Foreign Goods.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: On behalf of the Hon. Member for Exeter I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the nature of imports into the self-governing colonies from foreign countries, classifying them into manufactured and unmanufactured, and showing specifically those imports which might be furnished by Great Britain.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The Return which the Board of Trade have offered to give in reply to the Question put yesterday by the hon. Member for Derbyshire would give information as to the imports into the self-governing colonies from foreign countries classified in a similar manner to that desired by the hon. Member; but to attempt a classification on the basis of what must be largely a matter of opinion, namely, whether the articles are such as could be furnished by the United Kingdom, is impossible. I am aware of no reason why the United Kingdom should not furnish any or all of the manufactured articles usually imported into the colonies from foreign countries.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Will the Return be issued in the form asked for in the Question?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, the Return already promised will give all the information required.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I think the intention of my hon. friend was to elicit the opinion of the Department on the subject.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not understand that from the form in which he has put the Question. What the hon. Member asks is not for an opinion, but that I should show specifically those imports which might be furnished by Great Britain. If the opinion of a head of an office is of any advantage to the hon. Member, I beg leave to say that it is my opinion that they could all be furnished.

  Colonial Commercial Treaties.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Colonies, whether, in view of the fact that it has heretofore been the usage for the self-governing colonies to bargain as to commercial treaties on equal terms with foreign nations and with the mother country without regard in the case of foreign nations to the fiscal policy of the mother country, the Government proposes to alter this usage.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The practice as to commercial arrangements between self-governing colonies and foreign countries is described in the despatch of my predecessor of 28th June, 1895, which was laid before Parliament on the 6th of July in that year.
  MR. BLACK: Is there any proposal by the Government to change the usage?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If there should be any such proposal it will be duly submitted for the consideration of Parliament.

  Commission of Inquiry on Native Labour in British South Africa.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the composition of the proposed Commission of Inquiry on the subject of the native labour supply for British South Africa, care will be taken that other interests besides those of the mining properties are duly represented.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Of the ten Members who are to compose the Commission, the Cape and Natal Governments will nominate two each, and the Administration of Southern Rhodesia one. I have not yet received Lord Milner's proposals for the appointment of representatives of the Crown Colonies.

  Canadian Tariffs.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether certain of the colonies receive a trade preference from Canada while others do not; and, if so, can he state for what reason Canada differentiates between these colonies.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Canadian Customs Tariff Act of 1898 extends preferential treatment to certain colonies specifically and also generally to any "British colony or possession the Customs tariff of which is, on the whole, as favourable to Canada as the British preferential tariff herein referred to is to such colony or possession." The reason for the differentiation is stated in the clause I have quoted

  The Colonies and the Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under Article 11, the Brussels Sugar Convention has now been laid before all the colonies in order that they may have an opportunity of expressing their adhesion to the Convention; and what replies have been received.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Brussels Sugar Convention was communicated to all the colonies in a despatch dated the 21st of April, 1902. None of the colonies propose to adhere to the Convention.

  Brussels Sugar Convention—British Obligations.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that under Article 11 of the Brussels Convention it is provided that no preference will be granted in the United Kingdom to colonial sugar as against sugar from the contracting States during the continuance of the Convention, and seeing that the value of the imports of sugar last year exceeded £20,000,000, whether the Government intend, in connection with their new fiscal inquiry, to take any steps that may enable them to modify this arrangement.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will be aware that His Majesty's Government are bound by the obligations of the Brussels Sugar Convention for five years from the 1st of September next.

  Brussels Sugar Convention—Colonial Bounties.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether,

  1311
  under Article 11 of the Brussels Sugar Convention, information has been obtained as to whether any bounty, direct or indirect, exists in any Crown Colony; and what is the result of the inquiry.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No bounty, direct or indirect, will be granted upon the production or exportation of sugar in any Crown Colony after the 1st of September next, when the Brussels Convention comes into force.
  MR. LOUGH: Are there any bounties in existence which will have to be suppressed?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  Railway Construction in South Africa—Native Labour.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in the conditions of contract accompanying the invitation issued on behalf of His Majesty's Government for tenders for construction of the new railways in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, it is stipulated that contractors shall not employ any natives who reside in or are recruited from that portion of the Transvaal which lies north of Pretoria, nor any native from Portuguese East Africa; and, if so, will he state what is the reason of the restriction.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to an advertisement for tenders which quotes the conditions referred to. I have not received any Report from Lord Milner on the subject, but the conditions are no doubt inserted in pursuance of the Resolution No. XII, passed by the Railway Extension Conference (see p. 87, Cd. 1552).

  Plague in Hong Kong.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, under an order of the Governor of Hong Kong, Chinese plague patients are allowed to remain in their homes for treatment; and, seeing that this practice is opposed by medical opinion in the colony, will he, in view of the
  1312
  increase in plague, have the order reconsidered, with a view to the removal of all plague patients to isolation hospitals.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the Hong Kong Government is making the experiment of allowing plague patients to be treated in isolation in their own homes, instead of compelling them in all cases to be removed to hospital. The experiment is being tried because it is believed that many patients, owing to the great dislike of hospital treatment, have concealed their state of health until it was too late for them to be cured. The results of the experiment will be carefully watched.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that houses in China usually contain 200 or 300 inhabitants.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of that fact, but whether it be true or not it does not affect what I have said.
  MR. WEIR: If the right hon. Gentleman will visit Hong Kong he will find it is the case.

  Hong Kong Post Office.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any one of the plans for the new Post Office at Hong Kong which were sent in last March has been accepted; and, if so, will he state when the erection of the building will be commenced.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on this subject, which is one of purely local interest.

  Commission on Indian Police—Report.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state when the Report of the Commission on the Indian police will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Earl PERCY,): I can give no undertaking at present with regard to the publication of this Report.

  India and the Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, under Article 11, the Brussels Sugar Convention has now been laid before the Indian Government in order that it may have an opportunity of expressing its adhesion to the Convention; and what reply has been received.
  EARL PERCY: The Government of India do not propose to apply to be admitted to the Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I believe I am right in saying that the Convention was communicated to the Indian Government in April last year? When was their reply received?
  EARL PERCY: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Chinese Railways.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will state when the concession for the proposed British railway from Kowloon to Canton was granted, and the names of the concessionaires; and, in view of the activity shown by the American syndicate in constructing their Hue from Canton to Hankow, can he explain why the proposed British railway has not yet been commenced.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The British and Chinese Corporation were granted a preliminary agreement for the concession on the 28th March, 1898. The line has since been surveyed. This instrument provides for a final agreement to be signed in terms corresponding with those of the Shanghai-Nanking Railway Concession. The latter has only recently been concluded.

  National Expenditure—The Sinking Fund.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Exeter I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the estimated amount to be devoted to the Sinking Fund in the financial year 1903–4, and the aggregate amount of money to be spent on capital account
  1314
  during the same year and not included in the annual Budget.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): The portion of the fixed debt charge of £27,000,000 applicable to Sinking Fund purposes in 1903–4 is, according to the latest calculations, £6,640,000, and it will be devoted to the extinction of what is termed dead-weight debt. The amount to be spent on capital account, which is in part required for reproductive purposes, and against which assets are held, is estimated during the same year at £9,300,000; but whatever sum is required and borrowed for these purposes is raised on terminable annuities, which automatically provide a special Sinking Fund borne on the Votes and thus ensure repayment within a limited period. The Sinking Fund contained in the terminable annuities in respect of capital advances already made amounts to £1,007,000.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In order to clear up this matter, may I ask am I right in assuming that when the right hon. Gentleman mentions the Sinking Fund he does not include what is known as the old Sinking Fund? Am I also right in saying, with respect to the new Sinking Fund, it is not £6,640,000, but £1,500,000 or thereabouts?
  MR. RITCHIE: In reply to the first Question, the old Sinking Fund is not included. As to the second Question, I think the new Sinking Fund is between £1,500,000 and £1,600,000. That is included in the £6,640,000.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the net effect of the transaction of this year be to add £10,000,000 to the National Debt.
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member is as well able to make that calculation as I am.

  Retaliatory Tariffs and the National Income.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the Government has now intimated to Germany that in certain events it will impose retaliatory or differential

  1315
  duties on importations into this country, whether he has any information as to the probable effect of such duties upon the national revenue as regards income tax and death duties.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have exercised all the ingenuity I can command in the endeavour to find out the connection between retaliatory duties against Germany and the death duties and I have not been able to discover it.
  MR. BLACK: Would not retaliatory tariffs affect the national revenue?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Mercantile Marine Committee.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to act upon the Report of the Mercantile Marine Committee, appointed in January, 1902, published at the beginning of June; and whether the seven recommendations to which effect can be given without legislation will at once be carried into effect.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir. The Board of Trade concur in the recommendations of the Mercantile Marine Committee, and propose to act upon them. So far as that can be done without legislation, steps are already being taken by the Department. I may add that a Bill dealing with the recommendation, requiring legislation has also been prepared.

  Irish Traffic Arrangements—Sleeping Accommodation.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that the London and North-Western Railway Company have raised the price of sleeping accommodation in their trains to 7s. 6d. between Holyhead and London, while it is only 5s. between London and any other station south of Carlisle; and whether, having regard to the disadvantage thereby imposed on the Irish tourist traffic, he will take steps to have representations made to the company with a view to having this charge altered.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware that the charges are as stated. The Board of Trade are not empowered to intervene in the matter, but I have caused the hon. Member's Question to be brought to the notice of the railway company.

  London Printing Trade Dispute.
  MR. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will explain why the Board of Trade have, up to the present time, declined to intervene under the powers of the Conciliation Act in the dispute in the London printing trade, and state what steps they propose taking in the interest of all parties to bring about a settlement of the dispute.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade have not declined to intervene in this case. They have been in communication with both sides, and have expressed their readiness to take action under the Conciliation Act if the parties are willing to accept their services. So far one of the parties has failed to agree to the course suggested. As the hon. Member is aware the Conciliation Act confers no compulsory powers on the Board of Trade; but they are watching the case, and will be glad to take any action that may seem likely to promote a settlement should an opportunity occur.

  Highland Weaving Industry.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the steps taken by the Congested Districts Board to encourage the weaving of Lewis and Harris tweeds, have resulted in an increased production in the crofting counties; and, if so, can he state approximately to what extent.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Some improvement both in the quantity and quality of tweeds woven in the Western Hebrides is reported to us as having taken place. It is not possible at present to state the amount of increase in quantity, but information will be collected so far as possible and given in the next Report of the Congested Districts Board.

  Pollution of the Rivers in Fifeshire.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will instruct the

  1317
  Local Government (Scotland) Board, which is at present inquiring into the pollution of the River Ore in Fifeshire, which gave rise to an epidemic of typhoid in that district, to make inquiry into the pollution of the Black Devon, which is the main source of water supply for the county of Clackmannan.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The suggestion of the hon. Member that inquiry should be made into the condition of the Black Devon will receive the careful consideration of the Secretary for Scotland.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: Were not representations made before the typhoid broke out?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Kerry and the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering the population of congested Kerry is over 80,000, or one-sixth of the whole of congested Ireland, that the emigration is the highest in Ireland, the poverty and needs of the people as great as in any part of the congested areas, and that since the formation of the Congested Districts Board no man from Kerry has been co-opted, and that little or nothing his been done for the people, he will nominate a man from Kerry to fill the next vacancy.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,for Mr. WYNDHAM): My right hon. friend replied to a similar Question put to him yesterday by the same hon. Member.† The claims of Kerry will be duly considered on the occurrence of a vacancy on the Board.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the matter receive the consideration it merits?
  MR. ATKINSON: When I said that it will be duly considered I think I conveyed that.
  † See page 1153.

  Belturbet Rent Collector and Local Government Auditor.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state under what circumstances Major Eccles, Local Government Auditor, surcharged Mr. Thomas Dolan, rent collector to the Belturbet Urban District Council, in the sum of £206 14s., and explain why Major Eccles made this surcharge without making any examination of the rent books since he was placed in charge of the district; and will he order an examination of the books by an independent person, seeing that the rental of the Urban Council stands in such order as satisfies the Council at present.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): I am informed that an application is about to be made to the King's Bench Division for a mandamus to set aside the Order made by the Local Government Board confirming this surcharge. I cannot, under the circumstances, discuss the action of the auditor or Local Government Board in the matter, at the present moment.

  Dublin Sorting Office—Bank Holidays.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that, under the new leave regulations introduced January, 1903, into the Dublin Sorting Office, payment for bank holidays was withheld and the privilege of having a day off when it suited, in lieu of bank holiday, withdrawn; and whether, seeing that this was an abrogation of the accepted recommendation of the Tweedmouth Commission regarding bank holidays, will he consider the advisability of reverting to the old system.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Payment is still made at Dublin for bank holiday work when the hours worked are too few to justify the granting of a day in lieu. The present system is a necessary condition of the arrangements under which the entire force are enabled to take the bulk of their holidays in the better months of the year, and I am not prepared to revert to the old system.

  Dublin Sorting Office—Holiday Grievances.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he received in February last a memorial signed by the great majority of the Dublin Sorting Office Staff protesting against the new system of annual leave, and asking that the system which obtained up to 1st January, 1903, be reverted to; if the Secretary, General Post Office, Dublin, had received in May last a further memorial signed by four elected representatives of the staff expressing dissatisfaction at the unusual delay and praying for an early reply; and whether, in view of the importance of the memorials and of the fact that no answer has as yet been given to either memorial, will the matter receive early attention.
  MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The memorial was received and was duly considered by me, but the question of the arrangements at a number of other offices was involved and reports had to be obtained from them. The matter was finally decided by me last week, and the memorialists have been answered.

  Fiscal Inquiry—Duty on Food-Stuffs.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the Government has now intimated to Germany that in certain events it will impose retaliatory or differential duties on importations into this country, whether the Government has determined that amongst these duties shall be a duty on food-stuffs, or whether it has determined that there shall be no such duty.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have no information to give the hon. Gentleman on the subject of this Question.
  MR. BLACK: Is the right hon. Gentleman still halting between two opinions?
  [No answer was returned.]

  The Government and the Licensing Question.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention before the House rises to make a
  1320
  statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the licensing question; and, if so, whether he is able to inform the House when such statement will be made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, sir, I shall probably have to say something on this subject before the close of the session, but I cannot give any pledge as to the date when the statement will be made.

  Town Holdings Committee.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Town Holdings Committee to take up the subject of terminable leaseholds at the point where it was abandoned by the previous Town Holdings Committee, which sat some years since but did not issue a complete Report or series of recommendations.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose to suggest the appointment of a Committee on the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his Question. I do not deny the importance of the Question. I have been inquiring into it, but I am not aware that there is anything upon which a Committee could be expected to throw much light.
  MR. FLAVIN: This is a very important Question. Why not reappoint the Committee and let it complete the inquiry.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not deny the importance of the Question, but I am not aware that there is anything to inquire into.

  National Memorial to Queen Victoria.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: May I ask what works are going on in front of Buckingham Palace?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The work now proceeding in front of Buckingham Palace is the first portion of what is required to prepare the site for the National Memorial to Queen Victoria, and includes the levelling and laying-out of the site, and the building of the necessary retaining wall in St. James's Park. All the

  1321
  above work will be carried out between now and 1st November. Plans of the entire scheme and of that portion which is now being carried out have been placed in the tea room.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether Parliament would be asked to assent to the works.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The work is being carried on by the Committee appointed for the purpose.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is not the point. Will the assent of Parliament be asked for the works?
  No answer was returned.

NEW BILLS.
  PARLIAMENTARY AND ELECTORAL REFORM BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Electoral qualifications, the registration of Voters, Parliamentary Elections, and to make provisions for the payment of Election expenses and of Members of Parliament, and the duration of Parliament," presented by Mr. Keir Hardie; supported by Sir William Allan, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. John Hope, and Dr. Macnamara; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 287.]
  MORTGAGE OF PREMISES BILL.
  "To amend the Law in regard to the Mortgaging of Premises containing trade machinery," presented by Sir William Holland; supported by Mr. Crombie and Mr. Parkes; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 288.]
  BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.
  "To provide for the registration of dishonoured Bills of Exchange and to allow summary judgment thereon," presented by Sir William Holland; supported by Mr. Crombie and Mr. Parkes; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 289.]

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I regret very much the enforced absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who has devoted very great labour and a great deal of time to the consideration of this Irish land question and who has certainly brought to bear upon it a most sympathetic and conciliatory spirit. I do not believe it would have been possible to have brought this Bill to its present position were it not for the spirit he has shown, and I would have been glad if he could have been here to receive the congratulations which I think are his due for the ability and patience with which he has conducted this Bill through the House. The occasion on which we are met is a very important one. It is the passing of the last stage of this Bill in the House of Commons, and it is of such far reaching importance to the whole future of Ireland that I trust I may be forgiven if I say a few words on this Motion for the Third Reading of the measure. On the whole I think the occasion is one for congratulation to everybody concerned, but I feel that if we, upon these benches, remain absolutely silent at this stage it is possible that our attitude might be very much misunderstood and misinterpreted. One set of critics might be inclined to say that our silence was an indication of our complete and absolute satisfaction with the shape in which the Bill stands at this moment, and that we accepted full responsibility for everything that is in it and for the successful working of every part of it when passed into law. Another set of critics might possibly say that our silence was a most sinister silence and that it might be we were lying low till the Bill had passed, that we did not regard it as in itself a valuable Bill or one likely to conduce to the settlement of the Irish land question, and that we intended to go back to Ireland and do our best to revive agrarian agitation in that country, and thus refuse to give the Bill a fair

  1323
  trial. Both of these criticisms would have been absolutely untrue, and I think that under the circumstances it is perhaps wise that I should take this opportunity of saying a few words on behalf of my colleagues to explain clearly what our attitude is in regard to this Bill. In the first place I had better say at once that it is not our Bill. It is the Bill of the Government, and in the main the responsibility for it rests not upon us, but upon the Government.
  Let me for a moment recall to the House the history of this Bill. At the beginning of this year, early in January, a conference of representatives of Irish landlords and Irish tenants came together in Dublin with the full approval, indeed I might almost say at the invitation of the Government, to consider whether it was possible to lay down a scheme for the settlement of the land question which would satisfy both sides to the struggle. I do not think I would be exaggerating if I were to say it would have been impossible to have introduced this Bill, or any such Bill, and to recommend it to public opinion in this country or to have passed it through this House, had it not been for the Conference. The Conference was based upon a spirit of concession and conciliation, and it adopted a Report which did not in either one direction or the other go to the full extent which the various parties desired. But after anxious consideration in Ireland, and after a discussion which lasted several weeks that Report received the approval and sanction practically of the whole of the people of Ireland. It received the sanction of what were regarded as the most irreconcilable sections of the Irish landlords, and it received the approval of every public board representing the people and of every representative of the tenants. But I must point out that the Report so put forward by that remarkable gathering was not accepted in its entirety by the Government, and while undoubtedly this Bill would never have seen the light of day, and never could have passed, were it not for the Conference, it is true that the Bill does not represent the Conference Report in some essential particulars, but overrides the recommendations of that Report. Therefore, I am justified in saying it is not our Bill, but yours, and the responsibility is
  1324
  not ours, but yours. Since the Bill was introduced into this House, the Irish Members have done their best to mould it into a shape in which they believed it would really go a long distance to settle the Irish land question. I believe that so far as we have been able to amend and enlarge the Bill the measure will prove successful, and in whatever particular it is found to disappoint the anticipations of its authors in its working in the future, it will be found that has been the result of the rejection of the advice given by the unanimous voice of the Irish Members in various parts of the House.
  In speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, I endeavoured to give, under certain heads, what I regarded as vital defects in the measure as it stood. There were questions affecting prices, the exclusion of large classes of tenants from the operations of the Bill, and amongst others certain classes of evicted tenants; the interference with existing rights of tenants under the Act of 1881, the perpetual rent-charge, matters of administration, the question of the congested districts and the labourers' question. On most of these questions we have succeeded in obtaining some remarkable concessions, and the value of those concessions is very largely enhanced by the fact that they were made to us with, the full assent of the Unionist Members and of the representatives of the landlords; that they were concessions given to the unanimous voice of Ireland speaking on behalf of both landlords and tenants. On the question of price we succeeded in Committee in abolishing what is known as the minimum price. We have succeeded in securing that there shall be absolute freedom of bargain between landlords and tenants. We have, too, secured the inclusion in the Bill of a large class of tenants who, as the measure was originally framed, were excluded from its benefits, and so far as the evicted tenants question is concerned, I feel bound to say we have in substance obtained all that we asked for. The limit of £7,000, which applied to other tenants, now applies to the evicted tenants as well, and the new Estates Commission has under the Bill powers and money at its disposal to enable it to rebuild and restock evicted farms, as well as to buy out tenants at present in occupation for the purpose of reinstating the old tenants on

  1325
  their holdings. I say that these are enormous advantages to the whole class of evicted tenants in Ireland, and it is satisfactory to be able to think that these concessions were obtained with the assent of the representatives of the Irish landlords. I have the greatest and strongest possible belief that under the operation of this Bill practically every evicted tenant may be restored to his holding. That is of enormous importance to the whole future of Ireland, and it is most satisfactory to find that on this matter there is not any difference of opinion between the different sides of the House. We all recognise that if there is to be a settlement of this Irish land question, if there is to be agrarian and social peace in Ireland, these evicted tenants, who, otherwise must be centres of disaffection, should be restored to their homes. For my part, let me say that if there were nothing else in the Bill, if there were no other provisions, I would be slow indeed to take the responsibility of throwing any obstacle in the way of its passage so long as it contained a provision of this kind, which must tend in the direction of promoting the agrarian and social peace of the country. We have succeeded also in removing those provisions which deprived, under certain circumstances, certain classes of tenants of their existing rights under the Act of 1881. We have improved the tribunal appointed to carry out the work of administration under this Act, and the proceedings of that tribunal will be subject to investigation and discussion in this House, while the tenure by which two members of it hold office has been changed so that they will not be dismissable at pleasure, and will no longer be in the position of Removables at a moment's notice. Finally, we have succeeded in removing altogether the perpetual rent-charge, which was regarded almost universally in Ireland as a serious obstacle in the way of rapid purchase throughout the country. These are great and most valuable concessions, and, in my opinion, they make this a really great measure, and one which is eminently calculated to go a long way towards the settlement of the Irish land question over a large portion of Ireland.
  On the other hand, on the question of the congested districts, and on the question
  1326
  of the labourers, unfortunately we were not able to induce the Government to take our advice. On the question of the congested districts it is well to remember, however, that the Bill, even in the form in which it now stands, is a most valuable measure, becauses it enlarges very materially the powers and funds at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board. Still, we do not believe that the Bill, as it stands, will be able to grapplesuccessfully with the congested districts question. The constitution of the Board is such that we do not believe that it has any serious chance of being able to settle this question, and I am convinced that, in a comparatively short space of time, the Government will find that the advice we gave them as the result of our experience, and which for the moment they have rejected, must be accepted if this question is to be settled in the West of Ireland. I do not say we have not made a great gain on the question of the congested districts. I think the chief gain we have obtained is that we have discovered in the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that we have a man who is practically of our mind on this question, and from whom we are not divided by any question; and I am convinced that in the near future, when the right hon. Gentleman or his successor comes down to this House, as he undoubtedly will, to ask for further powers for dealing with the congested districts, what has happened will make it perfectly easy for him to obtain those additional powers with practical unanimity in this House. With reference to the labourers, we, on these Benches, are deeply disappointed that it was not possible to deal with that question. The difficulty in the way, after all, was only a difficulty of time, and we have reason to complain that this, which was the chief measure of the session, was not introduced earlier and not pushed on earlier. If that had been done, as I pressed on the Government, we would have had sufficient time to deal with this question. But we have, at any rate, the consolation of knowing, from the mouth of the Chief Secretary, that he does not pretend that the labourers' clauses in this Bill are a settlement of the labourers' question, and we have received from him a pledge, and a most

  1327
  valuable pledge, because it is one which not only binds him but must inevitably bind his successor, that this question will be dealt with in the next session of Parliament in a comprehensive and satisfactory way. While I sympathise most sincerely with the labourers in this postponement of the settlement of their claims, I think they have received substantial benefit from the discussion of this Bill, because they have a definite promise that their case will be dealt with in a full and satisfactory manner next year. On the whole, therefore, we feel that we have succeeded in the discussions of this Bill, as no Irish Party probably ever succeeded before, in radically altering for the better the measure as it was originally introduced. But, at the same time, we recognise that the Bill as it stands is marked by defects and omissions which make it necessary for us to emphasise the fact that, after all, the responsibility is not ours but rests with the Government; that the Bill is not ours, but that it is their Bill.
  Let me ask, in what spirit will this Bill be received and worked in Ireland? I have heard and read many criticisms to the effect that the Bill ought not to be passed because it was not considered likely to effect a final settlement of the question. I do not conceive it possible to introduce a Bill of which, even though it were the compulsory Bill which many of us would have preferred, it could be said absolutely, "This is a final and complete settlement." My own firm belief is that, when this Bill passes, if it works as well as I hope it will, and as it is generally anticipated it will, it will not afford a complete and final settlement of the question. But I do believe that over a greater part of Ireland it will effect a settlement, and that when it is found by its working that further power and perhaps more money are required to settle the residuum of the question, the Minister of the day will not have the slightest difficulty, pointing as he will be able to do to the successful working of the Act as far as it has gone, in obtaining from this House whatever additional powers and money may be necessary to complete the settlement of the question, to extirpate landlordism and settle the Irish people universally on the soil as owners.
  1328
  Speaking last April at Manchester the Chief Secretary, referring to this point, said—
  "The question was asked, 'Is this Bill a settlement of the question?' He believed the Irish people felt that the Bill was an honest attempt at settlement, and that they would be prepared to give it an honest trial."
  I accept those words to the full. I believe that this Bill is an honest and sincere attempt to settle the question; it will be so regarded in Ireland, and it will be given a fair trial. The tenants and their leaders are only too anxious to find in this Bill a means of settling the land question and of promoting a permanent union between various classes in Ireland for the good of the country. They will, therefore, endeavour to work this Bill in an amicable, reasonable, and moderate spirit. Let hon. Members make no mistake about this matter. In my opinion the successful working of the Bill will depend more upon the landlords than upon the tenants. I would like to express my own individual appreciation of the attitude which the Irish landlords as a body have taken up on this question since the Land Conference. Of course there have been and are some unreasonable and irreconcileable landlords, but speaking of the Irish landlords as a whole, their attitude and spirit since the Conference has been reasonable and conciliatory. If that attitude is continued after the passage of the Bill, and the same spirit is carried into its working, in my belief the success of the measure is assured. So far as the tenants are concerned, the Bill will be worked in a reasonable, conciliators, and moderate spirit, and the success of the Bill will depend absolutely on the landlords adopting a similar attitude. If landlords as a body do not attempt to wring extortionate prices from their tenants, if they consent to take for their land fair, honest, economic prices, I am convinced that land purchase will go on rapidly all over the country, and that the Bill will prove to be the beginning of the end of the Irish question. I say "the beginning of the end," because I think it my duty to repeat here at this stage of the Bill what I have said before, both in and out of this House—viz., that the settlement of the Irish land question will, in my opinion, remove the last

