Sitting of 23 June 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Carmarthenshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Manchester Southern Tramways Bill [Lords]; Derby Gas Bill [Lords]; Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Harrogate Water Bill [Lords]; Rickmansworth Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Belfast Water Bill [Lords]; Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill; Shepshed Urban District Gas Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways Bill [Lords]. To be read a second time upon Tuesday next.
  Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read a second time; to be considered upon Thursday.
  Alexandra Park and Palace Bill. Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir George Bartley and Captain Balfour.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Reported with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Hastings Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]; Tynemouth and District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Reported, with
  252
  Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Musical Copyright Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 255.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to: Gas Light and Coke Company Bill, with an Amendment; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Commercial Gas Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to: Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petitions against: from Skirlaugh; Bollington; Parkstone; and, Sydenham: to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition of the National Chamber of Trade, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Rosemarkie; Knockbain; Avoch; and, Resolis; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL).
  Petitions for legislation: from Fulham; and, Hornsey; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL, AND LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Ashton-under-Lyne; Plymouth (two); Morecambe; and Liverpool; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from East Malling; St. George in the East; Richmond (Surrey); Kew; Mereworth; Bollington; and Great Yarmouth; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petition, from Salisbury, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petitions for alteration of Law: from Darlington; and Brighouse; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (EDUCATION COMMITTEES).
  Copy presented, of Statement of Schemes for the formation of Education Committees approved during the month of May 1903, by the Board of Education under Section 17 of the Education Act of 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the county of Middlesex altering certain Polling Districts in the Hornsey Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FINANCE ACCOUNTS.
  Copy presented, of Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st March 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 219.]
  EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE, RETIREMENT AT 65).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 18th June — Lord George Hamilton]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3006 to 3008 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Navy—Warrant Rank for Chief Writers.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can announce any intention of conferring warrant rank on a certain number of chief writers in the Royal Navy.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) There is no present intention of conferring the rank of warrant officers on chief writers.

  Trade of British Colonies with the United Kingdom.
  MR. FULLER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a statement, as a supplement of the White Paper [Cd. 1638], showing the value of the trade of the various British Colonies and Possessions with the United Kingdom, other British Possessions, and foreign countries for the years 1890 to 1900 inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) A statement shall be prepared showing the trade of the various British Colonies and Possessions, inclusive of bullion and specie, with the United Kingdom, other British Possessions, and foreign countries during each of the years 1890–1900.

  File Cutting Trade—Special Rules Arbitration.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inform the House what has been the result of the arbitration on the special rules in the file cutting trade lately held in Sheffield.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have received the Report of Mr. Chester Jones whom I appointed to hold an inquiry under Section 81 of the

  255
  Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, with regard to the draft file cutting regulations of October 1902, and I have now made the regulations with the modifications suggested in that Report. The regulations and the Report were presented to Parliament yesterday.

  Proceedings Under the Truck Act.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the decision given at Stourbridge, and quoted in the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, that all proceedings under the Truck Act affecting persons employed in factories and workshops must be taken by His Majesty's Inspectors of Factories; and, if so, will he say whether steps were taken to appeal against that decision; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas). The decision referred to was brought to my notice; but, as the case was not one to which the Home Office was a party, my Department had no power to appeal against the decision. I cannot think that the decision of the justices was right, and I believe that, as stated in the Memorandum on the Truck Acts issued by the Home Office, a prosecution under those Acts may be instituted by anyone. I have no reason to suppose that the view taken by the justices in this case is generally held.

  Rent Allowance for Suburban Constables
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increase in suburban rents, he can see his way to grant to the constables serving outside the boundaries of the metropolitan boroughs such allowances in aid of rent as are granted to constables serving within the metropolitan boroughs.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have not seen any reason which would lead me to depart from the decision of my predecessor in this matter.

  English Evening Mail from Comber.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the train which leaves Newtownards with the English
  256
  mail, 6.25 p.m. passes through Comber at 6.35 p.m., he can arrange to carry the mail from Comber instead of letters being sent by bicycle or on foot as at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I will make inquiry on the question of despatching the mail from Comber by the train referred to, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Telegraph and Sorting Clerks—Resignatios.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of telegraphists and sorting clerks who have voluntarily resigned the service for employment in other branches of the Civil Service during the past five years, or have left to enter private employment during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am not able to answer this question, as the causes of resignation are not always stated.

  Delay in Repayments of Income Tax.
  COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that applications sent to Somerset House in April for the return of Income Tax have not yet been decided upon; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused by this delay to people of small incomes, he will cause inquiry to be made into this delay, with a view to establishing a more rapid system for future years.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) It is true that there has this year been unusual delay in dealing with claims for repayment of Income Tax, owing to the enormous and rapid growth in the number of such claims in recent years. The number of repayments in England and Wales in 1899–1900 was about 225,000, whereas this year it is expected to be well over 400,000, or nearly double. As a result of this increase the work has outstripped the capacity of the present staff in the busier months of the year, and arrangements are in progress for providing improved accommodation so as to permit of an adequate enlargement of the staff. This will be available before the end of the year, and

  257
  it is hoped that the delays experienced this year will not again recur. Meanwhile the Board of Inland Revenue must plead for patience and indulgence on the part of the public. It must be remembered that many of the claims require careful investigation, often involving numerous references to local officers and others, and that considerable delay may arise in certain cases from this cause alone, apart from the general cause explained above.

  Increase of Russian Navy.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have any information to the effect that the Russian Government has determined to strengthen the fleet which it maintains in the Far East and also to add to its force in the Black Sea, and, in accordance with this decision, to lay down forthwith two new battleships of 12,000 tons at Nicolaiev and Sevastopol and to take in hand three new destroyers in the Black Sea; and whether, including the ships which are to be laid down in the Baltic at the close of the present year, this makes a total Russian programme for 1903–4 of eight new battleships.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The Admiralty has received no special information to the effect of the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, but it is the practice of the Russian Government to send new ships as completed to the East and to recall older ships when thus relieved, an operation which tends to increase the fleet in Eastern waters. In reply to the second paragraph of the Question it is believed that it is the intention of the Russian Government to lay down the battleships and destroyers referred to. In reply to the third paragraph, as far as the Admiralty are aware, the number of battleships or first class cruisers which are laid down, or are about to be laid down, is six.

  Prize Firing in the Navy.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that the Prize Firing Return for 1902 of the battleships and first and second class cruisers of the Home Squadron shows 1,096 rounds fired and only 262 hits
  258
  made, he will state what steps the Admiralty intend to take to secure an improvement.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) I have made it clear on several recent occasions in answer to Questions in the House, that the Admiralty are fully alive to the desirability of securing an improvement in the shooting efficiency of the Fleet, and that official notice is taken of results which are considered on a review of all the circumstances attending the firing to be unsatisfactory, while approval is bestowed on ships which do exceptionally well. The figures quoted by the hon. Member refer to firing at a somewhat remote date, and any questions arising out of this practice have been already dealt with by the Admiralty, and no further action appears to be called for.

  Rebate of Duty on Molasses.
  MR. TOULMIN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the fact that large stocks of molasses under fifty degrees, which is almost entirely used for feeding purposes, are at present lying in store in the United Kingdom, upon which the duty of one shilling per hundredweight has been paid: and, if so, if the same rebate will be allowed in respect of such stocks as is to be allowed for corn in stock on 30th June.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) I do not know what is the exact amount of stocks of these molasses; but as the yearly importation of all molasses containing not more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter for whatever use is only about 600,000 cwts., I doubt if they can be very large. The circumstances of the case do not appear to me to be such as would in any way justify so exceptional a course as a rebate of duty on these stocks; and I think the unusually long period of notice, together with bonding facilities, amply meet the necessities of the situation.

  Scotch Local Taxation Account.
  MR. CALDWELL: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the amount paid into the Local Taxation Scotland Account, under the provisions of the Local Government

  259
  (Scotland) Act, 1889, in each financial year up to and including 31st March, 1903; also the amount paid in each year as a grant towards relief of school fees under Sub-section 1 of Section 1 of the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892, showing in a separate column the amount paid in each year to the local authorities under Sub-section 5 of Section 2 of the last mentioned Act.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray). The hon. Member will find the information he desires for the year 1890–91 to 1901–2 on pp. 78 to 91 of the final Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation [Cd. 1067]. The amounts paid into the accounts for the years 1902–3, which, however, are not yet complete, amount to £624,000, and the Fee Grant as estimated amounts to £322,702. The figures for the grant paid to local authorities are not yet available.

  Irish School Children—Exemption Certificates.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what regulations have been made for excusing children from attendance at school in districts where attendance is compulsory, since, as results have been abandoned, they cannot be certified as having passed in fifth standard.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Though examinations for results fees have been abolished the classes or standards have not been abolished, and there is a prescribed programme of instruction for each standard. The principal teacher can always certify whether a pupil has attained such proficiency in reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic as is prescribed for the fifth standard, and the right of issuing the necessary certificate is given to the principal teacher under the Second Schedule to the Act.

  Irish Ex-Officio Magistrates—Disqualification owing to Imprisonment.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he state whether a gentleman, who is an ex-officio magistrate and who has
  260
  been deprived of his commission owing to imprisonment under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, will receive a fresh commission if on retiring from the office by virtue of which he becomes an ex-officio magistrate he is re-elected for the same at any subsequent period.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Under Section 12 of the Application of Enactments Order, which is identical with the 46th section of the English Local Government Act, 1894, a person who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour without the option of a fine is disqualified from being elected or being a member of a county or district council. As he cannot, therefore, be chairman of either of these councils he cannot be an ex-officio magistrate. A commission is not issued to ex-officio magistrates of this class.

  Changes in the Works Department of the War Office.
  MR. BROADHURST: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state what changes he proposes to make in the Works Department of the War Office, and also inform the House when the changes will be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Imperial Yeomanry.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, is he aware that the men of the 1901 batch of Imperial Yeomanry signed for their accounts at Aldershot before being discharged, and, if so, will he state the total number of the complaints then made; were those complaints forwarded to the Secretary of State for War, and, if so, will he state how many were owing to the men not receiving a month's furlough or payment in lieu thereof, how many were owing to the stoppage of bounties or gratuities, and how many were direct claims against officers commanding companies; and will he also

  261
  state the total number of complaints that have been received since the men were discharged at Aldershot.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have already given the hon. Member ample information in reply to previous Questions† on this subject. I cannot undertake to give him the detailed information he now requires, the preparation of which would delay the heavy work which the paymaster and his staff are endeavouring to complete. If he will be good enough to refer direct to the Chief Paymaster, Imperial Yeomanry, this officer will be prepared to furnish him personally with the information at his disposal in regard to specific cases.
  MR. MANSFIELD: Have the officers been consulted with regard to the complaints received since the men were disbanded at Aldershot?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. But this is a question of detail which cannot be dealt with by Question and Answer across the floor of the House. I am prepared to give all the information at my disposal, but individual cases must be dealt with by the officers responsible.

  The Constitution of Malta.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In accordance with private notice, I beg to ask the Colonial Secretary whether he can give to the House any information with reference to the telegram in this morning's paper which states that the Constitution of Malta has been suddenly and radically altered in such a way that the official members are now in a majority instead of the elected members. Is that correct, and, if so, on what ground has the alteration been made.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Perhaps it would be more correct to say that we have reverted to the Constitution which prevailed in Malta for many years before the year 1887. That gave to the official members a bare majority of two
  † See (4) Debates, cxxii., 1090.
  262
  over the elected members. The reason for this change will be fully explained in the Papers which I propose to lay immediately upon the Table of the House; but, as the hon. Member asks for an immediate statement, I would say that the difference between us and the elected members, which has continued for a very long while, is due to our determination to preserve the free choice of the people of Malta as regards the foreign language which they wish to have taught to their children. The option we give them is between Italian and English. As regards their own language — which might be called a taal—there is no question at all. That is the medium for the instruction of young children in Malta; and there never has been, and probably never will be, any question in regard to it. The question is what other language they should learn. We have decided that the parents themselves should choose. On the other hand, the elected members have demanded that we should make Italian compulsory, and, failing our assent to that proposition, they have again and again refused all the education estimates. It is impossible to go on in these circumstances, and we have reverted, as we warned them we should do, to the Constitution of 1887.
  MR. LOUGH: How do you get the opinion of the parents except through the elected members?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: By inquiry of the parents what their opinions are.
  MR. BRYCE: How has this inquiry been carried out?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that the Papers I propose to lay immediately will cover that particular point; but there are other Papers which will show it very fully. But the process is explained in a sentence. We ask the parents—[An HON. MEMBER: Every parent?] — yes, every parent, when they send their children to school whether they desire that their children should be taught Italian or English.
  MR. CLANCY: Since the right hon. Gentleman has reverted to the ancient Constitution of Malta, does he contemplate a similar step in regard to the Australian colonies and Canada?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Motor-Cars—Furious Driving.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case heard at Marlborough Street Police Court on the 16th instant when a motor-car driver was convicted of driving furiously in Hyde Park, and to the comments of the magistrate when passing sentence upon the grossness of this case and the inadequacy of the fine of £5 that he was empowered by law to pass; and whether, in view of infractions of the law by motor-car drivers, and the consequent danger to the public, he will obtain legislation to enable magistrates to inflict adequate penalties for this particular offence pending the introduction of the Bill for the general regulation of motor-cars.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I have seen newspaper reports of the case referred to. I think that the question of increased penalties is one which must be considered in connection with any Bill for the regulation of motor-cars.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in The Times, which shows that the remarks of the magistrate were far more severe than they appear in the Question?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I have not, Sir.

  Smallpox in North Staffordshire.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any information as to the continuance of the smallpox epidemic in North Staffordshire, and whether he can state if the Local Government Board are taking any steps to deal with it; whether there
  264
  have been any, and, if so, how many, deaths from smallpox in the Potteries within the last ten days; whether the Local Government Board are satisfied with the hospital accommodation at present provided at the Bagnall Joint Hospital in the event of any further spreading of the epidemic; and whether he can state by how many different authorities this hospital is controlled.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): According to Returns received by me, it appears that during the past eleven weeks thirty-seven cases of smallpox have occurred in the Potteries. I am informed that there have been no deaths from smallpox in the district during the last ten days. Except for a few cases at Hanley, the epidemic seems practically to have ceased. The hospital referred to by my hon. friend is under the control of the North Staffordshire Joint Smallpox Hospital Board which represents fourteen sanitary authorities. The Joint Hospital Board were only recently constituted, and the accommodation provided by them for smallpox cases was intended to meet the emergency which then existed. It was not such as in ordinary circumstances I should approve.

  Imprisonment for Contempt of Court in Ireland.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, and, if so, when, he intends to amend the law relating to contempt of Court in Ireland by the introduction of a measure restricting the power at present enjoyed by Irish judges, of sentencing Members of this House and others whom they may adjudge guilty of contempt to unlimited terms of imprisonment.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The Government have already stated that they do not consider that there is any necessity for legislation in this matter. The provisions of the law dealing with contempt of Court are the same in both countries and are well understood.
  MR. DELANY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he considers desirable a state of the law which allows the sending of political opponents to gaol for an indefinite period?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of opinion and not a question of fact.

  Irish Bee-Keeping Industry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the disease of foul brood amongst bees is spreading over Ireland, and that only two counties are at present free from it; whether the Department of Agriculture is empowered to destroy infected stocks, and, if so, what steps have been taken; and whether, in the absence of such powers, he will introduce legislation to enable the Department to stamp out the disease and to pay the bee-keepers whose stocks are destroyed some compensation; and will he state what steps the Congested Districts Board will take with regard to the threatened destruction of an industry which has been promoted in many districts with their assistance.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The disease is prevalent in Ireland. Where the owners of infected stocks in congested districts have allowed the officers of the Congested Districts Board to destroy them compensation has been paid. The Board has also defrayed the cost of experiments in treating diseased stocks. There is no statutory power, however, to compel their destruction, and the question of legislation is under consideration.

  Irish Prison Warders Holidays.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that governors of His Majesty's prisons in Ireland receive six weeks annual leave, that chief warders in the same service receive three weeks annual leave, and that ordinary warders and others of an inferior rank to chief
  266
  warders receive only fourteen days annual leave, and in view of the character of the duties of ordinary warders, he will advise the General Prisons Board to extend the annual leave of all warders of a lower rank than chief warder from fourteen to twenty-two days.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The annual leave granted to warders in the Irish Prisons Service under the rank of chief warder is fourteen days. I am not aware of any reasons for recommending an extension of this period of leave, which is the same as that granted to warders in English prisons.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last two or three years ordinary warders have been in many cases denied even the fourteen days leave to which they are entitled?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps the hon. Member will bring any such cases under my notice.

  Labourers Allotments in Cork.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain the reasons for the delay in providing the extra half acres to labourers' cottages in the Cork rural district, representations for which were duly made about four years ago; and will he cause such steps to be taken as will ensure that the scheme for providing these extra half acres will be speedily completed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The District Council was informed on the 4th instant that the Provisional Order had become absolute. The carrying out of the scheme under the Order now rests entirely with the council.

  Motor-Cars—Gordon-Bennett Cup Race.
  MR. LEAMY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is now in a position to say on whom will fall the cost of the extra police necessary for the protection of the public during the race for the Gordon-Bennett cup.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I hope to be able to announce the decision of the Treasury on Thursday.

  Tottenham Estate, County Leitrim.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what time has elapsed since final notices for sale were served on the tenants of the Tottenham estate, county Leitrim, which estate is at present in Chancery; whether, seeing that arrangements for squaring the rental were perfected over twelve months ago, and that the Sub-Commissioners have since acceded to an application of the landlord's solicitors to postpone the hearing of fair rent applications pending the sale, he can state the number of ejectment decrees obtained against tenants on this estate last January, and the number of registered served on others; and whether he will explain the cause of the delay in this sale, and say if further proceedings will be stayed against the tenants pending such sale.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Nearly four years have elapsed since the final notice of sale was served. The rental was settled in July, 1902. The Land Commissioners made their report to the Land Judge under Section 40, in March last. This report raises numerous questions in respect to turbary and sub-lettings which cannot be disposed of for some months. Nineteen ejectment decrees were obtained against tenants, and caretakers notices were served in seventeen cases. The Land Judge is always willing to consider any application for stay of ejectment proceedings, pending a sale, upon reasonable terms, but he cannot permit tenants to withhold payment of rent until the completion of proceedings.

  Government Expenditure in Galway City.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how much money has been expended by the Government within the last three years in Galway City upon public buildings and public works other than prison, police, and army barracks.
  MR. WYNDHAM: £3,997 10s. 6d.

  Fiscal Inquiry.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state, in connection with the Government's inquiry into the proposal of preferential trading with the colonies, whether it is the intention of the Government to ascertain the views of Colonial Governments as to the details of a scheme of preferential tariffs; if so, what steps they propose to take to ascertain those views; whether it is the intention of the Government to come to a decision with Colonial Governments as to the details of their scheme before such scheme is placed before the country; or will the Government formulate their scheme and give the country an opportunity of deciding upon it before it is offered to the colonies.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think that on the important questions which the hon. Member's Question raises it would be very premature for me to attempt to give an answer at present.
  MR. BRYCE: May I ask whether, if those communications do pass between the Colonial Governments and His Majesty's Government, they will be presented to this House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman will see that if, as I have said, all statements on my part on this question would be premature, a hypothetical question based upon a supposed answer must be still more premature.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury in what order it is proposed to take the Votes on Thursday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to put down the Home Office Vote first, and the Scotch Estimates second. Friday will be the last of the Fridays devoted to Private Members' Bills. To-morrow the Land Bill will be taken at the afternoon sitting and the Finance

  269
  Bill at the evening sitting. On Monday next the Land Bill will be proceeded with.
  MR. BRYCE: Which of the Scotch Votes will be put down first?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board Vote is the first in order.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Charles Seely; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Charles Dilke.
  Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing) Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Marine Insurance Bill [Lords]:—Sir William Allan, Sir William Arrol, Mr. Caldwell, Sir Francis Evans, Sir Fortescue Flannery, Sir Christopher Furness, Mr. Alban Gibbs, Mr. Hain, Mr. Helder, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. David MacIver, Mr. Maconochie, Sir Charles Palmer, Sir Robert Ropner, and Mr. Charles Wilson.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—

  1. "That in the case of the Alexandra Park and Palace Petition for Bill, 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 Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  Resolutions agreed to.

NEW BILL.
  CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
  "To provide for the better regulation of Canal Traffic," presented by Sir William Holland; supported by Sir John Brunner, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Field, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Joseph Walton, Mr. Whitley, and Mr. Wolff; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 2nd July, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTONproposed the substitution of 1d. for 1s., as the duty on exported coal. He said that in introducing the Budget, when referring to the question of the remission of taxation, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that, inasmuch as the coal tax had not injuriously affected the quantity of coal exported, he did not propose to interfere with it. The right hon. Gentleman had £10,500,000 to remit in taxation, and though the coal tax was imposed at a time when the financial exigencies of the country were most pressing, the coal tax—the only tax levied on British exports—was, they were told, not to be interfered with. It was perfectly true that the output of coal was greater last year than in any preceding year. Last year was a record year for the output of coal, the quantity being no less than 227 millions of tons. It was also true that the exports last year showed an increase of 1¼ million tons over the exports of the preceding year, but that increase was wholly accounted for by the increased shipments to the United States of America and to France, in consequence of the great strikes of coal miners which had occurred in those two countries. He had not omitted to notice also that there was an increase in the export of bunker coal last year as compared with the preceding year—an increase of 1½ million tons. So far as

  271
  the special district for which he spoke was concerned—the North Eastern part of England—the increase in the export of bunker coal had been 200,000 tons. While it was true that, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the coal strikes abroad, there was in 1902 an increase in the total export of coal as compared with 1901, it was equally true that the exports of 1902 as compared with the year 1900 were a million tons less, and would have been more than two million tons less had it not been for the extra demand caused by the strikes in America and France. The absence of a diminution of exports did not prevent 1s. per ton less being realised at the pit's mouth on coal for export, by reason of this coal tax, where they had to enter into competition with foreign coal. Whereas the export trade had been maintained, the fact was that the price of coal had fallen heavily since the year 1900, and there had been no corresponding reduction in the cost of production. That necessitated collieries working full time in order to raise the coal at the minimum of cost. It was better to suffer the loss of 1s. per ton, on the proportion of the output of the colliery exported, by reason of the coal tax, in order to enable full time to be worked, and to avoid the increase of cost, amounting from 3d. up to even 1s. per ton, which was the result of working on short time. Members of the Committee would quite understand that in connection with collieries, and especially with those which had heavy expenses for pumping, etc., the standing charges varied enormously as between working short and full time.
  In 1901 the case for the imposition of the coal tax rested to a considerable extent upon the Returns of wages and profits in the coal mines. He had obtained a Return from the Government this year similar to a Return issued in 1901. The former, in his opinion, contained many fallacious statements, and this latter Return afforded striking evidence of how fallacious were those figures and estimates. It was said in the Return issued on the 10th June that the price of coal in Northumberland and Durham had only fallen 3s. per ton between the years 1900 and 1902, and that in Yorkshire the fall in price had only been 2s. per ton. These figures could not possibly be correct in face of
  272
  the fact that whereas in the year 1900 the price of gas coal was 17s. per ton, f.o.b., the price was now only 8s. 6d., and that the locomotive coal for which railway companies were paying 16s. per ton in 1900 was at the present moment, under contract, as 9s. per ton. Further than that it was said in the Return that the average wages in Northumberland in 1900 were 35s., in Durham, 34s. 10d., and in Yorkshire 33s. 3d., while in 1902 the wages were 27s. 8d., 28s. 3d., and 33s. 3d. respectively. In the counties of Northumberland and Durham wages, which were regulated by the selling price of coal at the pit's mouth, had been actually reduced—in Northumberland by 35 per cent., in Durham by 31¼ per cent.; and in Yorkshire by 10 per cent., and if they reduced the wages which the Return stated the miners were earning in 1900 by those percentages, instead of having the figures which he had quoted they would have 23s. for Northumberland, 23s. 11d. for Durham and 29s. 11d. for Yorkshire. He thought he need not quote any further figures in order to prove to the Committee how utterly fallacious were those contained in the Return to which he had referred in regard to wages and to the profits of coal owners.
  With reference to the coal tax there was no tax which could have been imposed which was more unjust or indefensible. It was a violation of the principle of the equal incidence of taxation; it was a tax imposed upon one section only of a great industry, while other equally great and profitable industries had no corresponding tax put upon them. It was a reversal of the fiscal policy of this country. Capitalists who had invested their capital in the sinking of collieries never dreamed that the State in the year 1902 would confiscate £2,200,000 of the earnings gained in the working and exporting of coal, all of which loss had to be borne by the colliery owners, coal miners, shipowners and seamen of this country. Goal was the only British export upon which any tax was levied. They were told that this year's Budget was a free trade Budget, but he submitted that so long as the financial arrangements for the year included the imposition of the coal tax it was worse than any protectionist Budget. They had heard

  273
  a good deal lately about preferential tariff arrangements between the mother country and the colonies. This was a tariff arrangement, which was not a fair trade arrangement between the mother country and the colonies, inasmuch as it handicapped the British coal producer and gave a bounty in favour of the Canadian, Australian and Indian producers in certain markets where they entered into competition with English coal. It also gave a bounty of 1s. a ton in favour of the foreign coal producer in cases where British coal had to be sold in competition with such coal. He could not understand how any free trader on the other side of the House could vote for the continuance of the tax since it interfered with the free exchange of a commodity at its natural price. Neither could he understand how the Members of the House who were in favour of a preferential tariff arrangement between the mother country and the colonies could support a tax which imposed upon the British coalowner a charge of 1s. a ton, thereby handicapping him in interchanging British coal with our colonies and other British possessions.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer in speaking the other day, said the tax was not paid by the consumer, and presumably he was referring to the British consumer. He ventured to say that the tax was paid by a great many British consumers. The great coal industry of this country employed at the present time 825,000 men and boys, while the shipping trade which was engaged in the exporting of coal also employed an enormous number of seamen. He did not hesitate to say that the coal industry, combined with the shipping trade, had dependent upon them a population of six or seven millions, who were affected by the burden of this coal tax in so far as it tended to diminish wages. He desired to show specially how that particular tax operated in the export coal trade of Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire. Those coals possessed no monopoly of markets; the bulk of the export from these districts went to Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France, in all cases in competition with foreign coal. There was only a certain price obtainable, and that
  274
  price was fixed by the price which foreign competitors were prepared to accept. But out of that price the coal tax had to be paid, and that meant that 1s. per ton less was received for the coal at the pit's mouth. It had been suggested that the export coal trade of the North of England had not been injuriously affected by this tax, but he would like to lay before the Committee some figures which would put a very different aspect on the case. The exports from the north-eastern parts of this country to Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France amounted to 2,000,000 tons less in 1901 than in 1900, and to 2,600,000 tons less in 1902 than in 1900. It was true that in the export of bunker coal there had been an increase of 200,000 tons, but that did not affect the figures to any practical degree. He would like to give one or two instances to prove how the export was affected. The exports of German coal to Holland, Belgium and France increased in 1902 as compared with 1901 by no less than 1,154,000 tons, while our north-east coast exports to those countries diminished in the same period by 678,000 tons Thus aided by the bounty given to them by the British Government, the German coal producers not only deprived us of a trade representing 678,000 tons last year, but in addition to that sent a further supply of 475,000 tons to those markets, of which we should have had a good chance of obtaining a fair share had our producers not been handicapped by this imposition of a shilling per ton duty by the British Government. If they took the exports of Holland and Belgium only, the figures were still more startling. In 1900 we sent to Holland and Belgium nearly 3,000,000 tons from the north-east ports; the quantity fell in 1901 by 1,200,000 tons, and in 1902 there was a further fall of 440,000 tons. Thus in the two years the exports from the north-east ports of this country to Holland and Belgium fell from nearly 3,000,000 tons to 1,362,000. While the British exports to those countries fell to that alarming extent, the exports from Germany to Holland and Belgium increased in 1902 by no less than 970,000 tons as compared with the figures for 1901. That illustration appeared to him to be absolutely unanswerable, and he did not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could reply to the facts he had adduced.

