Sitting of 4 August 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways Bill. Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Ilford Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Stretford Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order). As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Glasgow and South Western Railway (Darvel and Lanarkshire Railway Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill; Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords]. Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
Milwr and District Mines Drainage Bill [Lords]. Order [18th July], That the Bill be read the third time, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Selby Urban District Council Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Rotherham Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendment to Amendments to—Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords]; Holy-wood Tramways Bill [Lords]; Lothians Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision for the transfer of property and other matters consequent upon the dissolution of districts and Poor Law Unions, or the addition of one Poor Law Union to another." [Poor Law Authorities (Transfer of Property) Bill. [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituted "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Aberdeen City Improvement." [Aberdeen City Improvements Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Poor Law Authorities (Transfer of Property Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [No. 294.]
Aberdeen City Improvements Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. To be considered to-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Arlesey; Llanrhyddbad; Polton; and West Harton; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Copy presented, of Supplement to the Thirty-second Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1902–3, containing the Report of the Medical Officer for 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Thirty-third Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  Copy presented, of Revised Estimate, Class 7, Vote 5 (Ireland Development Grant) [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 307.]
  PUBLIC REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ROYAL NAVY).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 17th May; Sir John Colomb]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 308.]
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd August: Mr. Victor Cavendish]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 309.]
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st August; Mr. Victor Cavendish]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 306.]
  ARMY (MILITIA).
  Copy presented, of Further Regulations relating to the Militia [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Further Regulations relating to the Army Reserve [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURT JURISDICTION (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into the question of Metropolitan Police Court Jurisdiction in Middlesex, with Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894 (VESSELS DETAINED).
  Copy presented, of Return of all ships ordered by the Board of Trade, or its officers, during the period from the 1st July, 1903, to the 30th June, 1904, to be provisionally detained as unsafe, together with Summaries, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd July]; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 310.]
  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP).
  Copy presented, of Thirteenth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 311.]
  BANKRUPTCY.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-first General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 312.]
  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1903. Part I. Criminal Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th June, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (EAST INDIA, CHINA, AND AUSTRALIA MAILS).
  Copy ordered, "of Contract, dated the 25th day of July, 1904, between the Postmaster-General and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company for the conveyance of the East India, China, and Australia Mails, being supplemental to the Contract dated the 25th day of May, 1897 (H.C. No. 259, of Session 1897); together with copy of Treasury Minute thereon, dated the 2nd day of August, 1904."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Display of Party Emblems on Licensed Premises in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that some time ago two publicans in county

  955
  Derry were cautioned by the police for flying the Union Jack from their premises, he will explain under what circumstances Party emblems were recently permitted on licensed premises in Roundstone, county Galway.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The first part of the Question presumably refers to an incident that took place at Magherafelt in July, 1903. The publicans were cautioned against displaying flags of any description on an occasion which was a Party one; they were not cautioned for hanging out the Union Jack only. I have stated that Party emblems were not displayed at Roundstone.

  Disturbances at Milford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to what took place at Milford on the return of the Bishops of Ossory and Galway, Clogher, Raphoe, Achonry, Elphin, and Meath, with other ecclesiastical dignitaries, from the celebrations at Armagh on the evening of 24th July; if he can state what occurred at Milford; what provision was made by the police authorities for the protection of visitors on the occasion; and whether a prompt inquiry will be made into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) My attention has been directed to a complaint that on the 24th July stones were thrown at two of the carriages containing ecclesiastical dignitaries, when passing through the village of Milford. It has also been represented that a revolver was fired behind one of the carriages. Special precautions had been taken by the police for preservation of the peace on the occasion, and the road was patrolled by a number of additional men detailed for the purpose. It was understood beforehand by the police authorities that the carriages would return together, and arrangements were made for the provision of a travelling escort of four men on a car to accompany the carriages. They did not, however, return together, and consequently the escort was unable to accompany each carriage or group of carriages. The police at Milford did not observe the stone throwing, which
  956
  occurred after darkness had set in, and when attention was drawn to the matter every effort was at once made to trace the offenders. Active inquiry is still being pursued. The incident is much to be regretted.

  Rate of Interest on Loans for Erection of Labourers' Cottages in Ireland.
  MR. MACATEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what rates of interest were charged on loans for labourers' cottages in Ireland prior to 3rd March, and what rates are now charged; and at whose instance and on what grounds the increased rate was imposed; whether he is aware that the effect has been the abandonment of schemes for the erection of cottages by numerous district councils; and whether, in view of the failure of the Government to pass comprehensive legislation on the subject this session, he will make representations to the Treasury as to the necessity for reducing the rates of interets now charged.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The rates of interest charged prior to 3rd March on loans issued out of the Local Loans Fund were—
  3¼ per cent. when the period of repayment did not exceed 30 years.
  3½ per cent. when the period of repayment did not exceed 40 years.
  3¾per cent. when the period of repayment did not exceed 50 years.
  The rates now charged are—
  3½ per cent. when the period does not exceed 20 years.
  3¾ per cent. when the period does not exceed 30 years.
  4 per cent. when the period does not exceed 40 years.
  4¼ per cent. when the period does nor exceed 50 years.
  The Local Government Board has no information that schemes have been abandoned by district councils for the reason assigned. The rates of interest are fixed by the Treasury in pursuance of The Public Works Loans Act, 1897, and the question of a variation of the rates is entirely one for that Department.

  Issue of Up-to-date Edition of Fiscal Blue-book.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will be able to issue shortly a revised edition of the Fiscal Blue-book of last year, with the figures brought up to date, and any supplementary information bearing upon the subject which his Department may have been able to obtain.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Supplementary information on certain subjects bearing on British and foreign trade and industrial conditions is being prepared by the Board of Trade for publication. It is not proposed at present to publish a revised edition of the volume referred to in the Question, but the opportunity will be taken to revise and bring up to date some of the tables published in it.

  Distribution.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  Total number of rank and file with over two years service.

  Number of those in (1) who extended service.

  Number of those in (1) who did not extend.

  India

  2,035

  1,192

  843

  Elsewhere

  10,246

  1,823

  8,423

  Total

  12,281

  3,015

  9,266

  Delay in Construction of Cromore-Gravir Road (Island of Lewis).
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the cause of the delay in the construction, of the Cromore-Gravir Road, Island of Lewis.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) As I informed the hon. Member on the 25th of April last†, the Congested Districts Board had agreed to offer the sum of £2,700 as their contribution for the construction of this road. Inquiries have since been made, and the Board were informed by the county clerk on 20th July that this matter was to be considered by the Road Board during the following week. Up to the present date no decision as to the acceptance of the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxiii, 1029.

  Soldiers in India and Elsewhere—Extension of Service.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers who had completed two years service and were entitled to extend their service elected to do so in 1904 in India and elsewhere, respectively; and how many so situated did not extend in India and elsewhere.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold- Forster.) The following statement shows 1) the number of three years men (rank and file) of cavalry, artillery, and infantry units on the strength of the Army on 1st July, 1904, who had completed two year service; (2) number in (1) who elected to extend their service; (3) number in (1) who did not extend their service:—
  grant offered by the Congested Districts Board towards the cost of this road has been received.

  The New Edition of the Book of Common Prayer.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in the new edition of the Book of Common Prayer, alterations have been made in the punctuation of the Annexed Book which materially affect the interpretation of the text of that document in some important particulars, especially as regards the definition of a Sacrament in the Catechism and the rendering of the Ornaments Rubric; also whether he is aware that the Act of Uniformity has been omitted from the smaller issues of the

  959
  same edition; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in view of these irregularities.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) As far as I can see, this Question does not raise any matter not dealt with in the series of Questions which were put by my lion. friend and answered by me in the autumn on of 1902, and which led to the Return on the subject issued in March, 1903. I am afraid that I have nothing to add, but I may perhaps refer specially to the Answer which I gave on the 28th October, 1902.†

  Order under the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act at Plymouth.
  MR. DUKE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the terms of the recently published draft Order in Council, under the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865, for the regulation of the port of Plymouth, with regard to the probable effect of the proposed regulations upon the means of livelihood of the fishermen of the port; and whether, before the draft Order is submitted for the consideration of the King in Council, means will be taken to ascertain by local inquiry the views of those who are likely to be affected by the proposed regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No alteration in the existing regulations prohibiting

  Year.

  Total expenditure.

  Met from Government Grants.

  Met from School Board rates.

  Met from voluntary subscriptions.

  Met from endowments, fees, bank overdrafts, and other local sources.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1899–1900

  12,045,000

  8,039,000

  2,599,000

  801,000

  606,000

  =66·7%

  =21·6%

  = 6·7%

  = 5·0%

  1900–1901

  12,557,000

  8,089,000

  2,966,000

  834,0011

  668,000

  = 64·4%

  = 23·6%

  = 6·7%

  = 5·3%

  1901–1902

  13,005,000

  8,275,000

  3,258,000

  876,000

  596,000

  = 63·6%

  = 25·1%

  = 6·7%

  = 4·6%

  1901–1902

  Government Grants 63·6%

  Local Sources 36·4%

  The Board have at present no collected figures as to the amounts expended by
  † See (4) Debates, cxiii, 943.
  fishing in certain areas for the safety of navigation has been proposed in the new Order in Council, and, therefore, it is not considered necessary to hold any local inquiry. A request has been received from the town council for the fishermen to be allowed to make use of certain areas within which fishing is already prohibited, but it is absolutely essential to the free and unimpeded navigation of the port by large vessels that this prohibition should be maintained. An objection has also been raised to a new regulation prohibiting the anchorage of fishing vessels in Deadman's Bay. This new regulation was inserted at the request of the Cattewater Commissioners, and the Admiralty are now communicating with the Commissioners on the subject.

  Elementary Education—Proportion of Cost borne by Local and Imperial Funds
  MR. LLOYD WHARTON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will give the relative proportion (or percentage) of the cost of elementary education in England and Wales, borne by local and Imperial funds, during the last three years.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) So far as expenses of elementary education, otherwise than for buildings and for administration, are concerned, the following are the official figures for the three years named:—
  local education authorities since the Act of 1902 came into operation. But the Imperial contribution given in the above

  961
  column has been increased by £1,248,000. This will of course alter the proportion of expenditure as between Imperial and local funds, but it is impossible to say what the proportion will precisely be until figures are obtainable of the moneys expended from local sources by the authorities under the new state of things. If the expenditure from other than Imperial sources were remaining the same, the proportion of the total expenditure borne by Imperial funds would, owing to the increase of the Exchequer Grant given in 1902, have been increased from 63·6 per cent. above stated to 73·2 per cent. and the burden to be borne by local funds decreased from 36·4 per cent. to 26·8 per cent., so that the Exchequer would have been bearing practically three-quarters of the burden of maintenance of public elementary schools. As, however, most of the local authorities are quite properly improving the education in their schools and are expending somewhat larger sums than were before spent from sources other than Imperial funds, it is not possible at present to state the exact proportion now borne by Imperial and local funds respectively on maintenance, but there can be no doubt that the Exchequer still bears considerably the larger share of this burden.

  Preservation as an Ancient Monument of Ardandra Castle (County Longford)
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury to state the result of his inquiries with regard to Ardandra Castle, in county Longford; and will he now direct that it be scheduled under the Ancient Monuments Protection Act with a view to restoration and preservation.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I informed the hon. Member, on the 18th February last,† that no such castle is known to the Commissioners of Public Works. I can only repeat the offer I then made to direct inquiry into the matter if the locality is precisely indicated.

  Acheen War—Suggested Pacific Intervention of Great Britain.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Under-Secretary of
  † See (4) Debates, cxxx., 260.
  962
  State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the duration of the Acheen War, which has now lasted some thirty Years, and having regard to the suffering which this has entailed on the natives of a small corner of Sumatra, His Majesty's Government will use their good offices with the Continental Powers to arrange that the dispute between the Government of the Netherlands and the Sultan of Acheen be referred to the arbitration of the Hague Peace Tribunal.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 28th July,‡ to which I have nothing further to add.

  Increase of Russian and Austrian Officers of Macedonian Gendarmerie.
  MR. BRYCE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received official information to the effect that the Governments of Russia and Austria have increased or intimated their intention to increase the number of their officers in Macedonia supervising the gendarmerie there; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government propose to increase the number of their gendarmerie officers also.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) An intimation has just reached us that the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Ambassadors have asked for an increase in the number of their officers employed in reorganising the Macedonian gendarmerie. His Majesty's Government consider that they have a right to demand equality with the other Powers in regard to any such increase, but the number of officers required for each district must of course be governed by the circumstances and extent of its area. His Majesty's Government are anxious that no unnecessary burdens should be imposed upon Turkey, and, if an all - round increase of the European staff be decided upon, it may possibly be found more economical and useful to employ any surplus officers, who are not required in the districts already comprised in the gendarmerie scheme, either in supervising a gradual extension of the scheme to other areas not yet included, or in affording assistance to the
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 1464.

  963
  Turkish authorities in other departments of the administration.

  Prevention of Decomposition in Meat during Transit from Abroad.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he can state the various methods by which decomposition is arrested in meat from abroad to our shores, and if he is aware that boric acid or boracic acid is frequently injected into the carcases of animals for export at the time of killing, and that experiments have been tried, with the result that on arrival carbonate of soda is found to effervesce upon the meat so treated; and whether he has any official reports on the effect of partaking of boric or boracic acid upon human beings; and, if so, will he lay them upon the Table.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I understand that the ordinary methods by which decomposition is prevented or arrested in meat coming from abroad are (1) cold storage, (2) salting, with or without drying, and (3) preservation in cans. According to the evidence given before the Departmental Committee on Food Preservatives, borax and boric acid (which is called boracic acid) are largely used for the preservation of bacon, ham, sausages, and other preserved meats, but not by means of injection into carcases of animals at the time of killing. No evidence appears to have been given to show that carcases of butchers' meat are preserved in this way. I have no information as to the alleged experiments, nor have any reports been made to me on the effect of partaking of boric or boracic acid upon human beings. The hon. Member is probably aware of the Report of the Departmental Committee to which I have referred. It has been laid before Parliament.

  Defective Ventilation of Lobby Telegraph Office.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the bad ventilation in the telegraph office in the Members' Lobby, particularly during the recent hot weather; and whether he will endeavour,
  964
  before next session, to introduce the necessary improvements.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) This seems to be a question of accommodation rather than ventilation. The matter shall be considered in the recess, in case any improvement may be possible.

  Painting by Watts in the Grand Committee Room.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the condition of the painting by Watts, R.A., now hanging in a Committee Room; and whether he will arrange for its being removed to more appropriate quarters, or if this is not possible, he will consult a reliable expert as to its condition.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) This picture was in 1897 re-stretched by an expert and placed in the Grand Committee Room, as the only position available. The First Commissioner does not know of any other convenient situation in the building where it could be given sufficient wall-space. He proposes to ask for expert advice as to its condition.

  Appointment of Additional Sub-Inspector of Railways.
  MR. BELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when does he propose to appoint the second additional sub-inspector of railways which he promised last year, and for whom salary is charged in the Estimates.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The existing staff is fully equal to dealing with the current work, and the necessity for the appointment of the additional sub-inspector, for whom provision is made in the Estimates, has not yet arisen. I am watching the development of the work, and shall make an appointment as soon as additional staff is required.

  Business of Bangor, Portrush, and Ballymoney Post Offices.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he would state the percentage of business

  965
  transacted in the post offices of Bangor, county Down, and of Portrush and of Bally-money, county Antrim, respectively; and, seeing that the postal authorities find that the offices in Ballymoney and Portrush are too small for the volume of business, whether the authorities are contemplating the enlargement of the office accommodation in these latter towns in the near future.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley). The hon. Member's Question necessitates some local inquiry, which is being made. I will communicate the result to him as soon as possible.

  Pay of Assistant Postmasters.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Civil Service clerks have to work only forty-eight hours a week; that they are paid at rate and one-half for all Sunday work; that they are entitled to an increase of pay at rate of £5 5s. a year till the maximum salary is reached; that they are paid full salary for six months in case of illness, and half salary for six months more; that they are paid sixpence an hour in addition to regular wages when absent from the offices at which they are regularly employed, and that they receive a pension when retiring from the service; that assistant postmasters have greater responsibilities than ordinary Civil Service clerks; that they are compelled to work fifty-six hours each week; that they receive no pay for Sunday work; that they are paid a fixed salary of 12s. to 15s. a week; that all pay is stopped from them during illness; that they are paid only three half-pence an hour when doing duty at offices other than those to which they are attached; and that they are not entitled to any pension; and, if so, whether, in view of the difference in the conditions of service of assistant postmasters and Civil servants, he will allow the former to be included with the others in the postal service whose alleged grievances will be made the subject of investigation by the Committee of Inquiry which is about to be appointed.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It is not clear to what class of post office servants
  966
  the hon. Member is referring. I am not aware of any class bearing the designation of "assistant postmasters," nor am I aware that any Committee of Inquiry is about to be appointed to investigate the alleged grievances of the postal service. If the hon. Member will give me further particulars I shall be glad to give him any information I can.

  Free Delivery of Telegrams in Irish Villages.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will make an order that, whenever any portion of a village in any part of Ireland comes within the limit of free delivery of telegrams, the whole of that village may be regarded as within the limit.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that persons living in part of the village of Irishtown, county Mayo, can have telegrams delivered free, while those who live in the other portion of it have to pay a sum of one shilling for the delivery of each telegram, he will consider the advisability of ordering telegrams addressed to persons residing in any part of the village to be delivered free, as the whole length of the place is only about 300 yards.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The limit of free delivery of telegrams is fixed by statutory regulations, and I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion that exceptions should be allowed. This answers also Question 70.

  Delivery of Letters at Irishtown, County Mayo.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is only one delivery of letters each day in Irishtown, county Mayo; and that the mid-day mails for Irishtown come to Ballindine Post Office, within three miles of the place; and, if so, whether he will order a mid-day delivery of letters at Irishtown in future.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Inquiry shall be made as to whether any improvement can be made in the mail service to Irishtown, and an answer shall be sent to the hon. Member.

  Military Equipment Manufactured in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that it is the policy of the Government to make India, as far as possible, independent of assistance from home in the matter of war material, will he state the value of the equipments, other than guns and rifles, which have been manufactured in Indian Government factories and by private firms in India, respectively, during the last two years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I regret that I am unable to give the information asked for, as it would require considerable research.

  Vacant Siemship of Cherra (Assam).
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has recently received a memorial from the people of the Cherra Native State, Assam, and from the ruling twelve clans of that State, urging that Chandra Singh, the nearest relative of Hajon Manick, the late siem (chief), should be elected to the siemship of Cherra; and, seeing that the election of the siem for the Khyrim Native State was recently decided by a majority of the votes of the Myntries, will he say whether there is any reason why the election to the Cherra siemship should not be decided under similar conditions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have received no memorial as to the siemship of Cherra since my Answer on the subject to the hon. Member of 18th February last.† There is nothing in the circumstances reported to me concerning the succession in Khyrim, which occurred in January last, to make me modify the opinion expressed in my Answer of the 18th February.

  Report of the Indian Police Commission—Proposals of Indian Government.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India when he expects to receive from the Government of India their proposals relative to the Report of the Police of India; and will he state the cause of
  † See (4) Debates, cxxx., 235.
  968
  the delay on the part of the Government of India in sending in these proposals.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I cannot assign any date for the receipt of the proposals of the Government of India on the Report of the Indian Police Commission. It has been necessary to refer to local governments, and as the recommendations of the Report cover a very wide field the replies have, no doubt, required much consideration. I have urged the Government of India to expedite the submission of their proposals on the most important of the matters dealt with in the Report, and I have no reason to suppose that they will not address me on the earliest possible date.

  Agricultural Banks in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state the number of agricultural banks which have been established in each province of India up to the present time.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Recommendations of Indian Irrigation Commission.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state when the schemes recommended in the Report of the Irrigation Commission will be put in hand, and which schemes will be first proceeded with.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am awaiting a statement by the Government of India of their views regarding the action to be taken on the recommendations of the Indian Irrigation Commission. I have no information as to the order in which the schemes recommended by the Commission will be proceeded with; but, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 28th ultimo,‡ the Government of India have provided in their forecast for 1904–5 for expenditure on some of the projects recommended by the Commission.

  Drainage of Scariff River.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 1450.

  969
  of Works has examined a portion of the Scariff River with a view to its drainage; and, if so, whether instructions will be given to have the entire river examined.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) A portion of the Scariff River was examined by one of the engineers of the Board of Works; but, as there is no question of the formation of a drainage board, nor of the expenditure of public money on the regulation of the river, no further action will be taken.

  Committal of Lunatics—Fees of Dromore Petty Sessions Clerk.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state under what authority does the petty sessions clerk for Dromore and Dromara district make charges varying from £1 10s. to £3 when signing the necessary documents in commital of dangerous and other lunatics; whether he is aware that this petty sessions clerk received payment of £2 10s. from Joseph M'Cree, Turganbane, Dromore, brother of a dangerous lunatic, Scott M'Cree, who was committed to Downpatrick Lunatic Asylum on the 26th June last; and, if so, will he say what steps the authorities will take to have inquiry made into this and other charges, and to put a stop to this practice, and to have the moneys refunded.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A representation on this effect was recently made by a man named Hunter to the registrar of petty sessions clerks, by whom the matter was personally investigated, and who satisfied himself that the complaint was entirely without foundation. The only fee charged in such cases is the statutory fee of a few shillings representing the value of the petty sessions stamps used. In the case of the committal of Scott M'Cree, the amount paid by Joseph M'Cree was 3s. 6d., and the latter has made a written statement to that effect.

  Sale of the Marquess of Ely's Estates.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN,: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have taken, or intend to take, any steps under Section 7 of the
  970
  Irish Land Act, 1903, for the purchase of the estates of the Marquess of Ely in the counties of Fermanagh and Wexford, for the sale of which absolute orders were made by the Land Judge in November, 1902; and, if not, will he direct them to do so immediately; how many applications for reinstatement have been received by the Estates Commissioners from evicted tenants on each of these estates; and how many civil bill decrees for rent have been obtained against tenants on each of these estates since the 1st January, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this Question till Tuesday next, to enable inquiries to be made.

  Irish National School Teachers' Reports.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the second division of first grade of national school teachers for the period ending 1903 show that at least two of the last three annual reports be marked excellent or very good; and, if so, will he explain how the award very good is made to cover a period when it did not appear as a printed instruction to inspectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Question is not very clear. Teachers were not promoted to the second division of first grade unless at least two of the three annual reports for the triennial period ended 31st March, 1903, were marked excellent or very good. In some of the forms of annual report, now obsolete, used by the inspectors the term very good was not provided for, and the case of any teacher whose promotion to a higher grade might be effected thereby was specially examined with the view of ascertaining whether such teacher merited promotion.

  Water Supply of Crossgar, County Down.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the water supply of Crossgar, in the county Down, is unsatisfactory, and that two wells, completed a year ago, are not yet in use owing to a dispute as to the

  971
  area of charge for the construction thereof; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will take steps to ensure that the inhabitants of Crossgar will have the benefit of this new water supply as soon as possible.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) In December, 1902, in accordance with a resolution of the council, the Board fixed an area of charge for the expenses in connection with the provision of a water supply at Crossgar. Recently the council requested the Board to fix a more restricted area for the purpose, and was informed, in reply, that certain legal points in regard to the making of orders declaring areas of charge for sanitary expenses are not finally settled by the decision given in the Ballycastle case. Under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that another case is pending, the Board has decided to postpone for the present the consideration of applications such as the present. This, however, should not prevent the district council from proceeding with the execution of all necessary sanitary works in their district, as the question at issue will be dealt with at the earliest practicable date.

  Sales to Tenants of Irish Land.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many million pounds worth of land has been sold in Ireland to the tenants through the Estates Commissioners, the Congested Districts Board, or by direct negotiation under the Land Act of 1903, up to 31st July ult.; and how many million pounds worth is under the consideration of the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board at the present time.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.)—
  Irish Land Commission. Estates Commissioners.
  Advances sanctioned:—

  Direct Sales.

  £

  Agreements between landlord and tenant

  2,467,709

  Purchase of estates, Section 6

  158,507

  Do. Section 7

  56,848

  £2,683,064

  Applications pending decision:—

  Direct Sales.

  £

  Agreements between landlord and tenant

  5,611,524

  Purchase of estates, Section 6

  619,988

  Do. Section 7

  335,765

  £6,567,277

  Congested Districts Board.

  £

  Direct Sales to tenants, not through Land Commission

  14,999

  Sales to tenants through Land Commission

  142,928

  Value of property purchased but not yet sold

  894,947

  Negotiations pending for purchase of land to the value of

  143,874

  Irish Estates—Enlargement of Tenants' Holdings.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that on a representation being made to the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board that there are sufficient grazing lands on any estate to enlarge the holdings of tenants on that estate or a neighbouring one, or for the purpose of creating new holdings, these bodies communicate with the owner of such an estate with a view to entering into negotiations with him for the purchase of the same, whether he will at the commencement of the next session of Parliament lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of representations made, the names of landlords interested, the number of years purchase asked by each landlord, the number offered by the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board and the number of cases where the intervention of these bodies will have resulted in the purchase of the estates and the consequent enlargement of the tenants' holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Returns have been laid on the Table showing very fully the operations of the Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board under the Act of 1903. These will be followed by further information to a later date, which will be published with the Annual Reports of the Commissioners and the

  973
  Board, but I cannot undertake to say that the Reports will contain Returns in the form specified in the Question.

  Overcrowding on the Ballinrobe and Claremorris Railway.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on several occasions the accommodation on the Ballinrobe and Claremorris Railway has been so limited that not only have the ordinary carriages been overcrowded, but sometimes from twenty to thirty persons have been forced to stand in the guard's van during the journey; and, if so, whether he will see that in future this company will make arrangements for a sufficient supply of carriages to convey the passengers over this line.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) My attention has not previously been called to this matter, and it is not one over which the Board of Trade has any statutory control. If, however, the hon. Member will furnish me with details of the complaint, I shall be happy to communicate with the Midland Great Western Railway Company thereon, and will acquaint him with the result.

  Sale of Lord Clanmorris's Estate—Surrender of Grazing Ranches.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Lord Clanmorris has applied for an advance to the Estates Commissioners in connection with the sale of his estate in the Ballinrobe Union, county Mayo; and, if so, whether, seeing that there are some grazing ranches on the estate suitable for the enlargment of holdings and the creation of new ones, the Estates Commissioners will refuse an advance unless these grazing ranches are given over to them in their present condition with a view to having them properly distributed amongst the other tenants and others, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Act of 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No application for the sale of this estate has been made to the Commissioners.

  Grazing Land on the Isadore Burke Estate.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have handed over any of the grazing lands on the Isadore Burke Estate, in the Claremorris Union, county Mayo, to any tenant on that or a neighbouring estate; and, if so, what is the name of such tenant, the extent of the holding he has received from the Board, and the extent of the holding he occupied before, if any; and whether, in view of the fact that there are a number of evicted tenants in that district, the Congested Districts Board will instal such evicted tenants in the new holdings which have been created on that estate, and refuse to consider the applications of all others until such time as they are provided for.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I must ask for a postponement of this Question for a day or two to enable inquiries to be made.

  Army Reorganisation Scheme.
  SIR A. HAYTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his promised statement respecting the Army Reorganisation Scheme will be in the hands of Members before the Army Debate on Monday next.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The statement which I promised the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and that which I promised the hon. Member for East Perth, will be sent to the Vote Office this afternoon. A summary of my speech of 14th July was presented to Parliament on 15th July.

  Extension of the National Portrait Gallery.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention to take action on the lines of the Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery who have called attention once more to the congested state of the gallery, and have said that the time is at hand when the question of extending the National Portrait Gallery must be seriously considered.

  975
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I find on inquiry that the possibility of extending the National Portrait Gallery on the West is being considered by the Departments concerned.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Visit of British Warships to Lerwick.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the visit of the German fleet (thirty-two ships) to Lerwick; and if he will consider the advisability of arranging for a visit of the British northern fleet, or part thereof
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is yes. With regard to the latter part, some of His Majesty's ships will visit Lerwick about the end of August.

  The Judge Advocate-General.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government propose to make any, and what, alterations in the position and duties of the Judge Advocate-General and of his Department, and when such alterations are to take effect; and whether their proposed alterations meet with the approval of the present holder of the office; and by whom are the legal duties in respect to Courts-martial discharged by the late Sir John Scott now performed.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): The position and duties of the Judge Advocate-General and his Department are still under consideration. The duties discharged by the late Sir John Scott are now performed by Mr. E. Bonus.

  Ill-treatment of Boma Natives—Case of M. de Tiege.
  MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's
  976
  Government has received from the Acting Consul at Boma a copy of the judgment of the Boma Court in the case of M. de Tiège, who was condemned on 24th June last to fifteen years imprisonment for atrocities committed upon the natives, he having succeeded in escaping while the trial was in progress; and, if no such copy has been received, will His Majesty's Government endeavour to secure one.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): His Majesty's Government have not received a copy of the judgment referred to, but the Acting Consul at Boma will be instructed by telegraph to furnish one.

  Soudan Civil Service.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Lord Cromer's last Annual Report shows that entrance to the Egyptian and Soudanese Civil Services is to be obtained by a system of selection rather than competitive examination; and will he state whether there is any reason why these appointments should not be subject to open competitive examination, similar to that which prevails in the case of the British Civil Service and the Civil Service of India.
  EARL PERCY: The regulations for entrance into the Egyptian and Soudanese Civil Services primarily concern the Governments of Egypt and the Soudan, and His Majesty's Government see no reason to interfere with the arrangements set forth in Lord Cromer's Report.

  Crete—Dr. Januaris' Case.
  CAPTAIN ELLICE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what offence Dr. Januaris is now in confinement in Crete; and what is the nature of the sentence to which he has been condemned.
  EARL PERCY: Mr. Januaris was sentenced to two years imprisonment by the Cretan Court of First Instance on the charge of insulting the person of the High

  977
  Commissioner and conspiring against the Government. The sentence was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
  CAPTAIN ELLICE: Will the Government take steps to get some of the sentence remitted?
  EARL PERCY: I do not think it is a question in which the Government can properly interfere.
  CAPTAIN ELLICE: But the High Commissioner is appointed by the Government.

  Old Horses as Human Food.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will direct inquiries to be made by the British Consuls, or some other reliable authority, in Holland, Belgium, and Germany, concerning the number of old and slaughtered horses, or horses unfit for work, that are periodically exported from this country, with a view of ascertaining for what purpose their carcases are used, and whether their flesh is made into condiments of various kinds, returned to this country, and sold as articles of food.
  EARL PERCY: As regards the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, I will inquire whether the statistics could not be obtained through the Government Department here. As regards the last paragraph, there is no objection to instructing His Majesty's representatives abroad to ask for the information which the hon. Member desires.
  MR. CREMER: Will the noble Lord give instructions that it shall be done?
  EARL PERCY: Yes, Sir.

  The Near East.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Austrian and German Governments have increased the number of their officers appointed to supervise the gendarmerie in Macedonia, and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any similar measures.
  EARL PERCY: Yes, Sir. An intimation has just reached us that the Austro-
  978
  Hungarian and Russian Ambassadors have asked for an increase in the number of their officers employed in reorganising the Macedonian gendarmerie. His Majesty's Government consider that they have a right to demand equality with the other Powers in regard to any such increase, but the number of officers required for each district must, of course, be governed by the circumstances and extent of its area. His Majesty's Government are anxious that no unnecessary burdens should be imposed upon Turkey; and if an all-round increase of the European staff be decided upon it may possibly be found more economical and useful to employ any surplus officers who are not required in the districts already comprised in the gendarmerie scheme either in supervising a gradual extension of the scheme to other areas not yet included, or in affording assistance to the Turkish authorities in other departments of the administration.
  MR. BRYCE: In that case will regard be had to the fact of the circumstances of Adrianople.
  EARL PERCY: I have no doubt that fact will be taken into consideration.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the Under-Secretary give the House any information as to the arrival by Russia and Austria at a perfect agreement with reference to all the territories south of the Balkans.
  EARL PERCY: I should like to have notice of that Question.