  1329
  remaining obstacle to the concession of those wider political and national rights without which Irishmen will never be contented.
  This Bill now goes up to the House of Lords. The papers have been full recently of the most sinister rumours as to what is to happen in another place. I have not been much disturbed by those rumours. The compromise which has been arrived at after the discussion in Committee is one to which the Government and the country are in honour committed. More, than that, it is a compromise to which the landlords are in honour committed. It was arrived at with the full agreement and consent of the gentlemen representing Irish landlords, and it is inconceivable to me that either the Government or the landlords in another place would consent to anything in the nature of a wrecking or mutilation of the Bill. It is well that it should be clearly understood that any such mutilation would mean the wrecking of the Bill, because if it be mutilated in the way suggested by some papers, even though it pass into law, it will be a dead letter, and its introduction, in my opinion, will prove to have been not a blessing but a curse to Ireland. But, as I have said, I am not disposed to pay any serious attention to these rumours. I prefer to regard the present as the last stage of the Bill in the House of Commons; and, as it is leaving the House in its amended shape, regarding it as I do as the first-fruits of the Land Conference, and as having been moulded into its present shape by Irish public opinion as expressed by the National Convention in Dublin, I say that it is a great measure, containing the elements of the settlement of the land question, which, if worked in a reasonable and honest spirit by landlord and tenant alike, will bring in its train blessings long denied of peace and prosperity to Ireland. It is in the earnest hope that our most sanguine expectations of this Bill may be realised that I support its Third Reading.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I am glad to have this opportunity of bearing my testimony to the great ability, eloquence, and good temper displayed by the Chief Secretary in carry-
  1330
  ing this Bill through the House. In past years I have been engaged in this House in what is called "making history." One frequently hears in the Lobby the remark, "We are making history to-night." Well, Sir, I believe we are making history to-day. But in former times when we have been making history it has been in a very different atmosphere. We have had thunder and lightning and even earthquakes. The atmosphere in connection with this Bill has been very different. In fact, during the discussions I have sometimes thought I was listening to a Scotch debate, so matter-of-fact, so business-like, and so devoid of the heat which usually characterises Irish debates have the discussions been. But the country will probably ask, "What are we to expect from the passage of this Bill?" I do not think we ought to expect too much, but I think we ought to expect a good deal. The British people may ask whether they are to expect to be repaid the great outlay they are making. We answer that question, not by expressing an opinion, but by pointing to past history, which affords a conclusive answer to those who have any fear as to the honesty of the Irish people. No one can deny that the way in which tenant farmers who have bought their farms under previous Acts have paid up to the day is really astonishing to the minds of thinking men: there have been practically no arrears. You are now about to enable a similar class to buy their farms—men of the same blood, and actuated by the same preeminently characteristic desire to own the land on which they live—and I say that past history ought to dissipate any fear which the British people may have as to the intention of the Irish people to pay up to the day.
  What hope have we of the Bill succeeding? What danger lies in its path? The hon. and learned Member for Waterford has alluded to its passage through another place. I cannot speak for the Members of that other place, but I feel confident that no attempt will there be made to destroy any great principle in the Bill to which this House has given its adhesion. I cannot conceive that anybody would be so foolish. What will be the destiny of the Bill in Ireland? The hon. and learned Member for Waterford sees only one danger—the action of

  1331
  the landlords. He says that if the landlords are actuated by an avaricious desire to extort too much from the tenants—that is, not to deal with them on fair terms—the Bill will be a failure. But there is great difficulty sometimes in deciding what are fair terms. Are the tenants to decide that? Or is a committee appointed by the hon. and learned Member himself to decide what really are fair terms? I do not anticipate any difficulty on the landlords' side, and I am speaking as a landlord. I do not anticipate at all any danger of the Irish landlords trying to extort too much out of the tenants in bargaining for the sale of their farms. I think this is a great opportunity both for landlords and tenants, and the landlords are not so blind as not to see it in the light I see it. Nevertheless, it is essentially a tenants' Bill, brought in for the tenants and not for the landlords The Bill gives a fair opportunity to a landlord to sell his estate and at the same time to enable him to live in Ireland. That is what I have always claimed for the class to which I belong. I cannot see any danger at all from the landlords in their refusal to accept fair terms from the tenants, but I do see danger from the tenants. The danger that appears to me to be in front of the Bill lies in the fact that there is such a thing in Ireland as the Land Commission, which was created to fix fair rents, but which has since become an organisation to reduce rents, quite apart from the consideration whether they are fair or not. That is so, because agricultural produce has not fallen in Ireland since 1887. On the contrary, it has risen since then, but the reduction of rents has gone steadily on. The landlord knows perfectly well when the Land Commission send down in nineteen cases out of twenty they will view the land—I believe they taste it—and then, after conferring and thinking together, they will reduce the rent by at least 20 per cent., and very often more. I see great danger in the Irish tenants getting the idea into their heads that when they are asked whether they would like to buy their farms or not, it will be better to wait for a few years longer for the regular reductions of the Commissioners rather than buy their farms and become the tenants of the British Government,
  1332
  because, while the Bill will only give a reduction of 15 per cent., the Land Commission might give a reduction of from 20 to 30 per cent. I hope the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his friends will do their best to make the Bill a success by not trying to drive the landlords to make impossible concessions in selling their land, but will persuade the tenants, over whom they undoubtedly have so much influence, to accept fair and reasonable terms. If the tenants will accept reasonable terms the Bill will run smoothly, but otherwise it will not.
  Reference has been made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to Home Rule, but I believe that so far from promoting Home Rule the Bill will have the exactly opposite effect. I believe it will take out of the hands of the Irish political agitators a great lever which enabled them to hold out to the Irish people the not far distant prospect of getting their land for nothing. I hope that under the beneficent shadow of the Bill will arise not only peace but loyalty. I do not think you can buy the loyalty of the Irish people by any Land Bill, for that is a thing which you cannot buy. At the same time I think the passage of this Bill must prove and bring home to the quick-witted minds of the Irish people, that this country, far from being their enemy, is really their friend. To obtain the loyalty of the Irish people is after all the most valuable thing we can purchase. It is a matter of happy augury that the visit of the King to Ireland synchronises with the passage of this Bill in the House of Commons, and I believe that the King's way is the way to the hearts of the Irish people. If the Sovereign of these realms repeats his visit frequently there will be borne into the minds of the Irish people that the King, and the people, and the House of Commons, and Parliament are really desirous of being friends of Ireland. We are turning over to-day a new page in the history of Ireland. In former pages I regret to say there are many blots and stains which we all desire to wipe out and if possible to forget. In turning down this new page we hope the old pages will be obliterated from the memory of Ireland for ever, and that

  1333
  upon the new page will be inscribed the happiness, the peace, the prosperity and the loyalty o Ireland.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has said a good many things with which I cannot find it in my heart to agree, but he has said two things with which I most cordially agree—namely, at the end of his speech the aspirations he has expressed for the future peace and contentment and prosperity of Ireland, and at the commencement his warm recognition, in which I am sure we all join, of the manner in which the Chief Secretary conducted the proceedings connected with this Bill in this House. Reference has been made to the ability and the labour which the right hon. Gentleman has bestowed upon this Bill; but I think even more conspicuous than that is the conciliatory spirit and the elasticity and adaptability he has displayed, which are probably the highest qualities of a Minister in conducting a Bill of this character. The Chief Secretary might say with a great degree of truth "Alone I did it," so far as the Government is concerned. I have not observed, so far as I have been present, that he has ever had the support and encouragement of any Cabinet Minister on the front Ministerial Bench—at any rate, very rarely indeed. He has had the presence of the two law officers for Ireland, which is a somewhat unusual advantage for the representative of the Irish Government in this House, but they also have taken but a scanty part in the conduct of the Bill. The Chief Secretary has been supported also by the Solicitor-General for England, who by his languid presence has shown us what is meant by a minimum of support, and has exhibited an unpleasant uncertainty, whether his silence was the silence of admiration or the silence of trepidation. [An HON. MEMBER: A golden silence.] To the Chief Secretary credit is due for the passage of this Bill and we congratulate him upon it. I repeat now what I have said before, that we ought to congratulate the Irish Members upon both sides upon the spirit they have displayed throughout these debates. As to the House itself, not an insignificant portion of hon. Members—I have spoken of them
  1334
  upon a previous occasion—have been in the state of mind of ashy horse being led up to an awkward-looking obstacle—somehow or other they have been led past the object which they regarded in that light, and they have wisely left the matter mainly in Irish hands. I was amused when I heard the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, giving a somewhat belated philippic on Home Rule. Why, Sir, we have had St. Stephen's Green in the House of Commons. We have had an anticipation of the future, and I think the Irish Members on both sides have done much, by the way in which they have behaved, to lessen, at all events, the fears with which any considerable alteration in the mode of governing Ireland has been contemplated hitherto by some people in this country. When I said St. Stephen's Green I meant College Green.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It isn't far off.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: The object of those who are not Irish Members has been mainly to protect Imperial interests, and Imperial interests are bound up in the contentment and prosperity of Ireland. We are all in the habit of saying when the occasion arises, that the greatest British interest is peace. The great British interest in Ireland is that the people in Ireland should be happy and prosperous, and it is because we have believed that this Bill offers a probability of some result of that sort that we have given it support, even when it appeared to be a risky and dangerous measure for the financial interests of our country. Our object has been to make conditions such as should secure a permanent settlement so far as the Bill operates, and punctual and regular fulfilment of the obligations incurred by the cultivating classes in Ireland. On the previous stages, therefore, I have been careful, for my part, to reserve my full right of action at this stage if we did not think that these conditions were fulfilled. But some changes have been made in the Bill, which I regard, at any rate, as material improvements from that point of view—above all, the removal of that limit which is the maximum or the minimum according as you regard it, and which evidently was calculated in some cases to impose

  1335
  hard terms upon the purchaser. Practically we have been nothing but onlookers in this matter, and although we are hopeful of the result, it would be perhaps too much to say that we are sanguine. How far will this measure sweep into the net of purchase all the estates of Ireland? It is quite clear that if you leave the two classes of estates still existing in many parts of the country you will always have unrest and discontent. How far, therefore, will those terms be accepted by the landlord and the tenant on their respective sides? I cannot but think that it would have been better, seeing that the bonus is the great inducement for landlords to enter into an arrangement, if there had been a period stated within which the idea of disposing of their property must be accepted by them. I do not mean a period within which the transaction must be completed, or even entered upon, but within which the willingness to deal should be recorded, because then this bonus would have been in fuller operation than it will be now. I am afraid there will still remain much land held under the old system, and that after all you will have to have some compulsory measure in order to complete the whole transaction, because without uniformity I do not see how there can be general or, at any rate, universal contentment. But so far as it goes we recognise that there has been a strenuous desire on the part of all those concerned to find an arrangement which would, at all events, over the greater part of Ireland bring about the desired result, and we earnestly hope that these expectations and hopes may not be deceived. Something has been said about the future of this Bill in another place. How will it fare when it reaches that other place? I do not myself anticipate much chance of material alteration in the Bill in the House of Lords. I cannot imagine that after the career this Bill has had through the House of Commons, where the Irish people and the Irish landlords are directly and constitutionally represented, an arrangement agreed to under such conditions and under such experiences can be materially set aside. There never has been a great Bill passed through Committee in this House in such a way and under such conditions. When we
  1336
  began the work of the Committee, through sheer force of habit I suppose, there were one or two divisions, but after that there were no divisions at all until a stormy spirit on the other side, roused to unusual feeling by some proposal likely to benefit Trinity College, Dublin, provoked a division.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think my right hon. friend is wrong. The stormy spirit was on that side.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When I say a stormy spirit I naturally look towards him. But, at any rate, there have been almost no divisions in the course of the Bill, and the whole matter has been the subject, not of carelessness, not of indifference, on the part of those interested, but of the most careful scrutiny and the most earnest desire to compromise and to arrive at a satisfactory and equitable solution. In these circumstances I am not afraid of anything that may be done, but let the House bear in mind before we part with this Bill that, as my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose said of it, it is more than a great agricultural or agrarian reform, it is a social and a political revolution. There is no question that when this Bill is fully carried out it will change fundamentally the relations between the Imperial Government centred in this country and the cultivating classes in Ireland. It is a tremendous social and political change—a change I trust very much for the benefit both of Ireland and of the relations between the two countries. But we have only to live in hope—we can have no certainty—and it is with no more than a strong hope of the desired result being attained that we support the Third Reading of this Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): We have now heard upon this concluding stage of the great series of debates which have taken place on this Bill the leader of the Nationalist Party in Ireland, one of the most distinguished representatives of landlords in this House, and the leader of the Opposition. If I come after the trio, at all events I think I shall be able to

  1337
  imitate those who have preceded me in the debate in introducing no harsh note of discord, or indeed touching any note at all except that of warm congratulation to all those who have been concerned either in the framing, debating, or passing of this measure. On no point has there been any sharp difference of opinion expressed this afternoon, and on one point there has been absolute unanimity. That point is the skill, the tact, the eloquence, the judgment, and the knowledge displayed by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who ought now to be reaping the reward of his labours in hearing the congratulations passed upon him by such competent judges, and whose place owing to his enforced absence, I am unworthily filling. I noticed with interest that while there was no serious expression of difference of opinion on any point, there was a good deal of cross advice given—I mean advice from different parts of the House to different people outside the House, and it is very natural that it should be so. The leader of the Nationalist Party gave some very good advice to the House of Lords and the landlords, and my right hon. and gallant friend gave some very good advice to the tenants. [An HON. MEMBER: And to the House of Lords.] Yes, there was a great deal of advice going round to everybody concerned. I hope and believe that in spirit that advice will be taken by all the parties to whom it was addressed, and I have very little doubt it will be so. For my own part I have been reproached indirectly by the right hon. Gentleman opposite for not having given the benefit of my presence and support to my colleague during the passage of the Bill through the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I merely stated the fact.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The fact is perfectly accurate. But I think it will be admitted by those who have watched my right hon. friend's work, that I would have paid a poor compliment to him or the House if I had indicated that my presence was necessary. If I have not been present during the debates in the Committee stage of this Bill those Members of the House who remember what has passed on previous occasions will
  1338
  easily believe me when I say that there is no subject of legislation with which this House could possibly occupy itself in which I feel greater interest than that affecting Ireland. This Bill advances—I had almost said made the last and final advance, but at all events, greatly advances—two of the causes which I have most at heart in relation to our Irish policy. I mean that it advances the question of land purchase, and advances the question of the Congested Districts Board. I have myself in days gone by occupied many hours of the time of this House recommending to its acceptance what I may call the parent measures which have now been brought to so admirable a conclusion by the joint labours of the tenants, the landlords, the Government, the House, and the Minister responsible for Irish affairs in this House. The Congested Districts Board, I believe, by this Bill will be yet further strengthened. It will be enabled to carry on that work which is peculiar to a portion of Ireland, and which nothing but special organisation could carry on in Ireland efficiently. And as to the policy of land purchase, as long as I remember anything in this House, I remember that I have been an earnest and not an unpractical advocate of that great scheme, and I have been an advocate of it not as a politician but as a social reformer. The hon. Gentleman who opened the debate this afternoon, and my right hon. and gallant friend have both from their own particular points of view given their judgment as to what effect this Bill will or will not have upon the great political controversy connected with the constitutional government of Ireland. I decline to look at the Bill from that point of view. Even if I were convinced that this Bill was a step in the direction of Home Rule, I should still think I was doing the very worst service to the great Unionist cause if I said it was bound up with the maintenance of a condition of things in Ireland which no man could look upon without the profoundest dissatisfaction. I do not think this Bill will help Home Rule in Ireland. I do not know that it will have any effect on it one way or the other, but I abstract my mind altogether from these considerations in dealing with this matter. The business we have

  1339
  to do is to remove the blots in our land legislation in Ireland—blots which are due to historical causes of great antiquity, but whose effect has gone on and very often been augmented by the very remedies we have tried to apply to them, until it reached, after the legislation of 1881, the point, as I think I have before said to the House, that put the Irish land system in the unenviable situation of being probably the worst land system in the world, and of combining the defects of every conceivable system within its own limits. That is a position which ought not to be tolerated: and I rejoice beyond measure to think that the day has at last come when very considerable efforts, but compared with this, the tentative measures which have already been passed on this matter, will find their final consummation in the great Bill which I hope will soon become an Act.
  Of course our controversy remains. Of course it is true that after this Bill becomes law, and even has if it all the success which we hope and believe it will have, the great Irish controversy will remain. I do not doubt, I never have doubted, that one great alteration it will effect. The political controversy between hon. Gentlemen opposite and what I believe, at all events, is the great mass of the public opinion on this side of St. George's Channel, will no longer be embittered by those social wrongs which ought to be fought on fair terms, and which have made it, in some respects, and in some of its phases, discreditable, and in the highest degree, painful. I hope all that has now been brought to an end, and I trust that, henceforth, Irishmen fighting for what they believe, and honestly believe—namely, that a great constitutional change is desirable from the Irish point of view, will no longer be tempted into any other more dubious paths; at all events, that they will never be tempted to mix up two quite different controversies—the controversy as to whether you should or should not give Home Rule to Ireland, and the controversy as to whether you should or should not maintain a land system which was costly, which was unjust, which was complicated, which was financially burdensome, which was equally injurious to the tenants and the landlords, and the sooner it was swept away the better for all classes connected with agriculture in
  1340
  Ireland. That this may be the result of the present Bill is my most earnest hope; and I should be stultifying every action of my public life if I did not look forward with the most confident belief in its success, and if I did not again utter my conviction that the Irish tenants are to be trusted, absolutely trusted, not in obedience to any man or to any motive, to fulfil the obligations they have undertaken to the British Treasury: and if I did not express my great thanks to all those, to whatever Party they belong, whether they represent the tenants or whether they represent the landlords, who have shown a statesmanlike moderation which has enabled them to meet together on equal terms consulting for the common benefit, and which, almost for the first time in Irish history, has prompted these classes, so often foes, to agree upon some common policy by means of a compromise which, like all compromises, requires some sacrifices on either side. It may require some sacrifices both on the one side and on the other, but it is destined, I hope, to be rich in the fruits of contentment, peace and prosperity to all who lend themselves to this great work.
  MR. DILLON: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh that he need not fear that we shall adopt any unreasonable attitude towards this Bill. I can assure him that in so far as the Members sitting on these Benches are concerned, this Bill would have absolutely fair play, and I trust that the landlords will approach the administration of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, in the same spirit. In my opinion, the great question whether this Bill will give substantial benefits to the Irish people, and prove so to be the beginning of agrarian peace in Ireland, depends almost entirely on the spirit and method in which it is administered. I desire to point out that the Government has, I think, wisely taken the whole question of administration, in the present instance, into their own hands, and that they, therefore, stand completely responsible for this great Department, and for the future fortunes of the Act. The Government, however, cannot be surprised if, in the breasts of many of us who have had long experience of the spirit in which Irish Acts have been administered, there exists a great deal of

  1341
  doubt and misgiving as to the future administration of this Act. That misgiving is all the stronger because no Land Act has ever been passed by the House of Commons which will depend more for its success on the method and spirit of its administration; for its characteristic is that it is elastic, and that so many of its provisions have been drawn somewhat vaguely, and with the desire to give the utmost scope to its administrators. I confess that my misgiving has been increased by the action of the Government in placing Mr. Wrench in the position of pre-eminence he still occupies, and by their action towards Mr. FitzGerald and Mr. Murrough O'Brien in the third portion of the Bill. But to come to the Bill as it stands. It must be admitted that it is immensely better than when it was introduced, and in that respect I share the view expressed by my hon. friend and Leader the Member for Waterford. But I still object, in the first clause, to the retention of the two limits of price, feeling as I do that it sets up a false standard, running a risk of causing friction, which would have been avoided had no such limit been mentioned in the Bill. The tenants of Ireland should have complete freedom to bargain with their landlords; and I believe that if the landlords approach this question in a spirit of reasonableness and conciliation there ought not to be any insuperable difficulty in arriving at a reasonable price. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh expressed the fear that the tenantry of Ireland might be induced to abstain from availing themselves of the benefits of the Act by looking forward to successive reductions for the next fifteen years. But I believe that such dangers are entirely visionary. The anxiety of the tenantry of Ireland is so great to obtain proprietary rights in their land, and to lift from their shoulders the intolerable burden of landlordism and all its concomitant evils, that the risk is rather in the other direction, and that they will grasp their immediate advantage without consideration of their ability to meet their obligations in the future. I am sure that the landlords, on that score, have nothing to fear. If they approach this great question of price in a rational and fair spirit, then I believe that this Bill will work smoothly, so far as the general sale of land is concerned, and will also work rapidly. If the landlords
  1342
  of Ireland are sufficiently unreasonable to take it into their heads that on the occasion of their receiving a bonus of £12,000,000 in order to facilitate the sale of their lands, this was a suitable occasion for making a general, all-round rise in the price of the land, then, of course, friction and fresh agitation will arise.
  There are a few of the provisions of the Bill on which I wish to say a word or two. First of all, in regard to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants. That provision has been made immensely better in the course of the passage of the Bill through Committee; yet I confess that I view with alarm the tone adopted by some of the landlords' representatives, inside and outside the House. I go so far as to say that if we could be certain that the Bill would be administered in the spirit of the speeches of the right hon. the Chief Secretary, during the Committee and Report stages, I do believe that it would be possible to reinstate the evicted tenants. But that depends upon the action of the Commission, on the spirit of the administration, and mainly on the spirit in which the subject is approached by the Irish landlords. I say that the Irish landlords will consult their own selfish interest by seeing that the tenants are treated in the most generous manner. Then, as regards the provisions for the resettlement of the West of Ireland, I deeply regret that the Government could not have seen their way to meet us fully in the demand we made on this particular point. It was really, practically speaking, a non-contentious point. None of the proposals we put forward threatened to inflict any loss on the landlord party, and this particular portion of the Irish land question was precisely that portion which appealed most strongly to the British public, and was most efficacious in securing the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And it appeared to us that Article 14 of the Land Conference Report did undoubtedly suggest or imply a provision such as we endeavoured to insert in the Bill in Committee. That Article says—
  "That counties wholly or partly under the operations of the Congested Districts Board, or other districts of a similar character (as defined by the Congested Districts Board Acts and by Section 4, Clause 1, of Mr. Wyndham's Land Purchase Amendment Bill of last session) will require separate and exceptional treatment with a view to the better distribution of

  1343
  the population and of the land, as well as for the acceleration and extension of these projects for migration and enlargement of holdings which the Congested Districts Board, as at present constituted, and with its limited powers, has hitherto found it impossible to carry out upon an adequate scale."
  There is really little or nothing in the Bill which will affect the constitution of the Board. No doubt, I recognise that large additions have been made to the financial resources of the Board, and that in some important minor particulars, its powers have been extended; but as regards its larger powers and its constitution, none of our proposals have been accepted, and nothing substantial has been done in the Bill. That I must say is a matter for very great regret, It is a matter which, even if all our Amendments had been accepted, would not have affected to the extent of one single pound the income or means of any landlord in Ireland. There was one thing in which I was disappointed in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill. That stage was marked by a great deal of general agreement on many points; but when we arrived at this particular portion of the Bill, not one landlord supported our demand; and there was an appearance of indifference on this all-important question on the landlord side. We, first of all, asked for compulsion, and I confess that to my mind and to the minds of many men in Ireland, Article 14 of the Land Conference appeared to point to compulsion in those particular districts. That Amendment was rejected by the Government, although it was admitted that we had adopted a moderate tone throughout. When we were beaten on compulsion, we fell back on pre-emption; and I think the Government were very ill-advised in refusing pre-emption for the settlement of these particular districts. Here again much can be done, even under the Bill as it stands, if it is administered in a spirit of earnestness and vigour. If it is not; and if the old spirit which prevailed in the administration of previous Acts gets the upper hand, then I fear this portion of the Bill will be a nullity altogether. I think it is a great pity that the Government had not sufficient courage in connection with this particular part of the Bill. I fail to see where the opposition came from to
  1344
  prevent this part of the Bill being made complete and efficacious.
  I wish to say one or two words on the finance of the Bill. All our discussions are now over; my views have not been accepted; still I hold those views exceedingly strongly; and now, on the Third Reading, I must repeat them. I think one of the great drawbacks in this Bill—and I think it will be found out before the Bill has been long working—is the great reduction in the sinking fund and the consequent abolition of the decadal reductions. That was a point on which the Land Conference was agreed. If the decadal reductions were to be retained, it was manifest that you must retain a sufficient sinking fund which should never have been allowed to fall below 1 per cent. The stock should have been issued at 2½ per cent., and the annuity at 3½ per cent., and then it would have been possible to preserve the system of decadal reductions; or, if the tenant elected to refuse the decadal reductions, the whole of the loan would have been paid off in about forty-nine years. That would be infinitely safer for the State, and far better for the tenant. I fear that that provision in the Bill is a very great evil which will prove injurious to the tenant and to the whole stability of the finance of the Bill. I have heard recently of certain individuals, some of them hon. Members of this House, talking in Ireland about the great period of prosperity which is before the country; and that people had better hurry up and buy their land before the great scheme of the Colonial Secretary gives such an impetus to agriculture as will greatly increase the land value. I wish to utter a word of warning to the Government and to the Irish agriculturists. In my opinion, even assuming the Colonel Secretary carries his scheme, no taxation of food that the inhabitants of this country will ever tolerate will bring any advantage to the people of Ireland. A tax on corn of 3s. or 4s. a quarter would injure Ireland. No tax, except an all-round tax—a tax on meat, a tax on mutton, a tax on butter—would increase the value of Irish land. But does any rational human being for one moment suppose that such a tax is possible in the future. Therefore,

  1345
  any man who is building Castles in Spain as regards Irish agriculture, on the basis of the proposed scheme for preferential duties and the success of the Colonial Secretary, is to my mind building on an absolutely shadowy foundation, even if the Colonial Secretary carries all his programme. I think it is a most serious matter—and that is the reason I refer to it now—that this wise, and from the point of view of the taxpayer, most valuable provision, of a reduction at the end of the first ton years of 14 per cent. and a further reduction of another 14 per cent. at the end of another ten years, should be swept away. There is another consideration also. By the introduction of this new set of purchasers who are to pay for a period of seventy years the same annuities without any reduction whatever, you will have again the old argument of the one side of the hedge and the other side of the hedge, which must produce a great deal of discontent, particularly when the old Ashbourne purchasers will have got two reductions, and when the new purchasers see before them a period of sixty-eight years without any reduction at all.
  A great deal has been said about the bonus in this country; and it has been repeated in the Press; but most of what has been said has been really based on ignorance of the whole philosophy and genesis of the bonus. I saw, I think in the Daily News the other day, that 12,000,000 English sovereigns were to be handed over to the Irish landlords to sweeten this transaction. That is not true. The essence of the bonus is this; that whereas previously the Government was spending £750,000 a year in maintaining war between landlords and tenants in Ireland—money which was absolutely wasted—they now proposed to devote £390,000 a year of that money, for a limited period, to the purpose of bringing about peace. For my part, I sincerely regret that they have not devoted £500,000 per annum to the bonus, because that would enable the process to develop much more rapidly; and the Imperial taxpayer would not lose sixpence more by the transaction. That would enable the work to proceed much more rapidly and would avoid the risk which now exists of friction over the question of price. As to the distribution
  1346
  of the bonus, I think the percentage has been cut down to too low a figure. After allowing for estates in the Land Judges' Courts and for estates that will not be sold—I am afraid there are certain gentlemen in Ireland who will not sell—I believe that the £12,000,000 would have been amply sufficient to give 15 per cent. all round. It would be better to give 15 per cent. all round, or, at all events, to those who sold promptly, rather than to create the impression that those who hang back may get a better bonus, as there is a provision in the Bill to revise it. The proper policy would be to give the best bonus to those who come in first. Therefore, in that respect, the bonus is wrongly distributed. But it has been wrongly distributed in another respect also, which I think is even more important. Take a landlord with an estate worth £5,000 a year in Ulster or Leinster. He gets twenty years' purchase, which may be held to be a fair average price for good estates in these provinces. He receives £100,000 from the tenants, and £12,000 as a bonus. Take another estate in Con-naught with a rental of £5,000 a year. That is sold at fifteen years' purchase, which is a fair average price as prices go at present. The landlord gets £75,000 from the tenants, but only £9,000 as a bonus. That is to say, that the man who sells an estate with a rental of £5,000 for £100,000 gets £12,000 as a bonus, whereas a man who sells an estate, also with a rental of £5,000, for £75,000, only gets £9,000. In other words, the landlord of the poor estate who has to sell it cheaper gets less than the richer landlord. That is an unreasonable position; and one which, for my part, I cannot believe will work. The Bill is now practically safe. I conclude it will not run any serious risk in another place. It leaves this House with the goodwill of the Irish Party; and with a pledge from us that we will give it fair play, with an honest desire, according to our lights, to make it work. Although I do not want to say anything harsh or unpleasant of the Chief Secretary, and in common with other speakers who have addressed the House I feel that in the conduct of this Bill through the House he has displayed an admirable knowledge on the subject, a great deal of sympathy, and splendid

