Sitting of 12 May 1903

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Frinton-on-Sea Sea Defences Bill [Lords]; Wellington (Salop) Gas Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Commercial Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  London United Tramways Bill; New Hunstanton Improvement Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Castleblaney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [by Order]. Second Reading deferred till Monday, 25th May (Evening Sitting).
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housingof Working Classes) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum," presented accordingly; and ordered to be considered upon Thursday.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Blackpool, Conway, and Spalding, and the Darenth Valley Main Sewerage District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Dover and Yeovil, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the city of Oxford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Blackpool, Conway, and Spalding, and the Darenth Valley Main Sewerage District," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 193.)
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Dover and Yeovil," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 194.)
  Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the city of Oxford," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 195.)
  Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Gas Light and Coke Company Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Gas Light and Coke Company's Acts Amendment Bill. Reported (Parties do not proceed); Report to lie upon the Table.
  Wellingborough and District Tram-roads Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolution reported from the Select Committee.
  "That, in the case of the Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that all reference to the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland) be struck out

  411
  of Clause 21 of the Bill. That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."
  Resolution agreed to.
  East Ham Improvement Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for re-arranging the boundaries of the Dioceses of Bristol and Gloucester and Bath and Wells." (Bishopric of Bristol Bill [Lords]).
PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Crewe; and Lincoln; to lie upon the Table.
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Sutherland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Renishaw Park; Maesteg District; Tygwynbach; Coynant; Caedefaid; Cynon; Bryn; Caerau; Bryncoch; Treshencyn; Ewrty-Bettws; Crynant; International; Garw Ocean; Aber; Tynewydd; Havannah and Southport Pits, Parr; Little Lever; Glynea; Great Mountain; Glan Garnant; Burry Port; Llancaiach; Hartshead Llangynwyd; Cefn Brithdir; Bedford; Park; Leigh; Westleigh; Breton; and Abram Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Balinagie, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Raunds, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Perth; Ross; Greenock; and Paisley; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Heckmondwike; Linthwaite; Marsden; Whitfield; Sandbach; Crewe; Gomersal; Ecclesall; Batley; Hazel Grove; Hollingworth; Hyde: Scarborough; Pendleton; West London; Ravensthorpe; Wingate; Haworth; Skinningrove; Masbrough; Galashiels; Earby; Barnoldswick; Salterforth; Coalville; Paisley; Tunstead; Water Lumb; Duntocher; York; Manchester; Leicester; Cymmer; Aylesbury; Coventry; Broughton Astley; Bristol; Clifton; Lumb in Rossendale; Dunfermline; Bedlington; Desborough; Rushden; Hebden Bridge; Wood Green; Mytholmroyd; Llanelly; Finedon; and Reading; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petitions for alteration of Law: from Saint Austell; and Brighton; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Renishaw Park; Maesteg District; Tygwynbach; Coynant; Caedefaid; Cynon; Bryn; Caerau; Bryncoch; Treshencyn; Ewrty-Bettws; Crynant; International; Garw Ocean; Aber; Tynewydd; Havannah and Southport Pits, Parr;

  413
  Little Lever; Glynea; Great Mountain; Glan Garnant; Burry Port; Llancaiach; Hartshead; Llangynwyd; Morlais; and Abercrave Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (ESTIMATE).
  Copy presented, of Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government of India for 1902–3, compared with the results of 1901–2 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 156.)
  EAST INDIA (FINANCE AND REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented, of Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India for 1901–2 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (HOME ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented, of Home Accounts of the Government of India [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 157.)
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Copy presented, of the Foreign Animals (Amendment) Order of 1903 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854 TO 1894.
  Copy presented, of Fourteenth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented, of Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (CERTIFICATES) (YORKSHIRE DALES RAILWAY COMPANY).
  Copy presented, of Draft Certificate of the Board of Trade authorising the Yorkshire Dales Railway Company to raise additional capital [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE (PARCEL POST BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE NETHERLANDS).
  Copy presented, of Parcel Post Agreement, with detailed Regulations,
  414
  between Great Britain and the Netherlands [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NATIONAL DEBT ACT, 1883 (TERMINABLE ANNUITIES).
  Copy presented, of Treasury Warrant, dated 1st April, 1903, regulating the Terminable Annuity hold on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 158.]

  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the Rates of Duties, Taxes, or Imposts collected by Imperial Officers; (2) the Quantities or Amounts taxed; (3) the Gross Receipts derived from each Duty; (4) the Net Receipts and Appropriations thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1903; and (1) the aggregate Gross Receipts derived from all such Duties, Taxes, or Imposts under the principal heads of Revenue; (2) the aggregate Net Receipts; (3) the charges of Collection; and (4) the Produce, after deducting these charges on each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1903."
  "And, Notes to show any changes in the Taxes, Duties, and Imposts consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget Proposals of 1903 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 313, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Goddard.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Education Act, 1902—Church Training Colleges.
  MR. MORRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state whether the power to supply or aid the supply of education, other than elementary, covers the provision of scholarships in existing diocesan training colleges; whether the local education authority stands in the same relation to the diocesan training colleges as it does to the Church elementary schools; and to what extent it is intended that the local educational authorities shall manage or control Church training colleges within their area.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The answer to the

  415
  second part of the Question is in the negative, since the Act does not put the local education authorities into any necessary relation with such colleges, though it provides the authorities with financial powers, which can be used for aiding such colleges if the authorities choose and if the colleges are willing to accept aid. The answer to the last part of the Question is that the management or control (if any) of such colleges within their area by local education authorities is a matter for arrangement and mutual consent.

  Collection of Death Duties in Scotland.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is in contemplation of the Board of Inland Revenue to centralise the collection of the death duties in Edinburgh for the whole of Scotland; and, if so, will he say whether consideration has been given to the inconvenience this will cause to the law agents in Scotland outside of Edinburgh, and the additional expense to the public; and whether, before altering the present system of collection, opportunity will be given to the legal profession and civic representatives of Scotland to point out the effect of the change.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot.) The assessment of death duties in Scotland is already centralised in Edinburgh. The collection of the duties, when assessed, will continue as now to be made either locally or at the head office at the option of the payers. The primary purpose of what is proposed is to give to those who wish to avail themselves of the privilege greater facilities for transmitting their accounts and correspondence direct to the head office than are accorded under existing regulations. Incidentally, in connection with this change, it becomes necessary to define more accurately than has hitherto been done the functions of local officers, but changes in this respect concern the internal administration of the Department, and will not affect the convenience of the outside public.

  Military and Naval Works Acts, etc, Finances.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any prospective borrowings under the Military Works
  416
  Acts, Naval Works Acts, Telegraph Acts, and Land Registry (New Buildings) Act will be repaid from sums allotted for the purpose in the Departmental Estimates or from sums allotted to the fixed debt charge.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) Annuities providing for interest and Sinking Fund on the sums borrowed will be charged on the Estimates as hitherto. No part of the fixed debt charge goes for this purpose.

  Belfast General Valuation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, considering the delay with the Irish Valuation Committee's proceedings and the fact that a number of witnesses expect to be examined, and that it was expected this Committee would report before further steps would be taken on the Belfast valuation by Sir John Barton, it will be arranged to defer the general valuation in Belfast for another year.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The revaluation lists cannot come into operation in Belfast before April, 1904. There is no intention to postpone beyond that date the enforcement of the revaluation, which has been accepted without appeal by more than seven-eighths of the ratepayers.

  Indian Army—Precedence of Regiments.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in considering the scheme for renumbering the regiments of the Indian Army, the existing precedence of regiments will be preserved.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) In the event of a renumbering, provision will be made for the maintenance of the existing precedence of regiments on ceremonial occasions.

  Vivisection at the University College, London.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the dog operated upon in the

  417
  theatre at University College on 2nd February was killed immediately after its removal from the theatre.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The answer is in the affirmative.

  Details of Revenue (Post Office) Estimates.
  MR. BIGNOLD: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state when the details of pages 69, 70, and 71 of the Revenue (Post Office) Estimates will be available for the use of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I understand that copies of a Paper containing the details referred to have now been delivered at the Vote Office, where they can be obtained by Members.

  Somaliland Operations—Passage Home for Wounded Officers.
  COLONEL LEGGE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that under the Indian regulations officers of the Indian establishment who are invalided home sick or wounded, as a result of active service, have to bear the expenses of the journey out of their private purse, he can see his way to relaxing this rule in the case of officers serving with the Somaliland Field Force.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Ihese officers are employed on Imperial service and would, if invalided, be treated under Imperial service rules and get free passage if sent home on medical board leave.

  Duke of York's Military School—Reasons of Removal from Chelsea.
  MR. WHITMORE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now state whether it has been decided to remove the Duke of York's Royal Military School from Chelsea; and, if so, what are the grounds on which this decision has been arrived at, and what use it is proposed to make of its site.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It has been decided to remove the Duke of York's School from Chelsea. As has already been stated in this House, the
  418
  existing buildings are inadequate and the site is unsuitable for any increased accommodation. The question of the disposal of the site has not been settled.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Loan of War Office Exhibits.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to an exhibition held in Manchester and Leeds under the patronage of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Commander in-Chief, and other official persons; whether he is aware that Government property lent by the War Office has not been returned; and, seeing that the promoter of this exhibition is an undischarged bankrupt and an ex-convict, can he say what steps, if any, were taken to ascertain the position of this man; what sums, if any, have been handed over to the naval and military authorities, what was the advertised object of these exhibitions; and will he say what steps it is proposed to take for the recovery of the Government property lent, and for the payment due to the different regimental bands for their services.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): My attention has been directed to this case. As regards the War Department property lent to the exhibitions, the application came, in the first instance, from the proprietors of the United Service Gazette; due security was taken for the goods by means of a personal guarantee and of an "all risk" insurance policy at Lloyd's, and no loss, therefore, can fall on public funds. As regards the money taken at the exhibitions, I am not aware that any sums have been handed over for charitable purposes. As regards the military bands, the proprietors of the United Service Gazette have been asked for an explanation, but have not up to date replied. I feel, in view of what has occurred in this and some other cases, it will be necessary to lay down that in future no War Office exhibits will be sent to any but national exhibitions or to exhibitions which have a genuine and close connection with the Army.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered as to what steps, if any, were taken to ascertain the position of this man, who purported to be the proprietor of the United Service Gazette, and who was an undischarged bankrupt and ex-convict.
    MR. BRODRICK: AS I say, the steps taken were to communicate with the proprietors of the United Service Gazette, who were the originators of the application, and having satisfied ourselves as to their being men of substance and responsibility, we did not go further into the question of their standing.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I will call attention to this matter on the Estimates.
    MR. FLYNN: May I ask what the intelligence officers of the War Department said about it?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

    Disposal of Useless Guns.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the 6·9 muzzle loading guns of the Old Needles Battery, Isle of Wight, were thrown into the sea when discarded from use; and will he state how many of them there were; and whether any estimate was made of their value as old iron.
    MR. BRODRICK: The guns in question were of wrought iron and their price as old iron would not cover the cost of freight anywhere. There were six guns.

    Northern Nigeria—Additions to the Protectorate.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what are the military and administrative responsibilities incurred by the military advances in Nigeria to Kano and Sokoto; over what area of country and in respect of what population and races these responsibilities apply; whether any charge, and in that case what, has fallen or is estimated to fall on the British Exchequer up to 31st March, 1904.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Three provinces or administrative districts (those of Sokoto, Katsena, and Kano) will be added to the thirteen provinces previously established in Northern Nigeria, and to each of these provinces the administrative system of the Protectorate will be extended. The responsibilities thus incurred will include the duties of keeping the peace, protecting the people from exactions by their native rulers, rendering the roads safe to traders, and stopping the traffic in slaves. The area of the new provinces is roughly 100,000 square miles. The inhabitants are Hausas and Fulani. It is not possible to give an estimate of their numbers. It is not anticipated that any additional charge will fall on the Imperial Exchequer up to the 31st of March, 1904.

    South African Administration-Naturalisation of Aliens.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what period was fixed for the naturalisation and enfranchisement as British subjects of aliens in those countries respectively when the civil administration of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony commenced; whether the period has since been altered, and, if so, how it now stands; whether this is a matter requiring the sanction of His Majesty's Government; whether this has been given; and in what Parliamentary Paper the complete rules and regulations on the subject are to be found.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No arrangements for naturalisation were possible at the commencement of civil administration. Ordinances dealing with the subject have now been passed in both colonies, and have been assented to by His Majesty, under which the period of qualifying residence is fixed at five years. These Ordinances have not been included in Papers presented to Parliament.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: May I ask whether they will be laid on the Table?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course there is not the slightest objection, but I do not like to burden the House with

    421
    unnecessary Papers. If the hon. Gentleman desires it they shall be laid.

    Sierra Leone Rebellion.
    MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, since rebels and the late enemies of His Majesty have in South Africa been allowed, as an act of grace, compensation for their losses sustained during the war, he will reconsider his decision and extend a similar act of grace to those traders who have lost their stock-in-trade owing to the recent rebellion in Sierra Leone, either at the hands of the rebels or of His Majesty's forces.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot reconsider the decision. His Majesty's Government have not granted any compensation to rebels in South Africa, and such relief as has been granted to our late enemies has been provided in redemption of special pledges.

    British Trade in the Congo Basin.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been made by the French Government to the definite proposals as to British trade in the free trade portion of the French Congo within the Congo basin or maritime zone, which were laid before the French Government by His Majesty's Government.
    THE UNDER SECRETARYOF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): Negotiations are in progress with the French Government. It would be inconvenient to make known any single element of these negotiations until we are further advanced towards a conclusion.

    British Railway Enterprise in South West Persia.
    MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can announce any intention on the part of His Majesty's Government of encouraging British railway enterprise in South West
    422
    Persia so as to ensure that the development of those regions may not be carried out by foreign capital and energy to the detriment of British trade and interests.
    LORD CRANBORNE: My hon. friend is aware of the answer which I made in this House on March 25th of last year†;a fuller statement was made by Lord Lansdowne in another place last week on the same subject‡. For the moment there is no question of the development of railway enterprise in Persia.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the noble Lord give us any indication of what that answer was?
    LORD CRANBORNE: The more important answer was delivered by the Secretary of State himself in the House of Lords last week, and I happen to know that my hon. friend was a very attentive listener.

    London Education Authority.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to Section 5, Subsection 3, of the London Government Act, 1899, which provides that the Local Government Board may, if they think fit, on the application of the London County Council and a majority of the London Borough Councils, make a Provisional Order for transferring to all the Borough Councils any powers exercised by the County Council; and whether, seeing that under this clause it would be possible for the London County Council to transfer its powers as local education authority, he intends to take any steps in connection with the London Education Bill to prevent the application of this provision as regards education questions.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): A Provisional Order for such a transfer of power can only be made if the Local Government Board, the London County Council, and a majority of the Borough
    † See (4) Debates, cv., 987.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxi., 1343.
    Councils are agreed in its favour, and as the Local Government Board would presumably consult the Board of Education before taking action in the matter there seems no reason to fear that the provisions of the London Government Act to which the hon. Member refers are likely to be applied with undue haste or want of consideration.
    MR. LOUGH: Then does the hon. Member acknowledge that these arrangements mean the transfer of the local education authority to the Borough Councils?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Irish. Teachers' Pension Fund.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the time when the revision of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund will be completed, and when its publication may be expected; and whether any addition will be proposed to the existing pensions.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ARTHUR ELLIOT,): The Irish Teachers' Pension Fund is not at present under revision. The last quinquennial investigation into the fund was completed in 1901, and there will not be another until 1906.

    Irish National Schools—Damage by Storms.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of injury to a national school caused by the recent storm, the Commissioners of National Education have power to make a free grant or a loan to the manager to execute the necessary repairs; and, if not, will he say who is responsible for such repair.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The hon. Member does not say whether he refers to a vested or a non-vested school. If the latter, there is no power in the Commissioners to make a grant or loan for the purpose mentioned. If the school be
    424
    vested, a grant may be made under Rule 82 (b) of the Code in aid of the cost of repairs rendered necessary by storms.

    Listowel Union Accounts.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Listowel Board of Guardians have asked the Local Government Board to grant a sworn inquiry into irregularities alleged by them to have occurred in connection with the recent audit of their accounts by Mr. Ellis; and, if so, will he explain why Mr. Ellis has been allowed by the Local Government Board to re-examine the books of the Board of Guardians and of the Listowel Rural District Council, as to which he had previously given a certificate of audit, pending the decision of the Local Government Board as to whether the sworn inquiry asked for will be held; and will he state whether the Board of Guardians made any protest against this permission being accorded; and whether a sworn inquiry will be ordered.
    MR. ATKINSON: The inquiry mentioned has been asked for. The matter is not one for a sworn inquiry, but rather for a careful examination of the books and accounts of the union, together with an investigation into the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the auditor, both of which will forthwith be made. Until the officer is found to have acted irregularly the Local Government Board cannot interfere with him in the performance of his duties.
    MR. FLAVIN: How came it that this auditor was sent down to re-examine the accounts while certain charges were pending against him?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Irish Constabulary Vote.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the propriety of taking the Constabulary Vote before the Committee stage of the Irish Land Bill, and on a day most convenient to Members representing Irish

    425
    constituencies, in order to afford opportunity for explanation and discussion upon the policy of the contemplated reduction of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the methods by which it is to be effected.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have not been able to consult my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary on this point, but I should think it would be possible, by arrangement between the two sides of the House, to bring this Vote on at an early day should it be so desired. But I do not think the Committee stage of so important a Bill ought to be delayed in order to find time to discuss the Estimates.

    Minister of Agriculture.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to announce the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not, Sir.

    Parliamentary Procedure—Hour of Meeting.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the acceleration of business arising from various causes, which has become evident since the alteration of the Standing Order fixing the meeting of the House at two o'clock, he will consider whether the House might not with advantage meet at half-past two.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the hon. Gentleman I have to say that the question he has raised is one which, I know, interests largely hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. Everybody would like, and nobody more than His Majesty's Ministers, to have a rather longer interval between the morning's work and the afternoon sitting of the House. I find that it has been proved by experience that Questions on ordinary days take far less time than we had at one time reason to fear they would, and that a large margin of the time now allotted to Questions within the afternoon sitting is devoted to general business. There are, I think, three observations to be made.
    426
    In the first place, the House might probably like to see the operation of this new Standing Order for a whole session before it considers a change. My second observation is that I do not think I could suggest a change unless I was practically assured that it would be unanimously accepted without long discussion; and, thirdly, I do not think any change ought to be adopted which would materially curtail the amount of time we have now every afternoon for the discussion of public business. I am by no means sure that I should find anything like unanimity on the proposal that we should begin Questions twenty minutes later, and yet take public business, as under the Standing Order, at five minutes to three. In other words, I have no ground to believe there would be anything like unanimity on the proposal that we should take Questions at half-past two and conclude them as at present; because a certain number of gentlemen would feel that, although half an hour was ample and more than ample, for Questions on almost every day, the case might arise when it was found that it was not. The matter is not as simple as it appears, and I cannot give any pledge at present.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The matter is one of great interest, and I would suggest that an opportunity should be given to the House to express an opinion on the subject. From what has reached me I believe that if there is not unanimity there would be such a body of opinion in favour of the change as would justify the right hon. Gentleman in acceding to something like my hon. friend's proposal.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I be allowed to say that the Irish Members on my side of the House would be in favour of a later meeting, but only on condition that the time available for Questions when required s not diminished. We believe that such a change as is suggested would not really deprive the right hon. Gentleman of much time which is at present devoted to public business, but we cannot as a Party consent to any diminution of the period at present reserved for Questions.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to point out that the alteration suggested would involve the amendment of many Standing Orders.
    MR. ELLIS: Only three.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid there was no question before the House and no general debate could be allowed.