  Venezuelan Tariffs.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Venezuela with reference to the 30 per cent. differential surtax on importations from the West Indian Colonies into Venezuela have yet been concluded; if so, with what result; and whether he can now lay Papers upon the Table.
  EARL PERCY: The question of the differential surtax is still the subject of negotiation at Caracas and no Papers can at present be laid.

  Bank of Ireland and the County Treasury.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the exact terms of the arrangement come to between the Treasury officials and the Bank of Ireland before the passing of the Bank Act of 1892 (55 and 56 Vic. c. 48), under which, as a complement to that Act, the Bank of Ireland is enabled to hold for a period and to use, without payment of interest, all Government balances whether arising out of any Act of Parliament then in force or out of any other Act to be subsequently passed over the course of the twenty years during which the afore-mentioned Bank Act was to run; whether he will give a reference to any section of the Bank Act of 1892 covering such a Treasury arrangement or in any way bearing upon the same; whether he will also lay upon the Table of the House the terms of any arrangement made with the Provincial Bank of Ireland under which that bank collects, retains for a period without interest, and then remits to the Bank of Ireland all Inland Revenue moneys collected outside a radius of fifty miles from the city of Dublin; whether that arrangement is covered by any Act of Parliament; and whether he intends to allow this monopoly to be continued, instead of allowing the other joint stock banks to transact the business in question in turn as is the practice in Scotland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in reply to his Question on the 12th of May last,† that the arrangement by which the Government accounts in Dublin are kept by the Bank of Ireland is not embodied in any specific agreement. The Bank Act, 1892, reduced the rate of interest payable to the Bank of Ireland on the Government debt to the bank, and it reduced the remuneration payable to the bank for management of the National Debt. These reductions were arrived at after an inquiry which took account of the advantage derived by the bank from the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxiv., 1158
  980
  custody of the Government balances; and it would be unfair to disturb those arrangements during the period (to 1912) for which the reduced rates of interest and remuneration were prescribed by the Act. I gave full particulars of the arrangement in force with the Provincial Bank of Ireland in reply to the hon. Member for North-East Cork, on the 8th of June.‡ I then said that I was not satisfied that the arrangement was the best possible, and I am having the subject inquired into.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: But why not adopt in Ireland the system which obtains in England and Scotland?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Because the connection between the Government and the bank is not the same.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: The present arrangement inflicts a gross injustice on the other Irish joint stock banks.

  Spirit Permits.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that spirits which have passed out of bond are still under the control of the Excise authorities, inasmuch as particulars of all spirits received by a trader are required by the Excise to be entered in a specially prepared Excise stock book which is periodically inspected; and, in view of the fact that all quantities of spirits over two gallons must be accompanied by a permit, issued and controlled by the Excise authorities, and which contains a description of the goods, he will see that henceforth the officials will not permit spirits blended with patent spirit as P. B. Spirit, meaning Plain British Spirit, or brandy so blended as F. B. meaning Foreign Brandy.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Permits used by the Excise are required only for spirits moved under bond or out of bond. For the removal of duty paid spirits, only certificates are required, and these are issued, not by the Excise, but by the trader. They afford the Excise no opportunity for exercising any
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1051.

  981
  control over the character and quality of the spirits removed.
  MR. MOONEYwas understood to ask whether a permit was not an official document, seeing that no spirits could be sent out without one?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is the Question I have answered.

  Rent Allowances to Metropolitan Police.
  *MR. SLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the recent grant of rent-aid to constables, attached to police stations beyond the Metropolitan boroughs, was accompanied by conditions which deprive certain men of 1s. 6d. per week, if they are discovered to be paying less than 6s. a week for house rent, so that men paying 6s. and ever obtain the 1s. 6d., whilst men paying say 5s. 10d. are deprived of the allowance; whether he will consider the advisability of discontinuing his sanction to this and other inequalities in the payment of the Metropolitan Police.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AHERS-DOUGLAS,): The allowance to which the hon. Member refers is intended to assist those members of the Metropolitan Police Force who have necessarily to pay rents so high in amount as to impose an undue strain on their income. It is obvious that if a grant is made in aid of rent, the rents actually paid by the men must be taken into consideration; and, after careful and prolonged inquiry, I came to the conclusion that when a constable pays for rent less than 6s. a week, which is about one-fifth of the average pay of his rank, he does not need such assistance. The present conditions of rent-aid were laid down by me in March last; they are by no means wanting in liberality; and I see no reason for altering them.
  *MR. SLACK: Am I to understand from the Home Secretary that it is necessary for a man whose rent is 5s. 10d. a week to pay 2d. a week more in rent in order to obtain the 1s. 6d.?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The line must be drawn somewhere, whenever you make a rule. This concession was granted after careful consideration, and was received with universal approval by the force.
  MR. LOUGH: Could not the arrangement be readjusted so that an allowance not exceeding 1s. 6d. should be made to every constable?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have considered the point, and must decline to consider it again this year.

  Holloway Gaol—Cutting of Female Prisoners' Hair while under Remand.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Elizabeth Hudson, aged 20, while under remand, from 14th July to 21st July at Holloway Gaol, from Tottenham Police Court, on a charge of suspected stealing, which charge was the first brought against her and was summarily dismissed by the magistrates on 21st July; and Sarah Ann Pratt, aged seventeen, while under remand, from 14th July to 21st July at Holloway Goal, from Tottenham Police Court, on a charge of suspected stealing, from which charge she was released by the magistrates upon a surety of 20s. being given for her good behaviour, had their hair cut off short by the prison authorities; and, if so, will he say whether it is the usual custom so to treat young female prisoners under remand.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: My attention has been called to the case of the two women mentioned in the Question. I find that their hair was cut in accordance with the prison rule which requires prisoners under remand to have their hair cut when this is necessary on account of dirt or vermin. The necessity of such a rule is obvious in the interest of the cleanliness of the prison and for the protection of other prisoners; but it is not the custom to cut the hair of prisoners under remand. It is done only on medical grounds when the hair is actually verminous, and when milder methods of treatment are impracticable.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: May I ask whether, as a matter of fact, the hair of these women was cut before they were submitted to the inspection of the medical officer?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am making inquiries on that point.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the report of the medical officer is available for Members of this House?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Would it not be possible for the authorities, in cases like this, to wash the hair instead of cutting it?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have said that I will make further inquiries, and all the information I can get shall be communicated to the House.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: But when will the information be available? We are near the end of the session; and I am anxious to have this matter cleared up before we separate.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: There will be no avoidable delay, but that is all I can say at present.

  The Fiscal Question—Preferential Tariffs and Retaliation.
  MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will have prepared and present to Parliament a Report on the probable effect of preferential tariffs on the trade of the United Kingdom, applying to the United Kingdom criteria similar to those employed with reference to India in Cd. 1931 (1904).
  MR. EMMOTT: I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will present to Parliament a statement of the probable effect on the trade of the United Kingdom of the proposals for retaliation explained by the Prime Minister, having especial regard to those countries which impose the highest tariffs on goods imported by them from this country.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I do not think it right that a Government Department should be called upon to publish official Reports such as are asked for in these Questions, in which speculative conjecture and personal opinions must necessarily Play so large a part.

  The Telegraph Vote and the Bradford Wages Committee's Report.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the date upon which the Telegraph Vote will be taken; and if he will announce beforehand his decision as to the recommendations as to the Bradford Wages Committee.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): Will the hon. Member kindly put the first part of his Question to the Prime Minister on Monday. I hope to make a statement on the Vote, not before, with regard to the Report of the Committee on Post Office Wages. I have no doubt an opportunity will be given for a discussion on the Vote.

  "Season Telegraphists."
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether authority has been given for the despatch of unestablished telegraph operators from one office to another in connection with events entailing a temporary increase of work; and, if so, whether such officers are entitled to subsistence allowances on the scale laid down in the rule to head postmasters, and, if not, will he state what allowances have been fixed, and what is the date of the authorisation.
  LORD STANLEY: I presume the hon. Member refers to assistants who are employed at certain offices to provide for temporary increase of work during the season months. In such cases the rate of pay is fixed so as to provide suitable remuneration, and no special allowances for subsistence are, as a rule, given

  Instruction in Domestic Economy for Girls.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Committee on Physical Deterioration, in their Report just issued, express the opinion that instruction in cookery, hygiene, and domestic economy should as far as possible be made compulsory on the elder girls at school; and will he consider the expediency of adopting this recommendation.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The various recommendations of the Committee on Physical Deterioration will certainly receive the careful consideration of the Board. The question of instruction in cookery, hygiene, and domestic economy is one which has lately been especially investigated by the Board, and is now receiving their most careful attention.

  Ventilation of the House of Commons.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state whether the inlet fan ordered for the ventilation of the House of Commons is a cased pressure fan and of a type used for mine ventilation, what is its size and capacity, and is it guaranteed to be noiseless in the working; and will he explain the structural difficulties which have arisen in connection with the adoption and application of an extraction fan?
  LORD BALCARRES: The type of fan selected for the inlet ventilation of the House of Commons is of the cased blower type, which is largely adopted for mine ventilation. The fan and motor are guaranteed to work without noise. The structural difficulties connected with the extraction concern building matters only. No application to tender for the extraction fan will be refused.
  MR. WEIRpressed for further information as to the size of the fan, and was asked to put the Question down.

  Bangor County(Down) Harbour.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  986
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, if the estimates for a harbour for the Bangor fishermen can be cut down to £5,000, he will consent to recommend a grant for that amount.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Department of Agriculture offered to contribute one-fourth of the expenditure on the improvement of the harbour, originally estimated to cost £10,000. The Department is not prepared to contribute the entire cost, if reduced to £5,000.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that Bangor is a place much used by the Navy.

  Victor de l'Herault's Estate.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps does the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland intend to take with reference to the sums, with interest and accumulations thereon, now representing the sums of £3,183 7s. 3d. India Stock, and £1,411 5s. 6d. cash for interest thereon, paid to the Crown in March, 1879, by Madame de l'Herault, as widow and administratrix of Victor Lucy de l'Herault, who died intestate in November, 1869, without next-of-kin, such sums being a moiety of the personal estate of her said husband; and whether, having regard to the fact that now, after the lapse of thirty-five years, notwithstanding numerous and expensive inquiries by the Crown, no next-of-kin of the said Victor Lucy de l'Herault have been discovered; that in July, 1880, the Crown restored to the widow leasehold and freehold property owned by M. de l'Herault; that in January, 1900, the Attorney-General for Ireland, pending further inquiries with reference to the ascertainment of next-of-kin, ordered the dividends on the fund in hand to be paid to Madame de l'Herault, who, however, died in the July following, bequeathing the fund, if restored by the Crown, among certain of her blood relations in indigent circumstances; and that the said fund consisted of money which originally belonged in large measure to Madame de l'Herault herself, the Crown will consider the propriety of releasing this fund to Mr. Cullen, the

  987
  legal personal representative of Madame de l'Herault, who will carry out the tenets of her will and give the guarantee of the Loan Guarantee Society against any claim by any of the next-of-kin, if such there be, of M. de l'Herault.
  MR. WYNDHAM: When this case was last before the Attorney-General he gave such directions as he thought would meet the necessities of the case, but in view of the matters stated in the Question I will again refer the case to him for further consideration.

  Cusack Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when the application for a request under the seventh Section of the Land Act, 1903, is likely to be made by the Estates Commissioners to Mr. Justice Ross in the case of the Cusack Estate, county Longford.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The request was issued on the 18th of June.

  Thompson Estate—North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what action the Estates Commissioners intend taking in the case of the Thompson (Clonfin) Estate in North Longford.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No application has been made to the Commissioners for the sale of this estate.

  Irish Land Act Administration.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can give the number of proposed sales under the Irish Land Act, 1903, in which originating notices have been served, and which have been postponed or fallen through in consequence of the judicial decision that the bonus under Section 48 is not payable to the tenant for life.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No estimate can be given of the very large number of cases in which a tenant for life refrains from
  988
  selling until the intentions of Parliament in this matter are relieved from doubt.

  Trench's Estate, Tipperary.
  MR. DELANY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Birr Division of King's County, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Mr. B. B. Trench, Redwood, Tipperary, is about being sold to the tenants; is he aware that a Mrs. Kennedy, of Pluverhill, and her family were evicted off the property twelve years ago; and that her farm has been taken by the brother and agent of the landlord; and, if so, can he state what provision is about to be made for the reinstatement of the evicted tenant in this case, in view of the fact that Mrs. Kennedy is the only evicted tenant on the property.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An application has been received from the evicted tenant and will be considered. The estate has not yet been brought before the Commissioners for sale.

  Beresford Estate, County Waterford.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that application has been made to the Estates Commissioners for the sale of the estate of Mr. John G. Beresford, Woodhouse, Stradbally, county Waterford, and for the reinstatement by George Crowley, Catherine Barry, Garrett Barry, and other tenants evicted from this estate, he can say whether the Estates Commissioners expect to be able to bring about the reinstatement of these tenants in their former holdings or procure other farms for them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No proceedings are pending before the Commissioners in respect to this estate. Any applications made by the evicted tenants will be duly considered.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will inquire if some of the lands from which tenants have been evicted on the Beresford Estate are now in the hands of

  989
  the landlord, Mr. John G. Beresford, Woodhouse, Stradbally, county Waterford, who is selling his estate through the Estate Commissioners; and, if so, will the Estates Commissioners bear the circumstances in mind when considering the application of evicted tenants on this estate for reinstatement.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No proceedings for the sale of this estate are pending before the Estates Commissioners.

  Belfast Anglers and Ballynahinch River,
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the persons who, in company with three water bailiffs, were concerned in the illegal netting of Ballynahinch River on 6th June last, were not riparian owners, but members of the Belfast Anglers' Association; that the netting was across the river, with a drag net with mesh small enough to stop all but the smallest fry; and, if so whether, in view of the fact that this action was watched by the police, he will direct a prosecution.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Department understands that the Belfast Anglers' Association claim to have the right of netting in these waters. In view of the divergence of opinion in the matter, with respect to which the Department is advised that it is not competent to express an opinion, it is open to any person who feels aggrieved by the action of the Association to have recourse to a legal tribunal. The Department does not propose to institute proceedings.

  North Dublin Guardians—Case of John Morris.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the board of guardians of the North Dublin Union have handed over John Morris, aged 13, the son of Protestant parents, to his sister, who is a Roman Catholic, in opposition to the wishes of the boy's father, as expressed in his will, by which he appointed the Rev. Mr. Mease, Rector of Castleknock, guardian of the child and his religion; and that the Rev. Mr. Mease's application to the board of guardians to have the
  990
  boy handed over to him, in order that he might place him, at his own expense, at the Meath Industrial School, was refused; and, if so, will he state what steps he will take to have the boy handed over to his lawful guardian and to have him brought up a Protestant.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The guardians claim that they were entitled to take the course they took under the 8th Section of the 25 and 26 Vict. c. 83. Whether they were entitled so to do after they had become aware of the claim of the testamentary guardian, Mr. Mease, and his offer to have the boy maintained at his own expense, is a point of law which the Local Government Board or the Executive have no power to decide. Mr. Mease must seek such redress as he may be entitled to in a Court of law.

  Dungannon School.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what is the cause of the delay in proceeding with the erection of the new school in Dungannon, for which a free site has been granted, and which has been approved by the Board of Works, and for which a scheme has been approved by the Commissioners of Education; and will he state when will the revised plans and estimates, for which the persons interested in this school have been waiting for eighteen months, be ready.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In this case the Commissioners provisionally sanctioned a grant for a new school-house under the existing regulations. The applicant has since elected, however, to postpone the erection of a school-house pending a decision on the question of the revision of the plans and estimates.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this has been delayed eighteen months?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That is a matter for the Treasury and not for me.

  Cookstown Disturbances.
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is

  991
  aware that the rev. Father M'Brien, Washing Bay, and a party of friends, were insulted and threatened by an Orange crowd when driving to Cookstown on Sunday last; that, notwithstanding the fact that this circumstance was duly reported to the police, no notice was taken of it, with the result that on their return journey Father M'Brien and his friends were hooted and stoned; and, if so, will he explain why the police did not afford the rev. Father M'Brien any protection, 'and will the ringleaders of his assailants be prosecuted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am making further inquiries in this matter and will thank the hon. Member to defer the Question until Monday next.

  Earl Fitzwilliam's Tenants.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the tenants of Earl Fitzwilliam have been served with notices of ejectment within the last three months for arrears of rent; and whether he can state how many of these tenants have, since the receipt of ejectment notices, consented to accept the landlord's terms of purchase.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No ejectment notices were served on this estate within the period stated.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Six months ago the right hon. Gentleman told me a certain number of ejectment notices had been issued by Lord Fitzwilliam.

  Fox Estate, King's County.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will delay their sanction of the agreements for sale on the Fox Estate, Ballymacrossin, King's county, pending the settlement of the claims of an evicted tenant, Miss Maria Masterson, particulars of whose case have already been lodged with the Commissioners; whether he will use any influence within his power against any advance being sanctioned in the case of the tenant Langford, now in possession of Miss
  992
  Maria Masterson's farm, until provision is made for her as an evicted tenant; and whether he can communicate the result of the recent inspection of the estate of Major Fox, and state whether the inspector's report contains any suggestion for the reinstatement of Miss Masterson or the acquisition of any holding for her elsewhere.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have nothing to add to my reply to the similar Question by the hon. Member for Queen' County of the 18th July.†

  Lansdowne Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the evicted tenants and their representatives upon the Lansdowne Estate, Queen's county, have applied to the Estates Commissioners asking to be reinstated in their holdings, and in view of the area of the evicted farms untenanted upon this estate, he will state what course the Estates Commissioners propose taking in this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Applications have been received from forty - one evicted tenants on this estate. The Commissioners understand that the owner is considering the question of selling to them his Queen's county estate. Should he propose to do so, the Commissioners will carefully consider the applications of the evicted tenants.

  Game Licences in Ireland—Colehill Gamekeeper's Conduct.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the action of a gamekeeper, named Robert Lloyd, stationed at Cole-hill, county Longford, who on two occasions recently stopped Dr. Bonus and his brother, a Trinity College student, on the public road, demanding their licences, and threatening prosecutions if they refused to show same; whether he is aware that on 1st August, this game-keeper treated Mr. T. J. Byrne, of Tenelick, in like manner; and, if so, will he, in the interest of the peace of the district, caution this person to desist from such conduct.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 279.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If Dr. Bonus and his brother were found by the game-keeper using any dog, gun, net or other, engine for the destruction of game, it would be lawful for the game keeper, he himself having and producing his game certificate, to demand the production of their certificates under the 8th Section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 81; but if the game-keeper did not find them doing any of these things, but merely found them using or carrying a gun, he was not justified in demanding the production of their gun licences—that privilege being confined under the 9th Section of the Gun Licence Act of 1870, to Officers of Inland Revenue or the Constabulary.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: The point is that this demand was made on a public road? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman restrain this man?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If a man asks an unwarranted question on the high road it is for the aggrieved person to take what steps he chooses.

  Glanquin Extra Police Force.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will he say why the authorities have thought it necessary to station an extra police force in Glanquin Cordfair, county Clare; whether he is aware that the police have acted as herdsmen on the Glanquin farm, and have assisted in cutting and saving hay there; and, if so, has their action received his sanction; and will he state why the police have searched the houses of Nationalists for arms, and on what information have they acted in so doing.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A police hut is about to be erected in this locality for the better preservation of the public peace. The police have not acted as herdsmen, nor have they assisted in cutting or saving hay. Two houses in the vicinity were searched for arms with the consent of the occupants in each case.

  North Kerry Rod Anglers and the Close Season.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that
  994
  dissatisfaction exists throughout North Kerry, owing to the fact that rod anglers, licensed or otherwise, are not permitted to fish until the 1st day of May in each year, and that at a public meeting held at Listowel a short time since a resolution was passed requesting the Government to take such action as may be necessary to allow rod anglers to fish at an earlier period of the year than the 1st day of May; and, if so, whether, owing to the interest felt in this question, the request of the people will be acceded to without cost to the locality.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Representations to this effect have been made to the Department. In the present state of the law, however, it is unable to give effect to them.
  MR. FLAVIN: Do I understand the Department do not consider it necessary to hold an inquiry?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Nothing can be done until the law is changed.

  Cashen (Kerry) Salmon Fishery.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Kerry County Council at their meeting on the 28th ultimo passed a resolution requesting the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to hold a local inquiry as to the cause of the practical extinction of the salmon fishery at the Cashen (N. Kerry); and whether, owing to the fact that a number of fishermen are, or will be thrown out of employment, the Board will take immediate steps by way of a local inquiry.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has not yet been communicated to the Department.

  Labourers Cottages Grant Distribution.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Lords Justices to distribute the unissued balances of Labourers Cottages Grant of 1890, to the unions which have put the Labourers Acts in force; and, if so, whether he can state when the unissued balances will be so distributed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of the allocation of the unissued balances of this grant would be a proper matter for consideration in the event of legislation at any future time dealing with labourers' cottages.

  Uneconomic Holdings at Athenry.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are several uneconomic holdings on the property of Clarke minors, at Graig Abbey, Athenry; that Mr. O'Malley, who lives 80 miles away from the place, is endeavouring to purchase 250 acres of grass land on the estate; and whether, in view of the fact that this grass farm adjoins the uneconomic holdings, will he take steps to secure the grass land for distribution amongst the tenants in the neighbourhood who require it.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This property, which is solvent, is under the administration of the Land Judge. Mr. O'Malley held the lands referred to under a lease from the Court, and the Land Judge has approved of their sale to him.

  Irish Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Department—Clerks' Grievances.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an attempt has been made by a high official to intimidate the Catholics employed in the Veterinary Branch of the Department of Agriculture on account of certain inquiries made in this House; and, if so, what steps he proposes taking to prevent so serious a breach of the constitutional Privileges of Parliament.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to this Question is in the negative. What occurred was this. The secretary to the Department recently received from four clerks attached to the Veterinary Branch a communication offensive in tone, which repeated several of the misstatements of fact and unfounded insinuations that have been made the subject of public comment. He informed these officials that while the Department was always willing to receive representations from the staff of a proper and respectful
  996
  character, and had shown much solicitude on behalf of the officials in question, the Department could not consider a document of the kind, and would feel compelled to take serious notice of a persistence in the methods which the document illustrated. The matter is one affecting the internal discipline of the Department, with which it is competent to deal.

  Bangor (Ireland) Post Office.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether, considering the growing population of Bangor and the need for increased post office accommodation repeatedly expressed by the urban council, he will consent to reconsider his decision as to providing a new post office.
  LORD STANLEY: I regret that I am unable to reconsider this question at present, but I will have the matter watched, and will take any further action which I think circumstances may require. If the hon. Member can give me any information I shall be glad to receive it.

  The Late Mrs. Helen Blake's Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the present position of the funds of the estate of the late Mrs Helen Blake, née Sheridan, who died in London in the year 1871 possessed of funds and other securities valued for nearly half a million of pounds sterling; whether it is proposed to sequestrate this sum for Treasury purposes; whether any inquiries have been made for next of kin; will such inquiries be made before any attempt is made to sequestrate the estate; and, if so, will evidence by tradition be received.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The Crown's title to the real estate of the deceased was found by Special Commission of Escheat. Administration of the personal estate was granted to the Solicitor to the Treasury, and by an Order of Court dated 23rd June, 1883, it was declared that the Crown was entitled to the residue of the estate. The usual inquiries were made for the next of kin and heir-at-law to the deceased. It is not proposed to make

  997
  farther inquiries of this character or to initiate any further proceedings.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the case of the estate of the late Mrs. Helen Blake, of London, who died intestate in 1871; whether any application has been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown on the part of relatives and friends of the late Mrs. Blake, named Sheridan, residing in county Longford; and whether, having regard to the fact that actual evidence of birth by extract from register is almost impossible of production in this case, he would be prepared to advise the Crown to issue a Commission to take evidence of tradition in this case.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): Two Petitions of Right were presented in 1892 with reference to the estate of Mrs. Helen Blake, who died in 1876; both were dismissed for want of prosecution. I understand that other claims have been alleged. It is practicable to issue a Commission as suggested in the Question.

  Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society Frauds.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the frauds perpetrated by officials of the Loan Fund Society of Edgeworthstown, he can indicate what relief can be obtained by debenture-holders who have lost their savings, owing to the failure on the part of the Central Board to properly supervise the work of the local officials.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The only fraud committed in connection with this society, of which the Loan Fund Board have knowledge, was that committed by a late clerk, named James Flower. In reply to the remainder of the Question, I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. friend to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 26th July.†

  Irish Royal Canal.
  MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  † (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 1214.
  998
  Trade if he will take steps to induce the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland, as owners of the Royal Canal, to have it properly dredged, as owing to the state of the waterway boats can only convey half loads; whether he is aware that the steam dredger which the Board of Trade ordered the Canal Company to provide has not been used on the canal for the past two years; and whether he will at once direct the company to proceed with the cleaning and dredging.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The periodical reports made by the Midland Great Western Railway Company to the Board of Works show that dredging has been carried out on the Royal Canal regularly and continuously for some time past. During the three months ended 30th June last, thirty-five miles of the canal was cleansed and cleared of weeds. The engineer of the Board of Works will inspect the canal at an early date.

  South African Republic—Commandeered Specie.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether an opportunity will be given before the close of the present session to discuss the claim against the Government in the matter of the specie commandeered by the Government of the late South African Republic from British banks.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon. friend, I have to say that, as he will readily understand, it is not easy, indeed I may say it is not possible, to find opportunities in the remainder of the session for discussions outside the actual programme of necessary business. I may also remind him that there has been a very large correspondence on this subject between the Government and the persons interested, and the matter has been settled on general principles to the best of our ability.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman submit the matter to arbitration?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think not; but if my hon. friend will give notice I will consider the matter.

  Flogging in the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury why the flogging of men with the cat-o'-nine-tails, and of boys and youths under eighteen with birches, weighing nine ounces, and canes, is still allowable and practised in the Navy, although the system has been long abolished in the Army; and whether any steps will be taken for the abolition of flogging in the senior branch of the King's service.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was no flogging of men in the Navy, and it was not proposed to abolish the bitching and caning of boys. There was consequently no intention to take any such steps as were suggested by the hon. Member.

  St. Katherine's Hospital, Regent's Park.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent, as a Charity Commissioner, whether any, and, if any, what reforms have been made in the application and administration of the endowments of St. Katherine's Hospital in the Regent's Park, or whether what the Charity Commissioner in 1893 in this House described as a scandal still exists; whether £6,402 is annually expended upon salaries and management; £561 upon education; and £190 upon gifts; whether the master still receives a salary of £1,200; how many sermons he preaches during the year; and what are the other duties connected with his office; whether there are three brothers and three sisters, each of them receiving £300 per annum, besides being provided with a residence; what are the duties performed by the brothers and sisters; how many inquiries have at different times been instituted into this endowment, and what changes have resulted from such inquiries; and whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House a copy of the reforms which Mr. Skirrow, on behalf of the Charity Commissioners, proposed several years ago, and also a statement of the income
  1000
  and expenditure of the hospital during the year ending 31st December last.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENwas not in his place to answer.
  MR. CREMERasked the Prime Minister whether he would afford the House an opportunity of discussing the Vote for the Charity Commission, which had not been discussed in the House of Commons for three years. In the Question he had on the Paper grave representations were made, on the authority of a former member of the Charity Commission, to the effect that the "charity" named was a scandal.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech.
  MR. CREMER: I will only ask, then, whether, considering the importance of the Vote, the Prime Minister will, before the end of the session, give the House an opportunity of giving it some consideration, however scanty.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Being unacquainted with the particular case. I can form no estimate of its importance, but if possible, within the somewhat narrow limit of time left, I shall be glad to give the opportunity asked for, but it is impossible for me to give any pledge on the subject.

  Representative Government in the Transvaal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any, and, if so, what instance during the last seventy years of the granting of representative or responsible government to any colony or dependency in the British Empire otherwise than by statute establishing the new colonial constitution, as in the case of Canada, the various Australian Colonies, and Cape Colony; and whether the usual practice will be followed in the promised establishment of representative and elective institutions in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman has in his Question confused two different cases. There is the

  1001
  case of complete self-government; and the hon. Gentleman is right in supposing that complete self-government has never been given to any colony without action by Parliament. But smaller changes, with which alone we propose to deal in the immediate future, have not been, according to precedent, dealt with in this way, and we do not propose to vary the practice.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the case that representative government, as distinct from responsible government, has always been given by statute?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The addition of elected members is constantly done by Order in Council.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has it been done in any case except the West Indies, which are under completely different circumstances?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I have stated the precedent accurately. If the hon. Gentleman wants further information he must put a Question on the Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BRYCEasked the Prime Minister whether he would arrange the Order Paper for the evening sitting so as to take the Shop Hours Bill first. He also suggested that as there appeared on the Orders a number of measures which the Government had announced their intention to drop it would be as well to clear them off.
MR. A. J. BALFOURagreed that it would be as well to do so. With regard to the Shop Hours Bill he sympathised with the desire to see it passed, but said other measures must be proceeded with first. He thought the best plan would be to put the Bills down in the following order: Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham Bills, Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, Public Works Loans Bill, Indian Councils Bill, and Isle of Man Customs Bill. For reasons already exp1tined it was desirable to get the Post Office Sites Bill as soon as possible.
MR. WHITLEY: And is it proposed to take the Shop Hours Bill after those five? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give it a better place?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish I had more good places at my disposal. But if there is a real desire to pass the Bill surely there should be no difficulty. I hope the discussion on the earlier Orders will not take long.
MR. WHITLEY: There is a danger of its not getting through if it is kept so long on the list.
MR. LOUGH: Why not let it change places with the Bishoprics Bill?

NEW BILL.
  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL.
  "To provide for the Prevention of Juvenile Smoking," presented by Mr. Rigg; supported by Colonel Bain, Mr. Allen, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Lambert; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 3 295.]