  1347
  Parliamentary gifts, still, I cannot but express my conviction that for whatever benefits the Irish people may obtain from it, they will have primarily and chiefly to thank the men who, during the last two years have faced coercion cheerfully, have endured imprisonment, and the deprivation of civil rights, and who have by their sacrifices brought about a situation which in the first place rendered it necessary to introduce such a Bill, and in the second place, made it possible for such a large measure to be passed.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLWe are not merely passing the Third Reading of the Irish Land Bill to-day, we are also effecting a great revolution, we are practically undoing the English conquest of Ireland, so far as the conquest rested on the maintenance and establishment of Irish landlords. That is what the House of Commons is doing by reading this Bill a third time to-day. This Parliament is not yet three years old, the General Election was in 1900. We had the election without any promise of a Land Bill; without the slightest reference to the land question; we had, in fact, a non possumus attitude on the part of the Government. Immediately after the election we had a bitter cry from the West of Ireland, where trouble always breaks out first, and where it is most soon felt. Then we had the uprising of Ulster. Following that we had the Bill of the session of 1902; a Bill which failed absolutely to meet the case, and which was withdrawn and buried. Then followed a proclamation of one quarter of the Irish counties under the Coercion Acts, resulting in the imprisonment of a score of Irish representatives. No doubt they broke the law, but they were imprisoned because, in the language of the Prime Minister, the conduct of the landlords was so infamous that it could not be tolerated any longer. Then came a great calm, and the Land Conference, and then this Bill, by the passing of which, after it has been two months before the House, we are enacting a great and bloodless revolution. During the eighteen years that I have been in this House, I have heard a good deal about the men who live by agitation, I have been called an
  1348
  agitator myself, but I do not think there is one person who has been engaged in agitating on this land question who will not be glad to be rid of it. It is only right in these circumstances that we should endeavour to set ourselves right with the English Members of this House with regard to the future. Prophecy is not profitable at any time, and I am not going to prophesy now as to what will happen under this Bill. I wish only to point out certain things that cannot possibly make for a final settlement of the land question under this Bill.
  We commenced our agitation in of this House with a demand for compulsion two years ago. We believe compulsion will be necessary, we did not think or say that compulsion would be required all over the country, but we do maintain that no matter what this House may do, a certain number of landlords will not sell, and compulsion is necessary for them. There are landlords in Ireland who will not sell under any circumstances, and even now the landlord organs in Ireland, the Irish Times and the Daily Express, are urging and inciting the House of Lords to alter this Bill, and are saying that if it is not altered no sales will take place under it when it becomes an Act. I state this to make it clear in future that this cannot be a final settlement. The Government would not accept our policy of compulsion, and if I had left unsaid what I have just said the House would be deceived. Something like £20,000,000 of landed property is at present in the Land Court, as to which we have the Prime Minister's word that it is the worst of the landlords' systems that can exist, yet we have not adequately dealt with the Land Court in this Bill. There might have been a great deal done in the Bill to force, the Land Judge to sell, and to break down the wall of hundreds of receivers by whom he is surrounded who are only too content to see things as they are. We have also to face the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act. There is not a man in this House who does not know and feel that the Land Act of 1881, if it had received fair play at the hands of the Courts of Ireland, would have long ago

  1349
  settled the land question. If this Bill when it becomes an Act is to be interpreted by the speeches the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made upon it, then it will be all right; but it is not. It is to be interpreted by Irish Judges, and those who have to administer the Act. I agree that so far as the Estates Commission is concerned that is a great improvement on the past, but let us remember that this Act will go through the Courts of Ireland, where there is very little sympathy with it. I agree with reference to the financial part with the hon. Member for East Mayo. The abolition of the decadal system was rendered absolutely necessary by the smallness of the sinking fund. A Bill of this kind cannot be passed without amending Bills being brought in in the future, and I believe the finance portion of the Act will break down and have to be amended by future Bills. I do not believe the general taxpayer has anything to fear from this measure. The tenants who are allowed to purchase their holdings will struggle hard to meet their obligations, whatever they may be, and the poorest among them will struggle the hardest. The general taxpayer will be paid to the uttermost farthing, and so far as the bonus which they believe they are going to pay is concerned, that is coming out of an Irish fund, and the Treasury will take care that they receive repayment in full. I take leave of this Bill by saying that it is the greatest measure passed for Ireland since the Act of Union.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: The Chief Secretary is making a fortunate exception to the old maxim that the absent are always in the wrong. Whatever else this Bill may do, it has already accomplished one thing beyond yea or nay—viz., it has established the Chief Secretary's Parliamentary reputation to a degree which certainly his late opponents on these benches will not grudgingly acknowledge. If only the other expectations of the Bill are as happily realised, the measure will have succeeded in accomplishing perhaps the most revolutionary change that has ever taken place in the relations between the two countries. Whether the Bill will effect that revolution I
  1350
  cannot undertake to prophesy, but there is certainly no ground that I can see for any prophesy of evil. The success of the Bill will depend in the main upon two things of which we are not the masters. The first is the moderation and good sense with which the landlords will, I hope, lay down a business-like basis for purchase, regardless of the obstruction of the land agents, and of some of the absurd and impossible prices that were originally contemplated in Clause 1 of the Bill. The second point upon which the success of the Bill will depend—as is the case with nearly everything in Ireland—is the administration of the measure, upon whether it is worked out in the spirit of broad and liberal conciliation in which this whole settlement has been conceived. One thing it may be said with certainty will not be missing, and that is the most thorough-going friendliness, and fair play, and goodwill on the part of the masses of the Irish people, and a determination not to indulge in any mere petulance or rancour upon small points, so long as the landlords and the Estate Commissioners honestly do their part in working out the great scheme of conciliation which within the last six months has transformed the face of Ireland.
  There are two or three points in particular upon which the successful working of the Bill will depend. The first is that the new purchasers' annuities should be such as they can cheerfully look forward to with an eye on the future. That was a cardinal principle in the settlement suggested by the Land Conference. The second point is that the ample powers vested in the Estates Commissioners for the complete and generous settlement of the evicted tenants question should be exercised in the spirit of the Chief Secretary's repeated and transparently sincere declarations that it is his desire to see all the bitterness and the evil memories connected with this question completely eradicated. The third point is that, however imperfect the constitution and the powers of the Congested Districts Board still are, the Board should take the series of hints given by the Chief Secretary, turn over a new leaf, and

  1351
  exercise for all they are worth the enlarged powers given by this Bill, with a view, not to carrying on tinkering operations, but to transferring the people rapidly and in large numbers to the land, in which all their hopes are centred. I should perhaps add another point which is an indispensable condition of success—viz., that the Chief Secretary should not forget his promise to the labourers; and that in framing, during the autumn, his settlement of the labourers question, he should make up his mind that the real remedy lies not in any mere paltry tinkering Amendment of the existing Labourers Acts, but in giving the labouring population in the South and in the East the very same treatment as you have undertaken towards their brother migrating labourers in the West. None of these things I have named will involve any hardship upon the landlords or the Treasury, but it is the spirit that will be shown in matters of this kind in the administration of the Bill, that will, more than any statutory enactments, go to decide whether the present process of appeasement and conciliation is to go to a length that twelve months ago would have been beyond belief. I quite agree with the warning of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, that the House must not expect too much. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford truly reminded the House that this Bill is not our Bill. It is not the Bill of the Land Conference.
  I do not care to go back upon these matters over much, but perhaps some of us may be excused for remembering that the three weakest points in this Bill are the points in which it departs farthest from the recommendations of the Land Conference. The first of these points is that the Bill fails to provide the two years' additional bonus which represents exactly, as I believe, the difference as to price between the landlords and tenants, and which would have obviated, practically speaking whatever difficulty or friction there may now be experienced in settling the exact basis of purchase. We on these benches remember gratefully that that addition to the bonus or Purchase-aid-fund was suggested as a wise policy by the right hon. Gentle-
  1352
  man the Member for Montrose, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick, and indeed by all the Members who have a special right to call themselves the party of retrenchment and of economy. The second weak point in this Bill, as I regard it, is one of which the hon. Member for Mayo reminded the House, namely, that the Bill fails to provide the new purchasers with those three ten-year reductions which the Land Conference recommended and which would relieve the new purchasers of any substantial anxiety as to the future. The third weak point is the failure of the Bill to fix a time limit, as suggested in the Conference Report. But all this is to a great extent a question of spilt milk, and I do not wish to go back upon it. I make every allowance for the difficulties with which the Chief Secretary has had to contend; I mention these matters simply to show that it is through no fault of ours that the Bill is to some extent marred by these defects, and that the inexplicable troubles of the Chief Secretary have driven him to reject various other Amendments upon which the opinion of landlords and tenants was absolutely united. I wholly agree that, whatever may be its shortcomings, the Bill as it stands is a great Bill, and is capable of producing better and wider results than any Act ever passed by the English Parliament for Ireland. That much may be said with certainty, but the House will not expect us to forget that the secret of its success, so far as it is a success, is that the Bill was really created and discussed in, not an English, but an Irish Parliament. The time has not come for pressing this Parliament to go the one further easy step of transferring the Irish Parliament from Westminster to College Green. I am aware that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and his friends have a different view as to the future, and I find no fault whatever with the references of the Prime Minister to that point this afternoon.
  This much, I think, is perfectly certain—that it will be the fault of English statesmen, and not of the Irish people, if the future of the Irish cause does not develop itself upon those lines of conciliation and peace of which I hope this Bill is only the starting point. From the outset the Irish people, through

  1353
  their National Convention, have regarded the Bill in a friendly spirit. They trusted my hon. and learned friend and his Party with unlimited authority to work for its Amendment, not with any sinister or hostile design, but with the honest intention of making its peace-bearing operations as widespread and permanent as possible. I am sometimes amused to see how Englishmen and English newspapers marvel at the moderate and reasonable spirit now prevailing upon the Irish Benches. They are sometimes apparently a little alarmed to know what it is all about, and it never seems once to strike them that it is in themselves and not in us that the change has come about. I know of nothing that ought to give Englishmen more pause as to their capacity of governing us. There is this indisputable fact, that there never was a moment in all this long and bitter struggle when you might not have had peace, and exactly the same peace, upon the same terms as far as the representatives of Ireland were concerned, and you night have spared yourselves and us twenty years of misery and agitation. It is now eighteen years since, under the inspiration of our own great leader of those days, I gave frank and loyal assistance to the Liberal Party in Mr. Gladstone's great and never-to-be-forgotten effort to bring about reconciliation in Ireland. I did so in exactly the same spirit eighteen years ago as I experience now. Nothing can deter me now from giving an equally loyal assistance to the present Government in their project for the abolition of landlordism. I think that is the spirit of ninety-nine out of every hundred men in Ireland, and this is more especially so among the men who have fought you hardest, and they did so because they had nothing to do but to fight. If this Bill is only administered in a proper spirit, and if the landlords display that wisdom which is necessary in their own interests, and which they have displayed at more than one trying moment when this Bill hung, as it were, by a thread, I am sure no one will grudge the Government the triumphs which I hope will await their policy, and the measure with which their names will be associated.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: As the oldest Member in the representation of Ireland, may I be permitted to express the pleasure I feel in seeing a Land Bill so vital to the well-being of the country pass its Third Reading. I remember agricultural Ireland for long years in a deplorable condition, without a ray of hope until 1870 and 1881, when Mr. Gladstone took pity on the country, and gave to the farmers a local habitation and a name; for, until that time, they were no more than chattels in the possession of the owners of the soil, many of whom, I acknowledge, were very good considering the power of decimation which was in their hands. Now, after years of resistance to the claims of the people of the country, and after expedients and abortive Land Acts, which were only the patching up of torn garments, there has been a mysteriously favourable change of attitude towards Ireland—a manifest confidence in the people which time will prove to be well-placed. In the maturing of this measure, negotiations have fallen into good hands, not only at the Dublin Conference, but particularly so when they fell into the hands of the Chief Secretary for Ireland representing the Government, whose tact temper, eloquence, and ability in the conduct of this Bill will not be forgotten by a grateful people. I could not have imagined in my youth that a peasant proprietary would have come in my day. It has come. The Bill will produce a marvellous change in the condition of the people when it comes into operation. It will form an era in the history of the country. May I further venture to say that after this final Land Bill, which is real legislation, it will only require one or two similar bold steps to be taken by the Government to make Ireland a strength to the Empire, and her people loyal and contented.
  *MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I do not rise with the object of introducing any discoid into this splendid message of peace, but rather that in the future, when the seeds planted to-day have developed, when they have covered Ireland with a perennial growth of national contentment, I should like to remember that it

  1355
  was my privilege as an English Member to congratulate the Chief Secretary on what I consider to be the greatest achievement of any Statesman in the history of Ireland. We have heard this afternoon a general interchange of compliments and congratulations. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition congratulated his colleagues upon the very conciliatory way in which this Bill has been received. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford congratulated himself upon his dexterous pruning, cutting, and general readjustment of the measure. Some hon. Members on this side of the House congratulated the Chief Secretary on his dexterous piloting of the Bill through this House. But what of the Bill itself? Personally I agree with the Member for South Tyrone that this Bill is a revolution effected without revolutionary methods. I welcome it for two reasons; first of all, because I feel sure that it will bring permanent rest to Ireland from the acute political controversy in which she has been plunged for centuries; and also because at this moment, when the attention of the country is drawn into other channels, and when another great policy is before us, it conclusively proves that in spite of the ominous predictions of sceptics and the tremblings of mediocrity—it is possible to sweep away difficulties, which at the beginning appeared insuperable, by the exercise of genius and courage. Beyond the shadow of the Land Act there looms a period of great agricultural prosperity, drawing in its train that national stability so vital to national credit. National credit to Ireland means a steady flow of capital into the country—the revival of latent and the creation of now industries; it means the development of her great fisheries and the improvement of her navigable rivers; it means the employment of a greater number of the population on its own soil, and consequently the diminution of that unhappy exodus which all who have the interests of Ireland at heart have for years and years deplored. These are only some of the blessings that will accrue from this measure which the Chief Secretary has presented to the Irish people. This Bill means also a great deal to England. I hope that the intellectual atmosphere of this country, now that
  1356
  better fellowship exists, will be permeated, by that wit and brilliance which is inherent to the Irish people. And I am confident that England will find a lasting joy in the nearer union to the Island that she loves.
  *MR. TOMKINSON: For more than twenty years I have taken a deep interest in Irish affairs and in all measures brought forward for the better government of Ireland. In a former debate my hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division said the speech of the Prime Minister marked an epoch in Irish history, inasmuch as it rung the deathknell of the old Irish land system, condemning it as being hopelessly and incurably bad. I quite agree with the hon. Member, but think that the speech of the Prime Minister marked an even greater epoch than that to which he alluded, because it seemed to me that there was almost for the first time on the part of the great Party sitting on these benches and its leader, a spirit of sympathy and conciliation shown towards Ireland, a disposition to approach Irish subjects from the Irish point of view, and to avail themselves of the experience of the representatives of Ireland in the solution of Irish problems. If it was a novel, it was also a pleasing experience to see hon. Members on that side of the House, one after another, rising to pay a handsome and willing tribute to the honesty and integrity of the Irish tenant, and to the punctuality with which he has fulfilled his engagements, and to the entire safety and security with which British and Irish money might be lent to them for the purchase of their farms. All I can say with regard to that is, Esto perpetua! We who sit on these benches rejoice in the fact that in this change we see the practical endorsement of many of the principles we have advocated for many years. Speaking as the representative of an English constituency, I should like to allude for a moment to the speech delivered some time ago by the hon. and learned Member for the Launceston Division. He said if this Bill were to be submitted to the English taxpayers they would not consent to the proposals it contains. I should reply that it woud

  1357
  depend on the manner in which it was placed before them. I have had an opportunity of fairly explaining to my constituents the peculiar circumstances that surround the question and the absolute need of some great measure. It is quite true that it might be represented to them quite truthfully in such a way that they would not readily accept it. The case of a second term rental tenant paying £10 a year rent, and by this Bill be enabled to purchase his holding by an annual payment of some £7 only in sixty-eight years, while his landlord will still receive as much as his former income from him, sounds like something in "Alice in Wonderland"—with a fairy godmother intervening.
  Yet there are many reasons why I am quite satisfied that the arrangement proposed by the Bill is a fair one, and that it is very well worth while to carry it out. In the first place I consider that the previous Acts in this direction make the situation altogether impossible. You could not have the Dillon estate and the De Freyne estate side by side with any hope of tranquillity in Ireland. I rejoice to hear so many tributes in this House to the memory of the great statesman who brought forward the Act of 1881. The failure of that Act was due only to its want of finality. The readjustment and revision of rents coming round periodically naturally made it the interest of the tenants not to improve but to depreciate their holdings. That was one of the flaws which made dual ownership come to an absolute breakdown. Over and above that we look forward to the probability that there will be immense savings of expenditure in Ireland. We must also remember that Ireland has been subjected to considerable over-taxation. We have last, but not least, of the many reasons that could be given in favour of tenant proprietorship the extremely happy experience of the results of land purchase, as regards industry, thrift, and cleanliness which have supervened on the Dillon estate. These are the chief reasons which justify a great effort for a final settlement, which, if successful, will be well worth the cost. In my opinion the risk to the taxpayer is absolutely nil. In the first place there is the well-known honesty of the Irish
  1358
  tenants. No man would endanger such a splendid arrangement as is now proposed by any attempt, even if he were capable of it, to repudiate his obligations. But over and above that I maintain that, as a business transaction it is absolutely sound, for the margin of security is ample to protect the advance which is to be made by the British Treasury. It is nothing like the whole of the purchase money, which is based on a reduced rental, but only to buy out the landlord's interest. Practically the advance will be little more than one-third of the total value of the holding, and therefore there will be a far more ample margin left than is asked on mortgages on such transactions in England. There is one point on which the British taxpayer is entitled to gratitude, and on which some sacrifice is being made, and that is the fact that it is obviously impossible to exploit the credit of the nation in such large sums as will be required for this scheme, coming on the top of the heavy obligations incurred for the carrying on of the late war, and lately the Transvaal loan, without permanently, or for a long time, depreciating British credit and keeping down the price of Consols. The national credit is a great element in the national strength and stability of a nation, and the nation that can raise most money at the lowest rate is the strongest nation in the end. We have to face the fact that there has been in the last six or seven years a fall in Consols of 20 per cent. If hon. Members will look back to the time when Consols reached the highest point, namely, 114, they will find that 2½ per cent. Consols were 110. They have been down to 90, and they are only about 92 at the present moment. I consider this a very serious depreciation, and I hope hon. Members from Ireland will recognise that the taxpayer is making some sacrifice. I hope also they will bear a kindly and benevolent feeling towards Liberal Members for the absence of opposition to this Bill, from which they expect Ireland to derive such good results. I hope that the evil order has passed away, that all things will become new, and that the great source of strife and division will be removed. That poverty will disappear never to return such as Carlyle wrote of when he compared the condition of the Irish sans potato as he called him, with that of the sans-culotte before

  1359
  the French Revolution, stating that in his opinion the latter was not the most miserable but only the second miserablest of men. I hope that state of things will pass away with the wise application of the powers for the enlargement of holdings, and the migration, where necessary, of the people within their own country. There is one aspect of this question that has never been noticed in this House, but which it is obvious is not for the true interest of this country, and that is that in allowing the expatriation of the Irish people we have been destroying one of the finest recruiting grounds for our Army. There is no need to extol the services of the Irish regiments, for since the time of Marlborough down to Pieters Hill and Ladysmith Hill they have been distinguished for their deeds of valour. I hope this Bill will be passed without a dissentient voice.
  *MR. LAMBERT: I regret to have to introduce a jarring note in the chorus of approval that up to now has beslavered this Bill. But after all, as the hon. Member for South Tyrone has said, I was waiting to hear what the British taxpayer was going to get out of it. He is going to incur a serious responsibility of Irish land ownership, in a most one sided manner for sixty-nine-and-a-half years. If the Irish land goes up in value the Imperial taxpayer will get nothing of it, no addition can be made to the tenants, rent instalments; and if it goes down in value he will have to bear the burden the loss. I think that when we are to pay £12,000,000 in order to have the privilege of allowing the tenants of Ireland to pay their landlords an exorbitant price for their farms, some voice should be lifted up on behalf of the long suffering British taxpayer. This Bill brings into immediate individual contact 400,000 tenants of Ireland with what they regard as a foreign Government. Mr. Gladstone denounced this individual contact in 1886. Personally, I would have wished to bring in some Irish authority between the tenants of Ireland and the Imperial Government. What responsibility rests on the Imperial Government? They will have to collect rents from 130,000 tenants whose farms are under £4 value. I ask, suppose you have a time of agricultural
  1360
  depression what rent you can possibly screw out of these poor people? Then you have 275,000 tenants whose farms are under £10 value. Again, I say, if you have a period of agricultural distress—a period of unusual foreign competition—everybody knows it is impossible to collect their rents, that you cannot evict a whole country side, and that the Imperial Government will have to bear the loss. It seems to me inexplicable that the Irish tenants are such models of probity when they come to pay what they regard as a foreign Government, but are so impregnated with a double dose of original sin when they come to deal with fellow Irishmen in Ireland that they can be entrusted to pay £5,000,000 in instalments every year to the British Government, but that they cannot be trusted to do justice to Irishmen amongst whom they live! The First Lord of the Treasury said that the Irish tenants could be trusted to pay the British Government, but that they could not be trusted to govern themselves! We have heard very different versions as to the effect on Home Rule which this Bill would produce. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that it promoted Home Rule; the hon. Member for North Armagh said that it would have the opposite effect; and the Prime Minister thought it would have no effect at all. How are we to reconcile these different authorities?
  I want to draw a comparison between the Irish farmer and the British farmer. Comparisons are odious, I know. [An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: Hear, hear!] The British farmer has gone on for years, and years, and years voting for his landlord's Party; he has got to pay a competition rent, and he will have to pay it to all eternity or will be liable to be turned out of his farm on twelve months notice. The Irish farmer has got security of tenure; he can sell his interest in the soil; he has 38 per cent. reduction on second-term rents. Is he satisfied? Not he. He wants to get 10 per cent. reduction more on that 38 per cent. which will make 48 per cent. reduction on his original rent. In other words, he will have to pay £52 where he used to pay £100. He may get another 20 per cent.

  1361
  reduction and that will make him pay £32 where he paid £100. But what is more, in sixty-nine-and-a-half years he will become the owner of the soil! The British farmer excites himself about a shilling duty on corn. The Irish farmer does not excite himself at all. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford poured thunders of indignation on the Prime Minister for repealing the shilling duty on corn. The Irish farmer did not care a rush for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, but did care for the hon. Member for Cork. He has no delusions on the subject, and by trusting to his own powers of organised voting for his own interests his position is far superior to that of the British farmer. I would ask the hon Member for Cork to come over to England and start a branch of his Land League. Then, what about the Irish landlord? The only description I can give of him is that presented of the Trust King given in his portrait by the American comic papers. You see there a gentleman with a huge cigar in his mouth, a huge corporation, with pockets bulging out with dollars, and riding on the back of somebody else. That, it seems to me will be the position of the Irish landlords. John Bull will not be the ruddy, corpulent person he has been in past years. He will be the individual sat upon. The English landlord—again the comparison comes in—does all the improvements on the farm. He puts up all the houses, farm buildings and cottages, erects the fences, digs the drains and does everything, in fact, to the amount of 15 to 20 per cent. yearly of the rental. The Irish landlord, as the First Lord of the Treasury says, does not spend a shilling on his estate. The Irish landlord takes a piece of land—it may be mountain land or a bog—lets it to a tenant, appoints a land agent, collects the rents and does nothing more. Supposing you want to take land compulsorily for public purposes in England, you pay the landlord 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase, but you pay 12 per cent. under this Bill to the Irish landlord for voluntary purchase, and at a far greater price than you can get for land in England.
  An hon. Gentleman said that the Bill may be rejected in the House of Lords.
  1362
  He need not be in the least afraid of that. There is money in it, and the money will not be rejected by the landlords in the "gilded chamber." Mr. Gladstone was driven from office on his Land Bill. Mr. Gladstone proposed to give for first-term rents of £100, £1,600. The actual price of land in Ireland has been proved to be £1,700, or seventeen years purchase of first-term rents. What does this Bill propose to give for a first-term rent? To give £2,462, and in addition to that the Irish landlord gets £295 as a bonus, making in all £2,757. And yet Mr. Gladstone was denounced by the Colonial Secretary for giving a gigantic bribe to the Irish landlords. What kind of a bribe is it that is offered to them by this Bill? The minimum price under this Bill on first-term rents is £1,846, with a bonus of £221, or a total of £2,067, or £467 more than Mr. Gladstone proposed to give. Where Mr. Gladstone proposed to give £1 to the Irish landlords, this Bill proposes to give them £1 14s. as a maximum and £1 5s. 10d. as a minimum. I ask the House whether it was fair and right to hound Mr. Gladstone and condemn his proposals as public bribery, when you propose to give the Irish landlords these terms? But I have other figures. I take the second-term rents. The actual price of land under second-term rents, according to Lord Dunraven, as reported in The Freeman's Journal of 11th April, was nineteen and a half years rental, or £1,950 for every £100. What is the maximum under this Bill? £2,769 plus the bonus—I might call it bribe—of £332, making altogether £3,101, while under the Land Purchase Acts it has been proved to be £1,950. Take the minimum. The minimum price under this Bill is £2,154 plus £258 of a bonus, or a total of £2,412. If you take the average price the Irish landlord will get for second-term rents, £2,750 for £100 rental; or, as compared with the actual price paid during the period second-term rents have been in operation since 1896, for £1 the price will in the future be £1 8s., or without the bonus £1 4s. 8d. This amounts to a very considerable sum indeed when you come to deal with a rental of £4,000,000. The price on nineteen and a half years