    THE TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In consequence of the information which has reached me I think I am justified in saying that there is no chance of the discussion on the Budget Resolutions, limited as it must be for reasons already stated, going over twelve o'clock, and under those circumstances I do not propose to move the Motion for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule which stands in my name.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Mr. Walter Long (added in respect of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill), and Sir Charles Dilke; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Guest (in respect of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill), and Mr. Charles Seely.
    Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Prevention of Corruption Bill [Lords]: Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Channing, Mr. Cohen, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Sir William Dunn, Mr. Edmund Faber, Sir John Gorst, Sir William Holland, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Lough, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Walter Thorburn, Mr. Lawson Walton, and Mr. Whittaker.
    Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure,
    428
    the following fifteen Members in respect of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill: Sir William Arrol, Mr. Asher, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Caldwell, Colonel Denny, Mr. Charles Douglas, Mr. James M'Killop, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Nicol, Mr. Pirie, Sir Charles Renshaw, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Cathcart Wason, and Mr. Wylie.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TOBACCO, BEER, AND SPIRITS.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERcomplained that the Resolution was not on the Paper, and condemned the singular want of proper arrangements for debating finance, the main business of the House of Commons. They had recently been informed that no general discussion could take place at that stage on the Budget scheme. Two or three years ago he made a suggestion, which was understood at the time to be accepted by the Government, that the first Resolution should be passed pro forma on the night of the introduction of the Budget and that the general debate should take place on a subsequent Resolution. The Prime Minister appeared at the time to approve the suggestion, and although some difference of opinion had since arisen he would mention that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, for one, held that a promise had been given that this course should be adopted in the future. The promise, however, had not been fulfilled, and considerable inconvenience was the result on the present occasion. He trusted that another year the arrangement he had indicated would be established; that the Resolution required to complete the proceedings on the first night should be treated as a formality, and that a general debate on the principle of the

429
Budget should be allowed on a later Resolution. It was hardly treating the House with that consideration which ought to be displayed towards the representatives of the people to call on it to consider these Resolutions without a preliminary discussion on the Budget scheme as a whole. The main function of the House of Commons was to deal with the finances of the country, and that work ought not to be scamped; they ought to have ample scope for discussion all round. There was, he believed, a Resolution to come on later which would afford an opportunity of discussing the general finance of the Budget, but it would be inconvenient to take the debate on that, as he did not wish to anticipate the representations which were to be made to the Prime Minister with regard to one of the sensational features of what he could not help calling an unfortunate Budget.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,)said he was not sufficiently familiar with the circumstances which had been alluded to by his right hon. friend to be able to say whether there was an undertaking or quasi promise as to the arrangements for debating the Budget. He understood that the general debate was usually taken on the first Resolution, and if it was the general opinion that the discussion could be concluded on the first night it could not be carried over by agreement. No such general feeling had been expressed on the first night, when the first Resolution was disposed of. The discussion of the other Resolutions must be germane to their subject matter, and therefore he was afraid that the discussion desired by his right hon. friend could not proceed at that stage, but he would remind the House that an opportunity for general debate would be again afforded on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Will ample time be given for it?
MR. RITCHIE: I do not suppose that any Government would desire to curtail any opportunity, which hon. Gentlemen desire, to discuss such an important question as their financial proposals. As
430
the hon. Member knows the proposals before the Committee are provisional, and when the House adopts them it does not in any way prejudge the course it may choose to take when the Finance Bill comes on.
SIR JOHN GORSTwished to associate himself with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet in objecting to the method of discussing financial questions which seemed to have grown up during the last two or three years. Formerly, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget, no financier of any reputation thought of discussing it on the night of its introduction. Only formal remarks were made or questions asked on that night, the general discussion being reserved for Committee of Ways and Means. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that general discussion could only be taken on the Second Reading of the Bill, and as debate on the Second Reading was restricted and entirely different from the free and useful manner in which discussions were conducted in Committee of Ways and Means, he objected to the House being deprived of an ancient privilege. The effect of discussion in Committee of Ways and Means was that the Government sometimes modified its proposals before the Budget Bill was introduced. He did not suppose that there was any prospect of a modification of the present scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he must protest against the House being deprived of the opportunity it formerly enjoyed of discussing in an informal manner in Committee of Ways and Means the financial proposals of the Government.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he too wished to associate himself with the protests of the two right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken against this departure from the invariable rule of the House in the case of the Budget. In his opinion it was due to the mistake that had been made of allowing the first Resolution to be taken the night of the introduction of the Budget. Mr. Gladstone was always hostile to any general discussion of the Budget on the night of its introduction; he always

431
reserved his opinion for the subsequent stage in Ways and Means. The first Resolution was, as a matter of form, allowed to be carried the first night, when new taxation was imposed, in order to protect the revenue; but in this instance the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the position of not having to impose new taxation, and therefore it was not necessary to carry the first Resolution on the first night. The right hon. Gentleman, however, proposed the renewal of the Tea Duty. There was a very thin House and not a very full debate, and he was sorry a division was taken. He trusted that the present practice would not be quoted as a precedent, and that in future the House would, apart from the debate on the first night, have the fullest opportunity of discussing in Committee of Ways and Means the Budget proposals as a whole. In future they ought not to pass any Resolution on the first night excepting those imposing new taxation, which might be required for the protection of the revenue.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESinsisted on the great importance of the House retaining its right to discuss the Budget as a whole in Committee of Ways and Means, as such discussions were usually very fruitful of suggestions. The most important feature of this year's Budget was the remission of the Corn Tax. As that was not embodied in a Resolution it could not now be discussed in Ways and Means, but must be reserved for the Second Reading, when it would be mixed up with other questions in a single speech debate. That, he submitted, was a most unsatisfactory state of things.
MR. BLAKEthought this was really an important question with reference to the efficient conduct of the business of the House. It was of the utmost consequence that they should have a general debate on the Budget under circumstances which permitted freedom and frequency of speech. It was deplorable that the Government should have taken advantage of the willingness of the House to give them their first Resolution on Budget night in order to deprive it of his constitutional right to discuss the Budget as a whole, in Committee of Ways and Means. The Government were not alone to blame for this. The Opposition Leaders
432
had cast upon them an equal duty to protect the rights of the House, and they too had failed in their duty.
MR. RITCHIEsaid it was far from his intention, or the intention of the Government, to take any advantage of the House. He acted on Budget night according, as he thought, to precedent. He did not desire to shirk the general discussion of the Budget; on the contrary, he should have been glad if that discussion could take place in Committee of Ways and. Means. But he acknowledged that there was a good deal in the argument, and if he should have again to bring in a Budget he should take care that the House was not put into the position in which, to his regret, it now found itself.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid it was clear that the House, for one reason or another, had been deprived of the opportunity of discussing the Budget generally in Committee of Ways and Means, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman to agree that it was not desirable there should be any restriction on the facilities given to the House for such a debate. They might, therefore, hope that on the many other occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman might have to impose or abolish taxes, he would see that the House did not lose its opportunity as had been the case this year. He desired particularly to refer to the absurd system of inviting the House to agree to Resolutions which they had never seen. He had protested against it again and again, and had never been able to understand what the raison d'être of that extraordinary practice was. These was no blame attaching to the right hon. Gentleman, because it had been the universal practice.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Only recently.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he could not go back to the prehistoric times to which the experience of the hon. Member extended. He remembered only about thirty five years. His remarks applied to all Resolutions upon which Bills were to be founded. Long and elaborate Resolutions were

433
read hurriedly from the Chair, to which the House was invited to say "Aye" or "No." One could perfectly understand the necessity of withholding from publication a Resolution for a new tax, which it was necessary to keep dark until the Budget had been announced. There could be no possible objection to that; but as to the other matters, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be in a reasonable and improving turn of mind, he hoped he would let the Committee know why such proceedings could not be altered, so that the House of Commons should not be invited to agree to a Resolution of which it was entirely ignorant until it was read from the Table. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the Committee very well with regard to Budgets of the future. It might be said that it was an easy thing to give away the Budget arrangements of the future in order to facilitate the Budget arrangements for the present year. But whether easy or not it was a gracious and kindly thing, and for his part he was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. JOSEPH WALTONreminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer that last year the necessary Resolutions were taken on the Budget night, on the distinct understanding that the general discussion should be allowed when the Income Tax Resolution was proposed, and he asked whether there was anything to prevent a similar course being adopted on the present occasion.
MR. RITCHIEsaid that that was really not in his hands at all.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had met the Committee in a very reasonable spirit, and as far as he was concerned he would take no further steps in the matter.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the Chairman, as well as the Speaker, had often permitted discussions when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Leader of the House had said that a certain course might be for the general convenience. The point raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley was well worthy of consideration, and he hoped
434
it was not too late to adopt the course he had suggested.
THE CHAIRMAN: No general discussion is permissible on this Resolution. The ordinary rule of the House is that the discussion must be relevant to the Motion before it. There are certain exceptions to that rule. One exception is in the case of the first Budget Resolution, the second is the first Vote for Army Services, and the third the first Vote for Navy Services. With those three exceptions all debate must be relevant to the subject-matter proposed from the Chair. It has happened in the past, when the general discussion has not been concluded on the first night, that, by a general arrangement—the consent of the Chair not being withheld—the discussion has been postponed, and taken on the second, third, or any other of the Resolutions. Of course that is by general arrangement made during the discussion of the first Resolution. Unless that general arrangement is made while the discussion of the first Resolution is going on, a general discussion cannot take place on any of the subsequent Resolutions.
MR. LOUGHsaid he did not suggest that the general discussion should be taken on the present Resolution, but some further facilities might be granted on one of the future Resolutions. He did not question the ruling of the Chair, but the Committee were always placed in this difficulty on the first night because it was necessary that one Resolution should be obtained.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been the custom to take one Resolution or more whenever a new tax was imposed. But where no new tax is imposed it is not necessary to take a Resolution. In this case the difficulty has arisen from the fact that on the first night a Resolution was taken which, strictly speaking, was not necessary, because the duty on tea would have been levied whether the Resolution was taken or not.
MR. LOUGHsaid that was a most important ruling, because it was suggested on the occasion in question that it was not necessary to persevere with the Resolution. In the course of the discussion

435
it had been suggested that on the Budget night no serious discussion could take place, and that all they could do was to ask a few meaningless questions. He desired to protest against such a proposition. On the occasion of the last four Budgets the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been modified in certain important respects on the first night. He desired certain information with regard to the Resolutions now under discussion. Was it true that the increase of revenue derived during the last two or three years from tobacco, spirits, and beer had not been proportionate to the increase of the duty? Another point was why this duty was brought up annually instead of being fixed like the Sugar or Corn Duties. Had the Government some scheme up their sleeve with regard to the disposal of this revenue?
MR. RITCHIEsaid he had no scheme in his mind for dealing with these duties, as the hon. Member seemed to suppose. They had been annually proposed on each occasion since their imposition, and if he had introduced a Finance Bill to make them permanent he would doubtless have I met with much more difficulty than he was likely to meet with by adhering to the usual practice in this respect. As to how the revenue had been going on, he explained in his Budget speech that during last year, in consequence of the cold summer, not so much beer was drunk, and in consequence of the warm winter not so much spirits was drunk, and therefore the revenue, so far as those two articles were concerned, was not as satisfactory as could have been expected. With regard to tobacco the revenue was on the whole satisfactory.
SIR HENRY FOWLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the actual figures for wines, spirits, beer, and tobacco, in accordance with the usual custom. He had been expecting the revised speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and his statement at the end showing what the taxes had produced as contrasted with previous years. His hon. friend had asked why these Resolutions were proposed annually? The reason was in order that the House of Commons might retain its control over the taxation. They were not now dealing with general
436
taxation upon spirits, beer, and tobacco, but only with the increase which was put on for the war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had circulated a Return in which tobacco ranked amongst the articles subject to war taxation, and the amount of that taxation was put down as one of the burdens imposed upon the consumers of commodities with reference to the war. He contended that tobacco had paid no war duty at all. As a matter of fact tobacco was paying less than before the war, and when additional taxation was imposed upon tea and other articles, tobacco was practically exempted. Down to the year 1900, for more than fifty years, there had been no variation in the tax on tobacco except an increase of 4d. made in connection with the war in Europe and the East at the close of Sir Stafford Northcote's Chancellorship of the Exchequer, and which was subsequently remitted by Mr. Goschen. The fixed rate of taxation for tobacco for fifty years had been 3s. 6d. In 1898 the tax was reduced by 6d., and he thought there was no money more un fortunately spent than in that reduction, for the money was simply transferred to the trade and the consumers had no beneficial result from it. Instead of the 6d. being restored the late Chancellor of the Exchequer put on 4d., and therefore the war taxation on tobacco was 2d. less than it was the year before the war commenced. He wanted some information upon that point. The amount received from tobacco in 1898 was £11,433,000; in 1899, when the reduction took place, it went down to £10,993,000; and in 1900 it was £10,880,000. There was an enormous over-payment in the following year in anticipation of additional taxation, because it was expected that this 6d. would be restored. The amount actually paid in the year ending March 31st, 1901, was £12,838,000, and in 1902, with the additional 4d. restored, it was only £10,567,000. Therefore, to say that any taxation was being paid on account of the war was a misuse of language. He wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell the House what was the amount raised on tobacco in 1903, and then they would know where they were, for they could contrast the amount

437
of the revenue now being received from tobacco with the revenue of previous years. He thought the result would show that there had been no war taxation paid in respect of tobacco at all.
MR. RITCHIEthought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it was a mistake to put additional taxation upon an article of consumption, if the effect was to decrease the consumption so as not to bring in sufficient revenue to justify it. The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest that when the additional taxation was last put on it led to a considerable falling off in the revenue. He did not say that that was due to the taxation, but that the amount received after that taxation was put on, was less than the amount received before.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: If you put the two years together you get no change at all.
MR. RITCHIEsaid that at least it was suggested that there was no increase of revenue taking the two years together. He thought the Committee would see that, if so, there was clear evidence that the limit of taxation had been reached, and that it would have been a mistake to have attempted to put on any more additional taxation. If what the right hon. Gentleman had suggested were correct, it would follow that in consequence of the income not being greater than it was before, tobacco had not paid its proper share of war taxation. He really did not know how they could have endeavoured to make tobacco pay a larger sum, except by increasing the rate of taxation, and if the effect of increasing the rate reduced the consumption so as not to bring in any more than it did before, it followed however much they piled on the duty they would not get any more money.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I have not got the figures for 1903, which is the key to the whole position.
MR. RITCHIE: If the right hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper I will give him the exact details.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer really meant that addition to the tax on tobacco resulted in a reduction of revenue.
MR. RITCHIE: On assumption drawn by the right hon. Gentleman from the figures given by him, it would seem that we did not get much more out of the increased taxation on tobacco than we got before it was put on.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that for many years previous to 1900 it was the general opinion of the revenue authorities that the tax on tobacco had reached its maximum, and that if they increased it they would so diminish the consumption that they would not get any more money from it. It was contended that the reduction in the consumption would be so great that it would not increase the revenue. The experience of the Customs and Inland Revenue authorities was that tobacco was an article of luxury which the mass of the population gave up in bad times. After that they cut down their expenditure upon alcohol, and the last thing they reduced their expenditure upon was tea and sugar. The experience given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to show that the view of the Revenue authorities was correct, and that tobacco had reached its maximum.
MR. RITCHIE: I did not say that.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid in 1902 the revenue was the smallest since 1898. He thought it was quite possible under these circumstances that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might obtain an increased revenue by reducing taxation on tobacco. In that way the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be gratified, and the consumer as well. They ought to put upon tobacco the precise amount of taxation which would raise the maximum of revenue.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was very unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not got the figures for this year. It was quite clear that nothing at all had been produced by the

439
addition of 4d. on the Tobacco Duty. The right hon. Gentleman said that the two years should be taken together. These two years produced £23,300—an average of £11,650. The produce of the tax before the 4d. was put on was not £11,650. In 1900 it was £10,800, and in 1899 it was £11,000, so that it was quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in thinking that this tax produced nothing at all. On the contrary, it was very productive. It was generally admitted at the time the reduction was made that the consumer had not benefited. It was the producer and the middleman in the trade who got the benefit. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not leave the Committee under the impression that the addition to the tax did not produce anything. Some of them thought it would have been better to increase the tobacco duty further instead of raising the money required by taxation on corn and sugar.
MR. RITCHIEsaid it was a matter of interest to know what the amount of revenue raised by the duty on tobacco was. His observations on the subject were based on what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. There was no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar had fairly stated the case. There had been an increase. The revenue from the tobacco duty in 1901 was £12,838,000; in 1902, £10,567,000, and in 1903, £12,443,000. The estimate for 1904 was £12,500,000.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid this was a very important matter. What they were now discussing was really whether these additional taxes they were now asked to vote were justified by the return from them. That turned on the question whether they had brought about an increase or a decrease of the revenue. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton that there had been a decrease as the result of the additional duty. In 1901 the yield was £12,838,000, and in the next year, when the duty was in fuller operation, it was £10,567,000. Although it was true that
440
in 1903 it was £12,443,000, it was less than in 1900–01. As for the estimate for the year on which they had entered, his opinion was that all the estimates were a bit too high. It seemed to him, from the figures, that the return, in spite of the extra duty imposed, showed a decrease. The doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman had preached was one that had stood the test of experience, and it was also the doctrine of Adam Smith and other economists. There was a point beyond which, if duties were raised, they got a smaller and not a larger amount of revenue. It encouraged smuggling and diminished consumption, and it was a very grave question for the Committee whether these extra duties ought not to be abolished in the interest of the revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer by his own figures had made out a strong case for taking that course. He should view with regret the abolition of any of the annual duties. This was one of the occasions on which they could call attention to the burdens which were imposed annually. Those taxes which were imposed permanently by Act of Parliament entirely escaped the notice of the House of Commons. They remained, whatever the people or their representatives might say. The other and the more constitutional method of imposing additional taxation was the annual method, but it was the permanent method that had received the patronage of the Treasury Bench. The proportion of our revenue raised by permanent imposts on the people, and which was incapable of being changed except by Act of Parliament, was two-thirds, and only one-third was raised by the constitutional method of voting taxes for one year. The effect this year, in consequence of the remission of the Corn Tax and the large amount taken off the Income Tax, which was an annual tax, would be that the proportion of annual taxes would be very much reduced, and instead of there being only one-third there would be considerably less, and the result was pro tanto to diminish the power and influence of the House of Commons. If it were true that the effect of the additional duty on tobacco was not to increase but to diminish the revenue, it certainly