  SUPPLY [20TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum, not exceeding £104,094, 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, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved a reduction

  1003
  of the Vote by £100 on account of the present understaffed condition of the women's department for the work it had to do in connection with the Factory and Workshop Acts. A branch of the service which was most useful to the State was, the right hon. Baronet said, at the present moment insufficiently staffed for the work it had to do, and that was made very clear in the Report which had just been laid by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The greatest of industrial sufferings in this country were probably those which were to be found among the very lowly paid women workers. The great trades unions which had been formed were generally able to affect the wages of the male workers, but undoubtedly there was much underpayment and sweating in the case of female labour, and a large amount of industrial suffering could be very directly affected by the enforcement of the law through the medium of the Home Office, and by the inquiries which were made by the women's branch of the Department. In the Factories and Workshops Annual Report for 1903 the principal woman inspector stated that there were "Six women inspectors for 1,500,000 women and girls in factories and workshops," to which should be added "laundry workers and outworkers." In the ten years which had elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife inaugurated this most valuable Department eight women inspectors had been appointed, of whom one was now detached for the Potteries on work which, although described as temporary, occupied the whole of her time, leaving only six effective for the general work, or seven if the principal inspector who discharged central duties at thé Home Office was counted. The ill-effects of understaffing, effects which were increasing year by year, were clearly set forth in the Report. For three years complaints stood over on account of the shortness of the staff. The year before last the Report showed that "122 complaints had either to stand over …. or to be referred to another branch." Though the complaints had risen, the prosecutions had declined, and the women's department was, according to Miss Anderson, "greatly embarrassed in arranging for investigation."
  1004
  The present condition of the Department nullified the value which the House very properly attached to its work. There had once been most valuable inquiries conducted outside the actual work of the women's department. The investigation of complaints specially made by women's societies had had to be dropped in consequence of there being no lady inspectors available to undertake them. The value of these inquiries had been demonstrated in past years, and notably in the case of the fish-curing industry. Complaints from women workers had to be referred to the male branch for investigation. The Pimlico Army Clothing Department, for example, employed women. The case of Alice Wright recently attracted a great deal of attention, and the Home Office was asked by the War Office to send an inspector. The inspector sent was not a woman although all those employed in these frightfully overcrowded and heated rooms were women. Again, the Department did not send a ventilation expert and that therefore could not be advanced as a reason for not sending a lady. It was not open to the Department to say that they sympathised with the demand for more women inspectors, but that they could not overcome the difficulty with the Treasury, because the fact was that the Treasury had permitted thirteen additional male inspectors to be appointed between April, 1902, and July, 1903, whereas no woman had been appointed.
  Next there was the question of overtime in the fishcuring trade. When the Factory Acts of 1895 and 1901 were under consideration he opposed the special exemption on the ground that there would be great difficulty in distinguishing between legal and illegal overtime. In the report of the inspector dealing with Yarmouth and Lowestoft, it was stated—
  "Kippering—women splitting herrings. They all appeared very tired, and no wonder, seeing the number of hours each woman worked that week.—9th November, Monday, 6 a.m. to 12 p.m.; Tuesday, 10th, 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.; Wednesday, 11th, 6 a.m. to 11.30 p.m.; Thursday, 12th, 6 a.m. to 11.30 p.m.; Friday, 13th, 6 a.m. to 12.40 midnight; Saturday, 14th, 6 a.m. to 10.30 p.m.--total, 105 hours and ten minutes.
  Allowing, however, three hours off each day for meals, the total worked was 87 hours and ten minutes. This was not

  1005
  an isolated case. At 6 a.m. the women begin packing the kippers in wooden boxes, so that here the Committee had an illustration of the truth of the objection which had been raised in 1895, and 1901 that legal overtime invariably led to illegal overtime. Here the women were working factory hours on processes not subject to exemption, followed by long night hours under "the perishable exemption." On page 33 of the Report they had another instance of the unduly long hours in another trade at Southampton. They had cases where women were kept working from 8.30 a.m. to 11.45 p.m. He would like to draw the attention of the Committee to page 196 of the Report. There Miss Deane gave a most admirable statement on the whole subject. She referred to the fact that it was a dressmaking trade case, that this particular trade had recently been the subject of much comment in the Press and that it had been alleged that there had been much exaggeration. But what did Miss Deane say in her report—
  "Places in which a staff has been employed for months on three-quarter time only have been found employing girls for nights on end till eleven o'clock or even all night long. The number of complaints of illegal or excessive overtime have increased."
  On page 237 they had a reference to a case which probably was the foundation of the correspondence on which the charge of exaggeration was based. It was also an illustration of the thesis contained in Mrs. Lyttelton's play of Warp and Woof. Miss Vines, in her report, stated—
  "At the prosecution the defendant put forward the defence that a lady in a high position was pressing for a dress to be finished. The magistrate described the defendant's conduct as almost inhuman, and said that it was almost increditable that she should have treated her workers in the way described, knowing, as she must have done, that the strain upon the young women, if continued, would tend to shorten their lives. It was the very worst case he had ever had before him, and he had never heard anything like it since the Factory Acts had been in operation."
  In that case the woman had been employed for twenty-four consecutive hours. In the next case mentioned in the Report a girl was "discovered wandering insane." This brought him back to the point at which he started, viz., that alongside this startling state of things there
  1006
  was a decline in the total number of prosecutions by both branches of the Department: page viii. showed the decline in the total number of prosecutions; page 235 dealt with those in the Women's Department. It could not be alleged that that decline meant a decline in actual offences; the language used was quite contrary to that; it represented a decline in the efficiency of the Department compared with the amount of work there was for it to do.
  Another important point calling for attention was the marked distinction between the penalties inflicted in certain districts by the local magistrates and those inflicted by the stipendaries. Hon. Members interested in the cotton districts knew very well that on account of the light penalties inflicted it was better to break the law than to keep it. On page 81 the inspector said—
  "I prosecuted a large firm of dressmakers in Grimsby after warning several times. The whole facts in the case, with the correspondence, were laid before the magistrates, who inflicted a penalty of 1s. and costs."
  Again on page 97 they were told by the Sheffield inspector that the average penalty inflicted by the stipendiary magistrate was £1 5s., as compared with 2s. 11½d. inflicted by the ordinary magistrates. It was not very easy to suggest a remedy for this state of things, but the action taken a few years ago might be usefully repeated, and a circular couched in moderate and reasonable language might be sent round by the Home Secretary directing the attention of magistrates to the necessity of inflicting an adequate fine where a case was clearly proved.
  Another example of slackness in the Home Office was the delay in extending the "particulars" principle to piece-work trades. He did not see why it should not be extended to all the piece-work trades in the country. Instead of wasting time—instead of wasting months and even years on inquiries into one small branch of a trade let them recognise the fact that this particular section was the charter of the rights of the people which protected them against being robbed of their wages, and let them have one general inquiry with a view to extending the section to all piece-work trades. He

  1007
  believed it was just as necessary as check weighing was in the interests of the workers in the coal trade. On page 232 of the Report Miss Sadler dealt with the net-making trade and said—
  "The fact that few of the women could attend at the factories themselves to see the coils of twine weighed in and out led to deductions for short weight upon the return of the net which the worker had no means of disproving. The manufacturers acted upon my suggestion. The workers expressed their gratitude. The addition of the price had put shillings into their pocket. One or two manufacturers failed to carry out this plan."
  But why should such a matter be left to persuasion? Why not extend the law?
  Now he came to breaches of the Truck Act. In his opinion fresh legislation was necessary to meet these cases, and if that were so he would not be entitled to pursue the point. But he believed the Home Office held that the existing law was sufficient if only properly administered. It was not right that it should be left to associations of voluntary persons to enforce the law as had been attempted by a branch of the Christian Social Union. On page 234 of the Report, one of the inspectors said—
  "In one factory I found every machinist hopelessly in debt to her employer, working on to discharge a debt which grows instead of diminishing."
  That was a worse state of things than existed in coal mines eighty or ninety years ago. He was inclined to agree with the great French socialist writer, M. Jaurès, that the endeavouring to persuade employers on this point was like trying to "Persuade the golden calf to mint himself into sovereigns." If the Truck law was a right law, then for heaven's sake enforce it. They were told on page 235 that, apart from Truck cases, only 2½ per cent. of cases taken into Court were dismissed, while of the Truck cases nealy one-third failed.
  Next he came to the dangerous trades. Last year they took credit for having reduced the percentage of suffering, but lead poisoning was again increasing he regretted to note. There had been one death again from phossy jaw—a Bryant & May case—and it would be interesting to know if it was a result of work done in former years. Switzerland, France, and Germany were acting together in this matter, and desired an international
  1008
  agreement in regard to the lead trades, and, in passing, he would like to point out that the Dutch standard of solubility, 2½ per cent. in glazes, was twice as good as our tentative 5 per cent. The cases in china and earthenware were increasing. Last year there was a slight increase, and that increase was continuing. In the first six months of the present year there were fifty-three cases, as compared with thirty-seven in the corresponding six months of last year. There was one very severe case of the old type, in which a girl of eighteen was almost struck dead. Another dangerous disease was anthrax. It was increasing generally in the country especially in the horse-hair industry. It used to be associated with wool and Bradford; but it was even more dangerous in the horse-hair industry. Dr. Legge had lately been studying this matter in Germany; and he hoped that regulations regarding it would soon be put into force. He congratulated the Government on having accepted the invitation of Switzerland to the International Labour Conference, to be held in 1905. It was now many years since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University went to Berlin. It was no secret that this Conference was being promoted by the Governments of France and Germany, as they desired to bring pressure to bear on the recalcitrant nations. The labour treaty with Italy was a gratifying evidence of the intention of the French Government in this respect. The Conference was called mainly to deal with two points, namely, the use of white phosphorus and the night labour of women. He believed that the Government had accepted the invitation in a very guarded form. No doubt prudence was desirable; but he ventured to suggest that it was entirely in the interests of this country that recalcitrant countries should be brought up to the mark. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that he desired to exclude sweated goods from this country; but a better means would be to bring all foreign nations up to the proper standard in the hope of ultimately improving the standard of labour throughout the world.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That item A (Salaries, Wages, and

  1009
  Allowances) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  MR. TENNANTsaid that in supporting the Motion of his right hon. friend he desired to call attention to the fact that this was the first debate they had had on a labour subject during the session, except on one Friday afternoon. Let them look at the benches! On a hot afternoon on the 4th August they were asked to discuss the welfare of many millions of their fellow-subjects. At the beginning of the year a new Act of Parliament, called the Employment of Children Act, was in operation. Under that Act, it was the duty of the Home Office to sanction sets of rules to be submitted by the local authorities; yet, up to the present, only three sets had been sanctioned in the whole of England. Eleven sets were provisionally sanctioned and thirty-six were under consideration. The rules for the City of London and the County of London were still under consideration; and the right hon. Gentleman had stated that an inquiry would be necessary into the by-laws of the County of London. That seemed to him to be a very unsatisfactory amount of progress under a new Act from which they hoped to obtain lasting good. The right hon. Gentleman might think that the employment of children only concerned their morality; but it also touched their whole future life and physique, and whether they would be useful or useless citizens.
  He desired to draw special attention to the question of the physical deterioration which resulted from the indifference with which the law was administered. Public attention had been drawn to the subject lately, particularly in connection with the number of recruits which had to be rejected. He wished to ask the Home Secretary whether he was satisfied that the powers
  which his Departments in connection with this matter were being fully and wisely used; and also whether the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied that the Department has sufficient powers. He would ask one specific question. Did the right hon. Gentleman consider that if forty persons were employed in a factory they
  1010
  should be protected from an outbreak of fire, whereas if only thirty-nine persons were employed in a similar factory no such protection was compulsory? Was the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with that condition of affairs? He wanted a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman that he would consider the whole subject. The right hon. Gentleman had under his control a considerable number of factory inspectors, though perhaps not as many as he himself would wish. He desired to pay his tribute to the admirable manner in which those inspectors, male and female, carried out their difficult duties. The right hon. Gentleman had also a certain number of certifying factory surgeons who certified boys and girls entering a factory, though they did not certify in the case of workshops. One of the recommendations of the Committee on Physical Deterioration was that boys and girls entering a workshop should also be certified. Further, he would suggest that boys and girls should not only be certified at sixteen but also later. Was the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present condition of infant mortality? That was a very grave question; and there was also the question of the employment of women before and after their confinement. Was the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the law, as it stood, was being enforced?
  He came now to the case made out by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean with regard to the women inspectors. Any one who read the Report would see at once how unflagging in its efforts had been the women's branch, how devoted the women inspectors had been to their duty, and how successful in dealing with the difficulties confronting them. According to the census of 1901, there were over 1,500,000 women and girls in factories and workshops. In the laundry industry the disparity of men employed to women was enormous. In the regulated laundries the number of males employed was 8,400, while the women numbered 82,600, but in the unregulated laundries, the small domestic laundries, there were 9,600 men and 226,000 women. That would give the Committee an idea of the work which the women's branch of factory inspectors had to

  1011
  endeavour to overtake. He wanted the Committee to appreciate the importance of this work from what had been done by Miss Deane. It appeared from the Report that accidents had not tended to increase, but that in the area for which Miss Deane was responsible the accidents had decreased by one-half of the normal total. Most of the accidents in laundries were caused by the hydro-extractor, but none had occurred in Miss Deane's area. It stood to reason that there would not cease to be accidents so long as there were only eight women inspectors for industries employing 1,500,000 women. With regard to the carrying of heavy weights the Report gave a long list of cases. In this matter we were far behind other countries in the way we protected the workers with regard to these matters. He would just quote one or two of the cases. A boy of fourteen, who weighed seventy-seven pounds himself, was found carrying up a piece of clay to the moulder. That piece of clay weighed sixty-three pounds, fourteen pounds less than his own weight, and a woman fetching up clay to the moulder carried eighteen cwt. a day. Under these circumstances he thought he was justified in saying that the women's department was severely handicapped in their struggle to look after the comforts and needs of the women workers.
  He deprecated the practice that had grown up under this particular Government of not putting into force the powers with which they were vested, but rather trusting to a voluntary system and persuasion. His right hon. friend had asked for a Committee to be appointed, but there had been quite enough Committees on this subject. The Government knew perfectly well what they ought to do, but would not do it. They accepted neither the recommendations of their inspectors nor of the Committees which had considered this matter. It would, no doubt, be stated that the voluntary system had worked well in the Bessemer steel and wharfinger trades, but even if the various firms in the bronzing trade, to whom the right hon. Gentleman had sent a circular making various suggestions, accepted those suggestions, there was no guarantee that they would continue to carry out the rules they had
  1012
  agreed to. That was the line the Home Office adopted; they made appeals and did not put into force the full powers this House had conferred on them. They declined to believe that anything was to be gained by uniformity of administration with regard to the question of the electrical trades. He had been able to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in the previous year on what he had done with regard to electrical works, but he noticed that the inspector of electrical works had made recommendations, which he desired to see in force, which were almost identical even in their terms with some of the recommendations made by the Committee over which he himself presided in 1897. Electrical undertakings had greatly increased since that day. This inspector had pointed out that there were now 360 generating stations in this country, 100 of which had been added during the last year. In those generating stations there were bound to be accidents but they were not numerous. Last year eight fatal and 153 non-fatal accidents had occurred. But twenty out of twenty-six of the non-fatal accidents which had occurred in one generating station were so severe that it was doubtful whether the injured persons would be able to resume their occupation. Had the right hon. Gentleman enforced the powers he possessed with regard to electrical undertakings few of these accidents would have occurred. The inspector of electrical undertakings reported that new designs of works were now being put up and that safety was being sacrificed to cheapness. This was in great contrast to what occurred in Prussia, where the authorities could demand copies of the plans of the works before the works were put up. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would require changes to be made in such works. Those changes would not be willingly made; why, then, should not the Home Secretary use the powers with which Parliament had invested him? On 22nd February of this year a man was seriously injured at the Westinghouse factory. The manager was warned in June, 1903, and again in November of the same year, but nothing was done, and then came this accident in the following February. Under the system instituted by the

  1013
  Home Secretary the manager's opinion was as good as that of the inspector. That surely was a position which ought never to obtain. If the recommendations of the Dangerous Trades Committee had been carried out, the accident to which he had referred could not have happened. Why did the right hon. Gentleman remain doing nothing beyond expressing hopes?
  With regard to the question of anthrax, the Committee of 1895, upon which the present Chief Inspector of Factories sat, recommended that Russian and Siberian hair and bristles should be excluded from this country, and Dr. Russell had suggested that no eating or drinking in the works should be allowed. According to the Report of the Chief Inspector for 1902, four cases of anthrax occurred through contact with the kind of hair which the Committee of 1895 recommended should be excluded. One of the lady inspectors reported, in 1902, having seen this hair manipulated, not only in the same room, but upon the same table as that from which meals were being eaten. He desired to ask why this trade had not been scheduled as dangerous. The Government were deserving of censure for not having increased the number of women inspectors. They had endeavoured to foist upon the country a voluntary and bad system; and they had not used the powers with which this House had entrusted them. Pious hopes were not sufficient, inasmuch as they could not be enforced. To raise the standard of physique in this country, greater administrative efficiency was required than had been shown by the present Government, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to evince a keener earnestness in the matters to which he had referred.
  SIR JOHN GORSTdrew attention to the administration of the Employment of Children Act. The fact that a large number of children were employed outside set hours to such an extent and in such improper occupations as to render them incapable of benefiting by the instruction given in the elementary schools had long been known to the public, and had excited a considerable amount of indignation. Six years ago the Government of the country were seised
  1014
  of the fact by an influential deputation which waited upon the Board of Education and represented the extreme waste of public money involved in the provision of schoolmasters under such circumstances. Five years ago he himself brought the matter before the House of Commons when, in introducing the Education Estimates, he urged that unless something was done to prevent this shameful overworking of school children, it was idle to vote the millions which Parliament was asked to provide for the purposes of elementary education. But no attention was paid to his warning either by the House or by the Government. The next step was the appointment by the Home Office of a Departmental Committee to investigate the subject, and to rediscover facts which were not obvious to the general public. That Committee consisted exclusively of officials, but nothing but praise could be given them for the manner in which they did their work. They made a most admirable Report, upon which was founded the Bill brought in and carried last year. That Act gave local authorities the power, but not the duty, of making by-laws to regulate the employment of children. That, he thought was the only way in which social reforms could be carried out. The general principles might be laid down by Parliament, but the administrative details must be left to the people themselves, acting through their county and borough councils. The Act vested in the Home Office the duty of approving the by-laws made by the local authorities. That sort of power was a great snare. The idea of Parliament in granting the power was that anything extremely outrageous, any provisions contrary to the liberty of the subject or to general principles of policy, should be eliminated before the by-laws were allowed to come into force; but the Home Office and other Departments were apt to interpret the power as meaning that the local authorities should pass by-laws, not in accordance with the wishes of the people of the locality, but based on a general scheme invented in the Department, from which no departures were to be permitted unless very strong local reasons could be urged. He was afraid that the making of these by-laws was

  1015
  being delayed by the attempt which the Home Office was making to reduce all these by-laws to one common pattern, instead of allowing the great county councils and borough councils a free hand to make such regulations as they thought proper. The Home Office were requiring these councils to send up their by-laws for revision and they would not be passed until they had been examined by a number of officials who were imperfectly acquainted with the circumstances, and this was causing great delay in the enactment of these by-laws. Since 1st January only three sets of by-laws had been put into operation in England and Wales. Amongst the public bodies whose by-laws were under revision by the Home Office was the London County Council. Now if there was any body fitted to make those by-laws it was the London County Council, who had done an extraordinary amount of admirable work for the Metropolis. Not only had these by-laws to be examined by the Home Office, but a public inquiry had to be held. There were certain capitalists and manufacturers who though the London County council by-laws might interfere with the transaction of their business, and no doubt they had "got at" the Home Office, and this had caused a vast amount of delay. He hoped the Home Secretary would tell the House exactly how these by-laws stood, who was opposing them, what bodies were objecting to them, and why this long delay in regard to the public inquiry, which must occupy many months, was taking place.
  There was also the question of the theatrical and circus children who required the protection of the law. As hon. Members were aware, the theatrical managers had demanded that these children should be exempted. He also wished to know why the law was not being enforced in regard to the employment of young children in the streets. The general condition of the streets of London was discreditable to a country like ours. Putting aside the interests of the children, and looking at the question from other points of view, selling in the streets of London required urgent attention and reform. The Committee must consider that six years had elapsed since this question was brought to the
  1016
  notice of the Government, and the Home Office were still wondering and hesitating as to what by-laws ought to be enforced in the Metropolis and other towns in the country. These poor children were still being overworked and overdriven, and compelled to work many hours before they went to school and after school hours. And yet they went on spending money upon the education and training of these children, who were so worn out with toil that when they got to school the most merciful thing was to let them go to sleep.
  * MR. SHACKLETONcalled attention to the condition of cotton-weaving sheds, with a view to justify the statement which he made on behalf of the textile workers last year, and to claim that the law should be more stringently carried out than it had been during the six years in which it had been in force. The position in the trade was exceptional. As the result of a joint request of employers and operatives seven years ago, a new order was issued by the Home Secretary. During six years that order was not given a fair opportunity; the employers asserted that its provisions could not be carried out; and the Home Office advised that matters should be left to the good sense and good-nature of the masters. The operatives welcomed the inquiry which was directed by the Department last year. As representing, with his colleagues, the operatives on that occasion he asked the employers to assent to one condition—that, whatever the result of the inquiry might be, they would agree to have the law altered in accordance with that result, and they replied "Certainly." Then he asked whether, if it were shown that the standard of carbon-dioxide in the air in textile factories subject to the humidity regulation could be reduced to seven or eight instead of the standard of nine volumes per 10,000 volumes of air, they would assent to have the standard reduced, and they said. "Oh, no; the position is nine or more; no less." The attitude of the masters, he contended, justified the action of the operatives in declining to take part in the tests, for they were forced to stand where they were or to have their position made worse. In 285 tests that were

  1017
  taken it was found that in 205 cases the proportion of carbon-dioxide was seven volumes, in forty-eight cases it was between seven and eight, in twenty-nine it was under nine, and in only two did it exceed that standard. These results justified the attitude of the operatives, and their contention that the employers should not be granted any relaxation of the standard of ventilation. He was desired by the operatives to say that it was not their wish to press for a more stringent law; but they had waited patiently without having induced all employers to comply with the standard, and they asked the Home Secretary to insist that his regulations should be fully obeyed. The Chairman of the Employers' Association had said, "If it can be shown that nine can be maintained we will withdraw all opposition"; and the secretary of the same organisation said, "If you can prove it can be done, we will take down our flag and try to comply." The Home Office inquiry proved that it could be done, and was being done in a great many cases, and he urged that the Home Secretary should enforce the law in those cases in which it was being disobeyed. He pointed out that under the law two offences had to be proved before a conviction was obtained, and said that was an exceptional provision under the Factory Acts, and was not justified by the outcome of the Home Office inquiry and what took place at the previous conference with employers.
  In 1892, when there were 729 mills in the district, three inspectors were employed; to-day, when the number of mills was 1,655, there was only one inspector, although work had to be done which in earlier days the officials were not called upon to perform. In these circumstances surely an additional inspector should be appointed at once, so that in future more of the requests made by these men would receive close attention. What could one man do with 1,655 mills to look after? One works in the morning would take up the whole attention of an inspector, and he would, therefore, be unable to attend to the others. This was not a mere question of catching men working overtime. It took a considerable time to conduct these tests. He hoped the
  1018
  Home Secretary would be able to give a satisfactory answer to the request for the appointment of an assistant inspector. He would quote the following paragraph from the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories—
  "It appears, therefore, that installations planned and carried out by competent engineers to keep the air of a shed within the prescribed limit do in practice fully maintain the standard, notwithstanding the inequalities due to local or accidental circumstances, provided that the appliances are kept in proper order and used to the full extent intended, and that their adequacy or efficiency is not impaired by subsequent alterations in structure or arrangement."
  The Chief Inspector's Report made that point quite clear.
  He should like to say a few words in regard to a question which had been giving considerable trouble. There had been many complaints in connection with the system of running factories overtime. While short time was being worked in Lancashire, there were many complaints of "time-cribbing." One inspector spoke of the Working hours being increased by two or three per week by a few minutes being taken from each meal time. He knew one case in which overtime was actually being worked while the employer was in Court. The inadequate fines imposed for offences of this kind made it possible for an employer to make up the amount of the penalty by more overwork. He received as many complaints regarding overtime from employers as from workmen, and it was difficult to get the work-people to give evidence because any who did so soon had to find employment elsewhere. He asked if the Home Office would recognise a man in his position as secretary of a large trade union, and take proceedings upon the evidence which he could obtain. If it were known that the Home Office would do that, it would act as an important check upon the employers who made their people work overtime. Something might be done also by way of establishing a minimum fine, and by instructing the inspectors to take twenty or thirty or a hundred cases, instead of only two or three, because then the aggregate amount of the penalties would be considerable.
  In regard to accidents in the spinning room, he regretted to have to complain that the Employers' Association had

  1019
  sent out a circular stating that they were prepared to support any employer who was fined for non-compliance with the rules concerning the guarding of machinery. During the last few years the number of accidents had teen decreasing; but surely a number of those which now took place might be prevented. One inspector reported eighteen accidents—fifteen of which happened to workers under sixteen years of age—all due to unfenced carriage wheels and slips. This state of affairs could be remedied, and the inspector who wished to see an improvement should be supported by the Home Office, and negligent employers should be forced to take precautions. There was a considerable number of accidents in carding rooms in which revolving flat carding engines were used, and these could be prevented by the adoption of a small appliance which caused the doors to shut automatically and made it impossible for them to fall open by vibration. During the past three years ninety-five injuries to fingers had been caused by loom hammers and sixty-six from duckbills, which could have been prevented by safeguarding those parts of the machinery and by lengthening or shortening the hammers so that they did not come in contact with operatives' fingers.
  In regard to the supply of particulars and rates of wages, he pointed out that where wages were paid for piecework that fact alone was proof that particulars could be given by employers. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would admit that the man who neglected to give in the particulars committed a smaller offence than the man who gave in false particulars. But as a matter of fact, under recent decisions, the fines had been less in the case of falsification than in the case of the man who had been merely negligent in his works. One inspector remarked that in one-half of the number of informations obtained it was proved that the particulars given in writing were incorrect. The operatives assumed that such particulars were accurate, and since such falsification had the effect of defrauding the workers, he hoped the Home Secretary would instruct the inspector to prosecute in more cases where falsification was proved, so that the fines would amount to more than the employer was able to pocket as a result of
  1020
  his action. The fines for falsification should be heavier than those for neglect to supply particulars.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he wished to join with the hon. Member who had spoken in a respectful protest to the Home Secretary against the manner in which this Vote had been brought forward at this late period of the session. It seemed to him that no adequate discussion of this Vote could be secured on 4th August. It ought to have been brought on in March or April. He considered that this was one of the most important Votes on the Estimates. It referred to the most productive army of the people of the British Empire. He noticed that when they were considering the position of the Army they could get not only one but several days to discuss the position of field-marshals, or whether there should be three buttons on the right shoulder of a uniform or two on the left. But when it came to the Home Office Votes there was not that interest in them which there ought to be. In fact, the Home Office had not that self-respect which it ought to have. It was the Department which was responsible for the safety, health, and well-being of 16,500,000 of the people of this country, who produced and earned the taxes by which the country had been made what it was. In these days, when they were told to think Imperially, and not parochially, it should be remembered that this Empire was made by commerce and sustained by industry, and that that could only be done by the sacrifice of thousands of lives. Every year 150,000 men, women, and children were injured or killed in earning their living. If that were so, they ought to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who was the guardian of these 16,500,000 of industrials in the country, to bring in his Vote at a period of the session when they could discuss the sweating and brutal overwork to which the hon. Member had referred, and the conditions under which workers laboured in dangerous trades.
  Having said that, he would get to the best side of his criticism. He wished to give his humble testimony to the excellent manner in which the Home Office inspectorate performed their work. The

  1021
  gratitude of the workers of the country was due to them for the excellent way they had discharged their duties. He had read with interest the extraordinary document produced by that staff in regard to hoists and teagles on the strength of which so many men's livelihood and even their lives depended. Another interesting report was that relating to explosives. The reports on docks and mines were also equally interesting, and he suggested to hon. Members that they should take these reports and that dealing with the physical deterioration of the people with them to read during the holiday recess, and they would find them better reading than the articles in the Daily Mail on which some hon. Gentlemen had been living too long. For the last five or six years a number of Members had been saying, "Was not this practical administration going too far?" In some particulars it was. But he was one of those Britons who would like to place his country before any other in the world for the moralisation of capital and industry. It was now thirteen years since they had had an International Conference on industrial subjects in Berlin. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, that he might co-operate with the other Powers of Europe and America, to have another such conference, so that they could bring up to date the discussion of such questions as child labour, women labour, employment in dangerous trades, night-work, ventilation, etc. Extraordinarily good work might be done by such a conference.
  Having made that suggestion, he wanted to support the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in his plea in regard to the insufficiency of the factory inspectorate. There were 250,000 factories and workshops in this country; and notwithstanding what the Jeremiahs said as to the decline of British industry, these factories were increasing and multiplying. Nothing was more satisfactory to a real Briton than to see that these factories were improved as regarded health conditions. For these 250,000 factories and workshops, we had 116 inspectors and thirty-six assistants, or in all 152 inspectors who had to overlook 16,500,000 of people. He insisted that the Committee would be wise to
  1022
  insist on increasing the male inspectorate from 152 to at least 200, and that they should increase the lady inspectors by between twenty and thirty between now and next year. He declared that, measured by value to the community over whom the male and female inspectors had jurisdiction, the services of the twelve female inspectors were disproportionate. Relatively, the female inspectors did infinitely better work than the male inspectors, because their work had to do with matters which no average man could understand. He could not understand why the number of these lady inspectors had not been increased. Something had been said about the cost, but the cost of all the inspectors was only £73,000, which was a small sum—a mere flea-bite—in an expenditure of £140,000,000 which was voted every year by this House.
  The hon. Member for Clitheroe very rightly congratulated the Government on the diminution of accidents in the textile industry. That was also true of mines and shipping, but was it altogether due to increased inspection? It was due largely to mechanical causes, and to improved mines and improved ships. The diminution of accidents which had occurred in the textile trade was not altogether true of other trades. There were increases in the number of accidents in various other trades. The Home Office might say that that was due to better notification; but he could not reconcile that statement with the figures. In 1897 63,000 persons were injured; that number increased to 112,000 in 1903. Making all allowances for improved notification, that was a great and serious increase. As regarded the number killed, the increase was also very large. In 1896 it was 596; and in 1902 it was 1,107. If hon. Members heard of a battalion of soldiers being wiped out, they would be properly sympathetic, and they would be naturally indignant if that loss were preventable. At least equal sympathy should be shown to the soldiers of industry. Some of these accidents and deaths had taken place in certain industries to which he wished to call the attention of the Home Secretary. A process of Americanising had been going on for some years in this country, especially in connection with certain industries. The result was shown in the greater number

  1023
  of men who were killed or injured. The Americanisation of British industry meant its brutalisation; and their business was to stop it as far as the law allowed He should like to know the number of men killed or injured on the Savoy Hotel buildings under the American system, and on the electrical installation buildings in West London. The comparison would be interesting. They could not allow an increase of accidents in docks and on buildings while accidents were being diminished in mines and on the sea. The abstract of labour statistics for last year presented this grizzly fact—4,622 men, women, and children engaged in British industry were killed as compared with 4,262 five years previously. It seemed to him that that condition of affairs ought to be stopped and could be stopped. It could only be stopped, however, by an increase in the Home Office inspectorate, both male and female, on the principle that prevention was better than cure.
  He wished to support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire in his demand for lady inspectors in connection with workshops. A play was recently written by the wife of the present Colonial Secretary; and he was almost prepared to forgive the idiosyncracies of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with Chinese labour, because of the excellent work in the interests of British labour accomplished by his wife. He would advise every hon. Member to see Warp and Woof when it was resumed. It was the finest picture of overwork ever put on the stage. It was said that Mrs. Lyttelton had exaggerated; but he had never seen a play which visualised a workshop better. He himself went to see it three times. Of the 1.692 cases of illegitimate employment of young persons which were brought to the attention of the Home Office, nearly all of them were connected with dressmakers, milliners, and tailors. It should be remembered that this work was not a matter of international competition. It was merely to provide "Lady Gay Spanker" with a fifty-guinea dress for Ascot, or to enable some healthy, decent-minded girl to be presented to Her Majesty at a Drawing-Room. The customers did not know how women and girls were making their own shrouds when they made these society dresses.
  1024
  This work prevented the workers leading healthy and comfortable lives, and from; having strong, healthy, and numerous families—not too numerous, however. Bricklayers, carpenters, and plasterers had their unions; but the women and, girls to whom he was referring had no; union. They could be seen in thousands crossing the bridges any morning between seven o'clock and eight o'clock, thinly clothed and badly fed and working under conditions which were a disgrace. They could not expect ladies to look into these matters; they paid rates and taxes for competent inspectors; and in his opinion, there ought to be at least fifty lady inspectors in order to prevent women and girls being treated in such a scandalous manner. He remembered hon. Gentlemen stating that the special rules with reference to phosphorus would drive trade out of the country, and would not do any good. But the fact was that in consequence of the efforts of some twelve Members, not all of them Labour Members, the special rules were put into force and the result was that the number of poisoning cases fell to less than one-half of what they were. That indicated that they were right in their criticisms and were justified in their rules.
  The next point to which he wished to call attention was the report on physical deterioration. With regard to married women's labour, which he would like to abolish altogether, the Report said that the infants were of a miserably debased type in many cases. What was the use of talking of soldiers and sailors for the Empire when the embryonic soldier was described as it was in that Report? What was the use of talking of our troops not being up to the standard they ought to be in the face of that Report on Physical Deterioration? That Report pointed out that "The employment of mothers in factories was attended by fatal consequencies to themselves and their children, and that they would gladly see it diminished or discarded." That was his view. He believed married labour could be discarded, and, if it were, the number of fatal accidents would be enormously reduced. He asked those Members who in the past had tried to prevent special rules being made to deal with lead poisoning to listen to the