  1363
  purchase would be £78,000,000, which is the actual past proved value, while the Chief Secretary estimated the price to be given now at £100,000,000; and in addition he is going to give a bonus of £12,000,000 to induce or bribe the landlords to accept this wholly extravagant price. The Imperial Government is going to give £22,000,000 on a £4,000,000 rental more than the actual value of the land as proved under the Land Purchase Acts, and in addition £12,000,000 to close the transaction. That seems to me a most admirable bargain for the Irish landlords.
  I have two concrete instances to give. Two Members of the Government will receive considerable sums under the Bill. I am perfectly certain that these two noblemen would not have voted for this Bill because of the pecuniary benefit they are going to receive. But according to Thorn's "Directory" their valuation for 1873 was £31,536 and £31,326 as the yearly values of their estates, or a total of £65,862 a year. Brought down to the basis of second-term rental by reducing it by 38 per cent. that would give something over £40,000 a year. The maximum price which these noblemen will receive for their £40,000 a year will be £1,107,600, and with the bonus of 12 per cent., amounting to £132,912, it makes a grand total of £1,240,512, The actual price up to now at £1,950 for £100 would be £780,000, leaving for the benefit of these two noblemen £460,512 more than the actual proved value of the land. Under the minimum price in the Bill, these noblemen will receive £694,992, or £184,992 more than the actual price paid during the last seven years. I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary, if he were here, whether this is a preferential tariff, or an old-age pension. In 1895, we know that the right hon. Gentleman had a very simple method of old-age pensions. Not only is this a very simple method, but a very generous method of old-age pensions, but it is not given to the veterans of labour. I can mention other instances where the landlords will benefit. They can borrow at 2¾ per cent., whereas the British Government cannot borrow at that. An Imperial Transvaal Loan was launched the other day at 3 per cent. Further, the legal costs of the landlords
  1364
  are to be paid for them; and their demesnes are to be first bought from them for golden sovereigns and then sold back to them and cleared at 3¼ per cent. for sixty-nine years, which will mean a considerable addition to many of their incomes. The Chief Secretary has proved himself to be a very charming highwayman. He has robbed us; but he has robbed us very nicely; and I think we might compare him to Claude Duval, the famous highwayman of old, who danced a minuet before his victims so well that they were almost pleased to be robbed; and I am not sure that the epitaph now on the tomb of Claude Duval might not also be applied to the Chief Secretary.
  "Here lies Duval. Reader, if male thou art, Look to thy purse. If a female to thy heart."
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has indulged in a comparison between Irish landlords and their tenants and English landlords and their tenants, Everyone knows, of course, that there is no comparison or no similarity possible; and I will not, therefore, waste the time of the House in discussing it. Then the hon. Gentleman said that the landlords were receiving too much, because the average number of years' purchase lately was only nineteen and a half years. But everyone knows that the object of introducing this Bill is—because the old system of purchase has failed, that sales have not taken place; and that it is desirable that sales should take place. It was admitted that the number of years purchase which the landlords was getting was not sufficient to induce them to sell; and accordingly this Bill has been introduced in order that they may be induced to sell. The hon. Gentleman sets himself up as the representative of the English constituencies. But the majority of the English people do not take the view the hon. Gentleman takes. I represent an English constituency; I have spoken both in my constituency and out of it on this Bill; and I hear from all parts of the country that no Bill has ever been introduced by the present Government which has been received with so much approval as this Bill. That is because it is believed that this measure is going to

  1365
  put an end to the land difficulty in Ireland; and the English people say that it is well worth while to do that. The hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that England will save money by this transaction. He said the English Government were going to collect rents from the Irish tenants directly; but up to the present had they not been obliged by the necessity of being a Government to collect Irish rents. When an Irish landlord was unable to collect his rent, then the burden fell on the English people; and it will be much easier to collect this rent-charge from the Irish people than it has been to collect rent in the past. The reason is clear. The rent will be reduced; and the present tenants will be the fee-simple owners of the land. Surprise was expressed to-day at the action of the landlords with regard to the clauses relating to congested districts which were brought before the House. In the landlords' interests the reason we did not support these clauses was, not in the least because we did not desire to relieve the distress of these congested districts—that is our most earnest desire—but because we thought the particular clauses brought forward would not be a solution to our mind; and secondly, because we felt that this Bill is a tenants' Bill, and cannot be transformed into a Bill dealing with the congested districts. That applies also to the labourers. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford regretted that more was not done with regard to the labourers. I feel that very strongly myself. I am brought into contact with labourers very much indeed; and I am very anxious to see a Bill passed which would improve their condition. But we feel that this is a tenants, Bill, and that it would be dangerous to mix up the labourers' interests with it. I have heard prophecies on both sides of the House as to the effect of this Bill as regards Home Rule. I do not think that that matter is in the least degree relevant. By this Bill we are getting rid of an existing evil; and what effect it will have on other propositions is not, to my mind, germane. I have been delighted to hear to-day from hon. Members opposite a repetition of what they have already said—that the leaders of opinion among the tenantry in Ireland will induce them to accept this Bill and to work it in a conciliatory spirit. On both sides doubt has
  1366
  been expressed as to whether the Bill will work. One side says it will not work because of the action of the landlord; and the other side says it will not work because of the action of the tenant. I think we may have no fear as to the action of either the landlords or the tenants. If I may appeal to the landlord party I would express my hope that they will do their very utmost to make this Bill a success; and I believe it is the earnest hope of every hon. Gentleman representing the Irish landlords that they should do all in their power to make the Bill a success and make it a source of prosperity to Ireland in the future.
  *MR. CREMER: I do not take the same roseate view of this Bill as has been taken by many hon. Members who have spoken to-day, and, thank the hon. Member for the South Molton Division for having exposed many of the economic fallacies contained in the Bill. The pæans of praise sung this afternoon in connection with the Bill carry me back many years to Mr. Gladstone's Bill, with reference to which the same eulogistic language was used. We were then told that it was a final measure; that it would lead to conciliation in Ireland; and that the Irish tenant would be perfectly satisfied with the new order of things to be created, but ever since then the House of Commons has been discussing the Irish land question; and it is now admitted that Mr. Gladstone's Bill failed to accomplish its object, I venture to express the opinion that this Bill will land us in still further difficulties; and that the question of Irish land tenure will still be present with the House and the country for a long series of years. The grounds on which the hon. Member for the South Molton division opposed this Bill are not the grounds on which I oppose it. I oppose it because I am a believer in the principle of land nationalisation. I believe in the opinion which I heard John Stuart Mill express in the lobby of this House hirty years ago that the only equitable basis of land tenure rests in the land being the property of the State. That not only applies to the land, but to the minerals beneath the land as well. That has been my creed all my life so far as land tenure is concerned; and it is because this Bill extends the evils of the

  1367
  existing system of individual proprietorship that I feel bound to oppose it to the best of my small ability. What has happened? When the Bill was introduced I felt that, as a land nationaliser, though with some qualms of conscience, I was justified in voting for it on the ground that it proposed what every land nationaliser had for many years been contending for—viz., that the State had a right to use the funds of the nation for the purpose of buying out individual proprietors of land. The Bill also contained a still more important principle—viz., that the State should retain some hold on the land of the country by a perpetual rent charge, a very small one, I admit, but I felt that it recognised the right of the State to exercise some control over the ownership of land. That most vital principle was omitted at the instigation of the Irish Members, and from that moment the interest I took in this Bill vanished entirely, and I came to the conclusion that it was my duty as a land nationaliser to protest against it. Within the last twenty years the principle of land nationalisation has been growing enormously, and now we have incorporated in a Bill, brought in by a Tory Government, the principle for which land nationalisers have so long contended; but land nationalises are unable to understand why, when a right has once been conceded, it should be withdrawn as has been done in this Bill. If the Government had purchased and retained possession of the land the tenants of Ireland would have had the best guarantee that has ever been offered to them that they would never again be subjected to the system of landlordism under which they have so long groaned. The land being the property of the State, the State would have let it on equitable terms, and if it did not, then this House or an Irish Parliament would call the Government to book. This rent-charge, however, has disappeared at the instigation of the Irish Members. I therefore have no further interest whatever in this Bill, and if a division takes place—and I am only one of a handful of Members—I shall vote against it. You are going by this Bill to get rid of the big landlords, who have been called the great tyrants of Ireland, and in the place of every great tyrant you knock down you are going to raise a hundred
  1368
  small ones who will sweat, not only the land, but sweat the labourers, who will tell you if they are asked that they would sooner work for big landowners, because they are treated more like men, receive bettor wages, and not sweated as they are by small proprietors. For these reasons, and because I feel assured that the Bill is not a fiscal measure but merely palliative, and that the cupidity of some and the misfortunes of others of the small proprietors which it will create will in a few generations lead to a reproduction of the evils which it professes to remedy, and that the battle of Landlordism will have to be fought over again. I shall if it goes to a division vote against it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If the hon. Member who has just sat down goes into the division lobby against this Bill he will vote against a Bill that, for the first time in the history of this House, does do something for the nationalisation of the land, because under it the mines and minerals are nationalised, and, instead of going to the proprietor of the soil, are vested in a Department of State, and so must go to benefiting the whole community. I would not, however, have risen but for a remark made by the hon. Member for South Molton, who has by comparison shown us the amount of gratitude he feels to a small body in this House. He made one remark, though perhaps he was not conscious of the amount of mischief it might do, with regard to two members of the Cabinet, Lord Londonderry and the Duke of Devonshire. They are two large proprietors in Ireland, and the example they set to their colleagues in the House of Lords and the landlords of Ireland may have a vital influence on the pacification of the country, and if, by taunts delivered against two particular members of the Cabinet as to the amount of gain they may derive from a measure of this kind, these two noble Lords are prevented from selling their estates at a fair price to their tenants, the result may have the effect of hanging up the purchase of land in Ireland for a great many years and keeping it in the hands of a few. Take the composition of the House of Lords—take men like the Duke of Leinster,

  1369
  the Duke of Abercorn, and Lord Londonderry; men owning large tracts of country who would naturally take their tone from those proprietors with whom we have never had a quarrel. Would it not be deplorable if, by means of taunts thrown in this House they were prevented from setting a good example and making it fashionable in Ireland for landlords to part with their estates. I only rise to protest against such remarks lest they should have any effect on those landlords who, I hope, will set a good example to their colleagues.
  There is one other remark I would like to make. This is the first Bill in which the House of Lords will have a real opportunity of doing something to benefit the Irish people without hurting themselves. Some reference has been made to-day to the effect that this Bill may be in some jeopardy as to some of its provisions. I do not think so at all. I think this Bill, speaking generally, will pass the House of Lords, and that if there is any attempt made by the minor Irish landlords to affect its provisions I hope the great landlords will remember that the general body of tenants will look to them for an example. But there are a number of small matters in which the House of Lords, if they are wise, will move—small Amendments which the Government in this House have declined to accept mainly on the ground of want of time to discuss them; Amendments moved from these Benches on the subject of labourers' cottages and the making of roads and the like. For the first time, let them remember, this land is going to pass out of their hands into the hands of small peasant proprietors, and they will do a great service if they take up some of the Amendments we moved in this House, seeing that the Bill, so far as they are concerned, is to determine their connection with their Irish estates. The only other remark I have to make is this. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has said this Bill is defective with regard to its dealing with the Land Judge's Court. I would beg the Attorney-General to bear in mind what has been said by the Chief Secretary and the promise he gave us on the Report stage in regard to the Land Judge's Court. Many millions worth of land is at present impounded in the
  1370
  Land Court. The only complaint we have to make with regard to the Government is that, while we were allowed plenty of time to discuss this matter in Committee, there were a number of Amendments put down on Report which were considerably hurried over. I hope the Chief Secretary, amid the chorus of congratulations which has come upon him from unexpected quarters, will not forget the promises he made on the Report stage. We shall look very keenly after them when the Bill comes back from the House of Lords. The fact that no bonus is given in the Land Judge's Court will undoubtedly clog, to a great extent, the operation of the Bill, because the encumbrancers and owners now in the Land Judge's Court will take out their estates, and to that extent will congest the other Departments of State which have to deal with the question of Irish land purchase. That is the only other remark I rose for the purpose of making. It is hardly necessary for me, having regard to the general action I have taken on Bills of this kind, to add any further word. I associate myself to a great extent with the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. I think it was a wise and statesmanlike speech. The only risk is that, in the minds of the Irish tenants, there may be the idea that this Bill, as regards the land of Ireland as a whole, will come into something like immediate operation. I trust that no disappointment will be engendered by that idea. This question must take time. A system which it has taken 700 years to create will not be destroyed in a moment. However, I congratulate the House and ourselves that we have seen the reign of oppression passing before our eyes.
  MR. LEAMY: There are two points on which I wish to say a word—viz., the Congested Districts Board and the labourers. The hon. Member for South Tyrone said that this Bill was accomplishing a revolution. Yes, it is undoing to a large extent the evils of past confiscation in Ireland, and, that being so, I think it is to be regretted that the province which offered refuge to men of the old race and creed of all the other provinces, is the one least likely to benefit by this Bill. The Congested Districts Board has done good work, and it will certainly do

  1371
  better work in the future, but the Connaught problem cannot be dealt with by the Board with its present powers. That problem is a part of the great land question, but it requires special treatment. It was described in a sentence a few years ago by the present Archbishop of Tuam, when he said that in certain districts there were tracts of territory, which, if broken up into tillage, would produce enough to feed the entire peasant population of Connaught. As long as that is the case, as long as that vast territory is given over to cattle and sheep, so long you will have agrarian trouble in Ireland, and it will be impossible to say that peace reigns. I hope, therefore, the Chief Secretary will be able to give us a further measure dealing with this question. Connaught may be sure that the other provinces will stand by her. It would be a cruel and ungenerous thing if they did not. It was in Connaught the land agitation sprang up. The land war began and has continued in Connaught, and the other provinces will never forget what they owe to her. With regard to the labourers' question, I think, on the whole, it is better to have the promise of the Chief Secretary than to attempt merely to tinker with the question by some trifling Amendments in the present Bill. We have seen what the Chief Secretary is capable of doing; we recognise his sincerity and ability; and we admit that this Bill is a great attempt to settle a very difficult question. That being so, I think we can have full confidence that the Bill he has promised will not be a peddling measure, but an honest attempt to deal with what also is a very great question. It is in the interests of the entire community that the question should be thoroughly dealt with. The labourers are being driven from the country, and they can only be kept at home by inducements which they have not hitherto received. Everybody who has been associated with the land war for the last twenty years knows how loyally the labourers have stood by the farmers They were the backbone of the agitation, and I hope the result of this promise will be a measure which will satisfy the cravings of the Irish labourer to have a decent home and a plot of
  1372
  land on which he can live with credit and honour in his own country.
  MR. NORMAN: I think it peculiarly appropriate, even in the eleventh hour, that a small expression of regret should come from these Benches. The Prime Minister said that, although he hoped this Bill would go along way towards settling the agrarian question in Ireland, he fully realised that what he called the political question would still remain. I was much struck with that remark, because for many years past we have been told by the Party opposite that once the agrarian question was settled the political question would be settled. Everybody on this side of the House, I think, agrees with the Prime Minister that the political question will not be settled by this Bill, and it is on that point that my little protest arises. The Bill as originally presented to the Cabinet, if we are well informed, would have gone a long way towards settling this agrarian question in Ireland. It was drafted by a distinguished administrator, I suppose one might safely say with that purpose largely in his mind, but unfortunately his advice was not taken. Perhaps, to avoid misconception, I ought to say that in referring to Sir A. Macdonnell, I do so entirely without his knowledge; I do not know him in any way; I have never seen him; I have never had any communication, directly or indirectly, with him, except that he once wrote me a letter protesting against my having mentioned his name in print as the technical author of this Bill. I believe it is a fact that the Bill as orginally presented to the Cabinet went a considerable distance towards giving Irish local authorities the powers which many of us on these Benches had for a long time desired to give them. The Bill—I am open to correction, of course—placed at the disposal of the Irish local authorities a very large sum of money—more than this grant of £12,000,000—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  MR. NORMAN: I may be mis-stating the form of words, but my point is—though, of course, I have not seen the Bill as originally drafted—that there were considerable powers given to the Irish local authorities in connection with

  1373
  finance, and it was in consequence of that that there were determined cries of alarm about Home Rule raised which were immediately repudiated on behalf of the Government, My regret is that from the Bill as it reached this House those powers had disappeared.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a great error. He seems to suppose that in one draft of the Bill as presented to the Cabinet there was some element of provincial government approaching to Home Rule. There was nothing of the kind contemplated at any stage of the Bill.
  MR. NORMAN: I cannot have made myself at all clear. I had nothing like provincial Home Rule in my mind. What I tried to say, and what is in my mind, is that certain powers were given to Irish local authorities which do not appear in the Bill as it is about to pass this House. I have been a believer in the principle of land purchase for a much longer period than His Majesty's Government; I supported this Bill on its First and Second Readings, and if there were a division now I should support it again, because I believe it will remove many great and grievous evils in Ireland. But I do not believe it will settle anything except the affairs of those landlords and tenants who come immediately under its operation. The other and greater question remains, and the germ of the solution of that greater question, which I believe was to be found in the original Bill—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, it was not. I give that statement specific contradiction.
  MR. NORMAN: Well then, the germ of the settlement of that greater question could perfectly well have been put in this Bill. If that had been done, the scope of the measure would have been infinitely greater, and it would have been much more heartily welcomed and enthusiastically supported by the friends of Ireland on this side of the House, among whom I hope I may be counted. That not having been done now, it will
  1374
  have to be done at some future time, and my expression of regret is that so splendid an opportunity has been lost.
  MR. LOUGH: As one who is deeply interested in Ireland, I desire to express my sense of the great value of the Bill as it now stands. It is not sufficiently remembered on this side of the House that, to the Prime Minister's credit, this is the last of a series of great measures—the Land Bill of 1896, the Local Government Act of 1898, the Technical Instruction and Agricultural Board Act of 1899, and the present Bill. This Bill goes a great deal farther than any previous measure of its kind. I think a word of praise is also due to the Opposition. The present situation has been described as a peaceful, bloodless revolution, but the absence of blood is accounted for by the fact that the Opposition supported the Government very loyally, and strained a good deal in supporting this Bill. I do not think the attitude of the Opposition ought to be forgotten. The Leader of the Opposition has adopted a very good example with regard to these deflates, and I am sure we must all be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick for the excellent speeches they made upon this Bill. A new feature has been illustrated by the passage of this Bill, and it is that the two great political Parties have ceased to make Ireland the battleground for their political differences. We have had no obstruction on the part of the Opposition; on the contrary, every Member of it has tried to help the Government, although some of us think this Bill is far from perfect. That memory makes me recall the fact that Liberal Governments were not helped in the same way when they tried to pass remedial measures for Ireland, and in particular a measure like this. Seventeen years ago a Bill containing the same principle was introduced by Mr. Gladstone, and if the Opposition had then given the same support as that which has been extended to this Bill seventeen years of suffering in Ireland would have been saved, and the landlords would have got just the same price for their land. Those seventeen years have seen 700,000 people driven out of Ireland, and all this

  1375
  Bill can do will not be able to recall those people. After one hundred years of misgovernment and maltreatment another spirit has intervened, and the Opposition have learned something of their responsibility as well as the Government. Whenever the Irish Party take charge of a matter like this they do it in a picturesque way, and it is remarkable that during the Committee stage of this Bill very few divisions have taken place. I think we might take a lesson from the Irish Members in this respect, and if we divide less and debate more it would be much better. What is the good of the physical labour of walking through the division lobby? By devoting themselves to an intelligent discussion of this question the Irish representatives have set British Members an example which I hope will not be entirely thrown away.
  With regard to all that has been said about the British taxpayer, I regard that as something that we might have expected, but as something which we could have done just as well without. For many years the British taxpayer has dominated the whole situation with regard to Ireland, but after learning lessons from history a change has come over the House of Commons, and hon. Members have now been persuaded that the British Government financially have been
  very unjust to Ireland in the past. At the same time this country has not ceased to make exactions from Ireland. A great deal has been said about this £12,000,000 dealt with in this Bill, but the taxes of Ireland have been increased so much of late years that this sum might very well be forgotten. There is now a disposition to do something for Ireland besides exacting taxation from that country. I am aware that the Bill itself will not cure all the evils of Ireland. It will be very slow in its operation. I claim that it is the Irish Members who have managed this Bill and carried it to a successful conclusion, and if all the great affairs of the country are dealt with in the same way, and if both Parties will observe the same reticence, then we shall be able to restore prosperity to Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have a Command from the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty having been informed of the purport of this Bill, places his interest at the disposal of Parliament.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 317; Noes, 20. Division List No. 175.)

  AYES.

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

  Burt, Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Butcher, John George

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Caldwell, James

  Crombie, John William

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Cameron, Robert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Asher, Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.

  Cullinan, J.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Delany, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Denny, Colonel

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

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

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Chapman, Edward

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Charrington, Spencer

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

  Dillon, John

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Bill, Charles

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Doogan, P. C.

  Blake, Edward

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Doughty, George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Bull, William James

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Langley, Batty

  Purvis, Robert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

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

  Reddy, M.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

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

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Field, William

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Renwick, George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Levy, Maurice

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rigg, Richard

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Lundon, W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Garfit, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Russell, T. W.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin and N'rn

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Martin, Richand Biddulph

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Milvain, Thomas

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Seton-Karr. Sir Henry

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Mooney, John J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Hain, Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Mowbray, Sir Robert. Gray C.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murphy, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'ndn'de'ry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hammond, John

  Myers, William Henry

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Harwood, George

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

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

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

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Norman, Henry

  Spear John Ward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  O'Brien. William (Cork)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Helder, Augustus

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset, E.

  O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)

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

  Horner, Frederick William

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  O'Malley, William

  Tomkinson, James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Mara, James

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Toulmin, George

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  O'Shee, James John

  Ure, Alexander

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Joyce, Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wagon, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Percy, Earl

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Kerr, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  1378

  1379

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sir Alexander Acland-

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

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Young, Samuel

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Lambert, George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, Chas. H. (Hull, W.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Gretton, John

  Philipps, John Wynford

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Cremer and Mr.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Pirie.

  MILITARY WORKS (CONSOLIDATED FUND.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said the Committee would recollect that for many years past it had been a principle accepted by both parties that defence works on a large scale and permanent buildings should be erected by loan, and should not be made a charge on the annual Votes. That was a decision due to the deliberations of a special Committee appointed by this House in 1887, of which Lord Randolph Churchill was chairman. The Committee was appointed solely for economical reasons, and, after a careful review of the whole situation, it came to the conclusion that the barracks required under schemes of reconstruction, and our coaling stations abroad could not be kept in a proper state if the sums expended were made dependent on the sums voted to the 31st March each year. For that reason it had been customary to vote sums by loan, so that a definite programme should be placed before Parliament. Bills for this purpose had been introduced in 1897, 1899, and 1901, and the Government were forced to bring in one this year. Two principles had been adopted in regard to them. The first was that no buildings and no works should be commenced in excess of the money voted by Parliament under the loan—that was to say, they were not justified in beginning large works and
  1380
  spending £20,000 if they were to cost £100,000 simply because they had £20,000 in hand. They had not to undertake anything beyond the exact sum of money given to them in the Bill. The second principle was that no more money should be asked in any one Bill than it was believed could be expended, or contracted to be expended, in the next two years. They were well aware that the sums asked in 1897, 1899, and 1901 could not possibly complete the housing of the troops in barracks. The object of the second principle was that, instead of coming forward and asking for one large sum, which, once voted, would enable them to escape entirely from the purview of Parliament, they should come every two or three years, so that Parliament, if it wished, could go into questions and consider whether any change had occurred which rendered it desirable to alter the programme formerly submitted. Under the Bill of 1897 the sum asked was £5,458,000; in 1899 £4,000,000 was asked; and in 1901 £6,352,000 was asked. The sum asked at present was £5,000,000. There was no change of principle in any direction in asking for this money. In the first place it was to be devoted to the completion of defence works, the principle of which had already been agreed to by Parliament; secondly, to the completion of the housing of troops voted by Parliament, but for whom barracks did not at present exist; and thirdly, to the providing of a sum for the hutting of the force in South Africa, which had to be commenced at the beginning of this year and which would require to be completed, as the troops had been under canvas for over three years.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: How many men?
  MR. BRODRICK: For 25,000 men in all, less the barrack accommodation already existing. They would find it desirable to get rid of some of the existing barracks, and to erect huts for the troops in more healthy situations. In that way any balance which might arise from the sale of the barracks would be taken as an appropriation in aid.
  MR. WHITLEY: Will the huts last thirty years?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes. The huts which were erected in the Crimea lasted for twelve or fourteen years, and some nearly twenty years. They were of a very different character from the huts now being erected in South Africa, which were superior, and which there was no doubt would last considerably longer than the Crimean barracks. There was a third head on which they had to ask for money. The Committee would recollect that three years ago a Committee sat under Sir Francis Mowatt which recommended a very large addition to stores in reserve. That addition would practically be accomplished at the end of the present year. With the exception of about £250,000, the whole sum of £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 would have been spent. It was obvious, therefore, that a certain increase in store house accommodation would be required. Then there was the question of training grounds and rifle ranges. The Committee had never grudged money for either rifle ranges or training grounds, and the sum of £700,000 was included in the loan for these purposes. He had no doubt that the great anxiety of members of the Committee would be to know to what extent there might be any finality to these demands. The demand must be biennial or triennial until the construction of barracks was completed. They asked on this occasion for sufficient to complete what was necessary for the combatant unit, allowing, of course, for the fact that whatever was spent on hutments in South Africa would have had to be spent in permanent barracks in this country. There would remain, and must
  1382
  remain, the question of housing certain departmental troops and accessories which could not be completed by any contract now made. They were taking a sum which they believed could be fairly allotted during the period of the Bill, and they were only taking what would suffice to house the cavalry and artillery actually in existence. The loan did not provide for any fresh infantry barracks beyond those for which provision was now made as having been allotted to the South African force. The same principle obtained and would obtain under this Bill as obtained under previous Bills. The whole sum was repayable by annuities over thirty years, so that already the annual Estimates were bearing a heavy charge, and would bear a heavier charge for the interest and repayment of this loan. Thus they would not be putting on posterity the charge for erecting these barracks, which he hoped would last four or five times the period occupied in the repayment of the loan. It was clearly stated by his noble friend in 1901 that the amount then taken for barrack accommodation was less than half the amount that would be needed, which it was felt the House would gladly grant for those new barracks required solely to house the troops which had already been voted by Parliament. He did not know that he need go in to detail at this stage. The only question before them was whether by Resolution the Government should be empowered out of the Consolidated Fund to issue the sum necessary to continue the work to which they were already committed by Parliamentary sanction, and to complete the housing of troops whose raising they had already been allowed to carry out and who were on the Estimates for the current year. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to make further provisions for defraying the expenses of certain military works and other military services, and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding £5,000,000, as may be required for those purposes, and to make provision for raising, in the manner provided by Section 2 of the Military Works Act, 1897, the sums so issued by terminable annuities for a