441
would be better to withdraw that portion of the duty. The consumer would like it better, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get more out of it. He did not think the Committee should pass the Resolution without being satisfied as to what was the true view on that point. What he had said was true also of beer and spirits. He suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having given the Committee somewhat tardily the figures in regard to tobacco, should now proceed to give the figures in regard to beer and spirits, so that they might know whether the additional taxes had resulted in an increase or decrease of the revenue.
MR. GROVESsaid that large quantities of tobacco had been withdrawn from bond in the earlier year referred to in anticipation of the duty being increased. When the increase had been put on, the dealer reversed his policy and took the smallest quantity he could out of bond and held the smallest stock possible in anticipation of a reduction of duty the following year. He thought that was the real solution of the question. The same reasoning applied to spirits. In that case there was a rush in the earlier year to take increased quantities of spirits out of bond. They had now arrived at a time when spirits and beer could no longer be subjected to an increase of duty. The figures showed that they had been taxed up to, and beyond the amount they ought to bear. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer made certain pledges in the House in regard to those articles, and he thought the present Chancellor ought to be reminded of them plainly and clearly, at a time when he had a large surplus and when he was giving a greater reduction of the Income Tax than anyone in the House or out of it anticipated. They looked for an early redemption of the pledges referred to.
MR. LOUGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had reminded the Committee of the reduction of the Tobacco Duty in 1898, but he did not mention a most important fact in connection
442
with that, namely, that the quantity of moisture allowed in tobacco was reduced at the same time. It was said that the yield of the duty would be reduced one-seventh, but it only fell from 11·4 millions to 10·8 millions, so that really the reduction which took place was very slight indeed. The 3s. duty, with the small proportion of moisture, was almost as productive as the 3s. 6d. duty had been. He thought the hon. Member for Lynn Regis had fallen into a mistake in supposing that the 3s. 4d. duty had not realised more revenue. As a matter of fact the revenue had gone up £1,000,000. He was sorry to fall foul of his right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University for stating that tobacco was a luxury which could be sacrificed. The right hon. Gentleman had stated the view which was largely held in England. But in a country like Ireland, where a great many people consumed no butcher's meat from one year's end to the other, tobacco occupied a different position in the dietary of the people. It was held by many to be a necessity, or, at any rate, it was held to be one of the articles of consumption on which the people could starve better than on any other. In the West of Ireland, when the people, and especially old women, had no dinner at all, they preferred half-a-pipe of tobacco to what would appear to them a luxurious meal. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the duty in 1898 it was done as a concession to Ireland, and but for the alteration made at the same time in regard to the moisture it would have been a substantial concession. But the English were quite different. They could never tax these two peoples alike with fairness in regard to certain articles. Tobacco was the standard article which illustrated that principle. Until the two Exchequers were amalgamated the duty levied on tobacco in Ireland was never heavier than 1s. per lb. But it was quite different in England, where almost since the year 1800 the Tobacco Duty ranged from 3s. up to 4s. per lb., and yet that high duty had been borne by the people in this country without the slightest murmur and without any sense of oppression in it. That was a point the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to bear in mind in a debate of this kind. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would

443
send for the other figures, as the right hon. Gentleman had got the tobacco figures readily enough. They did not pay sufficient attention to the exactions they took out of the people on whatever pretext. They ought to look carefully at them, because every million they took from the people, in taxation tended to poverty. Therefore, they ought to hear what these new and heavier taxes had produced, and whether they had produced revenue in proportion to their increased rate.
MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he altogether dissented from the proposition that the right way of dealing with the Tobacco Tax was to put it at the highest figure possible. He agreed very much with the last speaker in regard to Ireland, and the use of tobacco by the poorer classes of that country, but he thought the hon. Gentleman underrated the extent to which tobacco was used almost as a necessity by working people in this country. He maintained that the great bulk of the Tobacco Tax was borne by the working people, and that it was in fact a tax upon the poorer classes, who ought not to be taxed in that way. Perhaps the Committee, as a whole, did not appreciate how enormous that Tobacco Tax really was. Liverpool was the principal port for dealing with tobacco in this country, and the port where it was bonded and whence it was distributed. There was in Liverpool at that moment tobacco of the actual value, without the duty, of about £5,000,000. The duty on that tobacco, if it was paid now upon the basis of the Resolution before the Committee, would come to about £16,000,000. That was to say the duty on the tobacco in Liverpool now was rather more than three times the actual value of the article. That was a very tremendous tax upon what was, whether treated as a luxury or a necessity, very essential to large numbers of our working classes. It was somewhat inconvenient that those Resolutions should be before the House by word of mouth. If he had the Resolution in printed form he would be very much inclined to put down an Amendment, but any one moving a Resolution which did not appear on the Paper had not got the same chance of that Amendment receiving fair consideration as if
444
Members knew beforehand what was likely to be brought forward.
MR. RITCHIE: You can move an Amendment, if you care to, on the Finance Bill.
MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that would deal with other subjects, but he was now talking of the particular Resolution before the Committee. He would wish, further, to point out that tobacco was, to an increasing extent, the production of our own colonies, and it seemed to him that it was highly undesirable that those colonies should have the tobacco they grew taxed to anything like the amount of three times its value. He wished to reiterate his entire dissent from the proposition that the proper way of dealing with that tax was to put it up to the highest possible amount, and to express the belief that they ought rather to consider the well-being of the masses of the people and not unreasonably to tax their luxuries.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that when the Tobacco Duty was increased during the war objection was raised to it on behalf of the Irish people by the Irish Members, and in the course of the debate it came out that some experiments were being made under the auspices of the new Agriculture Department in Ireland in tobacco growing. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer made the interesting statement that, if these experiments were a success, he could hold out the hope, or assurance he thought it was, that no difficulty would be placed by the Government in the way of tobacco growing in Ireland. At present it was illegal to grow tobacco in Ireland, and what he wanted to ask the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was whether he shared the view of his predecessor on that matter and would repeat his assurance that all legal difficulty in the way of; tobacco growing in Ireland would be removed. He understood that the experiments had been a success. He had had some samples of Irish-grown tobacco sent him by a gentleman in County Meath interested in the subject, and had placed them on exhibition in the smoking room. He believed the tobacco was

445
greatly admired, and that some hon. Members even went the length of trying to smoke it—but he did not know with what result. At any rate, there was sufficient evidence to show that there was something in this tobacco growing in Ireland. He was entirely in agreement with what had been said by the hon. Member for Islington in regard to the pressure of the increased duty on tobacco on the Irish people. There was no doubt it could be very easily shown that the increased duty was felt in Ireland in greater proportion than in this country, and that for many reasons. He remembered pointing out, when the increase of duty was first proposed, that the increase on the ordinary tobacco was altogether out of proportion to the increase on expensive cigars. The increase on the common tobacco used by the masses of the people was very serious, whereas the increase on expensive cigars was a very small matter to those who smoked them. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could not make any alteration this year, whether he would not consider before next year that it would be a just, fair, and paying thing to put a greater tax than existed at present upon expensive foreign manufactured tobacco, and to some extent ease the expense of the common tobacco used by the working classes He believed that more shilling cigars were sold in the House than any other kind, and he thought, that people who consume a shilling or one and sixpence worth of tobacco in five or six minutes ought to be compelled to pay a great deal more in proportion than the working classes. He noticed that the hon. Member for Tyrone was laughing. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman smoked, although he knew that he did not do anything else that was bad. What he said, however, was perfectly true; and a working man whom they might meet going home from his work smoking his clay pipe, paid a great deal more on account of this increased taxation than the hon. Gentleman who went into the smoking room and smoked the most expensive cigars. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might think that this was not a very serious matter, but, as a matter of fact, it was; and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not hold out some hope of increasing the duty on foreign cigars and tobacco
446
manufactured abroad, and give relief to the ordinary tobacco manufactured in this country, and used by the masses of the people.
SIR W. CUTHBERT QUIETERsaid he wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his opinion whether the high rate of duty on beer and spirits had to any extent deteriorated the quality of these articles. He had heard it stated that every rise in the duty on spirits had a serious effect on the linings of the stomachs of His Majesty's lieges. That might or might not be so, but, anyhow, some years ago the Government appointed a Committee on poisons, which, for some unaccountable reason, had not yet made its final report, although the public were awaiting it with great interest. Pending its presentation, the Government might be prepared to take some action on this most important matter. He understood that the last rise in the Beer Duty had not been productive of very much extra revenue to His Majesty's Treasury, while he feared that it had been accompanied by a deterioration in the class of materials employed in the manufacture of the national beverage. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had any information on the subject, would give it to the Committee.
MR. FIELDsaid he wished to point out that the high duty on tobacco was very oppressive, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the representations which had been submitted to him by Messrs. Good body and other manufacturers. As the right hon. Gentleman was aware, there was a certain amount of rivalry between English and Irish tobaccos and American tobaccos, and steps ought to be taken to preserve the home industry as far as possible.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he desired to press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for this year but for some future year, the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Clare—viz., that the more expensive kinds of tobacco ought to pay a proportionate duty in order that the duty might not be paid mainly, as it

447
was at present, by the working classes. He hoped that the duty would in future years be made ad valorem. Tobacco was now almost a necessity, and he hoped something would be done to make it fall equally on all classes.
MR. PIKE PEASEasked if the right hon. Gentleman could state what was the amount of revenue received from the tax on tobacco and also on cigars.
MR. RITCHIEsaid he could not answer that. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked whether he was prepared to endorse what his right hon. friend, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had said with regard to growing tobacco in Ireland. He should like to see what his right hon. friend had said before he said whether he would endorse it or not. On general principles, however, he thought the whole House would be glad if another industry arose in Ireland which would be profitable to the country and to the growers. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he would regard it with the greatest favour, and render every assistance in his power to the development of any such industry. The hon. Gentleman said that hon. Members had consumed some of this tobacco in the smoking-room, but he did not say what the result was. He hoped it was satisfactory.
MR. FIELD: They are alive still.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: They were all returned at the last General Election.
MR. RITCHIEsaid he would have to know the political views of the hon. Gentlemen before he could accept that as a good argument for doing what the hon. Gentleman desired. The matter was, however, one of very great importance to Ireland, and he could readily understand the hon. Gentleman pressing the same view now as he pressed on his right hon. friend. As far as he was concerned, he would have the greatest pleasure in assisting to develop the industry and in giving it every possible encouragement.
448
With regard to moisture, he had received two deputations on the subject, each representing tobacco dealers. The result was very satisfactory; because while one deputation urged that less moisture ought to be allowed, the other referred to the great advantage of more moisture. Putting the two views together, he came to the conclusion that the House had in all probability struck the happy mean, and that, he thought, was a sufficient reason why he did not attempt to deal with a thorny subject which was a matter of contention between one class of manufacturers and another. His hon. friend had stated that his right hon. friend had given some pledge in connection with the duty on tobacco manufactured in this country and the duty on imported cigars. No doubt there was a great deal of difference between the duties, and he believed it had formed the subject of considerable consideration; but no means had been found by which an ad valorem duty could be imposed, without great disadvantage. No doubt the working classes enjoyed a pipe of tobacco, and he would be very glad if they could have it at the cheapest possible rate, but taxation must be raised somehow. Taxation was never popular, and if the working classes did pay a little more for their tobacco because of the great additional cost which had fallen on the country in connection with the war, and the large expenditure the country had to make for its defensive forces, for education, and other matters, he did not believe that they grudged it. If the additional amount of taxation on tobacco was compared with the wages earned by the working classes it would be found to be really very small. His hon. friend spoke of the pledge given by his predecessor with regard to the additional taxation on beers and spirits; and he said justly, that his right hon. friend did hold out hopes that this additional taxation would be more or less of a temporary character, and that he would be glad when the opportunity arose to deal with it. That was perfectly true. His right hon. friend did use an expression of that kind, but he was sure his hon. friend would agree that when his right hon. friend was speaking about

449
these duties he was also speaking about the increased duties on commodities in general, and not specially about beer and tobacco, although undoubtedly he did mention them along with the other taxes imposed for the war. But his hon. friend would hardly expect on the first occasion on which taxation was taken off that he should deal with the commodities mentioned. He could not admit that the additional taxation had fallen wholly on the dealers in beer and spirits. No doubt some portion of the taxation might have fallen on the dealers, but he imagined that the great bulk of it had fallen on the consumers in one form or another, either by an increase in price or, if not that, by slightly reducing the strength of the commodities. His hon. friend might deprecate that reduction, but he himself did not think that the consumer was very much worse off. He thought he had now answered all the questions that had been put.
MR. LOUGHasked about the question in reference to the tax on beer.
MR. RITCHIEsaid he would be glad to answer that if a Question were put on the Paper.
MR. LAMBERTasked if the right hon. Gentleman could exercise any differentiation in regard to the duty on cigarettes. Too many cigarettes were being smoked. He had seen at every turn in London small boys of eight or ten years old smoking cigarettes; and even in Devonshire boys were following that pernicious example. If the right hon. Gentleman could, by some means or other, differentiate the duty and put a higher rate on cigarettes it would be very desirable. They had heard that the stamina of the British race was decreasing very rapidly. He did not take that very seriously; still, cigarette-smoking did not do boys any good, and if the right hon. Gentleman could stop the habit it would be much to the good of the country.
1. Resolved, That the Additional Customs Duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by sections two, three, four, and five of the Finance Act, 1900 (including any increased Duties imposed by section five of that Act), shall continue
450
to be charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and four.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL EXCISE DUTY ON BEER AND SPIRITS.
2. Resolved, That the additional Excise Duties on beer and spirits imposed by sections six and seven of the Finance Act, 1900, shall continue to be charged until the First day of August, nineteen hundred and four.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
INCOME TAX.
3. Resolved, That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and three, at the rate of eleven pence.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer)

AMOUNT OF PERMANENT ANNUAL CHARGE.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid this was one of the most important Resolutions the Committee had to consider, and he could not allow it to pass without some further information than that which had been accorded by the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman stated that he proposed to increase the fixed charge for the debt from £23,000,000 to £27,000,000, and the charge being increased had necessitated this Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman had by that speech left the House under the impression that by increasing the fixed charge to £27,000,000 he was, in reality, increasing the new Sinking Fund, which was the balance left after all the charges on the fixed charge had been paid. It was true that the permanent charge was increased, but the Sinking Fund was not increased. There were two Sinking Funds, the old Sinking Fund, which was the balance of realised revenues over expenditure, which went automatically to the reduction of the National Debt, and the new Sinking Fund, which was a fixed charge for the reduction of debt. Out of that fixed charge was paid the interest of the Funded Debt and the Unfunded Debt, the charge on terminable annuities, and the charge for the management of the Debt itself. When those charges had been provided for, what remained formed the new Sinking Fund. As the debt had been largely increased,

451
the fixed charge had been increased by £4,500,000, and in order to have the Sinking Fund as it was, and no better, it was necessary to increase the old Sinking Fund by £4,500,000, but it had only been increased by £4,000,000. This was a most serious matter. There was an unlimited loan to be raised for Irish landlords, and there was a Transvaal loan, and a further loan of £30,000,000 for the Transvaal, for which this country would be morally responsible inasmuch as it was a liability of a Crown Colony. Besides this the liability in the way of debt placed upon this country was becoming appalling. The increase had been stupendous within the last six months, and he submitted it would be a most imprudent thing to allow the new Sinking Fund to be diminished by an insufficient addition being made to the fixed charge for the Debt. He did not wish to labour these points but they were most important. Debt was far worse than taxes, and when they considered the claim between the Sinking Fund and taxation, the first thing any financier would do, who looked to the future as well as the present, would be to see that the Sinking Fund was ample for the Debt. If he was right in the view he took the old Sinking Fund suffered, which in itself was an additional reason for safeguarding and strengthening the new Sinking Fund. He had found, seen and felt every reason to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his Budget, but he deeply regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not take off 3d. from the Income Tax instead of 4d. and strengthen the new Sinking Fund by the amount received from the other 1d. Our liabilities increased every day, and as they increased prudence dictated that the Sinking Fund should be strengthened. It was the corner stone of our credit and the great source on which we had to rely in times of emergency when expenditure was forced upon us. He earnestly asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee to consider this matter.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked to be allowed to endorse what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite, namely that it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House to maintain at the highest point the provision for the reduction of the National Debt.
MR. RITCHIE: Hear, hear.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer merely cheered that statement, but he would have much preferred the right hon. Gentleman to act up to the views he appeared to hold. The fact that the fixed charge was to be £27,000,000 instead of £27,500,000 made a serious inroad into the Sinking Fund. As the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had pointed out, while we were reducing our debt very rapidly a short time ago, it had been shown how very quickly we got into difficulties, and that therefore in times of peace we should retain a very large Sinking Fund. The House when listening to the Budget speech of the right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was going to do a great deal to strengthen the Sinking Fund to still more largely diminish the debt, but the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the fixed charge for that purpose by £500,000, his reason for so doing being that by the reduced interest paid on the debt they were saving about £1,250,000, but the right hon. Gentleman must take into consideration that the debt had increased from £630,000,000 to £760,000,000 and that that reduction in the interest made a very slight addition indeed to the Sinking Fund for the reduction of a debt of £760,000,000. They could hardly expect the Sinking Fund to be maintained at the figure at which it ought to be maintained if these proposals by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer to reduce the amount annually applied to the reduction of the debt were allowed to go without protest.
MR. COHENconfessed to a feeling of disappointment at the moderate amount assigned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the redemption of debt. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to satisfy the Committee as to his intentions with regard to the extinction of the abnormal amount of Unfunded Debt. Unfunded Debt, in the form of Treasury Bills and Exchequer Bonds, was by no means the most economical way of raising money

