Sitting of 20 March 1903

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  MAIDSTONE GAS BILL.
  Petition for additional provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Newcastle and Gates-head, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOH PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Farnell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES ASSESSMENT AND RATING BILL.
  Petition from Manchester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PADAIYACHI, VEERABADRA.
  Petition from Veerabadra Padaiyachi, for inquiry into his case; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petitions against: from Aylesbury; Camelford; Sheffield (two): Ventnor; Wivenhoe; Wells; Chard; Swansea; Sand gate; Cannock; Mining Association of Great Britain; Newtown and Llanidloes; Colchester; Hemsworth; Darfield; Royston; and Durham; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL
  Petitions in favour: from Nottingham; and Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment: from Benhar Moor; Dumbarton; and Rothesay; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Romsey; and Wimbledon; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 (ORDERS).
  Copies presented, of two Orders in Council, dated 16th March, 1903, with respect to the importation of arms and ammunition for the purpose of adding Arklow to the ports at which explosives may be landed [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF THE COUNTY OF YORK).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the West Riding of the county of York altering certain polling districts in the Shipley, Sowerby, Holmfirth, and Morley Parliamentary Divisions [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Crofters' Commission for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Public Worship Regulation and Church Discipline.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will explain why the representation made to the Bishop of Rochester under the 8th Section of The Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, by Colonel Porcelli in 1900 is not included in the Return ordered on the 11th instant (Parliamentary Paper No. 69).
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) No representation by Colonel Porcelli is included in the Return in question because there is no record of any such representation having been made under Section 8 of The Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874. I am informed that Colonel Porcelli proceeded under the Church Discipline Act of 1840.

  Volunteers—New Musketry Regulations.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the constitution of the Council of Advice at the War Office as regards the Volunteer force; and if the new Musketry Regulations just promulgated have been submitted to the Council and approved thereby.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrich.) My hon. and gallant friend will find the constitution of the Board on page 50 of the current month's Army List. The new Musketry Regulations for the Volunteers were issued before the Board was formed; but the course laid down is optional for this year, and no obligatory course will be instituted without the option of the Board being first obtained.

  Army Estimates—Appendices.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War when the further Appendices to Army Estimates will be issued to complete the information laid before Parliament, including the Appendices relating to stair of Military Prisons (numbers and pay); establishments of the Clothing Department; staff for Engineer Services, by stations; and the statement of the sums provided in the Army Estimates for military purposes in the Colonies and Egypt.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Appendix relating to the establishments of the Clothing Department has been discontinued since 1899–1900, as the information is now given in the body of the Vote itself. The other Appendices have been temporarily discontinued since 1900–1 owing to the war, but it is proposed to include them in the Estimates for 1904–5.

  Sandhurst Military Cadets—Cost of Second Year's Training.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say whether the cost of the second year's instruction at Sandhurst for military cadets will be paid by the parents or the State.

  1385
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The cost will be paid by the parents under arrangements similar to those now prescribed by the regulations for payment during the cadet's residence at the college.

  Contracts for Agricultural Implements for South Africa—British and Foreign Tenderers.
  MR. NORMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what contracts for agricultural implements and machinery have been given out by the Imperial authorities at Pretoria, and what proportion of them have gone to the United Kingdom and foreign countries respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I have communicated with Lord Milner by telegraph, and he informs me as follows:—"Your telegram of 14th March, No. 2. The following orders have been placed outside South Africa: One set of steam ploughing tackle, ploughs, and harrows; Fowler, Leeds. Implements experiment farm, Ransoms, Sims, and Jetferies, J. and F. Howard, and others, England; Massy Harris and Company, Canada; 15,000 harrows, Crown agents." The order for the 15,000 harrows was of great urgency, and, in order to secure prompt deli very, about one-half of the order was placed with British manufacturers, about one-quarter with a Canadian firm, and the remaining quarter with an American firm.

RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
*MR. CHAPMAN (Cheshire., Hyde),in moving the Second Reading of the Rating of Machinery Bill, said: I do not propose to trouble the House by going into its ancient history. I will merely recall the fact that it has passed its Second Reading six times, once without a division; that it has never been thrown out; that it has once passed the Committee on Trade without alteration; and that it has always had the support of the Local Government Board until the last session. Time, unfortunately, has prevented its proceeding further, but I hope sincerely that on this occasion
1386
perseverance may meet with its reward, and that the Bill may eventually reach the Statute-book.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present, the House counted, and there being only 27 Members present, the sitting was suspended until a quorum was formed.
There being a quorum present at five minutes past One.
*MR. CHAPMAN*MR. CHAPMAN resumed his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He said he feared he could not make so technical a subject interesting. All he could hope for was to make a fair and businesslike statement of the case. The object of the measure was, he said, not to alter the statute law, but to bring matters into the state of uniformity which prevailed before the varying decisions were given. It was not proposed to abolish the tax on machinery, but to free small industries from the burden of higher rates and taxes than they have hitherto had to pay. It was in effect to relieve small industries from the burden of taxation. He would not again give the cases in full which he had quoted last session, but he might state that the chief reason for bringing forward the Bill was that action had been rendered necessary by the operation of the well-known Tyne Boiler case of 1886. In that case Lord Esher decided that machinery was not rateable, per se, but that certain classes of machinery were to be taken into account in estimating the value of the buildings containing it. The question how it was to be taken into account had been the battle-ground of assessment committees and manufacturers, leading to endless and costly litigation. The shafting and first-motor power had always been rated. While some assessment committees excluded tenants' machinery, other committees assessed it. These divergent methods of carrying out the judgment had led to endless confusion and a very large expenditure of money. This Bill affirmed that any machinery which the tenant provided was not to increase the value of the buildings and the first motor power which the landlord would supply.
This system of rating existed at the present day, he believed, in Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire.
Let them take an example of the way in which their opponents' view of the law would hamper small industries. He took the case of a man, say a foreman, who had saved some money and wished to start an industry of his own. He rents a shed or building where the power was provided by the landlord, and into which he placed a machine worth £1,000. If he was taxed at 5 per cent, on its value, that equalled £50. Then he was rated at 10s. on £50. That was £25 per annum. This, at twenty-five years' purchase at 4 per cent., was equal to £625 of unremunerative capital that his business had to bear the burden of. Many large industries had been built up from small beginnings, and in these days of intense foreign competition industry and hard work ought not to be strangled at the beginning. Ho thought he would be forgiven if he quoted the saying—"Tax the honey when the bees have made it if you like, but do not stop the making of the honey by taxing the bees who make it." He would try to meet as fairly as he could some of the objections which had been brought against the Bill. It had been called a Bill to exempt all machinery from rating, and it was said that assessment committees were against it. This was not the case, as the heavy class of machinery did not come under the Bill, nor did he know of a single assessment committee winning an appeal at Quarter Sessions to rate all machinery alike. Then came the complaint of the agricultural constituencies. It was said that their rates would be increased. There was a cry for factories to be erected in the country. These would find employment for men and women on the spot, and so relieve the congestion of the towns, and this would be to some extent a method of dealing with the problem of housing the masses. This could not be done if the tenants or moveable machinery were to be rated. He claimed, therefore, the support of the agricultural interest if industries were to spring up in the country.
A strong argument in favour of this Bill was provided by what had taken place in Scotland. A Scotch assessor last year rated the movable machines in a foundry at Dundee at 7½ per cent,
1388
their vale. His action was approved by the Court of Appeal in Scotland, hereby upsetting their system of rating. Did Scotland sit down under this? No; the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Sir C. Kenshaw) brought in a Bill on the same lines and almost the same words as the Bill now before the House. It was accepted by the Government, ran through the House unopposed, and became law at the end of the session. It was called "An Act to amend the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts in regard to the Law relating to the Rating of Machinery" [8th August, 1902], and Clause I. was as follows—
"Section 42 of the Valuation Act, 1854, shall be read and construed as if the following proviso were inserted after i he words, and all machinery fixed or attached to any lands or heritages'—that is to say, provided that in any building occupied for any trade, business, or manufacturing process the expression, 'machinery fixed or attached,' shall be construed as including all machinery, machines, or plant, in or on the lands or heritages for producing or transmitting first motive power, or for heating or lighting such building, but save as herein provided shall not include machines, tools, or appliances, which are only so fixed that they can be removed from their place without necessitating the removal of any part of the building."
Thus the law in Scotland was quite clear, but English manufacturers had to fight at Quarter Sessions for justice. Scotland had coal and iron industries as well as England, and he thought he might fairly say that what was good for Scotland in this matter could not be bad for England. Next he had the large demand for the Bill from numerous organisation, Chambers of Commerce, and Trade Societies. His final argument was that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, which was presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, had recommended what this measure proposed to enact. The Bill was almost a reprint of the recommendation of the Commission. The Report of the Commission contained the following—
"It is beyond controversy that, in any amendment of the existing law, the main object to be aimed at must be the removal of all uncertainty as to what kinds of machinery are, and what are not, to be taken into account in estimating the rateable value of factories. To attain this object by any sort of definition or enumeration, would be wholly impracticable…. Having regard to all the history and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion

1389
that the adoption of the proposals contained in the Bill, introduced into the House of Commons in 1899, as to the class of machinery which should be taken into account in estimating the rateable value of premises containing machinery, would be a fair solution of this difficult problem. These proposals exclude the classes of machinery which, in our opinion, it is desirable should be exempted. The law as to what machinery should be included in the assessment of premises containing it, would also be more precise; greater uniformity in practice among Assessment Committees would be secured, and the probability of litigation lessened. We therefore recommend that in estimating the rateable value of any hereditament occupied for trade, business, or manufacturing purposes, there should be excluded from the assessment any increased value arising from machines, tools, or appliances which are not fixed or are only so fixed that they can be removed from their place without necessitating the removal of any part of the hereditament. But the value of any machinery, machine, or plant used in or on the hereditament for producing or transmitting first motive power, or for heating or lighting the hereditament, should be included."
These were really the words of the Hill, the Second Reading of which he now asked the House to pass. He claimed to have proved (1) that the Bill met a pressing need; (2) that it did not alter the statute law, but made clear what was now chaotic; (3) that it would save enormous expense in constant limitation; and (4) that it would prevent the hampering of our industries by the non-interference with the machinery of our mills, and so cheapen the methods of the production. He contended that the Bill was demanded by a multitude of trade organisations, Chambers of Commerce, as well as by the working artisans, as he could testify from his own constituency, which consisted largely of manufacturing towns and villages. Finally, the Bill was directly on the lines recommended by the final Report of the Royal Commission of 1901 on Local Taxation, and as such he recommended it to the consideration of the House, and he hoped that hon. Members would, in their deliberations, not forget the working bees.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)said he congratulated the hon. Member on the moderate terms in which he had moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and he would endeavour to follow his arguments in the same spirit.
1390
The hon. Member said that this Bill had passed its Second Reading on many previous occasions, and had never been rejected; and he argued that that was an indication of the support behind his Bill. He should like to add to the thrice-told tale of this hardy annual thus given to the House a brief chronological index, and to point out that although the measure had been carried a number of times, it had been so by dwindling majorities. He had a strong impression that the reason for that was that when the Bill was first introduced in 1887, and its Second Reading passed without opposition and without discussion, its real meaning was not understood either by hon. Members or the country, but that the more the country and the House came to know of it, the less they liked it. In 1893, in the next Parliament, the Bill was passed by a majority of 153, and on the next occasion, in 1895, that majority went down to fifty-one. In 1899 so little interest was taken in the Bill that the House was counted out, and the only other occasion on which the Bill had been presented was last year, when it was passed by a majority of thirty-five, or about a fifth of the majority in 1893. He should like to enter his protest against the title of the Bill, which was altogether misleading. It was unquestionably the fact that the title of the Bill had even misled hon. Members. The title was 'o Rating of Machinery Bill," whereas it was in reality a Bill for the exemption of machinery from rating. The hon. Member talked about taxing the honeybees, but the object of the Bill was to transfer the taxation from one bee to another. As to the attitude of the Government in regard to this Bill, he understood the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Local Government Board approved of this Bill, but there was no record of that in Hansard. On the contrary he thought the action of Government had been, during the last fifteen years, always that of strict neutrality.
*MR. CHAPMAN: What about Sir Henry Fowler's Bill?
*MR. D. A. THOMAS*MR. D. A. THOMAS said that if the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton had supported the measure he had done so entirely in his individual capacity, and not as a member of the Government.
The Bill did not define the law, as was alleged by the hon. Member, but its actual meaning was to completely change the law. In 1895, when the Bill was before the House, Lord Llandaff, then Mr. Matthews, a former Homo Secretary, stated—
"The law of rating had not altered in the least for the last 100 years. He had no hesitation in saying that the Bill altered the law fundamentally, and to the advantage of one class only."
And last year the President of the Local Government Board said—
"I cannot admit that there is any doubt as to the law. The direction of the Assessment Committees is perfectly clear."
The Tyne Boiler case clearly interpreted the law in this matter. In an appeal which came last year before the Lord Chief Justice, who was intimately acquainted with the Tyne Boiler case, he having being engaged in it as one of the counsel, he said—
"The Tyne Boiler case was most carefully stated, in order to endeavour to make the question of attachment to the freehold the crucial test, and the court was asked to find that unless the machines were attached, they were not to be taken into consideration at all in enhancing the value of the premises. That the Court of Appeal decline to do. That case was binding on this court, and for the purpose of this case lie adopted it."
The fact of the matter was that the law was perfectly clear. If any doubt or question at all arose, it was in ascertaining the facts in respect to the valuation; and he maintained that the general practice, taking the country throughout, was in accordance with the law.
*MR. CHAPMAN: No.
*MR. D. A. THOMAS*MR. D. A. THOMAS said that that was his opinion, and he was going to endeavour to substantiate that opinion. The opinion of the Lord Chief Justice was quite sufficient for him: it laid down what the law is. He contended that outside the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire the practice was in accordance with the law. What hon. members who supported this Bill desired was to bring the law into accordance with the practice of only a part of the country. He objected to the Bill on what he considered to be very substantial grounds. Large sums of money had been borrowed by local authorities upon the basis of the law as
1392
it stood, i.e., where machinery was included in the valuation. He objected, also, that it removed a burden from one class only—and that a wealthy class—[Mr. CHAPMAN: "NO!"]—and would place it on all other classes, some of whom, the small shop keepers and artisans, were among the poorest. The tendency, during the past half-century had been to widen the basis of local taxation, but this Bill narrowed its incidence. Again, the Bill had been brought in by a private Member, but it touched on a a very complicated question, for it was admitted that there were grievances all round in the matter of rating. He had never yet come across a ratepayer without a grievance. He urged, therefore, that the whole question of rating should be dealt with by a broad measure introduced by the Government, such as the Government had promised in the King's Speech, and not be dealt with piecemeal in this fashion. If the Bill passed it would probably create a good deal more evil than it removed, and be followed by a large crop of fresh litigation. The hon. Member for Hyde endeavoured to show that the feeling of the country supported his Bill; but so far as he could gather the fooling of the country was in an entirely opposite direction. It was only lately that the local authorities had become aware of the real meaning and intention of the Bill, and there was now quite a feeling of resentment against it.
He had attended a crowded meeting in the Westminster Palace Hotel the other day at which over fifty local authorities, some of them the most important in the country, were represented, and that meeting was unanimously against the Bill. There were only four petitions in favour of the Bill, including those presented that day, while there were seventy-eight against it—including your petitions from some of the most important local authorities in the country. He should like to give two or three illustrations of what a great effect the Bill would produce in certain localities if it were passed into law. In most parts of the country it would make a difference in the local rates of from 2d. to 6d., and in some cases of even 10d., in the £1. In West Ham the rateable value was at present about £1,250,000, and if the Bill passed there would be a reduction in