  275
  They could not be denied, and they went to show how terribly this country had been handicapped by the policy of the Government in cases in which it had to enter into competition with foreign coal.
  He would give one or two concrete instances of that. Take the case of the East Railway Company of France. For generations that company had drawn their locomotive coal from British collieries. Last year, for the first time, when in making up the prices it was necessary to add 1s. per ton—the export duty—a burden which the German coalowners were not called upon to bear—the contract went to Germany, and thus the coal-owners of this country lost an order for at least 150,000 tons. Similarly we had lost important contracts in Rotterdam and elsewhere, and this decrease in our export trade had taken place, notwithstanding an unprecedented fall in shipping freights since the coal tax was imposed. The fact was, that in order to retain our coal export trade coalowners and ship-owners had been compelled to lay their heads together, and it was only when the shipowner had shown himself willing to accept a substantial reduction in the freight, and the coalowner had been prepared to make a substantial reduction of price, that they had been able to retain the trade. He ventured to say that the whole community was suffering from the effect of the tax, and this was especially felt in the North of England. If they had a reduced number of ships taking our exports abroad, it followed that they had a reduced number for bringing imports to this country, and, as a consequence, higher freights were charged for those imports. Let them look at the trade with France. Would the Committee conceive it possible that, in the face of the difficulties we had to encounter in connection with the coal trade of France, the Government had added to those difficulties by giving the French producer a bounty equal to 1s. per ton. The French absolutely imposed an import duty of 11¾d. per ton on British coal, and now the British Government had put a further burden on that coal by charging an export duty of 1s. per ton, which was all in favour of the French producer.
  The tax on coal was two years ago justified largely on the ground that the coal trade was at that time ex-
  276
  tremely profitable. At the same time the fact that other great industries were equally profitable was ignored. That argument could no longer be used. Many qualities of coal were now only worth half the price they commanded three years ago. Some collieries to-day were working at an actual loss, and many others were working at little or no profit. If the tax were to be continued, however, it ought to be made an ad valorem tax, with a view to rendering its incidence more equitable. Under the present arrangement some collieries situated near the coast had to pay only 6d. a ton for placing the coal on board ship while others less favourably situated had to pay 2s. 7d. Thus in one case the price of coal at the pit's mouth was 5s. 5d. if sales were made at 5s. 11d., while in the other exactly the same quality of coal sold at 6s. 1d, only left 2s. 6d., there being 2s. 7d. carriage and 1s. coal tax to deduct. Was it not ridiculous that both should pay the same amount of export duty? It would be a fairer arrangement if the tax were levied on the whole output of coal, instead of on one portion of it. A tax of 2d. per ton on the whole output would produce nearly as much revenue as was obtained at present, and if 1d. were borne by the royalty owner and 1d. by the coal-owner the burden would be infinitely more bearable than it was now. One of the professed objects aimed at in imposing the tax was to husband our resources of the most valuable coal we possessed; but the effect of the tax had been just the contrary. Colliery owners were accustomed to prolong the life of the best and cheapest working seams by working concurrently the thinner and more expensive seams, so long as they could make a profit on the average produce of both; but the result of the tax on export collieries had, in many cases, been to concentrate working on the cheaper and more valuable seams. Therefore the object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had in imposing the tax had been absolutely defeated, and a directly opposite effect was now operating.
  There was another aspect of the question which ought not to be lost sight of. There were 825,000 men and boys working in the coal mines of the country in a most arduous occupation, and their wages had, in consequence of this coal tax, been considerably decreased.

  277
  In Northumberland wages had been reduced no less than 35 per cent., in Durham, 31¼ per cent., and in Yorkshire, 10 per cent. Wages, at any rate, in Northumberland and Durham were based upon the selling price of coal at the pit, and that price was substantially reduced by reason of the coal tax. This was not, so far as the counties of Northumberland and Durham were concerned, a small matter. They exported a very large proportion of their output, and in the last two years there had been placed on the coal trade of these counties in connection with this tax an increased burden of £1,300,000. Therefore, this was no light burden on the coalowners and coal miners, for they had had to pay their full share of income tax and of the increase in Imperial taxation, direct and indirect; and the huge increase on local taxation bore on them equally with every other section of the community. Whereas the Government had remitted half of the rates to the landowners of the country, no such remission had taken place for the relief of such a great industry as that of coal mining. On the contrary, as he had shown, a new tax had been placed upon it without the slightest justification whatever, and in absolute violation of all sound principles of the incidence of taxation. He did not know what reply the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give to-day, but he ventured to say that there could not remain long in existence in this country a tax levied upon one British export only when no corresponding tax was levied on any other British export. This was a tax which could not be approved either by free traders on the one hand, or those who were in favour of preferential tariffs within the Empire on the other. The question now was whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would abolish this tax to-day so that they might face the great controversy which had arisen as to whether or not there should be a change in the fiscal policy of this country. They should approach the question with the way clear. The way had been cleared to some extent by the abolition of the corn tax. That made the present Budget practically a free trade Budget, but, in connection with the financial
  278
  arrangements of the present year, there was this worse than protective tax—the coal tax — imposed on one industry alone. It was an unjust tax which could not endure if the coal trade along with other industries was to receive justice at the hands of the British Parliament. He begged to move the following clause—
  New Clause (Reduction of Coal Duty):
  "On and after the first day of August nineteen hundred and three one penny shall be substituted for one shilling as the duty on coal under section three of The Finance Act, 1901." (Mr. Joseph Walton.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  *MR. FENWICKsaid that if the speech of the hon. Member proved anything it proved that the coal tax was one which lent itself to evasion and also to fraud. He ventured to say that a tax that lent itself to evasion and fraud was one that could not be approved by this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked the other day by his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil as to whether he was aware that in some parts of the country this tax was being evaded. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was not very explicit, but it gave them the impression that he was conscious that evasions were taking place in some parts of the country. They knew perfectly well, as had been stated by the hon. Member who moved the new clause, that fraudulent transactions did take place in reference to this tax, which had a very injurious effect on the wages of the workmen. He should like to call the attention of the Committee to what happened two years ago when this tax was first imposed. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time rightly described his proposal as a novel proposal. It was novel in the sense that no such tax had been in existence in this country for more than fifty years. It was a novel proposal certainly coming from a Chancellor of the Exchequer whom they had all been previously

  279
  inclined to regard as a convinced free trader. The proposal coming from such a quarter certainly struck them with surprise because an export duty had always been held by political economists to be one of the worst forms of protection. An export duty constituted a bounty to the foreigner. It was a bounty given in the interest of the foreign producer, and enabled him in many cases to compete successfully with the home producer in markets where he would not otherwise be able to do so. In short it was a "graceful concession" to the foreign producer at the expense of the home producer. He was quite sure that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer who proposed this duty did not intend that it should have that effect. He was quite sensible of that, and he was willing to make the fullest admission on that point. When the miners' deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman in April, 1901, he distinctly and emphatically said—
  "I intend this tax to fall upon the foreigner—that is to say upon the foreign consumer."
  They knew, as a matter of fact, from the statement made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that this tax had not fallen upon the consumer.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): Upon the consumer in this country.
  *MR. FENWICKsaid the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to his hon. friend the Member for Barnsley, explained that he had in his mind the home consumer, but none of them ever for one moment dreamt that the export duty was likely to fall upon the home consumer. He was afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not even read his own Budget speech. He had read it and re-read it, and it certainly did not appear clear that the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind the home consumer when he said that it did not fall on the consumer.
  *MR. RITCHIE: Surely my assurance on the matter should have satisfied the hon. Gentleman. I was talking of the home consumer, and if he will read through that portion of my speech he will observe that I was dealing with the question of taxation in this country and what taxation should be remitted. I mentioned the coal tax as one that did
  280
  not fall on the consumers in this country. I was talking all the time about the interest of consumers in this country.
  *MR. FENWICKsaid he would accept fully and frankly the assurance given by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but apart from that admission, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech indicated that the export duty on coal had not been borne as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the House it would be borne, namely, by falling upon the foreigner, and that neither the coalowner nor miner in this country would be any the worse for that tax. The deputation that waited upon the late Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavoured to convince him that the effect of the export duty would be to reduce the export trade of this country and to reduce also the wages of those who were engaged in producing for the foreign market. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer replying to that statement, said—
  "I should never have dreamt of proposing the tax, and I should never dream now of pressing it, if I thought the result of it would be such as you have stated to-day."
  He thought he would be able to show the Committee that, so far at least as the North of England was concerned, the effect of the operation of the tax had demonstrated the accuracy to the very letter of all the representations that were put before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol by the miners' deputation two years ago. Our trade had fallen off and wages had been reduced through the imposition of this tax. The exports from north-eastern ports to all countries in 1902 showed a decrease of no less than 434,525 tons as compared with 1901. If they took the nearest Continental ports and compared the exports from the north-eastern district they would find that to such places as Belgium, France, Holland, and Germany the decrease was even more marked. The exports of coal to these countries amounted to 656,450 tons less in 1902 than in 1901, and that notwithstanding the fact that the freights in that period were unprecedentedly low. If it had not been for that, unquestionably the reduction would have been considerably greater. And since the imposition of that tax the wages of the Northumberland miner had decreased by 12½ per cent. On this point of wages it

  281
  seemed to have been assumed, for the purpose of defending this tax on the coal industry, and particularly the exporting part of that industry, that it was peculiarly fitted both by the profits that were being received by the coalowners and the wages of the miners, for the imposition of an extra tax. The miners were supposed to be receiving—or it was assumed they were receiving—higher wages than the workmen in any other industry; and that the coalowners were making more profits than the employers in any other industry, and, therefore, that they were fit game to be fleeced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was in need of further revenue.
  Now, what happened? At the time when the Government were contemplating the imposition of this duty a very remarkable thing took place. The Board of Trade, on its own initiative, got out statistics covering a period of fifteen years—a thing that had never been done before, to the best of his knowledge—showing the amount of profit made by the coalowners, and the wages that were being received by the miners, in order to demonstrate that the profits of that industry were sufficiently large, and that the wages were high enough to justify the Government, when in search of additional revenue, to levy an additional tax on that industry. No one ever asked for that Return. No Motion was made in the House calling for it. And why was that Return limited to one industry, while there were other industries in which the employers were making equally large profits and the workmen were receiving equally high wages? He knew half-a-dozen such. The Return was prepared to bolster up a case and to persuade the country, which had been undoubtedly suffering from the high prices that had to be paid for coal, that this was an industry on which they ought to saddle some higher rate of taxation. And let him point out that the part of the industry that was selected to be penalised was not the one that was responsible for the high prices of coal to the home consumer. Their coal was produced for the foreign market; their prices were regulated by the supply and demand of the foreign market. Their produce did not affect the home market at all. It was the producer for the home market that got the cream off the milk in 1900 and 1901.
  282
  That part of the industry which received the greatest advantage from the coal boom was the part not at all affected by the imposition of the tax; and that part which had to compete with the foreigner in foreign markets was alone saddled with this increase of taxation. Why should not the engineering trade have been selected? He ventured to say, from the reports in the newspapers, that the manufacturers of small arms and ammunition in and around Birmingham reaped quadrupled advantages from the war prices compared with the coalowners and coal miners. It was a matter of common knowledge that the manufacturers of small arms ammunition in and around Birmingham were compelled to run their works day and night, so great was the demand for their goods. And while, before the war, some of these companies were scarcely able to pay any dividend at all, they paid a dividend during the war of 150, 200 and more than 200 per cent. He imagined that the coalowners, whatever their profits, would have been very glad to have had their dividends run up to anything like 150 or 200 per cent. during the good times of their industry.
  Another consideration which tended, in his opinion, to show the iniquity of the coal tax was this. The miner not only paid his share of taxation in every other department—he did that just as ungrudgingly as any other taxpayer—he made no clamour or complaint that he had to pay the taxes which were levied equally upon every other citizen in the country; but why should he be called upon to pay over and above—the tea, tobacco, sugar, and corn duties—a tax which did not affect any other citizen in the United Kingdom? He maintained that that was manifestly unfair. Let the Committee conceive what this coal tax involved. This tax was not a tax upon the value of the article at the pit's mouth. It was a tax of 1s. per ton free-on-board, which included all the additional cost of carriage, dock and harbour dues. If they took the tax on the value of the coal at the pit's mouth it amounted, so far as the north-east of England was concerned at this moment, to a tax of very slightly under 15 per cent.; and, if they took the Government figures issued for last year, the prices were very much lower

  283
  now than in 1902—it was equivalent to a tax of 13·4 per cent. Now, supposing a proposal were made in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other Member, that a tax of 15 per cent. should be imposed upon the value of cotton, woollen manufactured goods, upon pig-iron, or steel rails, was there a Member of the House that represented a constituency which would be affected by such a tax that would not raise his voice in the strongest possible protest against the imposition of such a duty? What he had stated represented the real facts, so far as Northumberland was concerned, and he was not concerned with any other district. He should be surprised, indeed, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not admit that the county of Northumberland, and the North of England generally, had a case of grievance and hardship inconsequence of the imposition of this tax. Again, what was the effect of the tax on the inferior sorts of coal? The hon. Member for Barnsley had pointed out with some effect that in times when prices were fairly high, and the demand was fairly keen, coalowners were able to dispose of their inferior qualities of coal along with the superior product, and managed to make both qualities pay. But the moment a depression in trade and a decline in prices set in, they were driven back to work only the superior coal, and to leave the inferior coal unworked until the old prices returned. And so, in place of keeping their best coal for future supplies, that quality was being worked out more rapidly under the effects of the tax. And then the poor seams would not be worth going for when the superior seams were worked out. He put that consideration before the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The right hon. Gentleman knew that there was a Royal Commission at present sitting on coal supply, and he dared say it was as well known to the right hon. Gentleman as to any Member of the House that very important expert evidence had been given before that Commission, tending to show the possibility of developments in science which might enable us to do altogether in the future without the wealth of the coal of this country.
  284
  If their prognostications proved to be well founded, then the material wealth which the tax prevented from being developed might be entirely lost to the community, in consequence of further developments in scientific research. Was that a wise and prudent policy for this country to pursue? He submitted it was not. If the effect of the tax was, as he believed it to be, to prevent the free development of the coal fields of this country, then, in his judgment, the tax ought to be removed as speedily as possible. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was prepared to grant a Return showing the profits of employers and the wages of workmen in half-a-dozen of the largest industries in the country similar to the Return showing the coalowners' profits and miners' wages which was published two years ago for the purpose of supporting this tax. Why should one industry be singled out; and why had the Government taken advantage of income tax returns and other statistics in their possession to give to the world what they supposed to be the profit of the coalowners and the wages of the miners? That Return was in many respects absolutely fallacious. He was not concerned to defend the position of the coalowners. There were coalowners in the House who were able and competent to defend their own position; but he wished to put the case of the miners. A Return was issued the other day on the Motion of the hon. Member for Barnsley bringing the Return of 1901 up to date; but as far as the wages of the workmen were concerned, the top wage—viz., the wage paid to the coal hewers, was taken as the average wage of all classes in the mines. That was obviously an unfair way of ascertaining the average wage paid to miners, because between the wage paid to a coal hewer and the wage of the lowest paid class in a mine there was a margin of from 4s. to 4s. 6d. per day. That was, in his judgment, a very unfair way, not to use a stronger term, for the Government to proceed in order to defend this tax. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in the position to inform them that he would be prepared to grant similar Returns with reference to half a dozen of the chief industries of the country. If that return was granted, it would clearly demonstrate that in nearly every other

  285
  staple industry in the country the profits of the employers and the wages of the workmen were higher than in the coal industry. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to remit taxation, it would have been wise and prudent on his part to have repealed the coal tax. If instead of taking 4d. in the £ off the Income Tax, he had reduced the Income Tax to 1s. the other 1d. would have given him all he required in order to abolish this tax. He did not agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Barnsley that it was better to deal with this tax by adopting the ad valorem principle. That would not make the right hon. Gentleman's path any smoother. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better to repeal the tax altogether. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the courageous way in which he faced the corn tax and got rid of it; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee an assurance that at the earliest opportunity he would repeal the coal tax also, which operated most unjustly and most injuriously on certain districts in the country. He had the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the new clause.
  MR. F. W. LAMBTONsaid that in offering a few remarks to the Committee, he would be only fulfilling the wish of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who asked the hon. Member for Barnsley to put down an Amendment in order that the coal tax might be discussed. His right hon. friend in his Budget speech said that the coal tax was neither a direct nor an indirect tax; but having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, his right hon. friend would have to admit that it was a very direct tax on the export of coal from Northumberland, Eighty per cent. of the coal raised in Northumberland was exported; and if the tax was not a direct tax on Northumberland he could not conceive what a direct tax was. The coal tax, like the corn tax, was liable to misrepresentation and misapprehension. When it was introduced two years ago, there was a good deal of misrepresentation and misapprehension on the part of those who supported it. It was then said that
  286
  the tax would not injure the coal industry; but the figures which had been given by the hon. Member for Barnsley and the hon. Member who had just spoken showed that the export of coal from this country had suffered very considerably indeed since the tax was introduced. Since 1900 the export of English coal to Holland had diminished by 59 per cent. and to Belgium by 46 per cent. During that period, the export of German coal to Holland and France had increased by 1,100,000 tons. That showed that the tax was a direct bounty to German coal. The hon. Member for Barnsley referred to some contracts which had been lost owing to the tax. Several coal contracts had lately gone to Germany, which formerly came to this country. The contract of the Paris gas works which used 300,000 tons of coal was lost to England and given to Germany. That meant to Germany a direct bounty of 300,000 shillings. A number of other contracts on the Continent had also been lost. It was perfectly obvious from the figures which had been quoted, that the tax had operated very adversely as regarded the export of English coal. Whether that was desirable or not he would not now discuss. The supporters of the tax might say that the coal exports had not, after all, fallen very much; but, owing to the strike in America, 750,000 tons of coal were sent to that country, which, in normal conditions, would never have been sent there. Further, 500,000 tons of coal had been sent to Canada, to the West Indies, and other places hitherto supplied by America. They had lost a very considerable portion of their trade; and was it probable that they would ever regain it.
  He had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell the Committee that he did all he could to retain markets, not to lose them. It had been already pointed out that this country was losing its markets when freights were lower than ever they had been before. Supposing freights were higher, how could this country possibly compete with Germany? He would point out another fact which showed how this tax had dislocated the coal trade. During 1902, the small coal produced amounted to 3,276,000 tons, an increase of 2,000,000 tons on the preceding year.

  287
  That in itself showed what an effect this tax had when coalowners were obliged to send coal abroad at 6s. per ton. That must directly affect the wages of the miners. On the general aspect of the question, he wished to know on what principle the tax was going to be maintained. How could the tax be continued under free trade, as it violated every single principle of free trade? How could it be continued under protection, as it violated the principle of protection by giving a direct bounty to foreign producers? He should like to have some light and leading from the Government in this matter. He did not care so much about leading, as if he had convictions he did not wait for other people to settle them; but he should like to have some light on the matter. The more light the better. He did not think that much light had been thrown on fiscal matters during the last few years. They were assured that the coal tax would be entirely paid by the consumer, and that the corn tax would be entirely paid by the exporter. He himself was unable to reconcile those two statements. The Government reminded him of the eccentric gentleman of whom he read in his youth, who, having scratched out both his eyes, jumped into a quickset hedge and scratched them in again. He held the old-fashioned free trade idea that all taxes are paid by the consumer, but his great objection to the coal duty was that it tended to dislocate trade and hamper industry. He wished the Colonial Secretary would give them his views on this subject. He strode like a colossus across the world and appeared to think a great deal about Canada. They would like to know, however, how he reconciled this duty on coal with his fiscal proposals. He represented in Parliament not the Dominion of Canada but the county of Durham, and he should like to know why the interest of that county should not be considered. When he opposed the coal tax two years ago, he was looked upon as a rebel, but he noticed there were now quite a number of men around him who used very strong language about the Government. He ventured to warn the Government two years ago that it was a very dangerous thing to taste blood, but he did not think the end would be so soon. Now the rope was already dangling from the tree. He
  288
  referred to a speech by the Colonial Secretary in favour of the coal tax in 1901, in which he said the miners had gained by the war and should pay their share of the expenses. It was an entirely new idea to his mind that war was more profitable than peace, and he showed by a comparison of prices between three years ending 1900 and the three years ending 1890 that the war did not increase the profits of the coalowners, and therefore there was no reason to penalise the miners by extra taxation. If the Colonial Secretary was going to carry out that penalising policy how would they get on in a war of tariffs? Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer put taxes on the trades which could be shown to have benefited? If so, great difficulties would be imposed in the way of the new fiscal policy. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them some hope of the remission of this duty which pressed so heavily upon a great industry in the North of England.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that if the figures which the hon. Gentleman had given were true, he was surprised that the coalowners did not at once join the Party opposite. If he were a coalowner he certainly would. He rose to emphasise what had been said by the hon. Member for Wansbeck. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had remitted the corn tax and he would have liked to have seen the right hon. Gentleman take off this tax on coal as well. But half a loaf was better than no bread, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, having remitted the corn tax, would next year see his way to remitting the coal duty. Some of them had had an opportunity of meeting the Chancellor of Exchequer in a smaller room than this, this year, and on that occasion they had put forward certain figures, and although those figures did not accord with those of the right hon. Gentleman, he hoped at some future time they might have an opportunity of hearing from the right hon. Gentleman a fuller explanation of the figures he adopted. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for being the most British Chancellor of the Exchequer they had known for some time. The right hon. Gentleman was staunch in his opinions and determined in expressing what he believed to be the correct view; in facing a position

  289
  every true man would face, he had the tenacity of the British bulldog and the courtesy of a British gentleman. The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman at the meeting to which he had referred did not present the case fairly. The figures in relation to output and wages were for the years 1899 and 1902, which was not a fair comparison. Had it not been for the fact that 1900 was a bumper year, as regarded both profits and wages, the tax would never have been imposed. The greater output was due, not to the tax, but to the natural development of the trade. Even in the most depressed years there had been progress in the volume of the trade. In 1902 they were reaping the benefit of the contracts made in the brisk time of 1900. The Committee would remember that in 1901 the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to exempt from the tax contracts made prior to April in that year, simply because he had been unaware that such contracts were made. This was a question which could not be settled by a single year's experience. It had been clearly proved by taking years which afforded a fair comparison, say 1900 and 1902, that the trade was going back rapidly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer drew a glowing picture of the prosperity of the trade under the shilling tax, according to which, if the tax had been increased to 2s., the gates of the millennium would have been opened, and those concerned would have been at once transported to an economic paradise. The right hon. Gentleman had made out that they were far more prosperous with the tax than without it, but that was simply because the years 1900–2 did not afford a fair comparison.
  Allusion had been made to the northeast. Durham was deeply interested in this question. His concern was for workmen. As secretary to a trades union he had regard to the position of the employers, because whatever militated against them militated against the workmen, and whatever improved their position improved that of the workmen also; but at present he wished to speak with regard to the position of the workmen. Figures had been quoted which showed conclusively that since the imposition of the tax British trade had dwindled in Continental markets.
  290
  In the markets of Holland, Belgium, and France, British trade had diminished to the extent of 747,000 tons. According to a Return granted to the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, the average annual output per man and boy employed in the mines of this country was 284 tons, so that the diminution to which he had referred represented the labour of 2,630 persons. If the tax meant that in a time of comparative prosperity, what would it mean if the trade got back to the level of, say, 1886, when wages in Durham were only 3¾ above the standard as compared with 31¼ now? If the tax had prevented the employment of 2,630 persons in a time of prosperity, what would it mean when the trade reached low prices at which, from natural causes, the inferior pits had to stop working. There was also another side to the question. The tax was not only restricting our markets, but raising and strengthening a strong competitor. Without the shilling tax he believed the development of the German coalfields would not have taken place. The following statement had recently appeared in a newspaper:—
  "There is remarkable activity in the German coal trade. Exhaustive surveys ate being made with a view to sinking new shafts; experimental borings are being made; and one colliery expects in a year's time to treble its present output. Hopes are being largely entertained with regard to the future, and it is anticipated that Durham coal will eventually be lost entirely so far as the German steamship lines are concerned."
  One of the most serious evils that could arise from the tax was the strength and activity it imparted to the German coal trade. The imposition of this tax lessened the chances of the British competitor to contend successfully with the German trade. Capital was being rushed into the German coalfields; large developments were taking place; pits were being sunk — all because the people of Germany, likewise business men, saw that they were able, in consequence of the imposition of this tax, successfully to compete with British coal. According to the report of a Committee appointed by the North of England Steamship Owners Association, the exports of coal from Germany in 1902 as compared with 1901, had increased, by 515,000 tons to Holland, 455,000 tons

  291
  to Belgium, and 183,000 tons to France. The markets which they could have commanded on the north-east coast had been lost because they had increased the power of the German coal producers to compete and cut them out in foreign markets. There were coalowners in the House who could say that they had lost markets because they could not afford under their contracts to loss this 1s. per ton. The table he had mentioned contained the percentages of reduction of wages which had been lost to the workers, and hon. Members should not be surprised if heat was introduced into the remarks of the four or five hon. Members who represented the miners, more especially from the districts whore this embargo had been placed upon coal The representatives of the miners would stand condemned if they did not enter their protest, because they saw the position of those they represented being jeopardised, and the possibility of the miners being thrown out of employment and their wives and children wanting bread. The result might be that whole villages would be depopulated, because they depended upon the miners' earnings. In the counties of Durham and Northumberland, and every mining district of this country, there were large villages absolutely dependent on the work of the miners, if by any natural means, over which they had no control, villages were depopulated, it was a sad calamity, but if, by the Act of Parliament, this happened it was to them a question of real heartburning, and made them do all they could to prevent such a calamitous tax being imposed. They had been told that in 1900 wages were 65 per cent. above the standard, but since that time they had suffered to the extent of 31¼ per cent. reduction in wages. What did that mean to a workman? Let hon. Members put themselves in the position of a workman whose wages had suffered this serious reduction. Think of the limitations this meant upon the miner's comforts, and how it deprived him, not merely of comforts, but of the necessaries of life. If hon. Members would look carefully at this Return they would find in it the words "estimated" and "assumption" and "approximate," but they would not find the word "average." In a real statement there should be no
  292
  words like those, but there should be a plain statement or no statement at all. Not long ago he headed a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and one point put forward was that they had nothing to complain of as far as their wages were concerned. He wished to point out, however, that the figures upon which the right hon. Gentleman based his statement were put into his hands by other people.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I took them from the printed Returns.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that if 28s. was paid to every man in a mine it would not be too much for a miner who had to work sometimes between ten and twelve hours per day. There were thousands of men who worked in mines at 5s. or 6s. a week less than this wage, and he asked if that was too much for men who had to work under such dark and dangerous conditions. He contended that coal should bear no tax at all. If the sugar duty remained they would pay it, and they would pay the tea duty; but he contended that they had no right whatever, and their trade had no right, to bear this increased embargo and prohibition. How did this tax fall upon the foreigner? Was the sugar bounty any parallel? How would the foreigner pay the 1s. tax? Was the foreigner not as keen in his trading propensities as those in this country? Did the foreigner not believe in buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest. How could they expect the foreigner to pay this tax? This tax limited the power of the consumer in this country to buy the necessaries of life; he knew that at present they were talking without hope, but he would conclude by asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at this thing in a businesslike manner, and if next year he could see his way to remove the tax he would earn the gratitude of the whole mining community of this country.
  *SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that two years ago he opposed the imposition of this tax because he thought it would be very mischievous and injurious to the coal industry and more particularly to the coal industry of Northumberland and

  293
  Durham. All these prophecies he put forward had in his judgment been largely realised. The first statement he made was that undoubtedly where they had competition with other producers of coal they would lose a good portion of their trade, and he specially mentioned as illustrations Holland, Belgium, Germany and France. The figures which had been put before the Committee had justified everything which he said upon that occasion. Almost in every case where they had succeeded in retaining an old contract, in the countries he had mentioned, it had been done only by taking 1s. per ton less than if there had been no coal tax. Not only had the employers suffered, but the tax must of necessity affect the miners' wages. No one who had any experience of transactions in fixing the wages of miners, would deny that undoubtedly this 1s. per ton had affected wages. He could show how inequitable this tax was as a revenue-producing tax, but he would content himself with saying that he thought no Chancellor of the Exchequer had any right to select a small portion of any particular industry and put a tax upon it for revenue purposes. He admitted that when the tax was first proposed there were some strong reasons for increasing the revenue of the country, but these reasons were gone. There was a serious war in operation, but that had now ceased. He was satisfied, from what he had seen of the character and ability of the right hon. Gentleman, that when he looked at the tax, and found the mischievous nature of it in connection with the coal industry, he would ultimately abolish it. He was certain that no man who went into this question with an impartial mind could come to any other conclusion than that; apart from its revenue-bearing strength it was most mischievous, and that the country actually lost more by the injury that it inflicted upon industry than it gained in the way of revenue.
  He would like to refer to one or two questions which had been mooted, but had not been sufficiently dealt with. A Paper had been issued showing the profits of coalowners. He failed to understand why there should have been a special Paper issued with regard to the profits in the coal industry, while other industries which were equally profitable
  294
  during the boom of the last two or three years were practically left out. He could not understand why coal-owners should have been penalised in this way. The only reason for that, he thought, was that coal was sold to individual consumers at very high prices, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought if the profits of the coalowners were shown to every voter the tax would easily pass on account of the strong feeling against coal producers in the country. That would possibly have been a strong argument it the tax had been put on the whole of the producers, but one-fifth of the coal industry only had been selected to pay the tax. Everybody who knew about the industry knew that it was the most speculative carried on in this country, and that one year's profits or losses could not be taken as a guide or criterion as to the results of the general industry. In the statement issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the profits were shown for seventeen years, after deducting a certain amount for wages, and working expenses other than wages. It would have been very much better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given what these other expenses were, so that the statement would have shown clearly to the House and the country what were the actual profits realised by the coal-owners. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to do that. He was going to do that, and let the House see whether there was anything in this special industry to justify a tax of this kind. He would make an estimate of what the other expenses were. He had made some inquiries and found that the lowest at which they could put these expenses was 1s. 9d. per ton. There were cases in Wales where the expenses other than wages amounted to 2s. per ton, and he knew of cases where they were as high as 2s. 6d. per ton; and in taking as a basis 1s. 9d. per ton he thought he was adopting a fair figure. Taking 1s. 9d. per ton it amounted to £87,500 on a million tons In the first year referred to in the Paper the amount left for expenses and coalowners' profits showed that on every million tons produced in this country there was an actual loss to the employers or producers of £12,500. In 1887 it