453
for the Exchequer. The most advantageous, and he believed the safest, way for the finances of the country to be conducted was to reduce the Unfunded Debt as much as possible. He was surprised at one of the contentions put forward by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Nothing could be more dangerous than the delusion that this country had in any way assumed responsibility, moral or otherwise, for Crown Colony debts. The liabilities of this country were sufficiently gigantic without it being supposed that we were directly or indirectly responsible for the liabilities of Crown Colonies.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that some time back, in response to a question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he could not then indicate his intentions as to the redemption or the extension of Exchequer Bonds which would mature in August. Since then the right hon. Gentleman had appeared to indicate a possibility of some of those Exchequer Bonds being renewed when they became due in the currency of the present year. He hoped he would now be able to inform the Committee how much, if any, of those Bonds were to be paid off and how much would be renewed. On the general subject of the Resolution, there was hardly any more important subject connected with public finance than the question of debt. If that question was important in ordinary years it was still more important this year. This was the first Budget after a great war, in the course of which the National Debt had been enormously increased and the national finances seriously dislocated, and the Committee had a right to expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in accordance with the anticipations of his predecessor, would have indicated the financial policy of the Government, particularly with regard to the paying off of the enormous war debt. Instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman had not looked beyond the present year. The only proposal he had made was that the permanent fixed charge should be raised from £23,000,000 to £27,000,000. Included in the permanent fixed charge was to be the whole of the war debts that had accumulated in the last three years, the interest on which amounted to
454
£4,500,000, while the increase of the permanent charge was only £4,000,000. Even allowing for £1,250,000 due to the reduction of the interest on Consols, the permanent charge for the diminution of the debt had been increased by only £750,000. He thought that was in no way an adequate method of dealing with the enormous accretion of debt. He doubted, moreover, whether it was wise financially to mix up the war debt with the ordinary debt of the country. The Committee were now asked to set aside £27,000,000 for the debt charge out of a net expenditure of £144,000,000. In 880–1 the net expenditure was £71,500,000, of which the debt charge was £28,000,000, or a percentage of thirty-six against a percentage this year of about twenty. Taking the national income in the same two years as being twice the yield of the Income Tax, the debt charge this year was only 1·5 per cent. of the national income, as against 2·3 per cent. twenty years ago, when the country was much poorer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a great opportunity of having the country and the House of Commons with him in making a serious effort to deal with the great increase in the National Debt and the enormous burden entailed thereby on the finances of the country He believed the country would have been content with a smaller reduction of taxation if it had been satisfied that by bearing the burden a year or two longer it could have made a substantial and permanent reduction of the debt.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he should have been willing to join in the protest made by hon. Members if he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done that which they assumed he had done in connection with the Sinking Fund. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer in quite a different sense. There was only one way to pay off debt, and that was by raising more taxation than was wanted for interest on debt and Supply services. Although last year £27,500,000 was set aside for the Debt, out of that sum only £5,750,000 had been actually applied to paying off the Debt, while all the rest went to interest and other charges. In the present year it was proposed to set apart £500,000

455
less, namely £27,000,000, and of that sum £6,600,000 would go to the payment of the Debt. Therefore, nearly £1,000,000 more than last year would be paid this year towards the reduction of the Debt although the amount voted was £500,000 less. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that £4,000,000 would be paid off the Debt from other sources, and that during the next three years he expected £10,000,000 from the Transvaal loan, and therefore during that period the debt would be reduced by £34,000,000. He estimated that the amount out of the permanent charge of £27,000,000 would be about £9 000,000 in five years applied to the extinction of the Debt. The new Sinking Fund was liable to this weakness, that every year more and more of this fixed charge went to the payment of principal and less to the payment of interest, and that weakness was foreseen when Sir Stafford Northcote initiated the Sinking Fund, for it was then prophesied that no Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to withstand the temptation to make raids upon the Sinking Fund. Since that time the Sinking Fund had been raided twice. [An HON. MEMBER: Three times.] If the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the next few years endeavoured to provide too large an amount for any one year a future Chancellor of the Exchequer would be sure to raid the Fund again. He thought that for a certain length of time Parliament would stand paying £9,000,000 a year off the National Debt. He did not, however, think that any House of Commons would consent to bear a very large burden of taxation in order to pay off the National Debt at an accelerated pace. Did the House suppose that the people would consent in future years to have £27,000,000 taxation put upon them in order to pay off the National Debt. He did not think they would ever consent to such an arrangement.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that when a Bill such as this originated in a Resolution in Committee he understood that the rule was that such Resolution absolutely governed all subsequent stages of the Bill. The point in this Resolution was whether the sum
456
of £27,000,000 was large enough or not. Many hon. Members thought it ought to be larger, and if he moved an Amendment it would probably be to make it £28,000,000. Whether they could do that now or not, he did not know, and he was not aware whether, if this Bill passed, such a Motion could be moved at all. If they could not do this the discussion was in the air. He wished to know whether an Amendment could be moved having for its object an increase in the amount, and whether, after the Committee had fixed £27,000,000 in Committee, it was possible to have a larger sum proposed.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think a larger sum can be proposed either now or in Committee. The effect of it would be that it would require more taxation to provide it, and that can only be done on the initiative of the Government. If I were to permit a Motion to raise the amount from £27,000,000 to £28,000,000 the extra amount would have to be found by extra taxation, and that cannot be proposed except by the Government.
MR. M'KENNAsaid the point they were considering now was not what would happen five years hence but whether they were making sufficient provision for the Sinking Fund this year. It had been said that although the total sum devoted to payment of interest and redemption of debt had been reduced, more would go this year towards the redemption of debt than last year. That was quite true, but it was the whole principle of the fixed debt charge that every year a larger amount should go in reduction of debt, and it was because of that principle that the House had established the fixed debt charge. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University overlooked was that since the fixed debt charge was put at £23,000,000 they had added £150,000,000 to the National Debt. All those calculations about what might happen thirty or forty years hence were entirely beside the question. When Sir Stafford North-cote put the fixed debt charge at

457
£28,000,000, the debt was nearly what it was to-day, and it was estimated that if the payments were kept up the debt would be extinguished in fifty years. Thirty years have now elapsed, and the debt stood where it did when the fixed debt charge was first introduced. The question was, were they now making sufficient preparation in order to pay off the Debt. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take certain considerations into account. An increase of the Debt in case of a war in the future would take place far more rapidly than in the past. If a European war broke out the cost had been estimated at £1,000,000 per day. In the South African War they spent £1,500,000 a week, and in the case of a European conflict on a great scale it was not too much to say that the burden upon this country would be £5,000,000 per week. It was absolutely I essential that in order to be able in case of emergency to raise this vast sum their credit should be good. When Consols were up to 100 it would be time enough to say whether the right hon. Gentleman might not be putting greater burdens on the taxpayers for the redemption of the Debt than was actually necessary. At this moment however he could not say that. It was specially necessary that we should pay off debt at this time, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound in the near future to go to the public to raise further loans in respect of the Irish Land Bill, and he would have to pay larger permanent interest for those loans simply because he was not able to get Consols back to par. When Consols went above par it might become necessary not to make too large purchases in one year in the market. No doubt if Consols went to 114, the figure which they reached some years ago, it might be necessary to reduce the amount of the purchases in the open market, but there was no such excuse at present; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be well advised in spending as many millions as he could to force back British credit to the point at which it stood before the war, when the Government could borrow at something under 2¾ per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman was not following on the lines of the precedents which had been created by his
458
predecessors. There was an alteration made in the Sinking Fund in 1889 by Mr. Goschen, as he then was, when the interest on the debt was reduced from 3 per cent. to 2¾ per cent. At that time the saving to the Exchequer was no less than £1,500,000 owing to the reduction of interest. Mr. Goschen gave £1,000,000 of that to the taxpayers and added £500,000 to the Sinking Fund. At that time there was an actual deficit for the year, and Mr. Goschen was not remitting taxation to the amount of £10,000,000 as now, but he had to impose additional taxation to the extent of £1,000,000. If he had taken the whole £1,500,000 for the benefit of the taxpayers he would not have had to impose so much additional taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at present was under no such temptation as Mr. Goschen. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman had to make a Sinking Fund for an additional debt of £150,000,000, and all that he had done was to give £250,000 more than Mr. Goschen gave. At that time Mr. Goschen was paying off the debt at the rate of £7,500,000 a year, whereas the utmost the Chancellor of the Exchequer could do this year was to pay off £6,600,000. The next precedent was to be found in the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1899. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the Sinking Fund. But he took the Opportunity of converting a large block of Consols into terminable annuities in order to take temptation out of the way of his successors who might be induced to raid the Sinking Fund, and accordingly he created an annual charge of £1,200,000 which was taken out of the power of being raided. The Sinking Fund had been suspended during the whole course of the war, but these terminable annuities had been continuously paid off, and £1,200,000 had been annually spent in redemption of debt in spite of the suspension of the Sinking Fund. These were the two most recent precedents. The right hon. Gentleman had not acted on similar lines. He had taken this annual saving of £1,250,000 on interest, and he had given back only £750,000 a year out of it. That was all he had done this year in order to meet an additional debt of upwards of £150,000,000. He urged the

459
right hon. Gentleman to drop the figure of £27,000,000, and to go back to the original figure adopted by Sir Stafford Northcote of £28,000,000 until the time came when he had got all the benefits which he promised himself in the course of the next five years. Until that time he should make the necessary sacrifice in order to restore British credit to the point at which it stood when Consols were at par.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he agreed that there ought to be a greater reduction of the National Debt, and a larger sum of money set aside each year for the purpose, because our liabilities and debt had greatly increased, and seemed to be rather in the way of increasing than diminishing. There had been added this year a liability of £35,000,000, and they were not told that that was to I be the last, or anything like the last, sum they were to be expected to find for the Transvaal. He wished to emphasise the point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted a few moments ago that the idea of paying off the National Debt in fifty years by continuing to appropriate £6,000,000 a year was a complete delusion. There were sinking funds and sinking funds in this country. The first and most notable one was when the younger Pitt was going to pay off the National Debt in a short time by means of a sinking fund. There was one connected with the name of Sir Stafford Northcote in 1877 which had done good service and for which the memory of that Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be held in veneration. He expected to pay off the debt in fifty years. Of course the thing was absurd. There were two things to prevent it. The first was the actuarial process by which it would be paid off if the people were willing to permit it, and it consisted in a progressive increase of the sum of money which each year was appropriated to pay off the remainder of the debt. Everyone knew that after a certain sum of money had been appropriated each year the country would not stand more being paid off that year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer seized the opportunity of relieving the country of taxation by making a raid on the Sinking Fund. The second thing was, that the idea postulated another
460
contingency, namely, that the country would keep out of all foreign wars and complications. As soon as a great war or exceptional trouble arose the Sinking Fund was at once suspended. It was a complete delusion—he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted as much this afternoon—to say that the National Debt would be extinguished in fifty years. It was a pity that a person so free from this kind of delusion should have given the least countenance to the idea that this sum of money would pay off the National Debt in fifty, 100, or 150 years. It was an actuarial calculation having no relation to the actual facts, and it would be a great mistake if the people came to the conclusion that they were to get rid of their National Debt so soon. It did not become him to say how the National Debt could best be got rid of. The National Debt could be treated in a more satisfactory way if we refrained from increasing it, and we would not refrain from increasing it unless we adopted a more statesmanlike way of dealing with affairs, external to this country, than we had done in the last few years.
MR RITCHIEsaid he thought he had made it clear in his Budget speech that he did not suppose that we were not going to pay off the debt in fifty years. As he had been for many years at the Local Government Board he was familiar with what he then used to impress upon borrowers—namely, that the local authorities should set aside every year a certain sum to pay off in a limited period the money which they borrowed, usually a maximum of sixty years. He only gave it as an illustration of his argument that by putting aside an annual sum and treating it in that way, we would extinguish the debt in fifty years, thus doing more than was insisted on with regard to local debts. He had made an actuarial calculation to that effect, and he could assure the hon. and learned Member that he would find, if he investigated the subject, that what he had said was correct. It was, of course, unreasonable to suppose that the taxpayers of this country would continue to pay annually such a sum as would extinguish the debt in fifty years. No Chancellor of the Exchequer would ever ask the taxpayers to pay many millions for the purpose of relieving posterity

461
of all share of the obligations undertaken by previous generations largely for the benefit of future generations. He was glad that the hon. and learned Member had said that he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, could never imagine that such a process as that was ever in the least likely to be carried out. There were two propositions advanced. One was that the Sinking Fund ought to bear a fair proportion to the Debt; and the other was that we should not in doing this entail upon the taxpayers an undue obligation beyond their powers. Now, he entirely agreed with both these propositions; and he had been guided by the considerations laid down in them. His right hon. and learned friend the Member for Cambridge University had described in clear and forcible language what should be done, and he should only be too happy to leave the matter as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated it, for nothing could be more accurate. But he might describe once more what it was that he proposed to do. His predecessor left a fixed debt charge of £23,000,000. In addition to that there were £4,500,000 of interest which was not brought in on the fixed debt charge, but which the Committee would recognise ought to be brought in. That brought the sum up to £27,500,000. But it was impossible for him to overlook the fact that his right hon. friend and predecessor did intend—and so stated to the Committee and with the approbation of the Committee, and he had left a memorandum to that effect in his office—that when the interest became reduced to 2½ per cent. the £1,250,000 which was saved in the matter of interest should go to the taxpayers. He was, consequently, perfectly justified in deducting from the £27,500,000 the sum of £1,250,000, which was the saving in interest—leaving a sum of £26,250,000. But he had added to that £26,250,000 a sum of £750,000, making a total of £27,000,000. He candidly admitted that that addition, in itself, if they had only the circumstances of the present year to consider, would not have been, in his opinion, sufficient for the purpose of extinguishing the new war debt of £160,000,000. But when it was said that we had nothing to do with what might happen during the next four or five years, and that all that we should have to do was to
462
consider the present year, he entirely disagreed with his hon. friend. A Chancellor of the Exchequer who fixed the amount of the annual charge without regard to what was going to happen in the next four or five years, would be doing wrong. Surely the hon. Gentleman opposite would acknowledge that it was unwise to alter this annual charge more often than was necessary. The hon. Gentleman gave three illustrations of a raid having been made on the Sinking Fund. He himself thought it was desirable that, on the one hand, they should not make the amount of it too burdensome on the taxpayers, and at the same time should fix it at such a sum as would not justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the next three or four years making a raid upon it. As his right hon. and learned friend the Member for Cam bridge University said, they knew that there was to come this year, out of the loan just so successfully floated, to the Exchequer between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 from the Transvaal. There was a dispute between them and the Transvaal Government as to the exact amount, but £10,000,000 would also come out of the New Unguaranteed Loan on 1st January next, or whatever might be the date at which it was floated, and £10,000,000 in each of the succeeding two years. It would be absurd for them, in fixing the debt charge, to have no regard whatever to these facts. The result of his arrangements would be that although they only added £750,000 this year to the Sinking Fund or fixed debt charge, in three or four years after this a sum of over £1,000,000 sterling, now included as interest in the Fixed Debt Charge, would cease to be paid when the capital was returned from the Transvaal In other words, that sum of over £1,000,000 would pass at once from the interest-bearing portion of the fixed charge to the debt-bearing portion of the fixed debt charge. The result would be that by the time the money was paid over to them he anticipated that the debt-paying portion of the fixed charge would amount to about £9,000,000—a larger sum than was ever known in the history of this debt charge—or 1·25 per cent. of the outstanding debt, a percentage which

463
had never been approached in previous experience and might never happen again.
MR. M'KENNA: It might be raided again.
MR. RITCHIE: Yes, it might be raided again, but if, as the hon. Gentleman desired, the debt charge was increased by the equivalent of a penny on the income tax this year, it would amount to £12,000,000 by that time, and a raid would have certainly to be made on it four or five years hence, and most probably it would be made at a shorter period than that.
MR. M'KENNA: It would be made anyhow.
MR. RITCHIE: If it was going to be made anyhow, let us have no fixed charge at all. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that, when Consols were low, it was very desirable that the Government should become purchasers in order to raise the price in the market; but though that was true, the hon. Gentleman must also remember that the Sinking Fund was infinitely more operative now than it used to be; that was to say, when Consols were much below par we were with a given sum of money extinguishing a far larger amount of debt than we were able to do before, with the same amount of money. The hon. Gentleman said that when Mr. Goschen readjusted the debt charge there was a deficit of £1,000,000; unlike himself, who was in a position to remit taxation. But what was the burden of taxation on the people at that time as compared with now. The 15d. Income Tax was an enormous burden, and even after his remissions taxation remained at a very much higher figure than at the time to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He was as strongly in favour of maintaining the Sinking Fund, and at a proper proportion to the Debt, as the hon. Gentleman was. But in considering this matter he was bound to take into account what was to happen in the next three or four years, and the large amount of debt that was being paid off. He should have other opportunities
464
of discussing this matter more in detail, and he would confine himself now to saying that the Government were perfectly justified in the course they were taking. The hon. Gentleman had asked a question as to what the Government were going to do in regard to the Floating Debt. He entirely agreed that it was extremely desirable that we should reduce the Floating Debt, which bore a very considerable rate of interest, and that was what he most desired to operate upon, when he had the means at his disposal; but what he should do he was not at the present moment prepared to say. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would take it from him that he was fully alive to the need for reducing the Floating Debt and by as large an amount as possible, taking all other things into consideration.
4. Resolved, That the amount of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt, under Section 1 of the Sinking Fund Act, 1875, shall be £27,000,000.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

AMENDMENT OF LAW.
5. Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [21ST APRIL, AFTERNOON SITTTNG] REPORT.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (6th May), "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Second Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £51,400, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.'"
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions—
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
4. That a sum, not exceeding £36,120, be, granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings."
5. "That a sum, not exceeding £30,150, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
6. "That a sum, not exceeding £37,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintainance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
7. "That a sum, not exceeding £339,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad, including Furniture, Fuel, and sundry Miscellaneous Services."
8. "That a sum, not exceeding £222,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
9. "That a sum, not exceeding £119,019, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith."
10. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,204, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for maintaining certain Harbours under the Board of Trade, and for grants in aid of Harbours."
11. "That a sum, not exceeding £17,980, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peter-head."
Agreed to.
MR. BRYCEsaid he would like to take this opportunity of asking the hon. Gentleman who represented the Office of Works whether he could give some account of the reasons which had caused so much delay in the progress of the building of the new Post Office at Aberdeen. This was a matter which he and his colleague had had occasion to call attention to from time to time. The progress of the work was extremely slow. This no doubt was partly due to the fact that the original plans were enlarged, but even then there was reason to complain that so little progress had been made. He would therefore like to ask how much was to be expended on the work during the present year, and when the work might be expected to be completed. He asked for an assurance that more rapid progress would be made next year and the year after than during the past two years. At present considerable inconvenience was experienced because the business of the Post Office had increased enormously, and the business was carried on in the old premises under great difficulties,

467
while it had been found necessary to hire additional rooms outside to meet with the congestion. In these circumstances the convenience of the public and employees naturally suffered. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would be able to give an assurance that there would be more rapid progress.
MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid it was perfectly true that work, so far as the Aberdeen Post Office was concerned, had been slow. The reasons were, first the alteration in the plans, and secondly the difficulty in obtaining supplies of suitable granite for the different elevations. A sum of money had been set apart for continuing this work, and he was given to understand that the contractors would finish the work in November, 1905, which was the contract time.
Further consideration of 12th Resolution deferred till To-morrow.

SUPPLY [21ST APRIL, EVENING SITTING].
Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

  CLASS II.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £381,333, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for stationery, printing, paper, binding, and printed books for the public service; to pay the salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry miscellaneous services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £52,264, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including ex penses in respect of advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896."
  Resolutions agreed to.