1393
the rateable value which would be equivalent to raising the rates 6d. in the £. In Swansea the rateable value was £524,000 and it was estimated that this Bill would make a difference of 20 per cent, in the rateable value there. In Sheffield it was said it would make a difference of £104,000, or 6d. in the £. on the poor rate alone. It was idle in face of such facts and figures to contend that the Bill would not injure the ratepayers. Who was going to make up the deficit? The money was not going to fall from the clouds. If one class of ratepayer was to be relieved, every other class of ratepayer must necessarily pay more. The Government were not going to make up the difference. The President of the Local Government Board last year said that he was bound to emphasise the fact that there was no intention on the part of the Government to propose now, or at any future time, that the gap left by the exemption of machinery would be filled by contributions from the Imperial Exchequer. The deficit must be made up by other class s of ratepayer.
They heard a good deal about the housing of the working classes; but, indirectly, this Bill would reduce the wages of the working classes, because if it were passed house property would have to pay more, and the working classes would have to pay either more in rent or in rates. That was an obvious consequence. It was said that the Bill was required for the sake of uniformity, but it would be perfectly easy to get uniformity now if only hon. Members who supported this Bill would see that Assessment Committees conformed to the law. Then there would be uniformity; but to ask for a change in the law because in certain parts of the country Assessment Committees refused to conform to it, seemed to him to put a premium on non-compliance with the law. It was not only on the question of the rating of machinery that there was a want of uniformity. Before the Royal Commission to which his hon. friend referred, the Secretary to the Mining Association of Great Britain said that there were two collieries in adjacent unions in Lancashire, worked under practically the same conditions, and which had practically the same value, but yet were valued on entirely
1394
different principles. There was a want of uniformity in other parts of the country also; and he thought that most hon. Members would admit that the whole question of rating required to be taken in hand by the Government and dealt with in a broad and enlightened way. A great deal had been made of the fact that the proposal in the Bill was a recommendation of the Royal Commission. One would gather from the speech of the hon. Gentleman that this was the only recommendation in the final Report of the Commission, whereas page after page of that Report was taken up with recommendations. Why select one particular recommendation As for himself, he certainly declined to be bound by the Royal Commission. Royal Commissions were at rather a discount in these days. Moreover, even on the question of exemption the Commissioners were not consistent, for one of their recommendations was as follows—
"We think no further extension of the principle of exemption should be permitted," and then promptly advised that machinery should be exempted.
A great deal had also been said with reference to the Bill which passed through this House last session relating to Scotland, but the circumstances were entirely different; and he hoped hon. Members for Scotland would give them a little Home Rule in this matter, and allow English and Welsh Members to fight out the question themselves. He thought it would be a very poor return on the part of the Scottish Members if they intervened on the present occasion. Last year the Bill was only introduced by a private Member on July 1st, and the objection of even a single Member would have upset the Bill, but it was allowed to pass without a word of discussion. Under those circumstances lie thought he was entitled to ask the Scottish Members to remain neutral. The position of this Bill was entirely different. The Bill of last session was supported by the Government; it had the approval of all the Scottish Members; and the main point about it was that it proposed to bring the law into conformity with the almost universal practice in Scotland. That did not apply in the case of the present Bill. In this case the general practice was in accordance with the law as it stood. [An HON. MEMBER: NO.] He maintained that the Bill which was passed last year with the

1395
approval of the Government brought the law into conformity with the practice, whereas the present Bill proposed to alter the law to bring it into conformity, not with the general practice, but with a practice which obtained in a part only of the country. He begged to move that the Bill be read that day six months.
Amendment proposed, "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
Question proposed "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid it would not be necessary for him to repeat the arguments laid before the House by his hon. friend He had taken part in the discussion on this Bill for a great many years, and he could not help thinking that if there had been any general feeling throughout the country in favour of it, it would have been passed ere now. When they had an important Bill brought forward which proposed a change in the law of rating, and they were unable to get a House of forty Members for an hour after the discussion should have commenced, it was idle to argue that there was any strong feeling in any part of the House in favour of it. He agreed with the protest of his hon. friend with regard to the title of the Bill. That title had been pointed out over and over again to the promoters of the measure; but, for some reason or other, they had always refused to make any alteration in it. As a result the Bill was now known throughout the country as the Rating of Machinery Bill, but as everyone who read its contents knew perfectly well, it was simply a Bill to exempt a particular class of owners of machinery. A question had been asked as to what was the law on the subject. He understood the law to be as it was laid down in connection with the Tyne Boiler case. The North of England had always acted in accordance with that law. Undoubtedly the practice was not uniform; but although the practice was not uniform, the law was distinct, and there was no justification for a change. What did the pro-
1396
moters of the Bill ask for? They asked that the law should be so changed as to suit a practice which was admitted in the Court of Appeal to be irregular and improper. They in the North of England had conformed to the law, and had rated their machinery in accordance with the law as laid down in the Court of Appeal. If the Bill were to pass it would create a very great injustice throughout a great part of the country.
The case of the Scottish Bill was always quoted, but he agreed with his hon. friend that there was no analogy whatever between the two cases. The practice in Scotland was really uniform, and the decision given in the Dundee case upset that practice. That naturally was a matter of great importance, and the Bill was passed without opposition, even from Members who did not agree with the principle. He would join with his hon. friend in appealing to the Scottish Members, who were left to decide their own case, to leave this matter to be settled by Englishmen alone. The Bill would be a great injustice. They borrowed money on the strength of the present law, and their municipalities had piled up large debts on the existing system They had given the rates under the existing law as security for the money they borrowed, and if they attempted to alter the law they would lessen the value of security given to those who had advanced them money. The House should well consider before it attempted to deal with an important security of this kind; and he would appeal to Conservative Members that it was a very dangerous tiling to interfere with such a security. He hoped before hon. Members voted on the Bill they would consider whether it would not be better to wait until the Government had an opportunity of dealing with the whole question.
The rateable value would be seriously increased, and the result would be that they would increase the rates of all the ratepayers in the locality. If this Bill passed it would simply mean that instead of the manufacturers having to pay the rate through their manufacturers' charges, it would have to be paid to a large extent by the workmen through increased rates and increased rent. He was glad to see that a great many manufacturers were opposing this Bill. It had always been the custom in the coal trade to tax

1397
machinery, and the mining industry of this country was more heavily taxed than any other industry, because it was not only taxed on all surface property but on the output as well. Every ton of coal produced and brought to the surface paid a tax. The product down below did not get the benefit of any rate spent upon the surface, such as the drainage or the lighting rate; yet what was the position of the mine owners with regard to this Bill? They were taxed on the output. It had now become necessary, in order to work small mines, to introduce coal-cutting machines, which were not fixed to the hereditament half so closely as these machines, and if those coal-cutting machines produced per man five tons a day instead of three, the mine owner was actually taxed on his coal-cutting machine. In fact this Bill, if passed, would create more difficulties than it was designed to remedy. He objected to it because he thought that this was a Bill which ought to be introduced by the Government only after they had investigated the whole question. They would undoubtedly increase the rates all over the country if they passed this Bill to confine the rating area of machinery.
Hon. Members opposite complained that it was a hard thing that real property should pay rates and not personal property, and they desired to bring in personal property. If that was their idea, was there anything that could better bear a rate than labour-saving machinery? If there was one class of property that should not be exempt from rating it was this class of machine that it was proposed to exempt in this Bill. He could not understand any man who had reforms at heart, wishing to introduce such a measure as this. Ho would rather see the area of machinery rating extended than reduced, and he could not understand why the Government should give any sanction to this Bill. He thought that they should give no sanction to a Bill of this character at all, because it would certainly interfere with a Bill which, sooner or later, they would themselves have to introduce dealing with the whole question of rating. He hoped that the Government would not allow this Bill to pass on the assumption that
SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHsad he thoroughly agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite that this was a matter which the Government ought to take up. On many occasions he had complained that the Government had not taken it up, and he confessed he was unable to understand their attitude on the question. This grievance went back to the year 1886, since which time fourteen Bills had been brought in by Private Members. On eight occasions a measure of this kind had passed its Second Reading with large majorities. If those majorities had dwindled in recent years it was, in his opinion, because the friends and supporters of this Bill had come to the conclusion that this was a matter for the Government to deal with, and that it ought not to be left in the hands of private Members. After the record which this Bill had he certainly thought that the Government should take it up. Besides having passed its Second Reading with great majorities, this Bill had passed through Grand Committee without any alteration, which in itself showed that there was a strong feeling in the House that this Bill should be adopted. On six occasions it had been supported, by speech and by vote, by Presidents of the Local Government Board, and, moreover, the Royal Commission on Local Taxation reported in favour of it. He did not understand how the Government could stand aloof from this Bill for England when the House was aware what facilities they had given to the Scotch measure last year. Why Scotland should be placed in such a favoured position he did not know. As the Government had given their support to the Scotch Bill he thought they had been very remiss in not dealing with this question for England.
He maintained that this Bill was in perfect harmony with the law as it had been laid down by the Lord Chief Justice. What they had to complain of was that although they did eventually get reductions they had to do so by litigation, and there was no such definition of the law in any Act of Parliament as to prevent Assessment Committees and Recorders dealing with the matter in a way which was not in accordance with the law. The House should know that there were

1399
thousands of pounds being spent every year to get justice, and to simply get the law properly applied in particular cases. He had a series of cases from different parts of the country, but he would not trouble the House with more than a general statement. They supplied instances in which the Assessment Committee proposed a rateable value which was appealed against, and they found that, after litigation costing thousands of pounds, no less than 20 per cent, and 30 per cent., and even as high as 50 per cent., was taken off the Assessment that was sought to be imposed upon the manufacturers. That was a great hardship. It was a tax on industry that they should have to go through a course of law instead of having an Act of Parliament which clearly defined what parts of the machinery were to be rated, and what parts were not to be rated. Anyone who read the Lord Chief Justice's late decision in one of their cases, a Northampton case, would see the difficulty they were placed in. The Recorder had stated a case in which the machinery was valued, and a percentage taken to represent the annual rent of the machinery. The Lord Chief Justice laid it down that this was utterly wrong, and that a separate valuation of the machinery should not be made. Yet what did the Lord Chief Justice do? He sent it back to the Recorder and said he must answer the question of the value to be put on the machinery "in his own way." The Recorder therefore was placed in this position. He was not allowed to value the machinery or take a percentage upon it, and yet in some mysterious way he was to arrive at some figure which would represent what was called the enhancement of the value of the premises. The result was that after litigation they arrived at the position that machinery practically was not rated. There was no enhancement, and the consequence was that after going through that process they got justice done.
The hon. Baronet opposite had stated that in the North of England they were carrying out the law, and that the promoters of this Bill wanted to alter the law. They did not want to alter it, but they said that it was only by litigation and an enormous expenditure, which was a tax upon industry, that they could got the law
1400
properly applied. They maintained this was a grievance which the House ought to remedy, because in Scotland and Ireland they were relieved from that difficulty, while users of machinery in England were in the position of still having that difficulty before them. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had stated that there would be a very great diminution in the assessable value if this Bill was passed. He (Sir William) was sure that was not the case; he did not think there would be any great change. He had in his mind an instance where the old assessment was £156. The new assessment was £360, and it was eventually determined that £181 was the right figure, some 50 per cent, less than what was claimed by the Assessment Committee, and yet some £25 more than the old assessment. So that in the application of the law it must not be assumed that there would be any great diminution in the assessable value where machinery was not taken into account. If this Bill were passed they would get, without expense, litigation, and trouble, what they ought to get—their assessments made according to law; and if there was any district where a change of practice was involved it must be remembered that if some slight change was made there, which he did not think would be the case, there was the rest of the country, which was at present suffering under a great injustice which ought to be remedied.
He trusted that on this occasion they would not only have some sympathetic observations from the representative of the Local Government Board, but that he would feel the time had come when the Government ought to take this question up and deal with it. He knew it was said that the whole question of rating should be dealt with together. He did not object to that if there was any prospect of it. If he could only be sure that the Government would bring in a rating measure next session, embracing the whole question, including the one under discussion, and pass it through the House, he should be willing to wait another twelve months. But he hoped, as the House had expressed so often its opinion that there was a grievance and a remedy, on this

1401
occasion it would pass the second reading of the Bill and also give facilities for it being taken further than it had been in previous sessions.
MR. UREsaid there was no denying the fact that this Bill proposed a change in the law. It was not a measure merely declaratory of, or defining, the existing law, or indeed simply laying down a rule to be followed by assessors or assessment committees. Included in real property, which was subject to rating, were fixtures, and the difficulty the Bill was designed to meet was that of saying what was, and what was not, a fixture in the sense of the Rating Acts. That was not by any means as simple a question as it at first sight appeared. In determining whether or not machinery was a fixture there were several elements to be taken into consideration, elements which were fluctuating and uncertain, such as the adaptability of the machinery for the premises in which it was placed, the nature of the attachment, whether permanent or quasi-permanent, the object of the attachment, and the effect that would be produced on the building itself by the removal of the machinery. There were also questions as between landlord and tenant, heir and executor, and so forth. It was a total misapprehension to suppose that the Dundee case, to which reference had been made, completely altered the law then existing in Scotland. In different parts of the country different assessors had taken different views of this knotty question. In some districts machines had been included, in others excluded, and the great struggle had always been to get excluded from the valuation the machines which a tenant would be entitled to remove at the end of his lease. Some assessors excluded altogether such machines from their valuation, a practice for which the Rating Acts gave no warrant or authority whatever.
The difficulty lay in what might be called a "no man's land" that was to be found between the two extremes. On the one hand there was the machinery which was undeniably fixed, such as was referred to in the Bill: on the other there were the loose tools which the workmen brought upon the premises, or which
1402
were in the premises and not attached in any way; but between these two extremes there was the machinery which, merely because it was essential for its use that it should be fixed and not movable, was attached by bolts and screws instead of being arrested by its own weight; that was where the difficulty came in as regarded rating. So far from the practice in Scotland having been uniform, it was extremely varying. In the Dundee case the assessor proposed to assess machinery which would have been movable had it not been essential for its use that it should be bolted and screwed into the premises, and the judges held that he was right. The Act passed last year undoubtedly made a change, if not a very material change, in the law in Scotland, and what was now proposed was to bring the law of England into line. In principle, and as a matter of experience, he believed it was a good change to make. The new rule had worked admirably in Scotland. He had not heard any complaints from his constituents as to an undue burden being imposed upon them in consequence of the change. It was most desirable that the law with regard to rating should be the same, and that there should be a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom. The industrial and economic conditions in Scotland were similar to those in England, the proportion of manufacturing concerns to mines was much the same, as also was the distribution of industries throughout the country. He therefore thought that in the interests of good local government, in which local rating was certainly included, and also in the interests of the law, which as far as possible should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom, this measure should be allowed to pass.
MR. CRIPPSagreed that this Bill would to a certain extent alter the English law, as the Scottish Act undoubtedly altered the Scottish law. It was quite time the question of rating reform was dealt with on a broad and general basis; it ought not to be dealt with piecemeal. It had to be recognised, however, that that was somewhat of an ideal, but meanwhile, when such a measure as this, which was absolutely right in principle, had been

1403
confirmed year after year by the House of Commons, he felt that the Government ought really to take the matter in hand, at any rate as regarded this portion of the question, and carry it through. He would remind the hon. Member that in 1840 there was a most crucial alteration made in the rating law. In that year an Act was passed which provided that personalty was not to be rated in this country, and it was because that law had never been properly applied that they were now complaining that the true principle should be applied to machinery, which was in the nature of personalty. The Royal Commission, after most careful consideration of the whole question, concluded that although they would have liked to have brought personalty into rating, they were unable to lay down any fair principle upon which this could be done. He protested against taking out one class of personalty only, and applying to that a principle of jilting which was not applied to any other personalty in this country or in Scotland. It was said that they could not take the burden of rating either off one individual or one class of property without imposing a burden upon some other individual or some other property. The question was in making that change were they doing a just act, and if they found someone paying an unjust burden, although by taking that burden off they might put it on to some other person, they would only be performing an act of justice by doing it. They would only be adjusting matters so that all persons would be fairly treated and placed in the same position as any other ratepayers.
The hon. Member who moved the reduction pointed out that large loans had been borrowed on the security of the rates, and he went so far as to say that under these circumstances they ought to have no reform or alteration in the rating law because they might interfere with the existing security. Would anyone in this House consent to the principle that they were never to have any change, making the rating law more just and fair, because loans had been borrowed on the security of the rates. If they were going to assent to that proposition it was no good having a Royal Commission on rating, or having discussions in this House. Simply because
1404
loans had been raised on the security of the rates was this system of rating to be stereotyped for all time? The hon. Member who seconded, referred to rating in regard to mining property. If the hon. Member would bring in any Bill on a fair basis which would make the rating of mining property more easy, fair, and just, he would promise him his support. There had been an immense amount of litigation about mining rating, and there were a great many misapprehensions as far as the rating of mining machinery was concerned. Supposing they had a mine where there was a great amount of water which necessitated a good deal of pumping machinery. That did not increase the value of the mine, because they had to produce coal under conditions where they had to make a large expenditure in order to get a proper return for the mining capital. Surely it was an immense mistake to say that because these minerals wore underground that therefore the mine owners ought not to pay their fair share of the rates. How about the miners? Did they not want housing and lighting, and all those conveniences and facilities which were given at the present time by various local authorities, although at a very heavy cost to the ratepayers? He could not follow the argument of the hon. Baronet that those who worked in mines did not want the same facilities and advantages as regarded local expenditure as all other workmen in this country.
He wished now to state why he thought this Bill was right. He had already enunciated the principle that If they were not going to rate personalty generally they ought not to select a special character of personalty and place an undue burden upon it. That was the basis of the Report of the Royal Commission, who gave a chapter entirely to this subject, because it was strongly felt that there was an injustice which might be put straight apart from any general scheme. Before the year 1840 personalty was rated, but the difficulty was that as regarded machinery the decision given before 1840 had been followed ever since, although the law itself had been altered. Suppose they were to rate machinery directly, whether justly or not? It could easily be done. They could get the value of the machinery and assess it in the ordinary way. It had, however, been held to be