  1383
  period not exceeding thirty years from the date of borrowing."—(Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the Secretary of State for War had stated that there was no change of principle in this Bill. That in a particular sense was true, but in reality there was a new departure in respect of the sanction which would be given by it to the South African scheme, because power was taken in the Bill to hut a far larger number of troops than was thought necessary in February, half of whom were intended for other than South African needs. While he thought he should not be in order in discussing the difficulties which some of them had in regard to the recruiting and reserves of the force, he thought he should be in order in considering the principle, which some of them thought a heresy, of tying up a portion of the British Army to a particular need as regards war. He submitted that he should be in order in discussing the localisation of troops provided for under the Resolution.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that the right hon. Gentleman would be in order in discussing the localisation of troops on the Second Reading of the Bill; but, technically, localisation was not before them in the Resolution now being considered by the Committee.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he would only make one remark, and that was, if there was any possibility or probability in a sudden strain or pinch of the Empire of these troops being required in South Africa they would not be available for India.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he believed it would be in order on the Resolution to discuss the localisation of troops involved in the expenditure for the erection of huts in South Africa. He would point out that unless the Committee took that opportunity of discussing the matter they might find it closured on the Second Reading of the Bill. He rose mainly, however, in order to deal with the financial aspects of the proposal before the Committee. For some reason which he could not under-
  1384
  stand the Secretary of State for War had shown himself less liberal than the First Lord of the Admiralty in telling the Committee what he wanted to take this money for. He submitted that the right hon. Gentleman had treated the House unfairly in bringing forward a demand for £5,000,000, which might have been £10,000,000, without giving them an opportunity of adequately considering the matter before they were called upon to discuss it. The right hon. Gentleman talked of £5,000,000 as if it were twopence-halfpenny. It was an immense sum, and the Committee should remember that it was in addition to other immense sums which had been already asked for in the same way, which he believed to be unconstitutional. This was part of the £20,800,000 which had been asked for in the course of six years, not one halfpenny of which had been properly put, as it should have been put, on the yearly Estimates. The demands of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of this £5,000,000 ought to be put into the yearly Estimates, and he should come to the House not every two or three years but every year for what he wanted. There was one item the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned as forming part of the objects for expenditure for which he sought the authorisation of the Committee—viz., the reserve of stores. Would the right hon. Gentleman say what portion of the £5,000,000 that would stand for?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid it was not for stores, but for storehouses.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid there was another point. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, in effect, that not only would this £5,000,000 be applied to hutting soldiers in South Africa, but that in case he sold these barracks for money, he would apply the money as an appropriation-in-aid to the diminution of sums already expended. If so, he thought that would require a special clause in the Bill. There was no general power in the Treasury to use these sums raised by loan as appropriations-in-aid. The point was very important, because, in addition to the

  1385
  £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman was going to spend, he might get another £1,000,000 from the sale of the barracks, which would make £6,000,000 in all. Returning to the general financial considerations that applied to these matters, he objected that both the Act of last year authorising the issue of £8,500,000, and the present Bill authorising the issue of another £5,000,000, were improper measures. They were most disastrous to sound finance, because both the £8,500,000 and the £5,000,000 disappeared from the Estimates, and were not subject to examination and cross-examination on the merits of the expenditure, it was not the same thing as having the items in an Estimate before the House, and being able to move the omission of any one of them. Once the House had passed this Bill the matter had gone out of their hands, and the items had passed entirely away from them. In his opinion it was a most improper way for any Government to obtain money, to come down and ask the House in advance to vote sums like this. It was a modern and inconvenient practice. When it was first introduced, the House was told it was for once, and once only, but it had continued from year to year, and he certainly was not surprised to hear his right hon. friend say that he would come again next year to the House with another Loan Bill.
  MR. BRODRICK: If I am at the War Office.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would not suggest for a moment that his right hon. friend would be at the War Office, but either he or some other right hon. Gentleman would come down to the House with another Loan Bill. Among all the liabilities placed upon this country, properly or improperly, this seemed to him to be the most irregular and inconvenient, but when they had regard to the way in which millions were flung about and liabilities were assumed, he could only say that he should be sorry for the person who held the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer three or four years hence. He was exceedingly doubtful whether he ought to vote in favour of the demand for another £5,000,000. What proportion of that £5,000,000 was represented
  1386
  by hutments he did not know, but it looked to him as if a most important new departure was being made, and he could only protest against such a dangerous departure.
  MR. BLACKsaid in the matter arising in regard to the hutments in South Afrca it was important to know to whom these hutments were to belong—whether they were to belong to the War Office and the Imperial Office, or to the Colonial Government of the country in which they were situated. If to the Colonial Government, it was quite clear it was out of the question to ask this country to borrow money to pay for them. They should form a charge on the Government to whom they belonged; but assuming that the War Office took them, surely they must be part of the expense of the Army of occupation in South Africa. Therefore in this Loan Bill they had a most important principle and one which deeply affected all South African questions. Were the South African colonies, or were they not, to bear the cost of the Army of occupation, and, if not, what reason was there for their not doing so? India paid the whole cost of the troops in India, and why should this distinction be drawn?
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLthought the Committee would not wish to prolong the discussion unduly on the details of the Resolution which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced but he would point out that if this discussion were to be allowed to terminate within a reasonable time it must be on the understanding that a good opportunity of discussing, in all its bearings, the measure to be founded on this Resolution would be given. They had not merely to consider financial methods, but the methods of building the hutments. Were they to be built by the Royal Engineers or by civilian contractors? He had no confidence in barracks built by Royal Engineers; they were very good, perhaps, to build pontoon bridges when required, or patch up anything in the field, but there was no one less qualified to put up permanent buildings. A large part of the manoœuvring area of Salisbury Plain had been covered with acres of brickwork three

  1387
  or four courses high until it looked more like the ruins of an ancient city than the foundations of a new town.
  MR. BRODRICKinterrupted to say that the opportunity for discussion for which he was asked would be given on Friday, when it was proposed to take the Second Reading of the Bill as the first Order.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLwas glad to hear this, for the whole question of barrack building in South Africa would be discussed with great interest. The size of the barracks was involved in the size of the Army, and the position of the new barracks was involved in the system of Army organisation. They shrank from embodying in bricks and mortar proposals which had not hitherto escaped from criticism. He hoped his right hon. friend would be able to tell the House how he had modified the barrack scheme, which this money was asked for to carry out, in view of the change of policy at the War Office. It was quite certain if larger garrisons were sent to South Africa so much barrack accommodation would not be wanted in England, and there would be economy there which would to a large extent pay for the barracks in South Africa. With regard to recruiting, the recruits for the Army this year were 6,000 less than last. Recruiting at present was below the requirements of the Secretary for War. If we were not going to have the men, was it worth while to build for them? Specific pledges had been given as to a reduction of the Army when the Reserve was completed. The bearing of these pledges on the barrack accommodation to be provided in South Africa had to be considered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised a reduction in military expenditure. That could only be effected by reducing the size of the Army; and there was a general consensus of opinion in favour of such a step. He should also like to point out it was quite possible that military questions might be reconsidered from a totally different standpoint by another Government in the near future; and he objected to the nation being committed to an expensive policy of bricks and mortar, which in a few years might not square with the views of the Government of the time.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid there were two or three points to which the House should have an answer before going further. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham in what he had said, and felt quite certain the country would not stand the enormous military expenditure that was now going on, and would demand that it should be reduced. There was one point in connection with South African huts. As he understood, no new infantry barracks in England were to be built, that battalions would be sent out to South Africa, and that there would be large depôts in England for the battalions that were being sent abroad. Where were those large depôts to be? If it was the case that some of the depôts were too large already, that would be a partial answer to his question. But there were very few such depôts, and he thought it would be found that a considerable outlay would have to be made under this scheme. He was extremely surprised to see the storehouses crop up again, because he thought that two years ago not only were the storehouses there, but all the stores were collected ready for the mobilisation of any regiment. He hoped there would not be a large expenditure on storehouses. Then with regard to rifle ranges and training grounds, he complained that these two items were lumped together in such a way that no one could see how much was spent on rifle ranges and how much on training grounds. He urged that these items should be separated, and there should be a distinct understanding as to what was being spent on rifle ranges as distinct from training grounds.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that as the Secretary for War had given a pledge that there would be an opportunity afforded on Friday for fully discussing the Bill, he would content himself with asking how much money was to be spent on the hutments in South Africa; how many men and what arms of the service would be accommodated, and where were the hutments to be placed. If the right hon. Gentleman could answer these questions, which were of great interest to military men, now, a great many of the Committee would be grateful and the discussion on Friday would be much expedited.
  MR. LOUGHsaid his experience was that if they did not take the opportunity to raise questions at once when Bills of this kind were brought in, the opportunity was never afterwards afforded. It had been stated that the Bill involved no new principle, but the constant coming to the House for loans was in itself a new principle. The situation was becoming very serious. The meaning of the Bill was that £2,500,000 was to be added to the year's Army expenditure of £34,000,000. Of that money a great deal would be used for buildings of a temporary character, which would not last for the thirty years in which the money was to be repaid. That in itself was a new departure in our system. When were these Loan Bills to end? During the past six years four of these Bills had been introduced, involving an expenditure of £20,000,000. What was the total amount required? Was it to be £50,000,000 or £100,000,000? Surely the War Office ought to be able to say—"Give us so many millions and we will be done with it." What was the use of going on with these building programmes with money so freely voted by this House? He thought now was a good time to say "We will not sanction the present demand of the Government without we are told what the total amount of that expenditure will be."
  MR. BRODRICKinterposed to say that unless the Resolution were agreed to it would be difficult to carry out his promise to put down the Bill on Friday.
  MR. LOUGHsaid a Resolution of this importance should not be rushed through in that fashion. Besides, the Prime Minister had stated that the South African Loan Bill would be the first order on Friday.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again his evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  MILITARY WORKS (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to make further provisions for defraying the expenses of certain Military Works and other Military Services, and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding £5,000,000, as may be required for those purposes, and to make provision for raising, in the manner provided by Section 2 of The Military Works Act, 1897, the sums so issued by terminable Annuities for a period not exceeding thirty years from the date of borrowing."—(Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)
  MR. O'MARAsaid that last year he and his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo strongly opposed this method of providing for expenditure, which went on increasing in amount; and he thought the Committee ought to be given some explanation of the increases which were being constantly asked for. The Secretary of State for War ought to inform the Committee what precisely he was asking them to commit themselves to. When the last Bill was passed, he thought they were approaching the end of such measures. He was aware that part of the money was to be employed on permanent works, but he could not feel justified in permitting that stage to pass without entering a protest. If they passed the Bill now they would be committing themselves to an expenditure of £5,000,000; and there would be no opportunity of again criticising it once the Bill was passed. This method of raising money was first introduced at the time of Lord Palmerston. Mr. Gladstone was, however, thoroughly opposed to it. It was not until after he had retired that the system was reintroduced; and since then between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 had been spent on works of a semipermanent character. Indeed, in many cases the payments would continue long after the works themselves had ceased to

  1391
  be of any use. No such measure had ever been introduced without a protest from the Irish Members, and he, therefore, would protest against it.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that this Resolution was a proper opportunity for criticising the financial aspect of the proposals of the Government as distinct from questions of policy. When the Resolution was once embodied in the Bill they would be somewhat severely restricted in their discussions. There were three financial points to which the attention of the Committee ought to be drawn before the Resolution was passed. The first was the method of proceeding by loan. They were getting pretty far advanced in this series of naval and military works loans, which were introduced every alternate year; and it certainly looked as if it were now to be considered an established practice that large sums, amounting to many millions of money, should be raised by loan instead of being put on the ordinary Estimates. As things went on now, it was pretty clear that when one of these loans was up in thirty years, they would still have to continue to introduce Bills of this nature, and to pile up debt in this manner. For several years Parliament had been asked to vote sums of between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 in this way; but it would be much more satisfactory if these items were taken out of the revenues for the year instead of being raised by loan. By this method the taxpayer was asked to pay the amount twice over, because the interest for thirty years, apart from the sinking fund, would represent the original amount. In this connection they ought to examine most carefully the nature of the works for which the money was to be borrowed. They were told that a considerable part of it would be spent for building huts for the troops in South Africa. The Secretary of State did not indicate the nature of the huts; but he took it that they were to be tin and timber structures, such as they were well acquainted with in South Africa. He thought, if they were to be substantial buildings, that the right hon. Gentleman would not have used the word "huts" to describe them. At home the Local Government Board
  1392
  refused to allow municipal authorities to borrow money for putting up such buildings. They had to be paid for out of revenue. That being so, it was rather remarkable that the Government should ask the Committee to include buildings of this nature in a Bill which was to run for a period of thirty years. The Secretary of State said that certain huts which had been built in the Crimea during the war were still in existence; but he doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman would claim them as a national asset. The purpose for which they were erected had disappeared; and to represent them as a national asset would be an absurd idea. Another question arose in connection with these huts in South Africa. They were given to understand that at the earliest possible moment self-government would be given to the new colonies. Supposing in five years the colonies were given self-government, how would the Home Government then stand, having borrowed money on a thirty years term, and spent it on huts which would be handed over to the new Colonial Governments. It appeared to him that such, an item ought not to be included in a Bill of this kind at all. It ought to be paid for out of revenue and not out of capital Further, the right hon. Gentleman did not state the amount which was to be devoted to this purpose. These were matters on which the Committee should have accurate information before they passed the Resolution; and if it were correct that the huts were to be of a tin and timber character, he thought the amount which that item represented should be struck out.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee an assurance that they would be able to discuss this question fully, probably on Friday, when the Bill would be put down as first order. If that were so, it would be a mistake to prolong the discussion now; but before the Resolution was passed he would ask how much of this money was to be annexed for Africa. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman could state exactly what was the African proportion of the expenditure.
  MR. GRETTONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman stated

  1393
  that a certain portion of this money was to be spent on defensive works. That opened up very large and important questions, which in the past occasioned a considerable amount of friction. He wished to know what proportion of this Vote was to be devoted to the purposes of defensive works.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished to support the request of his hon. friend for some information as to the proportion of this Vote to be spent in South Africa. It was a very serious matter the way in which the expenditure of the country was growing by means of these extraordinary measures. They were quite a new development. When he first came to the House he did not think there were any Bills of this character; but now they were following the example of Germany and raising by loan money which really ought to be part of the current expenditure of the year. By that means they were deluding people into the belief that the expenditure of the country was not what it was. If his hon. friends would follow the Naval and Military Works Bills they would find they were practically in the nature of national expenditure, though they resolved themselves in this way into an addition to the capital expenditure of the country. These Bills were expedients which had been adopted also in France and Germany, in order to hide the real character of military expenditure from the people; and they would grow until the amount involved would assume very large proportions. Last year, another Bill was brought in called an appropriation in aid, a sort of financial jugglery to hide from the country what had been spent. Very few people had any idea of how much was being spent on the Army and Navy. Part of this expenditure was for the colonies; and when this country was called upon to spend £5,000,000 this year, £7,000,000 last year, and similar sums, he thought it was about time that the colonies contributed towards such expenditure.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he would answer the one or two specific questions which had been put to him. His hon. friend asked him a question as to defensive works. The defensive works were a continuation of the works already sanctioned by Parliament, such as the provision of guns for coaling stations and
  1394
  commercial ports. With regard to the huts to be erected in South Africa, of the £3,575,000 to be taken for barracks, £2,250,000 would be spent on huts in South Africa; but from that there must be deducted the sale of certain barracks to which he had alluded. He could not state the exact amount of the expenditure; but, roughly speaking it would be under £2,000,000, and it was anticipated that that would provide the complete accommodation necessary for the troops which it was proposed to retain in South Africa. The troops in South Africa had to have a roof over their heads. If it was proposed to reduce the force to be retained in South Africa from 30,000 men to 15,000, then no doubt this expenditure could be avoided; but if it was intended to keep the troops at their present strength in South Africa, even, for the sake of argument, for a year or two, it would be necessary to put a roof over their heads. They could not keep troops under canvas for five years together.
  MR. WHITLEYasked were the huts to be timber buildings.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,said that the buildings were to be of iron and timber, of the kind used in South Africa by the civil population.
  MR. BLACKasked to whom they were to belong.
  LORD STANLEY: To the English Government.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that the Committee must have heard with surprise the large amount of the Vote which was to be set aside for South Africa. No one supposed it would be so large; and no case had been made out for it. As a protest he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000,000.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£5,000,000,' and insert '£4,000,1100."'—(Mr. Dalziel.)
  Question proposed, "That '£5,000,000' stand part of the Question."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he thought his hon. friend was fully justified in the action he had taken. It had now become practically part of their regular financial procedure that large sums of money were to be borrowed year by year for expenditure, which in past years was invariably borne on the Estimates. In connection with the expenditure for barrack accommodation in South Africa it should be remembered that there was a very large increase put on the Estimates for barrack accommodation to meet the requirements of the garrison sent to South Africa. He certainly should support his hon. friend. In the Military Works Act of 1901 there was a sub-head "Barracks for foreign stations," but the total amount asked for was only £500,000, whereas now the Committee were to be asked to vote no less than £2,000,000 for the barrack accommodation and the hutting of this permanent force in South Africa. It was one of the incidental charges of the new policy of the Government, and he should certainly oppose the proposal permanently to station 25,000 men in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman had given no explanation whatever of why, having in March last estimated 15,000 as the proper number for the permanent garrison, he had now altered the number to 25,000. Until adequate reasons had been given he should strongly oppose the new policy.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that on Thursday last he carefully stated the grounds on which these proposals were made. There was no question in the mind of the War Office of having more than 15,000 men as the permanent force in South Africa until the Defence Committee recommended, for the benefit of India, that a certain force should be kept permanently in South Africa for the reinforcement of India, a duty which had been admitted by successive Governments in India, but for which provision could only have been made hitherto in this country under difficulties which in certain eventualities might have proved insuperable. That was a strong reason for this addition to the force. Moreover, it would be unfair to charge the force in South Africa with the increased expenditure laid before the Committee for
  1396
  huts. Troops, if they existed at all, must be housed. The hon. Member seemed to have forgotten that during the last six years an addition of nearly 60,000 men had been made to the establishment of the Army, and that it would have been impossible to provide in previous Bills for the barrack accommodation of those men in this country. The works could not be carried out within the time for which the Bills were intended to run. The hon. Member might rest assured that nothing would be spent in South Africa on works which would be duplicated here. The Committee would recollect that under great pressure from Parliament, and from a sense of our inferiority in the matter of artillery, sixty or seventy batteries were added during the war, and, up to the present, accommodation for those batteries had been made only on Salisbury Plain by huts there erected. It was absolutely necessary, whether in this country or in South Africa, that provision for the accommodation of those batteries should be made, and huts could be erected in South Africa at a more reasonable cost than the permanent accommodation in this country.
  MR. FULLERasked whether he understood correctly that so far as money was spent on huts in South Africa so far there would be a reduction in the amount spent on Salisbury Plain and elsewhere in this country.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that was so. The hon. Member would easily understand that if the War Office attempted to build for 50,000 troops in this country eight or ten years would be necessary for the work, and a much larger sum would have to be asked for for its completion. A portion of the charge was asked for South Africa, and proportionately the charge in this country was reduced.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANdesired to say a word in strong support of the Amendment. It was necessary that the House of Commons should put its foot down on such an occasion as a protest against the rate at which military expenditure was growing. The right

  1397
  hon. Gentleman no doubt could advance very plausible reasons for this great expenditure; but the country saw, and it ought to be the duty of the House of Commons to see, that a stop must be put to the growth of military expenditure. The revenue would be unequal to the burden if this expenditure was not cheeked, and the House of Commons must show by its action and vote that it was in earnest, even if that involved a reduction of the number of men. That really was at the bottom of the whole question, and the country must be left in no doubt as to the determination of Parliament in this respect.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsubmitted that this was not the time for the House of Commons to put its foot
  down. He felt as strongly as anybody the necessity for the reduction of wasteful expenditure, but the question must be approached in a business-like spirit. Whatever was proved to be necessary he was prepared to vote for, but he was not prepared to support expenditure of which no explanation or justification was given. This question ought to be discussed when the Committee had the full facts before it; when that time came he would be prepared impartially to consider the matter, but in the meantime he thought the present stage was hardly the opportunity for the discussion of details.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 68. (Division list No 176.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Auson, Sir William Reynell

  Garfit, William

  Reshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Renwick, George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elginand Nairn

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

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

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Goulding Edward Alfred

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gretton, John

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Balcarres, Lord

  Groves, James Grimble

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Heath, James (Staffs, N. W.)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Helder, Augustus

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bigwood, James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sharpe, William Edward T.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Bull, William James

  Kerr, John

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

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Spear, John Ward

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxeth

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

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

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Denny, Colonel

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

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Doughty, George

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Myers, William Henry

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry, Wilson

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Percy, Earl

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flower, Ernest

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Forster, Henry William

  Purvis, Robert

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  NOES.

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc, Stroud

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Brigg, John

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Black, Alexander William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Burt, Thomas

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Tomkinson, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lambert, George

  Toulmin, George

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Crombie, John William

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lundon, W.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Norman, Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Grant, Corrie

  Rickett, J. Compton

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rigg, Richard

  Wilson, John (Durham Mid)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Runciman, Walter

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Shackleton, David James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Mr. Dalziel and Mr.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Buchanan.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  LICENSING ACTS (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Proceedings resumed on Amendment proposed to the Bili—
  "In page 25, lines 28 and 29, to leave out the words; in that part of the premises where exciseable liquor is sold or consumed.'"—(Sir John Leng.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid this provision applied only to that part of the premises where liquor was consumed. Therefore the alterations could only be ordered in that part of the premises where liquor was consumed. That, he considered, was a most unnecessary restriction, because, obviously, sanitary arrangements were required. There were other things as well. If there was a side door or a back door the licensing authority when they came to deal with the structural alterations ought to have the whole of the premises under their jurisdiction, and they should not be limited merely to that part where liquor was sold or consumed.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. BLACKasked how was it possible under the provisions of this clause for the licensing authority to say what part of the premises should be licensed.
  MR. GALLOWAYpointed out that the licence-holder had more than one authority to deal with, for he had to deal not only with the licensing authority but also with the sanitary authority. Some of the licensing authorities, not only in England but in Scotland, had behaved very unreasonably to the licence - holders. [Cries of "Where?"] They had behaved so unreasonably that licence - holders were unable to put their premises in a proper sanitary condition because the licensing authority said they must not do this or that. Hon. Members opposite asked where this took place. He was much too old to quote the names of the places, for if he did they all knew what would happen at the next licensing sessions. He hoped the Lord Advocate would remain firm and not accept this Amendment, which would bring a great deal of trouble to the licence-holder, and would not achieve the object in view.
  *THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,)said an experienced licensing Court would have no difficulty in regulating the part of the premises where liquor was sold, leaving the other part of the premises to be dealt with by the other ordinary sanitary authority.
  Question put.

  The House divided: — Ayes, 135; Noes, 75. (Division List, No. 177.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Reid, James (Greenock

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gretton, John

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Renwick, George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf d

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Helder, Augustus

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers't, E.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, William James

  Johnstone, Heywood

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerr, John

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Chapman, Edward

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Davenport, William Bromley

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Delany, William

  M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Doughty, George

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und, Lyne

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

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

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Wylie, Alexander

  Flower, Ernest

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Forster, Henry William

  Myers, William Henry

  Foster, Philip, S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fyler, John Arthur

  O'Dowd, John

  Mr. Anstruther and Mr.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Fellowes.

  Garfit, William

  Percy, Earl

  NOES

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Asher, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Partington, Oswald

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brigg, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rigg, Richard

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Runciman, Walter

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Burt, Thomas

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lambert, George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Crombie, John William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Toulmin, George

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dunn, Sir William

  Levy, Maurice

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  1402

  1403

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Wason, Eugene (Calkmannan)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mr. Caldwell and Mr.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Black.

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Woodhouse, Sir. J. T. (Hud sfi'ld

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  MR. CALDWELLmoved the Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee. He looked upon this provision as a very unreasonable one. If the licensing authority made any order with reference to structural alterations there was a power of appeal, and therefore the licence holder was sufficiently protected. He thought the period of five years was a very long one, because it would tie the hands of the licensing authority for that period from ordering any small alterations. The result would be that the licensing authorities would be inclined to order larger alterations than they otherwise would, because they would not be able to order any more alterations for a period of five years. Again, by putting in this restriction they practically suggested to the licensing authority that at the end of every five years there should be an overhauling of the premises. He did not think this provision would be to the advantage of the licence holders, and he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 25, line 30, to leave out from the word 'Act,' to the end of line 34."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That, the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he could not accept this Amendment. The House would remember that in the case of a new certificate the licensing Court were absolute masters of the situation, and they could mould the plans as they wished. The argument that the licensing Courts were not always the same persons in his opinion cut the other way. It was because they were not always the same, and because licence-holders should not be subjected to the
  idiosyncrasies of other persons, that this restriction should be allowed. There were many things in which they were allowed to change their mind. It was possible for Mid Lanark to have a new Member at the end of seven years. He could scarcely imagine that such a thing was possible, but if it were it would not be a structural alteration.
  MR. BLACKhoped the Lord Advocate would not put the House to the necessity of going to a division upon this question. If the licensing authority desired to have some further alterations they might say, "Unless you make these alterations you shall not have your licence." Surely the right hon. Gentleman had confidence in his own licensing authority.
  MR. GROVESurged the Lord Advocate not to accept this Amendment.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIGsaid this was one of the restrictive clauses which the Lord Advocate had introduced into the measure. The right hon. Gentleman had not made out a case for the rejection of the Amendment. In his experience as a justice of peace, he had never heard that it was a grievance that the licensing anthority should, on an application for renewal, have power to inspect the premises, and if necessary order structural alterations. The proposal in the Bill was certainly a retrograde step. It was really tying the hands of the licensing authority in such a way as had never been done before. He really thought that the Lord Advocate, as a Scotch representative, should have a higher opinion of the Scotch licensing authorities. He sincerely hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 85. (Division List, No. 178.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Renwick, George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bigwood, James

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Helder, Augustus

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. H. (Som'rs't, E.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bull, William James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Butcher, John George

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Charrington Spencer

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Kerr, John

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Lawson, John Grant (York, N. R.

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

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Spear, John Ward

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Leveson-Gower Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Davenport, William Bromley-

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

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Denny, Colonel

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Doughty, George

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Milvain, Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund, Lyne

  Forster, Henry William

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Myers, William Henry

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Garfit, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  NOES.

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lambert, George

  Asher, Alexander

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Edwards, Frank

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Black, Alexander William

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Levy, Maurice

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brigg, John

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Burt, Thomas

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Norman, Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Partington, Oswald

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rigg, Richard

  Crombie, John William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Crooks, William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Runciman, Walter

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  1406

  1407

  Shackleton, David James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mr. Eugene Wason and

  Tomkinson, James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mr. Hunter Craig.