  1025
  cases he would now quote. He had a list from Dr. "A" of 177 cases of lead-poisoning among females. Of fifty children born to them alive, twenty had died in the first year, eight in the second, and seven in the third. Fourteen only reached the age of ten years. But worse to him than the babes that died and the cruel treatment of the mothers was the shocking condition of the survivals. If hon. Members wanted to see the survivals, let them go with him or the hon. Member for Poplar. Let them go to the industrial schools, the idiot schools, the schools for imbeciles, and to the lunatic asylums where they would see in their later years the product of the children reared under slum conditions, reared only furtively by mothers who could not be mothers to them, because of the labour they had to do in the factories and workshops and the conditions under which they lived.
  He apologised to the House for giving his view of the situation at such length. He did not happen himself to be a very big man, but he had the good fortune to be fairly strong, but nothing depressed him more when at the County Council than to see asylum after asylum brought under discussion, asylums filled with people who, if their mothers, who had not been properly reared themselves, had been able to rear them properly, would have now been pursuing a useful life. This could only be stopped in one way; by taking the women out of the factories and by preventing boys and girls from working in the factories for long hours. When these two things had been done, they could be provided with good houses, and in this way also the evil of drink would be greatly diminished. In these days when we were talking of Imperial rights and doctrines, and when these children were wanted to uphold the Imperial destiny, he pointed out that the only way in which that could be obtained was by the Home Office taking its courage in both hands, and raising its staff of inspectors from 150 to 300. If they did that they would do more to arrest physical decay than all that had been done, and all that had been said and written during the last century.
  *MR. ASQUITHsaid he shared with the hon. Gentleman who had
  1026
  just sat down the regret that this debate had been postponed till so late in the session. He agreed that it was not very creditable to the sense of proportion of the House that a debate of this kind, vitally affecting the well-being of great masses of the British people, should excite such a comparatively languid interest. They were considering, as they did only once a year upon this Vote, the actual operation of the machinery provided for the protection of the lives and health of something like 16,000,000 of His Majesty's subjects. There ought to be no subject which ought to be of wider interest, and he was perfectly certain that those who were responsible for the administration of the Home Office always went away after these debates with hints which they were not reluctant to accept, and with deeper knowledge, perhaps, than even official reports could give them of the actual conditions under which industry was carried on, and of the complaints of those who suffered, not so much from bad laws as imperfect administration. One was often amazed at the loose talk which prevailed about what was called the over-inspection of industry in this country. The whole of these 16,000,000 of operatives of whom he had been speaking had only 150 persons to administer the law for their protection, and that was a sensible increase compared with the past. When he was at the Home Office the number was less than 100. What could 150 inspectors do effectually to superintend the administration of the law affecting such vast masses of the population? We had only to take other European countries to find more stringent laws, and a more stringent administration of the laws. So far from suffering from over-inspection. we should never get that minimum of health and safety which the public conscience demanded until we had a much larger inspectorate. He hoped to see a gradual and progressive increase in the total number of the staff.
  He wanted more particularly to add a word in support of the appeal made as regarded lady inspectors. When he went to the Home Office there were no lady inspectors. When he proposed to take the moderate step of appointing two lady inspectors to look after the interests of the

  1027
  women workers, he was told that it was a most revolutionary and pernicious innovation. Efforts were made to prevent a step which everybody now admitted to have been not only necessary, but long overdue. He had watched with great satisfaction not only the falsification of the ridiculous predictions which had been made, but the gradual development of this branch of the Department by his successors at the Home Office. In his opinion, it was still very much below the strength which it ought to reach. There were in the Estimates this year eight lady inspectors. That was totally inadequate, and although it was perfectly right to attach one lady for the time being to the Potteries—he had argued that himself as being most desirable—such a step ought not to be taken at the risk of weakening the efficiency of the Department as a whole. He was sure the Committee would gladly vote the small extra sum needed to replace that lady, or, indeed, to add two or three others to carry on the general work. The total Vote for the inspection of the factories and workshops over the whole of the United Kingdom was rather less than £70,000, which was small indeed when they considered the enormous sums they were in the habit of placing at the disposal of the Army and Navy and other Departments of the State, and he did not hesitate to say that they would get more value out of that £70,000 pound for pound than out of any other sum voted in the year. Economists as they all were in these days, no one on either side of the House, if the Home Secretary said he wished to increase his staff of lady inspectors in order that the girls and women of the country might be more efficiently protected, would be unwilling to accord him support. It had been pointed out that the necessity for the protection of this class of workers was as great as, if not greater than, ever before. They had only to read their newspaper daily to be convinced that, more from want of thought than want of heart—through carelessness, ignorance, or indifference on the part of the customer—women and girls were employed in making articles of luxury, not only at inadequate wages, but under conditions of health and hours which were
  1028
  a distinct violation of the laws which Parliament had passed for their protection. It was the most difficult and subtle of all forms of the contravention of the factory law, was the one which most needed skilled factory inspection, and was one of the main reasons for the appointment of lady inspectors. If those poor girls were to be protected as Parliament intended, they must have a larger body of the only class of inspectors who were qualified to do the work. He trusted they would get a satisfactory assurance on that point.
  Then there was the question of dangerous trades. He was quite aware of the difficulty of the question, and the delicate task of dealing with the very complicated conditions of particular industries. At the same time he very greatly mistrusted the effects of a policy of what was called moral suasion. They had no security that their advice would be consistently and permanently followed. He would much rather lay down a set of rules which he knew to fall short of the actual requirements, but which would still deal with the substantial and main difficulties of the particular trade, than go pottering along year after year, endeavouring by exhortation, advice, and indirect pressure to get people to agree to things to which there was no security that they would permanently adhere. Of course, if they could get an adequate set of rules, so munch the better. At any rate, let them make a step to deal with those dangers which were actually threatening the lives of these people. The question of anthrax was brought up year after year, but nothing seemed to happen, although there was a most serious danger which could undoubtedly he very substantially mitigated if proper provision were made for the carrying on of the trade in which it occurred. He could not understand why some effective steps were not taken to deal with that admitted danger, and he was afraid we were falling a little behind the standard which we ought to work to. Nothing would give greater satisfaction to all interested in the industrial progress of the country than to learn that the problem of dealing with dangerous trades, and the still inadequate protection of the workers, was being made the subject of that special legislation which Parliament

  1029
  had empowered the Home Office to frame and administer. The Home Secretary must agree that the points raised were of practical administration, and not crotchets, fads, or extreme suggestions by those unacquainted with the actual circumstances. By exercising the powers the Home Office possessed, a large step in advance might be made towards the attainment of the object for which the Factory Department existed, viz., the protection of the lives and of the health of the workers of the country.
  MR. COGHILLsaid the figures given by the hon. Member for Battersea with regard to lead-poisoning in the Potteries were somewhat misleading.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he quoted the total number of cases of lead-poisoning as given in the Blue-book, and did not refer particularly to the Potteries.
  MR. COGHILLthought a very different impression was left upon the Committee.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: As I have been challenged may I read exactly what I said? "The lead-poisoning cases in 1899 were 1,258, in 1903 they were 614." I did not mention the Potteries at all.
  MR. COGHILLsaid that was the impression produced upon the Committee, especially when the hon. Member went on to speak of the mysterious doctors, A, B, and C. In regard to lead-poisoning in the Potteries, the number of cases last year was only ninety-five, as compared with 200 in 1900. The decrease in the number of fatal cases was even more striking, the figures being, for 1899, 16; 1900, 8; 1901, 5; 1902, 4; 1904, 3. Considering that there were 46,000 persons employed in the Potteries, of whom 4,700 were engaged in the lead processes, the fact that there was only three deaths in what must always be a dangerous trade would compare very favourably with the condition of any other trade in the country. It was true that there had been an increase of lead-poisoning in other trades, but he entirely repudiated the statement of the hon. Member for Battersea with regard to the Potteries, and regretted the hon. Mem-
  1030
  ber should have repeated the aspersion he had previously made. With regard to moral suasion, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife had referred to, he thought there was very little moral suasion in it as the Home Secretary relied upon the special rules. It was shown conclusively that those rules were absolutely impossible, and in the form submitted to the arbitrator they were given up by the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife was entirely wrong when he talked about the Home Secretary and moral suasion. Most of the cases in the Potteries were of a very light kind indeed, and in the china and earthenware trade the figures in regard to serious cases and deaths would compare favourably with any other trade in the country. He reminded the Committee that an insurance society had been started there, and he was told that this always had a tendency in the direction of a general increase in the number of cases.
  * MR. BROADHURSTsaid the first point he wished to raise was with regard to the inspection of the fishcuring industry. They had heard a great deal with reference to that industry during the herring season, and had been treated to some very picturesque descriptions of the life of the many thousands of women and girls who were engaged in it. Last November he visited Yarmouth about the height of the season in this fishcuring business, and he was bound to say that a more miserable and deplorable trade for a number of women to be engaged in he had never seen in his life. He admitted that he made his visit with the conditions at their worst, for it was a wet day, and there had been rain for two or three days previous. So far as he could judge, the field in which the work was largely done was a sea of water and mud. The field was many acres in extent, and it was closely and thickly studded with the trays containing the fish, each tray being surrounded by a body of women. He urged the Home Secretary to appoint a specially selected inspector for this work who would go thoroughly into the conditions under which these women laboured, and would report to the Home Office. The work was very exhausting and laborious, and,

  1031
  in his judgment, was quite unfit for women to be employed in. But if woman labour was to continue he thought it should be carried on under the best possible conditions. He saw many thousands of these women at work, and from their general appearance he should think it was work which begot exceedingly bad health. He was much surprised and alarmed to see the eonditions under which this great industry was carried on. He appealed to the Home Secretary to have a special visit paid at the end of October or the beginning of November, and to arrange that the inspector should be on the spot for a day or two because much of the work was carried on by night as well as by day. The inspector, he was sure, would report in favour of a much severer administration of the law in respect of this industry, and of greater precautions being taken with a view to preserving the lives and health of the people engaged in the industry. He did not propose that women should be prohibited from doing the work, but believed that the employment was quite unsuited for women labour.
  With regard to the appeals to the Home Secretary for an increase of the staff of women inspectors of factories and workshops he wished to make a suggestion to the Home Secretary, and it was that, if the right hon. Gentleman would increase the staff at some future time, would it not be worth considering as to whether he could not strike another vein for this useful part of the public service. He had nothing to say against the present staff of women inspectors, but he thought that it would not be impossible for the Home Secretary to select some women whose avocation in life had brought them in close and constant contact with working women of all classes in the country, and often under conditions where confidences were regularly exchanged between the classes to which he alluded, and trained persons who, by many years of experience, knew the workers well and knew how to sympathise with them and advise and encourage them. It was not for him to suggest the quarter to which the Home Secretary should look for such women inspectors as he had referred to, but he had no doubt that with the resources at the disposal of the Home Office it would not be impossible for the
  1032
  right hon. Gentleman to find many highly suitable and capable women with such qualifications as he had ventured to suggest.
  *MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid that speaking as a factory owner himself he should like to acknowledge the very great debt of gratitude which employers generally were under to the women inspectors. There were many abuses which employers were not aware of until they were brought to light by the women inspectors, and he readily joined in the strong request which had been made by other speakers that the number of women inspectors should be largely increased, for he was sure that the adoption of this course would tend to the efficiency of factory work. He thought his own humble experience was well worth bringing to the attention of the Home Secretary. As the hon. Member for Clitheroe had said, it was amongst the young people that they were continually having these accidents, and he thought there ought to be more protection for the very young, because when they first left school and began to work amongst machinery they were very careless and they required extra precautions as regarded fencing. Owners of machinery were always ready to receive suggestions from factory inspectors to help them to prevent accidents. He supported the hon. Member for Clitheroe in urging the Home Office to act more vigorously and in making it more expensive for unconscientious employers to have accidents. To cheat people of their wages was a most abominable crime, and under the operation of the "particulars" clauses of the Factory Act he was quite sure the action of the Home Office had not been strong enough. An excellent suggestion had been made by the hon. Member for Clitheroe with reference to purposeful fraud, viz., that where several work-people were being defrauded, the Home Office should prosecute not only in one but in all the cases. An important point, however, was that where a loom or weaving machine was putting in more than the proper number of "picks" or threads to the disadvantage of the workman, it might be a temporary default of the machine only and not fraud at all.

  1033
  In any case some variation was unavoidable. Of course inspectors could soon discover the difference. The inspector must be careful to distinguish between purposeful wrong-doing and mere mistakes. But if the inspector found that these variations were habitually in one direction only and that to the disadvantage of the workman, once he was absolutely convinced by a sufficient amount of inspection that an employer was cheating his workpeople then he ventured to say, as an employer, the maximum penalties were not enough.
  As to the question of cribbing time he was not quite sure that the hon. Member for Clitheroe made it clear, because in one part of his speech he suggested that the workpeople were being wronged while in another part he said that they were apt to wink at it. There were in most textile mills two classes of employees. There were those who were paid by the hour and those who were paid by the amount of work. The unfortunate part of the business was that in Lancashire, where owing, to the shortage of cotton, short time still prevailed, the hour-worker who was in the minority was apt to be defrauded. The great bulk of the workers who were piece-workers were on short time at present. The more hours the engine ran the more wages they could make. Therefore they were not under any inducement to report that the mill was running more hours than it professed to be. But if the engine was running more time than it professed then the time-workers were really robbed of the extra time. He was bound to say, from his experience of employers as a class, there were not many of that description. Whether there were many or few, however, he was sure the respectable employer of labour wanted these men punished as a disgrace to all connected with the trade.
  He also drew attention to the condition of many of the common lodging-houses in this country. He did not know whether the attention of the Home Secretary had been drawn to the Society of Women Guardians in Manchester, which had pubblished a pamphlet giving the experiences of a lady who for five days went to certain workhouses as a tramp, with a friend, and spent two nights in common lodging-
  1034
  houses. He had spoken on a previous occasion about the tramp wards, but in the common lodging-houses there was a state of things that many of them could not be fully aware of. Sanitary conveniences hardly existed in some of those places. There was no arrangement for bathing or washing; and the sexes were jumbled together in a way the law did not allow. They could imagine the moral effect on single women who had sometimes to move from place to place to get work or to visit friends. There were poor women who were as respectable as any lady in the land who had occasionally to make use of these common lodging-houses. The condition of many of these lodging-houses was a disgrace to our civilisation. In one place the lady tramp—and her bona fides was absolute—said the only sanitary con-convenience was one which was being used by at least forty people, this being a small closet which was perfectly dry and the stench from which was "enough to knock one down." Some of the lodgers in that house had been there for six weeks. There was a small sink by the fireside which was the only provision for sanitary purposes of all kinds. In another part she mentioned an instance of a casual ward where they could wash themselves but could not wash their linen. In the common lodging-houses there appeared to be no provision for personal ablutions of the most elementary kind. He knew the Secretary of the Home Office could only do a little, but he wanted him to do what he could to remedy this state of things. It was a matter of the greatest public importance that these places should be made civilised, which many of them at present were not. The effect upon tramps' families was deplorable. Yesterday he asked the Home Secretary a question regarding the recent publication of particulars as to making counterfeit coins. A criminal was brought up at the Old Bailey, and he gave as his reason for knowing how to do it that he had seen a full description of the operation in the newspapers. The Judge and jury were unanimous in strongly condemning the action of the newspaper, and he should be glad if the Home Secretary would inform the House what he thought might be done in the matter and if he proposed to do anything.
  *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid he listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea. As to the necessity for more factory inspectors, he himself could not profess to speak as an expert, but judging from what had fallen from many hon. Members it seemed that it would be highly desirable to have more inspectors appointed. He was sure that the Home Secretary, if convinced of the necessity for them, would be the very first to come to the House and ask that the requisite provision should be made. In regard to the East-End of London it was not in the factories where the great evils existed. It was much more in connection with home work, and he for one had always felt that it would be a valuable measure of reform if some control over home work could be established. That had been done in America with, he believed, success. He had studied this matter closely in the East-End of London, and he did know there were places where conditions prevailed which were really a disgrace. The conditions under which the labour was conducted were inconceivable by those who had not made themselves familiar with the state of affairs. Reference had been made by previous speakers to the fact that poor people were sometimes engaged at very low wages in making articles of luxury to be used by wealthy people who were not aware of the conditions under which they were produced. This remark did not apply to articles of luxury or the wealthy classes alone. There was a craze for cheapness running through all ranks of the population. He came across an instance the other day where a dozen pairs of corsets were being finished for a few pence. Shoes were being made at 11½d. per pair; and trousers were being finished for 1½d. per pair instead of 6d. or even 10d. which was formerly paid. Out of that small allowance the workers had to find the thread and needles. These things were not worn by the wealthy. They were used by the poorer classes, and he believed if they could realise the conditions under which they were made they would gladly pay a little more for the articles. In that respect they were just as blamable as the wealthier classes, if any were blamable. It was absurd to try as the hon. Member for Battersea had
  1036
  done to raise prejudice against the upper classes and accuse them of luxuriating in finery produced by sweated labour. The play written by the Hon. Mrs. Lyttelton which had been referred to only gave one side of the picture and that not the worst side. These bad conditions had been undoubtedly largely contributed to in the East End of London by the cutting of prices, due to the introduction of labour from abroad. It was absolutely impossible that a movement of this magnitude should go on without producing a disastrous effect upon hours and wages. Forty per cent. of the foreigners who came to this country were in a condition of absolute destitution, and that was having a very serious effect on our own working classes. He did not believe their presence in this country had much influence on the great organised trades, but wages had been seriously depressed in the small employments, such as the making of shirts, trousers, hand kerchiefs, and shoes. Wages must continue to be depressed so long as there was an inexhaustible supply of very cheap foreign labour coming to the country. He was quite certain from personal observation that the poor people in the East-End of London, alien and English alike, were being dragged down owing to the foreigners, and to the cut-throat competition set up by the influx. It was amazing that hon. Members opposite who were apparently so solicitous for the welfare of the working classes should systematically ignore the injury done to our own people by the unrestricted importation of destitute foreigners.
  MR. HARWOODsaid he wished to say a word or two in favour of increasing the number of factory inspectors. He pointed out to the Home Secretary the distinctly changed attitude of employers towards factory inspectors. As an employer for more than thirty years, he had seen what amounted almost to a revolution in the change of sentiment against employers of labour towards the inspectors. He could remember when they were regarded as a most deadly enemy, and when people were posted in particular places to await their coming. There was a great reason for the change

  1037
  of feeling. The objects served by factory inspectors were good for the respective trades. They had learned very slowly, as stupid English people learned everything, but they had learned surely, that it did not pay to have unhealthy workmen. It did not pay to have unhealthy conditions of work, and the consequence was that the conditions which they first regarded with aversion had increased the prosperity of business. Another reason why an extension of inspectorship was necessary was that they had come more and more to look on them as their advisers. In their large experience they advised employers on many problems which only inspectors could. The problems of ventilation were associated closely with the health of workpeople. He supposed many Members—certainly Lancashire Members—had noted with extreme pain that a much larger percentage of Volunteers offering from Lancashire were rejected on account of their physical inferiority than in almost any other part of the country. That was the result of the neglect of the problems of sanitation in their leading trades. Therefore, from the patriotic point of view it was necessary to face these problems. The time was coming when the Home Office would be used by the trades much more in a consultative way than it had been hitherto. The Home Secretary must provide for helping them in that way. He would say, as regarded employers of labour, that the old feeling had gone. They all as a body wanted to do the right thing. The question was how to do it. They wanted the inspectors to help them to understand what was the right thing, and then how to do it.
  There was another practical problem, viz., that of cribbing time, which was a very great evil in his part of the country. That might easily be dealt with not by inspectors hiding themselves and furtively rushing to places; but by a mechanical contrivance, somewhat similar to one used at his own place, which recorded the exact minute an engine started or stopped. It was a most simple arrangement, and quite cheap. By compelling the use of some arrangement of that kind he believed the evil could be cured at once. He threw out these suggestions because he
  1038
  recognised the friendliness of the Home Secretary, than whom there was no official on the Ministerial Bench who could do more for the well-being of the people.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said that he shared the regret expressed by the right hon. Member for East Fife and others that this Vote should be taken so late in the year. He himself would infinitely rather that it had been taken at an earlier period of the session. But he should like to point out that under the new rules of procedure the Prime Minister had made it his practice to take the Votes in the order in which hon. Members opposite and the House generally desired. Another reason for the delay was that they had got into the practice of waiting for the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories before they considered this Vote. The preparation of this Report had become more difficult every year from the continually increasing amount of information that had to be embodied in it. There was another reason why the date of this discussion was later than usual. There was no more able or energetic servant of State than the Chief Inspector of Factories, and he had, in addition to his ordinary duties this year, a most difficult and delicate inquiry on hand in regard to the regulations at the docks. On that account the Chief Inspector had not been able to go on with the preparation of his ordinary Report in the same way as in former years. The hon. Member for Battersea suggested that the annual discussion on this Vote should, in future, be taken at an earlier period in the session, even if the Inspector's Report was not in hand. That would be a matter for consideration next year.
  After all, the chief point in the whole discussion had been as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the number of the factory inspectors. As the right hon. Member for East Fife had pointed out, this question of the number of inspectors was not settled by their recent growth. He himself looked forward to a gradual and progressive increase in the staff. During the past ten years the male inspectorate had been increased from 100 and 150.

  1039
  The lady inspectors had been increased since the time of the hon. Member for East Fife from three to eight. A large addition to the number of male inspectors had been made last year, and the result fully justified the action taken by the Department. It was now some three years since the number of lady inspectors had been increased. He had been carefully considering this question and had been very much struck by the unanimous opinion expressed that day on the point. After the inquiries which he had made, and after reading the very valuable report of Miss Anderson, he had come to the conclusion that he should be justified in asking next year for an increase in their number.
  * SIR CHARLES DILKEasked if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to say what increase he would recommend.
  * MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he could not tell the right hon. Gentleman the exact number, because he was making inquiry.
  * SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid his reason for pressing the point was that he understood that two ladies had been taken on temporarily.
  * MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: At the present time one of the inspectors was temporarily resident in the Pottery district, and was doing most excellent work there. He did not agree with the right hon. Baronet that the women inspectors should be resident in any particular district. It was far better that the staff should be a central one, available for work in any particular district, and that they should be constantly in touch, not only with the other lady inspectors, but should also work in harmony with the male inspectors. Independently of the appeal which had been made to him, he had come to the conclusion that it would only be fair to increase the number of the women inspectorate. The margin upon which the Department had been working was a great deal too small, but hon. Members in this matter must be a little trustful.
  MR. TENNANTasked if the proposed increase would be more than the two temporary inspectors who were now employed.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was not including the temporary inspectors. He could not, however, explain further just now.
  The right hon. Baronet had asked about a case of phosphorus poisioning. There was no evidence that the poisoning, of which the woman died, had been contracted in any particular works, but he had followed the case as far as it was possible for him to do. Then the right hon. Gentleman made a very serious attack on the administration of the Truck Acts. The right hon. Gentleman had been in correspondence with the Department on the matter; and, in consequence of that correspondence, he had directed the Factory Department to obtain the particulars of all the factory prosecution under the Truck Acts between 1st January, 1888, and 31st May in the current year. The figures certainly showed that the administration of the Truck Acts had not broken down, and the Department was not negligent of the duty imposed upon it. No doubt the proportion of dismissals to conviction was high. During that period, 313 cases had been taken against 121 firms. In 229 cases convictions were obtained, eleven cases were withdrawn on payment of costs, and thirty-three proscutions were dismissed. His object was to show, without submitting further figures, that the Department was not neglectful of the duties cast upon it. The Department was prepared to take a part in the Swiss Conference in the hope that some good might come out of it, not only to the workers of this country but to those of other countries. The risk of fire in factories, and the facilities for escape had been carefully considered by the Department. He had promised the hon. Member for Berwickshire a short time ago that a Select Committee would be appointed to inquire into the subject. That promise would hold good, though the inquiry could not be finished this session now.

  1041
  The hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had asked for some particulars of the carrying out of the Employment of Children Act. That Act came into force in January last. Several hon. Members believed that great delay had occurred in respect of the setting up of by-laws, and that the blame for the delay lay at the door of the Home Office. The position, as a matter of fact, was that more than fifty sets of by-laws had been received from local authorities, and in each case it had been necessary to consider generally the circumstances of the district and also to examine the details of the proposals submitted by the local authority. The subject-matter being entirely a new one both to the local authority and to the Home Office, the consideration of the by-laws had been more difficult and had perhaps taken a longer time than the consideration of by-laws on matters with regard to which there had been long experience. Up to the present three sets of by-laws had been confirmed and eleven others had been provisionally approved. As regards the remaining cases, in twenty-one the Home Office was still waiting for replies from the local authorities to letters addressed to them by the Secretary of State on the subject of the by-laws, asking for information, making suggestions, etc., many of which were written two or three months ago. Where the local authority before drafting by-laws had made a careful study of the circumstances of the district there had been little difficulty in arriving at a settlement with regard to the by-laws. In many cases, however, the local authority seemed to have prepared by-laws without sufficient inquiry as to or consideration of the actual circumstances and needs of the district and apparently found it difficult to answer the questions in the Home Office letters. As regards the by-laws proposed for London by the County Council he had now received the Council's reply to his letter of the 15th of April. In substance the Council adhered to their previous proposals which, among other things, prohibited the employment of children under the age of eleven in any occupation whatever, fixed the same hours of employment for all occupations for children above that age,
  1042
  and imposed a maximum weekly limit of twenty hours on the employment of all children liable to attend school, whether full or half time. He informed the Council in his letter that having regard to the size of London, the number of its inhabitants, and the different conditions of life in various parts, it would probably be necessary to hold an inquiry at which all persons interested in the by-laws would have an opportunity of being heard, and though the County Council in their reply said that "having regard to the very valuable evidence given before the Inter-departmental Committee, they are of opinion that no further inquiry is necessary or desirable unless substantial objections to the draft by-laws should be submitted on grounds not considered by the Committee, or from classes of the community not represented before the Committee," it seemed clear that such an inquiry would be necessary before by-laws of such a sweeping character as proposed by the Council or anything like them could properly be confirmed. There had been no idea of forcing upon local authorities any cast-iron or pattern by-laws. The Department had acted with the local authorities to the best of its ability to provide rules sufficient for the purpose and suitable for the locality.
  Some very important suggestions had been made by the hon. Member for Clitheroe for the further prevention of accidents in cotton mills which would be fully considered by the Department. The hon. Member would see from the Report that in many respects his views were thoroughly shared by the inspectors. He could not deal with all the points the hon. Member made, but there was one subject he would deal with, the question of ventilation. The question of ventilation of humid cotton cloth factories had been under consideration during the year. It had been alleged by the manufacturers that the standard fixed by the Factory Act of nine parts of carbon- dioxide to every 10,000 of air was too stringent, on the ground that while with the best appliances it was possible to conform generally to that standard, and in so doing they would usually work to a point well within it, yet under temporarily unfavourable conditions not under their

  1043
  control they were unable to avoid occasional excess over the statutory limit. In support of their allegation they referred to the opinion expressed by Dr. Haldane and Mr. Osborn in their Report on Ventilation of Factories that the present standard was somewhat stringent and might be relaxed. The manufacturers suggested that in order to determine the point definitely one way or the other an investigation should be made by an independent expert and they undertook to abide by the result of the investigation. He agreed to that proposal and invited the operatives to take part in the inquiry. That, however, they declined to do unless the inquiry were widened so as to cover the further question whether a more stringent standard than that fixed by the Act could be adopted for humid cotton cloth factories. The manufacturers' contention was a definite and limited one which could be proved or disproved at once by an investigation on the lines suggested, but a much wider and more protracted inquiry would have been necessary if the substitution of a new and more stringent standard were in question.
  Mr. Scudder, an eminent analytical chemist at Manchester, was appointed by the Secretary of State to carry out the investigation, an appointment which was approved by the masters, and, it was believed, was satisfactory to the men, and the result of the inquiry, which had just been published, was to disprove the manufacturers' contention, and to show that "installations planned and carried out by competent engineers had in practice fully maintained the standard, notwithstanding inequalities due to local or accidental circumstances, provided that the appliances are kept in proper order and used to the full extent intended, and that their adequacy or efficiency is not impaired by subsequent alterations in structure or arrangement." In view of these results the manufacturers would doubtless accept the situation and, in accordance with their undertaking, make every effort to comply with the statutory requirement. That requirement would, of course, be fully enforced by the inspecting staff, and the suggestions which had been made in the discussion would be carefully considered by the Home Office.
  1044
  As to the alleged insufficiency of inspection, the apparent reduction in the number of inspectors was due solely to a change of organisation. There was one inspector for the technical work, while the ordinary inspectors did the general work when visiting for other purposes also. Any change that was made was intended for the better enforcement of the Act. He would, however, bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion that the Department was understaffed and would see whether any addition was necessary. The question of "time-cribbing" was a very difficult matter to deal with. One of the greatest difficulties was the existence of "scouting." He could not help thinking that the operatives themselves were prone to act as "scouts," because in many cases they were interested in the increased work done. He did not think the hon. Member's suggestion as to an interchange of inspectors would work over a large area, and he certainly did not like the idea of inspectors going about disguised for any purpose whatever. Another suggestion was the fixing of minimum penalties. Minimum penalties were always unsatisfactory, because if the magistrates thought the penalties too high they would simply dismiss the case. The hon. Member suggested that the inspectors might take up more instances in a particular case. He would have the matter looked into. With regard to women inspectors, in the making of the appointments the general fitness of the candidate had to be considered, and amongst the qualifications to be considered was certainly acquaintance with the life of the working classes. The lady should also be able to extend her sympathies to those whom she was appointed to protect and the class with whom they worked. He had recently received a suggestion which he thought was worthy of consideration, viz., that in addition to the qualifications which they now possessed they should have some experience in hospital work and nursing—not that they would have to do such work themselves, but it was thought that the operatives would go to them with much greater confidence if it was known that the inspectresses had this knowledge and experience.

  1045
  As to the question of fish-curing, referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester, he was glad to think that matters in that respect had been considerably amended, and the hon. Member, if he would read the Report of this year, would see that many of the complaints made on a former occasion had been dealt with. He thought the hon. Member would admit that. Hon. Members ought not to assume because they had discovered one or two bad cases that the whole industry was naturally teeming with instances of that sort. With regard to the case of fish-curing at Yarmouth, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester, careful inquiry into the matter had been made. The case of Lowestoft last year looked very bad, but he found on inquiry that a considerable improvement had taken place. That view, he thought, was borne out by existing reports.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Not as regards hours.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that it was the sanitary aspect of the matter which he promised to inquire into.
  There was one point raised by the hon. Member opposite in regard to the publication of certain matters in newspapers. He had already put a Question
  to him in the House on this matter and the hon. Member had been kind enough to say that the Answer he had given him had been quite satisfactory. He was afraid that he could not enlarge upon that Answer beyond saying that he was considering with the Public Prosecutor what could be done in the matter. He agreed that the instruction, if he might use the term, given in periodicals and newspapers upon this subject was to be condemned, and he would see whether measures could be adopted to bring pressure to bear in order that there might be no repetition of the complaint which the hon. Member brought forward. He did not expect that his answers to the requests made to him would in every instance have given satisfaction, but he assured the Committee that the Home Office was most anxious to carry out the administration of the Factory Acts in the best possible way.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEappealed to hon. Members to allow a division to be taken at this point on the Amendment, as they were anxious to pass on to the discussion of other important questions.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 101; Noes, 170. Division List No. 309.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Asher, Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Edwards, Frank

  Labouchere, Henry

  Bell, Richard

  Ellice, Capt. E C (S. Andrw's Bghs

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Benn, John Williams

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Boland, John

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Levy, Maurice

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brigg, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lundon, W.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Burns, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Burt, Thomas

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Moss, Samuel

  Caldwell, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cameron, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Norman, Henry

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Higham, John Sharpe

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

  Crooks, William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Dowd, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Malley, William

  Delany, William

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Partington, Oswald

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Rea, Russell

  Slack, John Bamford

  Weir, James Galloway

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Runciman, Walter

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Shackleton, David James

  Tomkinson, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Tennant.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wallace, Robert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morgan David. J. (Walthamstow

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Arrol, Sir William

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gardner, Ernest

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Percy, Earl

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Purvis, Robert

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pym, C. Guy

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Randles, John S.