1405
legal to rate machinery directly, but they might take it into account as enhancing the value of the premises on which they found machinery. That had been the difficulty, and whenever any rating authority had sought to apply this principle they had been universally overruled. That was what they wanted clearly stated in this Bill. It had been laid down that they must take into consideration the machinery as enhancing the value of the premises, and therefore it was a very illogical position. What could be more illogical or absurd than leaving the law in that state, costing thousands of pounds to get an elucidation of the principle which could not be elucidated because it was illogical. Was it not time that they should take a common-sense view and do what was proposed in this Bill? They might at least alter the law so as to lay down a definition which was both logical and could be easily applied. The hon. Member opposite had said that since they had had the Scotch Act in operation they had experienced no difficulty. Why should they deprive themselves of the simple application of a principle upon which they all agreed, to keep up a cumbrous system of this kind, which no one could understand, and which he could conceive would benefit no one but the members of his own profession. Was it contended that this state of things was to go on although this House had expressed its opinion several times upon it? He hoped this Bill would be passed by a decided majority, and he thought it was time that the Government took up a decided attitude by backing up the Report of the Royal Commission which they themselves had appointed.
*SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid they were once again face to face with this hardy annual. He had been much struck with the lucid speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, who had placed the question upon a very fair and sensible basis. The whole of the speeches which had been delivered were practically an appeal to the Government to take this question up, and place matters upon a perfect footing. If he studied his own interests he should support this Bill, for he had to pay rates
1406
upon all the machinery in his factory. All around the north-east coast they had to pay rates upon their machinery. It was no use saying that boilers and engines only should be rated, for an engine was held down perhaps by only four bolts. The same argument applied to the shafting. Why should a planing machine or a punching machine be exempted? The judges had decided that machinery should be rated. Take, for example, an empty factory. So long as it stood empty it was not rated. Supposing a couple of young fellows started business with a small capital and rented that empty factory. He would assume that they put in an engine, a boiler, and a few machines which did not cover one-fourth of the area of the factory. They would be assessed upon that factory, although three-fourths of it was not occupied, and they would have to pay the full assessment. Was that fair? Take a shipyard as an example. The machinery used in a shipyard was practically not under cover, but in the open. Why should that machinery be exempted. There was another aspect of the question. When he tendered for a set of engines he included the labour, the material, his works charges, which included rates, taxes, insurance, and other items. After adding his profit he sent in his tender. In that case who paid his rates and taxes? Why the man who bought his goods. The whole thing was a pure matter of business.
He had not heard one single speech on the other side to inform him where the Unions were to get the money to do this work. If they were going to raise the rates of the workmen and the small tradesmen in any district they would find themselves face to face with a great issue. In poor industrial districts the hardship would be very great. Take the town of Jarrow, where the works paid one-fourth of the whole rates. How would they get the money there? It would mean an increase of 4d. in the £ in that centre, and who would have to pay the difference?. Why the small tradesmen and the small shopkeepers. What would be the effect in Sunderland? In that town there would be an increase of 3d. in the £. In his own constituency of Gateshead it would mean a rate of

1407
between 4d. and 5d. in the £. He would not deal with West Ham or any of the Unions about London; but he wished to ask why the busy hives of industry should be saddled with such a large increase of rates. Therefore they were face to face with a great issue, which might develop consequences which would be far-reaching and disastrous in their effects. It behoved the House of Commons to be very thoughtful over these matters. The introducers of this measure had not told them how the money was to be got without putting increased burdens upon the working classes. He was quite ready and willing to pay rates on his machinery in order to avoid additional burdens being put upon small shopkeepers and tradesmen, and upon the working classes. Therefore he thought that this Bill ought to be thrown out, and the Government ought to take the matter up. This was a social question. They had heard from the Government expressions of sympathy with the working classes in such matters as housing and old age pensions, but why did they not take up this simple question?
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON. Yorkshire, N.R. Thirsk): Does the hon. Member mean us to take it up on the lines of this Bill or in an opposite sense?
*SIR WILLIAM ALLAN*SIR WILLIAM ALLAN said that was not for him to say, but he wanted the Government to take it up by getting together the representatives of the different Unions, and then bring in a Bill which would be just, equitable, and righteous, and which would not put burdens on one class at the expense of another. The Government could then formulate a measure. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Hon Members opposite laughed, but he did not care, for he had always been treated, when he spoke, with laughter and jeers, and he had got quite accustomed to that kind of thing. [Cries of "No, no!"] This was not a laughing matter, and it ought to be taken up by the Government, and a Bill formulated after due inquiries into the whole of the circumstances, ought to be introduced. He would not follow the
1408
hon. and learned Member for Stretford in his legal argument, but he would remind him that the last time he had occasion to cross swords with him he got the better of him. He wished to put a case in point to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Supposing he possessed a pit and worked it by manual labour, and by that means produced 100 tons of coal per day. He would then be rated on an output of 100 tons of coal per day. If the hon. and learned Member introduced electrically-driven machinery he might increase his output by fifty tons per day, but then he would be rated on I 50 tons. How did he get his extra fifty tons? Simply by using electrically-driven machinery. Was that not rating the machinery I By rating the output they were practically rating the machinery, and the hon. and learned Member could not get over it. The effect of this Bill was to put a tax on the worker and not on the machine, and on that ground he considered the measure to be unfair. He sincerely hoped that a representative of the Government would give the House some assurance that this question would be taken up by them, with the view to bringing to an end a dispute which had been continuous for years, and placing the whole of this rating matter on a broad and sensible basis.
SIR SAMUEL HOAREsaid his hon. friend the Member for Gateshead, if he might call him so, had suggested that the House listened to him with mockery or laughter. He could assure his hon. friend on the part of the whole House that they always listened to him with the deepest interest and pleasure, and especially when he spoke on such a subject as that now under consideration. There was a general consensus of opinion in regard to this Bill. No one who had spoken for or against the measure had suggested that the incidence of rating in different districts was carried out on a definite plan, and all had suggested that there should be, if possible, some alteration with reference to the incidence of this rate. If the law said that certain things should be rated, and if the method of assessment was different in one place from what it was in another, surely there must be a feeling of the greatest injustice where movable

1409
machinery was assessed, when the ratepayers knew that in other places it was not. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill alluded to the fact that the public bodies in the great constituency he represented were opposed to the Bill. He should have liked to ask the hon. Gentleman whether in that constituency movable machinery was assessed, and whether the members of the public bodies he alluded to were assessed for movable machinery. Much depended upon that. There was no doubt that people whose movable machinery was not rated were quite ready to leave the law as it was. They knew what had taken place in the past, but they had no insight for the future.
He represented a large and important constituency situated in a great rural district—the capital of East Anglia—where there were far greater difficulties in carrying on manufactures than in those districts whose representatives had already spoken. They were conscious in Norwich that they laboured great under disabilities, and they realised also the immense advantages the manufacturers had conferred on the city in the way of providing employment for a large body of the working classes. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Gateshead suggest that those who supported the Bill did not think of the interests of the working classes. It was because he was deeply interested in those classes that he believed new legislation was absolutely necessary in order to avert a diminution, possibly a large diminution, in our manufactures. This large diminution of employment for the working classes would mean greater burdens on the rates. He had received an interesting letter signed by a large number of the leading citizens of Norwich, in which they complained of the uncertainty of I he law with respect to rating of machinery, owing to the different interpretations given in different districts, and stating that legislation ought to be such as to help and not to hinder manufacturers. The hon. Member for Gates-head said he believed that the decisions of the Court supported the view he had put before the House. The experience in Norwich was very different. For instance, in the case of J. Skelton and Sons, the Norwich Quarter Sessions re-
1410
duced an assessment from £240 to £155—a reduction of 35 per cent. In other cases there had been reductions of 25 per cent. He asked the House to consider what that meant. It meant very costly litigation, and worse than that was the state of irritation caused in the place, which was not at all desirable in a community. It was evident that some alteration in the law was necessary when uncertainty existed as at the, present time.
What was going to be the result of this assessment of machinery if it continued in a place like Norwich? He had seen statements in print that one of their large manufacturers, instead of enlarging his premises within the city, was contemplating moving. He had heard remarks in regard to others who contemplated a similar course. Could anything be worse than that manufacturers should be driven away into the country hard by where their move-able machinery would not be rated? It was said that this was a manufacturers' Bill. Only last year he held in his hand fifteen memorials from working people employed in large manufactures in favour of the measure then before the House. It was scarcely right to say that the Bill came from one section of the community or another. He at least could speak for manufacturers arid those whom they employed, for he had had any number of letters and memorials from both, and they all pointed in one direction. He appealed to the Government to take this matter up. It was not fair at present that manufacturers in Norwich should be assessed for move-able machinery, while in many neighbouring places those who competed with them, under the greatest advantages, were not assessed. He spoke for one important centre, and he knew how serious would be the loss if their manufactures were in any way interfered with, not only to the manufacturers but also to the thousands of employees who were dependent on them. He would vote for the Second Heading of the Bill.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he trusted the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich would remove one consideration operating against the Bill which had undoubtedly impressed

1411
several hon. Memhers who had spoken, The hon. Baronet referred to the interest which the working class had in this matter. It was suggested by his hon. friend the Member for Gateshead that the industrial interests of the labouring class would be injuriously affected by the operation of this measure. He thought the hon. Baronet had entirely disposed of that argument. The working class had no less an interest in the industry, the output of which was the fund from which their wages were derived, than the capitalist whose capital was employed in carrying on that industry. Therefore, by relieving the burden which rested on a manufacturing industry they conferred a benefit, not only upon the capitalist, but also upon the industrial class who had a joint interest in a common concern. He had the honour to represent a constituency which was as largely concerned in manufacturing enterprise as any constituency in the United Kingdom, and therefore in regard to this measure he thought it was one's duty to look at it from the point of view of those who were engaged in conducting very large manufacturing enterprises.
He would ask the attention of the House for a moment to the arguments which had been brought to one's mind by the officials engaged in collecting and administering the rates derived from property on the present basis of rate valuation. He had no doubt that many hon. Members had been memorialised by Boards of Guardians in regard to this matter. His hon. friend the Member for Gateshead had pointed; out that any relief given in the direction indicated would cast some increased corresponding burden on other sections of the community. That was no doubt an important practical consideration, but they were discussing whether or not the law should remain as it was now, while waiting for the long-delayed measure of the Government to put rating on some logical and intellegible basis. He had felt the force of that argument. The answer to it seemed to him to be this. In the first place, there was no reason to believe that the result of this Bill would be as great as was apprehended by the local authorities
1412
who were charged with the collection and administration of the existing rates. In the second place, the question was not how the law of rating in regard to this class of property was ultimately to stand; the question was how they were to deal with it in the interim before fresh legislation was carried in reference to this matter. Surely it was important to secure that the administration of the law should be in harmony with the principles of the law, and that, before the new legislation was to operate, they should have taken some steps to prevent errors in the administration of that branch of the law which it was proposed to reform.
The argument for this Bill was; that the valuation in regard to this property was erroneous and unequal, and that these errors and inequalities should be corrected without delay, so that when new legislation was introduced it might operate on a system which was uniform, and which was in conformity with legal principle. The legal principle could be stated in a sentence. The property which should be rated was the fabric, plus the landlord's equipment. The tenant's outfit should not be rated. The terms were so vague at present that the law was applied differently in different districts. It had one application on the Clyde in connection with the shipbuilding industry, and another application on the Tyne, so that, in the competition for orders, an advantage was given to the Clyde shipbuilders over those of the Tyne. It was important that the House should make it perfectly clear how the rule was to receive practical and every day application. The hon. Member for Gateshead said that machinery ought to be rated, and that that was the law. But he should like to know how the hon. Member would apply the rule. He supposed the hon. Member would not rate a smith's hammer, but he would rate a steam hammer. Mere considerations of size and position ought not to make all the difference between the inclusion or non-inclusion for rating purposes of these articles. He only indicated this to show the great difficulty of the problem, lie thought the Bill sought to make the law harmonious and intelligible, and he would support it.
*MR. J. F. HOPEsaid the effect of the Bill would be very different in different areas. In agricultural Unions it would have the effect of in rowing a greater burden upon agricultural land, but in Unions in textile districts, comprising a great deal of textile machinery, it would have little or no effect, because in these Unions it had been the custom not to rate machinery hitherto. In Unions where there was a great deal of heavy, non-textile machinery the effect of the Bill would be simply disastrous. The hon. Baronet the Member for Central Manchester said he did not think the Rill would reduce the assessable value in any given area to any appreciable extent, but it could be demonstrated that it must have that effect. He instanced the case of Sheffield, particularly the division which he represented, and stated that in it there were large iron and steel works of all sorts. Those works contained heavy and costly machinery not attached to the hereditaments in such a way that any part of the premises would have to be destroyed if the machinery was moved. It was placed on the ground and secured by bolts to a concrete foundation, but the whole of it could be taken away without in any way injuring the premises. The total rateable value of the works in Brightside was a little over £130,000, but land and buildings only represented £50,000, motive power £10,000, and machinery, which the Bill would exempt, no less than £70,000, so that the assessable value of the whole of these works would be decreased by more than one half. Moreover, the total rateable value of the whole of that part of the Union would lie decreased by some 20 per cent. That was a more extreme case than prevailed in the Sheffield Union as a whole. But, even so, the effect of the Bill in that Union would be to send up the poor rate alone by 6d. in the £. The difficulty in such a case was this—if they exempted machinery, where were they going to get the money from Practically the only rateable property available would be that belonging to the railway companies and small house property. He quite understood the difficulty felt in certain industries, but the question, if it was to be touched, ought to be dealt with as a whole, and the burden should be defrayed by further
1414
subventions from the fuller pocket of the taxpayers rather than by the ratepayers.
The Bill also bore on the housing question. The great difficulty of the housing question in towns was to have houses which could be let at a rent which the poorest class of the population could pay, and which would yet give a return—a very narrow return, but still, such a return as would enable the municipality to pay the interest on the loans that it had to raise for that purpose. The margin of profit or loss was an exceptionally small one, and if they put a greater burden on the one class of property, which they ought to treat lightly—he meant the small house property—the difficulty, already great, would be insuperable. Was it worth the while of his textile friends to get their way at such a very great cost as this Bill would involve to others? Even if they thought they must attain their object, he would ask them to look at it in the light that, as against prospective grievances on the one hand, they would be creating real, substantial grievances on the other. He would ask his friends engaged in manufacture, whether it was possible that they would ultimately derive great profit from such a Bill as this, because, the greater burden they put on house property must fall on rent, and rent would react on wages. Immediate and temporary profit would be got at a very heavy cost to the poorer class of ratepayers. He would be bound to oppose that Bill.
MR. BARRANsaid he wished to support the Bill as the representative of a city much interested in trade and manufactures. As the hon. Member for Brightside had pointed out, it was not that they were suffering at the present time from rating, but there was an immediate fear of having their machinery rated in the future, and that was a question of vital importance to all the industries of Leeds. Every year the value of machinery put up was greater, and, at the same time, the life of that machinery was in many cases shorter than before. On account of changes in the trade it was absolutely necessary for manufacturers from time to time to throw out very valuable machinery, simply because it had become ought to be dealt with as a whole, and obsolete, and replace it with machinery the burden should be defrayed by further of a much newer pattern. If that