  Toulmin, George

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 26, line 19, to leave out the word 'licence.'—(Mr. Shaw-Stewart.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 26, line 19, after the word 'holder,' to insert the words 'of any form of certificate.'"—(Mr. Shaw-Stewart.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 27, to leave out Clause 45."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he would not move the following Amendment, of which he had given notice.
  "In page 29, line 5, after the word 'than,' to insert the word 'half.'"—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he would move the Amendment standing in the hon. Member's name. The law in Scotland for the last seventy-five years had been that any quantity of spirituous liquor, more than half a pint, must be sold by Imperial standard measure. What the Bill proposed was to alter that law in order that what was known in Scotland as a "schooner"—a quantity between a half and a whole pint—might be legalised, the Court of Session having by a unanimous decision declared that it was an illegal standard of measurement, which could not be sold. The law in Scotland in regard to this matter was the same as the law in England and Ireland, and therefore he thought the House should have some explanation why it was proposed to make a change of this kind. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 29, line 5, after the word 'than' to insert the word 'half.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'half' be there inserted in the Bill."
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYhoped the House would re-affirm the decision of the Committee. The hon. Member had stated what had been the law of Scotland for seventy-five years, but it was only found out to be the law of Scotland last summer, when, by a decision of the Court, it was declared that not only a "schooner" but an ordinary pint bottle was illegal. Therefore it was absolutely necessary to bring in a clause in order to save the "schooner." Why should the hon. Member for Mid Lanark desire to sink the "schooner," which, as a matter of fact, was a charming beer measure. From the temperance point of view it was better to allow people to have two-thirds of a pint, because if they had to choose between a half and a whole pint, they would probably select the larger measure.
  *MR. JOHN WILSONsaid, being connected with a shipping community, he wished to support the "schooner."
  Question put, and negatived.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the series of Amendments standing next in his name on the Paper were rendered necessary by the fact that the Summary Procedure Act was passed long after the Home Drummond Act. They were really no more than drafting Amendments. The reason why they were not made in the Consolidation Bill was because he gave a personal undertaking to the Committee upstairs that the Bill as produced was really no more than, if he might so express it, the putting together of the various Acts now in operation.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 29, line 22, to leave out from the word 'in' to the word 'within,' in line 23, and insert the words 'default of payment.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 29, line 25, to leave out the word 'of,' and insert the words 'not exceeding.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 29, line 32, to leave out from the word 'in' to the word 'within' in line 33, and insert the words 'default of payment.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 29, line 35, to leave out the words 'of two calendar,' and insert the words 'not exceeding two.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 29, line 41, to leave out from the word 'in' to the word 'within' on page 30, line 1, and insert the words 'default of payment.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 30, line 3, to leave out the words 'of four calendar,' and insert the words 'not exceeding four.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 30, line 7, to leave out from the word 'null' to end of clause.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 33, line 21, to leave out from the word 'therein' to the word 'shall' in line 24."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GRETTONsaid that he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Clause 62, which prohibited the collection of rates and taxes on licensed premises. The Amendment was of some importance in country districts, because in such counties as Argyllshire, Inverness-shire, and Aberdeen, it would be found very inconvenient to prohibit the collection of rates and taxes in the local inn. There was no recommendation
  1410
  in favour of this clause in the Report of the Royal Commission, and, on the other hand, the insertion of such a clause had been opposed by several County Councils and other rating authorities.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 34, to leave out Clause 62."—(Mr. Gretton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'or in line 3, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CROMBIEsaid he hoped the Lord Advocate would stand by this clause, which was carried in the Committee without a division. Why should the rates and taxes be paid in a public house? He could quote a number of English Acts which prevented meetings in public houses. Moreover, Scotch Acts laid down that the schoolrooms should always be open for public purposes.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that in Committee he had expressed himself as unfavourable to the clause, but as he gathered that the sense of the Committee was for it he did not divide against it. The clause was a counsel of perfection, but he did not believe it would have any influence on the cause of temperance at all, while it would cause considerable inconvenience in some country districts. It was not a matter on which he felt strongly, and though personally he would vote for taking the clause out, he would leave the decision of the question to the House.
  *MR. WEIRsaid he had never heard such nonsense as was talked by the mover of the Amendment. (Cries of "Order.")
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a remark that ought not to be applied to any hon. Member.
  *MR. WEIRsaid that the hon. Gentlemen knew absolutely nothing about Argyllshire or Buteshire, or Ross and Cromarty. If he knew these parts of the country he would also know that every schoolhouse was available for the collection of the rates and taxes, and if the schoolhouse was inconvenient every crofter's and fisherman's house would be

  1411
  available for the purpose. He was surprised at the Lord Advocate, who was a Highland Member, saying what he did say, and he trusted that hon. Members would not be led by one who did not know anything about the Highlands.
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he was surprised at the attitude adopted by the Lord Advocate. Anyone acquainted with the habits of the people and the sentiments of the local authorities in Scotland knew that they regarded the collection of rates and taxes in public houses with more than dislike. He was in very close touch with several local authorities, and he had not had a single objection to the clause. Having regard to the large number of public places which could be used in every part of Scotland for the collection of rates, he was strongly of opinion that the clause ought to be retained.
  *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid that his hon. friend who had spoken last represented a populous county, whereas he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) represented a sparsely populated one. He had received very strong representations indeed as to the inconvenience which would be caused in many parts of the south-west of Scotland by this clause if it were retained in the Bill, Whatever might be the case in the Highlands, in some parts of the Lowlands the only place available for the collection of rates and taxes was the inn.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSONsaid he hoped that the House would not be led away by the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Renfrewshire. This was not a large question, but it had really come to the knowledge of the Government that in quite a number of counties this clause would cause the utmost inconvenience. It had been the practice in many counties, such as Argyllshire, to use an inn for the purpose of collecting rates and taxes, and he did not know that any evil results had followed.
  MR. HALDANEsaid two objections had been made to this clause; firstly, that it would cause inconvenience, and secondly, that it cast somewhat of a slur on the owners of licensed premises. Nobody wanted to
  1412
  cast any slur on these persons, but experience showed that when money was taken in considerable amounts into licensed premises, it was spent there. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] The temptation was to spend the money in drink, and that was why the payment of wages in public houses was illegal. He did feel that it would be a retrograde step to reverse the unanimous decision of the Committee and strike out the clause. The Lord Advocate had spoken dubiously about it, although the Solicitor-General supported the deletion of the clause with greater courage. Where was the inconvenience? Every school in every parish in Scotland was available for the collection of rates and taxes, and wherever they went in Scotland, even in the most sparsely-populated districts, they would find either a school or some building which was used for the transaction of public business. Moreover, he knew a great many parishes in Scotland where there was not a single public house. He should extremely regret if the clause were struck out.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he felt greatly disappointed to hear the Lord Advocate lending the weight of his countenance to this clause being excised from the Bill. His Lordship knew as well as he did that the law prohibited the payment of wages in public-houses. He thought the Government would find that in a great many cases the taxes, instead of being paid to the collector, would be melted in the public-house.
  SIR LEWIS MCIVERsaid he admitted that mischief might follow if the collection of rates and taxes in licensed houses were generally practised, but it would only take place in sparsely populated districts, where other convenient buildings were not available. He could speak with authority that the clause would cause inconvenience in his own county (Ross and Cromarty). He ventured to submit that, although the right hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire had spoken of the facilities given for the collection of rates and taxes in schools, it had not been suggested that any wickedness or evil had followed from the practice of paying rates and taxes in the village inn. If they admitted the arguments used in favour of the clause, there was hardly any conceivable ground

  1413
  on which they could not deny the right of going into a place of public entertainment.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that the hon. Baronet had told the Committee truly that this clause would only apply to certain parts of Scotland. What was the case in the hon. Baronet's own county, Ross and Cromarty? In the Island of Lewis, if the rates and taxes were collected in a public house, the people would have often to walk more than forty-five miles.
  SIR LEWIS MCIVERsaid he had never suggested that it should be made compulsory to pay rates and taxes in public-houses.
  MR. DALZIELsaid at the present time accommodation was found for the collection of rates without calling in the public-house or the aid of the publican. Even if a school or a public hall were not available, there was always a private house at which it was generally known the collector would attend. He expressed his extreme surprise that the Lord Advocate, who had been so wise, on the whole, in supporting many important points in Committee, should have, on the slightest suggestion of an English Member, run away from the unanimous decision of the Committee. He thought if ever there was a question which ought to be left to the decision of the Scottish Members it was this. They knew perfectly well that if the Lord Advocate went into a particular lobby it would have an important effect on a large number of hon. Members who had not heard the debate. It was not fair of the Lord Advocate at this stage of the Bill to run away from the decision of the Committee and get out of it by throwing the responsibility upon hon. Members who had not heard the debate. He should prefer that the Lord Advocate should make himself responsible for the clause as it stood in the Bill. The clause was the work of a Committee, practically appointed by the Lord Advocate, and was unanimously adopted by them.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYobserved that he had nothing to do with the appointment of the Committee.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he referred to the form of the Committee. They desired a Scotch Committee, but the Lord Advocate opposed that, and the Committee was formed on the lines he laid down. That Committee had unanimously decided in favour of this clause, and he held that they ought to have had from the Lord Advocate some leading on the question. If the Lord Advocate followed the decision of the Committee he would be acting in consonance with the views of the great majority of Scotch Members.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid the point involved was a very small one. As a Scotchman, having a large acquaintance with Scotch business, he was at a loss to understand why it was thought to be a shocking thing to perform a public act in a licensed house. He had been accustomed all his lite to doing county business, and, as often as not, the bodies of which he was a member had transacted business in a licensed house. What could be more convenient than that they should obtain refreshment and luncheon there? It was altogether surprising to him that some people should look upon a licensed house as an evil per se. He knew something about Scotch opinion, and he could assure the House that it was a great exaggeration and mistake to suppose that Scotchmen thought it shocking to transact business in a licensed house, which was often the most convenient place for that purpose.
  MR. BLACKsaid he would like to know whether the objections to this clause originated with the publicans. They had a very shrewd idea of the source from which the objections came. This was really a question of compelling persons to visit public-houses whether they liked to do so or not, and if a collector elected to collect the rates in public-houses men and ladies would have to go there to pay their rates whether they liked it or not. There were three classes for whom this would not be good. First, there was a large class for whom it was positively dangerous to go into a public-house, because of the temptation they could not withstand; secondly, there were those who had conscientious

  1415
  objections to visiting public-houses because of the pledges they had taken against indulging in intoxicating liquors; and thirdly, there were those, no doubt very weak and foolish, who felt that in the public-house they must do something for the good of the house. There was an opinion prevalent in Scotland that if anybody went into a place of entertainment they must take something. Every hon. Member from Scotland knew that few men who were not teetotallers visited a public house without taking something. He would therefore emphasise the fact that people would be compelled to go to public-houses, and he sincerely hoped that the House would retain the clause as it stood.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSremarked that the House was now asked to reverse the decision of its own Committee, which, having considered the Bill, had arrived at a certain conclusion. The clause was not even challenged by that Committee, and he considered it would be a most unusual and improper course for the House to take if it struck out the clause unless grave cause could be shown for such action. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had spoken about business being conducted in public-houses. He (Mr. Ross) had some experience of that, and he and all who were acquainted with money dealings in country places deplored that such dealings should be conducted in public-houses at all. There was a practice by which a man took something for the good of the house, whether or not he was inclined to do so. What would be the circumstances in which rates would be paid in this case? A crowd of persons would assemble to pay rates. The collector would sit in a public-house, and he could only deal with one at a time, while the others who were waiting their turn would be drinking at the bar. He submitted that it was the duty of the House to endeavour, so far as it could, to put no facilities in the way of men who were disposed to take liquor when they should not do so. It was unreasonable and improper to ask ratepayers to stand about in public-
  1416
  houses waiting for the opportunity to pay their rates.
  *MR. JOHN WILSONstrongly opposed the omission of the clause. He knew that it was not only in remote districts that rates were paid in public-houses, because the same thing occurred in his own district, the village of Drymen, where there were two public halls and a schoolhouse that could be used for the purpose.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid that the whole tendency of public thought in Great Britain had been against the holding of public meetings in public-houses. They had an example of that in the Corrupt Practices Act, which made it unlawful to hold any political meeting in a public-house. Scotland was not behind England in this sentiment, and there were many people who were not bigoted teetotallers who did not wish to give advantages to public-houses in this respect. As one who served as a member of the Committee which discussed this Bill, and as one who wished the Bill well, he earnestly appealed to the Government to allow the clause to remain. There were many men whose wills were weak, or whose mental calibre was deficient, to whom it was a risk to go into a public-house, and they ought not to compel people to attend public-houses wherever there was another place at which public money could be received. The clause was inserted in the Bill in Committee without opposition, and those who had supported the Government in the Bill hoped that the Government would not prejudice this clause by throwing their weight against it. They hoped that Scotch Members would be allowed to have their own way in this matter, for if Scotch Members were polled there would be a large majority in favour of the clause remaining.
  MR. CORBETTjoined in the appeal made by Scotch Members to the Government. The feeling of those who believed in the disadvantages attached to the collection of rates in public-houses was based on the belief that serious mischief might

  1417
  be, and sometimes was, done. The argument on the other side was entirely one of local convenience. If there were any great principle involved it might be too much for them to ask English Members to set aside their own view; but as there was no such principle involved, he thought they might be asked not to join issue with the great majority of Scotch Members.
  MR. PIRIEtrusted that the Lord Advocate would not press the opinion of the trade against that of Scotch Members. Scotch opinion was

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Rigg, Richard

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Asher, Alexander

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Harwood, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Runciman, Walter

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E.

  Shackleton, David James

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shaw Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Bill, Charles

  Hoult, Joseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Black, Alexander William

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Brigg, John

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Spear, John Ward

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Joicey, Sir James

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

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jno. M.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sturt, Hn. Humphrey Napier

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lambert, George

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

  Bull, William James

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Burt, Thomas

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Butcher, John George

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Tennant, Harold John

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tomkinson, James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Toulmin, George

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Levy, Maurice

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lough, Thomas

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Arthur William (Cornwall)

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

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Denny, Colonel

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Doughty, George

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dunn, Sir William

  Myers, William Henry

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Edwards, Frank

  Norman, Henry

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wylie, Alexander

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Sir Charles Renshaw and

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Mr. Crombie.

  emphatically in favour of the clause remaining a part of the Hill. He had received representation after representation from his constituents on the subject while the Bill was in Committee, and he asked English Members to pay some attention to Scotch opinion. Scotch Members should be allowed to manage their own affairs to the best interests of their own country.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 149; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 179.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Garfit, William

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Percy, Earl

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Groves, James Crimble

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

  Renwick, George

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick George

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faver'hm

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Kerr, John

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R.

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

  Cullinan, J.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Milvain, Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick S. W.

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Mr. Gretton and Sir

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Herbert Maxwell.

  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid the clause as it stood included houses which were contiguous to licensed premises. The Amendment he begged to move proposed that such contiguous houses should be excepted, and that the provision should apply only to licensed premises and the gardens and courts which were held in conjunction with them. If the clause were to be passed as it stood he believed that the premises of a bank situate next door to a public-house would be affected.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 34, to leave out lines 3, 4, and 5, and insert the words 'or court therewith occupied, and every one collecting rates or taxes
  1420
  therein shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.'"—(Sir J. Stirling-Maxwell.)
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid if they accepted the Amendment they would be adding an additional insult to the licensed keeper or licence-holder. In the first place they said that his premises were not a proper place for the collection of rates. That was the decision of the House. Supposing that a bank was contiguous to licensed premises. Why should a bank be a more respectable place than a licensed house? He opposed the Amendment, and if he could get a teller he should divide the House to get these words removed from the Clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 34, line 6, to leave out from the word 'person' to the word 'without' in line 9, and insert the words 'trafficking in any spirits or other excisable liquors in any place or premises.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 34, line 13, to leave out the words 'sum of' and insert the words 'sum not exceeding.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, in moving the following Amendments, said he had promised the Committee to look into the matter of penalties, and these drafting Amendments were the result.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 34, line 13, to leave out the word 'seven' and insert the word 'fifty.'"
  "In page 34, line 14, to leave out from the word 'in' to the word 'the' in line 16, and insert the words 'default of immediate payment.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 34, line 17, to leave out the words 'sum of,' and insert the words 'sum not exceeding.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 34, line 20, to leave out the word 'fifteen' and insert the words 'one hundred.'"
  "In page 34, line 21, to leave out from the word 'in' to the word 'the' in line 24, and insert the words 'default of immediate payment.'"
  1422
  "In page 34, line 24, to leave out the word 'of,' and insert the words 'not exceeding.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 34, line 28, to leave out the word 'thirty,' and insert the words 'one hundred."
  "In page 34, line 29, to leave out from the word 'in' to the word 'the' in line 31, and insert the words 'default of immediate payment.'"
  "In page 34, line 32, to leave out the word 'of,' and insert the words 'not exceeding.'"
  "In page 34, line 34, to leave out from the word 'same' to the word 'Provided' in line 38.
  "In page 34, line 41, to leave out from the word 'of' to the word 'under' in line 42, and insert the words 'such trafficking.'"
  "In page 35, line 4, to leave out from the word 'for' to the word 'may' in line 6, and insert the words 'such trafficking.'"
  "In page 35, line 8, to leave out from the word 'evidence' to end of Clause."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 35, line 24, to leave out from the word 'coming' to end of Clause."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. DALZIELasked the right hon. Gentleman to say what was the exact meaning of his Amendment.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid it was merely a drafting Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELLalso asked for an explanation. The words that the right

  1423
  hon. Gentleman proposed to leave out were as follows—
  "And provided also that every person who shall be convicted of bartering or selling spirits without having obtained a certificate shall, in default of the immediate payment of the penalty imposed upon him for such offence, be liable, in the discretion of the Court by which he shall be so convicted, to be imprisoned, as prescribed by the immediately preceding section, in the case of default of payment within four days after conviction.
  "(2) Every person trafficking in any spirits or other excisable liquors in any place or premises without having obtained a certificate in that behalf in terms of this Act shall be guilty of an offence, and on being convicted thereof shall for each such offence forfeit and pay the full penalties provided in the immediately preceding section, together with the expenses of prosecution and conviction; and in default of immediate payment thereof shall be imprisoned for the periods respectively prescribed by the immediately preceding section."
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid this was practically the result of the Amendment that had just been passed to Clause 63. He could tell the hon. Member that the Amendments, as moved, were especially asked for by Mr. Renton, the Procurator-Fiscal for Edinburgh, Mr. Weilson, the Procurator-Fiscal for Glasgow, and Mr. Dewar, the Chief.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Page 36, line 30, to leave out the word 'by,' and insert the words 'under the provisions of.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CROMBIEsaid the Lord Advocate had promised on a previous occasion to consider the
  1424
  principle of the Amendment which he desired to submit to the House. His object was to place this Bill on the same basis as the English Act, under which a drunken person could be arrested and a penalty exacted for being incapable in the streets, whether or not he was "under the care or protection of some suitable person." It was always possible to find some person willing to undertake the charge of, and protect a drunken person.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 37, Hues 24 and 25, to leave out the words 'and not under the care or protection of some suitable person.'"—(Mr. Crombie.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the Bill as it stood was part of an old law of Scotland, and meant that any person drunk and incapable, or unable to take care of himself, or a nuisance to other persons, committed an offence. That was not so if they were in the care of some suitable person. As a matter of fact, these words were not in the Glasgow Act, and in Glasgow it would be found perfectly impossible to work on those lines. It was really going too far to take the mere fact of drunkenness as being a punishable offence, as, if that were enacted, they might invade any hon. Member's dining-room. It was going too far to attempt to make drunkenness per se an offence. If a man was found incapable of taking care of himself, and was a nuisance, he could be convicted, but if he was in the care of some other suitable person, he could not be. They were acting upon the lines of the law to which they had been accustomed.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he had heard with the utmost surprise the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which was oppposed to common sense. How could the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his present attitude with that which he took up in relation to the English Bill? He had told them that it was absurd to attempt to pass a similar provision for Scotland. It was a mistake to think that the Act was not carried out in England. A visit to any police court would show that the great majority of charges were for drunkenness in the streets on the part of people incapable of taking care of themselves. It was no protection in London for a drunk and incapable person to be in the company of a friend who was rather more sober than himself. He thought the Lord Advocate really ought to accept the very reasonable Amendment of his hon. friend.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he was convinced that public sense had advanced since the Act of Scotland was passed.

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bull, William James

  Doughty, George

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Duffy, William J.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

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

  Arrol, Sir William

  Chapman, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Balfour, Captain C. B. (Hornsey

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Saville

  Garfit, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cullinan, J.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elginand Nairn

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  The fact of a man allowing himself to be in a state of intoxication in the streets or public highways, whether he was or was not in charge of another person, was an offence against decency. If he got intoxicated and appeared in the public streets in the presence of people he was indecent, and ought to be punished in the usual way. There was no need to give a saving clause in the Bill to enable a drunken man to go through the streets in charge of friends. The Amendment ought to be accepted by the House.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSONsaid the Lord Advocate was quite wrong in thinking that intoxicated people were not arrested in England if they were under the care and protection of other persons. Such charges were being constantly made.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 152; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 180.)

  Gretton, John

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Mount, William Arthur

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Spear, John Ward

  Heath James (Staffords, N. W.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Stamey, Lord (Lancs.)

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Myers, William Henry

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Talbot, Lord E. Chichester)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

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

  Johnstone Heywood

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. (Salop

  O'Dowd, John

  Valentia, Viscount

  Kerr, John

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Percy, Earl

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

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

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

  Renwick, George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  NOES.

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Harwood, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Shackleton, David James

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bill, Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Brigg, John

  Lambert, George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Tennant, Harold John

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Tomkinson, James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark.

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Philipps, John Wynford

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

  Dunn, Sir William

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Edwards, Frank

  Priestley, Arthur

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Rigg, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Mr. Crombie and Mr.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Black.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  And, it being after Midnight, further consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered to-morrow.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills have received the Royal Assent:

1. County Councils (Bills in Parliament).

2. Education (Borrowing).

3. Contracts (India Office).

4. Guinea Postal Orders.

5. Elementary Education Amendment.

6. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes).

7. Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law).

8. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9.)

9. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10.)

10. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12.)

11. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14.)

12. Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16.)

13. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17.)

14. Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18.)

15. Military Lands Provisional Orders.

16. Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (East Ham, etc.)

17. Hamilton Burgh Provisional Order.

18. Broughty Ferry Gas Provisional Order.

19. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders. (No. 5.)

20. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7.)

21. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6.)

22. Southampton Harbour.

23. Kings College, London.

24. Scunthorpe Urban District Water.

25. Ipswich Gas.

1246

26. Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway.

27. New Hunstanton Improvement.

28. British Gas Light Company (Norwich).

29. Hastings Tramways (Extensions.)

30. Jewish Colonisation Association.

31. Hampton Court Gas.

32. Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway.

33. Wolverhampton and Cannock Chase Railway (Extension of Time).

34. London and North Western Railway.

35. Nantwich Urban District Council.

36. Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation.

37. Torquay Corporation Water.

38. Nelson Corporation.

39. West Cumberland Electric Tramways.

40. Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours.

41. Hexham Gas.

42. Cheshire Lines Committee.

43. Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies.

44. Port Talbot Railway and Docks.

45. Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council.

46. Pontypridd Urban District Council.

47. Frinton-on-Sea Sea Defences.

48. Cardiff Railway.

49. Aston Manor Improvement.

50. Grindleford, Baslow and Bakewell Railway.

51. London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway.

52. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

53. Broadstairs Gas.

54. Hyde Corporation.

55. Leigh Corporation.

56. Great Northern Railway.

57. Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers).

58. Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways.

The Lord Magheramorne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [ILL.]; Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill [H.L.]; Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Sheffield Corporation Bill; The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The orders made on Tuesday and Friday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Castleblayney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Moved, That the Order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
Great Southern and Western Railway Bill; Read 3a, and passed.
Scottish Central Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Carmarthenshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Fife Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; St. Philip's Chapel (Regent Street) Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill; Walker and Wallsend Union Gas Bill; Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Perth Corporation (Tramways) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Aberdeen Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill, [H.L.]; Read 3a (according to order). An Amendment made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill. House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Glasgow Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3036. Persia (Persian Gulf); No. 3037. Japan (Yokohama).
  MISCELLANEOUS No. 3 (1903).
  Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Consular Service, 2nd July, 1903.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  Annual Report of the President, for the Session 1902–1903.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June, 1903.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 390. British Honduras (Report for 1902).

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st March, 1903, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871); together with reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WINTER ASSIZES ACT, 1876.
  Seven Orders in Council of 9th July, 1903, relating to the ensuing Winter Assizes.

  SEA FISHERIES ACT, 1868 (ORDERS FOR FISHERY GRANTS, 1902–1903).
  Report of the Board of Trade under Part III. of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILL.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to continue and Amend the Light Railways Act, 1896, was presented by the Lord Wolverton; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next. (No. 167).

  MILITARY LANDS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD LUDLOW: My Lords, this is a short Bill, and its object is to amend the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1900, with respect to the acquisition of lands for military purposes As your Lordships are no doubt aware, those Acts gave County and Borough Councils power to acquire land for military purposes. The power given was a compulsory power, and it has proved very useful. County Councils have found that it would be a great convenience to also have the right of
  1250
  leasing land where they have not felt inclined to buy it, and in this short Bill they ask that they shall be allowed the power to lease land for a period of not less than twenty-one years for rifle ranges and other military purposes. As regards the principle of the Bill, that was discussed on a former occasion when power to purchase was given to County and Borough Councils under the Military Lands Act. Therefore, I think I may assume that the principle has been already passed by your Lordships' House. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Ludlow.)
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I have been asked to move the rejection of this Bill by my noble friend Lord Newton, who is absent to day; but on looking into the Bill I find that it is a mere extension of a principle that has already been accepted by your Lordships' House, and therefore I think it would be futile to ask for its rejection. But when Lord Ludlow says that it has been found useful that County Councils should have the power of compulsorily obtaining land for the making of ranges, I should like to ask the noble Earl who represents the War Office in this House whether that has really been found a useful power. In the other House I understand great dislike was entertained towards this Bill because it relieves the War Office of a very considerable portion of its responsibility in the matter of finding adequate ranges throughout the country. It must be remembered that at the time the original Act was passed there had not been the same attention paid to the necessity of rifle practice, but since the war the importance of it has been realised by the War Office, and a large sum of money is being allocated for ranges. I think that unless it has been established that this is a useful principle, it is one more calculated to relieve the War Office of its proper responsibility and to throw that responsibility on to the ratepayers. Where you get a range for one branch of the service only, it is very difficult

  1251
  for other branches to obtain leave to practise on it. I feel that all ranges ought to be under one authority, and the responsibility of providing and maintaining them should not be left to a double system. I therefore ask the noble Earl whether he can say anything respecting the value of the principle that was adopted in the 1892 Act.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I do not wish to raise any objection whatever to the Bill, because it leaves it entirely optional to County Councils whether they will accede to the request of the Volunteer corps or not. But there is one point to which I should like to call the attention of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading. It is rather a point for Committee, but as I have no opportunity of speaking in Committee, perhaps he will allow me to call attention to it now. The first clause allows a County Council to hire land by agreement. It also gives them power to contribute towards the expenses of another Council in purchasing or hiring. The Bill provides that—
  "The expenses of so hiring or contributing may be defrayed in the same manner as expenses of purchasing, and the payment of those expenses shall accordingly be a purpose for which the Council may borrow money."
  Surely the Council ought not to be allowed to borrow money for the purpose of hiring. I think there must be some mistake in that, and I would ask the noble Lord to kindly look into it before the Committee stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: I should like to ask whether this is a compulsory Bill or an optional Bill.
  *LORD LUDLOW: The power to purchase, given in the previous Act, is a compulsory power. All we ask in this Bill is that the authorities should have power to lease land by agreement.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of HARDWICKE)Perhaps I may be allowed to express the view of the War Office with regard to this Bill. In 1900, the noble Marquess the Foreign Minister, when Under Secretary of State for War, introduced a Military Lands Bill, and in that
  1252
  Bill there was a clause which gave County Councils compulsory powers to hire land. Some exception was, however, taken to this clause in another place, and it was dropped. The Bill when it passed merely gave, in conjunction with the Act of 1892, powers to County Councils to acquire land compulsorily for military purposes, and for providing Volunteer corps with rifle ranges. Lord Newton, who asked the noble Lord behind me to move the rejection of this Bill—a course which Lord Lamington had some hesitation in doing—imagines, no doubt, that the Bill repeats what was in the Act of 1900, and confers upon local authorities compulsory powers in the matter of hiring land. But the Bill does nothing of the kind. It merely allows a County Council to make an arrangement with a landlord to hire land for the purpose of a rifle range for the use of Volunteers in the county, and, inasmuch as the local authority has the power at the present moment to purchase land, I can hardly believe that your Lordships will take exception to this very modest proposal, which cannot but be of great assistance to Volunteer corps, who are from time to time placed in great difficulty with regard to range accommodation, which is absolutely necessary to their efficiency. My noble friend Lord Lamington suggested that a great deal of opposition had been taken to this Bill in another place. I can only say that I have in my hand the Report of the debate that took place on the Third Reading, the preceding stages having passed without debate, and I find that the two speakers who took exception to the Bill did not press their objections. I think I may say that the Bill passed the House of Commons practically without dissent. In these circumstances I hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to be read a second time. With regard to the point raised by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees I will state the view of the military authorities upon it during the Committee stage.
  LORD LAMINGTON: Can the noble Earl state whether the power given in the previous Act has been taken advantage of?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The power of purchasing ground for the use of Volunteers corps has answered, and I