  295
  came to a loss of £11,000, in 1888 a loss of £8,500, and in 1889, £23,500. He found that taking the standard he had mentioned—and he challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contradict the statement—in eight of these seventeen years there was an actual loss on every year, while in the other nine years there was profit. Sometimes the loss reached as high as £32,500 per million tons. Taking the quantity of coal produced during these seventeen years, and estimating the capital employed at 10s. per ton, which by all experts was recognised as a fair and reasonable sum, and without taking into consideration any money which had been lost through collieries having been closed, and taking the whole losses and profits together, it represented a yield upon that capital of 2·7 per cent. for the ten years 1892 to 1901 it was 4·68 per cent. That was without taking into consideration exhaustion of seams or depreciation. He challenged anyone in this House to say whether that was a large rate of interest to be received on such a fluctuating and uncertain trade as the coal trade. He said it was not. These figures were not sufficient justification for putting a special tax upon this particular industry. He admitted that there were certain pits where the profits were large, but they could not select one pit or one owner and make that a standard for the whole. They must take the average of the whole industry and deal with the industry as a whole. It was the opinion of every expert who had gone into the matter, and it was in accordance with the evidence given before the Royal Commission, that for fifty or sixty years the profits in the coal industry did not average 5 per cent. upon the capital employed. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to disprove that when the tax was first imposed it was done because people thought the coalowners were making huge profits. They did for one year, but it was not fair to deal with the industry for one year. He was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not like to deal in that way with the income tax in connection with coal mining. In regard to the question of income tax they took an average of five years. There was no case whatever made out for any special taxation of the coal industry. He would
  296
  appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to go into this question with an impartial mind. He was certain that if he did so he would come to the conclusion that it was most proper to abolish the tax. There had been an unanswerable case put forward, and he hoped to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would give due consideration to the arguments.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he desired to say a word in explanation of the vote he intended to give on the present occasion. Everyone on both sides of the House agreed that generally speaking an export tax was a bad kind of tax. The case in favour of this tax was that the commodity to which it related stood in a peculiar position and had special advantages, and that, therefore, it was possible to impose upon it, by way of exception, an export tax without finding ourselves involved in the difficulties which usually attended the imposition of taxes of this character. To that argument the answer was made that it was unfair, but it was not so, unless it was clearly shown that this export tax was driving English coal out of foreign markets, and that we were suffering by the dislocation of industry the other evils which were ordinarily associated with this sort of taxation. Well, it was obvious that the export tax so far had not shown this, but that the effect was rather in the opposite direction. In all these economic questions nothing was more hazardous than to build a conclusion on experience extending only to a year or two years. There were so many confusing elements in all these fiscal problems that if they were hastily to assume that one particular cause was at the root of any economic phenomena, then they were liable, unless they extended their experience over a very wide period of time indeed, to make a mistake. Therefore, it must be ultimately for experience to show whether this tax had the bad effects which were attributed to it or not. It would be wiser to continue it a little longer in order that they might have an opportunity of forming a more secure judgment. There was also the argument that after all they must get money somewhere, and that it was not easy to see any other source which would not be

  297
  exposed to objections even of a more weighty character than those which were stated against this tax. He did not think that he need enter into the question of the corn tax. The objections to that tax were certainly far greater than those to the coal tax; but he thought also that, having regard to the enormous importance of reducing the income tax in time of peace so that we might have a great fund to draw upon in time of war—an object of national policy of the highest importance—he did not think it was reasonable to say that the reduction of the income tax was a thing which ought not to have been undertaken on as large a scale in the circumstances of the present Budget. It followed that we must retain this tax unless some new tax were put on or an attempt made to find some new source of revenue. These two considerations pointed to retaining the coal tax. Nobody could deny that this tax, in common with all other taxes, was, in itself, a very bad thing; and the true lesson to learn from all this was that the solution of our difficulties was to be found in practising a larger measure of economy in our national expenditure. If we did that we could reduce tax at on; but not otherwise. This conclusion led him to support the Government in the division which was about to take place.
  One slighter but not inconsiderable argument he would refer to. He thought it would be agreed by many hon. Members that it was most desirable to give his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that support which, as manager of the national finances, he was ordinarily entitled to look to this House to give him, and which he had, in himself, in a very special degree, earned by the ability, moderation, and firmness he had displayed in discharging the duties of his high position. Expressing therefore no approbation of taxation in general, and not denying that there were great objections to an export tax which might operate against this trade—but which did not seem to be quite clearly proved yet—and admitting that there was a case for continued consideration and inquiry into the subject, he thought that until economy had
  298
  enabled us to achieve that great object which all had at heart—the lightening of the burdens of the people—the Committee ought to support the Budget as it stood and not ask for any further reduction of taxation from his right hon. friend.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid that the North had been well represented in the debate, and he thought it was time that some hon. Member should say something for South Wales. If anything was more condemnatory of the coal tax than another it was the fact that they had already had six speeches against it and only one in its favour, from the noble Lord who had just sat down, though some parts of the noble Lord's speech seemed to be equally condemnatory of the tax as those previously delivered. It had been said—
  "One would have thought that colliers had such a peculiarly good position as would justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in putting on this coal tax."
  He did not know which side of the House would support that. Was it because the colliers' occupation was the most dangerous of all trades in the country; was it because the collier was the man who produced, at great danger to his life, that commodity which was essential to the comfort of all the other people in the country? He did not think that these considerations would justify the imposition of this tax. Neither did the collier's wages. The collier's wages in South Wales in 1902 amounted to £1 8s. 2d. for working ten hours a day down in the bowels of the earth amid vitiated air, and at every stroke of his pick by which he earned his living, he was at the peril of his life. Was 28s. a week such an enormous wage that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be justified in taking 2s. off it? Moreover, wages in South Wales had since gone down another 5 per. cent. Still further, the average wage had been calculated on that of the hewer, who was the highest paid man in the pit—the wage of the other classes of colliers not coming anything near his. And yet the average of the hewers' wages was taken for a justification of the tax. Why was the collier, of all men in the Kingdom, selected

  299
  to have an export tax put upon what he produced, and an import tax on what he ate? Was there any other workman in the community who was more serviceable to the community? Was there any other workman who more freely endangered his life in plying his vocation? Why was he selected to pay a tax upon what he produced in addition to the taxes upon what he ate and drank equally with the other workmen in the country?
  It had been said that the colliers were not favourable to war. He would be glad to think that they were not—not that they were afraid if they had reason to think that the country had need of their services. Did not the colliers see in Glamorganshire, as well as in the North, their sons and their brothers going out with alacrity to the late war? Did they not contribute largely and freely out of their pockets towards the support of the widows and the orphans made by the war? Why then should these men be selected out of the whole community to bear this double burden? The figures which had been produced in support of the coal tax were false figures. There could be no doubt that the shilling export tax on coal from this country was a bounty given to the foreigner. The Germans were coming into England and taking the trade from England, but how were they going to be driven out? The home consumers thought in South Wales that they were going to get their coal cheaper on account of the coal tax; but they never made a greater mistake. The colliery owners made out two invoices to the foreign buyer, but only one, from which the workmen were paid, came into their books. The employers got all the benefit of the tax, and the workers the loss What did that mean? Since last June the colliers had lost in wages in South Wales no less than 30 per cent. In other words the poor colliers' wives had 6s. less in the £ at the end of the week with which to carry on the home and the family. Prices were going down again gradually, although the right hon. Gentleman was able to prove to a deputation that the coal trade had not suffered last year. But if the trade had been left to the operation of the tax, it certainly would have suffered. In South Wales they had lost during the
  300
  first three-quarters of the year; prices were decreasing, and they were selling less coal. Then came the French strike, and the American strike, with the result that there was an extra demand. Had it been left to the operation of the coal tax the workmen would have been earning less when they had work and would also have had less work. It could also be easily proved that those least able to bear the tax had to bear the most of it. The tax was unfair in its incidence. He thought that the Committee was really losing time in prolonging the discussion. They knew that recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer was affected by argument. They had facts and figures which proved the justice and necessity, when the time came, of removing the coal tax; and he, as one of the representatives of the workers in the House, hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the earliest possible opportunity of repealing it.
  *MR. BURTsaid that having spoken at great length, at almost unconscionable length, in opposing the imposition of the tax, and after what had been so well said by his hon. friend who had just spoken, by his hon. friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division, and other hon. Members who spoke from the same standpoint as himself, and who had adduced a great many of the statistics and arguments he had intended to apply, he did not think it would be necessary for him to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes. Circumstances had changed, considerably since the tax was imposed. They had now a new Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was lying on a bed of roses, but he certainly did not occupy quite the prickly couch of his predecessor. His predecessor had to face an enormous deficit when he imposed the tax, and had either to raise additional taxation or to add to the National Debt; and, in fact, he was compelled to do both. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was fortunate enough to have a surplus, and to be in a position to remit taxation. He agreed with his hon. friend who complimented the right hon. Gentleman on the staunchness and bravery he exhibited in abolishing the corn tax. But the coal tax was an entirely exceptional tax.

  301
  It was the only export duty that was imposed; and, unlike the corn tax, the sugar tax, and the tea tax, it was not broadly based. It applied only to one industry, and only to a very small section of that industry. The right hon. Gentleman, on the preceding day, pointed out with reference to the corn tax that it really did not broaden the basis of taxation because it applied to the same people who paid tea and other duties. The same was true of the coal tax, which had not even the merit of being a broadly based tax. Figures had been quoted to show the great reduction in exports of coal which had taken place during the two years the tax had been in operation. He did not know whether those figures had been thoroughly realised by the Committee. Comparing 1900, which was admittedly an exceptional year, with 1901, there was a fall of 3,212,116 tons in the exports. That was absolutely unprecedented. The coal trade was a very fluctuating trade, but exports had been rising for a considerable period. In fact, during the last fifty years, with the exception of a very few years, the rise in the export of coal had been steady and continuous; and when there was a diminution it was very slight, and generally the following year showed a complete recovery. The only exception to that was when there were coal strikes in this country. It was quite true that last year there was a considerable recovery, but yet the export was 940,000 tons below that of 1900; and had it not been for the strikes in France and the United States there would have been a much greater diminution.
  He would not now argue the question, although it was a very interesting one, as to whether it was desirable that this country should export coal or not. A great deal might be said as to that. He could quite understand, and to a certain extent sympathise with, the position of those who viewed with a certain amount of equanimity, if not satisfaction, the diminution of the coal export of the country. He believed his hon. friend the Member for East Islington adopted that view. He agreed that it would be infinitely better if they had a healthy home market rather than have to export coal, which was, after all, to some extent the national capital.
  302
  But when people talked about saving coal for posterity, he would point out that the patriotism of a man who was prepared to sell the rights of posterity at the rate of 1s. a ton could not be very glowing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not get any income if coal were not exported; and, therefore, he would have a sort of divided interest on this question; and would hardly agree with those who regretted the export of coal. He had a certain amount of regard for posterity and he should like to leave posterity a better legacy than an enormous National Debt. They had, however, to look after the present generation also. According to his hon. friend the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who had gone very carefully into the question, there were 200,000 men engaged in and about coal mines who were entirely dependent on the export of coal for a livelihood; and that number excluded seamen, trimmers, railway men, and a number of others connected with the exportation of coal. Therefore, the Committee should look to the interests of the present generation, and not inflict an undoubted hardship upon them. He would like to say a word in regard to the direction in which the exports had gone. Northumberland was more largely dependent on the export of coal than any other county. Eighty per cent. of her coal went abroad, the greater part to the Baltic ports. It went to Holland, Belgium, and Russia, and it had been pointed out that whilst there had been an enormous diminution in the amount of coal sent to Holland and Belgium from this country, there had been a considerable increase in the exports from Germany to those countries, and nothing could more conclusively prove that this diversion of trade was caused largely, if not wholly, by this tax. He had no objection to Germany or any other country flourishing or entering into fair competition with us. The more prosperous other countries were the better it was for us as a general rule. But he did object that this country should practically give a bounty to Germany in order to displace us in these markets, and that was the undoubted effect of this tax.

  303
  The hon. Member for Mid Durham, who spoke with great force, had referred to a circular issued by the North of England Steamship Owners Association. Whatever might be the case with others, they had approached this subject from a purely commercial point of view, and they had made out a case that they had suffered through this tax and it had caused a great diminution of freights. They were looking forward to be able to shift their part of the burden on to the mine-owners and miners. It was only human nature for everyone to attempt to shift burdens upon others, and that no one could object to, but the miner would have to endeavour to protect himself, and if they could convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the miners were the chief sufferers doubtless the right hon. Gentleman would remit the burden as quickly as possible. The exporting districts had suffered by far the greatest reductions in wages, and if they increased the difficulty of getting a market for their coal wages to that extent would be further reduced. It was mainly on that ground that he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look carefully into the question. His contention was that this was an unjust, unfair, and iniquitous tax, and one which ought to be abolished without delay.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid this very important question had been brought before the Committee in speeches of great moderation and ability. He could assure hon. Members that if they had assumed from anything which he had said that he thought men who were engaged in this perilous and disagreeable employment were overpaid, they had drawn conclusions which he never intended that they should draw. He thought there was no class of the community whose labour and risk were greater than those who went down into the mines. He could assure hon. Members that he should regret deeply any step which would permanently reduce the wages which miners earned. The reasons urged for the remission of this duty had been that the output had
  304
  diminished; that the exports had decreased; that wages had been in consequence greatly reduced, and that employment had diminished. If those allegations had been made out there would be an extremely strong case for the reconsideration of this tax. But the investigations which he had been able to make into this subject led him to believe that those allegations had not been made out, and could not be justified by any facts which were before the Committee. So far as the general output of the mines was concerned, hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken the year 1900 for the purposes of comparison. But 1900 was a very exceptional year, and they were hardly justified in dealing with it as a normal year, and then arguing that wages had been reduced abnormally, and that the output had diminished abnormally. The year 1900 was a year of great prosperity for the mining districts, and all classes interested in mining partook of the advantages of that prosperity. The mineowners made large sums of money. He made no complaint of that, because no doubt it was true they had had other years which were very poor years. But in 1900 the prices of coal were enormously high, the profits made by the owners were very high, and as the wages the miners earned depended on the price obtained for the coal, they also were exceptionally high. For the purposes of comparison it would be admitted that the year 1900 was exceptional, and from his point of view he would be justified so far as output and exports were concerned in reverting to years which did not partake of the exceptional character of 1900, but he was quite prepared to argue the question of exports even from the point of view of the year 1900. Now with regard to the output. In 1897 it was 202,000,000 tons, and in 1898 it was exactly the same. In 1899 it was 220,000,000 tons; in 1900, 225,000,000 tons; in 1901, 219,000,000 tons; and in 1902 it went up to 227,000,000 tons. So that, comparing 1900 with 1902, there was a very substantial rate of increase, and he could not reconcile that with the allegations that employment had diminished. Then take the figures with regard to exports.

  305
  He could not understand from where the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee had got his figures as to exports. He presumed that his figures did not include bunker coal.
  *MR. BURT: No.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that was a most important omission, because, though bunker coal did not pay duty, it had to be taken out of the ground and was sent out of the country. It was therefore just as much exported as if the shilling duty were paid upon it.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid the figures he gave were for the north-eastern ports, and showed that, as compared with 1900, there was a reduction of 2,000,000 tons in 1901, and 2,600,000 in 1902, and that the bunker increase was only 200,000 tons.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he would deal with those ports immediately. He was now referring to the figures given by the hon. Member for Morpeth. He would like to say here one word in deprecation of the allegation that the Return to which reference had been made had been "got up" for the purpose of making out a case. No one who knew anything about the Board of Trade would believe that that Department would be at all likely to endeavour to manipulate figures in order to make out a case. The officials of the Board of Trade were absolutely incapable of manipulating figures to order on any matter whatever, and he would say especially on matters which affected the working classes.
  *MR. FENWICKsaid he never for a moment suggested that the Board of Trade had manipulated the figures or that any suggestion had been made to them to do so. The question he asked was why they had been got out. They were got out for this specific debate on the coal tax, and not on the Motion or at the request of any hon. Member. He also said they were exceptional in their character, inasmuch as there had never been any similar figures produced to the House.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he was glad to have given the hon. Member the opportunity of saying what he had, because the impression left on his mind was that the allegation was that the Return had been manufactured—that the figures had been collected for the purpose of proving some specific allegation. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was perfectly certain that those who tabulated these figures were quite incapable of doing anything of the kind, and he was equally certain that no Minister would ever ask them to produce figures of that kind. He would now give the figures of the export trade of the United Kingdom in various years. He would begin with the year 1898, when the exports were 47,827,000 tons. In 1899 they were 55,338,000 tons; in 1900, 57,850,000 tons; in 1901 there was a very small drop; but in 1902 the figures had risen up to no less than 60,046,000 tons. That was a very startling total. Something had been said about the German output, and it had been alleged that the Germans were beating us out of our markets. What were the figures? In 1900 the German output was 109,000,000 tons, in 1901, 108,000,000 tons, and in 1902, 107,000,000 tons. So that, as far as any competition with Germany was concerned, while we had been increasing our output the German output had been diminishing.
  MR. JOHN WILSONasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would give the figures as to the invasion of our markets in Holland, Belgium, and France.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he had not got the figures. It was all very well to talk of the invasion of markets and of contracts being lost, but there were many other causes for the loss of contracts besides the shilling duty. The loss of contracts happened to merchants of all classes who had to compete with Germany or any other country, and was not at all limited to coal. It was the more likely to happen in countries where they had hitherto had a monopoly, because having secured a particular market merchants might think they could get a higher price than they otherwise would, and on the other hand a competitor would perhaps quote at a low figure in order to obtain

  307
  entrance to a market from which he had been excluded. He regretted, of course, that coal contracts had been lost to this country, but he thought it would be quite a mistake to assume that they had been lost because of the shilling duty. Now with regard to the North-Eastern ports. The exports in 1899 were 15,100,000 tons; in 1900, 15,800,000 tons; 1901, 16,400,000 tons; and in 1902, 16,184,000 tons. An hon. Gentleman said that not only had the exports decreased but that the decrease was going on. What were the facts? He had with him the figures for the first three months of this year, and he would compare them with those for the first three months of 1901 and 1902. In 1901 the first quarter's export of coal from the United Kingdom amounted to 12,334,000 tons, in 1902 to 13,012,000 tons, and in 1903, when they were told the exports were still falling off, to 14,500,000 tons. Far from there being the smallest symptom of decrease in the exports of coal there was every indication that they were going on at an increased ratio. He would take the North-Eastern ports. The exports from the North-Eastern ports in 1901 were 3,400,000 tons; in 1902, 3,291,000 tons; and in the first three months of 1903, 3,891,000 tons. All these figures included bunker coal; so that whether they took the exports as a whole for the United Kingdom or the North-Eastern ports they both showed satisfactory increases and signs of prosperity in trade. It had been alleged that the number of people employed had diminished, but the figures he had given certainly did not bear out that contention. [An HON. MEMBER: But that is not export.] Where did it go if not abroad? Surely, the more export of coal there was free of duty, the better pleased the mine-owners were. It could make no difference to the miners whether their coal was exported in the hold of a ship or in the bunkers. The figures he had given seemed to show that there could be no foundation for the allegation that employment had diminished. In point of fact, the number of men employed in coal mines was larger than ever. In 1898, the number was 686,000; in 1899, it was 708,000; in 1900, it was 760,000; in 1901, it was 787,000; and in 1902, it was 805,000. This was no doubt accounted for by a considerable increase in the trade.
  MR. JOHN WILSONasked whether the increase had taken place in the districts affected by the coal tax or in the Midlands.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that he could not separate the districts; but he had given the figures for exports, and had shown that there had been a progressive increase, and at a greater ratio in the first three months of the present year than in any other year. If that were true, it was justifiable to assume that the increase in the numbers of men employed had taken place all round. It was perfectly true that wages had been reduced, but that was because prices had fallen. The abnormal prices of 1900 could not be expected to continue. The figures which he could give to the House as to wages had been prepared on a basis as to which there was some dispute; and, therefore, he would not insist on the actual figures; but their comparative value was unaffected. In 1898, the wages were 27s. 3d.; in 1899, 29s.; in 1900, 33s. 11d.; in 1901, 32s. 6d.; and 1902, 30s. 4d. Since 1900 there had been a considerable fall in wages owing to a great fall in prices, but wages were now considerably higher than they were in 1898 or 1899.
  Some discussion had taken place upon the question as to who paid the tax. His hon. friend the Member for one of the divisions of Durham said the foreign consumer paid the tax. He was bound to admit that the figures seemed to show that the foreign consumer paid the tax. In 1898 the price per ton at the pit's mouth was 6s. 4d.; and the price for export coal was 9s. 9d. In 1899 the respective prices were 7s. 3d. and 10s. 1d. In 1900 they were 10s. 9d. and 16s. 6d., but this was, of course, a very exceptional year. Then the duty came into operation. In 1901 the respective prices were 9s. 4d. and 13s. 8d.; and in 1902 they were 8s. 2d. and 12s. 2d. It appeared, therefore, that the duty had been added to the export price; but it was not a matter that could be easily proved. Certainly, with regard to large quantities of coal sent from this country, in regard to which there was hardly any competition, the Welsh proprietor could make the exporter pay. As to an ad valorem duty being fairer, he thought that if this tax were to be permanent it might be well to consider whether some change should not

  309
  be made to bring the duty more in relation to the value of the coal. But he had been warned by hon. Gentlemen opposite that in making such a proposal he should be entering upon an extremely thorny path. He did not contemplate making any proposal of the kind, but when he was appealed to to withdraw this tax, because it had been oppressive to trade and had diminished both exports and employment, he must say that he did not think the case had been made out. But there was at present a Commission sitting to inquire into the whole subject; and, at any rate, it was quite impossible in the present state of the finances to do what hon. Gentlemen wished to be done. No doubt they would prefer the reduction in indirect taxation which he had proposed, even to the abolition of the duty on coal. He had given facts and figures to show that the evils which they feared had not occurred. As to what might happen in the future, as the result of the Commission's Report, or of the effect upon the trade, he would say nothing. He should watch most carefully to see whether any of the evils which hon. Gentlemen expected were likely to arise; and if they did arise it must be a matter for consideration by any Government whether a tax which really carried with it those evils should be allowed to remain.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid they were all anxious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have a peaceful afternoon, and he had no intention of disturbing what had hitherto been the harmony of the proceedings. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech would have given him no excuse to do so, even if he had desired, for he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks that he had promised to retain an open mind upon this question, and that, whatever he might think about the present, he had, at all events, no settled convictions about the future. He did not know whether in the very difficult circumstances in which the right hon. Gentleman was placed at the present time they could expect from him a more favourable answer. After all, the best comment upon the figures the right hon. Gentleman had read to the Committee, some of which he admitted told with considerable force, was a remark of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich,
  310
  made before the figures were produced. It was that our experience had not yet been long enough to throw into relief the real effect of this tax. That being so, he uttered what he was sure was a sound principle in saying that in the case of a great commodity like coal, whose price varied considerably from time to time, there were so many causes affecting that price that the effect of a small duty might not be apparent for some time, but that, the other causes being variable, a fixed factor like this tax introduced into the determination of the price must sooner or later be felt, and that though it might not be felt in a period of comparative prosperity, it would be felt when there was a shrinkage of trade. He demurred a little to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said as to the possibility that the tax had had no effect in making the British exporters lose contracts. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were other ways of losing contracts. Of course, that was quite true. There were other ways of losing a race besides being handicapped, but everybody admitted that a handicap did prejudice competitors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted figures to prove that the German output had fallen off. But there was a great collapse in German industries at the time our industries were very prosperous, and he assumed that that led to a diminished consumption of German coal in Germany. But he was told that the German exports of coal had actually increased, and the figures quoted by his hon. friend the Member for Morpeth as to the increase of German exports to Holland and Belgium at the time our exports fell off was a very unpleasant and significant sign.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid the figures for the German exports of coal had been placed in his hands, and it was only fair to give them. In 1900 they were 18,000,000 tons; in 1901, 17,900,000 tons; and in 1902, 18,900,000 tons.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that, to be quite fair to the right hon. Gentleman, in return he would make the admission that it was natural that if the German home demand fell off it should have led to an increase of German exports, but he still thought that the tax had something to do with the increase in the exports of German coal to Holland and

  311
  Belgium. He regarded that as an unpleasant sign, because although our export figures might have been maintained, or even increased, we had had exceptional circumstances favouring us on which we could not continue to count, such as strikes in the United States and France. Undoubtedly those circumstances might have helped to disguise the effect which the tax would otherwise have had on our export trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said very fairly that the case against the tax had been presented with very great moderation in this debate. He, on the other hand, was struck by the moderation with which the tax was defended on the right hon. Gentleman's own side. The tone of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who supported the tax, was very different from the tone with which it was not only supported but forced and pressed upon them by supporters of the Government when it was first introduced. He was surprised with the moderation with which the case had now been presented, when he remembered the manner in which the tax was originally imposed. It was felt by those of them who belonged to the part of the country especially affected, as an injury, but all manner of insult was added to the injury at the time the tax was put on. The Colonial Secretary said then that it must fall either on the coalowners or the foreigner, and he did not care which. If that remark had come from anyone but the Colonial Secretary he would have thought it about the most offensive and unpatriotic thing he had ever heard, but it came from the Colonial Secretary, and of course they knew that it was only his way. It was his habit to class everybody who differed from him as a foreigner. They had all in turn come under that category in one capacity or another, and he would discount it now because he saw that the turn of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself to be classed as a foreigner was imminent.
  He would admit that the pursuit of the incidence of a tax, though very fascinating, was not always very profitable, and he would admit also that in the case of a monopoly coal the consumer would pay the export tax. But in a
  312
  case, as in the Belgium and Holland trade, in which we had no monopoly, it seemed to him very clear that such a tax as this must begin very soon to fall upon the coalowner and shipowner, and that ultimately it must settle upon the miner. In the exporting districts in the north-east of England they had been conscious of considerable injustice, because the tax was defended very strongly, and, no doubt, was popular when it was proposed, on account of the high price of coal at home, and it was recommended to the householder as one that could rightly be placed upon the coal trade, yet it was put on those particular miners who did not hew the coal which the householder found so dear. That really was one of the reasons why he would urge that the tax should be carefully watched, for it undoubtedly fell most unequally upon different districts. The very interesting question was raised by the hon. Member for Morpeth as to how far it was desirable to restrict or put a drag upon the consumption of coal in the interests of posterity. But the first coal the consumption of which they would wish to restrict would be the monopoly coal, which could not be replaced by any other coal for naval purposes. He thought he saw a strong case for that, but this tax would not gain that end, for the monopoly coal was just the very coal of which the export would continue unchecked under its operation. They were most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his promise to preserve an open mind, but he would be still more satisfied with that promise if he were quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman spoke for all his colleagues as well, because he was surrounded by colleagues with a very dangerous passion for taxes. Import taxes as well as export taxes were now becoming popular, and this desire for taxes was growing a very serious thing. If we were to tax what came in and what went out, the effect upon trade must be very serious. He thought this export tax would be felt more seriously in the future than it had been hitherto, and if that were so, it would act not merely on the coal trade, but as a diminution of our general trade.