1415
machinery were rated they would be put to great disadvantages in foreign competition. One effect of the machinery of modern type was that a larger amount of work was turned out, especially in the textile trade, and the goods were sold at a smaller rate of profit. Any burden or expense imposed before these small profits were realised would hamper them in the markets of the world. That Was the reason why they, in the manufacturing districts, wished to keep the rates down to the smallest possible amount. The hon. Member for Gateshead had remarked that the buyers paid the rates. He did not agree with that. If there was a large retail business, with a turnover of £100,000 a year, the merchant was rated only on the value of the building, and why should a manufacturer be rated, not only on the value of his premises, but on the added value of very expensive machinery? He maintained that that was a great injustice to manufacturers, who, after all, were a more important factor in the country than the merchants. He held that this was a tax put on before the manufacturers' profits were made, and it ought to be a tax after these profits were made. There was a movement, with some force behind it, for rating machinery right through the north of England. The textile districts in Yorkshire and Lancashire were thus in danger of having their success in the open markets of the world seriously interfered with, and it was therefore of urgent importance that some legislation of the kind represented by this Bill should he carried at once.
SIR JOHN ROLLESTONsaid as representing a manufacturing district of considerable size and importance he had had many representations made to him on this subject from Chambers of Commerce, and the organisations of various trades. Although he was not a manufacturer himself he was of opinion that the Bill would simplify and define the law, possibly prevent litigation, and remove a disability from the industries of the country. He had a petition signed by 120 firms asking him to induce the Government to grant facilities for the advancement of this most important commercial measure, and to support its Second Heading. He hoped the Government would help the Bill
1416
forward through its subsequent stages, so that the great working centres of the country might have the advantage of it before the close of the year.
*MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he was not a lawyer and therefore could not enter into a lawyer like exposition of this rating question; he simply looked at it from a working man's point of view. The hon. Member for Norwich had supported the Bill, but he spoke simply as a Member of Parliament, because representatives of the Norwich Union who were present at the great meeting at Westminster Palace Hotel on Wednesday—men who were better able to gauge the public opinion of the district—were opposed to the Bill, and showed that if machinery was exempted from rating the effect would be to throw a very considerable charge on other classes of property. He also thought that the hon. and learned Member for Stretford had, of course unintentionally, done some injustice to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, whose contention was that the effective protective work in mines had no bearing whatever on the subject matter of the Bill. There had been some talk about uniformity in rating, but any uniformity that was to be acquired by the sacrifice of justice was not a thing to be desired. If this class of machinery was relieved from the burden of the rates upon whose shoulders would that burden fall, and who would be the largest sufferers from it? That was a question which did not require humorous but serious legislative attention on the part of the Government. He was surprised that no indication had been given of what their intention was in regard to a measure promised in the King's Speech, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman who represented the Government would give this before the close of the debate. It the hon. Gentleman had given before now such an indication there was no doubt the promoters of the Bill would have removed it from the purview of the House. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill tried to be a little poetic about bees and honey.
*MR. CHAPMAN*MR. CHAPMAN said that what he had stated was that they should tax the honey when it was made, but not tax the bees when they were making it.
*MR. WILSON*MR. WILSON said that poetry was really too deep for him. He wanted to put the matter from a working man's point of view. There had been many expressions of sympathy with the working men, who were no doubt very grateful for such. But the exemption of this class of machinery would lessen the rateable value of every district, and therefore lessen the assets leaving the liabilities the same. Upon what other class would they impose the necessary rating, or would they rate all the remaining classes alike regardless of the effect it would have on the welfare of the people of the district? The question for the House then, was upon whose shoulders would fall the burden of the rates which this Bill proposed should be shifted, and would the people of the district have to bear a larger share of the burden of the rates than they did now? He had presented a petition that day from one of the most important County Councils in the country, that of Durham, of which he was vice chairman, and he ventured to say that the unanimous opinion of that County Council was against the Bill. If the rating on machinery was removed the money could only come from the additional rating of house property in the neighbourhood. There were, therefore, no classes from whom to get the money except either the shopkeepers or the working men. To get it from the working men by making them pay more money on their houses would restrict their accommodation by forcing them into smaller houses. If the shopkeepers had to pay increased rates they would recoup themselves by charging higher prices for their commodities. So that either directly or indirectly the working men would suffer.
It was said that the employers relieved from this class of rating would give their workmen a return in higher wages. With all deference to the employers in this House, he was not the man to believe that with simplicity, or that wages would rise automatically in proportion to the relief from rates which might be granted to the employers. On the contrary, he believed that there was yet a large remnant of a tacit understanding among employers to press down wages wherever that could be done, and therefore he
1418
did not believe that if the employers were relieved from the rating they would increase wages. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Beading of the Bill spoke of the multitude of working men who were in its favour.
That was a very indefinite term; and he ventured to say that there had never been a general conference of working men at which this question had been discussed where an expression of opinion had been given in favour of the Bill. He himself could not at all see how the working classes of the country could be benefited by the Bill. They were all representatives of Labour now; but he thought it necessary, as a representative of the working classes of the country, to put before the House what he considered would be their view of this question, and what the effect of this Bill would be on the working classes in these districts where the machinery referred to was in use.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid lie had not been present throughout the debate, as, when he arrived punctually, he found that so-little interest was taken in the Bill by its promoters that it was impossible to proceed. He had, however, been present for some hours, and it struck him as.
I rather a significant fact that during that time he had not heard a single representative of a rural constituency take part in the debate. It had been almost entirely a squabble between lawyers and practical men, or between urban representatives. He was not about to enter into the dangerous; possibility of arguing with a lawyer, but he had been very much struck with some of the leading arguments that had been adduced. One of his hon. and learned friends said that the general incidence of the law of rating as to personalty was unjust and unsatisfactory, and that, therefore, this particular injustice should be removed. But surely that was a very quibbling argument. If this one specimen of injustice alone were to be removed, was it not much more necessary to remove larger and more glaring injustices which attached to the law of rating personalty? He could not quite see that that legal argument was sound, and that this Bill was justified because it would touch one single sore

1419
point in a great measure of injustice. He was also struck by the direct divergence of opinion between the representatives of the larger urban districts. There was a friendly duel between the hon. Member who represented Gates-head and his hon. friend the Member for Norwich. There could not be a more divergent statement of the case than was made by the hon. Member on the one side and his hon. friend on the other. He was rather struck by some of the arguments of his hon. friend. His hon. friend gave the House an interesting statement of his experience as to the good effect of a small minor industry he had started; but it struck him that that good effect had been arrived at under the existing law, and under the pressure of this grave abuse, which his hon. friend now wished to remove. Therefore the industry did not suffer very much. Then he was very much struck by what his hon. friend said about an arrangement by which machinery was not rated outside Norwich, whereas it was rated inside Norwich, and his hon. friend deplored the possibility of a factory being removed from Norwich into a rural distict. Why should not a rural district get the advantage of that change?
SIR SAMUEL HOARE SIR SAMUEL HOARE said the industry to which he referred escaped: this particular charge because it was outside Norwich. He was, however, concerned for the large number of people that might be left in the city without employment, which would be very serious for the city, if factories were removed.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY said it might be very serious for the city, but it would be advantageous to the country; and he was not prepared to accept an argument based on an advantage to a city and a disadvantage to country districts. Another point which was not alluded to during the debate was the general attitude of rural authorities on this matter. Ho believed that public bodies representing rural districts were fairly unanimous against this Bill; all the public expressions of opinion sent to him were against it; and all the various authorities from whom he drew his opinion were also against it. Therefore, he did not think that it was quite fair
1420
that the House should proceed to a division without recognising that, whatever might be the attitude of the urban districts in connection with the Bill—and they appeared to be equally divided—the rural districts were opposed to it. Of course, it would not affect the rural districts in the degree that it would affect the urban districts; and it was quite true that the Agricultural Rating Act, which was an extremely beneficial and excellent Act, which hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to repeal, would minimise the mischief of this measure to a certain degree; there remained a certain number of arguments not so serious in the country as in the towns, but yet sufficiently serious to induce the country districts to oppose this measure. If the Bill were carried it would mean a larger burden of rates; they think it is not fair that one class, and one class, only should be relieved; and they consider that the demand which was now laid on the whole community should continue to be laid on the whole community until a larger and more comprehensive measure was brought forward.
He was also struck by the curious contest of argument as to whether this measure would really prove to be advantageous to the manufacturer at all. They were told on authority, which they should accept as good, that the whole extra cost involved in the rating of machinery would be absolutely secured between the seller of machinery and the buyer. Representatives of the rural constituencies ought to be in the position of holding the balance between the conflicting opinions of urban representatives—between the squabbling giants of industry. If the rural representatives were to decide the question, both parties would, at all events, be sent back until they had arrived at an agreement in the matter. The present appeared to him to be the most unfortunate time that could possibly be chosen for urging this measure. They hoped and believed that in another session Parliament would be invited to deal with the whole question of local taxation. Why, therefore, should they not wait until that time arrived, and leave this subsidiary point to be dealt with as part and parcel of the larger measure. From a rural point of view, what time can be more unfortunate than the present for passing this Bill

1421
They had before them the certainty of extra rates, which would have to be imposed to carry out the provisions of the Education Act; and yet at this moment when rural constituencies were uneasy, certain hon. Gentlemen seemed to think it was the right time to still further increase the rates. He could not conceive a more inopportune or Unwise time to choose for urging such a measure. He, of course, identified himself with all that had been said about the desirability of dealing with the local taxation question as soon as possible. They had reason to believe that it was going to be dealt with, and he would urge on his hon. friends who had an open mind still on the subject, that there were many excellent reasons for abstaining from voting for this measure. As a representative of a rural constituency he would vote against the Bill, because, as he understood them, its provisions would not act fairly or squarely; because the rural constituencies did not want to have this Bill forced upon them; but principally because he thought it was a most inopportune and unwise time to raise this question.
MR. HUMPHREYS OWENsaid that as the representative of a predominantly agricultural constituency, he wished to join in what had been said by his hon. and gallant friend in condemnation of this Bill. It was admitted that the incidence of rating as between realty and personalty was thoroughly unsatisfactory. It was also admitted that an attempt had been made by various subventions to meet these defects. As far as he understood, however, the main object of the Bill was to clear away some ambiguity in the administration of the law of rating, by imposing a great injustice on one class of ratepayer as against another class. It had been pointed out over and over again that this was simply a question of shifting the incidence of the rates. If the owners of machinery were relieved from rates which they paid at present, nothing whatever was done to relieve the general burden of the rates: all they did was to transfer the rates from one set of people who had been paying
1422
them to another set. The relief which had been given to agriculturists would be taken away from them at the Tery moment when it was absolutely necessary for the successful prosecution of that industry. They had had many arguments as to the difficulty which the rating of machinery imposed on manufacturers. He agreed that any imposition on machinery was bad in principle. It diminished products, impaired trade, and played into the hands of their commercial rivals. But that was not a reason for transferring the burden from one class of manufacturer, the manufacturer of bread and meat, to another class of manufacturer, and from a class of manufacturer who, at all events, appeared on the surface to be prosperous to another class of manufacturer who it was admitted shared less in the national prosperity than any other. They were told that the working classes would suffer in consequence; but that was an argument for reducing expenditure, not an argument for transferring the burden. They had heard from his hon. friend the Member for Norwich that there were great complaints as to the incidence of rates on machinery. He had a copy of the letter from which his hon. friend read an extract; and it simply came to this, that the assessment committee in Norwich seemed to have failed in doing its duty. It proposed an extravagant assessment on manufacturers; and when the latter appealed, the Recorder brought down the assessment to a reasonable sum. His hon. friend complained of the cost of appealing. Of course appeals cost money, but that was an argument for improving the procedure in rating appeals. It was by no means an argument for altering the law to the disadvantage of one class of ratepayer against another. His hon. friend pointed out that the village industry in which he was interested did not suffer, because it was outside Norwich; but that had nothing to do with the question of the rating of machinery. The law of rating was the same in Norwich as in Norfolk; all that happened was that the rates were lower in the villages than in the city. The law of rating was unsatisfactory; but to propose a partial reform now instead of a general scheme would only increase the difficulties of the position

1423
No doubt some alteration in the law as to the rating of machinery was likely; but until they could get a complete reform of the law of rating, it was most undesirable that they should make an alteration which would satisfy only a very small interest, and increase the feeling of injustice which existed in both town and country.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirst)said he had been appealed to by the supporters of the Bill, without distinction of Party, to say that the Government would bring in a Bill to carry out the principle suggested in this measure. On the other hand, he had been appealed to by the opponents of the Bill, without distinction of Party, to say that the Government would bring in a Bill to carry out a diametrically opposite principle. He was sure his hon. friend would forgive him if, in that state of perplexity, he asked the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead to explain his position. He would have been in a position of some difficulty, were it not for the fact, commented on several times during the afternoon, that this Bill presented itself to their notice with the regularity of a recurring decimal. That gave him a great many precedents from speeches by Presidents of the Local Government Board of both Parties for the course he ought to adopt. All the precedents tended in the same direction. It had been the invariable practice of successive Governments to leave this matter entirely to the free and open choice of the House, untrammelled by even the semblance of Party allegiance, or by that desire to support the Government which was such a conspicuous feature of the Party system of the present day. There seemed to him to be excellent ground for the attitude of neutrality adopted by various Governments. A matter of this sort was not capable of having any Party interpretation placed upon it. The most prejudiced partisan could not impart into its discussion any question of Party principle. Indeed, the combination of names on the back of the Bill, which were drawn with admirable impartiality from both sides of the House, showed that this was not a Party question in which the Government, as a Government,
1424
should hold a solid united opinion. Nor could any definite pronouncement on this matter be demanded from the Government on account of the Imperial or national importance of the question. Some parts of the country would not be affected if the Bill were passed; in many parts the effect would be entirely insignificant; in other parts the effect would be different. Where this machinery had already been taken into consideration in rating hereditaments, it would remove a part, whether great or small, of the local burden from one set of shoulders to another set; where the machinery was not taken into consideration the effect would be to prevent the possibility of those who did not use machinery ever shifting on to those who did, the burden imposed by law on the present users of machinery. This was a matter as between different sets of ratepayers; but it was not a national matter in which the Government, as a Government, should be called upon to give a definite pronouncement.
It was obvions he was speaking with no mandate from the Government for or against the Bill; but he had now reached a point on which he could speak with some authority. The amount of rateable value attributed to this machinery, which it is proposed to exempt, must be considerable, or else no such strong feeling would exist among the rating authorities, who carried out the law, against the measure. That being the case, if the Bill were passed there would be a very considerable reduction in the assessable value of the districts concerned. He had authority to say that the Government were not prepared to fill up the gap so made in those localities from the National Exchequer. It might be said, as was said last year, that that was done in the case of the Agricultural Rating Act. It was; but he differentiated that case from this case. Had the Government not supplied the deficit caused by that Act from Imperial sources, there would have been, in many parts of the country, no pockets in the rating area from which the deficit could be supplied, except the pockets of the men whom it was sought to relieve, which, would neutralise the effect of the Act. That certainly would not carry out the desire of the Government to help agri-