EDUCATION (BORROWING) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said that in moving the Second Reading of this Bill it would only be necessary for him to say a few words to tell the House what the object of the measure was. Under the Education Act, 1902, the local authorities were called upon to take over the management of schools—either Board schools or voluntary schools. They found that owing to the variations in the educational financial year, and also to the fact that in the case of voluntary schools a proportion of the money now payable would be due to the managers, and not to the new authorities, the local authorities would in some cases at one period or another in the first year, possibly also in the second, find a deficiency between the receipts and the necessary expenditure. The Government had endeavoured to meet this difficulty by advancing sums payable to the local authority both through the Education Department and the Local Government Board, and paying them earlier than they would otherwise be paid. But still there were cases where the local authority would possibly find themselves in a difficulty. If they were unable to borrow, it was quite obvious that they must obtain the money by an additional rate in the present year, which would be undoubtedly a hardship on the ratepayers. Therefore, the Government proposed that the local authorities should be given powers, additional to the powers they already enjoyed, to enable them to borrow, and spread the loan over a period of years. The conditions of the loan and the period over which it would run would depend on the sanction and approval of the Local Government Board. The loan itself could only be obtained with the approval of the Department, and the object of the Government was, while enforcing the principles with regard to loans which they had hitherto maintained, to do all they could to spread the payment over a sufficient period of years to prevent the burden being too heavy. He begged to move.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid he supposed the Bill would not prevent the local authority

469
levying a rate, if they close, instead of borrowing.
MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that in certain cases there might be balances existing and yet it might be necessary for the local authorities to raise a loan or a rate in order to carry out their responsibilities. It was very well known that a great many schools, mostly of a voluntary character, had now or would have at the end of the school year, considerable balances accruing to them out of the annual grant and the special aid grant. He thought it was rather an extraordinary thing that the local authorities taking over the responsibility for these schools, should either have to levy a rate to carry on the work of the schools or ask for powers to raise a loan, while actually there were balances which would not be handed over to the local authorities remaining in the hands of the treasurers of schools. They ought to have a promise from the right hon. Gentleman that those balances should be handed over to the local authorities, in order that they might be credited to the funds for carrying on the schools. It was an anomalous proposition that the local authorities should have to borrow, while balances were held by the managers of the schools to be used for purposes other than the carrying on of the schools.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the hon. Gentleman did not altogether apprehend what the case was. He referred to certain schools where he believed there would be balances. He himself did not know whether such cases actually existed, but he would point out that there was an easy way to avoid that state of things; and that was by the authorities responsible for these schools taking care that during the time at their disposal the money was expended. The question was settled not by any action on the part of the Government, but by the section of the Act of last year which governed the matter, viz., paragraph twelve of the second Schedule. Under that the money payable was apportioned as between the then existing education
470
authority in the case of voluntary schools and the new education authority coming into existence on the appointed day. He did not see any reason for the apprehensions entertained by the hon. Member. They had had numerous representations on behalf of the local authorities from all parts of the country and all pointed to deficits. He had heard nothing of balances up to the present.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE, who was almost inaudible in the gallery, was understood to say that the provisions relating to the disposal of the first Parliamentary grants under the new system were not fully discussed last year in the House, or possibly a better arrangement might have been made. The result to the counties had been that in some it had resulted in a large deficit which had to be made up out of the rates. In his county it had necessitated a rate of 4d. in the £, and it was for that reason that the County Councils Association and other bodies had approached the Education Department of the Local Government Board, and afterwards the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to get some provision made whereby the heavy weight on the ratepayers might be lightened. Their proposal was that during the first year the Government, and not the ratepayers, should be called upon to provide the means for starting the new education machinery. The Government had given some grants under this Bill, but not any particular grant for the purposes of starting education, and they thought the Government should have started the new system by greasing the machinery in the first instance. Such a policy would have given the Act a much better start in most counties, and have given the local authorities a great deal of relief. What the local authorities required was working capital to start the work, but the Government having arrived at a different conclusion they must accept with what gratitude they could the introduction of this Bill, which would enable them to spread the deficit over a number of years. He would ask, if he might be allowed, whether four years would be allowed for the 4d. rate to which he had alluded. If some such period was not allowed the burden would be too heavy for the County Council to support.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid, although he would not commit himself to any definite statement which might be held to govern every case, his idea was that in a case where the rate amounted to 4d. the period given should be four years in order that the amount every year should be as small as possible. That was his general idea.
MR. BRIGGsaid the concession now set forth with regard to this loan being made to the County Councils was most desirable, though it would have been much more satisfactory if the money could have been found at once for setting this Act into operation. Having no money to begin with would result in a certain amount of borrowing, for which interest would have to be paid; but some of the County Councils declined to borrow money at all, and until they obtained sufficient funds from other sources no start would be made at all. If the Government could have seen their way to have advanced the money, as they had done under other circumstances, it would have been far better. He trusted that the extension of time for repayment would be made as long as possible.
MR. BRYCEsaid that this was a serious difficulty in which a good many of the local authorities found themselves, and the work was retarded in consequence. In places where new schools ought to be provided owing to managers giving up the old schools, the local authorities found great difficulty in providing requisite accommodation for the schools, and he did not see how they were to avoid borrowing to enable the educational work to be carried on. These troubles and dangers were all pointed out when the House was discussing the Bill last year, and it was expected that an opportunity would be given on the schedules to deal with temporary provisions and to endeavour to work out a scheme whereby, in the transition from the old system to the new, provision might be made to prevent the difficulties which had now arisen. Owing to the guillotine they had not been allowed to do that, and the result was, that there was this amending Bill to get the local authorities
472
out of the difficulties they ought never to have been placed in. These difficulties ought to have been foreseen, and they might have been avoided if proper consideration had been given to the Bill. This was one result of the method that had been adopted, and as time went on they would see other results which it would also be necessary to deal with by an amending Bill, owing to their not having done what they ought to have done last autumn.
MR. LAMBERTsaid the Government were now finding out what an expensive Act this was. The provisions of this Bill, he assumed, would not apply to any loans for building purposes.
MR. WALTER LONGpointed out that the local authorities had already power under the Act of 1870 to raise loans for building. The necessity for this Bill was that the law officers of the Crown advised that purposes for which power was given to raise loans under the Act of 1870 did not cover this purpose.
MR. LAMBERTsaid that being so covered that point. He would like to emphasise the fact that there were considerable balances in the hands of the diocesan associations which were not grants earned by them, but grants made to them in support of the voluntary schools. A large amount of these voluntary grants were now going to be used for the upkeep of the voluntary schools, in order to relieve the managers from applying for any further voluntary subscriptions for the next few years. That, he submitted, was not quite fair. The proper method for the Government to have adopted would have been to have taken the unexpired balances now in the hands of the diocesan associations for this purpose. But it appeared to him that the Government had so manipulated it that the voluntary subscribers would not subscribe for the next few years, and that the voluntary schools would be kept up by means of these balances. He did not oppose the Bill, which was the natural result of the hasty legislation of last year. Had they been permitted to discuss it without the guillotine being applied these difficulties

473
would have been pointed out, and there would have been no necessity for this Bill. He would only suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that some provision should be incorporated in it by which these unexpired balances might be brought in to aid the local authorities, and be devoted to education, and not to the relief of voluntary subscribers.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that this difficulty had existed for many years, and it was entirely a financial one. In the case both of Board and voluntary schools, three-fourths of the cost was paid out of the National Exchequer. That money, however, was not paid in advance, or even at the end of the year; some little time always elapsed before the schools received the money. Consequently the School Boards and the voluntary subscribers in the past had had to finance their schools themselves and provide the money necessary for carrying on the schools for a whole year, before they received the money with which the Government assisted them. That was the case with the whole of the money except the fee grant, which was paid quarterly. It had been a great grievance for many years, and the only way in which it could have been redressed was by the Chancellor of the Exchequer paying the whole grant in quarterly instalments, to do which would have required in the first year an extra sum of over £2,000,000, an amount which no Chancellor of the Exchequer in recent times had been in a position to provide for such a purpose. The new authorities were about to start under the same conditions, and it was to supply the working capital required, until they received the Government grant, that this Bill was needed. He would have, been glad if the Government had been able to find the working capital themselves, but as they could not, or would not, it was necessary that the new local authorities should be empowered to obtain it by borrowing for a short time. The matter had really nothing to do with the balances in the hands of managers of voluntary schools or of diocese associations, because those balances were applicable to years gone by. There were no balances applicable to future expenditure, and, therefore, these borrowing powers were necessary.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid the difficulty they were in was that they did not see why the balance in the hands of the correspondents of voluntary schools and of the diocesan secretaries should not be handed over to the local authorities in the same way as the School Board balances would be. He regarded both as public funds granted for the purpose of education, and he believed that a great many others held the view that these balances ought to go to the new local authorities. In the diocese of Norwich the Secretary of the Diocesan School Association had calculated that there would be £35,000 in the hands of correspondents of voluntary schools on the appointed day when the schools were to be passed over to the new educational authority, and he was endeavouring to get those balances pooled, for the purpose of assisting denominational managers to maintain the fabric of their schools. They had already passed several regulations by which denominational managers were relieved of practically the whole of their responsibilities, but now, in addition, they were to have these large balances in the hands of correspondents who had, until now, pleaded that they were in great poverty. They, further, had reason to know that the balances were being increased by starving the schools in the matter of the necessary appliances for educational work. By these encroachments the local authorities, on taking over the schools, would have to meet a much larger expenditure than the normal amount for the purpose of supplying teaching appliances. While he could not oppose the Bill, which was necessary in the difficult position in which they were placed, he must say that it seemed a great injustice that the whole of this money for public funds should be diverted to denominational purposes when the local authorities were in need of money with which to commence the work of the schools.
Bill read a second time and committed for to-morrow.

RAILWAYS (ELECTRICAL ROWER) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUB,), in moving the Second

475
Reading of this Bill, said that its object was to facilitate the introduction and use of electrical power on railways, by enabling railway companies to acquire the necessary powers by means of Board of Trade orders, instead of leaving them to the more expensive and cumbrous process of coming to Parliament. Board of Trade orders already applied to tramways, and, in a modified form, to the case of light railways. The growth of the use of electric traction had been enormous, and more than half of the tramways in the country now used electricity. He was not prepared definitely to assert that a railway company could not, even without such an order, use electric power as a means of traction. The point was somewhat obscure, but in any case, if railway companies had the power, there were many other things relating to the introduction of electricity which could not be done without a Board of Trade order under this Bill, or without an act of Parliament. The first clause authorised a railway company to use electricity in addition to, or in substitution of any other motive power, to construct and maintain generating stations or other electrical works on land belonging to the company, to sanction agreements between the company and any corporation or person for the supply of electrical power, while permitting the company to subscribe to any electrical undertaking which would facilitate the supply of electricity to the company. It was certain that a company could not at present exercise such powers without special authority. He drew attention to a difference between the powers contemplated in Clause 1 and those in Clauses 2 and 3. Under Clause 1 a simple order of the Board of Trade would be a sufficient authority. Clause 2 contemplated the compulsory acquisition of land; and in such a case it was proposed that the Board of Trade order should only be a provisional order, and that the sanction of Parliament should be required for the purpose contemplated. Under the third Clause an appeal to the Railway Commission was allowed for the revision of fares, the provision of additional traffic facilities to the public by means of through booking or otherwise, and for the modification of any working agreement. Obviously the latter was not a power which could be given without
476
adequate safeguards. It was therefore proposed that in such cases a company should be at liberty to apply to the Railway Commissioners, and that without the consent of the Railway Commissioners the order contemplated by Clause 3 should not be effective. Clauses 4 and 5 were merely machinery. He thought that the Bill would be of great benefit in promoting the change, signs of which could already be seen, but which he believed would assume much greater proportions in the near future.
MR. BRYCEsaid the President of the Board of Trade had not exaggerated the importance of endeavouring to make provision for the application of electrical power to the existing railroads. The Bill marked a long step forward in the direction of legislating by delegation to an executive Department. That was, perhaps, an indispensable process, because it was impossible for the House of Commons to undertake directly the enormous mass of work which would fall upon it unless it delegated some of its functions to a subordinate authority, whilst retaining some power of control and overlooking. In the present case they went further than usual, because Clause 1 of the Bill authorised the Board of Trade to make orders for a large number of important purposes without first obtaining the sanction of Parliament. He presumed the orders would be published in the usual way and that they would appear in the volume of the Acts and Orders issued every year, so that there would be no difficulty about bringing them to the notice of the persons concerned. The powers, particularly in Sub-sections (c), (e), and (g), were undoubtedly very large, and it might be considered that they went further than existing precedents. On the balance of advantage, however, he thought the proposal of the Bill was a right one. He did not object to Clause 2, but he thought it right that an opportunity should be given of taking objection by way of petitions, against a Provisional Order Bill, where land was to be taken compulsorily. There was a flaw in Clause 3, which gave power to modify any working agreement although the modification was not agreed to by the other party. He hoped that Clause 3

477
would be used by the Board of Trade to require the companies, as a condition to obtaining the consent of the Board to the desired orders, to give certain additional facilities to the public. It was clear that if the company very much desired to have its orders confirmed, it would be in the power of the Board of Trade to impose conditions, for cases were sure to occur in which conditions in the interests of the public might properly be imposed. The safeguard afforded by that clause was evidently required, and the House would not wish to see it removed. There might be points in the Bill to be considered in Committee, but he was glad to think that the railroads would take steps, as was being done in America, to apply electrical traction, and in that way to work the light railway system in connection with the present railroads. It was clear that the full benefit and value of the light railroad system would not be obtained by this country until the light railways were worked in connection with the great arterial lines. When that was done the better it would be for all concerned, and especially for the agricultural and trading communities, who suffered so largely from the very heavy rates they had to pay for the carriage of produce. In that respect he believed the step contemplated by the Bill was a matter for congratulation to the country, and he was glad that the needs of the case were being appreciated. He hoped that the Bill would have a swift passage through the House.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he agreed with what had been said as to the importance and necessity of this Bill. He wished to point out, however, that he thought they might have gone a little further in Clause 2. At the present moment under the Light Railways Act the Board of Trade had enormous powers, and the right hon. Gentleman had unlimited powers to sanction light railways and to take land compulsorily. Surely under those circumstances they might trust the Board of Trade in matters of absolute necessity, such as giving power to take land for the purpose of erecting a generating station, It was necessary in many cases to have a generating station. Why should they interpose a Bill to confirm this when it might
478
cause an enormous amount of delay? He trusted the Board of Trade would get rid of this difficulty. They could hear the parties interested, and then there would only be one place to deal with them. The Board of Trade would find that by granting the Bill in this form they would be doing a great injustice, because they would be opening the door for some person to appeal and compel them to get an Act of Parliament merely because they were going to take a few square yards of ground. He hoped the Board of Trade would not stultify themselves by putting such power in the hands of anyone. Why not adopt the precedent of having a Joint Committee of both Houses? In a trivial matter of land for a generating station why should they run the risk of an inquiry in the House of Commons' and the House of Lords' Committees? Why not have a joint inquiry of both Houses? Really he did not see the necessity of having an Act of Parliament in a matter of that kind. He thought they might leave the matter in the hands of the Board of Trade with perfect confidence. In order to carry out the Act the Board of Trade would have to make rules and lay them before Parliament. That was a matter which the President of the Board of Trade would have to consider very carefully because those rules would have the effect of statutory enactments. He was not hostile to this Bill, but he wanted to see it working effectively.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid there were hon. Members who would carefully scrutinise the provisions of Clause 2, in order to see that the owners of property were properly safeguarded. With regard to the first Clause of the Bill it contained matters which would receive every year greater attention, because it was becoming obvious to everyone that they were going to have enormous revolutions, not only in regard to railways but in other forms of locomotion. Whatever steps were taken he hoped the existing rights of the railway companies would be preserved. It was a fact that some of the railways were moving in the direction of electrifying some portions of their system without coming to Parliament. He hoped

479
that whatever rights the railway companies had under the existing law would not be taken away or impaired by this Bill. Under Clause 2 it would be necessary that power should be given to the Board of Trade, carefully protected by an appeal to Parliament, with a view of making it possible to carry out works which were absolutely necessary for the electrification of the line. He hoped that when this Bill was in Committee the proposals in Clause 3 would be dealt with so as to make it absolutely clear that these powers were to apply only to the electrification of railways, otherwise under this Bill they might create the greatest difficulty in the way of operating some of the large railways in the United Kingdom. He welcomed the Bill. He felt it was an indication that the Board of Trade recognised the public necessities in this matter, and he hoped the Bill would become law this session.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he was sure no one would object to the principle of the Bill. The measure would result in many public advantages, and one result, he hoped, would be a clearer atmosphere in some of our railway trains. There were one or two questions he should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the Bill. Clause 1 enabled railway companies to subscribe to any company supplying electric power. It was quite possible that railway companies, who would be large users of electric power in the future, might obtain control of a company by purchasing a majority of the shares, and they would be able to place other consumers at a disadvantage. He thought some provision ought to be inserted to safeguard the rights of the existing electrical companies' shareholders and consumers in this respect. He also directed attention to the provisions of Clause 3 in regard to the power to vary the scale of passenger fares. The provisions in Clause 2 of the Bill were extremely generous to the individual. It protected the rights of property to an extent which he believed was entirely unnecessary. Under Clause 3, on the other hand, an order could only vary the scale of passenger fares and afford additional traffic facilities to the public on a railway company applying for an
480
order. He thought that in view of the great revolution which would take place and make considerable difference in the working expenses of railway companies, those who were interested in the matter from the public point of view should have the power of appealing to the Board of Trade to make such a revision as might appear to be necessary, and particularly that the company should afford additional traffic facilities to the public by means of through bookings or otherwise, or making up different systems, providing junctions, and so forth. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take these points into consideration, but at the same time he felt bound to say that, so far as the principle of the Bill was concerned, it was excellent.
MR. CHANNINGsaid his hon. friend the Member for Renfrewshire might disabuse his mind as to railway companies being put in the leading strings of the Board of Trade. So far as he understood the Bill it was strictly limited to the electrification of the lines, and the powers proposed to be conferred were limited to that. He agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken that the provision as to the taking of land in Clause 2 was almost more stringent than was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the Bill. Anyone who had studied the use of electric lines to supplement the great railways in the United States of America, especially in the neighbourhood, must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman most heartily on having introduced this Bill, which would undoubtedly tend to the more rapid development, not only of the railways which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South. Aberdeen but the general development of suburban traffic round great towns by means of electricity. He believed that the expenditure of running these trains meant a considerable reduction in the cost of traffic, and English railway companies would thus largely benefit by the facilities given under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was therefore rendering great service, not only to the public but to the railway companies. He gathered from the President of the Board of Trade that the orders would not be, when made, immediately laid

481
before Parliament but only presented in an annual report. He thought that was a matter they might take reasonable exception to. It was very important that these orders and regulations with regard to the safety of these lines, the changes in the scales of passenger fares, and so on, should be placed before Parliament, in order that the action of the Board of Trade should be open to the criticism of Members in that House. There were many regulations which it was most important, in the first instance at any rate, Parliament should be able to criticise promptly while there was time to modify them if necessary. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to assent to the proposal that these orders should appear in the annual report on railways. He himself thought it would be better that they should be laid separately before the House of Commons so that Members could challenge the action of the Board of Trade.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he thought it was a necessary and useful measure. As to Clause 3, which empowered the Board of Trade, on the application of a railway company, to "vary" the scale of passengers fares, he thought the Board of Trade would clearly not be asked to lower them.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the application might include the lowering of fares.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELreplied that it might happen, however, that the Board of Trade would be asked on certain grounds to allow a company to raise the fares or to cease running workmen's trains. Later on in the clause the power of appeal was given to the Commissioners against the decision of the Board of Trade, but that appeal was only allowed to any railway company affected by the proposed change. If the appeal was allowed to railway companies, why not also to the local authorities or other persons representing the public who might object to the raising of the fares. Of course, it might be said that the Board of Trade could be trusted to safeguard the rights of the public. If
482
they could be trusted to safeguard the rights of the public they could surely be trusted to safeguard the rights of the railway companies. If an appeal was desirable in the one case it was also desirable in the other.
MR. BRIGGsaid he felt intense astonishment at the extraordinary scope of the Bill, which remodelled many of the arrangements already made on many railways. Would the President of the Board of Trade include canals as well as railways within the scope of the Bill? They were in an indifferent position, suffered severely from the competition of the railways and he could not see why they should not enjoy the same privileges as the Bill would confer on the railways.
MR. FIELDasked whether the President of the Board of Trade intended to refer the Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade or to a Select Committee.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he proposed that the Bill should be dealt with in the ordinary way by Committee of the whole House.
Bill read a second time and committed for To-morrow.