  313
  Our export of coal was but one-half of a branch of general trade, and the tax must act on freights and the shipping trade. As an export tax he regarded it as a particularly bad tax, and while he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the attention he had paid to the arguments put before him, he trusted that as time went on he would lend as ready an ear to those arguments as he had done to the arguments of the Opposition in other directions.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEScalled attention to the fact that during the debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been entirely alone on the Treasury Bench. He took that as showing that the financial proposals were entirely agreed to by the Cabinet. It had added to the interest of the debate that there had been no sudden disruption, and it had added also to the satisfaction of the House. There were two minor points on which he should like to make some brief remarks. He understood that the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was based on statistics in which he placed implicit confidence. He should imagine that the statistics were not so much entitled to confidence. They were not Board of Trade statistics at all. The fact that they were Customs statistics seriously decreased his confidence in them. He had had considerable experience of official statistical Returns, and he confessed he had the greatest possible distrust of them. The Minister at the head of a great Department once said that when he wanted figures about anything he went to the officials and said he wanted figures on such and such a subject. The first thing the Department said was: "What do you want to prove?" He knew enough about statistics to be able to state that he could make the most contrary conclusions come out of the same figures, and he was quite sure that the officials in the various Departments could do so more easily than he could. The increase in exports to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was largely due to bunker coal, on which there was practically a premium, for shipowners were induced to take larger quantities than they had ever done before.
  One other part he wished to refer to—viz., the incidence of the tax. The hon. Member for Durham was certain about it,
  314
  the hon. Baronet opposite was certain about it, everybody except himself was in fact certain about it, and what he wanted was a little information. He did not follow at all the right hon. Gentleman in his figures. The right hon. Gentleman said that his figures went to prove that the foreigner paid the duty; that in 1900 the price of coal at the pit's mouth was 10s. 9d. and the price for export was 16s. 6d. a difference of 5s. 9d. Then the duty came into operation and the price at the pit's mouth was 9s. 4d. and the export price 13s. 8d. or a difference of 4s. 4d. less than before the duty was put on. In the second year the price at the pit's mouth was 8s. 2d. and the export price 12s. 2d. or a difference of 4s. Now, how could that go to show that the foreigner paid the duty? He confessed that it was beyond him to understand it. This matter of the final incidence of the duty was no doubt a very serious one; whether it was always the consumer, or the producer who paid the duty he very much doubted. If time were given, and the duty allowed to remain on long enough, he believed that the doctrine of diffusion came in — that everyone concerned in the trade, the producer, the handler, the machinery, the shipper, the seaman,—everyone concerned in the production, the handling, and the financing of the stuff from its first production to its final consumption paid a portion of the duty. He was not as certain about his notion as other people were about their dogmas, but his notion was that if the tax was continued long enough there was a system of diffusion whereby everyone concerned paid a share.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that he ought to have excluded the year 1900, which they all acknowledged was a very exceptional year. In 1899 the difference between the price per ton at the pit's mouth and the export price was 2s. 10d. In 1901, when the tax was on, the difference was 4s. 4d., and there was left to the coalowner 3s. 4d., which was rather more than in 1899. In 1902 the difference was 3s. 11d., or, after deducting the 1s., 2s. 11d., almost exactly the same amount as in 1899.
  MR. HARWOODsaid he wished to urge an objection to the repeal of the tax which had not

  315
  yet been brought forward. There was another side to the question than that naturally presented by the hon. Members who all represented mining constituencies. It ought to be borne in mind when the export of coal was compared with that of cotton or woollen goods that coal was not a manufactured article. No one had made it, or could make it; and it was perfectly certain that every ton of coal taken out of the country diminished our stock. Coal was our most valuable national asset. He spoke as a land reformer who held very strong views about the claims of the nation to its land; and no Act of Parliament, no Charter, no deed or conveyance could deprive the nation of its rights in its minerals, to which it must always remain in some degree a claimant. The value of coal was not its intrinsic money value, but its potential value as the very basis of our industrial life. An hon. Member had spoken about the time which was coming when there would be some substitute for coal. That was all a dream, the baseless fabric of a vision. Then it was said, "Why not tax all the coal?" For this reason, no. The coal which the nation used the nation got the benefit of. But when coal was exported the nation got no benefit; it parted with a national asset. His reply, speaking as a member of the nation, and representing the nation, about coalowners' profits being diminished, was, "Why should my capital be diminished without my getting my fair share?" He would put this analogy. Suppose that the landlords of Lincolnshire sold their land to fill up the Zuyder Zee, would the nation permit that? The coalowners were making a profit by sending the coal out of the country, and he objected to that on the ground that they were taking away the country, taking away his assets. It had been said that this coal duty was the best way to prevent that; he maintained that it was the only way at present. An hon. Member had said that it was a poor kind of patriotism which was satisfied with a duty of 1s. a ton; but it was something; it was a recognition of an obligation that, as the ultimate owners of the land the nation was unwilling to part with its interest in its own coal. Too much had been heard about the coalowners; the main question was the welfare of the nation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with charm-
  316
  ing amiability and all that sort of thing, seemed to say that he had no principle in regard to this matter. He offered the right hon. Gentleman one, and that was the claim of the nation. He protested, as a member of the nation, and speaking for the nation, against a national asset being sent out of the country without the rights of the nation receiving some recognition.
  *SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid he wished to consider the matter from a purely business point of view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given them his own figures, and he thought those figures must have affected his mind on this particular point. Figures might be used both for and against an argument, and therefore he would not use many. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech took the exports of the United Kingdom for 1902 as showing that this tax had not affected the export trade. He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer also gave the exports from Germany, so that a fair comparison between the two countries might be made. It was quite true that the exports from the United Kingdom for 1902 did not show any diminution but a comparatively slight increase, whilst the German exports for the same period had increased by over 1,000,000 tons. He wished to state that the imposition of this tax had had a direct effect on wages, a direct effect on the production, and, what was most important, a direct effect on the enterprise of those engaged in the trade and commerce of this country, and he should endeavour to show that the imposition of the tax had also affected the export trade. Why was it that the exports for 1902 did not show any decrease in consequence of this tax? Take, for instance, one of his own works, where they consumed in 1901, in the making of steel, 11,000 tons of coal each week. What was the consumption in 1902 at the same works, consequent upon the falling off in foreign trade and the diminished demand for the steel produced at those works? Instead of 11,000 tons per week—involving between 500,000 and 600,000 tons of coal for the year — the consumption

  317
  for 1902 was only one-half that amount. It naturally followed to inquire what became of the other half. By reason of those works being short of orders, as well as all the other works in the same position, some outlet must have been obtained for that coal, and the consequence was that the surplus production in the country had to be exported, and that accounted for the slight increase in the exports. To his mind it was too late in the day for those engaged from day to day in trade to argue and attempt to show that the placing of a tax on any article of export was not going to diminish the export of that article. He contended that the imposition of taxation on coal, which was, in point of bulk, the only article of export this country had left, directly affected that export. The imposition of as hilling tax had affected the export, as, in like manner, if they had given a bounty of 1s. per ton, it required no argument to show that, by reason of the bounty, the export of the bounty-fed article would have increased. He also contended that the tax had an evil effect on the enterprise of those who were anxious to embark their capital in the development of the trade and industry of the country.
  It was said that one great reason for the proposed change in the fiscal policy of the oountry was the anxiety to find employment for workmen and to extend the manufactures. If that was the object he should like to give one effect of the tax as showing how it affected the enterprise of those engaged in trade. Northumberland had been referred to fully by hon. Members from that county, and in his experience there was one matter of business which had a direct bearing on the incidence of this tax. He was invited to become connected with a large company in Northumberland, which owned considerable coalfields in the county. The experts reported that there was practically an unlimited quantity of coal which only required development. The same company owned a harbour, which it was proposed to enlarge, to permit the loading of large steamers, a project which would have helped to very much extend the coal trade of Northumberland. He went into the matter and arranged for
  318
  the whole of the capital necessary, not only for extending and deepening the harbour, but for the building of a number of steamers to carry the coal and the necessary capital for the development of the collieries. The moment the coal tax came into force, however, it was pointed out to him that the production of coal in Northumberland for export purposes was 83 per cent. of the total production, and the financiers and capitalists said: "How can you ask us to use our money in developing the trade when you are entirely dependent upon the export trade for customers abroad, and the Government have taxed your export trade from Northumberland?" He could not argue against that. That was the direct effect of the tax on those who were willing to embark money in encouraging the legitimate industries of the country, and it was a matter which he hoped would not be overlooked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he considered the serious consequences of this tax upon trade. He should like to point out the serious effect which the placing of a tax upon any article of export had upon the trade of the country, particularly an article like coal, which found employment for so many hundreds of steamers built in this country. He could trace the direct benefit of the coal industry in this country to the development of shipyards along the north-east coast, as well as the erection of steel works. The vast army of hundreds of thousands of men who were employed was directly traceable to the ever-increasing export of coal. He asserted that if it had not been for the coal tax their exports in 1902 and the first quarter of this year would have been considerably in excess of those figures quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the question of bunker coal, his firm, along with many others engaged as shipowners, had been in the habit of loading their steamers with a sufficient quantity of bunker coal to take them to their loading port or to the first coaling-station on the way. Since the tax had been imposed the shipowners had been enlarging the bunker space in the steamers, and had been taking on board sufficient coal for the entire

  319
  voyage. That accounted for the increase in the export of coal, as shown by the returns of the exports, particularly on the north-east coast. Another reason for the enormous demand for export coal was the strike in America and the strike in France. He was not dealing with this matter from the point of view of one interested in coalfields, or from that of one engaged in trade, manufacture, and industry of the country, giving employment to between 30,000 and 40,000. He took a serious view of this new departure of taxing one section of an important industry. He made the statement from a business point of view. He had heard many foolish statements made in that House,
  but never a more foolish one than when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer invited the House to place a tax on an article of export which had done so much for the development of the trades and industries of this country.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that after the long and interesting debate they had had, he would appeal to the Committee to come to a decision, as he was anxious to get the Bill through before the evening sitting, having in view the business then to be considered.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 135; Noes, 273. (Division List No. 128.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Rigg, Richard

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Asher, Alexander

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rose, Charles Day

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Runciman, Walter

  Austin, Sir John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Black, Alexander William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Brigg, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.

  Burt, Thomas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Labouchere, Henry

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Caldwell, James

  Lambert, George

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

  Cameron, Robert

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Tomkinson, James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Langley, Batty

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Layland Barratt, Francis

  Ure, Alexander

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Levy, Maurice

  Wallace, Robert

  Crombie, John William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Crooks, William

  Logan, John William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig'n

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Crae, George

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

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

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Edwards, Frank

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Ellis, John Edward

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Partington, Oswald

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Mr. Joseph Walton and.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Price, Robert John

  Mr. Fenwick.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rea, Russell

  Grant, Corrie

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duffy, William J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Arrol, Sir William

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Ffreneh, Peter

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Flower, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lundon, W.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bignold, Arthur

  Garfit, William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bigwood, James

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Bill, Charles

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Boland, John

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

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bond, Edward

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r Haml'ts

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Butcher, John George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

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

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Groves, James Grimble

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hain, Edward

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Myers, William Henry

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

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chamberlayne, T. (South'mpt'n

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

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

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Harwood, George

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Percy, Earl

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Heath, James (Staffords N. W.)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Delany, William

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faver'h'm

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Robinson, Brooke

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Doughty, George

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Russell, T. W.

  322

  323

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Stock, James Henry

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Stroyan, John

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Sturt, Hn. Humphrey Napier

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

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

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

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

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wolff Gustav Wilhelm

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Young, Samuel

  Sloan Thomas Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Younger, William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Spear, John Ward

  Webb, Col. William George

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

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

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  MR. CHANNINGsaid he would not move his Amendment.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid the necessity for a change in the law in the direction of the Amendment he now proposed to move was brought to his notice by an instance to which he would briefly refer. A man assigned before marriage to the woman he was about to wed two life policies in consideration of marriage. The two policies were assigned absolutely, the whole beneficial interest being conveyed to the assignee. Shortly after the assignment was completed the marriage took place and from her marriage day the wife was the possessor of those policies and was at liberty to dispose of them in any way she thought best. There was no covenant as to the payment of future policies in the assignment, but unfortunately, the husband, instead of handing the money to the wife to pay the premiums year by year to the assurance company, paid the premiums himself direct, and on his death, although he had no interest whatever in the policies, the Somerset House authorities put in a claim and recovered £400 death duties on the £10,000 covered by the policies in respect to which the deceased man had no interest whatever. A more glaring robbery of the widows and orphans on the part of the State could not possibly be found. He had been told that if this clause was introduced in this Bill it would introduce a new principle, but if the principle of equity and justice was a new principle the sooner it was introduced in the finance Bill the better. The
  324
  clause he proposed was strictly limited in its application. It merely provided that where any irrevocable assignments had been made before marriage the sums receivable under such assignments should not become liable to estate duty. He was quite aware that the consideration of marriage might not, in the eye of some persons, be a valuable consideration, though they were told in "the Book" of a good woman that "her price is above rubies." He begged to move.
  New Clause (Exemption from estate duty of policies of life assurance assigned in consideration of marriage):
  "The bonâ fide purchase referred to in Section 3 of the Finance Act, 1894, shall include every case of an assignment in consideration of marriage by either party to the marriage for the benefit of all or any of the parties or offspring of the marriage of any policy of insurance on the life of a party to the marriage, and the sums receivable under such policy shall not become liable to either estate duty by reason only of the manner in which, or person by whom, the policy is kept up."—(Mr. Joseph Walton.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid the hon. Gentleman proposed to make an alteration in the law because of some particular case. He had always been of opinion that legislation under such conditions was extremely dangerous. The hon. Gentleman said in this particular case the policy was assigned, and while the individual was alive he continued to pay the premiums. If he

  325
  had not continued to pay the premiums no estate duty would have been claimed when he died, but inasmuch as he had chosen to pay the premiums the money fell in at his death.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTON: It was a gift to the wife.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid it was not a gift because if the premiums had not continued to be paid no money would have been left. A change of this kind in the law could not be confined to marriage settlements, but would have to be applied to all other settlements where policies of assurance were concerned, but, in any case, he pointed out that if the law was to be amended, if it was desirable that the law should be amended, and a good case was made out for the amendment of the law in general, with regard to this matter it would be better dealt with in another way. He hoped in the course of the session to bring forward an omnibus Bill connected with matters of finance, and if he did the hon. Member would be in a better position to propose an Amendment of this nature. This Bill was a Bill to carry out the financial proposals of the Government as explained in the Budget, and he would deprecate enlarging it in the manner proposed.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could not for a moment support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and he would remind him that one of the salient principles of the estate duties of 1894 was that marriage had ceased to be a valuable consideration. He rose mainly to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he was slightly in error in stating that this was not the proper place to introduce such a clause. This was the only place. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor introduced six Amendments to the Finance Act of 1896, raising the estate duties of the Act of 1894. He knew that perfectly well because he introduced five of them himself.
  *MR. RITCHIE: What I said was that this Bill was confined by the Government to carrying out the proposals of the Budget.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that
  326
  when once introduced, the Finance Bill raised every question in the country, and that any Amendment could be introduced. That right had been taken advantage of. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I did not mean that at all.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was glad to hear that statement. He merely rose to point out that fact. He hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would not now press his Amendment.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid that in view of the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter he would not press his Motion. Although he claimed the right to take a division, he was now disposed to clear the way for the Employment of Children Bill by withdrawing this clause. But they had gained the distinct advantage by this discussion that they had obtained the definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman that if the husband had handed the money over to the wife to pay the premiums she would have avoided estate duty. Under those circumstances nobody would have supposed the Government would have taken advantage of what was purely an error of judgment in not doing so.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he did not say that the handing of the money by the husband to the wife to pay the premiums would take the matter out of the category of taxation. What he said was that if the wife paid the premiums it would do so. If there was any collusion between husband and wife he was not sure what the effect would be.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported without Amendment; to read the third time to-morrow.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,)said that although they did not all agree as

  327
  to the details of this measure they were all agreed as to the importance which attached to the Bill and were most anxious to see it passed into law. Unfortunately he had been unable to take part in the discussions before the Grand Committee upstairs and he desired to thank the Under-Secretary of State for acting in his stead. He begged to move the first new clause which stood in his name on the Paper. The object of the clause was to exempt industrial and reformatory schools from the operation of this Act. In all such schools the work was controlled by rules made by a responsible board of management with the sanction of the Home Office and the schools were under the supervision of the Home Office inspector. He did not think there could be any objection offered to this clause, and he hoped the House would allow it to be read a second time.
  New Clause (Saving for industrial and other schools):
  "Nothing in this Act or in any by-law made there under shall apply to the exercise of manual labour by any child under order of detention in a certified industrial or reformatory school, or by any child while receiving instruction in manual labour in any school."—(Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.)
  Brought up, and read the first time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he presumed that no profit would be derived from the labour.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Certainly there will.
  *MR. TENNANTsaid the hon. Baronet who had just put a question to the Home Secretary apparently was not aware that not only was there a profit derived from the labour, but there was an enormous profit. He did not wish to oppose the Second Reading of the clause if the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to insert the words of which he had given him private notice. He desired to move "in line 2 of the Home Secretary's new clause after the word 'labour' to insert the words 'during a portion of the
  328
  school hours.'" The reason he moved those words was that if they were going to allow the children in industrial and reformatory schools to remain outside the operation of this Bill, at least they ought to limit it to the time during which they were in the school, and not make it applicable to the whole of their lives.
  SIR JOHN GORSTupon a point of order asked if the Second Reading of the Clause ought not to be disposed of before the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is so.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he hoped the Home Secretary would not press this clause. He did not think he had adduced any satisfactory reason why these poor children should be deprived of the protection which the Bill gave to all other children. Industrial and reformatory schools were managed by volunteer managers, and the children were employed not only for purposes of instruction but also for profit, upon which the maintenance of the schools largely depended. The schools were supported partly by grants of public money and partly by the labour of the children. If any class of children required the protection of the local authority under this Bill he thought it was the children in these schools. It was quite true that the rules of the schools were made by boards of managers, but the managers were interested, and therefore he thought those children ought to be protected under the Bill. He agreed that the industrial and reformatory schools were extremely well managed, but there were some schools in which the children worked very hard and were employed upon work which was not at all instructive or educational, and very often they were employed for long hours. Under these circumstances the local authority ought to be able to bring those schools under the regulations which applied to other schools.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid if his right hon. friend would refer to the reports of industrial and reformatory schools he would not

  329
  find that there was any overworking of the children. A number of benevolent persons at great cost of time and money became managers of those schools, and he thought they might fairly be trusted to do nothing that would unduly weigh upon the children. He thought the Home Secretary was perfectly right in his new clause, and he thought there ought to be a limit of interference with the wise and careful action of the managers of industrial and reformatory schools to whom they owed so much. He thought those managers would be the very first to see that nothing was done in the direction of overworking the children, who, as a rule, were given plenty of time for recreation. If the time in the school was not to be filled up according to the judgment of the managers, he thought great harm would be done. Surely they could leave this matter to the discretion of the managers, who had proved themselves worthy of such discretion.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,)pointed out that besides applying to industrial and reformatory schools this Bill would also apply to blind asylums and other places. It was quite true that the labour in the schools was carried on
  for profit, but not in the sense in which it was generally understood. This clause has been very carefully considered by the Home Department, and he would remind the House that those schools were inspected by the Home Office inspectors, and if they placed them under the local authority they might have by-laws made by the local authority which might come into conflict with the rules now governing those institutions.
  Clause added.
  *MR. TENNANTasked if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the addition of the words he had suggested.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No.
  *MR. TENNANT: Then I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2 after the word 'labour' to insert the words 'during a portion of the school hours.'"—(Mr. Tennant.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided; Ayes, 84; Noes, 209. (Division List No. 129.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

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

  Grant, Corrie

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Asher, Alexander

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Price, Robert John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Rigg, Richard

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Harwood, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale

  Russell, T. W.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Samuel Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Brigg, John

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Burns, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Lambert, George

  Wallace, Robert

  Crombie, John William

  Langley, Batty

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Crooks, William

  Levy, Maurice

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Logan, John William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lough, Thomas

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcester., N.)

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Crae, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Mr. Tennant and Mr.

  Foster, Sir Michael (Loud. Univ.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Broadhurst.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Murphy, John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Partington, Oswald

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Flower, Ernest

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Forster, Henry William

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Austin, Sir John

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Bain Colonel James Robert

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

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

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (Tr. Hmlts

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bignold, Arthur

  Groves, James Grimble

  Purvis, Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bill, Charles

  Hain, Edward

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bond, Edward

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

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Brassey, Albert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Butcher, John George

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Chapman, Edward

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Spear, John Ward

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Stanley, Edw Jas. (Somerset)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Keswick, William

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kilbride, Denis

  Stock, James Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Stroyan, John

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawernce, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Sturt, Hon. Humphly Napier

  Crean, Eugene

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Valentia, Viscount

  Delany, William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Denny, Colonel

  Lundon, W.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Webb, Col. William George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Willoughby de Eresby. Lord

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. O.

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Wilson, A. Stanley York, E. R.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Doughty, George

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hun. A. Akers

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Duffy, William J.

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart

  Duke, Henry Edward

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Young, Samuel

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Murray, Col Wyndham (Bath)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Myers, William Henry

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Question put, and agreed to.

EVENING SITTING.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he moved the new clause standing in his name for the purpose of incorporating in the Bill a section of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894. The object of the new clause was to exempt from the Bill children who were employed upon the stage, subject to certain provisions. As the Bill now stood children were prohibited from employment after 9 o'clock in the evening. This would interfere with the employment of children on the stage. He was aware that an Amendment to prevent this was moved in the Grand Committee by his hon. friend the Under-Secretary to the Home Department (Mr. Cochrane), and was there rejected. But very considerable concessions had been made with a view to meeting the views of hon. Members who opposed the clause in the Grand Committee, and he sincerely hoped that, not only in the interest of the children themselves, whom he honestly thought should not be deprived of this method of earning a livelihood but also in the interests of the Bill itself, this clause would be accepted. Because he feared greatly that if all children who now found employment on the stage were prohibited from their calling the later stages of this Bill in this House and in another place would be very seriously jeopardised. He was most anxious that a Bill for the regulation of the employment of children should be passed, and that it should be passed this session. It was proposed by this clause that, following the exemptions which were already given under the provisions of the Cruelty to Children Act, 1894, the employment of children should be allowed on a licence granted by a magistrate. These licences were granted in London by the Metropolitan Police Magisrates, and contained very strict provisions. He had been informed that the provincial magistrates in granting these licences also took great care before they granted them at all with regard to the conditions of the licences. At present the licences were required only for children employed in theatres under the age of eleven. But under the Bill as it now
  334
  stood that age would be extended to fourteen. Now the concessions they had made in this clause are twofold: First of all, the age of complete prohibition is raised from seven to nine years; and second, the duty of seeing that the conditions of the magistrates' licences were carried out, which was now performed by the Factory Inspectors, was given over to the local authorities. So far they have endeavoured to meet the views expressed in the Grand Committee against the proposals to licence children for the stage at all. The hon. Member for South Armagh had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect as the new Clause now moved, and he (Mr. Akers Douglas) admitted it was down on the Paper before the Government put down their Amendment, but they were of opinion that the Amendment went too far, and so brought forward the one now before the House. He did not think the House generally would desire to deprive the children of their employment on the stage. From inquiries he had instituted he was glad to be able to say that the children now employed were really in the majority of cases well cared for well fed and well clothed, and their education also was well looked after. He thought, therefore, that it would be a very serious blow for the children and their parents, and also to the large number of people who enjoy the amusement and refreshment given to their serves by theatres in London, if the children were no longer to be allowed to pursue their career on the stage. He trusted that the House would agree to the Amendment, and that they would realise that, although the Grand Committee were unable to accept the Amendment moved by his hon. friend a few weeks ago, the Government had gone some considerable distance in arranging the difficulty, and that the Committee would now accept this clause.
  New Clause (Incorporation and Amendment of S. 3, of 57 and 58 Vic, C. 41):
  "Section 3 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894 (which regulates the employment of children in public entertainments), shall have effect as if re-enacted in this Act. Provided as follows:—(1) A licence under that section shall not be granted to any child under the age of nine years, and (2) any inspector or other officer charged with the execution of this Act shall have and may exercise all the

  335
  powers of an inspector of factories and workshops under that section, and that section shall apply accordingly."—(Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid in the Grand Committee upstairs there had been considerable discussion, and it was there he had first discovered that children—they might almost say babies—of seven years of age could obtain a licence from the magistrate to be employed in the great theatres and minister to the amusement, and, as he understood the Home Secretary to say, to the refreshment of the nerves of the audience. He was bound to say it was at this time that he received his instruction upon this matter from the hon. Member for South Manchester, who exhibited a great state of excitement, and expressed great lamentation to the Committee, and a great condition of horror in the contemplation that young children of seven years of age should be deterred from employment in theatres.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he supported his hon. friend when he suggested that the age should be raised. He was quite ready to agree to a much higher increase of age than from seven to nine.
  MR. BROADHURSTthought the hon. Member was referring to a later stage of the discussion. It was he (Mr. Broadhurst) who suggested the nine years restriction, which was accepted by the Under Secretary to the Home Department. The hon. Member for Manchester had asked with horror what would happen to the British public if children of tender years were precluded from taking part in "A Midsummer Night's Dream." It was that which excited his (Mr. Broadhurst's) curiosity, and then he learnt for the first time that children of seven years of age could be employed in theatres.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman appears to me to be entering into the question of the Amendment which he
  336
  has on the Paper. The question before the House is the Second Reading of the Clause. After that has been carried, of course, the hon. Member could proceed to move and speak upon the Amendment.
  MR. BROADHURST: That being so I will say no more at present.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he sincerely hoped that the Home Secretary would not press this Clause upon the House of Commons. It was fairly discussed upstairs, and the Committee resolved almost unanimously that the Clause should not be passed. He thought, therefore, that it was too bad that a Clause of this kind under the circumstances should now be brought before the House by a member of the Government. Of course if the Home Secretary insisted upon the Clause there was no chance of its being defeated, because the Government supporters would vote as they were directed without knowing anything as to the merits of the question. What was really asked by the clause was that theatrical managers should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill, and that these young children should be deprived of the protection which this Bill would afford. There was no reason why these managers should have this special and particular favour at the hands of the Government. So far as the merits went there was a good deal said in the Grand Committee at the time on the whole question. So far as London was concerned the employment of children was merely a question of money. London managers employed children because they were cheap. It was a question of cheap child labour; they were employed in the place of grown-up ballet girls, who required higher wages.
  The Member for South Manchester had made a statement that if a child of seven years were not employed it would be impossible ever again to produce "A Midsummer Night's Dream." Those who were as old as he would remember the admirable performance of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" given by Mr. Charles Kean. He had no children on the stage. The whole thing was performed by adult ballet girls, how were remarkably pretty and who had the

  337
  merit also of being respectable. That, of course, would be in the early Victorian days, when respectability was still supposed to be attractive. The children who were the subject of this Amendment were of three classes. They had heard up to now only about the first class of children. The first class were those who were regularly employed in London theatres and those of Manchester and Liverpool and other great towns. He had nothing to say against the employment of these children. He believed such persons as Miss Ellalaine Terriss and Mr. Beerbohm Tree treated the children extremely well. They were well cared for and well paid, for their age, and if that was the only class nothing further need be said. But there were two other classes of children of whom the Home Secretary did not know anything. First there were the touring children, and secondly there are the circus children. He had made inquiries about the touring child. They were children who were dragged from town to town, and so far from their being well cared for they were let out by drunken mothers who led them wretched lives, and they were given in charge of the woman who kept the theatre wardrobe or whoever else would take care of them at the cheapest possible price. They were not well paid, not taught at all, and were dragged about from town to town, living under the most miserable conditions and becoming objects of very great pity. He derived that information not from managers but from persons in the profession. He had letters written to him by persons in the profession who read what was being done in Grand Committee. What was true of the touring child was even more so, if possible, in the case of the circus child. He did not approve, in regard to this class of children, that the police magistrate should be the person to license the child. So far as London was concerned it did not so much matter, because no doubt arrangements were made in London by which children were brought up when there was nobody about. But in the country it was a very different thing. The touring company, as a rule, arrived on a Sunday, and the first thing on Monday morning these children were dragged before the police court amid drunken people, thieves, and so forth, to be licensed; and it was extremely undesirable that they should
  338
  be exposed to the atmosphere of a criminal court. Therefore, in the interests of the children themselves, he thought it was most desirable that the police magistrates should be relieved of the function of licensing them, and that it should devolve upon the local authorities to make such provision for these children as they did over every other child employed in their district. There was no reason why these children should be exempted from the law. The life they led, when they were dragged from place to place and introduced to the atmosphere of a criminal court, was not calculated to make them good citizens. The best proof of that was that no theatrical manager, either in London or the provinces, would allow his own children to be taken about by a travelling company or allow them to go upon the stage until they arrived at years of discretion. On that ground he hoped the House would reject the clause, and that the Home Secretary would allow these children to have the protection which this Bill was intended to give.
  MR. TENNANTsaid the House had been much impressed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who for so many years had had charge of the education of the children of this country. He wished to associate himself with most of the remarks that had fallen from him, and the many conclusions he had placed before the House. This so t of legislation was not directed against the good managers. They did not in this House legislate to protect people from good employers. Our factory legislation, so far as it was directed against a class, was directed against bad employers. Listening to the arguments expressed upon this subject upstairs in Committee, one would suppose that these children were of poor parents who could not win bread for their families, and that these children had necessarily to go out in order to earn money. But that was not the case. They were not the bread-winners but the beer-winners. Listening to these arguments one would suppose that the function of the law was to protect the parents, whereas the function of the law was to protect the children. A reverend gentleman in Soho, who was in the neighbourhood of a great many