1425
culture. That was all he could say on behalf of the Government; but perhaps the House would bear with him for a few moments as one who had sat throughout the debates on the subject for many years.
SIR JAMES JOICEY SIR JAMES JOICEY asked what about the Government Bill.
MR. GRANT LAWSON MR. GRANT LAWSON said he had already explained that he had no authority to state whether the Government intended to bring in a Bill to meet the views of either the supporters or the opponents of the Bill.
SIR JAMES JOICEY SIR JAMES JOICEY said that in the King's Speech there was a promise of a Bill dealing with the whole question of rating. What he should like to ask was, whether it would not be wiser to leave a small matter of this kind until the Government brought in its Bill on the whole subject.
MR. GRANT LAWSON MR. GRANT LAWSON said that was a matter which his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board dealt with on the reading of this Bill last year. He then indicated that the direction which the Government Bill would take would be an alteration more of the authority for valuation than an alteration in the direction given to that authority. There were one or two points on which they should have some help from those who had gone into the figures. One curious point in the debates on this Bill was that though the discussion was of a financial character, figures were carefully excluded. They were not told whether, for instance, the people who would be relieved under this Bill claimed, or did not claim, to have less capacity to pay rates than those who used heavy machinery. No one went into the point as to whether the user of heavy machinery derived more, or less, advantage from the expenditure of the rates than the user of light machinery. Every rating consideration ought to turn on the capacity to pay, and the benefit received; but those considerations had never yet entered into a discussion of the Rating of Machinery Bill. They were told that different methods of
1426
assessment were adopted in different parts of the country; but they never had any figures to show what the actual result was. Could any hon. Member tell the House whether a mill, in all respects equal, would be rated more highly in Gateshead than in Manchester, or more highly in Scotland than in Gateshead.
The character of the opposition to the Bill had greatly changed. He remembered that it used to be the distressed agriculturist who raised his solitary voice against it, and he confessed that with him he always had the greatest sympathy, because although there might not be any machinery in his particular parish which might be rated, he had a great interest in the county rate, and there might be machinery in other parishes, which, if exempted from rating would increase the burden upon him. That was the state of things in the past, but a great deal of that evil had been remedied by the passing of the Agricultural Rating Act, by which many of these objections had been got rid of. This Bill used only to be opposed by the north-east districts, but now when the list of petitions was seen, it was found that the objection was becoming very widespread, but in considering these objections one fact could not be got over, and that was that the Royal Commission had voted dead in favour of this Bill. That was a fact he hoped the House would not lose sight of.
Another fact had been alluded to which he thought should also be borne in mind. The hon. Member had spoken of the majorities by which this Bill had been passed. I le recollected on one occasion it was passed unanimously owing to the proposer and the seconder of the measure only being present, and there being nobody else in the House. With regard to the majorities in 1893, the figures reached high water mark. The majority then was 153; in, 1894 it was ninety-one; in 1895 it was fifty-one; then came an interval while the Royal Commission on Rating was sitting. That Commission reported in favour of the Bill, and last year the Bill was carried by a majority only of thirty-five. Those figures did not show that the Bill was growing in popular favour, or that it was one that the Government should take up. It had been said that this Bill if carried would prevent litigation, but

1427
his experience had been that every Act of Parliament brought forward had the contrary effect; it did not prevent but encouraged litigation. Parliament made the law, and the lawyers made what they could out of the law which Parliament made. The matter had been thrashed out in Court after Court. The law had been interpreted by the Court of Appeal, which was the only authority which could interpret the law, and if the law was now altered all the various sets of interpretations would be upset, and he could imagine some very nice legal points arising, and it seemed to him that any one who imagined litigation would be reduced by this Bill would be doomed to grievous disappointment.
MR. GROVESsaid if any argument were needed to show the necessity of a measure of this kind, it was the extreme diversity of opinion shown by the two hon. Gentlemen representing such closely connected manufacturing districts as Sheffield and Leeds. The hon. Member for Sheffield was an opponent to the Bill, because he conceives that the transference of the rate from the machinery user to the small holder, would be detrimental to his constituents, while, on the other hand, the hon. Member for Leeds was in favour of the Bill which he believed would confer a benefit on his constituents. A man who had a dwelling house for which he paid a rent, was not rated on the furniture he put into that house, whether it was fixed or removable, and he failed to see why a manufacturer should he rated for movable articles of machinery which were his own private property, and on which he would escape assessment in the town immediately adjoining his own. The Royal Commission had reported in favour of this Bill, and although it was possible that a matter of this kind could he dealt with in the future, there were certain matters on which this country demanded immediate legislation.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that so much had been said as to the Royal Commission reporting in favour of this Bill that he wished to state that the Royal Commission, when they approved the principle, of this Bill, were approving at the same time in principle a great many other matters for the reform of local taxation. He deprecated
1428
the extraction of a single one of the proposals of the Report from the rest in his way, and he personally should vote against this Bill.
*MR. HENRY WILSONsaid the promoters of the Bill assured its opponents that it would not affect heavy machinery, which in many places is rated already, but he asked how they were going to discriminate between heavy machinery and light machinery; the only difference was that heavy machinery was fastened down with a heavy bolt and light machinery with a light one, and no distinction could be made on that ground. The practical effect of this Bill, if passed, would be that the rates of the community at large, including small householders, would in some parts of Sheffield be raised as much as 10d. in the £ and he thought it would be a hardship if manufacturers who were doing well under the present system were relieved of a large sum which would have to be distributed over the other ratepayers. He reminded the House that the Corporation of Sheffield, and the Guardians of the Poor, had petitioned against the Bill, which had also been condemned by the Trades Council.
MR. NANNETTIsaid he wanted to know who was going to pay the deficiency when it arose. Were those who introduced machinery into their manufactories going to escape the responsibilities it brought with it, and throw the burden upon the unfortunate people who had been displaced by the introduction of the machinery? The hon. Gentleman who represented the Government had told the House that the Government would not meet that deficiency, and therefore, so far as he could see, the burden must fall upon the work people who, first of all having been displaced by the introduction of machinery, would have to pay the extra rates. In those circumstances he could not understand how any one representing a working class constituency could support this Bill. As a working man himself, and as a representative of working men, he should vote against it.
MR. GREAXwho spoke amid continuous interruptions and cries of "Divide," was understood to say there was no doubt that this was an attempt to relieve a certain class of ratepayers who could well afford to pay, and to throw the burden upon a class which could not. From time to time the rates increased owing to the improved conditions of life, and he thought that the House should endeavour to broaden the area of taxation rather than narrow it.
If they took this rate off machinery and placed it on the small householders they would be doing a most unfair thing, and that being so he should support the Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 38.)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

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

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

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

Scares, Ernest J.

Ure, Alexander

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Valentia, Viscount

Wolff Gustav Wilhelm

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

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Tennant, Harold John

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Wason J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Mr. Chapman and Mr.

Tomkinson, James

White, George (Norfolk)

Emmott.

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Duke, Henry Edward

Laurie, Lieut. -General

Aird, Sir John

Dunn, Sir William

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Anstruther, H. T.

Lees, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Asher, Alexander

Elibank, Master of

Leng, Sir John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Levy, Maurice

Asquith, Kt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lookwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Baird, John George Alexander

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

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

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Flower, Ernest

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Foster, Philip S. Warwick S. W.

Malcolm, Ian

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Bignold, Arthur

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bigwood, James

Galloway, William Johnson

Melville, Beresford Valentino

Black, Alexander William

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

Mitchell, William

Bond, Edward

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Boulnois, Edmund

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morrell, George Horbert

Bousfield, William Robert

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Nicholson, William Graham

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bull, William James

Groves, James Grimble

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Caldwell, James

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Partington, Oswald

Causton, Richard Knight

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

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

Hatch, Ernest, Frederick G.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Purvis, Robert

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Channing, Francis Allston

Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Charrington, Spencer

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

Rea, Russell

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Helme, Norval Watson

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dummfries

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Holland, Sir William Henry

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Homer, Frederick William

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Rigg, Richard

Cranborne, Viscount

Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'havm

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Roe, Sir Thomas

Crombie, John William

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Johnstone, Heywood

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Crossley, Sir Savile

Runciman, Walter

Kearley, Hudson E.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Davenport, William Bromley-

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Dimsdale, Bt. Hon. Sir Jos. O.

Knowles, Lees

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

NOES.

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

Grant, Corrie

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Paulton, James Mellor

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Perks, Robert William

Burry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

Pickard, Benjamin

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Power, Patrick Joseph

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hayden, John Patrick

Pretyman, Ernest George

Boland, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon Chas. H.

Priestley, Arthur

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middx.)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Burns, John

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur O.

Reddy, M.

Burt, Thomas

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Redmond, William (Clare)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Cameron, Robert

Joicey, Sir James

Renwick, George

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Robinson, Brooke

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonskire)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Rose, Charles Day

Cutley, Henry Strother

Kennedy, Patrick James

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Labouchere, Henry

Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lawson, John Grant

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Crean, Eugene

Lockie, John

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cramer, William Randal

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crooks, William

Lundon, W.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Delany, William

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Sullivan, Donal

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Duffy, William J.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Edwards, Frank

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Mooney, John J.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Ffrench, Peter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Newnes, Sir George

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Fifzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Young, Samuel

Forster, Henry William

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Farness, Sir Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

Mr. D. A. Thomas and

Gilhooly, James

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

Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.

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

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

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

Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday 15th May.

Adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Maryport Harbour Bill [H.L.], Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Nantwich Urban District Council Bill [H.L.], Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 9th and 12th instant discharged; and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

PETITIONS.
Shops (Early Closing) Bill [H.L.], Petition in favour of; of Glasgow Corporation; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, IMPORTS, ETC.
  CROFTER HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1886–87.
  Report by the Crofters Commission, being for t he year ended 31st December, 1902: Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST HIDING OF THE COUNTY OF YORK).
  Order made by the County Council of the West Riding of the County of York, altering certain polling districts in the Shipley. Sowerby, Holmfirth, and Morley Parliamentary Divisions.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 (ORDERS).
  Two Orders in Council, dated 16th March, 1903, with respect to the importation of arms and ammunition, for the purpose of adding Arklow to the ports at which explosives may be landed.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, before your Lordships go into Committee on this Bill, I should like to say a word, not by way of opposing the Motion which Lord Avebury has just moved, but simply to state that the matter of procedure which will be dealt with in Committee appears to me to be a very secondary matter compared with the great principles which are involved in this Bill. The other night when Lord Ribblesdale, who was first in the field, had his Bill down for Second Reading, I placed a notice on the Paper to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months; but, on that Bill being shunted, through the action of the Lord Chancellor, in favour of Lord Avebury's measure, it appeared to me, owing to the wrangle that took place, that the lest course, for those who object to the Bill on principle, to adopt would be to fight the question on the Third Reading. That is what I propose to do. I propose to move on the Third Reading stage a Resolution setting forth my views, and the views of those who agree with me, against this kind of legislation, and in the meantime I can only hope that those who favour this thoroughly un-English legislation will succeed, in Committee, in making the Bill, which limits for the first lime the labour of adult persons in this country, more restrictive of trade and a greater interference with freedom of contract. I shall take no part in the discussion.
  There is, however, "a third Richmond in the field" in the shape of a Bill prepared by Lord Arran, which, in my judgment, if you are going in for this sort of legislation, is a far better Bill than either Lord Ribblesdale's or Lord Avebury's, because "it goes the whole hog." It prescribes the hours for meals, the time that should be given for dinner and for tea, and there is not a Clause—and there are a good many clauses in the Bill—which has not appended at the end of it a £5 penalty. That is the most perfect measure of the three, and I would suggest to your Lordships the adoption of that Bill as the foundation of your legislation. There is only one thing wanting in it. I would humbly suggest that a clause should be introduced compelling shop girls at certain times of the day to sit upon the seats

  1343
  provided by the Bill of last year, which, I am told, they now positively refuse to do. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has gone in for this kind of legislation I would suggest to him, in view of the importance of Lord Arran's Bill, that he should follow the precedent he established the other day and move that this debate be now adjourned with a view to the House considering Lord Arran's Bill.
  EARL COWPER: My Lords, I desire to say a few words upon this Bill before we go into Committee. The debate the other day on the Second Reading was of a peculiar and unsatisfactory nature, the discussion being very much interrupted by some question of procedure which rather diverted your Lordships' attention from the main subject. Besides that, we had come down to consider a B11 the debate on which, alter the speech of the mover, was adjourned, and the substitution of the Bill standing in the name of Lord Avebury rather interfered with the discussion. I confess I do not think I could quite have brought myself to vote against the Second Reading, because I am willing to believe that at the present time great hardships arc inflicted on shop assistants. The more statement that they have to Murk fourteen hours a day continuously, is enough to move our pity. But we must, of course, remember that this is a workman's question on both sides—that the working men and women who use these shops are at work all day, and can only do their shopping in the evening; and it is very difficult to find out how-far they will be injured and how far they will not. We have gone too far in our legislation to lay it down as a general rule that we ought never to interfere with freedom of contract; nevertheless, I think it ought to be very carefully looked into, and there ought to be no legislative interference unless it is proved to be absolutely necessary. I was in hopes that the unpretending little Bill which was introduced by that clear-headed philanthropist the late Duke of Westminster, on, I think, almost the last occasion on which he appeared in this House, and was successfully passed into law—namely, the Bill making it necessary that seats should be provided in shops—would to a certain degree have relieved
  1344
  the hardships complained of, particularly among women, who are supposed by doctors to be particularly affected by long hours; but whether it has done so or not, I do not know. I am willing to believe that there is a great deal of suffering in these cases, although very little was said upon that by the advocates of these measures when the Second Reading was moved. One is rather afraid, particularly in this House, of making sensational speeches, or of appearing to be sentimental in any way, and that was, perhaps, the reason why the movers of the two Bills contented themselves with referring to Reports of Committees, or to Proceedings in the other House; but I think it is too much to expect of an ordinary Member of your Lordships' House that he should have read the Reports of every Committee during the past few years, or that he should read all the speeches that are made in another place.
  I admit that there is a grievance, and that if it can be remedied it should be. I pass to the particular measures proposed in this Bill, which I think require a little more discussion than they have received. There is, in the first place, the question of local option, of allowing these things to be settled by local authorities. I am well aware of the advisability of local authorities being given more to do, and I am in favour of devolution and decentralisation; of relieving as much as possible the overworked central offices such as the Local Government Board, the Home Office, and the Board of Education; but that is altogether a different question. If a thing can be settled by a general statute there is great advantage over its being settled ocally. The difficulty of local action is the want of uniformity which must ensue. County Councils and Borough Councils are generally influenced, like even greater assemblies, by two or three leading men, and it may happen that in one district these men may have old fashioned ideas, and, like the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, be opposed to all interference, whilst in others they may take a more generous view. This, of course, will cause difference of action in different places. However large a district may be, it must have a boundary, and there must, therefore, be

  1345
  cases in which on one side of the boundary the shops will be shut, while those across the street will be left open. In these cases, of course, the trade will naturally go from the shops which are obliged to close to those which are kept open, and the wretched assistants in the latter shops will see their more happy fellows on the other side of the street go home at seven or eight o'clock, while they have to remain till a much later hour. Not only will there be want of uniformity in these places. I see that in the Bill there is a provision for a classification of shops. Therefore, shops of one class may succeed in getting a majority of two-thirds of their owners to petition in favour of closing, and another class of shops, not really very different, may fail to get this majority. It is, I believe, a rule that a hardship, however great it may be, is better borne and gives less cause of discontent if it is general than if it is partial, and if certain shops, by chance perhaps, or by caprice, are exempted, the others will suffer much more.
  I may be told that the reason we are proceeding by districts is that circumstances differ in different places, but I am not quite sure that that is always the case. Shops which are frequented by well-to-do people and the bulk of the middle classes do not, of course, do any considerable trade at night, and it would be no hardship if they were closed; but there are poor men's shops in almost every district, and in those shops there are the two conflicting interests I have mentioned—the interests of the shop assistants and of the customers. I think everything points to the advisability, if possible, of having a general measure which will meet each case instead of proceeding by the principle of local option. Then comes the question as to what form this general Bill should take. So far as I can judge, the grievance is that these people are kept at work for an enormous length of time daily. What is wanted, then, is not an Early Closing Bill, for we do not care how long shops are kept open so long as the assistants are not overworked. It seems to me that when the trade is a night trade the shopkeeper might very reasonably; be allowed to open his shop in the
  1346
  middle of the day and keep it open till late in the evening. No harm whatever would be done in such a case, provided the assistants did not start work till the middle of the day. Or if the shopkeeper wished to catch the I early morning trade, he could do so and close his shop in the middle of the day until the evening. So far as recreation is concerned, I think it is I well known that one hour in the open air when the sun is shining docs one more good than several hours in a close room after dark, or in the open streets.
  What is wanted is not a Shops Closing Bill, but a Shops Hours Bill. I think that will be found to be the only true remedy. This, however, opens up too large a question for me to enter into now, but what I say is—and I think I many of your Lordships will be of my opinion—that the Bill is built upon wrong lines and that a general measure would be far preferable.
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I can hardly imagine that my noble friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) intended his remarks to be taken seriously. There are, however, one or two of his statements to which I must respectfully demur. The noble Earl said that Lord Ribblesdale's Bill was first in the field. As a matter of fact, the Early Closing Bill standing in my name has been a long time in the field. It has been twice read a second time without a division in the House of Commons, and it was before two Committees of that House prior to its coming before your Lordships. The noble Earl spoke of "Lord Ribbledale's Bill" and "Lord Avebury's Bill." I submit that the Bill now before your Lordships is not my Bill. It is, in the first place, the Bill of the shopkeepers. It was drafted at two Congresses of Shopkeepers and is supported by practically the whole of the Shopkeepers' Associations all over the country. Your Lordships referred the subject to a Committee, and it was in consequence of the unanimous Report of that Committee, and with the support of the whole of the members of the Committee, that this Bill was introduced. Surely, when a question is referred to a Committee for consideration, and that Committee arrives at a unanimous con