SUPPLY [11TH MAY].
Resolution reported.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
"That a sum, not exceeding £6,267,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
Resolution read a second time.
MR. SOARESsaid the question which he desired to raise on the Report of this Vote was

483
the establishment of an agricultural parcel post, and whether the right hon. the Postmaster-General would appoint a Committee to consider the feasibility of such a post—the Committee to consist of Members of Parliament, farmers, and gentlemen skilled in post office work. This was a question of very considerable importance, for, without doubt it would prove a great boon to the cultivators of small holdings and, indeed, lead to a greater development of small holdings. And that was a matter in which increased interest had been taken in consequence of the introduction of the Irish Land Bill. It was not a matter which would affect to any great extent large farmers who possessed the means of sending their produce to market when they liked. Many small cultivators lived a considerable distance from a market town, because by doing so they paid less rent. What was the reason why the cultivation of perishable produce was not more general than at present? It did not arise from the incapabilities of the soil, because experts declared that the soil of this country was rich in salts and the other fertilising elements capable of producing good crops. The reason was the difficulty of transmission to market and getting into direct touch with the consumers. In most country districts there was only a market on one day of the week and the result was that the small cultivators were compelled to accept a small price for their produce. This was by no means a trumpery question. No less than £60,000,000 worth of perishable produce was annually imported into this country, including £20,000,000 worth of butter, £6,000,000 worth of eggs, and £250,000 worth of flowers. There was a ready market for flowers, and many ladies in reduced circumstances might make a little profit by cultivating their gardens and selling their flowers. He would give an instance of the difference between London and country in regard to the price of perishable produce. At Barnstaple, the town near which he lived, and which he represented, during the most prolific month of the year eggs were frequently sold at twenty-eight for a shilling, while in the West End
484
shops in London the lowest price at which eggs were sold in the same month was from eight to ten for a shilling The difference between eight and twenty-eight was a very wide margin indeed.
There was another question involved in this subject, the health of His Majesty's lieges. Many of the articles which came from abroad were packed by means of chemical preservatives, and it need not be wondered at that there was a steady increase of dyspepsia, not only amongst hon. Members, but in the general community, when one considered the amount of Belgian Borax and French Acid which every dweller in a town was obliged to consume. He knew that there were considerable difficulties in the way of establishing an agricultural parcel post, especially the difficulties of collection and of ascertaining the nature of the contents of the packages. The hon. Member for Canterbury had written a most able article on the subject in the December number of the "Nineteenth Century," in which he dealt with most of the difficulties to be overcome in establishing an agricultural parcel post. As to collection, the hon. Member suggested that depôts should be established along the various country roads, to which the farmers should send their parcels; that postmen should collect the parcels and take them to the market town, from whence they could be distributed by rail. He did not suggest that the rural postmen should themselves carry the parcels. They could not do it, even if they had the strength of Hercules, but they might be provided with a pony and cart, or even with a motor car. As to ascertaining the nature of the contents of the packages, there should be a register of the cultivators of small holdings, and they should undertake, with penalties for breach of the undertaking, to send only articles of a certain specified description. Of course he was fully aware that the whole question of an agricultural parcel post would depend, to a considerable extent, on the hearty goodwill of the farmers; but for his part, he believed that their hearty co-operation would be secured, and that the general result would be very much for the benefit of agriculture. Before he sat down he wished to give the right hon. the Postmaster-General a brief history of this question. In April, 1891,

485
a deputation waited on the late Mr. Raikes, who, in reply to their representation, said he thought that there was a very strong case for the Post Office taking upon itself the especial charge of perishable agricultural produce, the early and speedy conveyance of which was so important; and he promised to go to the Treasury to see if anything could be done generally in the direction of the proposal made. He did not know whether Mr. Raikes went to the Treasury or not, but if he did his efforts were fruitless, and he died shortly afterwards. In 1896 the matter was ventilated in the House, when the late Mr. Hanbury said that there was no objection to an agricultural parcel post, though there might be one to a reduced rate; and, moreover, the Postmaster-General would have no opportunity of ascertaining or judging how far each parcel contained agricultural produce. Again a question was put to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General in November, 1902, when the right hon. Gentleman said that the subject had been considered on more than one occasion, but the difficulties surrounding it were so great that it had not hitherto been found possible to adopt any such scheme. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, however, to examine afresh the subject as soon as he had leisure to do so. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman had had the leisure, and that he would give the House a favourable reply that night. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out '£6,267,500,' and insert '£6,267,400.'"—(Mr. Soares.)
Question proposed, "That '£6,267,500' stand part of the Resolution."
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said the hon. Gentleman who had moved this reduction and called attention to a very important matter hoped that neither he nor the House would treat it as a trumpery one. He did not think there was any danger of the matter being regarded in any quarter in that light. He was fully conscious of the strong belief among a large section of the agricultural community that the Post Office might be much more useful than it was in the carrying of their produce to their customers.
486
It had been his earnest desire to extend the facilities of the Post Office in this direction; but up to the present he had not been able to find a solution of the difficulty. He did not, however, propose to leave matters exactly where they stood; he was making some further inquiries in regard to certain branches, and if he could see his way to produce a satisfactory scheme no one would be more delighted than he. But one or two general considerations must be borne in mind. If they were to have a scheme it must be one which at least paid its way. He did not mean to say that at the initial stage they would not be justified in incurring some loss in order to promote, a trade which they saw a good chance of securing within a reasonable time. But they ought not to undertake a trade under conditions which offered no hope of the avoidance of loss. Then the hon. Member's idea of a post confined to agricultural parcels was not a practical solution; it would neither be fair to other classes of the community nor would it be in harmony with our general Post Office system. If such a post were established, how would it be possible, for instance, to refuse the extension of facilities to the fish industry? The hon. Member spoke of the increased interest which the Irish Members took in this question in consequence of the Irish Land Bill. He was glad to think that there had been a very remarkable and extraordinary development of the Irish fishing industry under the operation of the Congested Districts Board. Surely these fishermen would be entitled to say that what had been done for one section of the community should be done for them. Any arrangement made must, he thought, be of general application.
After all, the reason why the parcel post was not more useful, or not more used by the agricultural community, was not at present a question of rates or weights. The real difficulty was that of getting these parcels from the small producer into the post office. Every Post Office was already a depot for the collection of such parcels. The difficulty was that in country districts they could not have a post office close at hand to every small holding, and that inevitably many of these producers would be separated by a considerable distance from the nearest Post Office.

487
To make this parcel post widely and largely useful it would be necessary in some way to secure greater facilities for collecting parcels. The Post Office could not undertake to send round to every house in the country to inquire whether they had any parcels to despatch or not; but he had been trying to find a way by which the present facilities for collection might be extended, and he would continue to devote his efforts to that end. The hon. Member had suggested a greater use of the horse-and-cart mails or of motor-cars. Hitherto they had not been able to make a great use of motor-cars because they could not afford to run any risk of a breakdown in the mail service; and, whilst motor-cars were useful for many purposes, they could not find a motor-car to run for seven days without liability to occasional breakdown. He should hope, as motor-cars improved, to be able to use them more largely for the parcel post and for the carriage of mails generally, especially in the country districts. He was making inquiries to see to what extent country mails were already carried by horses and carts which would lend themselves to the collection of parcels as well; but these mail carts ran upon main lines of traffic, and they could not divert them to branch lanes and to odd farmhouses without upsetting altogether the present delivery of letters and causing delay and inconvenience to correspondence. He was fully conscious of the great importance attached to this service in every quarter of the House, and he was giving it such attention as he could in the great pressure of other work. He could assure the House that it would not be for want of sympathy or of attention if he was unable to do anything more than was at present done to meet the wishes of the agricultural population and of others who might use the parcel post.
MR. NORMANasked if it was not a fact that parcels were carried nightly between Liverpool and Manchester by motor-cars, and whether the service was not satisfactory.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that there was such a service; but occasionally there was serious inconvenience owing to the breakdown of the
488
motor-cars. They had three motor-cars on the service, one starting from each end nightly, the other being held in reserve. The car in reserve could not of course be on the spot when a breakdown occurred, and there had been very considerable delay, resulting in many complaints to the Post Office. The Post Office could not brook any breakdown, and one breakdown in the year was sufficient to make a bad service.
MR. SOARESasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Resolution agreed to.

PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of five members, three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Mr. Arthur Elliot.)

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was of the usual type enabling the Post Office to acquire certain sites for Post Office purposes. It was proposed to extend the Paddington Office, and it was hoped that they would be able to exchange the property they now held for property belonging to the Great Western Railway Company and thereby secure a great improvement in their present office. It would be necessary to acquire additional property as well. In the Bill power was asked to close parts of two streets in the

489
borough, but he had undertaken, in deference to the wishes of the Borough Council, that no part of London Street would be closed, and he would move to strike out the necessary words when the Bill was before the Hybrid Committee to which he hoped it would be referred. Under those circumstances, the Borough Council had no objection to the Bill being proceeded with, although there were a few further small points to be considered. Power was also sought in the Bill to acquire land with a river frontage in Southwark for the erection of a power station for the supply of electricity for Post Office purposes. He had been asked whether he would consider the advisability of obtaining this power from one of the existing sources of supply instead of creating a new Post Office establishment. At the present time the Post Office supplied the whole of its electricity for the Central Telegraph Office; but they had exhausted their power at that station, and they were urgently in need of further power in order to improve the telegraphic facilities for London. But since the Bill had been drafted he had reason to think, as the result of some communications he had received, it might be possible for the Post Office to make advantageous terms with one of the existing companies which would relieve him from the necessity of proceeding with this scheme. At the same time he would ask the House to give him the power which was taken in the Bill, because his chance of making any terms at all of a satisfactory kind would be reduced if it became obvious to those with whom he was dealing, that he had no option but to accept their terms. There was one further point in the Bill to which he might refer. That was the power that was asked for to build on a site purchased at Buxton, which was part of the Duke of Devonshire's estate and was sold subject to certain covenants. It was impossible now to obtain release from those covenants; and they, therefore, proposed to take the power given them in the Bill to build the Post Office on the site which had been acquired, leaving anyone who might be aggrieved to obtain compensation under the Land Clauses Act. The local authority in Buxton approached him a few months ago, and represented the need of a new
490
Post Office; and the House, having in mind the many allusions which had been made during the discussion on the Post Office estimates to the slowness of the Post Office in carrying out the provision of new buildings, would, he hoped, grant the powers asked for in this Bill, which in every case were necessary to carry on the business of the Post Office.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he thoroughly approved of the suggestion that it was expedient that the Post Office should erect a generating station of their own. He, however, thought before the Post Office entered into an arrangement with any particular company that tenders might be invited in a matter of this kind. In that way other companies might be brought into the field. With reference to the post office at Buxton the Postmaster-General might have told the House what the cost of the building would be. Of course, every local authority was anxious to get the Post Office to take up one of the most prominent sites in the town; that was only natural; the local authority were also anxious that the Post Office should erect as elegant a building as possible. But then another question arose. After the building had been erected on the best site, what happened? The valuation of the post offices was not dependent on the ordinary valuation, but in point of practice the same valuation was given to post offices as to private institutions. In that way Parliament was doubly hit—they were induced to take an expensive site when one further out would be equally good for postal purposes; they were then induced to erect elegant buildings, upon which they had to pay enormous local rates. He had no objection to money being spent with a good object, but he thought the Post Office should set its face against any such valuation as this in a matter of this kind.
Bill, read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to

491
the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading road.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Debate arising,
MR. CALDWELLcomplained that no trust could be given to arrangements made. He had been given to understand that this Bill would not be taken until nine o'clock and it was obvious that he could not conclude his speech on so important a measure in ten minutes.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said if the hon. Gentleman preferred to make his speech at nine he would not stand in the hon. Gentleman's way.
MR. CALDWELLmoved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed this evening.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the county of Kildare (South Kildare Division), in the room of Matthew Joseph Minch, esquire (Manor of Northstead).—(Captain Donelan.)
And there being no further business set down for the afternoon sitting, Mr. Speaker left the Chair till this evening's sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  MARINE INSURANCE BILL [LORDS].
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on question, 12th May, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed,
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he was glad to have that opportunity of examining a Bill of a very technical character, but still one of considerable importance. The question was whether marine insurance ought to be codified or to remain, as it had been for centuries, under the common law. He contended that there was no justification for the change proposed under the Bill, as marine insurance was not a difficult or complicated subject. With the exception of three statutes, which were incorporated in the Bill, the law of marine insurance stood entirely upon the common law of England. Marine insurance dated back as far as the Lombards, who, 500 or 600 years ago, were the first to undertake insurance risks in this country. In those days men who sent their merchandise across the seas were subjected to exceptional risks, and the loss of a ship frequently meant ruin. It was soon discovered, however, that it was possible to calculate the risks, and someone, by going into the question of averages, was able to fix a premium which would cover the average loss and save the trader from absolute ruin. Marine insurance, therefore, arose out of the necessities of commerce, but it had never been thought necessary to place it under statutory law; it had always been dealt with under the general principles of common law. There were other interests to be considered besides insurance against loss; care had to be taken that a man should not insure for such an amount as to make it to the interest of the ship owner to see the vessel go to the bottom of the sea. Life, as well as property, was at stake, and therefore it was felt better that marine insurance should be dealt with by common law.

  493
  Marine insurance was not like an ordinary contract; it was a contract of indemnity which implied the utmost good faith on the part of the persons concerned. There was an obligation to communicate to the insurer everything material to the risk which was known to the insured. The only statutes which had been passed during the last 200 years dealing with marine insurance—the statutes of 1746, 1789, and 1867 were embodied in the second Schedule of the Bill. With the exception of those statutes marine insurance was subject solely to the common law of England, and Parliament had not thought it necessary at any time to place it under statutory law. There was a great advantage in having the law as to marine insurance quite distinct from ordinary statute law. Judges of eminence had dealt with the subject upon common law principles untrammelled by definition, those principles adapting themselves automatically to change of circumstances. One advantage of common law principles as applied to contracts of indemnity was that they embraced everything that it was necessary to embrace. The common law followed every change and every new circumstance that arose in connection with insurance, and automatically adapted itself to alterations effected by modern inventions; consequently, new legislation was not needed to meet new conditions of things. The law of marine insurance had been most carefully defined and settled; its principles and their interpretation had been decided by the highest courts. It was not pretended that this was a Bill to amend the law, it was simply to codify the law.
  The House was now asked to take the law from the principles which had been enunciated by the highest legal authorities, to leave the old landmarks, and to put upon the Statute-book a definition of statute law, drawn by a draftsman and a committee. The result would be that fresh definitions would have to be given, and the judges would have to interpret the statute anew. It was a most dangerous policy to embark upon without good reason. It was surprising out of what trivial matters great results sometimes arose. This Bill owed its existence to the fact that a certain Judge
  494
  Chalmers, of Birmingham, in his leisure time had taken an interest in helping to codify the law relating to bills of exchange. The Bill had no resemblance to an Act of Parliament; it was more like a treatise such as would be found in any law text-book. There was no analogy between the law relating to bills of exchange and the law relating to marine insurance. A bill of exchange dealt with a contract, which was a very different thing. As this was the ninth Bill which had been introduced into the House of Lords, and it had taken about nine years to reach the House of Commons, it would be seen that the codification of the law was not so simple a matter as some might imagine. The original Bill, drafted by Judge Chalmers, and introduced by Lord Herschell, was remitted to a Committee in 1894. As a result of the revisals of that Committee a new Bill was brought in in 1895, but it was so changed as to be hardly recognisable, although it dealt with a law which admitted of no doubt, and of which the principles were well known. Another Bill, which again was different from its predecessors, was introduced in 1896, but still it failed to pass. Lord Herschell was not then Lord Chancellor, and if he had thought the subject was suitable for codification he had ample leisure to press the Bill through the House of Lords. Further attempts were made in 1897 and 1898, but without success. A curious thing about the 1898 Bill was that up to Clause 29 there was the usual mass of amendments as compared with the preceding Bill, but after Clause 29 there was not a single alteration. The obvious inference was that the man who started to amend the Bill became convinced, as everyone who looked into the law must be convinced, that the common law of England with regard to marine insurance could net be put into statute form, and that it was a most dangerous thing to attempt to take it out of the definition of common law. The fact that Lord Herschell would not take the responsibility of pressing it through the House of Lords at once showed the intricacy and difficulty of the subject. In 1899 the present Government tried its hand, and the Lord Chancellor brought in another amended Bill, in which the definitions laid down