  1253
  do not think there can be any doubt that the power of hiring will answer also.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: So far as I gather, the County Councils and municipal authorities are to make arrangements for hiring ranges. But who is to pay for them? I presume the ratepayers, and I do not think the ratepayers are the persons who ought to pay. I think this should be a national charge, and should not be placed on the local authorities. I object to it very strongly. There is a mania existing for long ranges. I admit that you must have long range shooting, but for teaching it is not necessary to have the actual long range. I speak from experience. In the village near my home there is a company of Volunteers, and, on my suggestion, the sergeant in charge took two men on joining, neither of whom had ever had a gun in his hands before, and trained them in the drill hall, which is about the size of your Lordships' Chamber and is fitted with a Morris tube. Having trained them to the full on the Morris tube range they were taken straight to the butts, and they shot better than those who had been trained altogether at the butts. Therefore, I strongly object to County Councils having to find these long ranges because they are not necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and add at the end of the Motion, the words 'this day three months.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD WENLOCK: I approve so strongly of the terms in which my noble friend has addressed the House on this question, that I hope he will press his Amendment to a division. The provision of rifle ranges for the Auxiliary Forces is absolutely necessary, and as the Government themselves admit the necessity, from a national point of view, I hope they will recognise that it is a duty incumbent on the nation to pay the cost, and not throw it upon the ratepayers. My own experience shows that the ratepayers are already becoming very incensed at the increased rates which are being imposed upon them.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: It appears to be in the minds of the two noble Lords who have just spoken that the War Office have done nothing in the way of providing rifle ranges for Volunteer corps.
  LORD WENLOCK: They have done nothing in my part of the country.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Then I am very sorry. But I am about to lay a Paper on the Table showing how the War Office have spent a very large amount which was given by the Treasury for the provision of rifle ranges. That Paper will show that, so far as it has been possible, we have recognised that assistance should be given from military funds for the purpose in question. I think it would be most regrettable if your Lordships refused to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which apparently has the full approval of all concerned in another place, and has received very careful consideration both from the War Office and the Treasury before giving approval to the principle contained in it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Can the Government find no means of charging the cost of these ranges on the revenues of India?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I do not think any one but the noble Earl would have suggested it.
  LORD HARRIS: I think it would be a great pity if this Bill were rejected. There is no compulsion on County Councils to assist local corps by hiring land. It is impossible for the Government to find money for all corps that want ranges in all parts of the country at once. I suppose they are doing their best to find the money to increase the number of ranges as rapidly as possible, but why should not they enlist local sympathy and enthusiasm to assist local corps? Assistance is rendered, not only in regard to rifle ranges, but also in regard to town halls, and I think that as long as this is a permissive power, and not a compulsory power, no serious objection can be taken to it on behalf of the ratepayers. I think it would be a great pity to throw the Bill out.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (the Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I cannot help thinking that there is some slight misapprehension in the minds of some noble Lords who have spoken as to the scope of this measure. As I understand the case, it stands thus: Under the existing law—the Military Lands Act, 1892—the Council of a County or Borough may, at the request of one or more Volunteer corps, purchase land for rifle ranges under the Act. That procedure has not been found applicable and convenient in all cases, and this Bill provides that in certain cases, by agreement, County Councils may lease land for the purpose of providing rifle ranges. The arrangement is a purely optional one for the general convenience, and I cannot help thinking that it would be a great pity if your Lordships did not accept the Bill.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I should be exceedingly sorry if this Bill were lost. I cannot agree with my noble friend on the Cross Benches, with whom I have had so much to do in the matter of rifle shooting in old days, that Morris Tube practice is quite sufficient for Volunteers. Though I advocate Morris Tube practice, I feel that it is absolutely necessary that there should also be practice at longer ranges. That is one reason why I desire that this Bill should pass. I confess that I have some sympathy with those who say that the Government, and not the ratepayers, should be put to the charge of finding these very necessary ranges, and, even if this Bill passes, I think those who are in favour of that might, if possible, obtain some further assistance from the Government. The noble Marquess the Foreign Minister has pointed out that this Bill is merely the outcome of the Act already passed, which enabled the purchase of land, and, therefore, the throwing of a much heavier charge upon the ratepayers than would be involved in the hire of land under this Bill. I should be sorry if any impediment were placed in the way of carrying this measure, which I feel sure will be of great advantage to the country. I admit that the War Office has given assistance in this matter, but we may hope for greater assistance in the future, and especially that those counties which
  1256
  have received no assistance at all will be considered.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I ought to have explained that of course Volunteer corps pay a rental to the local authorities for the use of these ranges, and, therefore, though the obligation is on the local authority to pay the rent for the hire to the landlord, they get the money back from the Volunteer corps who use the ranges.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  MOTOR-CARS BILL [H.L.]
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 3.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, the clause under discussion when we adjourned the Committee stage last Friday was Clause 3, and the first Amendment on the Paper to-day is in my name. It has been put down to give effect to an undertaking which I mentioned on Friday last. The Amendment provides that licences are only to be granted to persons resident in the county or county borough whose Council is to give the licence. The main object of this change, as I indicated the other day, is to make more sure that the endorsement or suspension of a licence will be properly enforced. It has been suggested that if anyone in Devonshire, for instance, had his licence endorsed, he might go to Northumberland and get another, or might take out two at the same time and produce one on the first occasion for endorsement and the other on the second. This Amendment, and the others I have given notice of, will make it very much more difficult, and probably impossible, to commit a fraud of that sort. I do not propose to make any provision for taking out new licences on a change of residence during the year, as at the end of the year the licence will not be renewable

  1257
  except in the county into which the licencee has removed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 18, after the word 'it' to insert the words 'who resides in that county or county borough.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNasked whether the noble Lord had considered the case of foreigners coming into this country. Where were they to obtain a licence.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think that point will require to be met by some provision. I am not able to state the exact form it will take, but it is obvious that if a foreigner arrived at Dover it would be a hardship to prevent his driving to London. I will provide for that at a subsequent stage.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNmoved to insert words empowering a licensing authority to withhold or subsequently to cancel a licence if, in their opinion, the applicant should be deemed to have no practical knowledge of the method of driving a car. It was, he said, with some hesitation that he moved the Amendment standing in his name, because it was very similar to one moved by Lord Tweedmouth and rejected on the previous Friday; but he asked their Lordships to look most carefully at the position in which the clause now stood. It was stated, in the earlier part of the clause, that a person should not drive a motor-car unless he was licensed for the purpose, and, later, it was provided that the Council of a County or Borough should grant a licence to any person applying for it on payment of a shilling. It was pressed without success on the previous Friday that the Government should accept an Amendment substituting the words "may grant" for "shall grant." In other words, that the Council of a County or County Borough should not be compelled to give a licence to anybody who applied for it. The Government, however, had refused this Amendment, and were going to compel County Councils to grant licences to anyone who paid the necessary shilling,
  1258
  whatever he might know about the driving of a motor-car. The Amendment which he had placed on the Paper gave County or Borough Councils the right to withhold or subsequently cancel such licence, and he had added the words—
  "If in their opinion the applicant for or owner of such a licence shall be deemed to have no practical knowledge of the method of driving a car."
  He thought County Councils should have the right to say whether a man was fit to drive a car or not. It was true that a slight Amendment was agreed to by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, that licences should not be granted to anyone under the age of sixteen. But he still thought that County Councils should be given an opportunity of refusing a licence for any valid reason. It had been said by the Secretary for Scotland that people who drove horses had not to prove their competency, and why should drivers of motor-cars? That was an altogether different matter. He might as well say to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that if it was necessary to obtain a master's certificate to take charge of a yacht, why was it not necessary to obtain a certificate to drive a motor-car? When the First Reading of the Bill was taken Lord Rosebery rightly said that it was necessary to keep under the severest supervision the capacity of those who undertook to drive motor-cars, and the noble Earl added that he would have been glad to hear that a demand would be made for some proof of a driver's fitness to undertake the management of those machines. He (Lord Rosslyn) trusted that His Majesty's Government would give way on this point, and accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 19, after the word 'section' to insert the words 'But any County or Borough Council may withhold or subsequently cancel such licence if in their opinion the applicant for or owner of such licence shall be deemed to have no practical knowledge of the method of driving a car.'"—(The Earl of Rosslyn.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I sincerely hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment. We argued this matter very fully on Friday, and the House by a very substantial majority confirmed the clause in this respect as it stood. I could not for a moment think

  1259
  of simply accepting "may" instead of "shall" without any qualifying words, because that would give the power, with the Amendment which I have just inserted providing that a man is to be resident in a county to get a licence, to a County Council which is hostile to motor-cars to refuse to give licences at all, and then nobody in that county would be able to drive a motor-ear. The particular Amendment on the Paper raises the whole question of granting certificates of competency. That was a point which we argued at length the other day, and, as I have said, the Committee supported the view which I put before it by a considerable majority, and I hope that decision will not be reversed on this occasion. I waited for a moment after the noble Earl sat down to see if anyone else rose, but no one got up. Unless the noble Earl receives some support, I think I should be consulting the convenience of the House if I did not repeat the arguments which I put forward last Friday.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid he was quite out of Court in this matter, because he had to leave the House before the exhaustive discussion to which the noble Lord had referred took place. But did he understand that the Government under this Bill did not contemplate any test of competency for drivers?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: We do not. It is impossible adequately to test the competency of a driver in any time which can be given to it. We think there is no proper machinery in this country for doing it, and that the other provisions of the Bill providing for suspension and endorsement will be sufficient. No one has suggested the machinery by which this can be done, and I feel bound to say that this is a much less convenient Amendment than the one that was negatived by the House the other night.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked whether the noble Lord was aware that no one was allowed to drive a motorcar in France without a certificate of efficiency. If that was possible in France, why was it not possible in England? Might he suggest that this
  1260
  would be a fit subject for further Cabinet enquiry?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not think it is necessary to make enquiry, because we are fully informed of the condition of affairs in France. The information we receive is that the examination, as conducted there, is of the most superficial kind, and affords no test of fitness in an emergency. As I have already informed the House more than once, there is no ground for assuming that accidents which have happened in the past have been due to the in-competency of the drivers. They are due more to drivers taking risks or going at speeds which ought not to be permissible upon a public highway.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid that the argument of the noble Lord appeared to be that because the examination in France was superficial therefore there should be none at all in England. His information as to the examination in France did not tally with that of the noble Lord. He must protest against the idea that these machines were to run loose on the highways without any guarantee of the efficiency of those who guided them. If that was the opinion of His Majesty's Government he would be compelled, if the noble Lord pressed this matter to a division, to vote with him.
  LORD LAMINGTONpointed out that owners who employed persons to drive their cars must have some method of assuring themselves of their competence. Surely, therefore, it would be possible to institute some system of examination.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the Amendment now before the House went rather farther than his Amendment did. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had said that one of the objections to this Amendment was that it provided no method of carrying out the examination. The noble Lord added that no such method had ever been suggested, but it would be within the recollection of the House that in the Amendment which he (Lord Tweedmouth) moved on the previous Friday, and which was rejected, he did suggest that the examination

  1261
  should be carried out by the police, and that the chief of police in a county or borough should give a certificate, and that the applicant for a licence should produce that certificate.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked who was to teach the police.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the police would have to make proper regulations. It was an extraordinary thing, because at this moment there was no machinery to do a particular thing, that therefore for ever afterwards we should be without that machinery. This was a new form of traction and must give rise to new conditions, and the obligation should be laid on the local authorities to take the proper precautions, and provide the necessary facilities for taking those precautions, in order to make the roads safe for ordinary traffic. Though the question had been decided by their Lordships, he did not think it was decided after very full discussion. His own feeling was that the House did not look at this question from all sides. His noble friend Lord Craven, who was himself the holder of a licence in France, would be able, if necessary, to give the House an account of how he obtained that licence and the method adopted in France, which was one that did afford at any rate some proof of competence. It was an extraordinary proposition to put forward that it was better to have no proof of competency than to have a proof of competency which was not absolutely without stain. He agreed with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that they could not test the competence of a man to extricate his car from a difficult position, but that would always be a question of the nerve of the driver.
  LORD THRINGasked whether it was suggested that County Councils should be compelled to give licences to notorious drunkards or bad characters. No such obligation had ever been imposed on County Councils before. Surely there ought to be some words inserted giving a County Council, when it was proved to them that the applicant, though not incompetent, was quite unfitted by his character to receive a licence, the power to refuse to grant him a licence.
  LORD BURGHCLEREasked whether under the Bill as it stood "recklessly" meant the same thing as "incompetency," and whether if it was proved that a driver through incompetency endangered the lives of the public this would be an offence under the Bill. He thought that it ought to be made an offence, and suggested the insertion of the words after recklessly, "or without due care."
  *EARL SPENCERsaid that he had seen and heard things which had appeared to him to throw some light on this question of competency. That morning a motorcar stood opposite his house. The driver lost control of the machine and the car was backed not only over the pavement but up three steps against his front door. Another instance which seemed to favour this plea of competency occurred one evening last year when he returned home from dinner and found a motor-car opposite his door. The horse in his carriage became restive, but he was able to get out without difficulty. To his surprise he found that the driver of the car was a great friend—a very distinguished member at this moment of the present Government, but not the Prime Minister. What had happened was this—his friend had got the car backed against the kerb near the door and had no power of moving it. His chauffeur was not with him, directly the chauffeur came the car was at once moved off. Perhaps these difficulties of controlling and driving the car would not have arisen if there had been a previous guarantee of competency.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sure the noble Earl will allow me to express sympathy with him in the damage to his front door. But the instances he gave do not necessarily prove the incompetency of the driver. The trouble may have been due to the inefficiency of the car. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Burghclere) asked whether "recklessly" would cover incompetency. I would say certainly not. An incompetent man may be reckless, or the most competent man may be reckless. Lord Tweedmouth was very severe upon us for not accepting this Amendment. Are we really, he said, to trust ourselves to people who have given no proof of their competency? The other day the noble

  1263
  Lord regaled the House with a story of how on one occasion he had travelled six and a half miles in seven minutes. Did the noble Lord demand any proof of the competency of the driver before he entrusted himself in that car?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I was aware that the driver was probably the most competent chauffeur then in England.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It would be extremely inconvenient if the House should reverse its former decision. I would point out that there are many different kinds of cars, and competency to drive one kind of car by no means proves that the driver is competent to drive them all.
  THE EARL OF CRAVEN: It is mentioned on the French certificate what car the holder can drive.
  LOUD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then I suppose the certificate is only to be for a particular car.
  THE EARL OF CRAVEN: Yes.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That goes with much more minuteness into the matter than has ever been suggested. I can only say that I think this certificate, if given, would be an entirely delusive guarantee of the real competence of the driver; nor do I believe that any examination which can be conducted by the police would give any real security to the public. If I did I should not resist this Amendment. If the House chooses to reverse its former decision it has the power to do so, but I shall certainly be obliged to divide the House. I trust that the Amendment will not be accepted.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYthought that the lives of the inhabitants of this country were of far more importance than the consistency of their Lordships' House in dealing with the Amendment. He did think it would be with consternation that the country would learn to morrow that under the settled policy of His Majesty's Government there might be next year 20,000 of these powerful machines in use on the high roads without any other guarantee of efficiency than
  1264
  the competency of the driver to pay a shilling.
  *EARL RUSSELLdid not imagine that anybody who had been in the habit of driving a motor-car for any considerable time would experience the slightest difficulty in passing any examination which might be instituted, but he wished to extend his support to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in his contention that any examination of this sort would be, from the point of view of public safety, entirely illusory. He thought that noble Lords who had spoken in an opposite sense were under the impression that because a man was competent to drive he would drive carefully and with due regard to the convenience of other vehicles and the public, but the general experience in this country was that Frenchmen, who were, perhaps, the most qualified motorists, drove their cars with far less regard for life and limb than those who were not so experienced. The Amendment used the words—
  "Shall be deemed to have practical knows ledge of the method of driving a car."
  Did that mean practical knowledge of how to make the car go and stop, or did it mean practical knowledge of how to repair the ear when it went wrong? The particular instance which was given by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment was a remarkably unfortunate one. The noble Lord said that the master of a ship had to obtain a certificate of competency, but their Lordships knew that the owner of his own yacht might sign as master and put to sea without any certificate, of competency. If that was allowed in the case of a private yacht, there did not seem any reason for imposing the proposed test in the case of motorists. As a matter of fact, people who owned motor-cars would always insist upon the competency of the driver before they risked their valuable property. A mere certificate of proficiency in driving a car would be no safeguard to the public, and he hoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would not recede from the position he had taken up.
  LORD BURGHCLERE, referring to Lord Balfour's reply to his question, said it was quite clear that a driver might be

  1265
  both reckless and incompetent, but he might also be incompetent without being reckless. The question he wished to put to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was whether under the Bill as it stood, supposing it were proved that a driver, through incompetence, had endangered the lives of the public, that would be an offence under the Act.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It would be a question of fact at the time for the Court, as to the degree of the incompetent recklessness.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid his point had reference to incompetence without recklessness.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEthought an examination as proposed would be found illusory. How was a man to learn to drive? He clearly could not obtain a certificate of efficiency till he had learnt to drive.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (the Earl of ONSLOW)said that any man who was proved to be incompetent would be driving to the common danger and would commit an offence under the Bill. In his judgment a certificate of competency would be entirely illusory. On one occasion he took a powerful car over to France and took care to employ a certificated French chauffeur. He thought that with these precautions he was bound to be fairly safe. But on the first day the chauffeur passed another car on the wrong side, throwing an old lady out, and on the second day, in order to avoid a car which was being driven slowly, the chauffeur ran the car into a ditch. The exploit cost him a great deal of money, and after getting rid of the chauffeur he sold the car. No certificate
  of competency even in France was a real guarantee that a car would be driven in an efficient manner.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid the object of this Bill was to afford some degree of safety for His Majesty's lieges in a new danger, but unless care was taken to see that the men who drove these cars knew their business, the greatest danger to the general public might arise. After the Bill had been passed it would be very difficult to get the law amended, and therefore he hoped their Lordships would reverse their former decision on this point, even if they thereby incurred the charge of inconsistency.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked what was to happen if a man who had been granted a certificate of efficiency had his licence taken away because he drove recklessly. Would he then be photographed and his photograph circulated all round the country? Otherwise, how could they prevent him going to another part of the country and driving?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The last Amendment which your Lordships inserted will prevent that happening. It is an offence under the Act to have more than one licence, and under the Amendment to which your Lordships have just agreed a person can only get a licence in the County or County Borough in which he resides, and in which the car is registered.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid the driver might lose his licence and yet at the same time go to another part of the country and continue driving until he was found out. How was it proposed to detect men who did that?
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 37; Not Contents, 52.

  CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Allerton, L.

  Lindley, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Burghclere, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L. [M. Granby.)

  Congleton, L.

  Craven, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Reay, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  James, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Kelvin, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery)

  Rosslyn, E. [Teller.]

  Kinnaird, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Lamington, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Thring, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Shand, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Tweedmouth, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Kenyon, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Yarborough, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore).

  Bath, M.

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Lansdowne, M.

  Cross, V.

  Lovat, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Ludlow, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Portman, V.

  Manners, L.

  Ancaster, E.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Norton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Belper, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Braye, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Davey, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Morley, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Russell, E.

  Harris, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Heneage, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment standing in my name is really to carry out the policy I have already indicated to the House.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 19, after the word 'section,' to insert as fresh paragraphs:—'A licence shall remain in force for a period of twelve months from the date on which it is granted, but shall be renewable, and the same provisions shall apply with respect to the renewal of the licence as apply with respect to the grant of the licence.' 'A person shall not be entitled to hold more than one licence.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
  *EARL RUSSELLasked whether the endorsement of a licence would be carried on from one year to another.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid that, as his noble friend's Amendment covered in principle the one he had placed on the Paper, he would not move his; but he would like to ask the noble Lord whether it would be possible for a County Council to make regulations for the issuing of these licences, say from the county offices, so that regular resolutions would not have to be passed?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The answer to that question is in the affirmative. It is hoped that this will be very much a matter of machinery which the County Council can delegate to its responsible officers. The answer to the question put to me by the noble Earl opposite, Earl Russell, is also in the
  1268
  affirmative. The endorsement will be carried on from one year to another.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNmoved to insert a new sub-section authorising the licensing authority to refuse a licence to anyone who might be physically or mentally incapacitated. He asked the Government to accept this as a matter of common sense, so that the licensing authority could refuse to grant a licence to a blind man, a deaf man, and a lunatic.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—'The Council of a County or Borough may, in their discretion, refuse a licence to anyone who may be physically or mentally incapacitated.'"—(The Earl of Rosslyn.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The object of this Amendment commands a certain amount of sympathy, but how really is it to be enforced? What degree of deafness is to disqualify, and are you going to set up a County Council as a judge of lunacy? I think you will find this extremely difficult to carry out. The idea of the Bill is a better one, but I am quite aware, from the previous discussion, that there may be a certain amount of sympathy for this Amendment. My case against it is that it is absolutely unworkable. I do not think the County Council can decide the question of

  1269
  sanity. If a man is going about the country he must be presumed, I suppose, to be sane enough to drive a motor-car. Surely you cannot ask the County Councils to set up a new standard of sanity.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYthought the noble Lord was quite right to be consistent in the pursued policy of the Government to authorise incapacity of every kind on the motor-cars of the country and therefore he would not urge the noble Lord on the Cross Benches to divide. But he would point out that there was such a thing as local knowledge of the persons who applied for a licence. It was also possible that when a man had been found driving, whether from deafness or other physical incapacity, to the common danger of His Majesty's subjects, the County Council might wish to refuse him a licence.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I venture to think that that is not a fair representation of the position of the Government in the matter. If a man is found, as the noble Lord presupposes—which means found by a Court—to have been driving in the way he describes—
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Not necessarily found by a Court.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In that case the licence would be endorsed, and if the licence is endorsed the County Council has power over it. It is not reasonable to set up a standard in the vague terms proposed.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYput it to the noble Lord whether, supposing when he (Lord Balfour) was going out of his park gate in Scotland a stone deaf neighbour nearly ran him down through not hearing his carriage wheels, would the noble Lord not think himself entitled to represent to the County Council that his neighbour was not fit to control a motor-car?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid these were questions which even a superficial examination of the competency of persons who applied for licences would find out.
  LORD HENEAGEpointed out that as the Bill was drafted it not only gave a
  1270
  man who was a notorious drunkard, and well known in the district as such, power to obtain a licence in the first instance, but the Council were bound to renew that licence unless he had driven recklessly. He was told that a great many of these accidents happened not when men were driving recklessly, but when, having delivered their cargo, they went to the public-house and refreshed themselves, and went home the worse for liquor.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Surely if a man is discovered and convicted of such conduct as that, the proper thing to do is to bring him before a Court and endorse his licence.
  LORD HENEAGE: But could the licence be endorsed if he was not driving recklessly?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Yes; it could be dealt with under Clause 1 if he is driving to the danger of the public.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid he did not think it would be necessary to move the Amendment standing in his name, providing that the licence of any person who had been convicted under the Act, and who had appealed against such conviction, should be suspended pending the hearing of such appeal, because he had been informed that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had met the object he had in view, which was to provide against persons who had been convicted under the Act, and had appealed against the conviction, driving in the meantime.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment standing in my name, which comes next, was devised avowedly to meet the point which the noble Marquess brought to my notice by means of his Amendment. Under the Bill an appeal would only lie where a person is sent to prison without the option of a fine, and the noble Marquess urged that a person ought to have an appeal in the case of his licence being suspended for more than six months where he is not sent to prison, and that is provided for by this Amendment. A further question arose as to

  1271
  the operation of the suspension during the time of the hearing of the appeal. We think the suspension should not be got round by a person appealing, because in that case considerable time might elapse before the appeal was heard, and during all that time the driver whose licence had been suspended by the Court of first instance could go on driving. Power is given in this Amendment to the Court to allow the driver to go on driving if they see fit, but it is in the discretion of the Court of first instance. I venture to suggest that this is a satisfactory solution of the difficulty which surrounds this point.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 4, after the word 'licence' to insert, as a new paragraph: 'Any person whose licence is suspended under this section for a period of six months or more, or who is declared disqualified from obtaining a licence under this section for any such period, may appeal against the order for suspension or disqualification to a Court of quarter sessions in the same manner as a person may appeal who is ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine; and the Court by which the suspension or disqualification is ordered may, if they think fit, pending the appeal, defer the operation of the order'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREasked the noble Lord to point out in what portion of the Bill the provision occurred that any person driving to the danger of the public could be dealt with in the way suggested. So far as he could make out, it was necessary that he should be driving at a speed which was dangerous to the public, which was a very different thing.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is not, I think, very convenient to take one back to a clause which is not dealt with by this Amendment, but I will do my best to answer the point which the noble Lord has raised. The offence that has to be proved is driving recklessly or at a speed dangerous to the public. Surely those two things together are sufficient. If you have the case of a drunken man driving, surely he is driving recklessly or at a speed dangerous to the public. Lord Rosebery has suggested the insertion of the word "carelessly" which I have already informed the noble Earl I cannot accept, but I am
  1272
  willing to insert "negligently" after "recklessly" at a subsequent stage.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the Amendment standing in his name did not originate with him but with Lord Herries, who was unavoidably absent on this occasion. He did not think he need make any lengthened speech in support of it. He thought every one of their Lordships would be of opinion that the driver of a motor-car who caused an accident, or who was concerned in an accident, and who then drove away, committed as grave an offence as it was possible for him to commit, and one which deserved very severe punishment.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause: 'Should any accident happen to a passer-by or his horse or vehicle, it shall be the duty of the driver of the motor-car to stop his car and give such assistance as he can; and, if he fail to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not think the precise wording will do under any circumstances, and I am rather inclined to suggest to the House some considerations on the other side altogether. The noble Earl does not suppose that the accidents must necessarily have been caused always by the driver of the motor-car.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No; but whether the motor-car was to blame or not.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That gets rid of the technical objection. But is it really thought that a provision of this kind can be useful? If the accident is caused by reckless driving, the fact of a man driving away without rendering assistance, will, of course, be an aggravation of the offence, and, if proved, it will have the effect of increasing the penalty. This proposal seems to me to be an attempt to enforce gentlemanly conduct by statute. A friend of mine has described it as an