  1347
  clusion. it is only natural and reasonable that a Bill based upon that Report and supported by your Committee should be considered.
  Now I come to the remarks which fell from the noble Earl who has just sat down. I think he can hardly have been present at the Second Reading, because I then went, as also did Lord Ribblesdale, at some length into the hardships which induced both he and I to submit Bills for your Lordships' consideration. My noble friend demurred to local authorities having these powers, but under our Bill the local authorities are not the initiating bodies; they only have power to carry out the wishes of the shopkeepers themselves. My noble friend is very anxious to have uniformity of treatment, but the members of the Committee will agree with me when I say that the shopkeepers impressed upon us very strongly indeed that the needs of districts varied considerably, and that there was a general consensus of opinion amongst the shop-keeping community that you could not have the same hours in all trades and for all places. Therefore they all advocated the elasticity which is in this Bill. Then the noble Earl spoke of the conflicting interests of employers and employed. To their honour be it said, there is not, and never has been, any conflict between employers and employed as regards this movement. The shopkeepers themselves are most anxious for this Bill, and there is no conflict whatever between them and their employees. Then the noble Lord said ho would favour a Bill which dealt with men and not with shops, but the evidence placed before us was that the small shopkeepers themselves were most anxious to have the small shops closed; otherwise, the men who kept open the latest would do the late trade. We were convinced that no measure which dealt with the hours of assistants and not with shops would meet the wishes of the shopkeeping community, Lastly, the noble Earl spoke of the interests of working men and women. We had before us in the Committee the representatives of the great trade unions of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and they told us that their members were strongly of opinion that some mea-
  1348
  sure of this kind was most urgently required, and that they were satisfied that it would in no way conflict with the interests of working men and women.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: When I said Lord Ribblesdale was first in the field I referred to this session. I quite admit that he was poaching on the ground of Lord Avebury.
  On Question, agreed to: House in Committee (according to order).
  Clans 1:—
  LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE moved to amend the clause by leaving out the words requiring the local authority to satisfy itself that at least two-thirds of the occupiers of the shops affected approve the application. He confessed that the course of procedure that evening, and the observations that had fallen from noble Lords rather inclined him to make a Second Reading speech, but having already spoken in moving his measure, and having listened to two Second Reading speeches from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill now before their Lordships, he would retrain from doing so. As to being first in the field, he wished to retire from that position altogether. He never pretended to have been first in the field. He happened to be first on the Order Paper, and that, was the whole point on which the controversy turned. He rather agreed with what the noble Earl on the Cross Benches said, that as regards the particular question of the earlier closing of shops, Lord Arran's Bill seemed to be the most practical.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I would remind: the noble Lord that the House is in Committee, and that he is moving an Amendment to Clause 1.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE,LORD RIBBLESDALE, referring to Lord Avebury's statement that the I ill was a Shopkeepers' Bill, said that was the very reason why he moved his Amendment. It was quite clear that without the two-thirds majority of the shopkeepers the Bill would become waste

  1349
  paper. The shopkeepers were not merely to agree to this legislation; they were to initiate it; and to leave it to the shopkeepers would simply be to rely on that voluntary effort which had always proved quite ineffective. It seemed to him that the arrangements made by the noble Lord presented some ethical and some practical difficulties. The proposal was like that of two-thirds of the forces in a hunting country being empowered to legislate in favour of the poultry and the game; he did not think anything would be done. The shopkeepers, Lord Avebury said, were warm supporters of the Bill, and in his memorandum attached to the Bill, the noble Lord stated that as regarded London a petition in its favour had been signed by about half the shopkeepers affected. They all knew the great attention which the noble Lord and others had given to this matter, and probably that petition had been very carefully put in motion, and all the parties thoroughly canvassed. If, therefore, only half the shopkeepers had signed the petition it was fair to assume that the two-thirds majority would not be forthcoming, and that nothing would be done if the words he proposed to omit were allowed to remain in the Bill. It might be said that they should not force regulations of this sort on shopkeepers if they were unwilling to have them; but his answer was that they would never have seen the Factory Acts passed if they had waited for an expression of opinion from the manufacturers, or for them to take the initiative.
  As to his own Bill, he would take this opportunity of laying it to rest. He had said with absolute sincerity the other night that if he could not get his own Bill, he would do his best to further the passing of the present Bill. The point he was coming to when he was interrupted, quite properly, by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees was that, although he preferred Lord Arran's Bill in many ways, having made this statement the other day he would loyally stick to Lord Avebury's. He quite admitted that the draft order and the placing of it on the Table of the House was better than the, cumbersome provisional order and Act of Parliament which he prescribed in his
  1350
  Bill; but he would submit to the noble Lord that the clause would be greatly improved if the words he proposed to leave out were omitted. The section would then read—
  "If an application be made to the council of any county or borough, praying them to make a draft order for the closing throughout the county or borough or any specified part thereof of any class or classes of shops on such days and at such hours as may be specified in the application, then the council shall give public notice of the receipt of such application and of the period within which objections may be made thereto."
  He would rather leave it to the local authority, which was conversant with the needs of the community, than to the shopkeepers themselves to initiate this legislation. He submitted that by accepting the Amendment the House would be carrying out, both in the spirit and in the letter, the Report of the Select Committee of 1901, and the recommendation moved by Lord Salisbury, which ran to this effect—
  "That they recommended unanimously that Town Councils should be authorised to pass provisional orders making such regulations in respect to the closing of shops as might seem to them to be necessary for the areas under their jurisdiction."
  Amendment moved.
  "In Clause 1, page 1. line 9, to leave out from 'application' to 'them' in line 11."—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
  *LORD AVEBURY*LORD AVEBURY said that as the Bill originally stood it contained two safeguards. In the first place, two-thirds of the shopkeepers had to take the initiative; and, in the second place, they had to convince the local authority that their proposal was a reasonable and proper one. At the suggestion of Lord Salisbury two further safeguards were introduced by which the local authority had to apply to the central authority—in this case the Home Office—and the Home Office had to lay the order before Parliament. In the circumstances he thought they might safely reduce the number of shopkeepers who were to approve the application from two-thirds to one-half. But if the Amendment were accepted, it would be in the power of a single shopkeeper to present an application to the local authority and put the locality to the great expense of an inquiry, though it might turn out that only a handful of

  1351
  shopkeepers were in favour of the early closing. When it had been alleged that the Bill might press hardly on small shopkeepers, the answer they had always been able to give, was that nothing could be done unless a large majority of the shopkeepers were themselves in favour of it. That had always satisfied the shopkeepers. As the Bill stood the overwhelming body of the shopkeepers wore in favour of it; but he doubted whether they would still support it, if it provided that shops might be closed against their wishes. He was willing, however, and indeed should be glad to reduce the number of shopkeepers who were to approve the application from two-thirds to one-half.
  LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL said it seemed to him that the noble Lord had entirely misapprehended the objection which Lord Ribblesdale had taken to the clause as it stood. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill expressly stated in the Memorandum that '.here were three classes principally affected—the customers, the assistants, and the shopkeepers: and, that being the case, it appeared to him singularly unjust and illogical that the shopkeepers, whether by a majority or by one-half, should have the initiation of this matter entirely in their own hands. Apparently the local authority would be bound by the opinion of the shopkeepers even if they found, on investigation, that the customers were dead against it and that the shop assistants would prefer that the regulations were not enforced. He had had the opportunity that afternoon of discussing the two Bills in a Committee of the London County Council, and the Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that it was extremely desirable that all three classes should be consulted in the matter, and that the local authority, having held an investigation, should proceed on the evidence before them as to the wishes of the customers, the assistants, and the shopkeepers, and should not be bound to accept the view of one class only. With regard to Lord Avebury's objection that if the Amendment were adopted it would be in the power of a single shopkeeper to present an application and put the locality to the expense of an inquiry, he did not see
  1352
  why the local authority should not be empowered to move in the matter at their own option. They would have regard to the state of public feeling in the locality, and would not go to the expense of holding an inquiry unless they had reason to believe that it was desired.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH inquired in what way the local authorities were to satisfy themselves that one-half or two-thirds of the shopkeepers were in favour of earlier closing. He preferred the Amendment moved by Lord Ribblesdale; but, if it was the general feeling that the shopkeepers should be consulted, he would support the reduction of the number who were to approve the application from two-thirds to one half.
  LORD DAVEY LORD DAVEY confessed that he saw the same difficulty as the noble Earl who had just sat down. The Bill contained no provision as to the means by which the local authorities were to ascertain what proportion the number of shopkeepers who desired earlier closing bore to the rest of the shopkeepers. How were they to ascertain whether the proportion was two-thirds, or one-half, or one-third? Was it proposed that a poll of the shopkeepers should be taken? In any case, a large expense would be incurred. He thought the provision as to the assent of two-thirds of the shopkeepers ought to be omitted. The members of the local authority, being the representatives of the shopkeepers, might very well decide the matter themselves. He had great apprehension, if the clause remained in its present form, that in London, and in large towns like Manchester, the Pill would be found to be unworkable, because it would be extremely difficult for the local authorities, if anyone outside challenged their decision, to show that the estimate they had formed was a correct estimate. For that reason he supported the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (the Earl of HALSBURY)pointed out that there was no poll of the shopkeepers to be taken. All the clause provided was that the local authority should be satisfied in their own minds that two-thirds

  1353
  of the shopkeepers were in favour of early closing. If they were so satisfied, no one could challenge their decision.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER said that the class injured most by the late hours of shops were the assistants, and, therefore, some attention should be paid to their wishes. The Bill which the shop assistants would no doubt have preferred had had to give place to the present Bill. The question of early closing concerned the shop assistants more closely than the shopkeepers, and there would, therefore, appear to be a certain amount of injustice in making-special provision for the consent of the class least interested, and no provision for the consent of the assistants. Looking to the safeguards which Lord Avebury had himself recounted, there was very little chance of the interests and the opinions of the shopkeepers being overlooked. He thought that in fairness to all the classes affected by the Bill the Amendment ought to be accepted.
  *LORD AVEBURY*LORD AVEBURY quite agreed that local authorities might, with advantage, be empowered to move in the matter at their own option, but he pointed out that the technical result of passing the Amendment would be that they would have to take into consideration any memorial they might receive, even if it only contained one signature. He did not think the locality should be put to the expense of holding an inquiry in the case of such a memoria. With regard to the objection of his noble and learned friend Lord Davey, the evidence given before the Committee was to the effect that the witnesses-had no doubt whatever that they would be able to satisfy their own local authorities that two-thirds of the shopkeepers were in favour of earlier closing. The most difficult case was that of London, where there were some 29,000 shops. He presented a petition to the House of Commons a few years ago in favour of this Bill, signed by over 13,000 London shopkeepers, which he thought was a very strong indication, particularly as that was merely a petition got up by persons who felt a general interest in the question, that if the Bill passed,
  1354
  there would be no difficulty in satisfying the London County Council that two-thirds of the shopkeepers of London did desire earlier closing. The right rev. Prelate had stated that the shop assistants had not been sufficiently considered, and that they would prefer a different Bill. He believed that the shop assistants would prefer this Bill to any other possible measure. The witnesses before the Committee admitted that they could not expert in London to get earlier closing than 8.30 or 9 o'clock p.m. That would be of no use to many towns, where the shops now closed earlier. The general feeling of the assistants was, that if this Bill passed, they would immediately get a general reduction of their hours, and that the elasticity of the Bill would enable them, if that were found to work well, to close at a still earlier hour, whereas, if the hour was fixed, it would have to be such an hour as would confer no advantage on any town except London The Association of Grocers' Assistants are strongly in favour of the Bill, as also were the Scottish Associations, which combined both shopkeepers and assistants. Indeed, he could safely say that assistants generally were anxious that the Bill should become law.
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER on behalf of the Government, approved the attitude of the noble Lord in resisting the Amendment, and said it was these safeguards which specially recommended the Bill to the acceptance of the Government and the House. There was no great difficulty about the procedure. It was necessary, in the first place, for the local authority, on the receipt of the application, to be satisfied in their own minds that two-thirds of the shopkeepers were in favour of earlier closing. The council then gave public notice of the receipt of the application and of the period within which objections might be made to it, and, after due consideration of any objections received, and of the area and classes affected by the application, they might submit to the central authority a draft order for earlier closing. This draft order would be still more fully considered by the central authority, who would have additional opportunity of inquiry, and to whose order Parliament

  1355
  could object if it wished. It would very much destroy the safeguard in the Bill if the Amendment were adopted.
  *EARL SPENCER,*EARL SPENCER, referring to the alternative Bills and proposals before the House, said he was most in favour of the plan of the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Lytton), who would leave the decision entirely to the local authority without requiring them to apply for a provisional order. Next to that he preferred the Amendment of Lord Ribblesdale. It was exceedingly cumbrous to have to go through all the procedure referred to, and he strongly appealed to His Majesty's Government, if they could not accept the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Lytton, to consider whether this could not accept the proposal of his noble friend behind him. The Bill went a great deal further than the recommendation of the noble Marquess the late Prime Minister with regard to provisional orders, lie hoped the Government would reconsider the point, and accept the simple plan of the noble Earl opposite or that of his noble friend Lord Ribblesdale.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OK CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OK CANTERBURY understood the opposition to the Amendment to be in harmony with the report of the Select Committee, who were in favour of a two-thirds majority. One of the surprises in the history of this Bill was the change of view regarding the initiative of the shopkeepers, which was originally represented as a necessary safeguard. Whichever view was right in the abstract, he thought the practical course was to advance on
  the lines already approved, and which had just been supported by the noble Lord representing the Home Office.
  LORD BURGHCLERE LORD BURGHCLERE would rather have this Bill than no Bill at all; but he wished to know whether it would be absolutely necessary that there should be a two-thirds majority of the shopkeepers in order to set the local authority in motion, and whether, if the local authority were satisfied that a two-thirds majority were in favour of earlier closing, their decision might afterwards be questioned.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR said the only thing the Bill required was that the local authority should themselves be satisfied. If they were, no legal objection whatever could be taken on the ground that some one else was satisfied that there was not a two-thirds majority. Provision for the expenses incurred by the local authorities would have to be inserted in the other House. As to the method by which they were to satisfy themselves that there was a two-thirds majority, that was entirely a matter for the councils themselves. They might adopt the very cheap and easy method of circularising the shopkeepers. He was convinced that if they honestly endeavoured to do their duty there would be no difficulty in reasonably satisfying themselves on this point.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 57; Not-Contents 21.

  CONTENTS

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Howe, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Halsbury, E.(L. Chancellor.)

  Morley. E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Onslow, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Romney, E.

  Balfour. L.

  Grafton, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Barnard. L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Belper, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Stamford, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ailesbury. M.

  Vane. E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Faidie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Verulam, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Hylon, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Kelvin, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Kintore, L (E. Kintore,)

  Dartrey, K.

  Lamington, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Abinder, L.

  Lindley, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Norton, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Gramby.)

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Newton, L.

  Saltonn, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Carrington, E.

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

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Chesterfield, K. [Teller.]

  Burghclere, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Davey, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Denman, L.

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

  Spencer, E.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.