  Bill, Charles

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Rankin, Sir James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bond, Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Brassey, Albert

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Helder, Augustus

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Spear, John Ward

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Stroyan, John

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

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

  Tomlinson Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Valentia, Viscount

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Whitmore Charles Algernon

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Milvain, Thomas

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Moore, William

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONEScalled the attention of the Home Secretary to the recent case of "Sievier v. Duke," and to the fact that a police-officer holding the rank of inspector was called to give evidence as to the repute of one of the parties. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would frame regulations which would, in future, prevent officers of police doing what had been done by that officer. Such conduct was reprehensible and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the House some assurance that steps had been taken to prevent its recurrence.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that the officer was subpœnaed to give evidence as to the character of the plaintiff. There was nothing irregular in the proceeding. When a plaintiff sued for damages for defamation, the defendant might, in mitigation of damages, call witnesses to show the general bad character of the plaintiff. The policeman, being called, had to state what he knew as to the general character of the plaintiff. He received no reward or gratuity other than the ordinary conduct money which must accompany the service of a subpœna. So far as the individual case went, there was no ground for any censure or disapproval. On the general question there was no doubt that it was, as a general rule, most undesirable for many obvious reasons that the police should give evidence on matters of opinion in civil cases, whether libel cases or otherwise. It was safe to say that, as a general rule, police evidence should be confined to questions of fact. Of course when a subpœna was served, it was necessary for a constable to appear and answer any questions which the Judge allowed to be put to him. No interference was possible there; but it was, in his opinion, perfectly proper and desirable to place restrictions upon the powers of police officers to grant interviews or give proof of their evidence on matters of opinion to parties to a civil suit. He had accordingly given instructions that no such facilities were to be accorded except after reference to and due consideration by the Commissioner of Police. He had ordered, further,
  1050
  that the conduct money or gratuity which a police officer should be allowed to accept and retain should be very small—not exceeding the rates fixed for expenses and allowances when an officer gave evidence in indictable cases outside his own district. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would agree that the point which had been raised by him had been satisfactorily dealt with.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he was perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CROOKSsaid he wanted to ask two or three questions of the Home Secretary as to the important question of street trading. After all, the first thing they had to consider was the interests of the children and not of the persons who employed those children. Everyone who knew anything about the condition of London streets would support the Home Secretary in issuing these by-laws regarding the children engaged in street trading. The present position was perfectly scandalous. Children were found, late at night, offering newspapers containing the latest winners, and naturally that led to numerous arrests on the ground that these children were wandering about without any visible means of subsistence. They were taken to the police station, kept all night, and then remanded for inquiry to be made. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would push the passage of by-laws to deal with such cases, and make some arrangement whereby the stipendiary magistrate might deal with these children without bringing them into the Police Court.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid that on 5th March last, a Motion was made for inquiring as to the various functions of all the Government Departments. The Committee reported on the Board of Trade, and on the Local Government Board, but left out of consideration the functions of the Home Office. The Home Secretary was really in this House the Minster of Justice, but had also to undertake the administration of the inspection of factories—a duty which the right hon. Gentleman had discharged in the most creditable

  1051
  manner. He agreed with the hon. Member for Bolton that sufficient scope was not given to these inspectors. He thought that our Consuls abroad should be instructed to tell us how we should battle with our foreign competitors in commerce; and the various functions given to this great Department of State should be reviewed and put on proper business lines in order to meet present circumstances. Then, as to the police force of the country, he did not consider that justice had been tempered with mercy. A case had occurred the other day of a poor woman who was summoned for not having sent her children to school, and she pleaded that her boy who was absent from school was minding an infant of twelve months old, while she went out to earn a few pence for bread for her children.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means from this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.
Supply [20th allotted Day], considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES 1904–5.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,314,000, be granted to his Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid this Vote came before the Committee of Supply some three months ago, and, with the general consent of the Committee, it had been postponed in order to give the House an opportunity for a deliberate estimate of the naval programme of the Government. They had had reason to complain at the beginning of the session that they had Navy, Navy, always Navy, and they were glad of the respite afforded by this postponement, but they did not expect that the Vote, which was intended to raise, and did raise, the whole naval policy of the Government, would be put before the Committee on a fragment of a day in the middle of August. He did not blame either the Secretary to the Admiralty or the Secretary to the Treasury, who were always ready to make the best arrangement possible for this. It was part of the result of the general mismanagement of the business of the session, which had been absolutely fooled away. It was with a feeling of despair that he approached the task before him of dealing with this subject. It was a task so hopeless and so thankless at this period of the session that he had been more than half tempted to throw it up altogether and let the Estimates take their chance so far as he was concerned. He would do, however, the next worst thing, and proceed at once to the large general question of the naval policy of the present session as embraced in these Estimates.
In the course of about ten years the annual expenditure of the country had risen by £50,000,000, and of that sum £20,000,000 at least were chargeable to the account of the Navy. The Navy Estimates had risen from £14,000,000 in 1894 to £43,000,000 in the present year, if they took into account the expenditure on works. The Shipbuilding Vote was the dominant feature in the Navy Estimates, and the kernel was the item now under discussion, the amount spent on the addition of tonnage. When the Navy Estimates were normal—when they stood at from £12,000,000 to £14,000,000—the Shipbuilding Vote accounted for about a third of the total. That was the proportion when all things were equal, when the Navy was neither extended nor diminished. He was far from saying

1053
that the rule of three should apply now, but it might apply to a certain extent. But if it did apply now then it followed that if the new construction did not increase, but the level reached this year was maintained, and £11,500,000 was spent on new construction and £18,000,000 was the whole, they would find the naval expenditure of the country would be not £43,000,000 but £54,000,000. That was what he desired to draw attention to. In passing this Vote to-night they were sanctioning a future expenditure, far exceeding calculations, of a most extreme character. He was not talking of to-day but of the future and of the heavy burden that would fall upon the country, because the passing of this Vote would lead to an automatic increase in other Votes, which would bring the Navy Estimates up to £50,000,000 at no distant date.
The Admiralty asked for £11,500,000 to add new tonnage to the Navy. He was an upholder of a strong Navy on every ground, and the Committee would have to consider whether this amount was sufficiently large or too large for the purpose for which it was asked. The explanation given for the first time officially by the Admiralty for this large programme was that it was no more than was necessary to maintain the two-Power standard. Let the Committee examine the facts of that allegation. At the present time, from the Report in his hand, he saw that we had battleships of the first class, 49; the next three naval Powers—France, Germany, and Russia—had 50; and all the other navies of the world 80. That was a three-Power standard. We had five-eighths of the battleship strength of all the rest of the world. In armed cruisers we had 28; France, Germany, and Russia, 27; and the rest of the world, 42. Here, again, there was a three-Power standard. In protected cruisers of the first class we had 21; France, Germany, and Russia, 13; and the other navies of the world, 16. In second-class cruisers we had 49, as against 27 for France, Germany, and Russia; and 59 for all the other navies. In third-class cruisers we had 32; France, Germany, and Russia, 32; and the rest of the world, 55. So that in the case of the fleets in being we were maintaining a three-Power standard. It was the same
1054
story with regard to fleets on paper. In battleships and armed cruisers we were building 39, as against 35 by France, Germany, and Russia, and 68 by all the other navies of the world. There was all the difference in the world between a fleet in being and a fleet on paper. The fleets on paper of foreign countries took a longer period to come to birth, and with regard to that Sir William White made this sweeping observation—
"The unrivalled resources of this country in shipbuilding, engineering, armour and gun work, made it possible for us to keep the lead in battleships even though we started later than our rivals."
And he was quite prepared to abide by the judgment of Sir William White. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had had some experience of the Admiralty, argued that inasmuch as in the twenty years ending December last we had spent £116,000,000, as against £111,000,000 spent by France and Russia, we had only a small balance in our favour over the two-Power standard. He, of course, could not test the figures given for the expenditure of France and Russia, but he could test the figures so far as our own expenditure was concerned, and the figures given in the Estimates did not, it appeared to him, tally with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the date of the Return we had unfinished ships in existence which required an expenditure upon them of £38,000,000, bringing this total up to not £116,000,000 but £154,000,000. The figures given by the hon. Gentleman opposite for a shorter period threw quite a different light on the matter. Here were the figures. During the last nine years this country had spent £70,000,000 on new construction, as against £82,000,000 by France, Germany, and Russia; we had added 933,000 tons to our Navy, while France, Germany, and Russia had added only 847,000 tons to their navies. Thanks to free trade our £70,000,000 had produced work which would cost the other three Powers £90,000,000 to produce. Our present number of ships was 400. If we went on at the same rate during the next nine years we would have doubled our present fleet.
His right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean reminded him about

1055
Germany. Sir William White's statement did not refer particularly to Germany; but undoubtedly it was a new element which had to be taken into account. The serious thing undoubtedly was the rise of practically two naval Powers—Germany and the United States. As regarded the United States, the proposed shipbuilding programme was greater than that of this country; but he was not for a moment going to suggest a naval policy in relation to that. The whole defence of the Government was the two-Power standard. But what was the two-Power standard now? There was never any doubt about it when the formula was first invented. It was a polite way of alluding to France and Russia; but Lord Goschen broke through the reserve, and mentioned openly these two countries. But what was the two-Power standard now? He himself had never regarded it as the maximum. In the old days, it vas not a two-Power standard in the abstract, but a two-Power standard in concrete. The French Navy Estimates had now been introduced; and his right hon. friend had quoted the words of M. Delcassé, but what about the other factor of the two-Power equation, viz., Russia? In the Report there was a reference to the cruisers belonging to Russia on the 23rd February of this year, but much water had flowed under the bridges since that date. Many good ships belonging to Russia had been lost; but it would be ungenerous to dwell upon that and ungracious to probe the exact amount of damage that the Russian Navy had suffered. It was not, however, to be ignored in any consideration of the two-Power standard; it would merely be a sham not to take notice of it. But he would not further discuss this painful matter to a friendly Power.
There had been considerable discussion on Army matters during the present session, but few people knew exactly what purpose the British Army was intended to serve; everyone knew, however, what purpose the British Navy served. He held that the duty of the British Navy from first to last was to seek out the enemy and destroy or render useless the navy of any country that might be hostile to this country. It also had a subsidiary purpose; and that was to defend these shores as well as the outside Empire, such as Canada, Australia,
1056
and other colonies. Further, it had to protect British commerce; and not only British commerce but Imperial commerce, a fourth of which was owned outside the United Kingdom, although other parts of the Empire paid practically nothing towards the expenses of the Navy. All these things were a truism; but they could only be carried out as long as the Navy was powerful enough to destroy the navy of any hostile country. The main purpose of the Navy, after all, was to be strong enough to destroy any force which might be pitted against it. The magnitude of the Imperial commerce of this country was in a sense its own protection. It was so vast that no hostile navy could afford to detail sufficient of its strength in order to destroy it. Therefore he would repeat that the main purpose of the Fleet was, not the subsidiary matters he mentioned, but its power to put an end to any hostile fleet. His deduction from all this was that the strength of this Navy must be as a general rule dependent on the strength of other navies. If that were good as a justification for increasing the Navy, it was equally good as a justification for decreasing it; and at the present moment the facts of the situation were such that the two-Power standard would call not for an increase in new construction but for a decrease. He desired, in conclusion, to put two questions to the Secretary to the Admiralty. He wished to ask him, in view of the facts he had stated, what was really the standard now; and if it was still the two-Power standard how did the hon. Gentleman make out that it had not been exceeded? Further, did the Admiralty, with nine months' additional knowledge since the Navy Estimates were framed, hold out any hope to the House and the country that any reduction might be expected in the future in the total of the Navy Estimates? Could the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the Navy Estimates of next year would fall below the enormous amount at which they now stood? The other question he would like to ask was whether the hon. Gentleman could promise any reduction in the sum of £11,500,000 which was asked for building new ships? He hoped an affirmative answer would be given to these two questions.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that before he turned to the interesting and important speech of his hon. friend the Member for Dundee, there were three or four questions which he wished to ask. In the first place, they had a right to complain that the Report of the Boiler Committee had only been issued that morning. He had an impression that it was by no means a satisfactory document. He thought the Admiralty would find it impossible to defend the extent to which they had adopted a groping system. They had imitated Germany by recently installing both cylindrical and water-tube boilers. He understood, however, that that system was now abandoned; and that showed that the Admiralty itself realised its mistake. Yet the ships in the Navy had a greater variety of boilers than that of any other navy in the world, with the result that it was admitted that the difficulty of stoking had been enormously increased, and that the different types of boilers in the ships had been the cause of misfortunes in the course of the manœuvres. He could only hope that the mischief was now over; and that boilers of a comparatively simple type would in future be installed, and also that the attempt to mix cylindrical and water-tube boilers would be abandoned.
With reference to new construction, the Committee would remember that adherence to the design of the "Edward VII." class for three new battleships had been generally condemned by the House of Commons. He hoped information would be given as to the design of the two new battleships of the "Lord Nelson" class; what the type was to be, and also information with reference to the new cruisers. With reference to the important and interesting speech of his hon. friend the Member for Dundee, his hon. friend began with a most justifiable complaint as to the lateness of the period in which the Vote was taken. He did not blame the Admiralty or the Secretary to the Treasury for that; it was due to the general muddle of Supply which had occurred during the session. The general practice of consulting the Opposition had not been followed during the year; and it was within the knowledge of the Committee that the Opposi-
1058
tion had frequently suggested arrangements regarding Supply which had not been carried out. His hon. friend the Member for Dundee suggested that hon. Members who were in favour of a strong fleet had voted for a decrease in naval expenditure. That, however, did not apply to him. When he addressed the House, he showed the possibility of a reduction of Army expenditure; but he did not pledge himself to the possibility of a reduction of Naval expenditure. With reference to the two-Power standard, he quite agreed with his hon. friend that it was not an immutable law, and that it ought to be examined from time to time in order to ascertain what they really meant by it. In the present circumstances of Europe, if the two-Power standard meant the building of ships against France and Russia, as it had done in some minds, then the ideas on that question would have to be re-examined. Personally he had always thought that the two-Power standard was merely a convenient mode of arriving at the size of the fleet calculated to give pause to a possible alliance of three Powers against this country. He admitted that there was much less chance now of an alliance of three-Powers than there had been for a great many years past. The hon. Member for Dundee suggested that we had reached a three-Power standard. Personally he attached little importance to a long catalogue of battleships, which were lumped together technically as first class ships, all different in their age and nature. The United States and Germany were building newer ships more rapidly than we were. Effectively the United States had already become the second naval Power, and there was in the Mediterranean at the present time an American fleet more powerful than the French squadron. We could not contemplate these Powers being allied against us, and with care in the future it would be possible to revise our views as to what the two-Power standard meant.
With regard to battleships, there could be no doubt that within a year or two we should have to reconsider the whole foundation of our naval policy. Our position in the Mediterranean itself was a little old-fashioned, and would have to be reconsidered. Unless an alliance with either Italy or Spain could be counted upon, the maintenance of a great

1059
squadron in the centre of the Mediterranean, having regard to the purposes for which it was maintained, would become increasingly difficult, and ultimately impossible. His suggestion was that of all matters in which this country should proceed with caution, that of reducing naval expenditure was the one in which caution was most needed. No one could foresee what would be the shipbuilding policy following on the war in which certain Powers were now engaged. At present we had to deal with the rapid increase of only two fleets—those of Germany and the United States—and it was most unlikely that they would ever be allied against us. But the increase of the German Fleet had been supported by language which must make any Englishman careful; there had been, in language and in rapidity of building, a direct challenge to the naval power of this country. As to the suggestion that some more definite and tangible offer should be made to other Powers with regard to a reduction of naval expenditure, it was impossible for England and France, who might cooperate in such a proposal, to do so effectively at present. But after the war, when these matters began to be considered, he believed that England and France might usefully take counsel upon this point. Although they admitted that the naval programme of Great Britain, having regard to the vital necessity of the Navy to ourselves, must depend on the building of others, yet the only safe policy to pursue was not to attempt to thwart the Government in what they considered necessary for the maintenance of the position of this country, but to press upon them a reconsideration of the facts in view of the immense changes which were occurring in the naval position of the world.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said that while figures as to the number, cost, and tonnage of ships in our Navy, and their comparison with similar facts connected with other fleets were most interesting and important, it was impossible by selecting particular years and particular ships to arrive at any really accurate conclusions. Figures might be made to prove any-
1060
thing. As to the two-Power standard, he would like to clear the ground and lay down the principle which he thought ought to be observed in regard to the two-Power standard. As to the standard itself, that was a matter for the House of Commons and the Cabinet; and when successive First Lords of the Admiralty had laid down the standard they had laid it down not merely from the point of view of their Department but speaking as members of the Cabinet. The duty of the Admiralty was not to set the standard, but to work by it; and he, as speaking for the Admiralty, assumed full responsibility in replying to the criticisms and suggestions made from the Benches opposite. He thought that the Committee would agree with him that it was better that he should not follow the details which had been raised as to the relations with various Powers. He would only say that they might regard it as fortunate that, whereas when the two-Power standard was originally laid down men's minds naturally turned to two particular Powers, because there was a possibility that they and ourselves might be brought into antagonism, it now did not come generally into our winds that there were any two particular Powers with whom we might he brought into antagonism. But notwithstanding that, with the necessary limitations and changes which were constantly coming over national and naval policy, the Government did adhere broadly to the two-Power standard as that towards which they were working, and although that standard might be criticised, at any rate no one had been able to suggest a better which could be understood and appreciated by the nation at large. When they came to work the standard he would rather put differently the principle stated by the right hon. Baronet. He would not go so far as to say that they could not work the cruisers on the two-Power standard.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: The fleet cruisers you can.
*MR. PRETYMANsaid that he would rather put it differently. Taking the two-Power standard as the standard to work to both for battleships and cruisers, he would put the matter thus. The

1061
numerical test was the proper test for battleships. The work which our battleships would have to do would be similar in character to that which would have to be done by the battleships of other nations. In regard to cruisers, although we might adhere to the two-Power standard, the test of equality was not numerical. Regard must be had to the character of the work they would have to do. In view of our immense commerce it was evident that more cruisers would be required for the defence than for the attack. The hon. Member for Dundee most correctly stated that Vote 8, and particularly this part of it, was really the governing factor in all the Navy Votes. He was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman state, and to hear no dissent from his words, that he would not be a party to starving other Votes when expenditure was necessary in order to maintain at full efficiency all the ships provided under Vote 8. If that view were adopted, it followed that Vote 8 set the standard. But the hon. Gentleman also stated that in normal times Vote 8 was one-third of the total, but that now, when the Naval Votes were increasing, that proportion had been considerably altered. The reason why the proportion to-day was different from what it was ten years ago was very simple. Owing to the advance of science and the change in naval policy it happened that an enormously larger proportion of the naval expenditure fell under heads which came in Vote 8 rather than other Votes. One of the very larges increases now was in gun-mountings. Gun-mountings were of two kinds. The fixed mountings came under Vote 8, and the movable mountings under Vote 9. The tendency every year was for the mountings under Vote 8 to increase, and their cost was much greater than the cost of those which came under Vote 9. There was no connection, so far as he could ascertain, between the proportion of Vote 8 to the remaining Naval Votes and the fact whether the Votes were normal or increasing. The hon. Member suggested that the naval policy of increased expenditure was inaugurated in 1892. He would rather say it was inaugurated following the Naval Defence Act of 1889. Of course when one started from a stationary standpoint such as had
1062
then existed for some time and began a large increase of shipbuilding, we should have two or three years during which the other Votes would not follow the proportion of Vote 8. That did not follow now, because we had been increasing expenditure steadily for some time, and if the Vote had not been at the stationary normal, it had been at the normal rate of progress. The hon. Member had said that in sanctioning this Vote 8 they were sanctioning an expenditure in future years of £50,000,000.
EDMUND ROBERTSON: If the rule of three sum holds.
*MR. PRETYMANsaid the rule of three sum did not hold. He did not think it had any basis in fact. The further comparison which the hon. Gentleman made was a comparison between the tonnage of our Fleet and the tonnage of France, Germany, and Russia. It was impossible to compare tonnage. We must compare the number of ships. If we took the number of battleships of the first and second class built and building we had at present the following figures:—France and Russia, 64; France and Germany, 61; Great Britain, 63. As to the speed of construction, the statement of Sir William White was perfectly correct as a general statement, but, as a matter of fact, the rate of building in Germany had latterly rather exceeded our own. The factor of gun-mountings was an important one which the hon. Gentleman omitted in comparing the figures of new construction. Gun-mountings were included in new construction in our Estimates, but not in the Estimates of Foreign Powers. The larger sum which was being spent on our new construction was accounted for almost entirely by the additional number of cruisers which we had had to build, on the policy he had just indicated, and by the inclusion of the gun-mountings. He entirely shared the hope of the hon. Member for Dundee that some reduction in the Estimates in future might be possible, but of course he could not go so far as to make any positive statement. All the factors which the hon. Member named as to the decreased expenditure

1063
by France, and as to what might be the position of the Russian Navy, would not be lost sight of when next year's Estimates had to be prepared, but it would not be expected that he could say now whether there would or would not be a reduction next year. As to the Boiler Committee's Report, and the right hon. Baronet's criticism of the Admiralty attitude as one of "groping," he imagined the Admiralty had been pursuing a policy of "groping after truth," and if they had found it that policy was justified.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: It is an expensive process.
*MR. PRETYMANsaid that was so, but the problem was one of great difficulty. There were continual improvements and changes being made, and finality in that matter had never been reached. The Boiler Committee had to consider not only which was the best and most economical steam generator, not only which would give the greatest economy in the matter of weight, but also the questions of durability, simplicity of care and management, access for cleaning purposes and repairs. Had it been possible to say four years ago that the Yarrow and Babcock and Wilcox boilers were suited for naval purposes, a great deal of money would have been saved; but no such thing was possible; and the Admiralty had acted on the knowledge which they possessed at the time. If the history of the whole thing were followed, it would be agreed that no better policy could have been followed by the Admiralty. The right hon. Baronet asked him for information as to the design of the new battleships and cruisers which were shortly to be put out to contract. He was happy to say he could give that information. The battleship class would be known as the "Lord Nelson" class, and two ships were to be laid down of that class in contract yards this year—the "Lord Nelson" and the "Agamemnon." They would be ships of 16,500 tons. They would carry as armament four 12in. guns of 45 calibre, which would have a command forward of 27ft. and aft of 22ft., and ten 9·2in. guns of 50 calibre and 22ft. command. The horse-power would be 16,750, almost ex-
1064
actly the same as the tonnage, and the speed 18 knots, with a continuous sea speed of 16¼ knots. They would ordinarily carry 900 tons of coal, and a deep load of 2,000 tons of coal. They would have 12in. armour amidships, 8in. on the upper deck, 6in. forward, and 4in. aft. The total cost would be about £7,000 more than the "King Edward." The cruisers would be known as the "Minotaur" class, and the four ships to be laid down this year would be the "Minotaur," the "Shannon," the "Defence," and the "Orion." They would be of 14,600 tons, and would mount four 9·2 guns of 50 calibre and 10 7·5 guns of 50 calibre each. The 9·2 guns would have a command of 34ft. forward, and 21ft. aft, and the 7·5 guns would have a command of 20ft. Their horse-power would be 27,000. Their speed on the measured mile would be 23 knots, and continuous steaming speed 21 knots: the normal coal capacity would be 1,000 tons and deep load capacity 2,100 tons. The guns would be well protected behind 8in. shields mounted on turrets. There would be 6-in. side protection on the main deck, 2-in. on the armoured deck, 4-in. forward, and 3-in. aft. The battleships would be very slightly larger than the "King Edward" class, and the first-class cruisers would not be so long as those of the "Drake" class.
They were powerful ships, and the Admiralty believed that they would be an advance on anything yet constructed either in battleships or first-class cruisers. He believed that they would prove a great credit to their designer, and be able to take their place in line of battle, and meet with advantage any other ship of their class which could be brought against them.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that nobody who had followed the course of events in the Far East could have failed to notice the extreme importance of the work done by the torpedo boats and destroyers of the Japanese Navy. He desired to refer to the serious change which the Admiralty had made recently in diminishing the speed of our torpedo boats, whereas other nations had increased the speed. The reason for this speed was probably well known to the

1065
Committee. The "Cobra." after its first trial trip, broke in half coming from one of our ports, and the Admiralty appointed a Committee of experts to inquire into the cause of this loss, and also into the general strength of our torpedo destroyers. The Report of this Committee had been issued, but in the public interest the Admiralty had declined to publish it. Its effect, however, was seen in the reduction of the speed of the most recently built torpedo boats. The Return showed that the average speed of our newest destroyers was not more than twenty-five and a-half knots, whilst those previously built had a speed of thirty-five knots. The average speed of the best boats they were building before this change was not less than thirty or thirty-one knots. He would compare these new boats with the most modern boats possessed by Japan and France. When he took the average of these new boats at twenty-five and a-half knots he was aware that when they were tested they carried a greater load on their trials than the Japanese boats. They carried a load of 100 tons, whereas the Japanese boats carried about forty tons. That would give our boats a speed of twenty-seven and a-half knots as against the Japanese boats with the same weight. In making these boats stronger the Government claim to give them sea qualities which the former boats did not enjoy. It should be borne in mind that every one of these Japanese boats were built in England and had to make their way to Japan. During the journey they had to encounter both rough and smooth water, and all arrived without a single accident. During the war with Russia they had had experience of all kinds and had been thoroughly tested. He failed to see why it was not possible for our Admiralty to build sea-going boats which would hold their own in all sorts of weather at a greater speed than the Japanese boats. Therefore, allowing for the difference in the load they were four knots behind the Japanese. That might prove to be a very serious factor.
Why was it that no other navy in the world was following our example, but were proceeding in a contrary direction and were going in for increased speed? Why had it become necessary to adopt this
1066
change? Because they were alarmed at the loss of the "Cobra." What did the experts say was the cause of the failure of the "Cobra"? First of all, because it was wrongly designed, that the workmanship was bad, and that the vessel had not been built by specialists in this particular class of ships. These vessels were supposed to attack other vessels and destroy them, but they would never be able to do so with this reduced speed nor, if necessary, themselves escape from the enemy. In view of the fact that other nations were going in for greater speed, was it wise to reduce our speed? That was a matter of extreme importance, and that was the reason why he had ventured to raise it. They ought to have some explanation as to why the Admiralty had disregarded altogether this question of speed. In the Japanese boats the speed was not only greater than in our new boats but the coal consumption was very much less. He thought that required some explanation from his hon. friend. Surely the Secretary to the Admiralty would not hold that under no circumstances whatever were they ever likely to enter into competition in regard to speed. If they happened to be engaged in war with another great naval Power they would be left out of the contest altogether as far as destroyers were concerned. They ought not to call them destroyers at all, because they never would be able to destroy anything.
*MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid that one point he had wished to call attention to was the matter of battleships, which had been raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and had been fully alluded to by the Secretary to the Admiralty. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee was not in his place at that moment, because he desired to refer to the speech which he had made that evening. He had had the pleasure during the last three or four years of listening to a great number of speeches from the hon. Member for Dundee, but he had never had the opportunity of addressing a speech to the hon. Gentleman, because it always happened that after making a long speech

1067
in which he brought an accusation of absence against the First Lord of the Admiralty he left the House. As he had said, he had listened to many speeches by the hon. Member for Dundee, who spoke semiofficially from the Opposition side of the House, but he did not even now rightly understand what his policy was. As a matter of fact he took the same exception to the hon. Member's speeches as Liberals took to the speeches of the Prime Minister on the fiscal question, that was to say he never got any nearer to coming to a conclusion as to what he was driving at. The whole drift of his argument, however, would appear to be that we must reduce our Navy, or, at all events, that we could not go on increasing our Navy. If his argument was carried to its logical conclusion the only inference was that we could not have the Navy we desired, and therefore we had better leave off building. The hon. Member for Dundee had told the Committee that evening that the two-Power standard was no longer operative, because one Power to which he alluded very delicately had undergone misfortune, which had altogether altered the situation. He stated also that France was hesitating in the progress of her naval construction. Although he was not a Member of that House when the two-Power standard was talked about, he had followed the debates, and he had never understood that the two-Power standard was restricted to any two particular Powers. If it was argued that France was reducing her naval equipment, or was hesitating in going on with her naval preparations, they might as well say that Turkey was not a very strong naval Power. As a matter of fact he did not think that they could limit themselves to any two Powers, but they must take a fair view of all the Powers of Europe. One Power that had not been alluded to was Italy, but it was an undoubted fact that Italy was getting the best battleships of any Power in Europe. A year or two ago one of the naval publicists, for curiosity or for advertisement, invited from all the Powers an expression of opinion as to which Power had the best battleship in the world. Of course each Power gave its own first as the best, but each gave the second place to Italy.
1068
Another point to which he desired to draw attention was that it did not at all follow that every Power which was building up a navy was necessarily building against ourselves. In the German Parliament a year or two ago a protest was made that the power of Germany in the Far East was not strong enough. On that occasion the disadvantage to Germany was represented to be not as regarded England, but with respect to Russia, France, and, he believed, Italy. The fact remained that when they talked of a two-Power standard they meant at least that our Fleet must be strong enough to meet any two Powers which might come against us, and that was a limit that we could not with equanimity allow ourselves to fall behind. If the hon. Member for Dundee favoured a lower standard it was almost a menace, because the hon. Gentleman would undoubtedly hold an official position in the next Liberal Government, and it did give them pause if a gentleman of his weight brought forward such views when there was temptation on other grounds to vote against the present Government. In view of the danger to battleships from mines rather than from gunfire, as revealed by the war in the Far East, he as a layman thought that it would be a wiser policy than that of building huge ships to go in for smaller battleships and more of them. That was a proposition he would lay before Mr. Pretyman, and he would like to have the opinion of the Admiralty on the subject. As to cruisers the lesson that they were learning from the present war was that staying power was more important than speed. At any rate it was the first essential. In conclusion, he thought the Secretary to the Admiralty might tell them something about the shooting of ships which had been so much discussed, and also give them some information on that vexed question of the sighting of the guns on the "Centurion."
MR. LOUGHcongratulated the Admiralty upon not having had to present any Supplementary Estimates this year. It was true that they had very large Navy Estimate, but the absence of any Supplementary Estimates allowed the country to give a sigh of relief. He agreed with a great