  495
  by previous Committees were reversed by a new Committee. Other amended Bills were introduced in 1901 and 1902, and in July of the latter year, for the first time, it reached the House of Commons. Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill had not been considered in the House of Commons, and that it had taken nine years to get through the House of Lords, an attempt was made to press it through the House after midnight. It was in consequence of that that he had given the matter his careful consideration. The proceedings on the Third Reading of the Bill in the other House showed that the Lord Chancellor had not considered the Bill, and knew nothing at all about it. On the 26th March of this year, when Earl Russell had moved an Amendment, the Lord Chancellor made a statement which showed he had not really considered the matter.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member referring to a speech made upon the Bill of this year?
  MR. CALDWELL: Yes.
  MR. SPEAKER: Then it is quite out of order.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he would at once leave that point. The whole motive power behind the Bill was the pressure of certain insurance people under a complete misapprehension as to the effect of codification. The matter became twenty times more complicated than if they simply read Arnold on Insurance. It had been urged that underwriters and owners of ships were all agreed as to the Bill, and that it ought therefore to be allowed to pass. But there were other parties involved in a marine insurance. The underwriters had no interest except that of taking an average of the losses, and fixing their premiums accordingly. The owners paid the premiums and had no further interest. But besides the interests of the insurers and the assured, there was the safety of the crew and passengers to be considered. These people must not be allowed to make an insurance to any extent they pleased. The Bill would so open the door that if a vessel, although worth only £1,000, was valued at £5,000, an insurance
  496
  might be made for the larger amount, whereas that could not be done under the common law at present. The persons who were most anxious for this material change were the very men who were daily breaking the law by issuing honour policies, which were absolutely illegal, and were nothing but a system of gaming and wagering. This country had such an enormous amount of shipping that the House should be very chary of doing anything to change the law so clearly stated in Arnold on Insurance and in the judgments of the courts. Great pressure had been used to force this Bill through Parliament, and because he declined to allow it to go through after midnight without discussion he had been pilloried in all the newspapers controlled by these underwriters. Even Chambers of Commerce had passed resolutions in which he was mentioned by name. It was scarcely necessary to say that the greater the pressure the more determined he became. It was the duty of the Opposition to examine and criticise every Bill brought forward by the Government, and outsiders had no right to attempt to turn them from their duty. He did not intend to move the rejection of the Bill. He had done his duty by bringing the matter before the House and explaining the nature of the proposals; he would therefore leave to the Attorney-General and the Government the responsibility of passing the measure if they chose.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had dealt with some centuries of legislation upon this subject, but he had omitted to take into consideration that most of those centuries were very different to the one in which they lived. He hoped the Attorney-General would not again attempt to pass a Bill after twelve o'clock at night, and he must feel that the hon. Member had now been most amply avenged. He did not think that his hon. friend had given undue emphasis to this subject, which was of very great importance from a shipping and commercial point of view and was one which deserved the attention of the House. He could not, however, congratulate his hon. friend upon the very impotent conclusion to his speech. The

  497
  various judgments he had referred to, if compiled, would be far more bulky and difficult to interpret than the Bill before the House. His hon. friend took exception to the Bill as containing a statement of the effect of the decided cases, but that was the object of codification. The object of consolidation and codification was to place those decisions within reach and make them intelligible to those who read. He hoped they would not always have to have recourse to Scotch law books to interpret their laws, which were sufficiently confused already, and if they were obliged to refer to such compendiums as the hon. Member had referred to the law upon this question would be more complicated than ever. He spoke on behalf of the Chambers of Shipping and Commerce, and they had the very strongest feeling in favour of the Bill. The need of it was shown by the very large array of cases which had to be consulted before one was able to arrive at a conclusion as to some of the complex and difficult situations which arose under marine insurance law. References to judgments and text books meant a considerable loss of time and great expense. We assumed that every man knew the law, and if he disobeyed it he was punished for his disobedience. But our custom appeared to be to bury the law deep in judgments and text books, where it was absolutely inaccessible. The Roman Emperor Caligula hung his laws high on lamp-posts so that the people could not read them and then punished them for their disobedience of them. But we were more ingenious. There was the greatest need of law reform, and there was no direction in which that reform was more required than in the codification and consolidation of marine insurance law. Under this Bill litigation and expense might be avoided by having a clear statement of the law. Take for example the system adopted in the French Code. By reference to the French Code and Commentaries even a lay person could decide for himself what was the state of the law before going to any French tribunal; and when that tribunal was appealed to the arguments were invariably shorter than where numbers of cases had to be referred to as in this country. The Partnership Act and the Arbitration Act were admirable examples of codified law, and in framing
  498
  these the London Chamber of Commerce had taken a leading part. It was impossible to understand the law while it was scattered through various decisions and text-books, and it should be brought within a much narrower compass. Then again codification often led to a more rapid amendment of the law. He thought this Bill was a step in the direction of those law reforms which were so urgently needed, and this was a measure which was urgently desired by the Chambers of Commerce and Shipping and all those engaged in trade.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite was, so far as he knew, the only objector to the Bill, and now that he had spoken so fully on the subject and acquainted the mercantile world so fully with his views on the subject, it was to be hoped he would allow it to pass. Its passing was desired by every one connected in any way with the law of marine insurance. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had told the House that the law of marine insurance was composed of very small statute laws and the greater portion of them was common law. He need not say how that common law had been formed. It had been largely derived from the custom of Lloyd's, but now the time had arrived when the evolution of the law of marine insurance might be completed by combining the various principles and judgments into codes of law. This Bill was desired by everybody connected with marine insurance The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had said that the law of marine insurance was absolutely settled and defined. If that were so he saw no objection to it being formed into a code. That was not the case, because at present there was a large amount of litigation, and shipowners were anxious to have an authorized statement of the law of marine insurance in order to satisfy themselves as to what the law really was. Lord Herschell formed a Committee of shipowners, underwriters and merchants, and they went through this Bill line by line. This measure had gone through various editions, and it had now been brought to the House of Commons in a form which satisfied all the parties

  499
  concerned. Resolutions in favour of this measure had been passed by Lloyd's, by the various Chambers of Commerce, and the associations interested in shipping, and he hoped the House would do nothing to prevent them having this handbook of the law of marine insurance which was so much desired.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said the House had listened with interest and sympathy to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, and he thought he might congratulate him upon the spirited way in which he had resisted the outside pressure which he alleged had been put upon him. He must, however, differ from the hon. Member in regard to many of the things he had said both upon the general question and also with regard to this particular matter. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark seemed to regard any attempt at the codification of the law as a sort of crime.
  MR. CALDWELLexplained that his remark applied only to this Bill.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid there was nothing to differentiate the law of marine insurance from any other law, and if codification was good at all there was no reason why the law of marine insurance should not be codified. The hon. Member implied that any man who attempted to codify the law should present himself to the House with a halter around his neck, and if his measure did not get through that he should suffer the extreme penalty of the law. The hon. Member had attacked Mr. Chalmers for having drawn up this Bill. Mr. Chalmers had already done excellent work in codification which was highly appreciated by everyone connected with the law.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not make any attack upon Mr. Chalmers. He simply read Lord Herschell's opinion.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the hon. Member descanted upon the way in which Mr. Chalmers had prepared this measure. Mr. Chalmers had done work for which everyone interested in commercial law was grateful, and in regard to bills of exchange and bills of sale he had done the greatest possible service to mercantile men as well as to the
  500
  legal profession. Was it quite right to insinuate that such a gentleman had taken up the codification of the law of marine insurance in the mere wantonness of idleness, and by way of riding a hobby? He did not think that any measure had ever undergone more inquiry than the present Bill. The hon. Member opposite had defied him to define what the principle of the common law with regard to marine insurance was, and immediately went on to say that its principles had been clearly defined by the judges, and that no Act of Parliament was required.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid what he argued was that the common law existed in principles, the effect of which they saw in the judgments.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that meant that the principle was so infallible that nobody could express it, and they could only realise that it existed in some invisible form.
  MR. CALDWELL: Not limited by language.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid a principle was an intellectual conception, and admitted of being put into language.
  MR. CALDWELL: Not necessarily.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that for the convenience of lawyers and the mercantile community interested in understanding what the law was, he confessed that a measure of this kind seemed to be one of public utility. This measure had been drawn by Mr. Chalmers and scrutinised by Lord Herschell's Committee, presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, and afterwards by Lord Herschell himself; and on that Committee sat men who were more qualified to give assistance on a matter of this kind than any other men in the kingdom. The Bill had been introduced more than once. It was introduced by the present Lord Chancellor in 1891. It was most carefully considered during the recess by an eminent judge, and improvements were suggested. It was

  501
  introduced again in 1892, and submitted to a highly representative Committee, over which the Lord Chancellor presided, and alterations were made, and now it came before the House of Commons. The hon. Member opposite said that it was a highly suspicious circumstance that everybody interested was agreed that the Bill should pass. If everybody agreed that it was a good Bill, that fact afforded a very good reason for the House passing the measure and not regarding it with suspicion.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid there were others interested besides the insurers and the insured.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the hon. Member had not pointed out one word in the Bill which would trench upon the safety of those who went down to the sea in ships. But if any such word did exist then let it be deleted in Committee. These were matters which ought to be considered in Committee. He would look forward to spending some happy days in Committee with his hon. friend in the consideration of this measure. If there were any flaws in it he was perfectly certain that his hon. friend would be able to find them out and to indicate the best way of meeting them. When the measure had run the gauntlet of his scrutiny the public might feel assured that it was as near perfection as any human measure could be.
  Bill read a second time.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYmoved that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he would not object to the proposal, but he thought the Government must see that if the Bill was to be revised in any sense or form it should be considered by an expert Committee. If the Attorney-general insisted on the Bill going to the Standing Committee on Trade it might come back in a form which would make it necessary for him to move Amendments.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the Bill had already run the gauntlet of several
  502
  expert Committees, and the consideration it would now receive in the Standing Committee on Trade from those interested in these matters would be sufficient to detect any flaws there might be in the measure.
  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

  CHURCH DISCIPLINE (No. 2) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CRIPPSmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said he did not propose to address the House at any length, for the sub stance of the measure was discussed when the general question was brought before the House at an earlier part of the session. He pointed out that tins Bill had a two-fold object. He thought its real object had been misunderstood. In the first place, it was intended to make more simple the costly and cumbrous system by which litigation on ecclesiastical matters was carried on at present in the ordinary Courts of law. There was also an alternative form of procedure, which would be of great advantage in connection with matters of ecclesiastical dispute. It must be admitted, he thought, that the chief power of dealing with these matters should be committed to the Bishops and Archbishops, who were the natural guardians and governors of the national Church. The proposals in this Bill did not take away in any way the rights of litigants who wished to go to the ordinary Courts, but it gave an alternative form of procedure by which the Bishops or Archbishops might exercise an administrative power in order to bring about a better state of discipline in the Church of England. That was in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the ecclesiastical Courts. Everyone would be agreed that they ought to escape the hostile and aggressive litigant, and that they ought to have the matter settled in a quiet, administrative manner by the Bishop, with an appeal to the Archbishop, or the Archbishops Court in order to have the necessary uniformity.
  MR. MARKHAMcalled attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present.
  On the House being counted, it was found that there was a quorum present.
  MR. CRIPPS, resuming, said this matter had come before the House of Laymen of the Province of Canterbury this day, and, by a large majority, the principle of the Bill was accepted. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid he must apologise to the House if heexpressed himself with some degree of hesitation, owing to the fact that this Bill had come before the House very unexpectedly. He begged, however, to move the Amendment which stood in his name, "That this House, while recognising the need for further legislation to secure conformity on the part of the clergy of the Established Church to the directions of the Prayer-book and the decisions of the Ecclesiastical Courts, declines to sanction a measure which would ignore the rights of the laity, impair the Royal supremancy, and substitute an arbitrary episcopal discretion for the law of Church and Realm." As the hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division had said, the subject of Church discipline had already been before the House during the present session in connection with the Bill introduced by his hon. friend the Member for the Toxteth Division of Liverpool. That Bill was read a second time by a majority of fifty-one. In his judgment the present Bill was practically a negation in all important particulars of the Bill the House had previously given its assent to. It was stated in the preamble of the Bill now before the House that one of its prominent features was the desire to avoid the evils of litigation, and the hon. and learned Member had referred again to the fact that all these questions ought to be settled in an administrative manner by the Bishops in the exercise of their authority, and as being the persons most competent to deal with the matter, rather
  504
  than by the ordinary Courts of law. He begged to take entire exception to that view. He ventured to think that the Bishops were singularly unfitted by virtue of their office to deal with matters of this kind; they had not the legal training, and they naturally approached this subject from, to some extent, a partial standpoint—whether High, Low, or Broad Church—and they approached the matter with the theological bias of the school in which they had been brought up. Therefore they had not got that dispassionate consideration to give a matter of this kind, that a trained Judge had. The first Clause of the Bill stated that if a complaint of the conduct of a clergyman was made to the Bishop, whether on the subject of doctrine or ritual, the Bishop might deal with the complaint by the exercise of his own authority. He pointed out that the Bishop might deal with the matter entirely in camera; he had not to hear evidence in the ordinary way; he had not to proceed according to any rule of law; he might hear and decide the matter in his own study; he might deal with it in writing without having either the accuser or accused be fore him, and he might issue his monition without giving any reason whatever for that monition. He ventured to say that was a very arbitrary exercise of the Bishop's authority, and he did not think it was fair either to the clergyman or the layman. They had the right of trial in open court. But what came next? Supposing the Bishop, being satisfied that the complaint was well founded, issued his monition and desired the clergyman to abstain from the conduct complained of, what followed? The clergyman, if he saw fit, might resort to the ordinary Courts; he might say "I don't elect to be bound by this episcopal decision; I elect to have my case tried under the Church Discipline Act and prefer to go before the Court in the ordinary way." Was that right given to the layman? No, it was not. He pointed to the obvious unfairness of the Bill in giving the clergyman the right to elect whether he would accept the monition of the Bishop, or go to Court and have the case tried in the ordinary way, while the layman had no option whatever if the Bishop decided to deal with the matter. That was very one-sided justice. Suppose that the clergyman did not appeal

  505
  to the ordinary Courts, but accepted the monition of the Bishop, if the clergyman disobeyed the monition certain ecclesiastical penalties were to fall upon him, but if the clergyman was dissatisfied with the monition he could appeal against it to a Court which was constituted in accordance with a provision in this Bill, but the layman had no right of appeal. That was another instance of the one-sided application of the Bill. He was astonished at his hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford putting his name to such a Bill. He could not understand why a gentleman so familiar with our jurisprudence, and such an eminent lawyer as he was, should put his name to a Bill which was so obviously one-sided, by giving the clergyman on two occasions the right of appeal to the Courts, and absolutely denying that to the layman.
  He would summarise his Objections to the Bill. In the first place the procedure was arbitrary; in the second place the recourse to litigation was given to the clergyman only; in the third place the appeal from the monition was given to the clergyman only; and in the fourth place the appeal to the Privy Council was altogether superseded. Those responsible for the Bill which was before the House earlier in the session refused to have anything to do with this Bill; they considered that it was simply brought forward for the purpose of defeating by a side wind the Bill which was then under consideration, so far from regarding the Bill as being a settlement of the question at issue, they decidedly considered it made matters worse than before. It was a Bill brought in to increase the authority of the Bishops and to substitute the authority of the Bishops for the law of the land; it was a Bill brought in to deprive the laity of their rights and to close the Courts of law against them if any complaint was made in future. The opponents of the measure could not shut their eyes to the fact that there was, on the part of a very large portion of the clergy and a large portion of the Episcopal Bench, very strong dislike to the law of the land as administered by the Courts. They had only to read the speeches of Bishops at diocesan conferences to find that they were continually expressing disapprobation of appeal to the Courts, and why
  506
  was it that they disapproved of the Courts of law? It was because the Courts and the Privy Council had disapproved of the ritualistic and sacerdotal innovations which had been playing such havoc in the Church of England. Nothing would please a great number of the clergyman better to find some way by which they could throw over authority of Parliament and make a new law for themselves, according to their own idea of what was fit at the present time. The hon. Member pointed out that certain Bishops, notwithstanding the Lambeth judgment, had sanctioned modified use of incense and had allowed a modified use of reservation. It was impossible to be oblivious to the fact that this indisposition to carry out the law was part of a great scheme going on at present to change the character of the Church of England, and to introduce into it medieval customs which were discarded at the Reformation and doctrines repudiated by that Reformation, and to assimilate the doctrine and practice of the Church of England to the doctrine and practice of the Church of England to the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome. He ventured to say that masses of our people who were Protestants to the backhone were watching the course of this controversy with the closest attention. They were watching, and would judge by the votes given that night what was the temper and disposition of those who gave the votes in respect to this movement. They knew that this was a Bill in opposition to a measure which had already received its Second Reading, and they would form their own conclusions as to whether it was intended by means of this Bill to strike another blow at the Protestantism of this country. He begged to move.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid that in seconding the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool he wished to say, with great respect, that he was surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Stretford, who had an almost official connection with the Church of England, should have introduced a Bill of such wide scope, and of such a distinctly revolutionary nature. If the Bill had been limited to facilitating the working of machinery of the existing law; if it enabled the Bishops to better discharge their obvious duty under the existing law of the land, and