  339
  theatres, stated that these children had to be employed in the theatres six or seven hours, and that they had to spend five hours in improving their minds in schools. He would like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite how many of them would like their children to sit up night after night as these children do, and would like them to undergo these hours of what he might call "organised activity" every day? Mr. Seymour Hicks, manager of a large theatre in London, said that rehearsals might prevent attendance at school, but that when they did, school work would be "squeezed in" either by extra time on that day or by extra time the next day. Is that the right way to deal with the education of our children? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the public demand for amusement and "refreshment of their nerves," but they ought not to place any such thing before the good of the child. The good of the child was the first consideration in a matter of this kind. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the employment of children was mainly a commercial transaction.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that as his hon. friend has referred to the Act of 1894 he might refer to the section of the Act which dealt with this matter. The Act of 1894 especially provided for the most minute investigation of each case. The magistrate was bound to be satisfied as to the fitness of the child for the purpose. He was to be satisfied that proper provision had been made to insure the health and the kind treatment of the child taking part in the entertainment, and he was to see that the hours were not late, that they were suitable to the child, and that the restrictions and conditions were such as to satisfy the Court. He himself was of opinion that there was greater security for the well being of the children under the inspection of the magistrates under those conditions than there could be under any by-law. As regarded the children being dragged about, there was a new investigation in each town, and he was not willing to bring an allegation against the magistrates of the country that they neglected
  340
  their duty. He had before him the Report of the Departmental Committee which considered this matter, and the evidence appeared to him to be of a singularly weak character. Much of it was hearsay evidence and somewhat sentimental. But he did not think it would be a wise and generous act, nor a humane act, to unduly restrict the occupations of the people of the country. It was their duty to take every precaution that children should not be exposed to risks, and to act in a manner which would be for the benefit of the parents and the welfare of the children.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid it was in the interests of the children of the country that they should not be allowed to stay for long hours in the theatres at early ages. The hon. Member for Manchester laughed.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I say it is not the issue, that is all.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid it was the issue. The Imperialist Party were always talking about bringing up an Imperial race. How could they expect to bring up an Imperial race if they allowed children of a tender age to work long hours in the theatres? The main objection to this clause was—not that the best theatres in London allowed the children to be ill-treated—but that in circuses and in many low-class theatres in London these children were not treated well. He asked the House to remember this was a commercial matter, or all this talk they heard about the widow was a bogey. What they were asked to pass was a clause dealing with a commercial matter, one by which they hoped to get a profit out of these young children.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he served on the Standing Committee whilst this Bill was passed through, and he was under the impression that a goodly number of Members did not quite understand what the issue really was. If the House would look at the definition clause they would see that the expression "child" meant a person under the age of fourteen years. Now,

  341
  that was what they were dealing with to-night. He was not speaking about bye-laws, Clauses 1 and 2 dealt with bye-laws, but Clause 3 dealt with statutory provisions. First of all it said a child should not be employed between the hours of nine in the evening, and six in the morning. That was held to interfere with the managers of theatres in employing children. But the local authority under the same section had power to vary these hours, either generally or in any specified occupation. Let the House consider that this was not a Bill prohibiting a child under fourteen years being employed in a theatre. It was a Bill to prohibit a child from being employed between the hours of nine in the evening and six in the morning. And for the convenience of theatres the local authority might by bye-law vary these hours and permit employment. He failed to see what the Home Secretary meant by his new clause. He thought the only change it made was this, that at the present moment these children must be licensed by the magistrates individually, while under the new bye-law they would have to be licensed by the local authority. It seemed to him that the clause was not required. There had been a great outcry by theatrical managers and other people, and those who had been fighting neither against the rights of theatres nor against the employment of children in the theatres had been charged with Puritanism. [An HON. MEMBER: I never heard it.] No, but he had read it. All he could say was, that he was not in the least ashamed of the charge of Puritanism. He was not a Puritan in the sense that Sir Henry Irving meant, but he was sure Puritanism had done more for England than Sir Henry Irving and the stage had done. And he was not to be deterred by having the word Puritanism flung at him from dealing with a Bill which did not prohibit children from acting in a theatre, but saw that they were placed under proper authority, and that if possible the hours should be such as were good and not bad for them.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he entirely agreed with his right
  342
  hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University in opposing the clause. He did not speak particularly as a Puritan himself, but simply as a person who really had at heart the health and morals of these poor little children. Here was a Bill by which all children under the age of fourteen were not permitted to work in factories after nine o'clock. He wished to know why they should make an exception, and why the Home Secretary should step in with a clause to protect and benefit theatres. Surely it was absurd that they should make that exception merely for the amusement of persons who went to theatres. He had himself been behind the scenes of theatres; there was no particular harm, and he had arrived at an age when his morals were not in any way corrupted. But he agreed with those who said that they would not send their own children after nine o'clock to pass an evening behind the scenes. These children were employed mainly at pantomimes. When Sir Henry Irving came forward he spoke only of his own theatre, where there was a solemn tragedy, or something of that sort, going on, but a pantomime was a very different story. Then there were masses of people employed behind the scenes. The children were not ill-treated by any manner of means; they were rather petted; but, without being an excessive purist, he was bound to say that, owing to the language they would hear and to what was going on, though of no particular harm, it was not a place for children. The question was one solely of money. A grown-up girl cost £1 and a child cost 5s. a week. The theatres got the children from respectable persons who had them as apprentices, and who sent them out in gangs of ten, twenty, or thirty. It was said by some that a ballet was not so pretty without children as with them. He did not agree with that. He rather preferred grownup girls. They acted better, and they moved about better. He hoped the House would realise that this was purely a commercial question. Though the children were well-treated in London theatres, very frequently they were not well-treated in the travelling companies, which were got up by persons who had not very much money and who did not pay proper salaries, with the result that the children and the grown-up people got into difficulties in the different towns

  343
  they visited. The hon. Member for Wigan had said that he would leave it entirely to the magistrates to look into and decide in each particular case.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL: The law provides for that.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes, but the hon. Baronet praised the law. What did the magistrate know about the matter? Then the magistrates differed enormously in their decisions of these matters. It was not always a question of poverty. These were often the children of dressers and persons connected with the theatres. Theatrical managers had been representing the theatres as a sort of paradise for children; but, as men of the world, hon. Members knew that that was not the case. The hours were often very long—with two performances a day. The morning performance was from two to five, and the evening performance in the case of a pantomime, might be from seven till eleven. It meant about eight hours for them. But then there were rehearsals, which very often took three hours. The House should remember that these children very frequently lived at long distances from the theatre at which they were engaged. What could these children do for their education if they had to work eleven hours? He thought it was infinitely better that they should lay down a general law that no child should be allowed to work after the hour of nine o'clock, whether in the factory or the theatre.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid the position was that they were asked to say that a local authority or magistrate should have the power to license children to perform in theatres at the early age of nine years, and upon that he hoped a vote would be taken by the House. While he did not agree that these children in theatres were always the children of dissolute parents, many of them knew what poverty was, no doubt, and the parents were glad to get the earnings of the children. But he could say this, that often the children employed in some of the theatres went to school next day thoroughly unfit for their work. It was not altogether that
  344
  they were tired, but they were suffering from nervous excitability, which unfitted them for their work. During the pantomime season these children were doing no good at school at all, and their school life was being wasted. They were thinking always of the theatre or of the next rehearsal—never of their work in school. But when he recollected the conditions under which these children lived he admitted it was difficult to form a conclusion whether the condition of the child or the parents should weigh with the House. The difficulty was not in London; it was with the small companies that went up and down the country and carried with them two or three small children of very tender years. He would do anything he could to stop the possibility of licences being granted to children under nine years of age going about with these travelling companies. He knew that pressure was often brought to bear on the magistrates because the children had often been licensed in half-a-dozen other towns previously. To his mind nothing could be more injurious to girls of tender years than to have to go into some of the dressing-rooms where adults were preparing for the stage. These children travelled from one town to another in winter. They travelled about on the Sunday to get lodgings; they went before the magistrates on Monday morning to get licensed; they were called for a rehearsal—sometimes for two—and then they went to the stage on Monday evening. They were then carried along to another town where much the same conditions might prevail. He could not conceive anything more likely to injure the moral character of young children than this. Nor was there any necessity for it. Why, years ago children were never employed in theatres at all. If they employed older persons they would be better able to withstand temptation than these young children could. The cry of poverty might be overcome by the proper payment of children of maturer years, and it seemed to him that the interest of theatres would not suffer. From what he had seen of these children, and from what he had heard from young adults, who had been travelling children, and who had told him what they went through as children in going about to provincial towns—it was perfectly clear

  345
  that the records of these little children's lives were so dreadful that if the Members of the House understood what they really were like they would not spend time in discussing this question, but would decide that nine was far too early an age at which to employ these children. If this Amendment was pressed to a division he should be compelled to vote against it. But he hoped they might save such a position as that by a little modification of the Home Secretary's clause. Any attempt to jump in advance of public opinion would ruin the object they had in view. They must be prepared to go step by step, but he did think it was absurd to say that children of seven years were required in theatres, and it was monstrous that justices should ever have granted licences to children of seven years. Girls and boys of nine years were by this clause still to be carried about under these deplorable conditions, and still they were to expect them to be moral and respectable citizens in years to come. If one of them survived an ordeal of this character it was more by chance than by any protection afforded the children by the Government. He hoped the Home Secretary would raise the age of the children a little beyond nine years.
  *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he desired to support the speech of the last hon. Member. He did so mainly because as a member of the Grand Committee on Trade he had followed the subject under discussion, particularly from the point of view of the hon. Member. In doing so he had in his mind what he suggested to the Home Secretary would happen. He told the right hon. Gentleman that certain managers of London and provincial theatres, claiming to speak for the profession, had regarded this particular Bill as an attempt to handicap theatrical children and to place the theatrical profession in a position of great disadvantage. He reminded the Home Secretary at the Second Reading of the Bill that the sense of the House was in favour of strengthening the Bill rather than of weakening it; and he had warned him to beware of outside agitation carried on mostly by correspondence in the papers, especially
  346
  in the columns of the Daily Telegraph. He now asked the House of Commons not to be influenced by the agitation carried on by people, mainly managers, whose interests in the profession were mainly financial rather than artistic or dramatic. He had never sat on a Grand Committee on Trade which was so unanimous. They had evidence from Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and all quarters, who spoke with authority on this matter, and the local education authority were also unanimous for the equal treatment of all children. He would ask the hon. Member for Manchester not to always assume that the House of Commons was wrong and that he was right in regard to child labour. The whole of the local authorities who had the education of children under their charge were in favour of the spirit and letter of the Bill as it left the Grand Committee. They were all indebted to Dr. Macnamara, as Chairman of the Schools Committee of the London School Board, who gave special attention to the subject, and brought before them evidence which warranted them in supporting the line they took, the object of which was to raise the tone and standard of child employment, and which met with general approval in the theatrical profession. The issue had been clouded; to use a recent phrase, a "false issue" had been presented to the public. The financial managers in the theatrical profession represented that they wanted to make it illegal for children to be employed at all. That was not so. The only thing the Grand Committee wanted was equal rights for all white children, whether they were engaged on the boards, in the factory, the workshop or the street. It did seem to him that a profession which could afford handsome salaries—and some promoters gave excessively large salaries to some actresses, who were better paid as models than as dramatic exponents—ought not to ask that their profits should be advanced to the detriment of children of the immature age of seven or nine. Would anyone contend that the capacity of a child of seven, whether in a "Midsummer Night's Dream" or "Twelfth Night," was sufficiently developed to give an intelligent interest to the audience in what that child did or said? Frequently they came on, spoke their little part in a wooden sort of way, and off they went. They were

  347
  mere automatons. It was not done so well as it would be by boys or girls of thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen.
  What was more, this attempt to bring children almost in arms on the stage is a modern invention. If the hon. Member for Manchester knew anything about the ancient Greek or Elizabethan drama, he would know that no women or children were allowed on the stage, and that male parts were generally restricted to adults. And had the hon. Member lived in those glorious days he would have been selected on the spot either for the part of Mine Ancient Pistol or Sir John Falstaff. He would be the last person in the world to accuse Mr. Beerbohm Tree of being anything but as kind, as genial, and as generous to the children as he believed he was. With regard to one of the best friends the stage had ever had—viz., Sir Henry Irving—no one would insinuate that a gentleman of his kindly temperament could be anything but kind to children, however old or young they were. It was a mistake to found general laws on the generosity of a few. Laws were for the mean and ungenerous on behalf of the weak. But the point was, that children were engaged in large numbers of London and provincial theatres for a month or two months. Before a pantomime was produced those children very frequently had from two to four hours' rehearsal—from ten in the morning till one or two in the afternoon. They then went home to sleep; they went back to the theatre at 7, and probably did not leave until 11 or 11.30, when they had to take the omnibus, or the County Council all-night tram, home to the woman or man looking after them. When matinées were given these children were seven, nine, and sometimes ten and twelve hours away from home, and he held that in the case of children of from seven to nine years of age it was monstrous that they should allow it, when the same work could be done better by elder boys and girls. The Home Secretary admitted that the age of seven was too low, and the theatrical profession, as a concession to the Committee, were quite prepared that it should be raised to nine. He thought nine was too low. It ought to be thirteen or fourteen at least. In his opinion the magistrates were incapable of doing the work required by the Bill properly. He made no reflection on the magistrates, speaking
  348
  generally. They did their work exceedingly well and sympathetically. The theatrical profession insisted that the magistrates should grant the certificates and licenses. And why? Because they knew very well that the local authority responsible for looking after the education of all other grades of children, from which the theatrical children ought not to be exempt, were a more efficient body for this particular purpose. They knew the best schools the theatrical children could go to; they knew the line of least resistance both to the public and the children, better than the magistrates. The local authority would in the interests of the children apply the law more efficiently than the magistrates, and that was why the theatrical profession conceded two years to the minimum age, with the gallant Member's hope that the Home Secretary would do what he was sorry to say he had done—attempted to overturn the decision of the Grand Committee on Trade by a decisive majority. He trusted the House would remember what the vicar of the theatrical quarter of Soho said in his letter to The Times—viz., that there was overwhelming evidence that the age was too low, that the education of the children was neglected, and that they were subjected to physical, mental, and moral disadvantage. He knew that the House of Commons was the friend of the drama, and that hon. Members sometimes had a night out, or a night off, at the theatre. This was not a question of the Puritan against the other fellows; it was a matter of their kindliness on behalf of children who where unable to help themselves. He trusted that the House of Commons would endorse the practically unanimous desire of the Grand Committee, and save them from the scandal of theatrical children being employed at the tender ages of six to seven and nine. He had a boy between seven and eight. He was a sturdy youngster, with all his mother's beauty and his father's virtues, but sturdy though he was, he should be very reluctant to see that little lad having to go to Drury Lane at ten o'clock in the morning, and that he himself should have to open the door for him at one o'clock in the morning on his return home from Westminster. They had a right to apply the same doctrine of commisseration to other people's children which they asked for their own.
  *DR. HUTCHINSONsaid he wished to speak, not as a philanthropist, or as a Puritan, but as one of the few medical men of the House, and to raise his voice against the employment of children in theatres. If there was one class of employment for children which developed their nervous system as against their physical system, it was this theatrical employment. What was wanted in this country was an improvement in the physique of the people, but if we let these little children be brought up in the nervous surroundings of the theatrical stage we would produce a class of neurotics. Therefore he entered his strongest protest against the employment of these young children in theatres.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid that this was a subject in which he had some interest. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman who had put this Amendment on the Paper would learn what a good many of them had learned in Parliamentary life, and that was, the uselessness of endeavouring to bring two points of opinion together which were absolutely irreconcilable; that it was very little use endeavouring to bring about a compromise with opponents of the employment of children in theatres when those hon. Gentlemen had made up their minds that under no circumstances whatever would they have any compromise. The issue as to whether the children should be employed after nine o'clock in the evening, and not before ten o'clock in the morning, was not raised at the present stage. The issue to be decided by the House was whether the jurisdiction of the magistrates was to be preserved, or whether it should be handed over to the local authorities. From a practical point of view there should be no difficulty about it. If they were to hand over the discretion to the local authorities it should be an absolute discretion. There was nothing more necessary in the administration of a law of that kind than that there should be equal administration as between the rich and the poor, and as between locality and locality. Since this matter had been brought to his notice he had taken considerable trouble to inquire, not only in London but throughout the country, as to what happened in regard to children in the theatres. He
  350
  did not believe that the terrible things that had been depicted really existed. The hon. Member for Battersea had paid a well-deserved tribute to Mr. Beerbohm Tree and Sir Henry Irving, but they were no exceptions to the general rule. The hardship and suffering supposed to be inflicted on children were altogether overdrawn in the accounts given of their employment. Managers were not the inconsiderate tyrants the right hon. Member for Cambridge University had described.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I never said anything of the kind.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the early Victorian days, when respectability was supposed to be the fashion.
  SIR JOHN GORST: "Still supposed."
  MR. GALLOWAYasked what was the object of the right hon. Gentleman in drawing attention to that matter, except to cast a slur on present theatrical managers?
  SIR JOHN GORST: That certainly was not my object.
  MR. GALLOWAYsuggested that they had better agree to differ. His right hon. friend gave him the impression that he reflected very severely on theatrical managers, who did as a rule treat the children kindly and gave them opportunity for education. It was now admitted that theatrical managers did look after the children. The question the House had to decide was not whether children should be employed in theatres, but whether a now authority should be substituted for the existing authority. In view of the fact that theatrical managers did see that the children were properly educated, and given such a start as would be of the utmost benefit to them in their future careers, he failed to see why they should give to some scientific local authority a power to refuse licences which otherwise the managers would be able to get from magistrates in the exercise of their judicial authority. He hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to the principle of the clause.
  MR. SPEARappealed to the Home Secretary not to modify this clause. The solicitude for children was, in his opinion, one of the most hopeful features in modern legislation. The restrictions upon the employment of children would cause some inconvenience to agriculture, but in the interest of the children that must be submitted to. He objected strongly to exception being made for employment of children in theatres, employment far more harmful to children than agriculture, and he held that no partiality should be shown for one industry over another. Least of all should there be any partiality shown to the theatrical interest.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid some of the opponents of the clause spoke as if the object of the Government were to impose some conditions which made it easier to employ children in theatres. This was the opposite of the truth. The Bill was intended to protect children in every possible way. But in these matters they must proceed by slow degrees. It would be a monstrous thing to put a sudden stop to the industry by which, after all, a certain number of children were obtaining an honest livelihood. The alteration of the age limit and the powers of inspection given to the local authority increased the protection given to the children and the possibility of dealing with cases of hardship such as
  had been referred to. One magistrate, Mr. Mead, had drawn up certain rules to regulate such employment of children as he licensed, and if these orders were carried out they would substantially meet the desires of the House. They wished to ensure that these orders would be properly carried out, and this clause, in his opinion, provided that there should be efficient inspection. He hoped the House would agree that it was not desirable at one blow to prevent these children from earning an honest livelihood.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid it had been suggested that agriculturists stood in a different position from theatrical managers because they desired to employ children during school hours, whereas theatrical performances did not interfere with school work. That was a mere quibble, for the children who were employed until half-past ten or eleven o'clock at night could to school not be in a fit condition to at nine o'clock in the morning. Children under twelve years of age ought not to be allowed to earn their own living. He hoped the Home Secretary would give way.
  Question put.
  The House divided; Ayes, 139; Noes, 116. (Division List No. 130.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Garfit, William

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

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

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Grenfell, William Henry

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

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bill, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Bond, Edward

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Brassey, Albert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Doughty, George

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Butcher, John George

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hogg, Lindsay

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Chapman, Edward

  Flower, Ernest

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Keswick, William

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Percy, Earl

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Plummer, Walter E.

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Loyd, Archie Kirkmam

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Purvis, Robert

  Webb, Col. William George

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  NOES.

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

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Partington, Oswald

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Russell, T. W.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Burns, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shackleton, David James

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Caldwell, James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Spear, John Ward

  Cremer, William Randal

  Labouchere, Henry

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Crooks, William

  Langley, Batty

  Stock, James Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Leng, Sir John

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Dillon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Crae, George

  Tomkinson, James

  Duffy, William J.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcester., N.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murphy, John

  Younger, William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Myers, William Henry

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norman, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sir John Gorst and Mr.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  O'Dowd, John

  Tennant.

  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he did not know whether in view of the result of the division which had just taken place the Home Secretary would be inclined to accept his Amendment.
  354
  If he showed any signs of a willingness to accept his proposal he would not trouble the House further. It was quite evident from the division that had just taken place that the opinion of the House was

  355
  in favour of a large measure of further protection for children employed in theatres. He was surprised to learn that children of such tender years as seven should be licensed to take part in theatrical performances. He understood that these children were introduced into the different plays and pantomimes solely for the purpose of administering to the pleasures and amusement of adult audiences. That was a condition of things that ought not to exist, and grown-up men and women ought to be ashamed of desiring the employment of infants for their amusement and pleasure. This class of work could not be defended upon any ground whatever as suitable employment for children of from seven to nine years of age. Before the Grand Committee upstairs he suggested that nine would be better than seven, and the Under Secretary in charge of the Bill agreed with him, and the Government adopted his suggestion and made it nine. It might be said that he ought to be satisfied with that concession. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear."] At that time his state of ignorance as to theatre work and the nature of this employment was such that he thought to make the limit nine would be a considerable advance, but since then he had heard so much more about the question that he thought he was perfectly justified in submitting an Amendment substituting twelve for nine as the limit of the age at which children should be employed on the stage. The hon. Member for West Ham, whose authority to speak upon the necessity of rest for children between school hours for the educational purposes could not be denied, had shown to the House with great force how this class of employment excited the brains of the children, and how it absolutely unfitted them for their school work the next day. It had been shown by the hon. Member for Northampton that a child was liable to eleven or twelve hours employment in its profession as an actor. If his hon. friend was right in that contention a child employed in that way had no hours left whatever for education. They could not put a child for four or five hours a day to study in school after it had been employed for eleven hours in the exciting work of rehearsals and performances on the stage.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: Where is that done?
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid the hon. Member for Northampton had shown that a child was liable to be employed for eleven or twelve hours a day. The hon. Member for Northampton had probably had as much experience in these matters as the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham, and he preferred the authority of his hon. friend. Under these circumstances he submitted with confidence his Amendment raising the age from nine to twelve. He had been severely criticised by a number of actors for interfering with a state of things which enabled children at seven years of age to be employed, whereas no other form of industry or profession was allowed to employ children under fourteen years of age. No case had been made out why a special clause should be given in favour of child labour in theatres beyond and above what was given to other employers of labour. Many of those theatres were great profit-making concerns, and were quite capable of paying the full price for adult labour or for the labour of young persons. In his judgment twelve years of age was quite low enough to allow for this special kind of employment. He did not propose to detain the House any longer, because he was anxious that this Bill should go through. He thought the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department would give him credit for having done his best to promote the progress of this Bill during the Committee Stage upstairs. He was anxious that the Bill should become law, and he only desired to make it better law, and give greater protection to the young. In his judgment, if the Home Secretary would agree to accept his Amendment he would find an almost universal approval, not only in the House but throughout the country, that he was taking a wise and reasonable step. He agreed that it was not wise to make too great a change all at once, but his proposal was a reasonable one, and he hoped the Home Secretary would see his way to accept it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 5, to leave out the word 'nine,' and insert the word 'twelve.'"—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'nine' stand part of the clause."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLthought that after the division which had just taken place there was not much use in carrying this question further. The division was a rather remarkable one, but if the Home Secretary could see his way to make some concession on this point he thought that it would facilitate the progress of the measure.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he was never blind to appeals which had behind them the general sense of the House. He understood that in Grand Committee the hon. Member for Leicester himself suggested "nine" as the age. Amid the diversity of opinion he had great difficulty in coming to an agreement on the subject, but in order to show that he was not entirely beyond compromise he would agree to accept "ten."
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that in view of the conciliatory speech of the Home Secretary he would accept the concession made and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 5, to leave out the word 'nine' and insert the word 'ten.'"—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'nine' stand part of the clause."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Surely the Home Secretary could go a little further. Why had he come down to ten? The right hon. Gentleman said that if he went beyond nine he would get the support of the bulk of the Members of the House.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he had stated nothing of the sort. He said that nine was agreed to as a compromise before the Grand Committee. He hoped the hon. Member would not press this point. He had made a reasonable concession and he could not go further.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: said he should move twelve after ten had been accepted. He said these children were mainly employed in pantomimes which did not finish until very nearly twelve o'clock. A great many of the children lived a considerable distance from the theatres, and really it
  358
  was too much to ask that a child of ten years of age should be kept up in a theatre until such a late hour.
  MR. GALLOWAYhoped the right hon. Gentleman would realise that it was useless to attempt to make compromises with hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Leicester in the Grand Committee agreed to accept the age of nine. Personally, he was quite prepared to go farther than that, but nine was accepted as a compromise. The age had now been extended a year. A limit must be put to these attempts to compromise, and the right hon. Gentleman had better adhere to the provision of the Bill.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid he was extremely anxious to see the Bill carried. But though the supporters of the measure would rather the age were fixed at fourteen, they recognised what the Home Secretary had said, and were only too glad to accept ten, because they believed the right hon. Gentleman intended to make the Bill as good a Bill as he could and to carry with him the support of as large a section of the House as possible. Personally, the only part of the work of the House he enjoyed was the Committee work upstairs, and he desired to support it in every way he could. There party spirit had been to a large extent eliminated, and these proposals were not made in any party spirit at all.
  *MR. TENNANTdissented from the view that there were measures of greater importance waiting to be dealt with by the House. He looked upon the measure under discussion as being as important as any before the House, and to prove his anxiety that it should pass he appealed to the hon. Member for Northampton not to press his proposed Amendment.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether he would be in order in proposing the insertion of "twelve" in the place of "ten" after the latter limit had been inserted.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he should first put the Question, "That 'nine' stand part," which he presumed would be negatived by general consent. He would then put the Question "That 'ten' be inserted." The hon. Member could not move an

  359
  Amendment to that, but if he succeeded in getting it negatived there would be a blank in the clause, and the hon. Member could move to fill that blank by the insertion of "twelve."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid in that case he would risk losing the limit of ten; therefore he contented himself by protesting against the provision.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that while he hoped the House would accept the suggestion of the Home Secretary, it must not go forth to those particularly interested in theatrical work that the House of Commons proposed to allow the age to remain at the limit of ten. The proposal would be accepted now, because it was realised that progress in matters of this sort must be by degrees. Fourteen years ago Mr. Matthews, the then Conservative Home Secretary, was defeated because he resisted the raising of the age for half-time labour to eleven, and he was not at all sure the same fate would not have befallen the present Home Secretary had he gone to a division on this matter. He was glad, however, that that had been avoided, but he desired it to be distinctly understood that he reserved his right of moving, in subsequent sessions, a higher age limit than ten.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsupported the view of the hon. Member for West Ham. He believed that if many Members had not thought that the carrying of the last Amendment would have meant the loss of the Bill the Home Secretary would have been defeated. The Bill, he held, would have to be amended in an early session. The House had no right to impose on agriculture and other industries, which did not make the money which the theatrical profession made out of child-labour, a standard of thirteen or fourteen years, and to enable this lucrative profession to put children to work at the age of ten. He hoped that eventually thirteen would be made the minimum age at which children could be employed for theatrical purposes.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Word "ten" inserted.
  Clause as amended added.
  Clause (Limitation of time)—
  With respect to summary proceedings for offences and tines under this Act and any by-law made thereunder the information shall be laid within three months after the commission of the offence."—(Sir Francis Powell.)
  Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYmoved the insertion of a new clause, the object of which was to give County Councils power to delegate their powers of making by-laws to any borough or district council within their areas. If a County Council did not desire to put the Act into force throughout the whole of its area, it could then empower the council of a borough or district to make by-laws suited to its particular needs, without any outside interference. In his own county there was a large watering-place of over 20,000 inhabitants, which, unfortunately, would be unable to make its own by-laws, because at the time of the census of 1901 it was just under the 20,000 limit. But that was just one of the places in which it would be desirable to have special by-laws applicable to its own particular circumstances, and it was to meet such cases as that he moved this new clause.
  Clause (Delegation of power to make by-law)—
  "The County Council of any county may, if it thinks fit, delegate its powers to make by-laws under this Act to any Borough or District Council within its area."—(Sir. Edward Strachey.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. ERNEST GRAYhoped the Home Secretary would not accept this proposal. It seemed to hold out the prospect of the same confusion as had been experienced in regard to school attendance by-laws, where a multitude of small authorities enjoyed the right of making by-laws, with the result that the by-laws differed in effect and object, and were a source of endless worry to magistrates, confusion to parents, and dissatisfaction generally. One of the merits of the Education Act

  361
  of last year was that it did away with that condition of things, and he hoped that the same local authority as formed the regulations dealing with children within school-hours would have the duty of laying down the conditions under which the children should work out of school-hours. It was eminently desirable that the power of making the whole of the regulations should be vested in the one authority.
  MR. BRYCEregretted he could not support his hon. friend. This was a matter which required to be looked at from the point of view, not of a small locality, but of a larger area, such as that of the County Council. It was a matter of considerable importance, requiring a large and enlightened view of policy, and that large view was more likely to be obtained in a County Council than in a District Council.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYdissented.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that, at any rate, the hon. Baronet would not deny that the County Council controlled a larger area than the District Council, and that appeared to be a reason for leaving the matter in the hands of the County Council.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSpointed out that they were not dealing with such a question as education, which was uniform throughout the country, but with the labour and earnings of the poor, and even the poorest classes. He would look with the greatest apprehension on this Bill if uniformity was to be imposed. In the smaller areas the requirements were altogether different to those in the larger areas. He objected to allowing a central authority to make by-laws for districts they knew nothing about. The Bill would be good or bad according to the nature of the local authority that had to administer it. He had the greatest faith in the councils of boroughs to
  362
  make by-laws suited to their localities, and unless such a power were given there would be confusion of administration, and great hardship would be inflicted on the children in agricultural districts. He appealed to the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Amendment in order that the matter might be dealt with on the definition clause. He hoped when the House reached that clause the Government would revert to the original proposal of the Bill, which was the only logical provision—viz., that the councils which knew the needs of their localities should have the making of the by-laws.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEthought the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had gone very far beyond the Amendment. The only question raised by the Amendment was whether or not the County Council was fit to make by-laws with regard to every district within its area. ["No."] Surely it was not desirable that in a county where there were thirty different authorities there should be a possibility of thirty different sets of by-laws. That would certainly not be for the convenience of the public, and the confusion and ignorance of the law to which it might lead would probably result in more hardship than the provisions of the Bill. County Councils were not so ignorant of the needs of the different parts of their respective areas as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think. Under the Local Government Act, the County Councils constantly made by-laws for different parts of the county; and he could not see why, under this Bill, there would be any difficulty in the matter.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he would appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press the clause. It was not at all necessary, and would only give rise to serious complications.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 14; Noes,

  AYES.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Tomkinson, James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Joicey, Sir James

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sir Edward Strachey and

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Mr. Markham.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Flower, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Forster, Henry William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fyler, John Arthur

  M'Crae, George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Garfit, William

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Bill, Charles

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Black, Alexander William

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Bond, Edward

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Brigg, John

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Burns, John

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Caldwell, James

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Myers, William Henry

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Norman, Henry

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

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr-Tyd

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Partington, Oswald

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwick)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Crooks, William

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Delany, William

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Keswick, William

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Langley, Batty

  Runciman, Walter

  Doughty, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Russell, T. W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund, Lyne

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcester., N.)