1069
deal of what the hon. Member opposite had said about economy, but he did not agree with him when he said that a two-Power standard should be rigidly adhered to and if possible increased. He did not think that they ought to go beyond that standard. He thought that it was necessary to put some check upon our naval expenditure if they were to have any success in their efforts towards economy, for which the whole country was sighing. The greatest growth in their expenditure had been in regard to their naval expenditure. The figures showed that they had spent about £43,000,000 this year, and he did not think that it was necessary to continue to spend such a large amount as that. He was sorry that some promise of economy had not been given them by the Secretary to the Admiralty. He thought they ought to have some stricter definition of the two-Power standard. He must say that the two-Power standard had ceased to have any meaning with the present Board of Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman did not tell the Committee exactly what it did mean. For forty years it meant that the expenditure of this country on the Navy should be equal, or about equal, to the expenditure of any two Powers which might combine against us. For a long period our expenditure on the Navy never exceeded the expenditure on the navies of any other two Powers. In 1883 our expenditure was 10·4 millions, and that of the next two Powers combined £14,000,000, In 1893 our expenditure was 14·3 millions, and that of the two greatest Powers £18,000,000. In 1903 the expenditure on the British Navy was 34·5 millions, and that of other two Powers £25,000,000. Now our expenditure was £37,000,000. In these very simple figures they had the story of
1070
the bad revolution this country had worked with regard to the two-Power standard. We now spent on our Navy a half more than any other two Powers combined. There was nothing in the circumstances of the world at present or in our relations with any other Power to justify Our continuance in a departure from the standard formerly accepted by the country. France had adopted a most pacific attitude towards this country. The hon. Member for Portsmouth spoke rather slightingly of France, and said that in making these comparisons they might as well look at Turkey.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he only repeated what was stated by the hon. Member for Dundee. That hon. Member said that France was reducing its naval, expenditure. His own point was that they might as well take any other Power.
MR. LOUGHsaid the hon. Member had really not added anything to what he stated before. France did not stand to this country in the same relation as Turkey. France was the most important factor in the whole European situation and it should not be compared with a bankrupt and worn-out Power in the east of Europe. The pacific attitude of France towards this country was a fact of the very greatest magnitude. We have now had eight or nine months experience of the alliance, and everything was going prosperously for a reduction in the expenditure so far as France was concerned. He did not see any reason anywhere for the great step forward we were taking this year. He was glad to see that there was a very strong Party in the German Parliament who criticised the huge expenditure that country had been going in for in recent years. He

1071
thought the German Government had considerable difficulty in pressing through their naval programme. He did not think that Germany would like to take on its shoulders all that its governors might suggest in regard to the new naval policy. In January this year the Emperor made a remarkable speech, in which he pointed out that this country was the sole cause of the vast increase which Germany had had to make in its naval expenditure. We were the root of this evil in other countries, and if they were going along so quickly after us, it was because we did not show any disposition to moderate our pace. Another great naval Power was Russia. There was no use mincing matters too much, and the fact was that the naval strength of that Power had of late been very much weakened. If we must suddenly increase our Estimates when new ships were built or laid down for Russia, why should we not modify our Estimates when Russian battleships were destroyed? This country was suffering greatly from the extravagance which had taken place in the last two years. The root of the matter was in Vote A which the Committee had been discussing, and if we did not modify our expenditure in that connection we would not be able to obtain a decrease in the total naval expenditure. The hon. Member who had just sat down looked with satisfaction on the fact that two new battleships would be built—the largest and most costly ever floated. We might not find safety in this huge increase of bulk alone. The experience of the war in the East showed, he thought, that more attention should be paid to the smaller and less costly craft. When the purchase of the Chilian battleships was sanctioned certain economies were promised, and
1072
the Committee naturally expected that these economies would be realised this year. He moved to reduce the Vote by £145,968, that being the amount included for the cost of one battleship.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £10,169,000, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Lough.)
*SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he understood there was to be a considerable advance in tonnage and in the power of the armaments of the new battleships and cruisers. His hon. friend the Member for Portsmouth seemed to have a scheme of his own in regard to the two-Power standard. The suggestion of the hon. Member for West Islington was that they should leave out of account in the two-Power standard questions relating to the number and size of ships and guns, and everything else pertaining to war, and that the standard should be determined by equality of expenditure with expenditure of two Powers. That seemed to him to be a proposition which had only to be stated to be discarded. Equality of expenditure was a vastly different thing from efficiency, and it was no test whatever of the relative force of the maritime provision which might be necessary to protect our sea interests. The real test was the work we had got to do, and our power to do it. What the House should understand was that the expenditure was properly applied, and that there was no extravagance and no waste. He could not conceive why the hon. Gentleman opposite, who was a great apostle of economy, could propose a standard based on pounds, shillings, and pence.
MR. LOUGH: It has always been matters, as shown by the present war, it followed.
*SIR JOHN COLOMBdid not think the country would accept the proposition. We had to consider our position as a sea Empire. We had to consider what were our duties and responsibilities and what necessarily would have to be the distribution of our forces which would produce a state of things in the face of an enemy that would paralyse his sea operations. The Admiralty said to the House of Commons that we must have a standard, and the House of Commons said it must be something that the man in the street would understand. We had to consider our requirements in view of rapidly changing strategical conditions. We had established a naval intelligence department, and the increase in our naval expenditure had more or less followed the work of that department. The Admiralty now submitted to the House Estimates based on considered plans, whereas formerly they proceeded by rule of thumb. In the old days our standard was infinitely greater than a two-Power standard. The old idea was that we must have a Fleet that could, if necessary, stand against the world. It was the advance made in the science of maritime war that had produced a much more difficult field for inquiry, and much greater difficulty in fixing the standard. There were obviously details which could not be explained in the House of Commons or to the man in the street; and, therefore, something had to be done to satisfy public opinion in the matter, and the rough-and-ready two-Power standard was adopted. When it was first announced to the House he accepted it as a necessity of political and public exigency, but in naval
1074
matters, as shown by the present war, it was essential to have a margin, and what that margin must be was a matter for careful and scientific observation. What this war taught above all things was that much depended on the ability of the Admirals, and upon things which could not be entirely expressed by the number of men, or guns, or the weight of armaments. It was not wise to blindly take a standard in order to suit Parliamentary and public exigencies, and to say "That and nothing more shall you have." He thought when they spoke of the two-Power standard they must always carry in their minds that there must be a careful survey of what would be the actual position and circumstances if we were at war. He rejoiced to hear that the armament of these ships was to be improved. He rather approved of the approximation of the cruiser to the battleship. That was only a consequence of what had happened in recent times. His hon. friend the Member for Portsmouth, who spoke with a certain amount of authority, seemed to deprecate the laying out of so much money in these huge cruisers and battleships, because they might run into a mine-field and come to grief. His own feeling, so far as the information he could obtain regarding the present naval war, was that the danger from mines was not all on one side. He confessed that he did not expect any great reduction in the expenditure on the Navy. He did not believe that the other Powers would stop expenditure, because they felt the necessity for developing their navies At the same time the Admiralty should exercise the greatest scrutiny and take all reasonable care to keep down the expense.
MR. HALDANEsaid that the hon. Member opposite had some

1075
apprehension as to what would happen if hon. Members on this side of the House were responsible for the future of the Navy, but they were just as anxious to retain the efficiency of the Navy as hon. Members opposite. The growth of expenditure, however, was causing considerable uneasiness. There was a feeling on the Opposition Benches that the overhauling of the Navy was as necessary as the overhauling of the Army. He felt convinced that a great deal of money had been wasted on naval organisation, and that a great deal of work could be done by the provision of a cheaper and lighter craft. He advocated building more ships of the "Lord Nelson" type and strengthening the destroyers without sacrifice of speed. A better Navy could be provided, he believed, for less money, but that object would never be obtained until the administration of the Navy was inquired into by a Committee of experts.
*MR. PRETYMANsaid that the interest of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in naval affairs was appreciated by every one. But he did not think that anything would be gained by the appointment of any Committee of experts or a Commission to examine into the whole affairs of the Navy. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would hold that it was the Admiralty, with all its defects, and not a Committee, which must manage the affairs of the Navy. He agreed that speed was an essential factor in the destroyer, but when they talked of speed they did not confine themselves to smooth water speed.
MR. KEARLEY: Nor do the Japs.
*MR. PRETYMAN: What information had the hon. Member for Devonport as to
1076
the speed which the Japanese boats were able to maintain? The comparison must be the average speed under such conditions as boats were likely to meet with at sea, and remain at sea. Of course, if they could obtain sufficient strength and at the same time increased speed they should naturally desire to do so. The old thirty-knot destroyers having developed dangerous weakness, it was decided, after the most careful consideration, and with the advantage of all the facts brought out by the Destroyer Committee, to build eight destroyers of a new type. The additional height forward would enable these vessels to use their twelve pounder guns in a way which they could not do in the present type; and there was the additional advantage that the coal capacity would be increased. These new vessels would have a nominal speed of twenty-five and-a half knots as against the former nominal speed of thirty knots. They would be tried under all conditions of weather; and the behavour of the two classes of boats would be the subject of special observation at the manœuvres. The hon. Member for Devonport had referred to the expediency of calling in the advice of experts. He might say that some of the most eminent private firms had been asked if they could design boats of equal strength and greater speed, and unanimously they said that they could not. He could assure the hon. Member that the whole matter had been most carefully considered. As to the question of increased expenditure referred to by the hon. Member opposite, it was true that there had been a progressive increase in the Naval Votes; but the country had got benefit in exchange for that increase. There was an amelioration and an improvement in the position of the personnel

1077
in barracks, hospitals, pay, dietary, and in the position of the labourers in the dockyards. The total increase in these respects in nine years was £1,260,000, while under the Works Loan Act the sum which had been expended upon naval barracks was £2,500,000. It would be seen that with the creation of the Cruiser Squadron and the increase of

AYES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Horniman Frederick John

Rea, Russell

Boland, John

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Brigg, John

Joyce, Michael

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Bright, Allan Heywood

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

Shackleton, David James

Cremer, William Randal

Kilbride, Denis

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cullinan, G.

Labouchere, Henry

Slack, John Bamford

Delany, William

Levy, Maurice

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Lundon, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Dobbie, Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Doogan, P. C.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Elibank, Master of

M'Hugh, Patrick, A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andrw's Bghs

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Moss, Samuel

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Hayden, John Patrick

O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr. Lough and Mr. Bryn Roberts.

Hayter Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

Higham, John Sharpe

O'Dowd, John

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hunt, Rowland

Allhusen Augustus Henry Eden

Davenport, William Bromley

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Davies Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kearley, Hudson E.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Keswick, William

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Knowles, Sir Lees

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Balcarres, Lord

Duke, Henry Edward

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N.S.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

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

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Brassey, Albert

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

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

Broadhurst, Henry

Forster, Henry William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gardner, Ernest

Lucas Reginald J.(Portsmouth,

Butcher, John George

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Caldwell, James

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

McArthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gretton, John

McKenna, Reginald

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

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Majendie, James A. H.

Chapman, Edward

Hambro, Charles Eric

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Charrington, Spencer

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Moore, William

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

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

Heaton, John Henniker

Morrell, George Herbert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Mount, William Arthur

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S,

Hoult, Joseph

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

1078

1079

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Valentia, Viscount

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Norman, Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Percy, Earl

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Pierpoint, Robert

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Smith, Hon. W. E. D. (Strand)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Soares, Ernest J.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Pretyman, Ernest George

Spear, John Ward

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

Purvis, Robert

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Randles, John S.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Rankin, Sir James

Stroyan, John

Wylie, Alexander

Reid, James (Greenock)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes,

Runciman, Walter

Thornton, Percy M.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Tuff, Charles

And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLin moving "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that when important Acts of Parliament have been passed for a limited period any of such Acts should be included in a general Bill for the continuance of expiring laws brought in at the close of the session without affording any fair opportunity of considering the propriety of their discontinuance or of their modification," said the Amendment had been carefully framed in conformity With precedent and followed very closely the lines of the celebrated Amendment moved by the
  1080
  late Mr. Butt. It would not be in order in considering the Second Reading of the Bill to discuss the merits of the various thirty-five Acts contained in the Schedule. Only two questions could be considered—first, whether any of these particular Acts were suited for perpetuation in such a measure, and, secondly, whether this was a convenient way of renewing these various legislative proposals. One reason why there should be a real discussion on the Bill this year was that for the first time it contained the Vaccination Act, which the Government had agreed to put into the Schedule in order that it might be reviewed from time to time, but that concession would be entirely valueless if it came to be assumed that the Bill should go through practically without discussion. It was difficult to conceive a more cumbrous, clumsy, and inconvenient method of dealing with legislative proposals than that provided by this Bill. It was a weird constitutional expedient which had not even the justification of antiquity. All sorts of Acts were jumbled together in the Schedule without order, sequence, or arrangement; some were good, others were bad; some ought to be purely temporary measures, while others ought most decidedly to be permanent. But no discrimination was made. Nobody had inveighed more against this style

  1081
  of legislation represented by this Bill than the Prime Minister himself, while the late Lord Salisbury and Mr. Disraeli had also spoken strongly against the practice. He moved the Amendment, not with the intention of challenging the whole body of law contained in the Bill, but because it embodied in a concrete form the objections which might be entertained to this form of legislation. In the hope that it might draw from the Government some declaration of their intention in future years to depart from this undesirable method of proceeding, he begged to move the Amendment.
  MR. WHITLEY, in seconding the Motion, said this was a subject which ought to be properly debated. The schedule kept increasing by the addition of Bills which there was not the energy in the House or the time to properly revise. He hoped that the next stage of this Bill would be put down earlier in the day in order that they might have a thorough review of this growing practice in order to see whether some of the Bills put down in this measure could not be removed by the process of consolidation. He thought the Bill dealing with corrupt practices might be consolidated and a Bill introduced on the subject and referred to a Grand Committee.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words, 'in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that when important Acts of Parliament have been passed for a limited period, any of such Acts should be included in a general Bill for the continuance of Expiring Laws brought in at the close of the session without affording any fair opportunity of considering the propriety of their discontinuance or their modification.'"—(Mr. Winston Churchill.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Questions."
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J BALFOUR,)said those who criticised the present method of dealing with the subject were amply justified, but manifestly it would take a very large portion of a session to deal with the subject otherwise. The present Government had not found time to do so, but possibly the Gentlemen opposite, when in the course of events they came into power, might have before them no measure of great importance and be able to deal with that matter. He hoped the House would tolerate the present system for one year more.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked what the Prime Minister meant by "one year more."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I mean when the hon. Member's friends come in they may find time to deal with this question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he did not know who the right hon. Gentleman meant by his friends, because he had no friends in this House except those who did their best for the benefit of Ireland. He remembered Mr. Butt, in 1873, coming over to Ireland and declaring that there would shortly be no longer this farce of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. He thought this measure was a great scandal and an insult not only to the intelligence of this House but also to the Irish Members. There were no fewer than nine of the measures included in this Bill which affected Ireland, and that was a proof of the necessity of

  1083
  Ireland having its legislative business in its own hands. His hon. friend had stated that this was not a new importation into Parliamentary practice. That was true, but in its aggravated form it was not more than twenty years of age. In former times legislation of this kind was passed with the greatest apologies, but these things were all gone now. The Prime Minister regarded Parliament as a sort of registration machine. He would be very unjust to himself and his constituents if he did not protest against this to the utmost of his power.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that if the House would permit him to withdraw the Amendment he would not persist in it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

NAVAL PRIZE BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

CROWN LANDS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
ALIENS (EXPENSES).
Orders for receiving the Report thereupon read, and discharged.
PENAL SERVITUDE BILL.
Order for resuming the Adjourned Debate on Question [3rd June], That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc., read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order for Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee) read, and, discharged. Bill withdrawn.
SOLICITORS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
NAVAL WORKS (PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS SITE) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TREASURY POWERS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
CHARITABLE LOAN SOCIETIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
LUNACY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
SEA FISHERIES BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
VALUATION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 2nd day of August, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

NEW PEER.
The Lord Bellew—Took the Oath.
The Lord Minster (M. Conyugham)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the the Commons.
Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment to each Bill. The said Amendments to be considered Tomorrow.
Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]; King's College Hospital Bill [H.L]; Leeds Corporation (Waterworks) Railway Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Ship Canal Bill [H.L.]; North Wales Electric Power Bill [H.L]; West Riding Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Felixstowe Gas Bill; Radcliffe Tramways and Improvement Bill; South Shields Gas Bill; London and India Docks Company Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Kintore (E. Kintore)). and reported from the Committee. (No. 179.)
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Amendments made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
Aberdeen City Improvements Order Confirmation Bill [H.L]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Newburgh and North Fife Railway (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill; Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; of "George Bird" Lodge of Good Templars; Western Temperance League; and Inhabitants of Doncaster; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition for Amendment of; of residents in New Windsor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (WALES) BILL (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Message to the Commons for Reports, etc., of the Select Committee.
  EGYPT, No. 2. (1904).
  Despatch from His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo, enclosing a report by Sir William Garstin, G.C.M.G., Under-Secretary of State for Public Works in Egypt, upon the Basin of the Upper Nile.

  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 422. Gibraltar (Report for 1903). Local Government Board. Thirty-second Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1902–1903. Supplement containing the report of the medical officer for 1902–3. Thirty-third Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1903–4.
  Army. (Army Reserve)—Further regulations relating to the Army Reserve; (Militia)—further regulations relating to the Militia.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURT JURISDICTION IN MIDDLESEX.
  Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State to inquire into the question of metropolitan police court jurisdiction in Middlesex; with evidence.
  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND), 1903.
  Part I. Criminal statistics.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of evictions in Ireland, for the quarter ended 30th June, 1904.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Return of all British ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its officers, during the period from 1st July, 1903, to 30th June, 1904, to be provisionally detained as unsafe by reason of the defective condition of their hulls, equipments, or machinery, or by reason of overloading or improper loading, etc.; also of all foreign ships ordered to be provisionally detained during the same period as unsafe by reason of overloading or improper load-
  840
  ing; together with summaries showing respectively the total number of ships ordered to be detained as unsafe, from 1st July, 1903, to 30th June, 1904, and since the 1st October, 1876 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1715.].
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  Twenty-first General Annual Report by the Board of Trade, under Section 131 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883.

  COMPANIES (WIENDING-UP)
  Thirteenth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade, under Section 29 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act,) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
  Committed for Monday next.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (ST. KILDA) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  ARMY COUNCIL BILL
  Moved, "That the House do go into Committee on this Bill."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee on this Bill I should like, although I do not wish to oppose any of the details in the Bill, to again put to His Majesty's Government the Question which I asked the other day. I then pointed out that, so far as I knew, the military officers appointed on the Army Council were in a different position from the admirals and captains appointed on the Board of Admiralty in that they were appointed for four years. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty told me I was wrong, and that in the Patent it was quite clearly shown that they were appointed in the same way as the

  841
  Lords of the Admiralty, namely, not for a term of years. I have reason to believe that certain officers understood the contrary, and accepted the office on that understanding. I think it would be as well before the House goes into Committee that we should have an assurance on that important point. I am quite clear of this, that there has been a misconception about it on the part of those who have received the appointments.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, the intention of the Government certainly was that they should be appointed for four years. What I think the noble Earl behind me intended to convey was that the term four years is certainly not mentioned in the Patent. Still, it is true that the intention when these officers were appointed to their present posts was to follow the recommendation of the Esher Committee and appoint them for four years. But, technically, that is not laid down.
  *EARL SPENCER: I called attention to this matter, not that I desire myself that they should be appointed for four years, but in order to prevent an injustice being done to them, which would be the case if they had accepted office on certain terms, and found that those terms had been altered since.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: There has been no alteration since, so far as my knowledge goes.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1—
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid he was anxious to have some assurance with regard to Clause 1, which provided that there should be transferred to the Army Council—
  "All statutory powers and duties which at the date of the passing of this Act are exercised and performed by the Secretary of State for War."
  The noble Earl in charge of the Bill would be aware that all Secretaries of State exercised a variety of powers. He supposed it was intended, by using the
  842
  word "statutory," to exclude the general powers of the Secretary of State as such. Otherwise the proposal in the Bill would be open to very grave objection, as it would give the constitutional powers of the Secretary of State to the Army Council. He hoped very great care would be taken to examine into what were the statutory powers of the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State's office was a very ancient one, and might have attached to it very ancient powers which ought not to be transferred from the Secretary of State to any other person or board. He, therefore trusted that His Majesty's Government had gone very carefully into that question. The Bill also proposed to allow three more persons to sit in the House of Commons than could sit there now. That was a question more for the House of Commons than for their Lordships' House; but he entered an emphatic protest against a Bill of this importance and magnitude being forced through Parliament at the end of the session
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, as regards the first point which was raised by the noble Marquess, his contention is absolutely correct. The statutory powers are powers chiefly found in the Army Act, the Reserve Forces Act, and the Militia and Volunteer Forces Act. The term "statutory powers" is inserted in order to absolutely distinguish these powers from the other powers which the Secretary of State, as Secretary of State, has. This is a provision entirely on all fours with the Act which was passed when the office of Lord High Admiral was abolished.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONpointed out that the Lord High Admiral was not a Secretary of State. A Secretary of State was a person possessing very peculiar constitutional powers. That was the reason why he pressed the matter.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: This Bill only transfers to the Army Council the Statutory powers of the Secretary of State. As to the other points raised by the noble Marquess, the Bill does not enable three more holders of office to sit in the other House. The

  843
  Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State, and the Financial Secretary sit in Parliament at the present moment, and there is no intention of allowing three members of the Army Council, in addition to those three officials, to sit in either House; and if there was any such intention, the Pay Warrant, which provides that no officer on full pay shall sit in Parliament, forbids it. I can assure the noble Marquess that we have no intention of altering that clause of the Pay Warrant.
  LORD MONKSWELLasked whether the noble Earl would have any objection to inserting in the clause after the words "all statutory powers and duties which are exercised and performed by the Secretary of State for War," the words "as Secretary of State for War." He thought that would make the matter clear.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I will consider that suggestion between this and the next stage of the Bill.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid that in his opinion this clause, which dealt with the right of members of the Army Council to sit in Parliament, did not correctly represent the intention of the Government as stated by the noble Earl. As he understood the noble Earl's statement, it came to this, that there were to be three members of the Army Council—the Secretary of State for War, the Under-Secretary of State, and another—who might sit in Parliament, but that was not clearly expressed in the clause. He asked that the Government would consider the matter.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I will certainly do so.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to: Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  LEEDS UNIVERSITY BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
    THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, This Bill is mutatis mutandis identical with the Liverpool Bill which has just passed through Committee in your Lordships' House. The Leeds case is precisely on all fours. The University College of Liverpool and the Leeds University were both Colleges of the now dispossessed Victoria University, and the object of this Bill is to continue to the Leeds University the privileges which the Victoria University formerly possessed.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
    On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
    THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, though your Lordships are, of course, anxious to reach the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill at as early an hour as possible, yet I think it will be the wish of the House that I should offer quite a short explanation of how the legislation proposed in this Bill comes to be laid before Parliament. I can make such a statement in a few words, and your Lordships will then be able to pass from the discussion of matters affecting water which is merely salt to the consideration of questions affecting the consumption of other and possibly more deleterious fluids.

    845
    In the spring of last year whaling stations or factories were established in the mainland island of the Shetlands from whence to fish the whaling area lying between thirty and eighty miles to the North and North-West of it. This year two more stations have been established in the Shetlands and two in the Hebrides, one of which is in Lewis and the other in Harris, and all these stations, with the possible exception of one only, are owned by companies with a foreign register, and worked under the Norwegian or Danish flag. It is found that under our existing law there are practically no restrictions or regulations applicable to the conduct of a whaling industry. Last year the number of stations was two and the steamers two. This year the numbers are six and nine, or more. Next year may see a further increase, and your Lordships will, I am sure, agree in thinking this state of things to be unsatisfactory.
    The whales hunted are the large finner whale. They are hunted by small fast steamers fitted with a bow gun firing harpoons with an explosive shell, and the whale, when killed, is towed into the factory, either by the ship itself or by tow boats specially built for the purpose. Then, and under no restrictions whatever, the fun begins, which last year very promptly caused complaints, and energetic complaints at that, to be addressed to the authorities. Thereupon the Secretary for Scotland appointed a Departmental Committee to visit the localities and to investigate and report. The complaints into which Mr. Donald Crawford, K.C., Sheriff of Aberdeen, Kincardine and Banff (Chairman), Mr. Robert Camperdown Haldane, of North Voe and Lochend, Shetland, and Mr. William Hutchison Leask, Provost of Peterhead, were appointed a Committee to inquire, ranged themselves under two heads—(1) that the treatment of the whale carcases had been the cause of nuisance and danger to public health and even to navigation; and (2) that whaling injured the herring fishing. One short quotation from their Report will show your Lordships the conditions on which these complaints were founded, and will give the Committee's opinion thereon—
    "When the two Ronas Voe stations began fishing last year they were without appliances
    846
    or the disposal of the carcases. They took the lubber and left the carcases lying about in and out of the water uncleaned, with the stomachs and intestines. … As we walke I towards those stations, with the wind blowing from them, the smell was perceived and was offensive at a distance of a mile an I a half … Down the Voe there are no less than eleven herring-curing stations occupied for perhaps four to six weeks in the summer by a population of about 1,200 or 1,300. Last year the festering carcases were an intolerable nuisance. When complaint was made to the sanitary authorities the whalers were, unfortunately, directed to tow them out to sea. Portions of the putrid carcases got loose and went ashore; when towed out some of them came back, and others remained as a danger to small boats. The water of the Voe was so polluted with oil and offal that the curers could not wash their barrels with it, and the mussel scalps in the upper portion of the Voe were injured and partially destroyed."
    The Committee stated that if the object of these companies, registered under a foreign flag, with steamers manned by foreign crews, and employing for the most part foreign labour at the stations, bringing all their own stores, and not seeking to purchase any commodities on the spot had been to raise hostile feeling against their undertaking, no means of accomplishing that purpose was overlooked. And the Committee go on to say, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with them, that—
    "If the condition of the stations which existed last year, or anything like it, were to continue, our opinion would be that they should be put down. The problem is a clear one: whether every portion of the carcase can be treated within a strictly limited time and no portion whatsoever returned to the sea or left unused on the shore. If that is done there will be no nuisance except the smell. We are satisfied that it can be done … We carefully examined the Alexandra station before it began to work. So far as we could judge, it started with appliances which will, so long as it does not bring any more whales than can be timeously treated, obviate the danger of any nuisance.'
    The Committee added—
    "On the whole we arc satisfied that under proper regulations and inspection the industry is not open to objection on the ground of nuisance or danger to public health."
    But, my Lords, while we are considering the conditions of a foreign industry established on or near oar shores, we are not likely to forget an infinitely more important industry of our own, yearly carried on in the same neighbourhoods, and the House may be sure that the complaint spoken to by a considerable number of witnesses, that whaling injures the herring fishing, received ample consideration from

    847
    the Committee. The belief that such is the case is very commonly held, but the point on which witnesses were agreed as establishing its accuracy, was that a whale spouting frequently indicates the presence of a shoal of herring. Yes, my Lords, but herrings are constantly found where no whale is in sight, and, equally, herring fishing is constantly, regularly, and successfully carried on in water where no whales exist. Further, it is known that it is not the finner, but the herring hog, a smaller species of whale, which, as a rule, shows the presence of herring. On these objections the Committee report as follows—
    "Our opinion of the objections as a whole is that they may be accepted as showing that unrestricted whaling might be a possible danger to the herring fishing, but they are not valid reasons for the total prohibition of whaling. Total prohibition would, we think, have consequences more dangerous to the herring industry than regulated and limited whaling. The expulsion of the companies from Shetlard would certainly lead to the establishment of floating factories, one of which is aheady at work in more northern latitudes. There ate large steamers which flench the whales on board and turn the carcases adrift. Further, the ground now fished by the Shetland whalers could be fished from the Faroë Islands without restrictions, and beyond British control, and no doubt would be. It the whales are valuable to the fishermen, they would in this way be destroyed in larger numbers, and if there is a risk of disturbance of the ground it would be greatly increased. … We believe that the new industry may prove to be beneficial and valuable, as it has done in Canada and Newfoundland, and that it should not be crushed without a trial. … In very poor districts such as those where the stations have been introduced, the opportunity of regular employment in a new industry is a matter of importance. Already a certain number of inhabitants are employed. The managers are anxious to increase the number even on grounds of economy. We should hope that commercial relations would also greatly increase. The Norwegian whalers are a kindly and peaceable race and mingle without friction with the Shetlanders, to whom they arc near in blood. If licence duties are paid to the county council, the benefit in a poor district will be appreciable. Whaling, however, though it should not be suppressed, ought to be regulated and limited. Unrestricted whaling would be an evil on other grounds than its possible danger to the herring industry. It could not last long. The Basque and the Greenland whaling industries came to an end by the practical extermination of the species pursued with the means of destruction now brought to deadly perfection. The same fate would overtake the finners off our coasts in a very short time. That would be an evil in itself, and while a few companies might go out of the business with a large profit, the local industry would be brought into being only to perish in a
    848
    few years, and leave the inhabitants worse off than ever."
    On the whole matter the Committee are of opinion that—
    "The new whaling industry ought to be permitted to continue, but only under limitations and regulations,"
    and they go on to make certain recommendations. My Lords, all their important recommendations are embodied in this Bill. The Bill enacts that no persons shall kill whales without a licence from the Fishery Board, under a very severe penalty; the licensee must be a British subject; a licence duty of £100 per annum during the three years currency of the licence is to be payable, which duties are to go to the county council, on whom the duty of fishing inspection will fall. No licence is to be granted for more than one steamer, and tow-boats are prohibited. The capture of the herring hog whale is prohibited, and so is the capture of whales accompanied by a calf, but no licence is required for the capture of the small bottlenosed whale. No whaling is permitted within the three mile limit; all whaling is prohibited from 1st November to 31st March, and it is to be within the power of the Fishery Board to prohibit whaling during the summer herring fishing within forty miles, for any period not exceeding five weeks.
    My Lords, we believe that under these restrictions and regulations whaling can be profitably carried on without danger to the public health and without detriment to the herring fishery; that, so carried on, it will bring employment to an increasing number of our own people, and will bring to more than one poor district appreciable benefit. It is with that hope, and in that belief, that I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
    On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  LICENSING BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1:—
  LORD COLERIDGEexplained that Subsection (1) of Clause 1 provided that—
  "The power to refuse the renewal of an existing on-licence, on any ground other than the

  849
  ground that the licensed premises have been ill-conducted or are structurally deficient or unsuitable, or grounds connected with the character of fitness of the proposed holder of the licence, or the ground that the renewal would be void, shall be vested in quarter sessions instead of the justices of the licensing district, but shall only be exercised on a reference from those justices, and on payment of compensation in accordance with this Act."
  He moved to amend Sub-section (1) by inserting after "The power to refuse the renewal of an existing on-licence," the words "other than a licence, the holder of which is under an agreement to purchase any of the commodities or goods which he sells or uses from or to deal with any particular person, firm, corporation, or company." He hoped the House would not be alarmed at the apparently far-reaching nature of the Amendment. At first sight the Amendment would appear as though it prevented compensation to all tied houses. He did not think that if the Amendment were passed that would be its practical effect. He thought its practical effect would be to put pressure on the owners of tied houses to place their tenants in such an independent position as to enable them to claim the benefits under the Act by way of compensation, and, therefore, it would indirectly, he thought, produce a great deal of good. He did not think people were generally aware of the extent to which the law declined to recognise anyone in the matter other than the licence-holder. The latter was the man recognised as the licensed person, and so far was he recognised, and alone recognised, as the person responsible that, for instance, in an extreme case of a licence-holder being convicted of an offence under the licensing' laws, the owner of the house was not permitted to appeal against that conviction, although the conviction might imperil the licence, on the ground that he was not the person aggrieved. The law looked only to the licence -holder.
  Under that law a system had grown up of putting in men who obtained the annual licence who were mere caretakers to the brewery company which owned the house. He had had experience of looking into the agreements come to between brewers and publicans, and very often it was found that the rent was a high one reducible to practically nil if all the beer,
  850
  spirits, and other commodities were purchased at a particular brewery. Or, again. they had the case of a licence-holder being required to sign a blank transfer which enabled the brewery company to get rid of him at any moment, and the result of that was this, that for that person, that mere caretaker, that mere bird of passage the licensing justices had no terrors. He had so little interest in it that he did not take the same care to conduct his house well as a man who was more independent. There was in the persons selling liquor the natural desire to profit by the liquor which they sold, but the temptation to the manager or caretaker of a tied house was great, and the pressure put upon him to sell an excessive quantity of drink was far greater than the natural pressure of trade competition upon a more independent person. The result of that was disastrous to the community, because it encouraged the tied-house manager to adopt all kinds of devices in order to satisfy the brewer.
  He knew from constant experience that again and again respectable managers were turned out because they had not pushed the trade sufficiently to satisfy the owners. That was a mischievous and disastrous system, and anything that directly or indirectly checked it ought to be welcomed by all lovers of sobriety. He did not believe that if his Amendment were adopted it would affect all brewery companies alike, but he ventured to think that a great many brewery companies would be delighted at it. They had been forced into the position in which they found themselves by trade competition, and many of them would much rather be rid of it, and would, he believed, look gratefully on any legislation which would deprive them of that trade competition which resulted in these evils. His Amendment was in the interest of temperance, and he did not believe against the interests of brewers.
  The Minority Report of the Royal Commission spoke most strongly on the subject of the tied-house system. It was said that the general effect of this system was to push the trade and sale of liquor to the utmost; and the Report gave this most cogent instance, that no tied-house manager ever applied for a six-days licence because he was not permitted to.