  Muskerry, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Reay, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER who had given notice of an Amendment providing that the Clause should read,—"if the council are satisfied that at least two-thirds of the occupiers of each class of shops Affected approve the application"—said he did not intend to move the Amendment at this stage. The point which the Amendment was drafted to meet was one of some complexity. Clause 3 of the Bill provided that if at any time it was made to appear to the satisfaction of the council, that the occupiers of more than one-third in number of any class of shops to which an order for the time being in force under this Act related, were opposed to the continuance of the order, the council should make a report accordingly to the central authority, who might thereupon revoke the order in so far as it affected such class of shops. The object of the Amendment was to make Clause I conform with that provision, but he did not think the Amendment necessary at the present stage.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved to omit the sub-section providing that a draft order made under the section should not apply to shops belonging to any of the classes mentioned in the schedule—those classes being premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor, refreshment houses, tobacconists' shops, and news agencies. It appeared difficult to construe the two sets of provisions that appeared hero and in Clause 5. It was much better to put them in one Clause, and he proposed to move a new Clause 5 later on to carry out this object.
  Amendment moved:
  "In Clause 1, line 20, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved to leave out Clause 1, in order to insert a new Clause providing that the local authority, after giving notice and holding an inquiry, might establish such regulations as from time to time appeared to them necessary with regard to the closing of shops and the limitation of the hours of the shopworkers within the area under their jurisdiction. He said the object of the Amendment was to convert the Bill into one which was neither a Shopkeepers' Bill, as it was at the present moment, nor a Shop Assistants' Bill, as was the one introduced by Lord Arran, but a local option Bill pure and simple—that was to say, a Bill which left the full responsibility to the I cal councils, who were best qualified to know the needs of the particular districts under their jurisdiction. He believed that was more in accordance with the intentions of the Report of the Select Committee. The most rev. Primate had declared that the provision in the Bill with regard to the two-thirds majority was in accordance with the Report of that Committee, but if he would again refer to the Report he would find hat there was no mention whatever of the initiative being left to the shopkeepers. The initiative, as lie read the Report, was intended to be left to the local authorities; but after the decision which had been come to by their Lordships on Lord Ribblesdale's Amendment he would say no more on that point. His Amendment, however, went a great deal further than Lord Ribblesdale's, because it would do away

  1359
  with the dual control of the local and the central authorities and abolish the provisional order. The limitations of hours for assistants was essential, because the mere closing of the shops did not necessarily effect that limitation. Shop assistants were often kept working for hours after the closing of the shops in packing goods, or, more frequently, in sending out samples, and therefore any Bill which did not provide for the regulation of their hours of labour would not meet the grievances under which the assistants laboured.
  He pointed out that a Resolution in favour of a regulation of the hours of labour was passed the other day in the House of Commons without a division, and with the support of the present Home Secretary. He had not included in his Amendment the subsection in the present clause which provided that the hour fixed by the draft order for the closing of shops should not be earlier than seven o'clock in the evening, because he did not think that was consistent with his principle of leaving everything to the local authorities; but if his Amendment were accepted he would be prepared to insert that sub-section if it were thought necessary. The evil of long hours arid their disastrous effect upon large portions of the community had been admitted for KO long that, it was high time some really effective steps were taken to put an end to the present state of affairs. Lord Avebury had declared that the Bill had the support of the shop assistants, but he could assure the noble Lord that that support was only given because they could not get anything better. Lord Arran's Bill was their Bill. He (Lord Lytton) would have thought, after the numerous Resolutions that had been passed on this subject by both Houses of Parliament, dating back to 1886, that the Government would themselves have taken the initiative in this matter, and have passed a Bill into law which would have had general support. But the division which had just been taken showed, not only that the Government were reluctant to take steps themselves, but that they were opposed to any very effective steps being taken by anybody else. The only Bills that were allowed to proceed were
  1360
  those which had very little chance of going any further, or those which, if passed, would have very little effect on the existing situation. He did not know to which category the present Bill belonged, but he thought it belonged to both. He could not help thinking that a Bill in which the only remedy offered was left in the hands of a majority of two-thirds of the shopowners, and which allowed a minority of just over one-third the right of undoing what was done by the majority would have very little effect on the present situation.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 1, and to insert the following new Clause: (1.) 'The local authority, as hereinafter defined, after giving notice and holding an enquiry, may establish such regulations as from time to time shall appear to them necessary with regard to the dosing of shops and the limitation of the hours of the shop workers within the area under their jurisdiction; (2) Provided that, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, such regulations-shall not apply to shops belonging to any of the classes mentioned in the schedule of this Act." —(The Earl of Lytton.)
  *LORD AVEBURY*LORD AVEBURY thought that to a great extent the reasons which would guide their Lordships in voting upon this question had been dealt with on the Amendment already negatived. In speaking of the Bill as a shopkeepers' Bill he did not intend to imply in any way that it was in the interests of the shopkeepers rather than of the shop assistants, but simply that it had the general assent and support of the shopkeepers of the country. The noble Earl expressed the opinion that the shop assistants would prefer another Bill.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: I said they had a Bill of their own.
  *LORD AVEBURY*LORD AVEBURY said the Bill referred to was the Bill of some of the shop assistants. The Grocers' Assistants Union were hearty supporters of the Bill now before their Lordships, and he could assure the House, having been in connection with Shop Assistants' Committees and Unions all over the country, that the great majority of the shop assistants preferred the proposal in his Bill to any other that had any chance of

  1361
  passing. They were convinced that if the Bill passed their hours of labour would be considerably reduced. The noble Earl was perfectly correct in stating that there was no mention of the two-thirds majority in the Committee's Report, but he confirmed the observation of the most rev. Primate that what was in the minds of the Committee was to preserve the initiative to the shopkeepers.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY explained that in making the statement I hat the Report of the (Select Committee favoured a two thirds majority of the shopkeepers, he had in his mind the draft Report, which was subsequently amended. He apologised for having inadvertently misled the House.
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER resisted the Amendment, on the ground that it would destroy the whole Bill. The Amendment had been described as a very simple one. It was simple because it was a bold proposal to give absolute power, without any provisions or regulations, to the local authority, not only to deal with all the questions referred to in the Bill, but also to tackle the very thorny question of labour in shops and the hours of shop assistants, which went far beyond the scope of the present Bill. Moreover, there would be absolutely no appeal from their decision. He would ask their Lordships to consider what was the practice generally with regard to regulations of this sort. In the case of regulations made by local authorities, even of a comparatively trivial character, there was always an appeal to the Local Government Board or some other central authority, who had the power of saying, subject to Parliament, whether they approved of the regulations or not. But by the noble Earl's Amendment they would be giving to a minor local authority, to a district or urban council who had no knowledge or experience in the matter, absolute powers with regard to the closing of shops without an appeal to any central authority and without reserving to Parliament any voice in the matter. He ventured to say that a proposal of that kind was quite unprecedented, and likely to lead to very great inconvenience and injustice.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause I agreed to.
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said that the Secretary of State was advised that under the Bill as at present drafted each partner might be entitled to be counted as a separate occupier. In order to prevent that, he moved the insertion of the new clause standing in his name.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause: 'Where any shop is carried on by two or more persons in partnership, they shall lie counted for the purposes of this sect on and of Section 3 as a single occupier.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  *Lord AVEBURY*Lord AVEBURY said that the Amendment carried out the intention of the promoters of the Bill.
  Clause 2:
  LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE moved to amend Section 3 of Clause 2 by substituting the word "shall" for "may" in the provision which enacted that "after such consideration as aforesaid, the central authority may lay the draft order … before Parliament." He submitted this Amendment in order to make sure that, the central authority having satisfied itself in the matter, something would be done. He thought the provisions of the Bill wore almost too polite to the central authority. When the other night he said he had a precedent for making it obligatory on the central authority to lay a provisional order before Parliament, the noble Lord representing the Home Office shook his head, apparently with cheerful confidence that there was no such precedent, lie had since looked the reference up, and could now tell the noble Lord that the precedent was to be found in Section 3 of the Allotment Act, 1887. In Subsection 2 of that section it was enacted that
  "A county authority may make a provisional order."
  and Sub-section 3 provided that—
  "The Local Government Board, on the application of any country authority, shall introduce into Parliament a Bill confirming the provisional order made by such county authority."

  1363
  He hoped the noble Lord would be able to accept his Amendment, which would give some guarantee that something would be done.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 16, to leave out 'may' and to insert 'shall.'—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER trusted that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would not accept the Amendment, which would make it obligatory upon the central authority to bring the draft order before Parliament, and would leave them no discretion in the matter. He bad fully in his mind, when he shook his head the other night on the mention of precedent, the case to which the noble Lord had referred. It was quite true that in that case—and, he believed, in that case only—the Local Government Board had to introduce a Bill confirming the provisional order on the application of the county authority; but in the case of the Allotment Act the original authority to deal with the question was the district authority. The latter authority had power to acquire land, but, if compulsory purchase was necessary it had to appeal to the County Council, which was the superior and supervising authority. The County Council had to go fully into the whole question, and to hold an inquiry, and it was only in those circumstances that the Local Government Board, on the application of the County Council, had to make an order. He shook his head when the noble Lord referred to this because he did not think it was at all an analogous case. Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved to omit Clause 4, which provided that—
  "If any question arises as to the class or classes of shops to which any particular shop belongs, or as to whether any particular place a shop within the meaning of this Act, or as to whether a shop is or is not within the limits of the part of a district to which the order relates, such question may be referred to any court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction within the district, which may hear and determine the question."
  He said it did not appear that the clause would be workable in its present form. In the first place there was no machinery for making the reference, and it was not said who the parties were to be to the reference, nor was any provision contained in the clause as to cost. The question as to the status of any particular shop could only arise in two cases—first, in proceedings for contravention of a closing order; and, secondly, when the views of the shopkeepers of any particular class were being ascertained. In the first instance it was clear that the clause would not be necessary, because any question raised in the course of the proceedings would be determined by the Court; and, with regard to the second point, a careful classification of shops would probably serve to reduce the difficulty to a minimum. As the clause was at present drawn, the Secretary of State thought it ought to be omitted.
  Amendment moved:
  "To leave out Clause 4." —(Lord Belper.)
  Clause 5:
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved to omit Clause t) and to insert a new clause. He said his object was to deal with this difficult question in one clause and in a practical manner. He believed the Amendment carried out the intention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.
  Amendment moved:
  "To leave out Clause 5, and to insert the following new clause—(1) Nothing in this Act or in any order made thereunder shall apply to any shop in which the only trade carried on is one of the trades specified in the schedule. (2) A shop in which two or more trades are carried on shall be closed for the purpose of all such trades at the hour at which it is by any order under this Act required to be closed for the purpose of any of them: Provided that if any such trade is carried on solely in a part of the shop structurally separate from the rest of the shop, it shall be deemed to lie carried on in a separate shop."—(Lord Belper.)
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved the omission of Sub-section 3, which provided that it should be the duty of every chief officer of police to cause the provisions of the Act and of any order under it to be enforced throughout the area of his authority, and the substitution of a new sub-section. This was, ho said, a rather important Amendment, as it substituted inspection by the local authority for inspection by the police. It was thought that inspection by the police would be objectionable from a police point of view, it would add very materially to their work, and would probably be disliked by the shopkeepers. Moreover, it was contrary to precedent. In the case of the Factory Acts, the Mines Acts and the Shop Hours Acts, these duties were undertaken by inspectors; and in the case of the latter Acts the inspectors were under the local authority. His Amendment would have the effect of also placing the duty of inspection under this Bill upon the local authority. He did not think it was a matter which ought to be introduced into an Act of Parliament, but he understood there would be no difficulty in giving instructions to the police that in cases where they noticed an infringement they should call the attention of the inspector to it.
  Amendment moved:
  "In Clause 8, page 3, to leave out Sub-section 3 and to insert as a new sub-section the provisions of the Shops Hour Acts, 1892 and 1893, with regard to the appointment, powers, and salaries of inspectors shall be deemed to apply for the purposes of this Act."—(Lord Belper.)
  *LORD AVEBURY*LORD AVEBURY said that, although there was at first some objection to this clause on the part of shopkeepers, they eventually accepted it because they were anxious that there should be some certainty that the provisions of the Bill would be carried into operation. He would not, however, resist the Amendment.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12:
  LORD BELPER,LORD BELPER, in moving the omission of Clause 12, said this Amendment was consequential upon the alteration which had been agreed to with regard to Clause 5.
  Amendment moved:
  "To leave oat Clause 12."(Lord Belper.)
  Clause 13:
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)intimated that at a later stage of the Bill he would place an Amendment on the Paper interpret the term "county fund" in the case of Scotland.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15:
  LORD BURGHCLERE LORD BURGHCLERE inquired whether the authority for London was to be the London County Council or the municipal boroughs
  LORD AYEBURY LORD AYEBURY said, with regard to Lord Belper's suggestion that he should place an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the case of London, that he thought it would be more convenient if the Government would consider which was the most suitable authority and draft the necessary Amendment. They had better opportunities than he, had of coming to a wise decision on the point.
  LORD BELPER LORD BELPER promised that the Government would consider the case of London at a later stage of the Bill,
  Consequential Amendment agreed to
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD BELPER,LORD BELPER, replying to Lord Avebury, said that the necessary alterations in the schedule consequent upon

  1367
  the Amendments that had been agreed to would be made in the Standing Committee
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.

  LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1:
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY)said the Amendments standing in his name were put down on behalf of the Irish Local Government Board, who felt that they should not only be recognised, but should be allowed to exercise their authority. The first three sections of the clause, as he proposed to amend them, would read:
  "(1) The Council of any administrative county may, on the application of any persons or club, by order declare that any public roads within the county may he used for races with light locomotives during the whole or part, of any days specified in older, not exceeding three days in the year. (2) The order shall contain such provisions as may be required by the Local Government Board for Ireland for the temporary suspension and regulation of other traffic for the safety of the public;, for the restriction of speed in populous places, and for other purposes incident to the proper conduct of such races. (3) Such public notice as may be required by the Local Government Hoard for Ireland shall be given of the provisions of the order.
  His noble friend the Marquess of Granby had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after the words "roads within the county," in Section 1, the words "being main roads now maintained by and under the control of the County Council." lie (Lord Londonderry) thought his Amendments would meet the point of the noble Marquess.
  Amendments moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after the second 'any' to insert 'public';" "in line 10, to leave out 'may' and to insert, 'shall,' and to leave out from 'as' to 'for' in line 11, and to insert 'may he required by the Local Government Board for 'Ireland'"; "in line 15, at the beginning of paragraph (3) to insert 'such,' and after 'notice' to insert 'as may he required by the Local Government Board for Ireland;" "in line 16, to leave out from 'order' to end of the paragraph."—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  1368
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY said the words which had been inserted on the Motion of the noble Marquess removed his objection, and he therefore withdrew his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause I:
  LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE moved to leave out the words "and without the knowledge of his principal" from Clause 1, which enacted that—
  "If any agent corruptly and without the knowledge of his principal accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person for himself or for any other person, any gift or consideration as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do any act in relation to his principal's business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's business," etc.
  It seemed better to rely on the word "corruptly" without the additional words.
  Amendment moved:
  "In Clause 1, page 1, lines 5 and 6 to leave out 'and without the knowledge of his principal.' "—(Lord Alverstone
  LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said the next Amendment standing in his name was designed to meet the case mentioned by him on the Second Reading of bribes which were given after the act had been performed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 9, after 'do' to insert 'or for having done or forborne to do.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR said he had received a long and earnest remonstrance from persons not otherwise averse to the Bill on the ground that the effect of the Amendment would be to reopen old transactions, the evidence applicable to which had long since perished.
  LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE pointed out that the Bill would have no retrospective action. The Amendment had reference to future transactions where the bribes were not paid at the time.
  LORD DAVEY LORD DAVEY said he understood the Amendment to mean that any payment of this kind would be a corrupt payment if it were made after the event as recompense or reward.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: That is so.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD moved an Amendment to cover the case of any person whose duty it is to order or receive goods on behalf of his principal who should in consequence of so doing receive any recompense or gift from the person supplying such goods without the knowledge of the principal. He felt that it was quite unnecessary to comment upon the evils arising from the practice of servants taking gifts from tradesmen in this way The principal either paid higher prices, received inferior goods, or was deceived by false quantities; and he had drawn the Clause explicitly in order to bring this offence within the Act. He had omitted the word "corruptly," because he wished to make the mere act of an agent or servant receiving such gifts an offence in itself. The noble and learned Lord might contend that this case was met in the second sub-section, but there it must be proved that the gift was given a; an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do any act in relation to the principal's business. It would be difficult to prove that anything whatever was said, when the gift was made, as to furthering
  1370
  the interests of the tradesman. He hoped the noble and learned Lord would accept the Amendment. He proposed, on the Report stage, to move an Amendment making the giving of a bribe on the part of a tradesman also an offence. The punishment mentioned was the maximum punishment, and if the offence was not shown to be of a grave character, the punishment would probably only be a fine; but such a provision would go a long way in the direction of putting an end to this objectionable practice.
  Amendment moved—-
  "In Clause 1, line 12, after 'or' to insert 'if any person whose duty it is to order or receive goods on behalf of his principal, shall, in consequence of HO doing, receive any recompense or gift from the person supplying such goods without the knowledge of the principal or'")—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  LORD BURGHCLERE LORD BURGHCLERE hoped the noble and learned Lord would accept the Amendment. He had the honour of serving on the Committee, of which the late Lord Chief Justice was chairman, and ho believed he was right in saying that the opinion of the Committee was that these payments should be rendered illegal when the agent or servant obtained them without the knowledge of the principal. He submitted that the word "corruptly" practically knocked the bottom out of the Bill; but, as there was no chance of eliminating that word, he supported very warmly the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord opposite.
  *EARL SPENCER*EARL SPENCER said he hardly liked to intervene in a matter so technical, but he would like to quote a case that had come to his knowledge, which he did not think either the Bill or the Amendment touched. It was the case of an insurance company which had been in the habit of paying to the account of the agent of a person whose estate had been insured a sun annually in respect of the business introduced many years ago. He understood that that was not only a common practice in the case of clerks or agents of landed pro prietors, but that it obtained among solicitors as well. He maintained that the principle was absolutely wrong and said that, directly the person to whom he referred learned that his agent