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam. Gower)

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

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Spear, John Ward

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Stock, James Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Webb, Col. William George

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  228. (Division List No. 131.)
  *MR. TENNANTsaid that the Amendment he desired to move dealt with the question whether it should be compulsory on local authorities to make by-laws. The Committee upstairs came to the conclusion that it would be wiser to make it compulsory. One of the strongest supporters of that view was the hon. Member for Manchester who, on the Second Reading of the Bill, said that if those regulations were to be made at all it was essential that they should be compulsory. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife on the Second Reading also said that in order to obtain uniformity it was of great importance that the local authorities should be compelled to issue those by-laws. No doubt, the local authorities in the great towns, such as Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, would act properly; but there were other local authorities which would not conform to the standard that would be set by them. He would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, which provided that it should be the duty of every local authority to issue by-laws.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out the word 'any,' and insert the word 'every.'"—(Mr. Tennant.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that in Grand Committee the word "shall" was inserted instead of "may"; and he now proposed to ask the House to reinsert "may." The word "shall" was inserted by nineteen votes to seventeen; but when the same point arose in Clause 2 it was decided the other way by twenty-one votes to fourteen; and the word "may" was now in Clause 2. On the Second Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife said that one of the chief reasons why he supported the Bill was because it was optional, and it was the view of the Government that the County Councils and the urban authorities should not be compelled to make those by-laws. Moreover children might be employed in an industry in one district under conditions which would not require the making of by-laws at all; and he did not think that it was the view of the House that the Bill should be of a compulsory or cast-iron character. He had sufficient trust in the local authorities to leave the matter to them. They were the proper authorities to decide whether or not by-laws were required in their own districts.
  MR. TALBOTsaid he also trusted the local authorities, but the object of his Amendment was to make it quite clear that the local authorities should not disregard the matter, and that it should be the duty of each local authority to decide the matter for itself. Otherwise, some local authorities would be negligent; and it was for them that the law was intended.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid that the question at issue was whether the Bill should be compulsory or not. It was obvious it could not be decided in the few minutes that remained, and he would therefore move the adjournment of the debate.
  *MR. TENNANTasked when the Bill would be taken again.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that that question should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury. It was quite clear, however, it could not be proceeded with during the present week.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow.

  MARINE STORE DEALERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. Graham Murray, Buteshire) in the Chair.]
  Clause 2—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 14, after the word 'article' to insert the words, 'Provided that where articles of the same kind, value, and description are on any particular occasion bought or sold in a lot or parcel it will be sufficient to describe such lot or parcel without describing each of the several articles comprising same.'"—(Mr. MacVeagh.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he would move to report Progress. The Amendments were not on the Paper; and the Gentlemen who usually took charge of business after midnight were strangely silent.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he would appeal to the hon. Member not to persist in his Motion. The Bill was urgently demanded in Dublin and Belfast; and all the parties concerned were agreed regarding it.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  GUINEA POSTAL ORDERS BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
  COAL MINES (CERTIFICATES) BILL.
  Adjourned at fourteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Transfer).
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills: Broughty Ferry Gas Provisional Order; Hamilton Burgh Provisional Order.
And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Metropolitan Police Provisional Order; Military Lands Provisional Orders.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills ought to be dispensed with, and the Bills allowed to proceed: Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers); Wigan Corporation Tramways; Grindleford, Baslow, and Bakewell Railway; Romford and District Tramways; Beckenham Urban District Council.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill ought not to be dispensed with, but that the Bill may be allowed to proceed, subject to Clauses 8, 10, and 11 being struck out of the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, on a proviso being inserted in the Bill for the protection of the debenture and preference shareholders, and subject to the Bill being submitted to the meeting of the proprietors of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company now summoned to meet.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Stroud and District Tramways Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, subject to the names of James Grainger Bellamy and Alexander Siemens being struck out of the Bill.
  Read and agreed to.
  Gorleston and Southtown Gas Bill. Reported without Amendment.
  Kip's Patents Bill [H.L.], Bangor Corporation Bill [H.L.], Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill. Reported with Amendments.
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1.) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.
  New Hunstanton Improvement Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Beckenham Urban District Council Bill; Stroud and District Tramways Bill; Romford and District Tramways Bill; Grindleford, Baslow, and Bakewell Railway Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill; Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Private Bill

  195
  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 Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly.
  Great Eastern Railway Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  Scottish Central Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Beckenham Urban District Council Bill; Stroud and District Tramways Bill; Romford and District Tramways Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill. Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill; Grindleford Baslow, and Bakewell Railway Bill. Committed.
  Bradford Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
  South Shields Corporation Bill; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill. Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Wirral Railway Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons amended.
  Public Accounts—Message from the Commons for leave for the Clerk of the Parliaments to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House. Leave given accordingly, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
  Glasgow Corporation (Police) Provisional Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. (No. 127.) A Bill to confirm a Pro-
  196
  visional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation (Police).
  Glasgow Corporation Tramways Provisional Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. (No. 128.) A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating, to Glasgow Corporation Tramways.
  Were presented by the Lord Balfour, read 1a; and to be printed.
  Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Bill; Crystal Palace District Gas Bill; Leigh Corporation Bill; Wellingborough and District Tramrcads Bill; Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill; Watford and Edgware Railway Bill; Middlesbrough Corporation Bill; Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill; Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.), E. Mayo, L. Braye, L. Strathspey (E. Seafield), L. Herries (chairman), L. St. Oswald; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill. Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Naval Works Provisional Order Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill (No. 130); Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill No. 131). Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

PETITIONS.

  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of: of Abbot's Salford, Evesham; Aberavon; Abertillery; Aberystwyth; Abingdon; Acton Burnell; Aiskew; Alcester; Allerton Park and District; Alnwick; Alston and District; Alton; Altrincham; Amberley; Amble (Northumberland): Ambleside; Anderton; Angmering and Cross Bush; Annitsford; Ascot; Ashbourne; Ashford (Kent); Ashford (Middlesex): Ashington; Ashton-under-Lyne; Atherton; Avon Dasset; Backworth; Bacup; Bakewell and Hassop; Banbury; Bangor; Barking (2); Barmouth; Barnard Castle; Barnet; Barrasford; Bartestree and District; Barton-on-Humber; Barton-on-Irwell; Basingstoke; Bath (2); Battle; Beckenham; Bedford; Beeston; Begbroke; Bentham; Berwick-on-Tweed (2); Bexhill-on-Sea; Biddlestone; Bilston; Birchley; Birkdale (2); Birkenhead (4); Birmingham (8); Birtley; Bishop Auckland; Bishops Stortford (2); Bishop Thornton and District; Blackbrook; Blackburn (2); Blackmore Park; Blackpool; Blaenau Festiniog; Blundellsands; Blyth; Bognor; Bollington; Bolton (4); Bolton-le-Sands; Bootle (2); Boscombe; Bournemouth; Bradford (4); Braintree; Brentford (2); Brentwood (2); Brewood; Bridgend; Bridgnorth; Bridgwater; Brierley Hill; Brighouse; Brighton (3); Brindle; Bristol (3); Broadway; Bromley (Kent); Brooms; Brough Hall; Broughton; Broxwood; Brynmawr; Buckland; Buckley; Burgess Hill; Burnham; Burscough and Lathom; Burslem; Burton-on-Trent; Bury (2); Bury St. Edmunds; Buxton; Byer Moor; Cambridge; Campden; Cannock and
  198
  Hednesford; Cardiff (5); Carisbrooke; Carlisle (4); Carlton; Carmarthen; Carshalton; Castleford; Castleton; Catforth; Chatham; Chelmsford; Chepstow; Chester (2); Chesterfield; Chester-le-Street; Chichester; Chigwell; Chippenham; Chipping; Chipping Sodbury; Chislehurst; Chorley (3); Cirencester; Claughton-on-Brock; Clayton Green; Cleator; Clevedon; Clifford; Clifton; Cockermouth; Coedangred; Colchester; Coleshill; Colne; Colwich; Congleton; Corby; Cornforth and District; Cottam; Coughton; Courtfield; Coventry (2); Crawley; Crayford; Crewe; Croft; Crook; Croydon; Dalton-in-Furness; Darlington; Dartford; Deal (2); Denaby Main; Denbigh; Derby (2); Derwent and District; Devizes; Dewsbury; Ditton Hall; Doncaster; Dorking; Dover; Downall Green; Downsine (2); Dudley; Dukinfield; Dunmow (2); Durham; Eastbourne; East Grinstead; East Harptree; East Hendred; Eastleigh; Eastwood; Eccles; Egton Bridge; Ellingham; Eltham; Enfield (2); Epsom; Erdington; Errwood and Whaleybridge; Esh; Esh Laude; Euxton; Evesham; Exton and Oakham; Fairfield; Fairford; Fareham; Farnborough; Farnham; Farnworth; Faversham; Felton; Fernyhalgh; Flint; Florence (British subjects); Folkestone; Fordingbridge; Formby; Foxcote; Frizington; Frome; Gainford; Gainsborough; Garstang; Garston; Gateshead; Gillmoss; Glastonbury; Goodwick; Goole; Gosforth; Grange-over-Sands; Grangetown; Grantham; Grassendale; Gravesend; Grayshott; Great Crosby; Great Eccleston; Great Haywood; Guildford and Godalming; Hainton; Halifax (2); Haltwhistle; Hampton Wick and Teddington (2); Hanley; Harrington; Harrogate Harrow-on-the-Hill (2); Hartlepool; Hastings and Rye (2); Haunton; Haverfordwest; Haydon Bridge; Hayward's Heath; Heaton Norris; Hemsworth; Hereford; Heron's Ghyll; Hethe; Hexham; Hillingdon; Hinckley (2); Hindley; Hoddeston; Holyhead and Beaumaris; Holywell (2); Hornby; Haorsham; Horwich; Houghton-le-Spring Hove; Huddersfield; Hulme; Husbands Bosworth; Huyton; Hythe; Ilford; Ilkley; Ingatestone; Ipswich and Woodbridge; Isleworth (4); Keighley; Kelvedon; Kemerton; Kenilworth; Kendal; Kew; Kidderminster; Kidsgrove and

  199
  Alsager; Kingston-on-Thames; Kingswood; Knaresborough; Knolton Hall; Overton; Knutsford; Lancaster (2); Latchford; Lea; Leamington; Leeds (5); Leek; Leicester (2) Leigh (2); Leominster; Leyland; Lichfield; Lincoln; Liscard; Littleborough; Littlehampton; Liverpool (15); London (101); Longhorsley; Longridge; Longton; Loughborough (2); Louth; Lowerhouse; Ludlow; Lutterworth; Lymington; Maghull; Maidstone; Maldon; Malmesbury; Malvern, Little; Manchester (12); Mansfield; Mark Cross; Market Drayton; Market Harborough; Market Rasen; Maryport; Matlock Bridge; Mawdesley and District; Mawley; Mayfield; Melton Mowbray; Middlesborough; Midhurst; Milford Haven; Millom; Minehead; Minsteracres; Minster-in Thanet; Mold; Monmouth; Morecambe; Morley; Morpeth; Mountain Ash; Nantwich; Neath; Neston, Cheshire; Netherton; Newark; New Brighton; New Brampton; Newcastle on-Tyne (8); New Ferry; Newhall (near Burton-on-Trent); Newhaven; Newhouse; New Mills; Newnham, Paddox; Newport, Mon.; Newport, Salop; Newport, Isle of Wight; Newsham; Newton-le-Willows; New Tunstall; Normanton; Northampton; Northfleet; North Shields; Northwich; Norwich; Nottingham; Nuneaton; Oakamoor: Oldcotes; Olton; Ongar; Ormskirk; Orpington; Orrell; Oscott; Osgodby; Oswestry; Oxford (2); Pantasaph; Parkminster; Pembroke Dock and New Milford; Penarth; Penrith; Peterborough; Petworth (3); Plowden; Pontefract; Port Clarence on-Tees; Portsmouth; Poulton-le-Fylde; Preston (5); Prescot; Prestayn and Llanasa; Prudhoe-on Tyne; Radford; Rainford; Ramsey; Ramsgate (3); Reading; Redditch; Redhill (2); Rhyl (2); Rhymney; Richmond, Surrey (2); Rixton; Rochdale; Rock Ferry; Ross; Rudding Park; Rugeley (2); Runcorn; Ryhope (2); Sacriston; St. Anne's-on-the-Sea; St. Asaph (2); St. Helens (6); St. Helier (3); St. Lawrence-on-Sea; St Leonards-on-Sea (3); Sale; Salford; Salisbury; Scarborough; Scarisbrick; Scarthingwell and District; Scorton; Seacombe; Seaford; Seaforth; Sedgley; Selby; Settle; Sevenoaks; Sheffield (4); Shifnal; Shoeburyness; Shrewsbury; Sidcup; Sittingbourne; Skelmersdale;
  200
  Slindon; Smethwick; Souldern: Southampton (2); Southend-on-Sea (3); Southport; Spalding; Spetchley; Spilsby; Stafford (2); Stains; Stalybridge; Stamford; Stanbrook; Standish; Stanley and District; Stock; Stockton-on-Tees; Stoke-on-Trent; Stone; Stonor; Stonyhurst (2); Storrington; Stourbridge; Stratford-on-Avon; Stroud; Studley; Sturry and District; Sunbury-on-Thames; Sunderland (3); Surbiton; Sutton, Surrey; Sutton Coldfield; Sutton Park; Swansea (2); Swindon; Swynnerton; Tadcaster; Taunton (3); Tenby; Thornley; Thornton; Thurnham; Tichborne; Trimdon; Trowbridge; Tudhoe; Turton; Tynemouth; Uckfield; Ugthorpe; Ulverston; Upton Hall; Upton-on-Severn; Ushaw; Usk; Uttoxeter; Uxbridge; Ventor (2); Wadhurst; Walmer (2); Walsall; Waltham Cross; Walton-le-Dale; Wardour and Tisbury; Warrington (3); Warwick; Warwick Bridge; Waterloo; Waterlooville; Wealdstone; Wellingborough; Wellingore; Wellington; Wells; Wesham; Westby; West Drayton; West Hartlepool (2); Westhoughton; West Kirby; Weybridge (3); Whitchurch; Whitewell and Dunsop Bridge; Whittingham; Widnes (3); Wigan (2); Wigton; Willington; Willows; Wilmslow; Wimbledon (2); Wincanton; Windermere; Windsor; Withnell and District; Wolsingham; Wolverhampton; Wonersh; Woodchester; Woodford; Woodlane; Wooler; Woolhampton; Woolmer; Woolston; Woolston, Hants; Worcester; Workington; Worthing (3); Wrightington; Yarmouth, Great; Yealand; Yeovil; and York (2). Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of: of persons signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  EDUCATION.
  Statement of schemes for the formation of Education Committees approved during the month of May, 1903, by the Board of Education under Section 17 of the Education Act of 1902 (in continuation of Parliamentary Papers, Command Nos. 1564 and 1613 of Session 1903), showing—name

  201
  of local authority; number of the council; number of members of the Education Committee; number of members of the Education Committee who are necessarily members of the council; number of women who are necessarily on the Education Committee, forms of educational experience to be represented on the Committee; recommendations or nominations (if any).

  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual Series—
  No. 3006. China (Wuchow).
  No. 3007. Paraguay (Paraguay).
  No. 3008. Spain (Malaga).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC RECORDS.
  Additional rule for the disposal of certain documents.
  Finance accounts of the United Kingdom, for the year ended 31st March, 1903.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Order made by the County Council of the county of Middlesex, altering certain polling districts in the Hornsey Parliamentary Division.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
  Petition for abrogation of: of Roman Catholics in Preston, Lancashire; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE CONSTITUTION OF MALTA.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given private notice—whether it is true that letters patent have been issued making important modifications in the Constitution of Malta, and, if so, whether correspondence on that subject will be laid before Parliament without unnecessary delay.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): The reply to the Question of the noble
  202
  Marquess is in the affirmative. The Papers on the subject will be laid on the Table of the House in a very few days.

  DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, when I last had the honour of submitting to your Lordships' House a Bill containing somewhat similar provisions to the Bill which is now before you, I commended it to your attention in a speech which I endeavoured to make reasonable, temperate, logical, and respectful to this House. Some comments which reached me after that occasion might have led me to suppose that I had succeeded in that endeavour were it not for the remarkable observations which fell on that occasion from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. The usual Motion that the Bill be read a second time that day six months appeared upon the Order Paper, fathered, as might have been expected, by the noble Lord who represents the High Church Party in the Protestant Church, and who endorses the sacramental view of marriage. But that noble Lord and his Amendment were contemptuously brushed aside by the Lord Chancellor, who, in a state of apparent fury, fell upon the remarks I had ventured to make to the House and declared more than once that both my Bill and the observations with which I had endeavoured to support it were an insult to your Lordships. He then proceeded, with the courage of a large majority behind him, to move that the Bill be rejected, a Motion which, so far as I am able to ascertain, has been unknown in the recent history of this House. But that is not perhaps to be wondered at from a member of a Government which has revived several archaic and rusty weapons of the Constitution. Everyone in this House must recognise the conspicuous talent and ability which has raised the noble and learned Earl to the high position he to-day occupies, but many, especially on this side of the House, also regret that he should not yet have acquired that courtesy in debate which we are wont to expect from other noble Lords more imbued with the traditions of this assembly.

  203
  It has not hitherto been held to be an insult to the House to propose in a reasonable manner, and to support by arguments, a measure for the amendment of the law where such may seem desirable. But I must not for a moment appear to wish to alienate the sympathies of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack on this occasion, for I hope I may claim him with some confidence as a supporter. In that very small fraction of his observations which dealt with the merits of my proposals, the noble and learned Earl called attention to a clause in my Bill permitting a divorce after one year's separation on the joint petition of the parties. That clause is not in the Bill now before your Lordships, and as it was the only one to which the noble and learned Earl specifically objected I hope that to-day I shall not be mistaken in looking for his support.
  If your Lordships will refer to the Bill you will see that by the first section it is proposed to extend the causes for which a marriage may be dissolved. The present ground of adultery remains, with the extension of that remedy to a wife who has been wronged as well as to a husband who has been wronged. In addition to that it is provided that cruelty, which is now a ground for separation, shall be a ground for a divorce a vinculo. The third, and to my mind the most important provision of all, is that either party to a marriage may present a petition for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that during the three years preceding the presentation of the petition the parties to the marriage have lived apart, and that throughout that period either of the parties did not intend to resume cohabitation. The effect of that clause is that when two married persons have lived apart for three years, and during the whole of that period one at least of them has never intended to live as the husband or wife of the other party, then the Court shall be empowered to grant a divorce. In support of that proposal I quoted to your Lordships last year a largo number of authorities with which I do not propose to trouble you in detail on this occasion. But, among others, I would remind your Lordships of the opinion of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone, who was opposed to divorce altogether, nevertheless said that if adultery was a cause for divorce
  204
  there were other causes equally entitled to give relief at law to the husband or the wife who suffered from them, and he specifically mentioned desertion and cruelty. I also called your Lordships attention last year to the fact that the Reformatio Ecclesiasticarum Legum—a document prepared by divines and lawyers of the highest authority at the time of the Reformation, also proposed to grant a divorce for desertion. That document was drawn up by the authority of the Church and under the immediate superintendence of the Church, and nothing but the untimely death of the Sovereign prevented it becoming law in the reign of Edward VI. But the Church has now departed from that attitude. Since I last referred your Lordships to that document I have had an opportunity of considering the actual words in detail, and I find them even stronger than I supposed, for an article of Archbishop Cranmer most expressly says that, where a spouse has been deserted by the other spouse, it is just that the tribunal should grant a divorce with liberty to proceed to a fresh marriage. He also grants the same remedy for offences which he calls mortal enmities, meaning, apparently, the attempt of one spouse on the life of another. The same remedy of divorce is granted in the case of extreme cruelty, and at the end there appears a very significant prohibition. He there lays down that judicial separation should be altogether abolished, because judicial separation has brought into marriage many evils in its train—the very argument I ventured to urge last year in support of these proposals. It is clear that at that time those who were responsible for the conduct of the Church, assisted by eminent lawyers, came to the conclusion that adultery alone should not be retained upon the Statute-book as the only cause for divorce and that other causes which made married life impossible should also be included.
  The effect of the third proposal under the first section is simply to ask that the law should recognise a state of things which in fact exists. The two parties to the marriage must have, to all intents and purposes, divorced themselves before the law is put in operation; they must have lived apart for three years without the intention of living together again. During that period they will have had ample opportunity for changing their

  205
  minds and for reconciliation, and it must be assumed that if at the end of that period they proceed to address to the Court a petition for relief they have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to live together. Last year the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack described the Bill as one to abolish marriage. I hear a noble Lord beside me say, "Hear, hear." The marriage which it proposes to abolish is a marriage which has already ceased to have any element of marriage — it is a marriage in which the spouses have already ceased to have the mutual comfort and assistance one from the other. If that is the ideal of Christian marriage that commends itself to this House, then I do propose by this Bill to abolish marriage. But that is not the sort of marriage which any legislature or Church has ever contemplated—it is a marriage which has ceased to be a marriage in everything but the legal tie. It can no longer have the sanction of the Church, for the Church has contemplated that the parties should live together and support each other. It is a state of things, a separation of two married people, which is immediately productive of immorality and social harm, and if that is what is meant by noble Lords who speak of the Christian institution of marriage, it may, I think, very well be abolished, for the only thing left is merely a legal tie uniting two persons, and preventing them from ever contracting a respectable and legal tie with any other persons of the opposite sex. Therefore, in Clause 7 it is proposed that after the commencement of this Act no petition shall be presented for judicial separation or for restitution of conjugal rights.
  As I ventured to point out last year the attempts at restitution of conjugal rights have a contrary effect. The pretence is to restore the deserting spouse to the arms and to the home of the other spouse, but it is well known that the effect of that action is not to arrive at that happy result. It does not, in fact, restore the two spouses to a united home. It is nowadays used in order that it may proceed to a judicial separation being established on the ground of desertion. It therefore has no longer the effect which the Church that instituted restitution intended it to have. The Church intended that this should be a spiritual
  206
  admonition to two persons to carry out their marriage vows. The idea of forcing a man and woman to whom union is repugnant to live together is abhorrent, and, though the action in form proceeds, the provisions of the Welldon Act have made it inoperative. I may say that the other principle in connection with the dissolution of marriages, which I have endeavoured to establish by this Bill is the principle of equality of the sexes—a principle which, I am sorry to say, seldom commends itself to an assembly of male legislators, and the non-recognition of which was the subject of some very scathing observations by Mr. Gladstone in the Lower House. Women protest, not often vocally, but they protest and suffer constantly from the injustice of the present law, which denies to them the remedy for the same offence for which it grants it to the husband, and many women are unable to obtain the relief to which they are entitled, the protection and the freedom they desire, on account of the inequalities of the present law. I have therefore ventured to propose in this Bill that the same remedies shall be given to both sexes, and that they shall be put upon an equality before the law in this matter.
  It is frequently said that the effect of loosening the marriage ties will be to cause a large number of people to rush to the Divorce Court and to avail themselves of the facilities offered, but under the provisions of this Bill they will have to be people who are already divorced in fact, and it cannot be supposed that other persons, who are not divorced in fact, will qualify for the remedies offered to them in consequence of the Bill becoming law. I am not prepared to admit that the majority of married couples in this country are held together merely by legal sanction or even by ecclesiastical sanction. I hope, and I trust I am not mistaken, that the vast majority of married couples in this country are held together by mutual affection, and have no desire to part, and I have no reason to believe that that affection and mutual devotion will be interfered with by any legislative measures whatever. Legislation is passed for the cases which it affects. There are upon the Statute-book a large number of criminal statutes dealing

  207
  with forgery, burglary, theft, and so on; but it is never suggested that the effect of those statutes is to make people forgers and burglars, or that they affect in any way persons who have no tendency in that direction. In the same way, I submit that the alteration of the law of divorce will in no way affect any except those who would, under any circumstances, be anxious to avail themselves of these remedies.
  The Bill deals with the question of County Court jurisdiction, which I introduced to your Lordships' notice last year, and provides that where the total joint annual income of the parties does not exceed £500, they shall be able to obtain relief from the local County Court. That is a provision which I should have thought would have commended itself to everyone who wished the law to be equal for the rich and for the poor. At present the whole business of divorce is centralised in a Court in London, and all persons living in any part of the kingdom have to come themselves, and to bring their witnesses to this central Court in London in order that their case may be heard. The effect of that is to deprive by far the larger proportion of the community of any remedy at all. If there is a legal remedy to which persons are entitled, surely they should not be deprived of its exercise merely because they cannot afford to come to London to prosecute their suit. This inequality was pointed out when the Act of 1857 was passed through Parliament, and among others who called attention to it was a then occupant of the Episcopal Bench, who said that the measure failed signally to fulfil the avowed intention for which it was introduced—namely, of making a legal remedy available to all. That this provision does work injustice must be known to everyone. It is universally known to solicitors, and those who have to do with the getting up of cases. It should be known to right rev. Prelates, who must be cognisant of cases where, even under the present law, persons entitled to divorce are unable to obtain it on account of the expense. A very striking instance has come under my own observation, in which an unfortunate woman has been
  208
  deserted for nine years by her husband. There is no question that her husband has committed adultery, and the facts are easily susceptible of proof, but the deserted woman has no money with which to prosecute her case; and even if she were to proceed in forma pauperis, the expenditure which would be necessary puts it absolutely out of the question, either for the woman herself or any of her immediate friends to find the money to remedy the injustice from which she is suffering. It is admitted that even under the present law she is entitled to a divorce, but simply for want of money she cannot obtain that divorce from her husband who deserted her nine years ago. If she were able to go to the local County Court, within a few miles of where she is, she would be able then to conduct her case with the minimum of expenditure, and where she would now have to pay pounds she would then only have to pay shillings.
  I can quite understand that those who are opposed on principle and altogether to any relaxation whatever of the divorce laws, and to any extension of the remedies, may think it a good thing that even the remedies which the law now provides should be denied to the poor, but I am surprised that those who profess to desire equality in legislation should support a state of things by which the whole business is centralised in London. That is not the case with other legal business, and until the Act of 1857 such matrimonial legislation as existed could be and was conducted in the local Bishops' Courts of the dioceses. But that Act abolished the whole of the local courts and centralised the procedure in London, thereby putting it out of the reach of persons of very poor means. The present law as to decrees of nullity of marriage is not touched by the Bill now before your Lordships. Clause 5 provides that they shall be heard and determined on the same principles as now exist. There are some alterations in procedure which, however, are matters of detail with which your Lordships should not be troubled at this stage. The Bill proposes to re-enact the present provision as to the performance of marriage of divorced persons by the