  851
  What a comment that was upon this system. An independent licence-holder could and did constantly get his Sundays to himself by securing a six-days licence, but the wretched manager of the tied-house could not do that. Both the Majority Report and the Minority Report thought that the agreements should always be produced on application for transfers, and before a new licence was granted, and that it should be left to the licensing authority to say whether the terms were such as to warrant refusal of the licence. He was by his Amendment putting into the hands of the new licensing authority that power, with this weapon at the back of it, that if the terms were such as to warrant the refusal of the transfer such terms ought to be sufficient to warrant the refusal of compensation. He did not think the Amendment had a far-reaching scope, and was convinced that matters would very soon adjust themselves to the new conditions.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 6, after the word 'licence' to insert the words 'other than a licence, the holder of which is under an agreement to purchase any of the commodities or goods which he sells or uses from or to deal with any particular person, firm, corporation, or company.'"—(Lord Coleridge.)
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord accompanied the remarks which he made on his Amendment by the statement that he did not think it would have the effect of excluding all the tied houses from getting compensation under the Bill. He founds that proposition on the idea that some of them, at all events, would be willing to fall in with the wish of the Legislature, and, no doubt, in order to avoid losing all their compensation might be inclined to do what they could; but I must point out that the whole object that the brewers have had in giving very large competitive prices for the houses is to have those houses under their control and sell the liquor which they brew themselves. I do not say that that is a good state of things or a bad state of things, but what I do say is that Parliament has known for years what has been going on. They have taken no action whatever to interfere with it, and they have at all events by their silence, and by the fact that they have not made this illegal, allowed the
  852
  brewers to get control of the very large number of houses now in their hands. If this Amendment was carried, I venture to say it would destroy the whole of that part of the Bill which deals with the existing houses.
  The tied houses are, numerically, something between 80 to 90 per cent. of the whole number of houses, and if that number were withdrawn from the operation of the compensation clauses, I really do not see how those clauses could be effective at all. I should like to say one word, although I do not think it is absolutely material to the Amendment, with regard to tied houses. The noble and learned Lord, in moving his Amendment, alluded to the Report of the Licensing Commission. He referred not only to the Minority Report, but also to the Majority Report. Now, what does the Majority Report say with regard to the tied-house system? It says—
  "The evidence produced before us, in our judgment, shows that under a good and careful brewer it may operate advantageously and produce excellent results. On the other hand, it is no doubt true that under less advantageous circumstances it may have a contrary effect."
  And it goes on to say that—
  "Evidence has been given before us proving that it can be so operated as to be very successful from the point of view of public order. Under a careful brewer it may, owing to the greater power of selection of men, produce better results than the tenancy plan, and the limited interest of the manager in the sales commends itself to many."
  They also stated in another part of the Report that the evidence as to tied houses did not justify the statement that the tied-house system leads to more drinking. It is quite true that the Minority Report takes a somewhat different view. Their conclusion is that the general effect of the tied-house system is to push the trade in liquor, it being impossible to lay down any other general statement. I must say that if the Amendment is founded purely on the ground of the great evil of these tied houses, I do not think the extracts I have read from the Majority Report, at all events, would justify such a very stringent step as to shut them out altogether from all compensation.
  Just consider what the effect would be if this Amendment were carried. I

  853
  take it that if they are to have no compensation they could not be called upon to contribute to a compensation fund, and if that is the case the compensation fund would be enormously diminished. If that was not done, and they were called upon to contribute to a compensation fund from which they would get nothing at all, that, in my opinion, would be nothing short of pure injustice. And if they are not going to contribute, what will be the result? The object in view in bringing in this Bill is not simply the interest of the brewer and the licence-holder, but of the public. It is generally admitted on both sides of the House that the only way in which we can get the magistrates to act to the full extent of their powers and reduce materially the number of public-houses is by setting up some fund of compensation under which they shall receive some value for the houses that are done away with, and if the tied houses are to receive nothing and the other houses are to receive compensation, it seems to me that the result will be very much like what we are trying to avoid by this Bill. For the magistrates, when the question arises as to what houses they should do away with, will naturally feel that it is rather hard to do away with houses that are going to receive no compensation. The tendency will therefore be to do away with the other houses, and, therefore, by the Bill you will actually be putting some premium on the possession of tied houses, and will give thorn rather more security under the Bill than they would otherwise have. I do think that that is an important point even from the noble and learned Lord's point of view.
  I venture to think that the question is not merely one of whether the tied-house system is a good system or a bad one. The Legislature have allowed this state of things to go on. Brewers and others have no doubt paid enormous sums of money to secure these houses, because they have thought it worth their while to do so, and to say that those who are under a system which you dislike and of which you disapprove are therefore not to receive a return for the money which they have invested, seems to me to be something like pure spoliation. In these circumstances, and seeing that it would strike a fatal blow to the successful
  854
  working of this measure, I hope your Lordships will not accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I referred in my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill to the question of tied houses, and I then stated that I objected extremely to the system which had grown up, and which I thought was a very great evil in the country. Not only does it enhance and drive up by competition the value of the houses to an abnormal and unnatural figure, but it has also the effect of taking away the independence of the publican, who is really the most important man in regard to the keeping of the house in an orderly and respectable manner. Several of us ventured to quote figures to show the exorbitant prices which houses had run up to. Surely that is a great evil. I venture to think it is also a great evil politically that there should be set up in all towns and village this organisation controlled from a centre. I admit that it would be enormously difficult to deal wholesale with tied houses, My noble and learned friend explained that his object in moving this Amendment was only indirectly to bring pressure on tied houses and to obtain the greater independence of their tenants.
  I confess I should rather hesitate to vote for any measure directly and positively forbidding tied houses. Privately, I should desire it very much; but I do not think it could be done, at any rate in this Bill. If noble Lords opposite consider that my noble and learned friend's Amendment goes further than the noble and learned Lord has stated, surely it would be possible to amend it. I desire to see something done to set up the old independence among publicans which I knew when I was a young man. If publicans were restored to an independent position, it would, I think, lead to a much healthier and better state of things from the point of view of public morality. The fact that in 80 or 90 per cent. of the public-houses throughout the country the publicans who manage them are forbidden to have a six-days licence is in itself a gigantic evil, and one that ought to be remedied. If my noble friend's Amendment would go in that direction, I should rejoice; if is thought that it would go further, perhaps the noble

  855
  Lord in charge of the Bill may see his way to amend it.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has given a very half-hearted support to the Amendment. He is evidently quite conscious that it goes a great deal further than he himself would be prepared to support.
  *EARL SPENCER: I merely supported the arguments of my noble and learned friend.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl said he would not be inclined to support any alteration in the law winch would altogether forbid tied houses.
  *EARL SPENCER: I wish I could.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl said it would not be right.
  *EARL SPENCER: Not in this Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If we are not prepared to do a thing directly, we should, I think, shrink from doing it indirectly. I ask your Lordships to have the courage of your convictions. If you think tied houses are a mistake, proper legislation might be brought in to put an end to them if adequate compensation were provided; but to place tied houses in a worse position in this Bill than the other houses, which is the object of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, would be, in my opinion, indefensible. I have another objection to the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord himself said he doubted whether it would be as far-reaching as it appeared at first sight. I suggest that the noble and learned Lord would have the greatest difficulty in working his Amendment at all. It is almost impossible to prevent an arrangement being come to by both parties where both pa ties are willing, and you would be exposed, if you agreed to this Amendment, to all sorts of collusive and colorable arrangements, under which almost the same system would continue as at present. The law takes no cognisance at all of the
  856
  relations between the brewer and the publican. We ought not to interfere with contracts which free Englishmen enter into, and which have existed under the protection and authority of Parliament for so many years.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTERsaid that though he was not able to support the Amendment he thought the discussion upon it had brought out a point which they ought to keep well in mind when they came to consider the scale of compensation. What had been said might very well be turned against the tied-house system. They had been warned that this Amendment might lead to collusion on the part of the persons concerned. Had there ever been an instance of the introduction of a vast system into the country which had been more underhand and surreptitious than the introduction of the tied-house system? It certainly could not claim to have come upon the country in a straightforward manner. He thought that character of the tied-house system ought to be kept very carefully before them. It had never been his custom to say one word in disparagement of brewers or publicans, but when they dealt with this particular system they were bound to look at it in its true character, and his contention was that when they came to consider, for example, one or two of the Amendments which were on the Paper, which dealt with the scale of compensation, they ought to consider what kind of trade it was that they were about to compensate, and ought to limit the amount of compensation accordingly in the interests of the public.
  If a man desiring refreshment went into a public-house which was a tied house his freedom in the choice of liquor was limited, and in this matter the liberty of the public, as well as that of other individuals, ought to be taken into account. He did not blame the brewers or the publicans for organising themselves to defend their interests, but at the same time he held that it was a public danger and mischief that there should be such an organisation holding Parliament almost inthralled, as it undoubtedly did. It was radically unsound in a variety of ways that they should have the wholesale trade acting as the motive and driving

  857
  power of the retail trade, urging it on to sell the maximum of spirituous liquor that it possibly could. Parliament should not practically bar all efforts at radical reform of the liquor traffic later on by now building up so big a financial barrier. He hoped the question of the scale of compensation would be considered with an open mind, and with a single eye to what ought to be their predominant consideration—the welfare of the people.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONregretted that the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal had not said one word in the course of his remarks which tended to show that he had the slightest feeling with regard to the many evils attached to the tied-house system. The noble Marquess might have objected to the noble and learned Lord's Amendment; he might have proposed an Amendment to that Amendment, or he might have advised the House to reject it altogether, but there was no reason why, if the noble Marquess and His Majesty's Government had any conception of the evils attached to the tied-house system, there should have been no acknowledgment of their existence.
  He entirely agreed with what was said by the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down as to the great financial operations which had been carried on of late years. The result of those operations had been to place practically almost the whole business in public-houses throughout the country in the hands of a great and wealthy combination. That, he humbly submitted, was a very grievous evil. He saw it growing up in other countries as well as here. Here they had, he rejoiced to think, only one trade of that kind to deal with, and they had had plenty of proof within the last few days of the power and influence of that trade. But in other countries, and especially in the United States of America, these vast combinations, these great trusts, grew up and increased day by day. They exercised an immense influence on politics—aye, and a corrupting influence, and he did think it was a very great evil indeed that needless countenance should be given to the existence of a body of that kind in this country. If there had been any acknowledgment on the part of His Majesty's Government that such an evil did exist
  858
  and that it was in the public interest that it should be restricted, he would not have troubled their Lordships; but he did feel so exceedingly strongly upon that point, and felt so greatly the immense evils of these vast trusts, that he could not avoid entering a protest against the omission of any observations on that subject in the speech of the noble Marquess. There were some people in this country who desired to pursue a fiscal policy which would increase the number of these powerful trade combinations, and which would tend to bring them into still closer intercourse with our public life. What they saw before them to-day of the influence of the brewery companies in this country was ample reason to make them pause. One such example was quite enough.
  VISCOUNT PEEL, though he sympathised with the noble and learned Lord in his desire, if possible, to abolish the evils of the tied-house system, yet did not like the indirect attack upon that system contained in the Amendment. Entirely agreeing that evils did exist, he protested against the remark which had been made by the noble Marquess that a contract between a brewery or distillery company and the man who took a licence was a contract made between two free people. He quite recognised that as long as brewery companies were willing to lend, and poor men were willing to borrow, so long would the tied-house system exist. The only thing the Legislature could do was to aim at it in this way: The licensing magistrates before whom the applicant came should be at liberty to inquire in what terms that man stood towards the brewery or distillery company which had put him into the house, and whether there was anything in the contract as to the terms on which the licence-holder should take liquor from a particular house. If the contract provided that the man should be capable of being turned out at short notice, that was a direct violation of the terms on which the State granted the licence. For himself, he would like to see power given to magistrates to enable them to do away with the contract, if it militated against public policy, no matter what power was at the back of the licence-holder. That was, he thought, a better way of dealing with the

  859
  matter than that proposed in the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had stated that the result of the acceptance of the Amendment would be to deny compensation to 80 per cent. of the trade, and that it would invalidate and make foolish the whole of the financial proposals of the Bill. The noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal, on the other hand, said it would be entirely inoperative, and would have no effect because of collusive arrangements. It was difficult for him to answer those arguments, because they were mutually destructive. He felt that there was a great deal in what had been said by the right rev. Prelate, and that this was not the part of the Bill in which a remedy could be most easily applied. He would, therefore, not trouble the House to go to a division.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved an Amendment to provide that the renewal of a licence should not be refused on the ground that the premises were structurally deficient or unsuitable unless the magistrates had previously made an order for alterations which had not been complied with. He said that under the clause as it stood the renewal of a licence might be refused because the premises were structurally unsuitable, but there was no provision by which the licence-holder should be acquainted with the fact that his premises were structurally deficient. It seemed strange that a man should lose his licence on this ground when he was not in the least aware, when applying for a renewal of his licence, that his house was structurally deficient. To remove this doubt, which he thought might lead to great injustice, he proposed to add the words that this should not apply unless the applicant had received an order calling upon him to effect structural alterations and had failed to comply with that order.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page, 1, line 7, to leave out from the first word 'or' to the first word 'or' in line 8, and insert the words 'that the applicant has failed to comply with an order for structural alteration
  860
  under Section 11, Sub-section (4), of the Licensing Act, 1902.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure the noble Earl was too modest to recognise the reason of the cheers which greeted him on his rising to move the Amendment standing in his name, and I respectfully desire to join in the congratulations of noble Lords on the auspicious occasion of the noble Earl's birthday. I wish I could supplement that observation by a cordial consent to the Amendment of my noble friend, but I think your Lordships will agree that the Amendment is one which should not be accepted. In the first place, the Act to which my noble friend refers—the Act of 1902—only provides for structural alteration, and does not make a provision in case of complete unsuitability, whereas the words which are in the Bill, and which my noble friend proposes to strike out, prevent the licensee whose premises are altogether unsuitable being within the category of those who cannot be suppressed without compensation; these-fore, the procedure which my noble friend proposes to substitute is not in any way equivalent to the procedure which he proposes to strike out, inasmuch as in our Bill unsuitability is dealt with, whereas in the Act of 1902 only structural deficiency is provided for. That is one reason.
  Another reason why I cannot accept the Amendment is that in the Act of 1902 the procedure is very cumbrous. The warning that structural alterations are to be made is subject to appeal, and that, of course, may take up a long time. But the main reason why the Government are un willing to accept this Amendment is this: The effect of the clause is to prevent a licence being suppressed without compensation except on certain specified grounds. The real question is, Is structural deficiency one of those specified grounds which ought to entitle a man to compensation? and we think it is not. It stands on precisely the same footing as the unfitness of the licensee himself. In order that he shall be entitled to receive compensation if his licence is suppressed, he ought to be thoroughly himself, and his premises ought to be word thoroughly fit. The Government are unable to accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthen moved to insert the word "structurally" before the word "unsuitable" so as to make the sentence read, "are structurally deficient or structurally unsuitable." He said the Amendment was merely a drafting one. As the words stood in the Bill there was a little doubt whether the adverb applied to "unsuitable" as well as to "deficient." That was the intention of the Government, and some kind of understanding had been come to in the other House that it should be made clear. He therefore moved the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 7, after the second word 'or' to insert the word 'structurally.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHasked how this Amendment affected the question of police supervision. It would not protect the public-against the possibility of public-house premises existing which were not suitable for police supervision.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no question of preserving any public-house which ought to be suppressed, but certain public-houses ought to receive compensation when they are suppressed. We hold that if they are structurally unsuitable they ought not to receive compensation when suppressed. The case the noble Earl has put comes
  within those which ought to receive compensation. The fact that there does not happen to be a police station near a public-house is no reason why the house should be abolished.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid a building might be unsuitable for the purpose of a public-house although the actual building in itself might be structurally suitable. A public-house, for instance, in a place where there was no light and the access to which was through a back alley was certainly structurally unsuitable, though the structural unsuitability did not attach to the actual building. It seemed to him unreasonable to assert that with a limited compensation fund they were to give compensation in respect of premises which were unfit to be kept in existence because of their position and surroundings.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYthought that if the word "structurally" was added before "unsuitable," it would do away with the glimmer of hope that the clause might cover an insanitary place. He was advised that the word "structurally" would not cover a building which was insanitary. It seemed to him badly drafted if that was so.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no such doubt as the noble Marquess anticipates. The drains are part of the structure.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 38.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Zetland, M.

  Lathom E.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

  Londesborough, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)(L. President)

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Lytton, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal)

  Clarendon, E. (L.Chamberlain)

  Mayo, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Northesk, E.

  Argyll, D.

  Bradford, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Cadogan, E.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Coventry, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Cromer, E.

  Selborne, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Derby, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry)

  Waldegrave, E.[Teller]

  Ailesbury, M.

  Westmeath, E.

  Bath, M.

  Drogheda, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Camden, M.

  Eldon, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Feversham, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller]

  Hertford, M.

  Haddington, E.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Cross, V.

  Winchester, M.

  Kimberley, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Halifax, V.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Hood, V.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham)

  Hutchinson, V.(E. Donoughmore,

  Colchester, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Newton, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Deramore, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Landaff, L. Bp.

  Dunboyne, L

  Rathmore, L.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ravensworth, L,

  Estcourt, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Alington, L.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow)

  Redesdale, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingal)

  Robertson, L.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Rossmore, L.

  Armstrong, L.

  Glenesk, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Balfour, L. [Teller]

  Harris, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Barnard, L.

  Hatherton, L

  Tredegar, L.

  Bellew, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Belper, L.

  James, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss)

  Bolton, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Braye, L.

  killanin, L

  Windsor, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Errol)

  Wolverton, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Kinnaird, L

  Wynford, L.

  Burton, L.

  Kintore, L.(E. Kintore)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath)

  Lawrence, L.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Lindley, L

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Peel, V.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine)

  Camperdown, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Farrer, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Lyveden, L.

  Carrington, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly)

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller]

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Monkswell, L.

  Crewe, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Grey, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery)

  Portsmouth, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Temple, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

  Cobham, V.

  Davey, L.

  Thring, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

  Denman, L. [Teller]

  Welby, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved as an Amendment to omit the provision by which the power to refuse a licence on the ground of non-requirement should only be exercised by quarter sessions "on a reference from the justices" of the licensing district. This Bill abolished the authority of brewster sessions to close public-houses in all cases except for misconduct or structural insufficiency, and brewster sessions were left in the position of being entitled only to make representations. He held that it was important that it should be possible for the Court of first instance to have its attention called to districts where the local bench might not be in favour of a reduction in the number of licences. They had been told in the course of the speeches on the Second Reading that the great advantage of this clause was that it substituted the dispassionate, wide intelligence of quarter
  864
  sessions for the possible fanaticism and eccentricity of brewster sessions, who, it seemed to be suggested, might possibly be temperance cranks. He thought it quite as possible that there might he alcoholic cranks. There were cases where the local justices were so completely in sympathy with the publican interest that they took no initiative to reduce the number of public-houses at all. He thought, therefore, that it was necessary that in these sweeping changes, which greatly diminished the power of closing public-houses, they should give this initiative to the body in whom the Government had displayed so much confidence. He had never set up brewster sessions as an idol of worship, and was not now knocking it down. Personally, if he was to have an idol to worship, he would have something more popular and more representative than brewster sessions. But it was one thing to have a body which was

  865
  not satisfactory, and another thing to have a body with less power and less efficiency substituted for it. He believed that the existing law was less imperfect than that which the Government proposed to substitute for it. The only thing he asked was that where brewster sessions were torpid quarter sessions should be able by representations to deal with the matter. He wanted the people who felt they were oppressed by an excessive number of public-houses to be able to bring the matter before quarter sessions, whether those locally in charge were with them or not.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words 'on a reference from those justices and'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I confess I am rather surprised to hear the line of argument adopted by the noble Lord who has just sat down proceeding from that side of the House. The last time I had the honour of addressing your Lordships I endeavoured to persuade noble Lords opposite that it was not the intention of His Majesty's Government to do anything to impair the authority or the discretion of licensing justices in brewster sessions assembled. I think it has been said more than once on that side of the House that nobody can possibly be better acquainted with the requirements of the locality than a petty sessional bench, and certainly I think it would be very undesirable that we should make so great a change in the existing law and practice as is proposed by the noble Lord. The whole idea and object of the Government has been to keep the existing law and practice as closely as possible to what it is at present. The changes that are made in the law are simply made in order to carry out the principle of compensation or indemnity, and in order that a body like quarter sessions, covering, as it does, a very large area, may have at its disposal a fund sufficient to effect a large measure of compensation. The noble Lord opposite seems to forget that in his hypothetical area, where the local magistrates are all the creatures and the tools of the, brewer and the publicans—
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: It is quite enough if a majority are.
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Even where the majority are there will always be the right of the individual objecting to a renewal to appear before the licensing justices and bring all his efforts to bear to get the renewal of the licence included in the category of those to be represented to quarter sessions. I am sorry I am unable to accept the Amendment.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he did not read the Amendment of his noble friend quite in the same way as the noble Earl had read it. He believed that it would remedy one of the defects in the machinery of the Bill which he (Lord Burghclere) called attention to on the Second Reading. As he understood the Amendment, it brought in the opinion of the inhabitants of the locality, and, therefore, instead of limiting the force of local opinion the Amendment absolutely strengthened it. The noble Earl had said that under the Bill the inhabitants of a district would be able to bring pressure upon brewster sessions, and brewster sessions would then report to quarter sessions as indicated under the Bill. Might he ask in what part of the Bill that provision came in?
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If I said that was so under the Bill, it was a slip of the tongue. I meant by the existing law as it stood.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid that was his point. Was he to understand that, notwithstanding this Bill, and notwithstanding the distinct alteration of the law with regard to the renewal of licences by brewster sessions, the existing law so far operated that the inhabitants of a locality were able to bring a matter before brewster sessions exactly in the same manner as under the existing law? If that was so, it removed some of his objections; but he still supported the Amendment for the reason he had stated. If they were going to give these powers to quarter sessions they ought also to give quarter sessions power to themselves initiate the non-renewal of the licences of certain public-houses. There might be a local bench opposed, for some reason or

  867
  another, to the non-renewal of the licences of certain superfluous houses. Parliament should, therefore, add to the wider power of quarter sessions the power of initiative, which, he thought, ought to have been given in the Bill. That was the intention of the Amendment, and he thought it so desirable that if his noble friend went to a division he would support him.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked whether he correctly understood the noble Earl to say that any man who objected could bring his objection before quarter sessions.
  LORD BELPER: Under the Bill the initiatory power is given to the local authority. If I have heard criticism with regard to what the Government has done in this matter it is not that they have not trusted the local bench enough, but that they have not left in their hands the whole of the powers they previously possessed. We think that if a scheme is to be brought up for dealing with licences within a district it ought to be brought up by the local bench, who know the circumstances, and then quarter sessions will act on their suggestions. We do not think that you ought to so far distrust the local bench as to give quarter sessions the power of bringing forward proposals for the reduction of licences in cases where the local bench do not think reductions necessary. In that we are carrying out what is the principle of the Bill. We wish to give all discretion to the local bench to initiate these proposals and to deal with them by making their recommendations to quarter sessions; but, of course, it is clear that quarter sessions must have the power of dealing with them finally, because it may be part of the scheme for a whole county which they will have to decide. We are not prepared to accept an Amendment which will give initiatory powers to quarter sessions.
  *THE EARL OF CREWEsaid the answer of the noble Lord was exceedingly clear, so far as it went, but it did not give, in answer to the question of his noble friend behind him, ally further explanation of what was said by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. What they wanted to
  868
  know was, who were the persons who, independently of brewster sessions, were to bring these cases before the licensing committee, as stated by the noble Earl.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDasked whether, as the Bill stood, a reference from the justices included a reference by a minority of the justices.
  LORD BELPER: The bench.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDasked whether, if it only included a reference of the majority of the justices, it did not constitute a very strong argument in favour of the Amendment. The Bill took away the power of positive action on the part of the licensing justices, but it left them a veto as against the opinion of the neighbourhood, if they themselves wished to do nothing.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope your Lordships will not press this to a division. Let the House remember that there is only a limited sum of compensation money available. I do not know, of course, and it would be presumptuous in me to foreshadow, what procedure the committee of quarter sessions will adopt; but, for example, let us say that they will allot their compensation money roughly according to the population of the various petty sessional districts which they have under their jurisdiction. Well, what it will amount to in that case is that there will be a certain sum of money available for dealing with public-houses in a particular petty sessional district. The justices of that petty sessional district are, we will say, an energetic body of men devoted to temperance form. They have gone very carefully through their district, and propose to rearrange the distribution of licences according to a plan of their own. If that be their wish, then to have quarter sessions coming down suddenly in the middle of it and saying, "Oh, no! We are not going to wait for your recommendations; we do not approve of your scheme; we will not even consider it; we will come down on our own account and deal with what licences we think fit in your petty sessional district." I think that would be superseding the local justices; and noble Lords will feel that that would

  869
  be a very serious interference with the proper right, as we think, of brewster sessions to have their complete recommendations put before quarter sessions before they act. That is what the Bill provides, and if your Lordships will read the latter part of the clause you will see that we propose that obligation shall be laid on quarter sessions to consider all the reports which reach them before they come to any decision. Our idea is that each brewster sessions should send up their full recommendations, and then quarter sessions should decide; but if the Amendment is approved there will be no security of that. You will have quarter sessions using up the compensation money without considering the wishes of the local authority, and that will defeat the principle of the Bill which we are deeply pledged to in the House of Commons.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid the statement of the noble Marquess seemed to him to be rather a serious one. He gathered from it that the compensation money which was given to the county would probably be distributed by quarter sessions among the different petty sessional divisions of the county.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess. I did not say that at all; but in order to bring my point clearly before the House it was necessary to give a concrete example
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid he certainly misunderstood the noble Marquess. He was going to say that that was only aggravating the difficulty which many of them thought existed in the Bill as it stood. It would have been very much better, instead of tying up compensation money in different counties, if it had been made national compensation money. The effect of the arrangement the Bill proposed would be, no doubt, to prevent many large cities, where a diminution in the number of licences was extremely desirable and desired by everybody, from spending as much money as they might if the arrangement was a national one. At the same time there would be many counties not needing the whole of the compensation money
  870
  who would be piling up balances which might be most usefully employed in the larger towns.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite agree.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid he was glad the noble Marquess agreed with that, and that his mistake had elicited that statement from the noble Marquess.
  THE EARL OF CARLISLEsaid there was a precedent for the Amendment. The licensing committee of the county of Surrey drew the attention of the Farnham magistrates to the congestion of public-houses in their district, and that was followed by rather important results. If quarter sessions had power to intervene in this way, he did not think they would intervene in a brewster sessional district where an elaborate arrangement had been made, but only in cases where brewster sessions took no steps to act under the Bill—a thing which was very likely to happen owing to the great discouragement that had been given to brewster sessions by the Bill.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANSsaid this Amendment would destroy the responsibility which now attached to the local justices, and would thus defeat the object of the mover with which he was in sympathy. He regretted that a certain amount of authority was taken away from the local justices by the Bill. This Amendment would still further diminish their authority. He understood the noble Earl to say that the committee of quarter sessions could hear other persons than the local justices, and he advised the withdrawal of the Amendment, and the insisting on the right of others than the justices to be heard before quarter sessions.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Perhaps I may be permitted to explain. Under the existing law it is competent, whenever an application is made for the renewal of a licence, for any person to get up before the brewster sessions and say, "I object to the renewal of that licence." The brewster sessions thereupon adjourn the hearing of the case, and after due notice has been given they then

  871
  hear the objection to the renewal. What I said was that this right will not be interfered with, in any way by the Bill, and that, in addition to that, there is a right in the Bill, when the matter comes before quarter sessions, not for any person to get up and say he objects to the renewal of a licence to which brewster sessions have not objected, because if they do not object it is settled, but a right for any person, if the committee of quarter sessions think fit to hear him, to be heard in opposition when quarter sessions are considering the question of confirming the renewal.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  *LORD KINNAIRDmoved to amend the provision in Sub-section (2) that quarter sessions may, if they think it expedient, after hearing the persons interested in the licensed premises, unless it appears to quarter sessions unnecessary, give other persons an opportunity of being heard. He proposed to substitute "shall" for "may, if they think it expedient," and to leave out "unless it appears to quarter sessions unnecessary." He said it was doubtful whether under the Bill as it stood the public would be able to state their case before the committee of quarter sessions.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 25, to leave out the words 'may if they think expedient' and to insert the word 'shall'; and in lines 26 and 27, to leave out the words 'unless it appears to quarter sessions unnecessary.'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)
  LORD BELPER: It is the intention that hearing should be given to both sides while leaving a discretion to the justices. This is only a discretion which a Court is usually allowed to have, and the words "unless it appears to quarter sessions unnecessary" are inserted to prevent a waste of time where everybody concerned is agreed. For that reason we object to the words being struck out.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that under the Bill the committee must hear a licence-holder. He desired to know whether if they did not leave out the words proposed to be left out, the committee might exclude the magistrates or anybody else who wished to came forward.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, no!
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid if that was not the case he should like to have the matter explained to him.
  LORD BELPER: I will read the clause as it is: "After giving the persons interested in the licensed premises, and, unless it appears to quarter sessions unnecessary, any other persons appearing to them to be interested in the question of the renewal of the licence of those premises, an opportunity of being heard." Therefore the words proposed by the noble Lord are unnecessary.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Then, besides the licensee, they may hear any other person?
  LORD BELPER: Certainly.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobserved that persons interested in the licence were heard as right. Would persons who thought the licence unnecessary be heard against the granting of the licence? Taking the illustration of the rule nisi, in that case it was not necessary to hear the parties on the other side, because the Court were not going to grant a rule against the person who was asking for it. But if the Court were going to grant a licence in favour of a certain person who had been heard, it was necessary that the party on the other side should be heard. So long as that was clearly expressed in the words they had all they desired.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think I can show why it would be impossible for us to accept these words. Of course, the object of the Bill is that all the persons who ought to be heard shall be heard. In order to carry that out we have to use very wide words. You cannot very well have wider words than those which are in the lines of the clause which provide that quarter sessions may hear any persons appearing to them to be interested in the question of the renewal of the licence of the premises. That may include anybody in the whole of England. I do not see how we could make them narrower. The only course