  1371
  was receiving this payment, he took the matter up, and on stating that the premiums. Surely that was a payment which ought to be covered by the Bill practice was at once to cease, was able to get from the insurance office a reduction of something like 25 per cent. in his premiums. Surely that was a payment which ought to the covered by the bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR said he was somewhat amused, if he might say so, at what the noble Earl had just stated, because he had that day received a very long remonstrance from a person who declared that the practice to which the noble Earl had referred was perfectly honest, and that the Bill would prevent it. He thought his noble friend Lord Burghclere could not have read the Amendment which he (the Lord Chancellor) had placed on the Paper, chiefly in view of what the noble Lord himself said on the Second Reading, and which he would move later. lie would have thought that that Amendment, while retaining the proposition that in order to make the giving of a gratuity an offence it must be given corruptly, introduced words which amply supplied the deficiencies of which the noble Lord complained, for it provided that where it was shown that any gift or consideration had been taken, given, or offered without the assent of the principal, the burden of proving that such gift or consideration was not taken, given, or offered corruptly should lie on the accused. If the Amendment moved by Lord James was accepted, they would be endeavouring to specify what it was quite unnecessary to specify. It had to be proved, in order to get rid of the imputation of corruption, that the principal assented to the gift, and if the principal assented there was no corruption at all. But if it was given without the assent of the principal, the operation of the section was to make it corrupt within the meaning of the Act. Why was it that the butcher gave a Christmas-box to the cook? His impression was that he did it for good consideration, and therefore the section, as he proposed to amend it, would undoubtedly hit that case. He could not accept Lord James's Amendment.
  *EARL SPENCER: Does the noble and learned Lord think the case I brought forward would be met?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD submitted that if the word "corruptly" remained the whole Bill would be rendered nugatory, and the system they were seeking to touch would go punished. It was clear that prosecutor would be told that it was no good his proving that his cook or his gamekeeper had received gifts, but that he must prove that they were given corruptly. How was he to prove corruption? The mere act of an agent or servant receiving these gifts should constitute an offence.
  LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE thought the point would be fully covered by the Amendment standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR said he could not conceive of any doubt existing as to what would happen in the case suggested by the noble and learned Lord. If the gift was made without the assent of the principal, if no legitimate or honourable reason could be shown by the accused why the money was given, if the giving of it could not be justified, then it would, in pursuance of the Amendment he proposed to move later, be corruptly given within the meaning of the statute. If they made the Act too severe they would raise up opposition to it, and its passage might be endangered. He could not, therefore, accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment.
  LORD DAVEY LORD DAVEY agreed with the Lord Chancellor that the giving of these commissions ought not to be made a criminal offence, unless it was corrupt. As to the point raised by Lord James, he did not apprehend any difficulty. If a servant or agent received a bribe contrary to the known wishes and orders of his master, no one would say that that was not corrupt.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN VISCOUNT GOSCHEN said the point that struck him as a layman was: Was

  1373
  there any substantial difference between the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor and that moved by Lord James? Would the Lord Chancellor tell the House whether the system would be condemned as decidedly and definitely by the acceptance of his (the Lord Chancellor's) Amendment, as it would be by the acceptance of Lord James's Amendment?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think even more so. May I read my Amendment? It provides that—
  "For the purposes of this Act, where it is shown that any such gift or consideration as in this section mentioned has been taken, given, or offered without the assent of the principal, the burden of proving that such gift or consideration was not taken, given, or offered corruptly shall lie on the accused."
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD asked the noble and learned Lord to take the case, for instance, of a cartridge seller who gave a gamekeeper £10. The evidence stopped there. Where would his noble and learned friend's Amendment be of the slightest use in such a case? The Amendment would throw on the gamekeeper the burden of proving that it was not corruptly given. If the gamekeeper said "I swear upon my oath that nothing whatever was said," and the cartridge seller confirmed him, where was the corruption? Unless his (Lord James's) Amendment were accepted they would be doing nothing whatever to stop this system.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR said a good many corrupt bargains were made without any words being exchanged at all. In the case referred to, the tribunal would ask itself: "Why was this £10 given?" and if the gamekeeper could not give a satisfactory reason it would not be a very unfair inference to draw that it was given for the purpose condemned by the Bill. If the Amendment of his noble and learned friend were adopted it would imperil the passing of the measure.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE said the object of the Amendments standing in his name was to make the punishments the same
  1374
  as in the Bill known as Lord Randolph Churchill's Act of 1889. It was agreed that the punishments ought not to be less in this case than in the Act which had been on the Statute-book for thirteen years.
  Amendments moved.
  "In line 27, to leave out 'one year,' and insert 'two years'; in line 28, after 'pounds,' to insert 'or to both such imprisonment and such fine'; and in line 30, after 'pounds,' to insert' or to both such imprisonment and such fine'" —(Lord Alverstone.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved an Amendment providing that a person serving under the Crown is an agent within the meaning of the Act. His own impression was that the words were unnecessary, but as some doubt had been expressed as to whether persons serving under the Crown came within the Act, he moved the Amendments to make the point clear.
  Amendment moved.
  "In Clause 1, page 2, after line 4, to insert (3) A person serving under the Crown is an agent within the meaning of this Act.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR said the object of the fourth sub-section which he now moved was to put an end to the idea hat where the practice of giving these gifts were customary in any trade it was therefore admissible.
  Amendment moved.
  "To insert '(4) In any prosecution under this Act evidence shall not be admissible to show that any such gift or consideration as is mentioned in this section is customary in any trade or calling.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  *LORD DAVEY*LORD DAVEY agreed that it ought not to be a defence as between a tradesman and a servant to say that the gift was customary. But what would his noble and learned friend say of a parting guest who had been staying at a friend's house giving a tip to the footman who had attended him? It was not usual to consult the host as to what tip one would give a servant. Would not custom in that case be an answer' to a charge of corruption?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR said that such a case as that would not come within the Act at all. Every host knew perfectly well that tips were given.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR said the fifth sub-section which he proposed to add to Clause I had already been read to the House, and he hoped there would be no opposition offered to it.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert (5) for the purposes of this Act, where it is shown that any such gift or consideration as in this section mentioned has been taken, given, or offered without the assent of the principal, the burden of proving that such gift or consideration was not taken, given, or offered corruptly shall lie on the accused."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD said he recognised his hon. and learned friend's effort to meet the difficulty with regard to the word "corruptly," and he regarded the Amendment as a great improvement. But he wished to ask the hon. and learned Lord one question. Supposing an agent or servant admitted that a tradesman sent him £5 and he kept it, but stated most emphatically that not one word passed between him and the tradesman, would that be a corrupt act or not?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should say most unquestionably it would, unless some good reason was proved by the servant why he received the £5.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.

  BANK HOLIDAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; and recommitted to the Standing Committee.
  SHOPS (HOURS OF CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Bill (on Motion), by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  THE FREE CHURCH COUNCIL AND THE EDUCATION ACT.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will inform the House in how many cases schemes have been presented to the Board under Section 17 of the Education Act, 1902, providing for the appointment of persons nominated or recommended by a body called "The Free Church Council," or any similar non-educational religious body; and further if he will inform the House what is the policy of the Board in dealing with such provisions. Perhaps it would save trouble if I say a few words in regard to the attitude which I take in this matter. I am one of those who entirely welcome the Act of last year. I am very thankful, particularly, for that part of it which unifies the whole of the education throughout the country, and I am very glad, also, that we are to have local Committees consisting of representatives of the ratepayers, and, in many cases,, representatives also of other bodies which, in the wording of the Act, are interested in education and acquainted with the needs of the various kinds of schools in the area over which the council has jurisdiction. I should also like to say that I speak to-night, not as representing the Church of England, but from an educational point of view. It is most important that these persons should be the strongest men and women that can possibly be found in the locality, that they should be able to hold their own, and should be subject to no suspicion of partisanship. It will be extremely difficult, in many of our local councils, to carry on this business of education if there is any half-heartedness at all in the persons who come from outside. We have, then, to look to the Board of Education for protection in regard to the choice of these persons. The Board of Education have to approve the schemes of the local councils, and unless they approve them I presume the schemes have to be returned to the councils and amended. No doubt a great deal of negotiation has been going on with the Board of Education on points of this kind.

  1377
  I have found out somewhat accidentally that there are numerous cases in which a body called the Free Church Council is asked either to nominate or to recommend persons on these Committees. I do not in the least wish to attack the Free Church Council. It has some very admirable principles, and I have no doubt that a great deal of its work is excellent. I have read the last report of the National Council of Evangelical Free Churches, and I find in it much with which I agree. Its social work is no doubt of an agitative rather than of an administrative kind, but it is a body which is worthy of respect as a voluntary society of our follow Christians. The question, however, is not "Does it do good work in some respects?" but "Is it educationally competent for the particular business which, I understand, it is to be called upon to do in numerous centres throughout the country?" Now, if we take the work of the Free Church Council, which of course is the federation of all the other similar councils in the country, and is, I believe, of exactly the same type,, we find that it corresponds to what is being done in the Church of England by the Church Army, by the Board of Church Defence, and by, I should say, the English Church Union, that is to say, it is agitative and not administrative work, ft is doing its best to enlighten public opinion on religious subjects, and to promote different measures, but it has no knowledge of education as a body. It does not profess, indeed, to have anything to do with founding schools, and it is not part of the: business of the National Council to build schools, or to assist financially any such enterprise. I find those words in their own report. Then what is its interest in schools? It has an interest, no doubt. That interest was shown very forcibly by the opposition which was raised, to a very great extent, by the National Free Church Council to the measure which was carried last session, and that opposition is expressed in the report for 1902 in strong and trenchant language. I do not say that the language is excessive or abusive—I do not wish in the least to be guilty of exaggeration—but I do say that it does not show any sympathetic interest in the working of the Act. It shows, on the contrary, that the Free
  1378
  Church Council, as a body, is entirely opposed to the principles of the Act. I therefore felt that it was fair, in no spirit of opposition to the employment of Dissenters upon this work, to ask the question which stands in my name. On the contrary, I very much desire that loading Nonconformists of every school should be upon these educational authorities, and that we should have the benefit of their knowledge and experience, but not that men should be appointed who are opposed to the successful working of the Act. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether it is the opinion of the Board of Education that this body is likely, either in its national form or in its local councils, to appoint persons of experience in education and persons who are acquainted with the needs of the various kinds of schools in the area over which the education authority acts.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: Before the noble Marquess answers the question I would venture to ask him whether the right rev. Prelate has given an accurate interpretation of the Act. The right rev. Prelate dwelt very strongly on the words "persons of experience in education," but he omitted the words which immediately precede them, "of other bodies." There is nothing which indicates that the body is to be primarily of an educational nature.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I asked the noble Marquess whether he thought this body was likely to appoint persons of experience in education.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: Yes, but the right rev. Prelate dwelt very much on the words "persons of experience in education," and omitted to mention the words which precede them. It is not necessary that the bodies referred to should be educational bodies. I would call the attention of the noble Marquess to a case which, I am informed, has occurred at Burnley. The council proposed in their scheme that there should be two members of the Voluntary Schools Association and one member of the Free Church Council. The Board of Education in their reply recommended that one of the members of the Voluntary Schools Association should be struck out and that they should leave out altogether the person to be chosen from the Free

  1379
  Church Council on the ground that that was not primarily an educational body. I venture to assert that in taking that action the Board of Education were acting ultra vires. would point out to the right rev. Prelate that the Free Church Council takes a deep interest in education, as he himself showed by referring to the action they took with regard to the Education Bill of last year; and I venture to think that if undenominational schools are to be represented at all in many districts the Free Church Council is certainly the body which ought to be consulted as to the person to be nominated.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (the MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the right rev. Prelate has asked me a question of which I do not in the least complain. Indeed, after the remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down, I am extremely glad of the opportunity of explaining the position which the Board of Education desire to take with regard to the administration of the Act of last year. Nineteen schemes seem to have been submitted to the Board containing proposals for the representation of the Free Church Council on the Education Committee. In dealing with these and all other provisions as to the composition of Education Committees the Board have consistently endeavoured to secure that every Committee shall comprise, in accordance with the Act, persons of experience in education and persons acquainted with the needs of the various kinds of schools in the area. In the particular case which, as I understand, the right rev. Prelate has had specially before him, it seems that there are no associations or bodies representative of Nonconformist schools. Therefore, as the town council scheme provides for the inclusion on the Committee of two members representative of Church of England schools, and one representative of Roman Catholic interests in education, it would seem strictly in accordance with the spirit and intention of the Act. and with the consistent policy of the Board of Education in administering the Act, that some convenient means should be adopted for securing the representation of Nonconformist interests also on the
  1380
  Committee. As a rule, where a council has included in a draft scheme a representative of the Free Church Council, the Board have felt that some 'representation of the managers or associations of Nonconformist elementary schools would have been preferable and more in accordance with the terms of the Act as to persons acquainted with the needs of the various kinds of schools. But, in reply to this view, whenever the council have expressed the r opinion that the object in view was best attained by a representation of the Free Church Council itself, the Board have raised no objections, and the schemes have been published accordingly.
  The Board have endeavoured to be absolutely impartial and judicial in these matters, and to hold the scales evenly. The Board have always given the greatest consideration to the views put forward by the local authorities. It would be impossible for the Board in a city like Salisbury to ask for a religious census. As long as the different denominations seem to be honestly represented, the Board have accepted the scheme, although in certain circumstances they have asked for reasons why certain representatives had been placed on the Committees. We have never thought it right in any way to oppose the proposals submitted to us in those schemes. The right rev. Prelate states that there should be placed on these Education Committees the strongest men and the strongest women. I do not think the Board of Education can decide who are the strongest men and the strongest women in a district; that must be left to the discretion of the local authorities. The speech made last night by my colleague Sir William Anson, in which he declared that we wish to be absolutely impartial in the matter, and not to dictate, but only to make suggestions to the education authorities, entirely expresses the policy of the Board of Education in this matter. We leave to the education authority the right to discriminate as to the representatives of the various bodies they submit to us, and so long as we consider they are not acting with any injustice to any other body we shall continue to accept their schemes. The noble Lord opposite drew attention to an alleged injustice in the case of Burnley.
  LORD BURGHOLERE: I did not say it was an injustice
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I understood the noble Lord to say that the town of Burnley was unjustly treated.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I am not authorised to speak on behalf of Burnley. I merely called attention to the case.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord stated, I think, that Burnley submitted their scheme to us, and that we did not accept it.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My information was that Burnley submitted a certain scheme, and that the Board of Education suggested alterations.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That is perfectly true, but what happened was this, that when the Burnley authority did not accept the suggestion of the Board of Education, we did not enforce it. Therefore I do not think that we have done any injustice to the town of Burnley. At this late hour I do not think it is necessary for me to go further into the question, but I would repeat that it is the desire of the Board of Education to administer the Act with absolute impartiality.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.