  209
  clergy. If your Lordships will look at Sub-section 4 of Clause 16 you will see that it is there provided that—
  "A clergyman shall not be compelled to solemnise the marriage of any person whose previous marriage has been dissolved, and shall not be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure for solemnising or refusing to solemnise the marriage of any such person."
  That, I believe, is the present law, though a recent interpretation given to it by the Bishop of London would seem to show that the censure to which the clergyman is not to be subjected, does not include the censure of his ecclesiastical superior. The Act of Parliament, which is the governing authority of the Church of England, distinctly provided that he shall not be subject to any censure, but from recent proceedings which have appeared in the newspapers, it appears that the re-marriage of divorced persons in this diocese has exposed a clergyman who had the temerity to perform it to censure. I see no reason to suggest an alteration in the present law on this subject. I might remind your Lordships of what, perhaps, bas been forgotten, that in 1857 this House, on no less than three separate occasions, rejected an Amendment proposing individual liberty of conscience to clergymen in the form of the present clause, and insisted that every clergyman should, as a servant of the State, perform any marriage that the State said could be legally performed. However, the truculent attitude of this House towards the Church on that occasion was modified in the more kindly atmosphere of another place, and the present compromise appears to have been the effect of that discussion.
  I do not know whether any noble Lord supposes that there is no ground for an amendment, and that there are no grievous cases of injustice and hardship under the present divorce law, which differs in its stringency from the divorce law of every other Protestant country. I have received a vast mass of correspondence, with some few extracts from which I am compelled to trouble your Lordships. One gentleman writes and says—
  "My wife left me to return to her father after I lost my money more than eleven years ago. There is no deed of separation and no ground
  210
  for divorce, and yet by the law of England I am married and condemned to lead a celibate life with no possibility of relief. Had I committed forgery, burglary, or any other serious crime, I could long ago have expiated my offence, but from an unfortunate marriage there is no release, unless there is cruelty or adultery, which are absent in the case under notice. This state of things I contend is contrary to every law, divine or human, and demands a remedy."
  A woman writes:—
  "Your Bill would be a blessing to many poor women. I married at twenty-one a man who turned out to be a great scamp, thief, and forger. My home was sold up, my belongings seized by creditors. When my son was thirteen months old my husband deserted me and went to Canada fourteen years ago. I have never heard of nor seen him since. My wrist was injured for life through my husband's brutality. I have proof of desertion and cruelty, but what chance have I to obtain a divorce?"
  Another writes and says:—
  "Where the parties have for a number of years been separated and positively refuse to live together again they are, in my humble opinion, ipso facto divorced; why then should measures be refused to make such definite estrangement legal? … Where mutual love exists the man and woman never part; it is the absence of it that brings about the evil. The sooner there is some law permitting the deserted husband or wife to marry again after a lapse of years, the sooner will immorality and dissipation be reduced."
  Another writes:—
  "Are two people grievously unhappy together and without fault or intention, to be literally killed and worn to death, being held together in an unnatural and useless bond, to be made useless to each other and even to their children, while those who live riotously and break all marriage laws are content with them and are often the loudest voiced in upholding them? That is an easy way of carrying out a law impossible often to keep."
  Another writes and says:—
  "Realising the impossibility of obtaining legislative relief in this country, I am forced to consider the expediency of settling in America with a view to obtaining there that relief denied me here."
  Another writes and says:
  "It is remarkable how perverted Christianity is trotted out on every possible occasion to bar real progress. To say that reasonable release would destroy Christian matrimony is simply the dictum of a person very ignorant, and very much of a bigot. The Founder never recommended, and certainly would never have enforced, for it would be abhorrent to all his teaching, that two who had got utterly to dislike each other, and whose presence with each other brought out and acerbated all the evil in the nature of both, should drag on a

  211
  tortured existence together, degrading to both, and leading to all kinds of evils and a strong temptation to murder even."
  A young woman writes that four days after her marriage her husband had to leave on the duties of his vocation as officer in the Royal Navy. For nine years he has not been near her. She has not the money to pursue the evidence for adultery.
  A man who occupies a responsible position writes:
  "I have been married twenty years to a most unsuitable woman, who has never been any help to me, who has persistently got into debt, falsified accounts, confiscated letters, deceived and lied to me so much that it has produced an utter alienation. For seven years we have occupied separate rooms."
  Another writes:—
  "Oh this dull, stupid English law, with Scotland's bright example shining so near."
  You have to go no farther than Scotland to find divorce a vinculo granted for three years' desertion.
  I submit this Bill to the House as an honest attempt to remedy an intolerable state of things. I ask whether among all the Members of this House there are none who recognise that the present marriage laws do inflict upon a vast number of men and women in this country great hardship; that the present marriage laws lead in many cases to the contracting of immoral alliances between separated men and women, and that the granting of a judicial separation is really to throw upon the world two potential adulterers. It is easy to legislate for human nature, but it is less easy to control it after your legislation. The present law offers a divorce as a reward for immoral conduct. It can be obtained where immorality has taken place, but where both parties are unwilling to be guilty of immorality, the present law denies divorce; and where, as so oftens happens, women have been deserted by their husbands for an indefinite number of years, they are precluded from ever contracting a fresh alliance, and are compelled to remain for the rest of their lives neither married nor unmarried, with no possibility of establishing a home and all that is dear to the heart of a woman. Is there no one in this House who feels that this state of things needs a remedy? Are your Lordships satisfied, because in your individual
  212
  cases the law may not bear hardly upon you, to leave such a blot upon the social legislation of this country? The proposals which I have put before you, and I say this unhesitatingly, make for the increase of social purity and for the absence of adultery. They make for a legitimate dissolution of unions that have long since become impossible, and their adoption would tend to purify the marriage relation, to make marriage a more real thing than it is at present, and to make adultery looked upon, as it is not often looked upon now, as a disgraceful, a discreditable, and an unnecessary crime. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Russell.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR (the Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, the noble Lord, in the course of a great many observations, has referred to some remarks which I made on a former occasion when a Bill of this character was before your Lordships. I do not propose to repeat what I said then, but I adhere to every word of it. When I made that speech I believe it met with the entire approval of your Lordships then present. I gathered that from the course you then pursued. No one intervened in the debate. The Bill was at once rejected. At present I will only call attention to one aspect of the Bill. The noble Lord does not appear to me to understand the gravity of what he is doing. If your Lordships will be good enough to turn to the schedule of the Bill you will find that he has gone through every one of the Divorce Acts and has swept them all away. They are to be repealed by this Bill, and in substitution he has apparently by the first and second sections made the fact of divorce simply a question whether the parties would agree to it or not; and if they are away from each other for three years and they desire that the union should cease that in itself would put an end to it. All I will say is that the policy of the law—I speak not now of the higher sanction, which most of us think to be somewhat more important than the noble Lord appears to consider it—has been to prevent anything like

  213
  divorce by consent. It requires something, at all events, to justify the dissolution of a marriage. That according to this Bill, would be no longer necessary. The prohibition of divorce by mere agreement is got rid of very easily, because the functions as well as the office of the King's Proctor are abolished by the Bill. All you have to do is to comply with the provisions of the Bill and the divorce is easy. The noble Lord has once or twice referred to what he called the iniquities of the marriage law. Whether such iniquities exist or not I will not discuss. This Bill proposes to abolish the whole of the matrimonial law as it exists and substitutes what the noble Lord has described. It appears to me that the mere statement that, as I have pointed out, all the wisdom of the Legislature, all the care that has been taken from the year 1857, when the Divorce Act was passed, down to the present time to cure any defect in the law, would be swept away in a minute, and for that nothing substituted but simply an arrangement enabling the parties if they think proper to get rid of the marriage, is enough for your Lordships. One observation I made on a former occasion seems to have struck the noble Lord as too strong. I do not think myself that I used language too strong when I said that the abolition of the marriage tie, which in one sense the noble Lord has admitted that his Bill would procure, proposed in such a way to a Christian assembly, was an insult, and I repeat the observation. All I have to add at present, I think, is that I invite your Lordships to reject this Bill, and I hope that we may not have the same proposal repeated over and over again, for the noble Lord and everybody else must know that it is only in the nature of a protest by himself against the marriage law as it exists, but even he has not the faintest notion that any such Bill will be sanctioned by your Lordships.
  On Question, Motion negatived.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to offer some criticisms and to ask for some explanation on the Bill which the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has just submitted to your Lordships. The Bill, as your Lordships will observe, is one to transfer to the Board of Agriculture powers and duties relating to the fishing industry. The powers which are now exercised by a Department of the Board of Trade with regard to the fisheries of this country are to be transferred to the Board of Agriculture, and that Board henceforth is to be known as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. What I venture to ask the noble Earl is this: whether he will explain what connection there is between the fishing industry of the United Kingdom and the great national industry of agriculture. It must inevitably have been considered by the Government, and I shall wait to hear the explanation of the noble Earl. As your Lordships are aware, the Board of Agriculture was constituted by an Act of 1879, which came into operation in the year 1890. It took over the powers with regard to contagious diseases of cattle and other germane matters which were previously possessed by a Department of the Privy Council under the Lord President; it took over the duties hitherto exercised by the Tithe Commissioners and the Land Commissioners, and it also took under its care the very important and the very extensive business of the Ordnance Survey of the United Kingdom. I think your Lordships will agree that all these matters are cognate to the business of agriculture. But now it is proposed for the first time to transfer to the Board of Agriculture duties that have no reference whatever to the business which the Board was constituted to carry on, and the question that has occurred to some agriculturists, at any rate, is this, what relation is there between the great fishing industry of this country and the great national industry of agriculture? What benefit will such a transference as is proposed by this Bill be to agriculture, and what effect will it have upon the future usefulness of the Board of Agriculture? Although I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be able to give a

  215
  sufficient explanation, I am bound to say that at first view I do not see what connection there possibly is between fisheries and agriculture.
  There may, of course, be some occult reason for this of which I am not aware, and it is for the purpose of eliciting that reason from the noble Earl that I have ventured to put this question to him. I do not for a moment wish to deny that the fishing industry is of the greatest importance to the country, and it may be necessary and right that the duties in connection with that great industry should either be placed under a separate Board or handed over to some other department of the State. It is said that the Board of Trade has too much to do at the present moment and that its Department of fisheries does not receive all that attention that those who are interested in the fisheries would like; but what I venture to say in the name of a considerable number of agriculturists is this, that the Board of Agriculture, which was constituted to assist them in their industry, should not be made the dumping ground for the surplus products of the Board of Trade. So far as the expansion of the Board of Agriculture is concerned, I have no objection to it; on the contrary, I have always advocated it, but I think it desirable that that expansion should be in the direction of those subjects which are beneficial to the agricultural industry.
  If there were no ways in which expansion could be made in this direction I should perhaps not offer any criticism as to the addition of these duties, but there are many directions in which the Board of Agriculture could be usefully expanded in a manner which ought to benefit agriculturists generally. There is the question of the Veterinary Department. I have not a single word to say against those able and capable officers, with whom I have had the honour to work in the past; but I think that their Department might be in some way expanded and made more useful to agriculturists generally. They might be encouraged to make experiments in bacteriological research and other scientific matters which would benefit agriculture as a whole. Then there is the matter of chemistry. I hope to hear that the question of chemistry, which is so useful to the scientific culture of the land, has
  216
  been considered in any view of expansion of the duties of the Board of Agriculture. Then there is the question of botany. I am glad to hear that Kew Gardens have now been taken over by the Board of Agriculture. There was another Board of Agriculture some years ago which was not so fortunate as the noble Earl's Board to obtain assistance from the Treasury to get Kew Gardens under its care. I remember that my attention was drawn very closely to the matter in 1893. Kew Gardens had for years past done excellent and efficient work for India and the colonies in botanical experiments, but I found that nearer home nothing at all had been done for agriculture in this direction. The finances were not so prosperous then as they are now, and if I could have obtained something like £150 a year Kew Gardens would have been under the care of the Board of Agriculture in 1893 instead of 1903.
  There is another of these small Departments which has no political head and which I think the noble Lord might have included in his Bill if he was seeking for the expansion of his agricultural duties, and that is the Meteorological Department. The weather has certainly a great deal to do with agriculture, and any good forecast of the weather which could be obtained and circulated amongst farmers would be of great advantage to that industry. Some ten years ago an experiment was made in that direction, but the forecasts were only issued some twenty-four hours beforehand, and that fact made them rather useless for farmers who did not see them in time to make them of value. If the noble Earl could take over the Meteorological Department, I think it might be of use to agriculture generally. These departments have no political head, but are practically under the Treasury, and I have very grave doubts myself whether it is for the advantage or the efficiency of those particular Departments that they should be solely represented by the Treasury in the House of Commons. The Treasury is certain to do everything possible to promote economy, and I venture to think that if the Departments were gathered under the Board of Agriculture and under a responsible Minister of the Crown, their efficiency would be better looked after.
  I come now to the largest of these Departments which might have been

  217
  included under the Board of Agriculture—the Office of Woods and Forests. It is well known that when the Act was passed constituting the Board of Agriculture, it was then discussed whether the Office of Woods and Forests should not be included as a Department of the Board of Agriculture. There were of course objections, and there may be objections now to such a course, but, so far as I know, the advantages which would accrue to the agricultural interests by such an incorporation would certainly outweigh any objections which I have heard up to the present moment. I imagine that there are very few in the Board of Agriculture who have any practical connection with the management of land. The Office of Woods and Forests manages the Crown lands of this country, and by making that Department a part of the Board of Agriculture, the latter Board would obtain a practical knowledge of the management of land which would be of great advantage, not only to them, but to agriculturists generally. I believe the Treasury object to that proposal on the ground that it might not be so economical, but that is not borne out by contemporary history. The same change which I am advocating took place in Prussia in the year 1879, when the State lands of that kingdom were transferred from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Agriculture, and the result of that transference has been highly beneficial—beneficial from the point of view of economy of management, and in another direction, for it has brought in considerably increased revenue. The Board of Agriculture was constituted to assist an industry which, though it may not be quite so depressed as it was in 1893, is certainly not in that flourishing condition which we should all wish, and therefore it is that I question the wisdom of the transfer of any duty to the Board of Agriculture which is not germane to agriculture as a whole.
  I think there are some agriculturists who would say that if any transference of duties from the Board of Trade to the Board of Agriculture is to be made it had better be that Department which is connected with railways and railway rates rather than the Department con-
  218
  nected with the fisheries of the country. I have ventured to put before your Lordships some criticisms with regard to this Bill, and I hope I shall obtain from the noble Earl the explanations I have asked for. I cannot, however, sit down without saying that we welcome the noble Earl as the President of the Board of Agriculture in this House. I will not go into the somewhat delicate question of whether the head of the Department of Agriculture should be in this House or in another place, except perhaps to say that there is possibly no assembly in this country which is more closely connected with the business of agriculture and which contains amongst its members those more closely connected with practical agriculture than your Lordships' House. I admit that the question is a debatable one. But if you are going to extend the Board of Agriculture and raise it to a position of greater influence and wider scope I do not think it ought to be represented in the other House except by a direct official of the Board. Mr. Fellowes is the representative of the Board of Agriculture in the other House. I had the pleasure of sitting in the House of Commons with Mr. Fellowes and I know him to be a practical agriculturist. I know him to have represented an agricultural constituency and to have taken deep interest in agricultural matters for a long time past, but I think it would be advisable, as he will have to take charge of the Bills as well as the Estimates of the Department, that we should have some direct representative of the Board of Agriculture in the other House rather than a minor Minister brought in as a kind of charwoman. I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, but if the explanation for which I have asked is not satisfactory I reserve to myself the right of opposing or amending the measure in its future stages.
  *LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just spoken will not think me discourteous if I do not go into all the details of agriculture of which he has spoken. I have not the slightest fear that the Minister of Agriculture will be overworked by having the duties with regard to fisheries added

  219
  to those he now possesses. I speak as one who is quite as much interested in agriculture as in fisheries, as one who has been Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture as well as one who is now President of the Sea Fisheries Association, and I do not see why there should not be a Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries looking after the harvest of the sea and of the land at the same time. I for one venture to congratulate His Majesty's Government on having introduced this Bill. I know that there has been some delay, but they are in no way to blame for it. I do hope that now the Bill has been introduced it will not only be pressed forward in this House and in the other House, but that no time will be lost in bringing it into operation. I am glad to see that all the duties with regard to fisheries now supposed to be performed by the Board of Trade are to be transferred to the Minister of Agriculture, and I am also very glad to see that the Government have acceded to the request of the Shell Fisheries Association that shell fisheries should also be placed under the same Minister. I would venture to suggest, on that point, to my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, that he will require larger powers than he has now to deal with the oyster question, and I would refer him to a Report of your Lordships' Committee some three or four years ago presided over by Lord Harris, and of which the Duke of Abercorn, Lord Tweedmouth, Lord Wenlock and myself were Members. We went thoroughly into this question. There was no difference between the Local Government Board, who introduced the Bill, and the Committee except on one point. We were agreed that powers were required to stop the pollution of the oyster beds, and as the local government authorities were most to blame we thought that the Local Government Board ought not to have those powers but that the powers should be given to the Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade. On that point we were so divided that the Bill was not proceeded with.
  As I so strongly support the Bill, and knowing that every Sea Fisheries Association, Salmon Fisheries Association, and Shell Fisheries Association are strongly in favour of it, I am sorry to utter one
  220
  note of discord, but I notice in Sub-section 2 of Clause 3 some words to which I do not think we can possibly agree. I am well aware of the reason for which those words have been put in. The Act is to come into force on October 1, but the Treasury are allowed, if they choose, to postpone the operation of the Act till April 1 next year. That is not in the interest of the sea fisheries, or of the Minister who is going to take charge of the sea fisheries in the future. If these duties had been transferred from the Board of Trade ten or fifteen years ago the Department might have been taken over as a going concern, and everyone would have been perfectly satisfied, but the sea fisheries Department of the Board of Trade at the present moment is positively worthless. It is not worth taking over. I am saying what everyone connected with the fisheries industry will endorse. The noble Lord opposite knows perfectly well that resolutions have been passed giving me full authority to speak on behalf of the fisheries on this question. I do hope that an efficient staff will be given to the noble Earl, and that he will hold out for an efficient staff, and not be content to take over men who are thoroughly useless to him. But we would prefer that the Act should come into operation in October and that we should have a Minister, to whom we could go, with full authority to look into all the questions postponed throughout the present year, even without an efficient and thoroughly equipped Department, than that the operation of the Act should be postponed. The deputations which I was requested by the Sea Fisheries Conference at Grimsby to arrange with the Prime Minister had been put off at Mr. Balfour's request during the transfer of the duties from one Department to another, but if the operation of this Bill is to be postponed until April next, it simply means that every one of these questions will have to be deferred for a further year, as there would be no time for legislation. So strongly do I feel with regard to this matter, that I shall move to strike out in Committee the power given to the Treasury in this Sub-section.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to congratulate the noble Earl on having introduced this Bill. I do so because the Irish Board of Agriculture, to whom the duties of the Fisheries Commissioners in Ireland were transferred, are able to do a great deal more for our fisheries than the old Commissioners did, and they are sympathetic with the wants of those interested in the fisheries. The noble Lord opposite inquired what fisheries have to do with agriculture. I would point out that fish that are cultivated in inland waters are just as much the harvest of the land as coin is. Then the noble Lord went on to say that he hoped the Board of Agriculture was not to be made the dumping ground of the Board of Trade. The real truth of the matter is that the Board of Trade have not very much to dump, because they take no interest whatever in fisheries, especially in inland fisheries. I hold in my hand a Report upon the Salmon Fisheries of Great Britain, and it would make one almost cry to see the effect of river pollution and the stoppages in those rivers which prevent salmon reaching the upper waters. Therefore I welcome this Bill, bearing in mind the good that our Board of Agriculture has done in this matter in Ireland. The noble Lord opposite referred to the date of the Bill coming into force. He Knows a great deal more about sea fisheries than I do, but I must say that the sooner the inland fisheries of this country are looked after by a competent Department the better; therefore I sincerely hope that the Treasury will not "put their finger in the pie" and that the Bill will come into operation on 1st October next.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I ventured to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill without adding any words of my own in explanation of it at the moment, because it is an extremely simple Bill and one which really needs no explanation at all. It is simply a transfer to the Board of Agriculture of duties which have hitherto been performed by the Board of Trade. It is not, as my noble friend opposite appeared to think, a Bill
  222
  for the expansion of the powers of the Board of Agriculture, so I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him into all those duties which, in his opinion, might with greater advantage be transferred to the Board of Agriculture. All I will say is that I sympathise with a great deal of what he said on that subject. I think, so far as I have been able to see in the short time that I have had the honour of being President of the Department, that there are many subjects which might with advantage be transferred to the Board of Agriculture, not necessarily from other Departments, but matters which really are not at this moment under the charge of any responsible Minister, but are under that sort of general omnibus arrangement which gives over everything that is not under the charge of some other Minister to the Treasury.
  I am asked by my noble friend what is the connection between agriculture and fisheries. I admit that the word agriculture in its derivation, does not include the harvest of the sea, but at the same time your Lordships are aware that the fish supply in this country is one of the most important from the point of view of food. The Department over which I preside is essentially the Department which is connected with the food supply of the people, and therefore, I think that as we have already for many years had under our care the loaves, it is not too much to ask that Parliament should add to them the fishes. My noble friend Lord Heneage suggested that further powers in connection with the pollution of oyster beds should also be transferred, not from the Board of Trade, but from the Local Government Board, to the Board of Agriculture. I venture to point out to your Lordships that that is a matter which is connected with a very much wider subject — namely, the public health. Public health has always been under the Local Government Board, and I am not prepared at this moment to ask to take over any of those duties. I believe that before this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, I shall have time to consider the composition of the staff of the Fisheries Department of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

  223
  I trust I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord that that staff will be a sufficient and an efficient one, but I can assure him that the date of the coming into operation of the Act has nothing to do with the question of the composition of the staff. I am as anxious as he is that the transfer should take place at the earliest possible date. I have every reason to believe that it will take effect in the month of October next. The noble Lord must know that there are certain arrangements which have to be made in connection with the Estimates. If this Bill passes into law, it will be necessary to supplement the Vote of the Board of Agriculture by the amount necessary to carry on the business for the rest of the financial year, although, at the same time, of course, an almost equivalent saving will be effected upon the Vote for the Board of Trade. All those things have got to be arranged, and it is only as a precautionary measure that the date may be extended. But if the noble Lord will put down an Amendment I will give it my earnest consideration and see if something can be done to meet his views. I am glad that the Bill meets with approval, and trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I do not wish to throw cold water on the Bill, or attempt to damp the ardour of those who have so readily accepted it. But I do wish to point out to my noble friend that in assuming the duties of Minister of Fisheries he is assuming no light duties, but duties which will give him a considerable amount of work and bring him a great many communications and not a new protests. My noble friend has attempted to show that the subjects of agriculture and fisheries fall together naturally. I think he will find that there are a great many differences between them, that even the fateful word "protection" is interpreted in an entirely different way by agriculturists and fishermen. But, after all, I am afraid that the powers of the Fisheries Department are comparatively limited The Fisheries Department can, of course, do a great deal in the way of collecting statistics, supplying knowledge, and carrying on scientific inquiry, pro-
  224
  vided always it can get the necessary funds from the Treasury, and of course, so far as in-shore fisheries are concerned, it can do something by way of the promotion of legislation and encouraging district fisheries committees to do their work. After all, these in-shore fisheries are a comparatively small part of the British fisheries. The main fishing ground is in the North Sea, and it is exploited not by British fishermen alone, but by the fishermen of the whole of Northern Europe. My noble friend will find that if his Department really intends to secure improvement in the condition of our fisheries in the North Sea, it will only be possible to do so by calling in his colleague the Foreign Minister and by securing joint action among all the Powers who send fishing fleets into the North Sea.
  Take the question of immature fish. It may be very desirable, and it may do a certain amount of good, to endeavour to secure that in our own inland waters fish get some chance of existence; but, after all, the great home of these young fish is not on our shores but on the shores of Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and those great flats opposite our own shores on the other side of the North Sea, and unless you can get the countries bordering on those waters to join with you, unless yon can get those countries which send fleets to the North Sea to combine with you in joint action, you will never be able to make a permanent improvement in the fisheries of the North Sea. With regard to our salmon fisheries, I think there is there a great opportunity for a Minister of Fisheries. The case is ripe to be dealt with. The inquiry necessary before the Government can act is, I believe, complete, and has been carried on under the ægis of the present Government. You have had inquiries and Commissions. There is an extraordinary mass of the latest opinion gathered together, and I venture to urge that the time has come when this question of the salmon fisheries of the British Isles should be taken up in a thorough manner. The first thing you want is uniformity of legislation for the British Isles. This question of the salmon fisheries is not merely one of the propagation and security of the salmon. Involved in it also are the great questions of pollution of rivers and the water supply, so that when you are dealing with the

  225
  question of salmon fisheries you are also dealing in a thoroughly practical manner with two of the great necessities of a healthy existence—namely, the question of the water supply and also the question of the freedom of the rivers from pollution. I do think that these are subjects which might well be taken up by the new Minister of Fisheries. I hope my noble friend will take them up and will make it his business to press his colleagues in the Government to deal with the subject, which I believe is of immense importance, not only from the point of view of the food of the people, but also from the point of view of the health and comfort of the inhabitants of these islands.
  On question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  COUNTY COUNCILS (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I have a Motion on the Paper to submit to your Lordships. But before I do so I ask the indulgence of the House while I say a few words on a matter wholly personal to myself. When speaking the other day from the cross benches, I appeared to have infringed the rules of order of the House, and not to have bowed to the ruling of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. I have no wish to appear in your Lordships' House as an unruly Member, and I desire to explain that my infringement of order was entirely due to my affliction of deafness. Speaking from where I did, I could not hear a word that fell from the Lord Chancellor, and therefore I have to apologise to the noble and learned Earl for having in any way appeared unruly. In order that this may not occur again, when I have to address your Lordships' House in future I shall, with the permission of those who are in the habit of sitting on this bench, do so as near to the Lord Chancellor as I can. That is the reason why I speak from my present position (the bench near the Woolsack on the Opposition
  226
  side) to-night, but I have not abandoned my proper habitat on the cross benches, which I look upon as the Liberia of the House of Lords.
  Now a word in defence of my proposal. Two noble Lords on the last occasion said that my Resolution had no connection whatever with the Bill that was under discussion. I hold in my hand a resolution, which I believe has been sent to every one of your Lordships, passed by the United Property Owners' and Ratepayers' Association of Great Britain, whose headquarters are at Bradford. This resolution states that the object of the County Councils (Bills in Parliament) Bill is to empower County Councils to promote Bills in Parliament without first obtaining the ratepayers' consent. It goes on to say—
  "And this is being done at the very moment the Government has reappointed a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to inquire into the question of municipal trading. It is inconsistent, to say the least, that measures of this character, which give municipalities practically unrestricted powers to promote private legislation, should be brought forward. It is, therefore, submitted that the Bill should not be proceeded with, and the Committee of this Association, representing large and important property interests, respectfully and urgently appeal to your Lordships to support the Motion of Lord Wemyss to defer the Bill until the Joint Committee have reported to Parliament."
  Can anything be more reasonable, more consistent with common-sense, than that opinion with regard to this kind of legislation pending the inquiry by the Joint Committee. The action of the local authorities has been such that they have piled up a debt of £1,300,000,000. The rates of one London parish have gone up to eleven shillings in the pound, and they are going up all round. A few years ago the feeling in reference to this matter was such that it was thought some limit should be imposed. The result was the appointment of a Committee of both Houses, but they did not finish their inquiry. For two years they have been waiting for their reappointment. The reason that they were not reappointed is supposed to be that the local authorities did not like their transactions being inquired into, and the Government did not wish to give offence to the local authorities. But the expenditure grew, and feeling increased,

  227
  until this year the Government consented to the reappointment of the Committee. The Report of the first public sitting of the Joint Committee appears in The Times to-day, and the evidence shows how enormous have been the sums borrowed by local authorities for these purposes. One witness stated that in the present session sixty-five Bills had been promoted by local authorities, of which twelve had been dropped or defeated up to date. I have heard privately that so unsatisfactory were the trading accounts of the Plymouth authority that it was recommended that the accounts should be audited, not by an auditor appointed by Plymouth but by an auditor on behalf of the Government. That shows the state of things which led to the reappointment of this Committee. The Committee has the right to inquire into the transactions not only of municipalities but also of local authorities. Clearly, local authorities are included; therefore, I apprehend that this Joint Committee is appointed to consider everything connected with these Bills, which give power to Councils which they do not now exercise, and which takes away from the ratepayers a security which they now possess.
  What are the reasons given for this action on the part of the Government? They are three. The first is that county councillors, not having this power of promoting Bills, sometimes do it themselves and incur liabilities thereby. The second is a most extraordinary reason to give for passing a Bill. It was stated by one noble Lord on the Front Bench that Mr. Long, the author of this Bill, wished very much that the Bill should pass, but that in itself is no reason for your Lordships facilitating the measure. This raises the question, is this a private venture on the part of the head of the Local Government Board or is it a Government Bill? Has it been considered by the Government? Has it the full consent of the Government? This, I venture to think, raises a very big question. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has a tolerably big team to drive. He has eighteen in hand. They remind me of an incident in the old coaching days, when the driver of a four-in-hand, being
  228
  asked how it was he was driving so erratically, not to say dangerously, replied—
  "Ah! you don't know what it is to drive three blind ones and a bolter."
  The Prime Minister certainly has a bolter, who sometimes perhaps gets over the traces when least expected. How many blind ones there are I should be sorry to specify.
  I now come to the third reason, which was given by a canny Scot—my noble friend Lord Balfour. He said the Bill no doubt gave powers, but that it was not likely that County Councils would exercise those powers. That is an admission, my Lords, that you are giving County Councils powers by this Bill at the very time when you are sending the question, as to whether or not the powers of local authorities should be restricted, to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I feel confident that the result of this inquiry will be that these powers will be restricted and greater checks on the part of the ratepayers established. What those checks should be it is not for me to say. The question is now under discussion. The members of these municipal authorities are supposed, without any training, to be electricians, engineers, architects, builders, contractors, tram and omnibus undertakers, and navigators where there are rivers; and, besides this, they must be surveyors, sanitary professors, florists, landscape gardeners, social reformers, band-masters, concert organisers, and universal providers generally. If these things are undertaken, some knowledge of the best way of doing them should be in the possesssion of those who exercise these powers. The check I should propose is that all those who are elected to County Councils, before they are allowed to act should pass a qualifying examining in all these subjects. That would be a most potent and valuable check. I asked my noble friend Lord Balfour the other day to give me precedents for legislating upon a subject which had been concurrently submitted to a Committee or a Commission for inquiry. The noble Lord did not specify any precedent, but went off into a cuttle-fish speech upon the whole question, and that was where I got into trouble. I had not said anything in putting my question, but after the cuttle-fish speech of my noble friend I rose to answer him and was ruled out of order.