  507
  to render the exercise of their duty in regard to doctrine and ritual more satisfactory to the whole members of the Church of England, then he would have considered the measure in a different light. But the Bill was of a revolutionary character. It gave the Bishop power to suspend and to deprive a clergyman at his own initiative, or on ex parte representation, in fact without hearing evidence from one side or the other, and without any judicial form of procedure. The Bill was unjust, not only to the laity, whom it ousted from their lights, but to the clergy charged with offences against ritual and doctrine. At present a clergyman charged with an ecclesiastical offence had the right to go before the Courts of the country constituted to deal with these questions as an innocent man, and free, in the first instance, from any stigma against him. But what was the position of the clergyman under this Bill? The Bishop might come to his own opinion about the charge against him, and issue his monition against him, thereby giving a preliminary decision against the clergyman. And then if the incriminated clergyman used his option under Clause 2 of the Bill to be tried under the Church Discipline Act, he had to go into Court with the rope round his neck as condemned already. He was astonished that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not given fuller consideration to that point, and he challenged some explanation in regard to it. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he wished to make clear the responsibilities of the Bishops, but he did so by placing the Bishop above the law and making him a law to himself and an absolute despot over his clergy. It was questionable whether the House of Laymen fully represented the lay feeling on this question. The hon. Member for Liverpool had pointed out the extreme injustice and inequality of treatment of the two parties to a suit under the Bill. Suppose the group of laymen brought a charge against a clergyman they would have no option whatever of putting in force the ordinary law of
  508
  the land, but would be tied down by the decision of the Bishop. But if the clergyman thought it better policy to come in close contact with the Bishop, he had only to exercise the option given under Clause 2, and then the laymen were out of the case altogether. In fact the Bill deprived the laity of the existing remedy provided for them by Parliament. He called this Bill a Bill of absolutely false pretences. It seemed to him to be a Bill designed to carry out the extreme pretensions of the extreme High Church party which had been ventilated again and again in books and essays, and in Convocation. He had the warmest possible admiration for the present Bishop of Worcester, who had devoted his ability to try and constitute some form of Church government which would deal with questions of ritual and doctrine, but the aim of that Bishop, and those associated with him, and the efforts they had made, however sincere and well-intentioned, had only produced schemes which made the clergy, from the Bishops downwards, practically masters and controllers of every phase of Church life in regard to doctrine and ritual and conduct the of the lives of laymen. He must say that he had some admiration for violent extremists like Lord Halifax, who said what he meant and acted according to his profession. Lord Halifax, in a recent speech at Cambridge, practically invited Churchmen to defy Parliament and the laity, and set up nothing more nor less than a sacerdotal despotism. That was a frank avowal of what they had to face. The Bill which received its Second Reading the other day set up no new tribunal, but simply asserted the right of the laity to have access to existing Courts, so as to obtain speedy and effective redress for their grievances; but the Bill under discussion set up a new tribunal, created a new power, and handed over to the Bishops a despotic control of the Church in matters of doctrine and ritual, which would be detrimental to the rights of the laity, and even of the clergy, and was one step further to that complete sacerdotalising of the Church of England which Lord Halifax openly avowed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'This House, while recognising the need for further legislation to secure conformity on the part of the clergy of the Established Church to the directions of the Prayer-book and the decisions of the Ecclesiastical Courts, declines to sanction a measure which would ignore the rights of the laity, impair the Royal supremacy, and substitute an arbitrary Episcopal discretion for the law of Church and Realm.'"—(Mr. Charles M'Arthur.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid it could not be expected that he should support a Bill if all the things were true which were said of it by the hon. Member who moved its rejection. Very gross misconceptions were prevalent with respect to the Bill. The Bill kept absolutely intact all existing procedures, supremacies, and appeals, and it removed no option whatever from any member of the laity. It left the laity in full possession of all their existing control of the removal of any existing grievances. It would still be open to any aggrieved person to institute all the old procedures, and with the same likelihood of success as at present. Far from impairing the Royal supremacy, and taking away the rights of the laity, as was said, the Bill did not substitute any arbitrary Episcopal discretion, but rather laid on the Episcopal Bench and its members a very serious and solemn duty, for under the Bill it would not be open to the Bishop to refuse to proceed after complaint under this Bill had been made to him. He was really astonished that the Bill should have been described in the way it had been by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. He supported the Bill
  510
  because it would afford a summary, ready, and inexpensive method of putting an end to lawlessness and disloyalty in the Church. It afforded a real remedy for disloyalty in place of the undignified, painful, and discreditable alternatives which were, unfortunately, all that the present law supplied. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford was to be congratulated on having introduced the Bill, and he hoped that it would be read a second time by a large majority.
  MR. ROBSONsaid that the hon. and learned Member who introduced the Bill described it as providing an alternative and co-ordinate jurisdiction within the Church to the ordinary lay jurisdiction without the Church. That was a plausible description of the Bill, but it would be seen, he thought, on close examination, to cover a somewhat dangerous infringement of the rights of the common people in regard to the Church. It was quite true that the Bill provided a co-ordinate and alternative jurisdiction, but what did that mean? It meant that two parties might substitute the Bishop's jurisdiction for that of the Law Courts. That might be very desirable from the point of view of the persons immediately concerned in the complaint.
  MR. CRIPPS: That can be done now conveniently.
  MR. ROBSONsaid that that could be done now if the opinion of the Bishop was desired, but the opinion of the Bishop had no legal sanction, except such sanction as was given to it by those who desired the opinion of the Bishop. The Bill proposed to invest what hitherto might have been termed an academic or theological opinion with all the terrors of

  511
  the law. His hon. and learned friend said the Bill made no alteration in the law, but if it did not make an alteration of the law he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would not have introduced it. That might be all very well from the point of view of the immediate parties concerned, viz., the clergyman and the claimant. But these were by no means the only persons interested. The complaint might relate to some question of doctrine or ritual in the Church of England, and it was not for the two persons to invite some decision on a particular point, it was not for them to invite or invoke a tribunal whose opinion and decision would have a general authority over the people at large. The Church of England had become of late a National Church in a sense to which it could not lay claim, or at all events did not lay claim, until two or three years ago. Previously it was supported by that which was described as its own property tithe and the contributions of its Members; but the National Church now was supported by rates and taxes. ["Hear, hear," and MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] It was not merely this or that community, this or that clergyman, who was interested in the ritual and doctrines of the National Church. It was every ratepayer, every taxpayer. [MINISTERIAL Cries of, "Oh, oh."] Every Nonconformist who was called upon to pay out of his substance for the teaching of Church doctrines was entitled by every rule of equity and honesty to have some say in the tribunal that was to determine what those doctrines were to be. The hon. and learned Member must know that all these parties were on a totally different footing now to what they were two or three years ago. The Nonconformists had now a locus standi which Churchmen
  512
  had hitherto denied them. The doctrine which the Bishop was to lay down as being the doctrine of the Church, was a doctrine to be taught in the schools, and which could be imposed by episcopal or clerical direction on the schoolmaster. It was, therefore, the doctrine for which not only Churchmen, but Wesleyans, Methodists. Baptists, and other Nonconformists had to pay. It was for the Nonconformists to accept, according to the Bill, the opinion of the Bishop obtained by the consent of the two parties to the complaint without uttering a word. All that they had got to do was to pay. Now that would not do. He for one entirely disputed the right of two persons in a parish, one of whom was the clergyman, to choose the tribunal that was to decide the doctrine to be taught in the village school.
  MR. CRIPPS: That is the law now.
  MR. ROBSONsaid he would not put his authority as an ecclesiastical lawyer against that of his hon. friend, but he-could assure him that he was on this occasion mistaken in his law. No doubt a Bishop, on the invitation of the clergymen and other persons might have the power to declare the doctrines of the Church of England but his declaration was perfectly worthless in law.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: He has power to decide under the Act of 1840.
  MR. ROBSON: Does the noble Lord say that the Bishop having decided, can follow up his decision with suspension.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Certainly.
  MR. ROBSONasked him then what on earth was the use of the Bill. If his hon. and learned friend were right, what did he mean by taking up the valuable time of the House by introducing a Bill apparently from end to end not merely worthless, but wholly superfluous and I unnecessary for any purpose? But it was not the law that the Bishop on the expression of his opinion should thereupon have a right to suspend a clergyman from performing Divine service. It he had not the right now he hoped the House would not proceed to confer it by that Bill. No doubt he might have some jurisdiction, but apparently it was harmless. It would be vicious both in principle and in practice, and the Bill was intended to give practical efficiency to a vicious principle. If they were going to alter the disciplinary procedure of the Church of England they must consult—not merely the communicants, not merely the clergymen and the Bishops—they must consult the lay power representing the whole people of England under the name of the Royal supremacy. He thought that far too much attention was given, in the consideration of Church Discipline Bills, to mere matters of ritual. Ritual was much overrated in these controversies. He for one would allow almost unlimited latitude of ritual to those who found in it different forms of spiritual instruction, but having once got the doctrine let them be careful not to unduly restrict the capacity for doctrinal development of the Church of England. He could not imagine anything more mischievous in regard to doctrinal development than to permit a communicant, a clergyman, or a Bishop here or there to decide with anything like authority on those doctrines. With regard to the details of the Bill, he could
  514
  not imagine a more impractical proceeding than that there should be an appeal from one Archbishop to the other. Of course the Archbishop sitting as a Court of appeal would remember a decision of his own which had been reversed by his brother Archbishop on a previous occasion, and would have little respect for his judgment. But that was a matter for the Committee. What they were now concerned with was the broader principle that not merely communicants of the Church of England, but the whole people of England who now paid their rates and taxes for teaching the Anglican doctrine, should have the right to say what that doctrine was and how it ought to be taught.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have derived so much entertainment from that part of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman which I have heard that I regret I was not here at the beginning of it. As I understand, he has had the ingenuity to drag into the discussion of my hon. and learned friend's Bill all the controversies, as well as reminiscences of the speeches which he made in the weary months in which we were discussing the Education Bill of last year. That is a piece of marvellous ingenuity on which I really congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that ingenuity will not have—if he will forgive the phrase—the same perverted exercise when we come to discuss another Education Bill that is now before the House. I fail to follow what I gathered was the principal contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think he yielded to the view of my hon. friend behind me, who thinks that the Bill now before us will

  515
  destroy the appeal to the Privy Council. That is a question on which I do not like to offer an opinion, but I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman committed himself to that proposition. I think he agrees with all the lawyers whom I have had the pleasure of consulting that it does not destroy the appeal to the Privy Council, and, therefore, my hon. friend's fears in that respect are unfounded. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think that it is a serious consideration, to be weighed by those who are going to vote for or against the Second Reading of this Bill, that voluntary schools are now supported out of the rates instead of being supported out of the taxes. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman serious? He actually told the House at considerable length, not as a passing reference, not as a casual sarcasm, but as an elaborate contention, that, because before the Education Act of 1902 the taxes were devoted in part to the support of voluntary schools, and now the rates in addition to the taxes were in part devoted to that purpose, the whole position of the Church of England in relation to the laity was entirely altered.
  MR. ROBSON: I said there was a great distinction between devoting tithes to the teaching of Church doctrine in schools and devoting rates and taxes to that teaching. I did not draw a distinction between rates and taxes, but between tithes on the one hand and rates and taxes on the other.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is the hon. Member so absolutely ignorant of what our educational system has been for more than a generation that he does not know that taxes have been devoted to the support of voluntary schools?
  MR. ROBSON: Not to teaching Church doctrine.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Much more than they are now. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman coming down to this House to solemnly tell us that a system under which taxes were devoted to Church schools, in which there was absolutely no control by any authority whatever unless you call the inspection of the school control, did not support the Church more than a system under which the whole control of secular education is taken away from the Church managers? I have never heard a more amazing contention. He must have been presuming upon the emptiness of the House when he made that statement. Observe where it would lead us. It appears that the Church of England is now an Established Church in quite a different sense from what it ever was before. Before the Act of 1902, it was an Established Church in which the communicants might, indeed, have been the proper people to direct the policy of the Church in Church matters. Now it is not. Follow out that argument. Money is given under the Act of 1902, not to Church schools alone, but also to Roman Catholic schools, Wesleyan schools, and the schools of other denominations. Are the Wesleyans now an Established Church? Has every taxpayer and ratepayer a right now to look into the discipline of the Wesleyan Church which they had not before that Bill was passed? Then what is the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument? Why does he come down to the House and deal in fallacies of this kind, which may be good enough, possibly, on a controversial platform, but which really this House should be spared? I do not pledge

  517
  myself to the details of my hon. friend's Bill. As the House knows, my view upon both the measures which have been before the House in the course of the session was that they should pass the Second Reading and be referred to a Select Committee. In favour of that policy, I spoke and voted at an earlier stage; and believing, as I still do, that
  Main Question put.
  it is a sound policy, I shall vote for the Second Reading of my hon. friend's Bill, and I shall hope that the original scheme which I ventured to press upon the House may be carried into effect.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 58. (Division List No. 82.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Purvis, Robert

  Allhusen Augustus Henry Eden

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Rankin, Sir James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flower, Ernest

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Forster Henry William

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Arrol, Sir William

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gordon Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bill, Charles

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bond, Edward

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

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Helder, Augustus

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Brassey, Albert

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

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Stroyan, John

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

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

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

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Chapman, Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lowe, Francis William

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Mr. Cripps and Mr.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Stuart-Wortley.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Milvain, Thomas

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  NOES.

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Wallace, Robert

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Denny, Colonel

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fenwick, Charles

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wylie, Alexander

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Randles, John S.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Rea, Russell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Rigg, Richard

  Mr. Charles M'Arthur

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Roberts, John Bryn (Ei on)

  and Mr. Channing.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Robson, William Snowdon

  The House divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 83.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Purvis, Robert

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Rankin, Sir James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Flower, Ernest

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Forster, Henry William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bill, Charles

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bond, Edward

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Brassey, Albert

  Helder, Augustus

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Jebb, Sir Richard Clavernouse

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Stroyan, John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Chapman, Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Milvain, Thomas

  Mr. Cripps and Mr.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire

  Stuart-Wortley.

  NOES.

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Hoult, Joseph

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Shackleton, David James

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Lambert, George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Caldwell, James

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Wallace, Robert

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Denny, Colonel

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirh)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fenwick, Charles

  Randles, John S.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Rea, Russell

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Rigg, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Mr. Charles M'Arthur

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Robson, William Snowdon

  and Mr. Channing.

  Bill read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."—(Mr. Cripps.)
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid the question of referring the Bill to a Select Committee was one which deserved a great deal of consideration, because in a matter of that kind it might not be agreeable to those who desired to legislate on the other side, that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. There was a difficulty in bringing the contending parties to a common consent as to whether this was the best proceeding to bring about satisfactory legislation. They were not likely to arrive at a general
  520
  consent unless the matter was dealt with in a spirit of compromise and conciliation. He thought that they ought to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he would take steps to ensure that no favour would be given to one Bill as compared with the other. He thought that the House ought to refuse to give one of the Bills a move in a direction that would not be satisfactory to the parties on the other side. It was exceedingly difficult to legislate on a matter which excited more passion and feeling than any other subject that could be brought before the House; and they ought to try to bring about a spirit of goodwill in order that both parties might be willing to accept a common course. He would ask hon. Members interested

  521
  in the other Bill to say whether they thought that the proposed course was desirable; and then he hoped the Prime Minister would be able to put before the House a proposal which would be acceptable to both parties.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the proposal which he had put before the House more than once was that both Bills should be referred to a Select Committee. Whether the fact that that proposal was refused on a previous occasion threw any difficulty in the way he could not say without further inquiry. At all events, in substance if not in form, there would be no difficulty in the Select Committee having both proposals before them. If there was any such difficulty hon. Members should do him the justice of saying that it was not of his seeking. He had done his best to obtain that arrangement, and he hoped it would be carried out.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid the situation at which they had arrived was not a satisfactory one. At an early period of the session the House discussed a Bill, brought in with full notice in one of the fullest Houses of the session, and it was passed after the fullest discussion by an enormous majority. That Bill gave the right to the laity to obtain redress. Now, on this occasion, it happened that they had an absolutely snatch division taken in a thin House utterly unprepared to discuss or decide the matter. He ventured to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Bill had no idea whatever, when he came to the House this afternoon, that he would be able to bring it forward. To assert that the decision of 130 Members out of G70 should be regarded as the deliberate decision of the House of Commons, when
  522
  no opportunity had been given to Members interested to be present, was a travesty of debate. They were now invited to treat both Bills on the same level, and to send them to a Select Committee which might be manipulated in certain interests. He had been in the House a good many years, and had seen a good many Committees appointed, and he was well within his right in saying that many Committees appointed to deal with highly controversial subjects were not always composed in a strictly impartial and representative manner. This House decided deliberately, after full notice and by an immense majority, in favour of the other Bill; the present Bill was passed on a chance majority, and it was simply preposterous to represent one Bill as standing on the same footing as the other. He would most strongly oppose any attempt to refer this Bill to any Committee of the House. The attempt to seize the present opportunity to force this Bill down the throats of the House of Commons and give it an advantage over the other Bill, was, to his mind, a species of tactics discreditable to those who, although they did not design the occasion, availed themselves of it in a manner which did not represent the true spirit of the House as declared on a former occasion. He would ask hon. Members to consider fully what this action meant. Could it be denied that the great majority of this House representing the Protestant feeling of this country—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of referring the Bill to a Committee.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he was only urging that the other Bill represented the opinion of a vast majority of the House, and that the present Bill, carried

  523
  on a chance majority, could not be regarded as representing the opinion of the majority of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to remember that the question before the House is that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. Member is now discussing whether the decision which was arrived at represents a majority of the House.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he would only say in conclusion that a Bill passed in such a manner was not entitled to any special privileges, and he would, therefore, resist the Motion.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that if the Motion was to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Law in the usual way, there would be every chance that the decision of Parliament would be given effect to. He was surprised that the Prime Minister did not suggest that the Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Law. If the Bill were intended to pass, obviously it should be sent to that Committee; if, on the other hand, it was merely meant as a blocking Bill, a Bill to prevent legislation on the subject, then its object would be gained by sending it to a: Select Committee. Everyone knew that when a Bill was sent to a Select Committee its chance of becoming law was stultified altogether. The Prime Minister knew very well that if the Bill was sent to a Select Commiteee it would mean killing it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Both Bills are dead already.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the present Bill was intended merely to prevent
  524
  Parliament giving effect to its wishes. What was the use of sending the Bill to a Select Committee when the Prime Minister stated that both Bills were dead.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was perfectly obvious to anyone who was cognisant of Parliamentary practice that there would be no time for private Bills which had not got further than the two Bills referred to.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Government could intervene in the case of a private Bill, and star it. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman was also aware that a movement was on foot for the purpose of getting facilities from the Government with reference to No. 1 Bill. He did not think the Prime Minister could say that the Bills were necessarily dead unless he himself killed them; but the right hon. Gentleman had also the power of resurrecting them. If the present Bill were not intended to become law what was the use of sending it to a Select Committee? That would mean embarking on a long inquiry, at the end of which they would find themselves no more forward than they were at present. On the contrary, their position would be worse, because a great deal of confusion would have been occasioned. He did not see any use, in the circumstances, of referring the Bill to a Select Committee; and he would, therefore, propose that they should allow the Bill.
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed this day.
  Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL, BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
London County Council (General Powers); Great Central Railway.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Bangor Corporation Bill [H L.]—(Petition for additional provision); Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
Great Northern and City Railway Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
Shepshed Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Stoke Newington Borough Council Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Exeter Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Preston and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Hylton be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Aberdare. Read, and agreed to.
Broadstairs Gas Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on Tuesday last and yesterday discharged, and Bill committed.
Bangor Corporation Bill [H.L]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill
406
was withdrawn: The orders made on the 27th of April last and yesterday discharged, and Bill committed.
Belfast Water Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the Committee having found that the petitioner had no locus standi before them; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 9th of March and the 28th of April last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.
Southampton Harbour Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Oldham Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Macclesfield and District Electric Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill; Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Scarborough Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (No. 66); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (No. 67). Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

PETITION.
  LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition against: of the Society of Solicitors, Airdrie; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
  Report from, that the one hundred and thirty-fourth volume of the Journals (1st and 2nd Edw. VII., 1902), with

  407
  an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding volumes of the Journals have been delivered.

  COLONIES ANNUAL.
  No. 384. St. Lucia (Report for 1901); No. 385. St. Vincent (Report for 1901).
  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (STRAITS SETTLEMENTS CURRENCY COMMITTEE).
  Report, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854 TO 1894.
  Fourteenth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission; with Appendix.

  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines and Quarries, for the year 1902.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES' POWERS ACT, 1864.
  Certificate of the Board of Trade, authorising the Yorkshire Dales Railway Company to raise additional capital.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Foreign Animals (Amendment) Order of 1903 (No. 2).

  INDIA.
  I. (Finance and Revenue Accounts.) Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India, for the year 1901–1902.
  II. (Estimate.) Estimate of revenue and expenditure of the Government of India, for the year 1902–1903, compared with the results of 1901–1902.
  III. (Home Accounts.) Home Accounts of the Government of India.
  Laid before the House [pursuant to Act], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NEW PEER.
  The Lord Willoughby de Broke sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
NEW BILL.
  DTVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to Divorce. Was presented by the Earl Russell; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 23rd of June next. (No. 65.)

  THE LICENSING ACT, 1902.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I beg to give notice that on Thursday next I shall call the attention of the House to the recent decision of the Court of King's Bench on the Licensing Act, 1902, in the case of the Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis against Donovan, and ask the Lord Chancellor whether, in consequence of that decision, he will bring in a short amending Bill.
  House adjourned at half-past Four o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.