  1273
  attempt to make good Samaritans by Act of Parliament, though in the parable the good Samaritan was not responsible for the injuries to the man he succoured. But do you think that assistance which is given under a fear of a fine of this kind will be really worth having? I venture to say that it will not, and that the clause is really not necessary and inexpedient. The proposal is to make a man who drives away guilty of an offence under this Act, but if an accident is owing to reckless driving the driver will have already committed an offence under the Act, and you cannot really make him guilty of two offences. It is one offence aggravated. As I have said, the clause is really useless, but if the sense of the House is in favour of it I personally will offer no objection. I quite agree that if a man in a motor-car causes an accident and then drives away without stopping to see if any assistance can be given he is guilty of a most serious offence. I think it is adequately punished under the Bill as it stands, but for fear it should be said that we do not regard this conduct as a serious offence I would rather accept the Amendment than divide the House upon it. But unless there is a very strong feeling in favour of it I would prefer not to accept it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the noble Lord had surprised him very much when he stated that the object of this Amendment was to create good Samaritans by Act of Parliament. The object was not to do that, but to punish cowardly persons who first caused an accident and then drove away, leaving the unfortunate victims to get on as best they could. Whether the driver of the motor-car was in fault or not, surely, when an accident had occurred in which he had taken part, the least thing he could do would be to stop and assist as well as he could. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that assistance compulsorily given was of no use. What he wanted was the assistance. He did not care whether it was given owing to compulsion or in any other way. Only two or three days ago a man drove away in a car which did not belong to him, and
  1274
  knocked over a sergeant in the Irish Guards, breaking that unfortunate man's leg. But the motorist drove off, leaving him lying in the road. It so happened that this scoundrel was taken up on the charge of stealing the car, and it was then discovered, through investigations that took place, that he was the person who had knocked over the sergeant. But for this fact, however, it would never have been discovered. The Amendment might create a second offence under the Act, and even if it did he would be very glad.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid he was very glad to see that the Government, though they were not particularly anxious to provide against accidents, took a more favourable view of what he might call post mortem Amendments. But he did not feel that he could support his noble friend in this Amendment, because he thought it went too far. If the Amendment provided that the person causing the accident should stop his car and give his name, that would be enough. If, on the other hand, he was called upon to give assistance, that might be used as a means of some oppression by persons who have sustained very slight injuries.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNwas quite ready to accept such an Amendment as the noble Earl had suggested.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think in these circumstances it would be better not to put in these particular words, but to negative this Amendment now under an undertaking from me that I will put down words to endeavour to give effect to the sense of the House at a subsequent stage.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he was perfectly prepared to accept that undertaking.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 4.
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  LORD KELVINmoved an additional paragraph enabling the Board to make regulations to secure against the use on public roads of motor-cars, dangerous whether on account of imperfect mechanical construction or excessive engine power, designed for dangerously high speeds. He said his Amendment went towards an object that was admitted by the House last Friday to be one of importance with reference to the safety of the public. It seemed to him that by the mode proposed in his Amendment the object could be carried out in a businesslike way and without making a general rule as to either speed or the power of which the car was capable. It was pointed out clearly by Lord Balfour that the possibility of running at a high speed on the flat was necessary to allow a car to be competent to do a great part of its regular and proper work, and therefore the condition, if it was to be made, to secure against dangerous cars, must not specify precisely the qualities which the car might have. But the Local Government Board had duties put upon it facilitating the identification of motor-cars, arranging also about licences to be granted by Councils of Counties and County Boroughs, and so on. It seemed to him that to add a third paragraph enabling the Local Government Board to make regulations to secure against the use on public roads of motor-cars, dangerous whether on account of imperfect mechanical construction or excessive engine power, designed for dangerously high speeds, would be to place upon them a duty which they might rightly discharge, and he trusted that it might be found possible for them to undertake it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 32, after the word 'police,' to insert as a new paragraph '(c.) To secure against the use on public roads of motor-cars, dangerous whether on account of imperfect mechanical construction or excessive engine power, designed for dangerously high speeds.'"—(Lord Kelvin.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Upon this matter I have, of course, to speak upon the information supplied to me by others. I am neither engineer nor mechanician enough to test the
  1276
  information, but I am told that it is absolutely impossible to make this proposal effective by any antecedent regulations whatever, or to do more than take care that the motor should be under proper control. I am told that it is absolutely impossible to attempt any interference by regulation with the mechanical construction of a car. I believe that no effective machinery can be provided for the purpose, because any sort of machinery which controls engine-power in the car is of such a kind that it can be constantly altered by any competent person who is in charge of the car, and to attempt to carry out this proposal by legislation would involve constant examination, almost from day to day, of every car which is to run along the public roads. I am told that it is impossible, after the engine has been put into the car, to tell what its real horse power for driving purposes is. In these circumstances, all that would happen would be that a car would be called a six, a twelve, a twenty, or a thirty-horse power car, according to the will of the manufacturer, and the County Council would not really be able to apply any effective test. It is a perfectly useless operation to put upon the Local Government Board the duty of framing regulations which they tell Parliament they cannot frame in such a way as to be effective.
  LORD KELVINsaid that if it seemed inadvisable, he certainly would not press his Amendment. But he contended that the horse power of the engine after it had been put into the car could be tested without the slightest difficulty. He trusted that he might be pardoned for not accepting the information which had been given to the noble Lord by the professional advisers of the Local Government Board.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYdid not think the final objection given by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—that the House ought not to put on the Local Government Board duties which they had declared themselves incapable of undertaking—was a valid one, because they had declared themselves incapable of doing so much with regard to preventing accidents that they would be left no

  1277
  power at all. He admitted that they were all children in these matters, and were groping rather in the dark. Taking expert against expert, he preferred the authority of Lord Kelvin to that of any expert that could be named. If the noble Lord opposite would arrange a meeting between Lord Kelvin and the expert, and the latter could convince Lord Kelvin that his proposal was incapable of being carried out, the House would be in a position to deal with the question on Report. It was so serious a matter that it could not be dealt with by reading out the opinion of an anonymous expert at the Table.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have not the slightest objection to endeavouring to arrange the meeting which the noble Earl has suggested. If the Amendment is not pressed, I will certainly endeavour to make that meeting possible.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that under the Bill they were giving large powers to the Local Government Board. They were enabling them to make regulations which would have the force of law. It was becoming more and more the habit of Departments to take upon themselves, or to have placed upon them, functions which more properly belonged to Parliament itself. Surely these regulations, when made, ought to be laid on the Table of both Houses, and then it would be in the power of any Member of either House, if he saw a regulation which he thought objectionable, to bring it under the notice of the House with a view to its alteration. The words in his Amendment were inserted in the regulation clause of the Act of 1896, and he thought it only right that they should be inserted in this Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 34, after the word 'Board' to insert as a new sub-section 'Every regulation made in pursuance of this section shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am glad that the noble Earl has not moved the clause in the shape in which it first appeared, inasmuch as, according
  1278
  to the Amendment as originally drafted, the regulations would not become law until they had been laid on the Table for forty days.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he had never put the Amendment down in any form other than that in which it now appeared on the Paper.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I was under the impression that the Amendment had appeared in the other form. With regard to this Amendment I can assure the noble Lord that this is already provided for. Section 6 of the Locomotives Act, under which the regulations are made, provides in so many words that the regulations shall be laid on the Table of Parliament, and it is only under that section that the regulations can be made.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he could not see any objection to inserting the Amendment in the clause. If it had a fault, it would merely be one of repetition; but, at all events, it would enable members of both Houses to see clearly what was the intention of the Act.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have the greatest dislike to inserting words which are superfluous and unnecessary, and which are likely to throw doubt on the other clauses. There is no power to make regulations except under Section 6 of the principal Act, and that section provides that any regulations made under it shall be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. In those circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he would not press his Amendment, but at the same time he thought the insertion of the words would have been very useful.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  *THE EARL OF JERSEYmoved to insert the word "not" after "is," the effect being to leave the speed limit as at present.

  1279
  He admitted that after the decision the other night there was rather an awkward fence to get over; but still, there might even on that clause be a little wavering on the part of Members. It was certain that in many parts of the country there was a strong opposition to the idea that motor-cars should be allowed to go at any rate of speed which the driver might choose to adopt, and it certainly seemed hard that the general public should be jeopardised by motor-cars travelling at a high rate of speed. Lord Balfour had argued the other night that it was difficult to enforce a speed limitation clause, but he hardly thought that could really be the case, because in that very clause the noble Lord proposed in certain places to adopt a limit of speed. The Board of Trade imposed a limit of speed in the case of tramways, and surely if those rules could be carried out, there would be no difficulty in enforcing a restricted rate of speed with regard to motor-cars. The noble Lord made a great mistake if he thought that this Bill, without such a restriction, would be well received in the country districts. He moved his Amendment as a strong protest against the principle of unlimited speed. In the few days since the House first went into Committee on this Bill he had had an opportunity of seeing the people in the part of the country in which he lived, and everyone to whom he had spoken was aghast at the idea that their Lordships' House had gone in so thoroughly for unlimited speed. The Government appeared to have taken the side of high speed motor-cars drivers as against the public.
  Amendment moved.
  "In page 3, line 36, after the word 'is' to insert the word 'not.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I venture to state that it is hardly fair to say that the Government have taken the side of the motor-car drivers as against the public in regard to this Bill. I am quite sure the motor-car drivers, at any rate, do not think the Government have taken their side. Probably the real fact of the matter is, that the Government have taken the extreme view of neither party in this Bill, but have endeavoured to bring in a measure which will fairly regulate matters in the future without unduly hampering those who like the
  1280
  sport of driving in motor-cars, and at the same time do all that is reasonable to preserve the roads for those who do not enjoy that form of amusement. I think the House will not accept this Amendment when it learns that the effect of it would be universally, with certain exceptions provided by the local authorities, to preserve the existing speed limit; for, if one thing more than another has been settled by the previous discussions it is that the existing speed limit has been found wanting. If we were to accept this Amendment, we might just as well leave the Bill off the Statute-book. I cannot accept this Amendment, nor the one in the name of Lord Kelvin which stands next; but when we come to a subsequent Amendment it will probably be convenient to indicate in a more general way what improvement I think can be made in this clause. In the meantime I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD KELVINsaid he felt so strongly that there ought to be no interregnum between the passage of the Bill and the issue of Local Government Board regulations, during which there would be absolutely no fixed limit of speed in any part of Great Britain or Ireland, that he thought either his Amendment, or perhaps some modification of it, ought to be adopted. It was surely not asking too much to ask that the public should be protected against that state of things. The Bill was aimed at reckless driving, but it was more easy to say at what rate of speed a car was driving than to give a satisfactory definition of reckless driving.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 36, to leave out the word 'except' and insert the word 'only.'"—(Lord Kelvin).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The arguments which I ventured to put before the House a moment ago were intended to apply to the two Amendments, which are absolutely identical.

  1281
  I trust I shall not be thought discourteous if I do not repeat them. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHmoved an Amendment to provide that "in no town, village, or populous place" should the speed of any motor-car exceed twelve miles an hour. He said that the Government, with the assent of the House, had refused to enact any speed limit; they had refused to enact any power limit, and they had refused to require any proof of competence on the part of the drivers of motor-cars. He thought those three refusals formed a strong reason for the adoption of the Amendment he now moved. Clause 5, as it stood, repealed the present enactment with regard to the speed of motor-cars, but it retained the present rate of speed up to fourteen miles an hour in all cases where the local authority applied for leave from the Local Government Board to retain it in respect of any special limits or special places. That was a form of local option with regard to the regulation of speed given to local authorities, subject to the veto of the Local Government Board. If every local authority were allowed to fix its own limit of speed within scheduled areas there would result a most confusing patchwork of speeds over the country. It was much simpler to provide one limit for all populous places. He had selected the limit of twelve miles an hour because it was the maximum speed of horse traffic, and because, therefore, it was easy to tell whether the speed was exceeded. In populous places there would then be no necessity for signs.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words 'except as respects,' and insert the words 'provided that in no town, village, or other populous place, nor within.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not wish to burk discussion upon this clause, but I think I shall probably meet the convenience of the House if I make a few remarks at this stage as to the effect of this clause, and what the Govern-
  1282
  ment are prepared to do to meet the suggestions made the other night in the Amendments which are now on the Paper. The noble Lord made a most moderate speech, and one with which, in very large measure, I find myself in agreement. The Bill, he truly said, repeals the speed limit, except under the conditions set out in the clause. Speaking generally, there are three dangers to be guarded against in this clause. The primary object of this Bill is to punish the man who drives recklessly or negligently, and nothing should be done to suggest that if he keeps within a certain speed limit, up to, say, ten, twelve, or fourteen miles an hour, he is in any way absolved from the necessity of being careful. I entirely agree with the noble Lord opposite that it is undesirable to have too many varying speed limits all over the country. There may be special cases where a very low speed ought to be fixed, a speed lower than ten or twelve miles an hour, but they will be very few. We think that where there is a special limit imposed it should in almost every case be the same limit, so that when a driver is within the prescribed points he should always keep within the same limit. It would be very inconvenient to have a limit in one county of fourteen miles an hour, in another of twelve, and in another of ten; and the President of the Local Government Board is prepared to agree that, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, the limit of speed for special areas should be uniform, and that that limit should be ten miles an hour. The House will see that we are going a considerable distance to meet those who have Amendments down in regard to this clause. Another danger to be guarded against is the undue caprice of local authorities. They cannot be allowed a roving charter to impose limits wherever they like, but must be under the controlling authority of the Local Government Board, so that one consistent policy may be adopted throughout the whole country. The proposal of the noble Lord opposite is to take "populous places." The words "populous places" are by themselves objectionable, as it is unfair to the drivers as well as to the public to leave to their discretion the decision where a "populous place" begins and ends. I hold that it is absolutely necessary that

  1283
  notices should be posted up wherever a special speed limit is prescribed, and that between the two notices posted up the driver is not to go beyond the special limit of speed. Though I do not like the Amendment of the noble Lord, I am prepared to strike out the word "special" in each of the three places where it occurs in the clause. The clause will then read—
  "Section 4 of the principal Act (which relates to the rate of speed of motor-cars) is hereby repealed except as respects any limits or place to which that section is applied by regulation made by the Local Government Board with a view to the safety of the public on the application of the Council of any County or County Borough in which the limits or place are situated."
  I believe from communications which have been made to my right hon. friend and myself that this proposal will go very far to meet the views of those who have suggested Amendments to this clause. But the idea is that the County Council should be able to recommend those places within their areas to which this limit of speed might be usefully applied. It may be applied to the whole or any of the country towns, or to populous places where the traffic is considerable, and to any dangerous places in the country roads, to steep hills or sharp corners. There is no limit to the distance over which the prohibition might apply, but of course the power will have to be fairly and reasonably exercised and not used capriciously. I hold strongly that the ultimate decision as to the speed should rest with the central authority, because if local authorities are left to decide the question much irritation and difficulty will be created. I do not for a moment conceal from myself, nor does my right hon. friend Mr. Long conceal from himself, that this will impose a difficult task on the central body, but we believe that the great majority of the local authorities will do their best to assist the central authority, and will not be unduly extravagant in their demands for special regulations. It must remain incumbent on local authorities to put up the necessary notices; from that I cannot depart. If in the future the Local Government Board thinks that the limits of space over which the speed is to be brought down to ten miles per hour are too large, I should
  1284
  like to preserve the initiative of the central authority to amend them. I do not propose to give the central authority any power itself to initiate the closing of spaces; but to meet cases where it has approved the closing of spaces and then finds that it has gone too far, I shall propose at a subsequent stage to allow the central authority to modify the limit which it had previously agreed to.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the noble Lord had given him nothing at all. The omission of the word "special" did not meet him in any way. His great desire was to have a uniform speed limit in towns and populous places.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If it were to be made a condition of accepting the proposals I have made, I would see if I could not do even that before another stage.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he would withdraw the greater portion of his opposition provided the noble Lord would introduce words into the section that the speed limit should be a uniform one of ten miles an hour in such places.
  LORD HENEAGE, as one who had an Amendment on the Paper to this clause, said he was grateful for the concession announced by the Government—namely, that a speed limit, in the areas in question, of ten miles an hour should be put in the clause. His object in suggesting a limit of ten miles was to prevent cars from being driven at high speeds through country villages and towns, and especially at corners where traffic converged. A uniform limit of speed was desirable, and he was glad it was proposed to insert ten miles in the clause. He agreed that it would be disastrous if different rates of speed obtained all over the country.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKthought the conclusion arrived at by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was a right one. The standing Joint Committee of Hampshire had discussed this matter, and they felt that there would be very great difficulty in making special recommendations for limits of speed in different parts of the county. Therefore it would be better if the noble Lord followed the

  1285
  example contained in the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1865, and altered the clause so that there should be a limit of speed of ten miles an hour when motorcars went through any city, town, or village, leaving it to the different local authorities to ask, if they desired it, for a lower limit of speed in any particular place; and this, he thought, the Local Government Board would be disinclined to sanction except for very good reason.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked whether the Local Government Board were prepared to lay on the local authorities the duty of marking out the dangerous places by signals, especially cross roads. He did not think that the posting up of notices to show where the special rate of speed was to begin and end was enough for public security or for the safety of the drivers themselves. Would it not be possible by regulation on local authorities to secure the marking of dangerous places by a signal which would be generally recognised?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcalled attention to the practical working of the change outlined by the Secretary for Scotland, and calculated that for the future two-thirds of the roads of the whole country would come under the speed limit. He was very glad indeed that the Government had come round to adopt a fixed limit of speed.
  VISCOUNT HAMPDENwished to know whether the Local Government Board would exercise any veto on the caprices of local authorities.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEconfessed that he did not quite understand the position in which the House was. He understood that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had stated that he was prepared to do certain things, but that he did not quite see how they could be done. With regard to fixing a limit of ten miles an hour, he submitted that the view of his noble friend would be met by the insertion after the word "repealed" in line 36, of these words "provided that within any limits or place to which that section is applied by regulations made by the Local Government Board with a view to the safety of the public on the application of the Council of any County or County
  1286
  Borough the speed of any motor-car shall not exceed ten miles an hour." He was rather pre-disposed to put it on local authorities to look after their own people, but the general sense of the House had converted him to believe in a speed limit of some sort.
  *EARL RUSSELLregretted that the Government were going back to the fatal principle of so many miles an hour. Motor-cars were habitually driven in London at twelve and fifteen miles an hour with perfect safety, and to the satisfaction of the police. It would not be a reasonable thing to enforce a speed limit of ten miles an hour in open country simply because it happened to be within the boundary of a town. Again, a village might be very populous in the middle of the day, but would it be a populous place at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning when the inhabitants were in bed? One Amendment on the Paper suggested that cars should be limited to ten miles an hour at turnings. There were turnings which it would be dangerous to go round at six miles an hour, and there were others which it would be safe to go round at fifteen miles an hour. Speaking as one who was not altogether without experience in driving these cars through all sorts of towns and villages, he very much preferred the clause which the Government had drafted and which appeared in the Bill, because by that clause the Local Government Board would reserve to themselves the power, on the advice of the local authority, of placarding a particular section of road and saying that on that section of road the speed must be limited. But to endeavour to include particular classes of places would always give too high a limit in some places and too low a limit in others. He hoped the Government would not include a rigid limit of ten miles an hour, but would endeavour to maintain the clause as it was.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am satisfied that the offer which I made is much more in conformity with the general views of the House than the argument of the noble Earl who has just sat down. I would point out that, even if these proposals are accepted, we do not mean to depart from the obligation on the local authority to put up notices

  1287
  warning drivers of motor-cars when they have come within the limits within which they are not to go beyond ten miles an hour. I think that the Amendment which has been handed to me by Lord Ribblesdale, and which he read to the House, goes so near what I propose that I am prepared to accept it now and to put the words in the Bill, on the understanding that the drafting may be improved, if necessary, at a later stage. I cannot agree with Lord Northbrook that County Councils should not have to send up their regulations to the central authority. I am afraid I must maintain that provision, and in answer to Viscount Hampden I wish to say most distinctly that the Local Government Board do intend to exercise their own judgment as to the reasonableness of a proposal made to them. In no other way will it be possible to get this Bill accepted by Parliament. The Local Government Board are responsible to Parliament in a way in which County Councils are not responsible, and I think Parliament will be slow to place this responsibility upon any body which is not capable of being controlled. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery, referred to the provisions in the Bill with regard to the notification of dangerous places. If the noble Earl thinks those provisions are not satisfactory, and will make a suggestion to me in writing, I will see if I can meet his views still further. I did not put my Amendment on the Notice Paper because I desired first to gather the wishes of noble Lords as to the precise form of words, and I hope I have succeeded. I am glad to think that we shall pass from this most important clause without any very serious divergence of opinion.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the Amendment which had been read to the House by his noble friend Lord Ribblesdale was practically his own Amendment, with a few words added, which he had handed to the noble Lord to suggest. He was glad that the Government were prepared to accept it, and he begged to withdraw his previous Amendment and to move it in the amended form.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 36, after the word 'repeal,' to insert the words, 'provided that within any limits or place to which that section is applied by regulation made by the Local Government Board with a view to the safety of the public on the application of the Council of any County or County Borough the speed of any motor-car shall not exceed ten miles an hour.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYtrusted that every possible effort would be made to prevent there being a large interregnum between the lapsing of the existing Act and the coming into operation of this Bill.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If this Bill should fortunately become law, there will be considerable time, between the end of July or the beginning of August and January 1st next, for the necessary arrangements to be made. I should view with disfavour any proposal to postpone the operation of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSexpressed regret that the Government, in giving way on this question, had fixed a speed limit. A speed of ten miles an hour was too fast in many dangerous places. The better way to have dealt with this would have been to enact that the speed should be that of ordinary horse traffic in like circumstances. He gave notice that on Report he would move the rejection of the speed limit and substitute "the speed of ordinary horse traffic in like circumstances."
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid the object of the next Amendment standing in his name was to fit the punishment to the crime. Under this clause a driver who infringed a by-law by going through the streets of, say, Winchester, at a mile or so above the speed limit would come under the same penalties as if he had been driving recklessly and furiously. He thought it was a remarkable provision that the Court before whom that man was brought could not deal with him except under the penalty clause. The fault of the Bill, as at present drafted, was that there was one tremen-

  1289
  dous penalty applicable to all kinds of offences.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the words 'and the Local Government Board may impose on any driver of a motor-oar infringing such by-law, for the first offence a penalty not exceeding £5, and for any subsequent offence a penalty not exceeding £10, or in the discretion of the Court imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.'"—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord is mistaken. A driver who merely exceeds the speed limit would not be guilty of an offence under the Act. He would be guilty of an offence under the by-law and would be punishable only by fine, the maximum fine being 10s.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEasked whether, in the event of the owner of a motor-car saying to the chauffeur, "Never mind regulations; go as fast as you can," he would be liable for reckless driving.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. Anyone who aids and abets the driver to commit an offence is liable in the first degree.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNmoved an Amendment to give the Court in each case power to withhold or cancel a licence in addition to the fine or imprisonment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 13, after the word 'months' to insert the words 'and the Court shall in each case have power to withhold or cancel a licence in addition to the fine or imprisonment.'"—(The Earl of Rosslyn.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Clause 3 already gives the Court power to suspend a licence, and it is bound to endorse it.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKasked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill how far the word "person" extended. The question was an important one, and had come up quite recently on one or two occasions. In one case he was informed that an officer in the Army, who had been driving a motor-car at the rate of nineteen miles an hour through a village, was summoned at the Petty Sessional Court. He was defended on behalf of the Treasury on the ground that the Crown did not come under the Act. Therefore, any servant of the Crown might endanger the lives of the public in any way he pleased without being amenable to the ordinary law. A similar case arose in his own county. The servant of a contractor for the War Office exceeded the speed limit laid down in the 4th Section of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1865, and was summoned at the Petty Sessional Court. The excessive speed was admitted, and the man convicted and fined; but the Treasury called for a case to be stated, and it was argued out in the High Court, with the result that the sentence of the Magistrates was reversed on the ground that the Crown did not come within the Act of Parliament. He urged that some steps should be taken to bring officers in the Army, drivers of contractors' steam engines, and other servants of the Crown under the same obligations as applied to all other persons. Otherwise they would have officers who were attending manœuvres careering about on motor-cars at any speed they liked to the danger of the public.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can hold out no hope to the noble Earl that anything can be done to derogate from the actual privileges of the Crown in this matter. Although he did not state the facts distinctly, I am sure he will at once admit that this could not happen except in the case of officers or servants who are actually on duty at the time.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid that one of the cases he alluded to was that of a driver of a traction engine employed by a contractor of the War Office. Surely it could not be contended that that man was on duty.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Of course, I cannot argue upon the exact facts of the case because I do not know them; but if the noble Earl will send me a report of the case I will promise to have it carefully considered. At the same time I do think that if any officer, even when on duty, unnecessary endangers the public, he ought to be censured by the authorities.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid a censure was not enough. What he asked was that some steps should be taken to bring officers under the same obligation as applied to all other persons.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Causes 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After Clause 9 to insert the following new clause: 'Nothing in this Act shall affect any liability of the driver or owner of a motor-car by virtue of any statute or at common law'."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENexplained that the object of his Amendment to this clause was to remove a grievance which existed at present with regard to motorcycles. In the eyes of the law, if a motorcyclist had attached to his machine an arrangement for conveying a passenger that machine was instantly transformed into a traction engine, and the legal speed limit then was six miles an hour. Cases had occurred where people had been fined for exceeding that limit, although the machine they had been driving was simply a motor-cycle, and he hoped this disability would be removed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, after Sub-section (1) to insert as a new sub-section: 'In the case of motorcycles to which an attachment is affixed for carrying one or more persons in addition to the rider of the cycle, such attachment shall not be dealt with as a separate vehicle'."—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There is no doubt that this machine, which, I believe, is called a trailer, is
  1292
  not a light locomotive for registration purposes, but I believe that for all other purposes it is. If there is any doubt about the present regulations they can be altered to meet the wishes of the noble Earl. His Amendment only appeared on the paper to-day, and if he would allow me to look into it before the next stage I should be glad. I have no doubt that I shall be able to say that the present regulations cover it, but if they do not I will have them altered to meet the point.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments, to the House.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Will the Bill be circulated as amended before the next stage?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Yes. I do not think there will be any difficulty about that. If we were to postpone the Standing Committee till next Tuesday I think we should imperil the Bill, and I propose, therefore, to ask that a special meeting of the Standing Committee be held on Thursday. I believe the Bill can easily be circulated before that time, and then we can take any points left over from to-day. I am exceedingly anxious to get the Bill down in the other House this week in order that it may have a chance of being passed into law this session.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.

  METROPOLITAN STREETS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the second reading read.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, this is a very small Bill, and its object is to extend the power which the police possess under the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, of regulating the traffic, to the making of regulations as to the places where, and the conditions under which, persons may collect money in a public street for charitable or other purposes. Very

  1293
  great inconvenience and annoyance has been caused in many cases by persons collecting money in the streets. There was one notable case this year where the unemployed marched about the streets in large numbers pressing people to give subscriptions. It had been believed that the Vagrants' Act would to some extent meet these cases, but owing to decisions that have been given it has been found that this law is practically inoperative in dealing with these particular cases. Section 11 of the Act of 1867 gives power to the police for regulating traffic. This is a matter quite akin to that, and is merely a slight extension of the powers they already have. The Bill is to be enforced within six miles of Charing Cross. Many societies who collect subscriptions in the streets in this way have been consulted and they have no objection to regulations; in many cases they would be willing to have the collections put a stop to altogether. The Bill has passed through the other House not only without any Amendment but without opposition. It is a much needed measure, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  On question. Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  MOTOR-CAR PROSECUTION.
  LORD HENEAGE: I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether there have been any prosecutions of owners of motor-cars under Section 5 of the 11th and 12th Victoria, chap. 43, for aiding and abetting an offence against the Locomotives Act of 1896; whether it is possible to obtain any evidence against the owner under the Summary Jurisdiction Act; and further, whether, if any evidence was forthcoming from the driver or other occupant of the motorcar, the owner would be liable to the penalties in the proposed Act.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: There is no available information as to the prosecutions under Section 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, nor can such information be obtained without a great deal of trouble and investigation. As regards the remainder of the Question,
  1294
  the obtaining of evidence against the owner must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. If the owner is proved, however, to have aided, abetted, counselled, or procured the commission of the offence, he is liable to the same penalties as the principal offender. Under Section 5 not only is the owner liable, but any other person on the car who aids and abets in the commission of the offence is also liable.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.