  229
  I cannot help thinking that if there had been any precedents for this kind of legislation the noble Lord would certainly have brought them out. He would not have kept them up his sleeve for no purpose. I know there are many precedents the other way. I will give one. When the Commission on the Liquor Traffic was sitting, all the temperance measures were suspended. But in this case the Government are bringing in Bills at the same time as the inquiry is taking place, and when the subject to which these Bills refer is before a Joint Committee, I contend that this House ought not to be a mere registry for Bills which come from another place. It is the last Court of Appeal in matters of legislation, and if Bills are faulty and wrong in principle, no matter how often they are sent here, your Lordships ought unhesitatingly to do your duty. This Bill, as well as the Borough Funds Bill, may be an excellent measure and very needful, but let the Joint Committee say so. Do not let us legislate on the subject while it is under consideration by the Joint Committee.
  Moved, To leave out from ('That') to the end of the Motion and insert the following Resolution, viz., "In the opinion of this House it is inconsistent alike with Parliamentary practice and sound administrative policy, to legislate on subjects under consideration by Committees or Commissions, and that, inasmuch as the question of the powers of local and municipal authorities, and their exercise of these powers are now under consideration by a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons specially appointed for this purpose, it is neither right nor expedient to proceed with Bills giving increased power to local and municipal authorities, until the said inquiry has been completed and the Report of the Committee has been received."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that we have had a most interesting and amusing speech from the noble Earl. I hope the House will also agree with me that it had not, in at any rate its major part, very much to do with the precise Bill we are now asked to go
  230
  into Committee upon. I will deal first with one or two direct questions which the noble Earl put to me. He made it a grievance that I had not given him precedents the other day.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Not a grievance. I was very glad of it.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think my version is the more correct. He made it a grievance, both on the last occasion and to-day, that I had given him no precedent for the course which the Government is asking the House to take. In the first place, the noble Earl said that if I produced a hundred precedents he would not pay any attention to them, and therefore I thought it a work of supererogation to do so. I also pointed out on the previous occasion that the noble Lord's Motion in regard to the Joint Committee of Inquiry has really nothing whatever to do with this Bill. I will read the precise terms of the reference to the Joint Committee—
  "To consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise."
  The reference to the Joint Committee has to do with the powers of, and the method of the exercise of those powers by, municipal corporations, or, if the noble Earl prefers it, local authorities; but there is nothing whatever in the reference to the Joint Committee to suggest that Parliament has it in consideration, even in the remotest degree, to take away from local authorities the powers of promoting or opposing Bills. All that this Bill does is this. It gives to County Councils certain limited powers to promote Bills for a variety of purposes. The point we have to consider to-day is whether County Councils have, after fifteen years' existence, sufficiently established their reputation for steadiness of purpose and useful work to be entrusted with the power of coming to Parliament when they see fit to promote Bills for certain purposes. The objects for which County Councils desire this power is mainly to take land for the improvement of roads, for the building of lunatic asylums, for improving bridges, and such like purposes, which are strictly within the purview of county council work. I will concede these two points to the noble

  231
  Earl, because I wish to be very fair to him. I will concede, in the first place, that in some cases municipal authorities have gone too far in the direction of municipal trading. It is because we hold that opinion that the Joint Committee of both Houses has been appointed to consider the method of the exercise of those powers, but not whether they shall have powers or whether powers shall be taken away altogether. The second point I will concede is that technically it would be possible for a County Council under this Bill to promote a Bill to enable them to supply gas or electric lighting. But my position in regard to that matter is this—firstly, that there is not the remotest chance of a County Council being so foolish as to do anything of the kind, and, secondly, that if they did it the time to check them is when they come with that proposal to Parliament. There is neither reason nor commonsense in refusing to all the County Councils of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland the power to come to Parliament for certain purposes properly within the scope of their work, because there is the possibility of a remote chance of a County Council doing something in the direction of municipal trading. I do not believe there is that danger, but even if I believed it to be ten times more than I do, I should not think it the slightest reason for maintaining a prohibition which has been found extremely inconvenient in the past. In the extreme urgency of certain cases, and when it was absolutely necessary in the public interest that Bills should be promoted, individual members of County Councils have promoted the Bills, taking the risk of being able to prove to Parliament the absolute
  necessity for them, and if the Bills had failed they themselves as individuals would have had to pay the cost of their enterprise. The noble Earl quoted a resolution to the effect that the object of this Bill was to allow County Councils to promote Bills without getting the ratepayers' consent. I altogether deny that statement. The restrictions upon the power of County Councils are amply safeguarded. They are plainly set forth in the schedule to the Bill, and the whole purport of the noble Earl's speech was that there should be restrictions, but that there should be no power at all.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I do not object to the Bills. I carefully said that. I object to your giving powers, rightly or wrongly, pending the inquiry into the whole of this question.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have endeavoured to dispose of that plea, and I am afraid that if I were to do it again I should have no better success in convincing the noble Earl. The fact is that on this matter he is unconvinceable. There is no foundation for the suggestion of the noble Earl that this Bill is the private enterprise of the President of the Local Government Board. It is a Government Bill, a Bill promoted by the Government, not only because it is the unanimous desire of the County Councils that it should be passed but because we believe, from the useful work and steadiness of purpose of these local authorities, that they may safely be entrusted with the powers which it is proposed to confer upon them.
  On Question whether to agree to the said Amendment, their Lordships divided. Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 75.

  CONTENTS.

  Cawdor, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Munster, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Newton, L. [Teller.]

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Wellington, D.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Ripon, M.

  Ancaster, E.

  Zetland, M.

  Belmore, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Portland, D.

  Carnwath, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Glanusk, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Herries, L.

  Lytton, E.

  James, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Killanin, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Morley, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Norton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Reay, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Belper, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Romney, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Burton, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Bangor, V.

  Colchester, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Congleton, L.

  Welby, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Foley, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Forester, L.

  Then the original Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid that Lord Kenyon, in introducing this Bill, had told the House that the object was to allow County Councils to promote Bills in the same manner as municipal boroughs. But the Bill gave the power without the existing safeguard. The object of the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was to carry out the expressed intention of His Majesty's Government. The words were those in the existing Act. Unless they introduced them they would be giving County Councils powers which municipal authorities had not hitherto possessed. Moreover, unless they inserted these words they abolished the right of owners to vote. One reason of the great increase in rates undoubtedly was that so many persons had votes but paid no rates. They had, therefore, no direct interest in economy. In many cases, moreover, even those who paid rates were merely temporary occupiers. It would hardly be denied that in the long run rates fell to a great extent on owners. They had not even now a fair share of representation, but if they had so little surely the proper course was to give them a more adequate share of representation, and not to deprive them of what small share they still possessed. At the previous day's sitting of the Joint Committee which was now considering this subject, Sir S. Provis,
  234
  Permanent Secretary to the Local Government Board, was asked whether in his judgment and from his great experience he considered that the ratepayers required more protection, and he replied that he did. But unless the House accepted his Amendment the unfortunate ratepayer would have even less protection than he had at present. The Amendment gave no additional safeguard, but at any rate it preserved to the ratepayers the power they at present possessed, and of which the Bill as it stood would deprive him.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, after 'them' to insert 'The powers conferred by this section and by Section 15 of the Local Government Act, 1888, shall be exercised subject to the provisions of the Borough Funds Act, 1872, and of any Act amending the same, in like manner as if the county were a borough, and the chairman of the County Council the mayor of a borough."—(Lord Avebury.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  LORD KENYONsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment. The Amendment contemplated the adoption of the machinery of the Borough Funds Act, under which a meeting of owners and ratepayers would have to be held in order to gain consent to the promotion of a Bill. It would obviously be impossible to find buildings large enough to hold meetings of the county owners and ratepayers of London or Lancashire. In the second place, Lord Avebury sought to impose a restriction on County Councils

  235
  in opposing Bills, and therefore was not in order because the Bill did not alter the powers that at present existed as to opposing Bills. He thought the ratepayers' interest sufficiently safeguarded in the Bill as it stood. An absolute majority of the Council was necessary, and the meeting at which that majority had to be obtained would be held after ten days notice had been given by advertisement. Further, no expense could be incurred on the promotion of a Bill unless it was confirmed by an absolute majority at another meeting of the Council after the Bill had been deposited fourteen days in the House. Besides that, in the case of both the promotion of and opposition to Bills, the consent of the Local Government Board, or the Secretary of State as the case might be, would have to be obtained. As Lord Balfour had pointed out, the proper place for ratepayers to object to the promotion of Bills was when the Bills came before Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONagreed that it would be totally impossible in a large county to hold meetings of the kind proposed, and urged the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment. He assured him it was not workable.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the explanation which had just been given by the noble Lord opposite showed that the Bill was quite a different one from what they had supposed. They had no explanation when the Bill was introduced beyond this, that they were told that it was to create exactly the same state of things with regard to County Councils as now existed in boroughs. But it now transpired that it was totally different. With regard to the owners' vote, he contended that there could be no objection to summoning the owners and ratepayers to a meeting. He could not see how the Amendment would take away the power of opposing Bills.
  LORD BELPERinsisted that it was practically impossible to get a meeting of ratepayers in a county that would in any sense represent the feeling of the county. With regard to the effect of the Amendment, under the Act of 1888
  236
  power was given to oppose Bills without the consent of the ratepayers, and the Amendment would overrule that by making the provisions of the Borough Funds Act applicable to the opposing of Bills as well as their promotion. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid it was quite clear from the noble Lord's explanation that the Bill did not merely give to County Councils the powers which had been hitherto enjoyed by municipal authorities. It might be right or it might be wrong, but the Bill gave them totally different powers.
  LORD BELPER: Quite so.
  LORD AVEBURY: Yes, but that was not what was stated to be the intention of the Bill when it was introduced. Continuing, the noble Lord said it did away with the powers which had hitherto been enjoyed by the ratepayers, and handed those powers over to the Local Government Board. It was useless to put the House to the trouble of dividing, and he would therefore withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD AVEBURYthen moved to omit the sub-section which provides that the powers conferred by the clause shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any powers possessed by the London County Council. He wished to know what additional powers the Bill would give to the London County Council.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 20, to leave out Sub-section 4."—(Lord Avebury.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 4 stand part of the clause."
  LORD KENYONsaid he did not think the Bill gave the London County Council any additional powers. The sub-section was only put in as a safeguard.
  LORD AVEBURYasked whether the Government would omit the words, "shall be in addition to."
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHhoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. The object of the sub-section was simply to safeguard to the County Council the powers it already had, and to make it perfectly clear that the County Council should not have any of its powers interfered with by the Bill.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid he was not wishing to deprive the County Council of any of its powers, but the words in the section were "the powers conferred by this section shall be in addition to," etc. He understood the Government did not wish to add anything to the duties of the London County Council.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the London County Council, as the successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works, had the power to promote Bills for the improvement of the Metropolis, and for the public benefit of the inhabitants. The present Bill gave a general power to County Councils to promote Bills under certain restrictions, and the Government saw no reason why the London County Council should be differently treated from other County Conncils; but they wanted to make it clear that the powers now enjoyed by the London County Council were not derogated from.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:—
  LORD AVEBURYmoved to omit the sub-section which repeals the provision in the Borough Funds Act, 1872, that no expense in opposing a Bill shall be charged unless the opposition has had the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the dis-
  238
  trict. He thought it was very undesirable to alter this provision in view of the fact that so many of the voters did not pay rates.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 12, 'to leave out Sub-section 1."—(Lord Avebury.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 1 stand part of the clause."
  LORD KENYONsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment, as one of the chief objects of the Bill was to render it unnecessary to obtain the consent of the owners and ratepayers to mere opposition to a Bill. He thought the local authority might be trusted not to engage in opposition to a Bill against the wishes of the inhabitants. Again, the cost of obtaining this consent was considerable in the event of a poll being demanded. A Bill was very often opposed in order to secure some particular advantage, such as, for instance, a bridge instead of a level crossing, and it was not thought wise that the consent of the owners and ratepayers should be necessary for this course. All the other requirements imposed by the Borough Funds Act of 1872 would be retained.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  LORD AVEBURYmoved an Amendment to insert after Clause 7 a new clause. When the Act of 1872 was passed there were practically no such things as electric lighting or traction companies, and he suggested that it would be reasonable to treat them in the same way as gas or water undertakings. Perhaps the Government would consider the Amendment on the Report stage if they were not prepared to accept it then.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 7 to insert the following new clause—'Section 2 of the Borough Funds Act, 1872, shall be amended by inserting after the words "Provided that nothing in this Act contained shall authorise any governing body to promote any Bill in Parliament for the establishment of any gas or water works," and

  239
  again after the words 'to compete with any existing gas or water company' the following words 'or electric lighting or traction company.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  Question proposed, "That that clause be there inserted."
  LORD KENYONsaid they could not accept the Amendment. The question of municipal trading had been referred to a Joint Committee, and this proposal would seem rather to prejudge the matter. It would be perfectly competent for Parliament to reject any proposal that came before it in a Bill promoted by local authorities which in their opinion would render the competition unfair. The Urban District Councils Association was strongly in favour of the Bill for the very reasons which the noble Lord wished to oppose it.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHventured to think there was some misunderstanding in the mind of the noble Lord with regard to this Amendment. He had done his best, but had been unable to understand what it was Lord Avebury wanted to effect. First of all, he did not understand what was meant by a traction company. In the second place, the noble Lord seemed to think that there was no power now to start in competition against an electric lighting company, or against a tramway company. The point was distinctly laid down under the Electric Lighting Acts of 1888 that there was no monopoly given, and that competition might, if necessary, be started. Since the noble Lord's Amendment had been placed on the Paper the Local Government Board had received a communication to the effect that it would be a very serious matter for urban authorities if this Amendment were accepted, because it might be that some company, by obtaining in their district only a few yards of tramway line, might absolutely prevent them from starting a tramway undertaking if they wished to do so, even although that company was not in any way whatever serving their district. The matter was rather a technical one and the Local Government Board believed the Amendment would have an unfair effect upon local authorities.
  LORD AVEBURYthought those who had invested their money in tramways or
  240
  electric lighting were entitled to consideration of the same kind as had been given to gas and water undertakings. Perhaps the words of his clause went rather too far, but he thought the Local Government Board should consider whether investors in electric lighting or traction companies were not entitled to some protection, not against competition as a whole, but against competition by a local authority.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid they were entitled to be protected against unreasonable or pernicious competition, but the noble Lord must bear in mind that the present statutory position of such companies as he referred to, was not the same as that formerly given to gas and water companies, and they could not by a side wind suddenly reverse previous legislation.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid it was competition by the local authority to which he had referred. He would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  LORD AVEBURY, who had given notice of an Amendment in Clause 9, page 3, line 13, after "council," to insert—"The expression 'electors' means 'the persons who would be entitled to vote at an election of a local board under the Public Health Act, 1875, and sections ten to thirteen of Schedule II. to that Act shall apply to a poll of electors under this Act in like manner as if the poll of electors were an election of a local board,'" said that this Amendment raised again the question of the owners' vote, but as His Majesty's Government insisted upon taking away that vote he did not propose to occupy the time of the House by moving his Amendment.
  LORD KENYON: The owners' vote is still there.
  Clause 9 and remaining clauses agreed to.
  Schedule 1:
  LORD AVEBURYpointed out that it was provided in the First Schedule that a poll might be required with respect to any resolution by not less than 100 electors or one-twentieth in number of the electors, whichever might be the less. He moved as an Amendment to leave out "one hundred" and to insert "twenty" and to leave out "one-twentieth" and insert "one-hundredth." He quite agreed that the present number who might demand a poll should be increased, but in small places surely 100 was too large a number of electors to require to join in demanding a poll, and in very large places, on the other hand, to insist on one twentieth would make it impossible to carry it into operation at all. That clause, if it passed, would make it almost impossible to demand a poll, and constituted another step in the direction of taking away powers now enjoyed by the ratepayers.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 18, to leave out the words 'one hundred' and to insert the word 'twenty' and leave out the words 'one-twentieth' and to insert the words 'one-hundredth.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one hundred' and 'one-twentieth' stand part of the schedule."
  LORD KENYONsaid the Government could not agree to the Amendment. If they could not find 100, or one-twentieth, whichever might be the less, within seven days to demand a poll, there seemed no good reason for a poll.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Formal Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 2, agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.

  EDUCATION (BORROWING) BILL.
  [SECOND READING].
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, this is a Bill to enable the local education authorities to put themselves in a satisfactory condition financially. Many of them have found themselves in a position of difficulty, from a financial point of view, in bringing the Act into operation, owing to the fact that they have not sufficient funds at their disposal during the first year. The object of the Bill is to meet the difficulties that have arisen by enabling the local education authorities, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, to borrow, under Section 19 of the Act of 1902 or in such other manner as the Board may approve, such sums as are required to provide a working balance to carry the Act into effect. The Bill has passed through the other House without opposition, and I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kenyon.)
  THE MARQUIS OF RIPON: I understand from the noble Lord that this Bill is to meet a temporary requirement, namely, the bringing into operation of the Act of last year. But the terms of the Bill are quite general, and they would enable County Councils, with the assent of the Local Government Board, to borrow money for the purposes of putting themselves in funds not only for the special purpose intended but on any occasion whatever.
  *LORD HERRIES: I think it is to be regretted that the Government has not seen its way to give more money to the County Councils to bring the Education Act into operation. When the Government instituted the Act they ought certainly to have anticipated that it would not be possible for the County Councils to provide the money without increasing the rates to a very great extent. We have been obliged to do so in my county for this year, and that has had a great deal to do with the opposition which the

  243
  Act has received in many quarters. I believe that many of those who oppose the Act keep their consciences in their pockets, and that in consequence of finding that they were to be called upon to pay such a high rate they have discovered conscientious motives for not paying it at all. If the Government had kept the corn tax on for another year, that £2,500,000 might have been given over to the County Councils in order to bring this Act into operation. Even if the money is borrowed, it will eventually come out of the rates. The rate which agriculturists will have to pay for education may amount to 10 or 20 per cent. of their net incomes. In some years I daresay they will have to pay more. I know a case of a large tenant farmer paying a rental of £1,200 a year, who probably this year will not have a clear income of £200. Yet he will be called upon to pay 6d. in the pound on £1,200 a year. I must say, on behalf of agriculturists, that I think a great deal too much is expected from them towards bringing the Education Act into operation. In order to relieve the ratepayers to a certain extent the Government bring in this Bill to allow them to borrow money, but I object to this charge eventually falling on the ratepayers.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I wish to raise a much more fundamental objection to this Bill than that which has been raised by my noble friend. It is this. The Bill says that you may borrow such sums as in the opinion of the Board are required to provide a working balance for carrying the Act into effect. Why should Education Committees or County Councils be expected to borrow money at all for this purpose? I happen to be on one of these Education Committees, and I know that we are bankrupt. We have got no money, and a great many parish schools are in exactly the same position. I ventured to point this out to your Lordships when the Bill was before the House. I predicted that we should all be without money, and that is exactly what has happened. I submit that when the Bill was drawn care ought to have been taken to provide for this period of transition. Unfortunately no such care was taken, and all Education Committees, I presume—certainly I can speak for the one of which I am a Member
  244
  —find themselves in very great straits and do not know what to do. Surely the fact that this Bill has to be introduced is in itself a condemnation of the scheme, and shows that sufficient care was not bestowed on the financial portion of the Act.
  *LOED BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The simple reason for this Bill, I think, is to be found in this fact, that the financial year of the schools which have to be taken over, does not in all cases, or perhaps in many cases, fit in with the precise time when the new authority has to commence its work, and for the purpose of having a working balance there must be recourse to this system of borrowing. The safeguards in the Bill are sufficient, because the purpose for which the borrowing is to take place is to provide a working balance for carrying the Act into effect, and it has to be by the consent of the Local Government Board, whose duty it will be to see that a large sum in excess of what is a fair working balance is not asked for by the local authority. I cannot but admit that the circumstances in which some County Councils have found themselves are unfortunate, but in the commencement of a new scheme of this kind, when many institutions have to be taken over whose financial years do not end at the same time, the difficulty is unavoidable, and this is the best means of getting over it.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: The cause of the difficulty is this, that the Government do not pay their contribution to the education expenses as they are incurred, and the County Council have to. If the Government had paid their contributions with promptitude as they became due the difficulty would not have arisen to the present extent.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think there is some ambiguity in the expression, "when the money becomes due." The money becomes due, I understand, after the inspection, and the local authority must carry on the school till the end of the financial year. I believe the contributions at the end of the financial year will balance, but it is to carry the work on during

  245
  the months until the grants are really receivable from the Government that this power to borrow is required.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, under the Act of 1888, the Local Government Board are empowered to make Provisional Orders to transfer to counties and County Boroughs certain of the powers and duties of the Department. In doing so they have to transfer them to all the County Councils and County Boroughs in England. The object of this Bill is to allow the Local Government Board to specify the particular County or County Borough to which they wish to transfer their powers.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Kenyon.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  NEWCASTLE CHAPTER (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, this Bill asks for no public money and raises no controversial questions. It has received the consent of all the parties concerned, and has met with the approval of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Home Office. It is a simple matter of administration to enable the income of the vicarage of Newcastle, together with the income of the canonry established by Order in Council in 1884, to be merged in the deanery, and for some subsidiary objects which it is hardly necessary for me to enter into at this stage. If I include a part as spent in the provision and
  246
  equipment of a house where one of the canons lives with seven young graduates, whom he prepares for the ministry, a sum of about £33,000 has been, contributed by Northumberland laymen for the establishment of a Dean and Chapter of Newcastle, and in addition there will be an annual sum which will eventually come to the Chapter in the next vacancy in the archdeaconry of Northumberland. I venture to think that a diocese which has shown such attachment to its cathedral is entitled to come to Parliament and ask for the removal of statutory anomalies which hinder the free operation of the Newcastle Chapter Act, 1884.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Bishop of St. Albans.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday, the 6th of July next.

  THE HOUSE AND THE FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, who had the following notice on the Paper, "To move that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the expediency or otherwise of limiting the discretion given to boards of guardians in dealing with members of friendly societies under the Out-door Relief (Friendly Societies) Act, 1894," said, my Lords, I shall be in the recollection of your Lordships in stating that when the Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill came before your Lordships for Second Reading my desire was that it should be referred to a Select Committee. I entertained that desire mainly in the interests of the friendly societies, because the Bill, although supported unanimously I believe at great meetings of friendly societies, contained a clause which altered the power given to boards of guardians by the Act of 1894, in respect to the relief of members of friendly societies. This was a permissive power to consider the cases of persons who had made savings with friendly societies. The Bill then before your Lordships however, turned that permissive power into an absolute enactment that boards of guardians should not consider any amount up to 5s. that was receivable by

  247
  members of friendly societies as sick pay when they applied for outdoor relief. I felt, and I think your Lordships felt, judging by the division which took place, that the case on behalf of the friendly societies was not made out to your Lordships' satisfaction; that there was no proof shown to us that the power given to boards of guardians by the Act of 1894 had not been exercised in favour of members of friendly societies; and my desire was to give to the friendly societies an opportunity of stating their case before a Select Committee of your Lordships, in order that when the question came up again there should be more material before the House for arriving at a decision. Since I put down my notice I have been given to understand that my noble and learned friend opposite, Lord James of Hereford, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and my noble friend behind me, the Earl of Portsmouth, who objects to my Motion for a Committee, would, even if your Lordships assented to the Committee, not be willing to serve on it. I have also reason to believe that the great friendly societies have arrived at the determination, supposing your Lordships were to consent to my Motion, to decline to give evidence before the Committee. I wish to ask the noble Earl behind me whether such is the fact.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: When I received private notice of the Question I took the earliest opportunity of consulting the representatives of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, the Foresters, and other great friendly societies, and the representatives of those societies, which have in the aggregate a membership of over 4,000,000, have unanimously told me that they have no intention if any such Committee is formed to give any evidence before it. They have no desire to act discourteously, but they feel that this is a matter of principle on which they must decline to alter their views at all.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like, after the answer which has been given by the noble Earl, to say a word upon this subject. I think it would be most unfortunate if there were any misunderstanding outside as to the grounds on
  248
  which the Motion will now, I presume, be withdrawn. It is on the ground that the friendly societies decline to tell us on what reason they base their claim for exceptional treatment being accorded to this particular form of thrift. It is not accorded to other modes of saving within the friendly society itself, and it is not accorded to the deferred annuities which the Government itself through the Post Office advocates and guarantees. I and others are most anxious to support this Bill in principle, believing in every fair and reasonable encouragement to thrift, but the Bill says that distinct preferential treatment of the most marked kind shall, without any exercise of discretion, be given, not to friendly societies altogether, or to their thrift funds, but to one particular branch of the friendly societies work—namely, that which relates to sick pay as contrasted with pensions or anything else. I desire with all my heart to foster the friendly societies, entertaining as I do the strongest possible opinion as to the incalculable value of the service, they are rendering to the country, but it is their responsibility and not mine if they decline to give this House the opportunity we ask for when we claim that a Committee should be appointed, before whom evidence may be given to show us why these particular sick funds should be differentiated from every other form of thrift. They may be able to give us conclusive reasons; all that we ask is to be told what these are.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I share with the most rev. Primate the desire that there should be no misunderstanding outside. I am astonished at the position which the right rev. Primate takes up. The grounds of the claim have been stated over and over again, and in consequence of what was stated the House of Commons have unanimously given to the friendly societies special treatment. The Bill has been discussed in this House, and the reasons why friendly societies should be specially treated were stated by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh and myself—they were also stated in the other House, and yet the most rev. Prelate, after the Bill has been thoroughly discussed says, "I know nothing about it and the only

  249
  way I can acquire knowledge is by a Committee."
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I by no means say I know nothing about it. I have, I think, read every debate which has taken place on the subject, and all the pamphlets on both sides. What I fail to find is any adequate statement of the reasons for setting apart this particular mode of thrift and distinguishing it from all others.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Nobody has ever asked for this Committee until the present moment, and I think in the circumstances that the proposal is extremely discourteous to the House of Commons and to the friendly societies. Surely the reasons for the preference are to be stated in debate, and not proved by oral testimony. The facts are known, and they can be argued upon in debate.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I fail to see any discourtesy to the friendly societies in asking them to appear before a Committee and give evidence why this particular fund should receive differential and preferential treatment. I think that as the friendly societies refuse to give that evidence, the noble Earl is justified in refusing to go on with his Motion. In the circumstances, it would be only a one-sided inquiry, and that would be absolutely useless.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I want to make my position and that of the Government clear. While the Government accepted the decision of the House with regard to the Bill, they would not object to the Motion of the noble Earl if he proceeded with it.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I deeply regret that the great friendly societies should have thought it consistent with their interests to decline to give evidence before a Committee. The House is not actuated by any hostility to these societies; we recognise their excellent services to the community; but when the House considers that the information at their disposal with regard
  250
  to a particular Bill is not sufficient to enable them to arrive at a conclusion with regard to it, they are entitled to ask for a Committee. But, in the circumstances, it would be futile for me to proceed with my Motion.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.