  873
  open to the Government was to put the discretionary power in quarter sessions to say whether they thought it was proper that any particular persons should be heard. It must be remembered that any prolonged hearing means expense, and the Government have been throughout most anxious to avoid expense, for this reason, that all the expenses come out of the compensation fund, and therefore if we multiply checks of all sorts and force a most elaborate procedure on them, I am afraid the result would be that there would be a serious infringement of the compensation fund. Every halfpenny taken out of that fund means a less opportunity of getting rid of unnecessary licences. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press it. The hearing must be limited in some way or other, and I think to place the limit in the discretion of the quarter sessions is the most workmanlike procedure.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he apprehended that what the noble Marquess meant was that all persons should be heard, whether in favour of renewal or against, whom it was desirable to hear.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is so.
  EARL CARRINGTONsuggested that if their Lordships would agree to accept Lord Stanley of Alderley's next Amendment, that would effect the desired purpose.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYremarked that in one case in which he was interested he desired to be heard against an appeal to quarter sessions, but he was informed that nobody could appear in person but only by counsel. That involved considerable expense, which he declined to bear, and therefore the appeal was allowed and the licence granted.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved, in page 1, line 28, after the word "renewal" to insert the words "or refusal." He pointed out that a person interested in the renewal was interested in getting a licence, and he desired that a person who
  874
  wished to oppose the granting of a licence should also be heard. When he was at the School Board they took a very active part in opposing licenses because they felt it very undesirable to have licensed premises close to a school. Whenever a new licence was applied for they gave instructions where the premises were objectionably near a school to oppose the granting. Such bodies were persons interested in the matter, and after the explanations which had been given he thought that if the words he proposed were inserted they would get substantially what was wanted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 28, after the word 'renewal' to insert the words 'or refusal.'"—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I cannot understand how a person interested in the question of renewal would not include a person interested in the question of there not being a renewal. It seems to me quite clear, but if it seems to the noble Lord that adding the words "or refusal" would make it more clear, I am quite willing to accept these words, subject to the caution that I would like to inquire into the matter more carefully, and, if I find that the words do more than I and the noble Lord suppose, that we should have the right to bring forward such alteration as we think fit on the Report stage.
  LORD COLERIDGEmoved an Amendment in page 2, line 1, after the word "premises" to insert "and the justices." He said this might seem to be unnecessary after the remarks which had fallen from the Government. As he read the Bill originally it seemed to him that the words "interested in the question of the renewal of the licence" might not apply to the justices. He was not at all sure that they would. How were the justices interested in the refusal or renewal of a licence? If they were not represented in the Court above, and had no power of being heard or represented in the Court above, the Court above would never be seized of the reasons actuating the justices in their decision, or be

  875
  enabled to properly agree or disagree with them on any fresh facts which might be found. It seemed to him that the clause was very ambiguous. The noble Marquess might have taken legal advice, but he (Lord Coleridge) doubted whether the Bill provided for the justices appearing to support their own recommendations.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 1, after the word 'premises to insert the words, 'and the justices.'"—(Lord Coleridge)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is correct. I have taken legal advice on this subject and I am advised that the justices would be included and are intended to be included in the words. "other persons interested in the question of the renewal." According to the English language it is very difficult to believe that they would be excluded, and I can assure the noble and learned Lord that there is no intention whatever of excluding the justices. Indeed, if he looks at Clause 6 he will find there powers taken for consulting the justices. The Government do not desire to meet every Amendment with a direct negative, and if the noble and learned Lord thinks it would make it clearer to put in the justices we shall not prevent it. But I hope he will not ask us to put in too many things of this sort, for there is a danger in our specifying any particular case of excluding others which we do not want to exclude.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY inquired whether the Amendment was not governed by the limitation on page 1, "unless it appears to quarter sessions unnecessary." He did not think it was likely that quarter sessions would refuse to hear the magistrates.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that these words should properly come in after the word "person" on page 1 and before the words "including the justices." I am not sure whether we have not passed that point.
  THE ACTING CHAIRMAN on COMMTTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): We have done so.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We will consider the matter, and, if necessary, insert an Amendment on Report.
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid that in spite of the remarks of the noble Marquess, he had intended to add also words providing that the quarter sessions might hear the local authority of the area in which the licensed premises were situated. Was he correct in understanding that such an appearance would be legitimate as coming in under the phrase "any other persons appearing to them to be interested in the question of the renewal of the licence."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid in that case he should not propose the words he suggested.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only desire to make this observation. The noble and learned Lord must be very familiar with a rule of law (which I am afraid to put into Latin because I might not be successful) which says that if you specifically mention certain things you merely exclude a great many other things. If we mentioned a whole category of persons who are specially to be admitted to a hearing, we should possibly exclude a great many others who ought to be included. Justices are in a special case because of their historical position in regard to licensing, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will not press the Amendment.
  LORD COLERIDGEintimated that he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid that notwithstanding the very high importance of the matter involved in the additional clause which he desired to see inserted in the Bill, and the wide attention that was being directed to the subject outside their Lordships' House, he felt exonerated in some degree from trespassing on their time at any great length inasmuch as the

  877
  question of a time limit was in its general aspect dealt with on Monday and Tuesday last in the discussion which took place on the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord Peel, when he objected to any such Parliamentary action as would create a perpetual interest in a terminable licence. That view was exactly expressed in the clause which he proposed to move, though of course he must enter with more detail into the manner in which it should be carried out. Lord Belper, speaking on behalf of the Government the other day, surprised him and many others by saying that the Bill as a matter of fact did not, do this very thing of creating a perpetual interest in a terminable licence.
  LORD BELPER: I only said that was my own opinion.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he could only apply to the speech of the noble Lord a quotation from a recent speech of Viscount Goschen, namely, splendide audax. He could not literally understand how it could be contended that a man who held legally only a licence which must be renewed annually, and who was open to have it refused without compensation at any time was in no way given a fresh interest of a valuable sort if he was placed in a position of absolute legal security. How could it be contended that this did not create a perpetual interest in a terminable licence. The noble Lord said he thought it did not. He was trying to do in one way which seemed to him to be fair and reasonable, what the noble Lord was trying to do in another way, namely, establish a plan for giving what had been described in several ways as an indemnity, a compensation, or a solatium. He desired to say in the most emphatic way that he was as anxious as any of their Lordships could be that these men should receive some compensation for the loss of the monetary interest which had grown up in connection with every license. He had no sympathy whatever with those who were described by the noble Marquess a few nights ago in a tone as if it would include most of them—as those who desired to bring the holding of licences to an end and stop the trade altogether. He had no sympathies of
  878
  that kind at all. His proposal in this clause was one which he believed to be perfectly sound in the interests of the community, and absolutely fair as regarded the persons immediately affected.
  The Prime Minister had more than once reiterated his belief that the proper principle, if they were dealing with the question afresh and on a clean slate, would be that the monopoly value—if such were the correct phrase—or quasi-monopoly value given by the possessor of a licence should only be given when the value of the monopoly was retained by the State and paid for by the man who acquired it. Effectiveness was given to that opinion by the change which the Government had made by introducing into Clause 4 a scheme of new licences which, presumably, they regarded as the right kind of plan on which, if they had a free hand, they should desire all licences to have been held from the first and to be held now. His proposal was to make that plan work consistently for all kinds of licences all the land over when the necessary time for winding up the existing condition of things had elapsed. He did not think it was necessary to explain his proposal in detail, for it spoke for itself, but some of its provisions seemed to have puzzled his friends a little. The words in the clause he proposed would result in this, that for fourteen years the licence would run exactly as the Bill proposed, the holders of licences paying such compensation levy which the magistrates might decide upon within certain limits, and receiving compensation if their licences were withdrawn at any time. That would go on for fourteen years. Then at the end of that time, by which time he hoped and believed that a great deal would have been effected, and the worst of the licences suppressed or withdrawn—specially would that be the case with regard to the ante-1869 beerhouses—there would be a period of seven years—a halcyon period of security during which there would be no power of compulsory withdrawal of licences, and, on the other hand, no call to pay a compensation levy, such levy would not be required, as there would be no power to disturb the existing holders of licences. After that time, that is to say twenty-one years from the passing of the Act, there would be a new start altogether upon the exact lines which the Government had itself proposed

  879
  for new licences and new licensees—the principle that the monopoly value did belong to the State, and that if it was acquired by any individual he should have to pay for it. It would not be possible that the change could take place at one particular moment all the land over, because there would, if the Bill became an Act exactly upon its present lines, be an overlapping of leases granted for seven years or less, which would not have been terminated. It was impossible to say that there should be one precise moment at which it should happen all the land over, but he imagined that magistrates, who knew that the time was going to arrive, would endeavour in giving their leases or periods to the licensees so to arrange matters as to make things terminate practically at the same time.
  What were the gains of such a proposal? First, there would be the ultimate resumption by the community of the monopoly value—he used the words with reserve, because he did not think they were quite correct—which the community or the State had given. That was the principle which the Government had applied to new licences, and he would apply it to old licences as well. Secondly, his proposal would result in a great simplification of what was at present an exceedingly complicated system. It would unify the method for the whole system of licence administration and would get rid of the complications which now arose from the existing rights and privileges, and expectations, and the rest. Then it would give back to the community—and personally be attached to this the greatest importance of all—the freedom which they did not now possess of making experiments in the way of licensing reform—a possibility which would be greater twenty-one years hence than now. Their Lordships were all familiar with Lord Grey's proposals. It might be that a great number of other suggestions or proposals which local communities might take up if they had a free hand would be put into action, and his proposal would set men free to act.
  Then he asked would the scheme press hardly upon anybody, and, if so, upon whom? Let them take first the condition of the ordinary licence-holder who held a full licence, who was now an annual tenant
  880
  so far as the strict technical law went, but who practically had an interest which they all desired to see compensated, and which had arisen from the manner in which the law had been administered for many years. The Bill compensated—unfortunately he thought—in an increasing amount the holders of these licences if they were to be dispossessed. The abolition of licences would increase the value of those which remained, and those licences if they were ultimately suppressed would be suppressed at a higher compensation value, although in the interim their profit-making would have been higher. His proposal, however, on the contrary, was that for fourteen years these men should be paying the levy and receiving the compensation if dispossessed; that for seven years they should have absolute security and no levy, and in that period they would be able to make a golden harvest—the result, in part at least, of other suppressions having taken place. Then atlast after twenty-one years all would come to an end, and they should start again on the principle laid down by Clause 4 of the Government Bill. During those twenty-one years surely it would be possible for any man of prudence and foresight to make such financial arrangements as would enable him at the close of that period to arrange for the payment of the sum required of him in return for a new licence. This might either be a lump sum paid for the acquisition of new rights or it might be an annual contribution which he would be called upon to pay by reason of the monopoly value of the licence which he was to hold from the State. He could not see how a man so circumstanced could be under any hardship, and he believed his scheme would work with absolute fairness both to the individual, to the community, and to the State.
  The same arguments he applied to the position of the ante-1869 licences. The holder of one of those licences would have fourteen years compensation if he was dispossessed—a higher rate because of the security which he now enjoyed—and he would be treated with greater consideration. Then if he were not dispossessed during that period he would throughout
  that time have been enabled to gain a largely increased profit because of the

  881
  suppression of his rivals and competitors. To him also would be given the seven years of golden harvest, during which he would be freed from dispossession and payment of the levy. Even if they allowed that there would be some falling off in the gross receipts in that neighbourhood, the increase of profit must be considerably larger than would possibly be required of the holder of the licence in the form of the compensation levy which was to be obtained from him.
  They were told that if they had a time limit they ought to compensate the licence-holder from public funds and not from the trade. They were making the compensation come from the trade by means of a compulsory tax. But it was a trade whose profits would be considerably enhanced by what had been occurring all the while and by the fact that Parliament had suppressed the more formidable of their rivals. Again, they were told that the 1869 licence-holder had a statutory right and that they must not interfere with it. As regards Parliamentary interference with existing rights or supposed rights, they had been reminded again and again by the Prime Minister and some representatives of the Government in that House that it was impossible to think of fettering the power of Parliament to deal at any time as it thought fit with the licensing question. He should like to ask what was the statutory right which the ante-1869 beerhouse licences really possessed, and which was so sacred that they must take care not to interfere with it? What happened in 1869? Up to that time unrestricted licensing had prevailed. The restrictions which came in at that time gave incidentally as a gift to the man who remained over when the restrictions had been removed an increased value attaching to his licence, and from that time those men had been irremovable except for reasons which were specially and definitely mentioned. But did this give them a "statutory" right to full compensation if his trade were injured? Suppose that Parliament should decide on allowing free trade in liquor all round, and that all the neighbours of an ante-1869 beerhouse-keeper were allowed to sell liquor, should they compensate that man because they had
  882
  destroyed his trade by allowing others to compete? They would say that it was the fortune of war, that public changes had taken place in the public interest, although he (the most rev. Primate) did not at all think it would be in the public interest. Should they say he was entitled to compensation, and if not, why should they say he was, in consequence of the change now made, entitled to anything more than the reasonable consideration which was proposed under this clause? If they gave a man time to recoup his outlay it was impossible to say he would be suffering under any hardship under the change now proposed. Under the Government scheme for new licences, as described in Clause 4, it was apparently anticipated that by giving a man seven years they would enable him to recoup the outlay to which he had been put, and to make a profit. Under his proposal they would give a man twenty-one years instead of seven during which to make such arrangements as would meet the changed condition of things which would result when the twenty-one years were over. During that time he would be holding the monopoly value practically for nothing, it having come to him not by the deliberate intention of Parliament, but incidentally. It was practically a gift to him or his predecessor when the changes were originally made.
  He had endeavoured to show that no real grievance could be alleged if they were to bring about that which on public grounds most of them felt to be a beneficent thing, namely, to start afresh at the end of twenty-one years without the complications which hung round their necks to-day. It was alleged fairly enough that a time limit, if imposed, would to some extent restrict the borrowing power of the publican or licence-holder, either now or later. Undoubtedly the man who now received a permanent interest in his premises would very easily find people to lend money upon it. The man could say, "I have a permanent interest; I wish to borrow on it. I have entered into all kinds of obligations because I have a permanent Parliament given security, and therefore I have borrowed a large amount

  883
  upon it." The time limit would undoubtedly hinder that to some extent, but he did not think that such power of borrowing would be a good thing. Again, they were told that this would restrict the borrowing power of local authorities, and a great deal had been made of the power which the local authority would have to borrow to a large extent because of the security it had in the permanent levy or tax upon all licensed premises. Undoubtedly if that local levy were to come to an end after fourteen years, the local authorities would borrow less than now. In his opinion, that restriction of borrowing powers would be a good thing. It was not an advantage that the licensing authority should be able, because it was in an enthusiastic mood and desired hastily to abolish very costly licensed premises, to use up the money which, years after, might be wanted. He knew that a loan had to receive the approval of the Secretary of State, but, in his view, nothing would be more disadvantageous than that the local authorities should be encouraged to borrow too large amounts, and practically tie the hands and leave helpless their successors for many years to come in the discharge of their magisterial functions. The fourteen years levy would be a wholesome restriction on the borrowing powers. In any case he personally preferred a lesser reduction for a time if so be, provided that it were with the knowledge that they would have full freedom to recover the monopoly for the community after a certain number of years had passed. Even if that involved less reduction during the next decade, he should not regret it if it meant that in the end they would have that freedom put into the hands of those to whom it ought properly to belong. He urged they should do nothing to tie the hands of their successors in the administration of these matters. It was said that Parliament could not tie the hands of their successors, but by the Bill they were giving to these people a compensation which enabled them to borrow on their permanent security in the licence, and they would find these people saying later that Parliament had no right to do that unless it was intended to compensate them, or to make some arrangement to get them out of
  884
  the difficulties into which they had landed themselves.
  He hoped he had answered to some extent the objection that after twenty-one years they would be involved in the same difficulties as those of to-day. His answer was that, by taking the Government's plan with regard to new licences, and applying it to the other licences, those difficulties would wholly disappear. It seemed to him that his proposal would make the Bill coherent and logical as a whole, and it would be in every sense an improvement of it as a legislative measure. He was profoundly anxious to be absolutely and scrupulously fair to those whose interests were involved in any measure of this kind, and his proposal would not only be fair but even munificent to the trade. It would be generous beyond what a right in equity ever could claim. But he did not mind that, because if mistakes had been made in the past they ought to pay for them rather than let innocent individuals pay for them. Certainly they would be paying beyond what any legal obligation required, but he did not object to that because he thought the gain would be worth paying for. He believed that hundreds of the best members of the trade, and he knew for certain that some of the very best and highest members of the trade, would accept a proposal of this kind if it came to them with the authority of Parliament. Some of these men he desired to speak of with the deepest possible respect. They had the highest interests of the public at heart, and he believed that many of them would be perfectly ready to accept this suggestion and not regard it as a hardship. That some would not welcome it was probably certain, but in the long run he thought it would be found that neither the public nor the members of the trade, who were doing their work in a high and legitimate way, would be really sufferers or wronged in any way. The principle of the time limit seemed to be making a steady progress not only outside but also among many of the warmest supporters of the present Bill. He was bold enough, and rash enough, to conjecture that if they could see below the surface, in the breasts even of some of the occupants of the Government Benches in this and the other House, they would find that some

  885
  of them in their hearts were in favour of it although they were afraid to deal with it at this juncture, because of the difficulty that would arise owing to the time limit in another sense which in the lower House of Parliament would render adequate discussion so difficult. If that was so he could not believe that for the sake of that temporary and passing difficulty they would allow such a consideration to result in their being bound for all time, so far as this Bill could bind them, to a system which, whatever might be said in its favour, would not really be the best for the English people.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 1, to insert the following clause, 'After the end of fourteen years from the passing of this Act existing on-licences shall not be renewed, but in place of every existing on-licence which is still in existence after the end of such period there shall be granted at the next ensuing general annual licensing meeting a new licence for the term of seven years, subject to the provisions of Section 4 of this Act, but without the imposition of any payment or conditions under Sub-section (2) of such section other than the conditions (if any) attached to the existing licence. Provided, nevertheless, that such licence may be refused on the same grounds and subject to the same terms and conditions as the renewal of the existing licence might have been refused.'"—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I confess that it is with some reluctance that I rise to oppose, as I must do, the Amendment moved with such evident sincerity and in such moderate language by such an authority in this House as the most rev. Primate. I do not doubt for one moment the interest he has in temperance reform or his desire to be fair to all parties, and I recognise that he represents, as the head of the right rev. Bench in this House, an element in your Lordships' Assembly devoted to the maintenance of principles of morality in this country, and that when he speaks officially on a moral issue he is entitled to be listened to with the most profound respect. But I am afraid, as you will expect, that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. The most rev. Primate claims it as one of the advantages of his Amendment that—as I understood him—it would not tie the hands of Parliament in the future so much as our own proposal. I think that is an argument ex-
  886
  ceedingly difficult to follow. He pro poses to tie the hands of your Lordships absolutely for at least twenty-one years. He proposes that for fourteen years there should be compensation, and that for seven years more there should be fixity of tenure without compensation. But his anticipation of the liberty of Parliament goes further than that, because in the face of the sort of catastrophe which awaits the liquor trade at the end of the twenty-one years all sorts of arrangements will have to be made by them to try to save something from the wreck. If that happens and these arrangements are made it will be too late for Parliament to do justice; the arrangements will have been made, and it will then be useless to repent and say, "We did not mean to treat you so hardly as it seems we have done, and we can put it right," because the businesses will have passed into other hands and it will be wholly impossible to set right the mischief which, as I think, Parliament will have effected.
  At the beginning of his speech the most rev. Primate dwelt upon the phrase that we were giving a permanent value to a terminable licence, but that is what the most rev. Primate proposes to do by this Amendment, because he proposes to pay—as the Government do—compensation to a certain number of licences during the first fourteen years. My Lords, compensation is a sum of money, and that has a permanent value and must have. It is a terminable licence, but the lucky licensees—lucky because they will be at the mercy of the most rev. Primate instead of being exposed to his vengeance—will get a permanent value for their terminable licences. That brings me to the first objection to that Amendment. My Lords, contrast the position of the licensee whose licence is put an end to in the fourteenth year with that of the licensee whose licence is put an end to after the twenty-first year. In the fourteenth year he will receive full compensation on the principle that he is to receive the difference between the value of the premises as licensed and unlicensed. But in the twenty-first year he is to receive nothing, but is to be turned out without compensation. How can anyone defend the justice of that proposal? It is that inequity of differential treatment in the amount of money between man and man

  887
  who are in exactly the same circumstances which is always rightly resented by the victims of such a position. The most rev. Primate, like many other speakers, has referred to the enormous gains which the liquor trade has made in recent years. Of course they have made enormous gains, but it is sometimes forgotten that the people who are to be affected by your legislation are not always the people who make the enormous gains. On the contrary, take the case of an ordinary licensee at the present time. He has probably paid an enormous sum for the goodwill of his business. Does the most rev. Primate think that he makes a large profit? If he does, he is very much misinformed, for I am sure that a great many of them make very little profit indeed. To treat them badly is not to treat a rich man badly, but a poor man badly. Take again the liquor trade generally. I think I heard noble Lords the other night speak with a certain amount of contumely of the great limited companies which had taken over breweries, Well, my Lords, those who now own the shares in these brewery companies have given a very high price for them. They have not made a large sum of money—they have not made enormous gains. I know of a particular brewery the shares of which, shortly after it was converted into a limited company, were put on the market and fell enormously in value. How can it be said that these unfortunate shareholders are the plutocrats into whose pockets we may dip our hands without doing any great harm. I am sure that part of the case has not impressed itself upon the most rev. Primate.
  How are people affected by this Amendment to protect themselves against the ultimate losses which may fall upon them? For fourteen years they will receive compensation and for seven years they will receive security. But after that time how are they to protect themselves? No voluntary scheme of insurance will be possible for them. I hope your Lordships will appreciate that. It is quite clear that in the temper which characterises certain influential temperance reformers it would be impossible for a licensee who finds himself in their unfortunate district to protect himself at all, because he would be aware that as
  888
  soon as the restrictions which Parliament had imposed on the taking away of his licence without compensation were removed, he would only have an even chance that he would be allowed to go on at all. That is not an exaggeration. The noble Viscount said the other night that 50 per cent. of the licences ought to be destroyed, so that at the end of twenty-one years every licensee would know that he would have an even chance of being allowed to go on or be destroyed. Is it possible to conceive any scheme of voluntary insurance likely to meet a case such as that? The noble Viscount is not singular in this respect. There are many others who held as extreme opinions as the noble Viscount and also a great many magistrates, and these people would place the licensees in such a position that they would be absolutely unable to insure themselves against the loss which they might incur. But the matter goes further than that. It is not certain that there would be an even chance that the licensee would retain or lose his vested interest, but it would be certain that he would lose what is called the monopoly value. I do not defend the system of monopoly value; I have always thought it outrageous, and the Government are going to try to put an end to it with regard to all future licences. But with regard to existing licences that monopoly value has been given to the licensees and to the liquor trade. The present holders have paid every halfpenny for it when they bought the shares or the goodwill of the licensed premises. Therefore if they were deprived of the monopoly value it is absolute pillage—it is robbing them of what they have paid for. There will be no chance of their protecting themselves against that loss, because it is not an even chance that they will retain the monopoly value, but it is quite certain that under the Amendment every halfpenny of that element in their property will be taken away. Therefore, I cannot but say that the proposal, although it is, if I may so with respect, beautifully dressed up, does amount to nothing more than pillage of what belongs to those who are interested in this trade.
  That is going to be done in the face of a distinct Parliamentary promise One-third of the licensed houses in England are built

  889
  upon a Parliamentary title. It is not a question of a practice which has grown up—it is to be found within the four corners of an Act of Parliament passed many years ago. They are held absolutely during good behaviour, according to the four conditions, and yet these people are to be exposed to this pillage at the hands of Parliament. I put their case highest, of course, but I think the title of other licence-holders is almost as good. I confess that, when we reflect how they have bought and sold their interest with the knowledge and with the consent of Parliament, their title is almost as good. Parliament might have interfered long ago if it had been thought proper to deny the licensees this right; but Parliament did not do that. It sanctioned the right by taxing them on the full value of their premises. Therefore it would be quite impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
  I come now, my Lords, to the parallel which has been drawn between existing licences and the new licences. The new licences to which the procedure of Clause 4 is adapted stand upon a totally different footing. The new licences will have no monopoly value till you have granted them. Therefore, if you make it one of the conditions of the licenses that they shall have no monopoly value, you can take nothing away from them, and the new licensee need not take his licence unless he likes. But that is a very different case from that of the old licences. The old licensee has his licence and cannot get out of it without loss. It is to be presumed that there are no such sweeping, drastic changes threatened against the new licence-holder as are threatened against the old licence-holder. Even the noble Viscount would not propose to take away 50 per cent. of the new licences, because it is to be presumed that they will only be granted where they are absolutely wanted, and therefore they are not exposed to any great risk. The man who receives a new licence may properly assume that he will be allowed to keep it. He may say, "In face of the strong feeling in favour of temperance reform, if I was allowed to have a licence I should be allowed to keep it." He would not have that 50 per cent. chance against his being allowed to do so. So
  890
  that in the three most radical particulars the new licensee stands on a totally different footing to the old licensee. To try and show that because the thing is fair under Clause 4 to new licensees it is therefore fair to old licensees is to ignore all the true elements of the situation. My Lords, I think I have said enough to show why the Government cannot accept this Amendment. I feel inclined to indulge in a few protestations. The noble Lord, Earl Crewe, the other night took the Government to task because we did not give utterance to more of the phrases that we were in favour of temperance reform. I should think that it went without saying that there is not one of your Lordships who is not in favour of temperance reform if it can be achieved with justice. We hold that the Bill will do something to secure temperance reform, but we have never put too high a faith in legislation. We will do what we can in justice with legislation, but we rely far more upon that steady progress of public opinion towards temperance which we see around us. We believe that is far more effective than any legislation you can introduce and is far more to be relied upon than any expedient which we cannot reconcile to the elementary requirements of justice. For these reasons, my Lords, it is impossible for the Government to accept the most rev. Primate's Amendment.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid that anyone who had listened to the speech of the noble Marquess without knowing the subject which was under debate would have supposed that the most rev. Primate was engaged in pillage—he thought that was a very strong word for the noble Marquess to have used—of property, in the ordinary sense of the word, of some unfortunate persons in this country. It was essentially necessary in this discussion that they should bear constantly in mind what was the nature of the matter with which they were dealing. What was the nature of the interest which licence-holders really possessed? Great exception had been taken by the Government to those who had said that the Bill before them would confer a freehold for the future upon the holders of existing licences. He was not going to say that was so for the

  891
  reason that freehold had a connection with property, and property so-called did not exist in the case with which they were dealing. He was not opposed to the granting to holders of existing licences what had been called by a variety of names, of which he would take the last mentioned by the most rev. Primate and say a solatium, to the holders of these licences.
  What were the facts? The licences under the existing law were granted from year to year and there was no obligation—no legal obligation—upon the brewster sessions to renew those licences if they did not think fit to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Belper, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill told them that it had been the general feeling of brewster sessions that they were not entitled to refuse the renewal of a licence, except, of course, in cases of certain offences, upon the ground that there were more public-houses in the district than were required, and that it would be to the public interest that the licences should be withheld. Those benches of magistrates were obviously ill advised by their clerks, because the law had been declared to be different. What he was anxious to point out was that they were not dealing in this case with a set of ignorant persons who did not know what the law was. If the old system had been in existence now, and if the holders of licences had been men dwelling in their own houses and conducting their businesses with their own capital, they would have had no legal right but a very much stronger claim to compassionate consideration, because it might be said with truth that they might have been ignorant of the real state of the law, and under the same misconception of the nature of the law as the noble Lord, Lord Belper, said a great number of the magistrates and brewster sessions had been. But they were not dealing with ignorant people, nor with poor people; they were dealing with a very rich and powerful trade. Was it possible to suppose that men of that sort, having plenty of money at their command, and able to get the best legal opinion in the country, could have been ignorant of the real nature of the tenure by which their licences were held? It was inconceivable that they did not know what their position was after the decision in
  892
  the case of "Sharp v. Wakefield." That decision was twelve years old, while there was another decision previous to that date which tended in the same direction. But he would stand upon "Sharp v. Wakefield" and say that it was impassible to believe that the rich holders of 90 per cent. of the licences had not known for those twelve years what was the tenure on which they held them. During those twelve years the value of their property had grown—to use a familiar phrase it had grown by leaps and bounds and grown in spite of the character of the tenure of which they were perfectly aware. It was useless for the Government to talk of pillage—there was no pillage in the matter.
  He was not prepared to deny that, those licences having been held for a long period, during a portion of which there might have been some misconception as to the tenure, some consideration or form of solatium shou'd be given to those who held them if it should be considered desirable in the public interest to refuse them on any general public grounds. But he was not willing to go beyond that. To talk of the licences as if they were property of a real and substantial character which could not be dealt with by Parliament except by the same sort of compensation as they gave to a landowner when a railway was given power to take his land, was altogether wrong. That was not the true state of the case, and the argument was not improved in the least by exaggerating it to the extreme extent to which it had been exaggerated by the Lord Privy Seal.
  Then they were told that a time limit was unjust because these persons were entitled to compensation. They were not legally entitled to compensation. They would receive compensation, and he should vote for it being given to them on reasonable terms, but when the most rev. Primate asked them to limit the compensation to a period of fourteen years and afterwards to give an additional security to the licence-holder for seven years, to call that pillage was wrong, and he could only say he thought the most rev. Primate had been very generous in his proposal. For his own part he should not have objected if the most rev. Primate had exercised

  893
  his generosity less strongly. They were told that the compensation was to come out of the pockets of the trade. Of course literally that was true, but it was to be raised by a public tax, and if their Lordships had in mind the admirable speech of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London on Tuesday and the example he gave from the United States of the revenue raised from licences in that country, they would see that by paying this compensation in the form suggested they were really limiting the amount which the public might perfectly well raise from the licences by taxation, and that they were therefore practically making the public pay the compensation. He was a little amused the other night by one of the members of the Government—he was not sure it was not the President of the Board of Agriculture—saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been considering how he could get more money and what were the sources of taxation to which he might turn, and that he had never proposed to put an increased tax upon licences. He was not at all surprised to hear that. It was exactly what he should have expected. But that argument was not conclusive to him, and he believed a considerable sum of money might legitimately and properly be raised by taxation upon licences of a very much more stringent character than that which existed at the present time. He therefore could not but think that although in the first instance it might be that this compensation was paid by the trade, it was really paid by the public, because it tended to reduce the amount which perfectly legitimately the public, following the example of many other countries, might have obtained from licences of this kind.
  He confessed himself unable to understand why it was supposed that the proposal of the most rev. Primate was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. He did not know that that would be a very vital argument with him, although it was no doubt a very strong argument with noble Lords who sat opposite. He could not admit that it was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was said to be a desire to reduce licences; and the licensees were to have a sort of compassionate
  894
  claim to compensation when their licences were reduced. But to say that was not to say that the compensation was to be paid to all eternity, for the only ground which really gave them any kind of claim was that they really did not understand the position in which they had stood. It seemed to him that they would be fully and entirely compensated by the grant of compensation under a time limit. The noble Marquess, following to a certain extent the statement made by the Prime Minister, seemed to indicate that Parliament would be quite free to deal with this matter as it pleased hereafter. Mr. Balfour wrote a letter to the newspapers the other day in which he explained to his correspondent, who he supposed was a person ignorant of constitutional theories, that Parliament could do whatever it liked, and if it chose after the passage of this Bill to repeal it and abolish all these licences without any compensation at all, although he thought that would be unjust, he did not think the Bill would in any way preclude Parliament from doing what it might think fit. That was true, but it was a truism; and with all respect to Mr. Arthur Balfour, they did not require to be told it by him. The truth was this, that by passing this Bill, and particularly by passing it after the speech to which they had just listened—a speech which raised the rights of licence-holders to property and talked of pillage by the most rev. Primate—by passing this Bill they would have rendered the difficulty of dealing with this question in the future much greater than it was now. He did not want their hands to be tied. By granting the licences for fourteen years, subject to a further continuance for seven years, they would meet, and more than meet, every legitimate claim of the licence-holders, and at the end of the period of twenty-one years Parliament would be placed in a position in which it could really deal with the question as it pleased and could take such steps as might be necessary towards a substantial temperance reform.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLSsaid the noble Marquess, the Lord Privy Seal, in following the most rev. Primate drew a very pathetic picture of the position of the licensee under the

  895
  Amendment who, after fourteen years of paying premiums, would find that after all if he were deprived of his licence he would have none of the compensation to which he had been contributing. He did not think that the noble Marquess at the time said anything about the seven years which came under the Archbishop's proposed scheme, but the picture that the noble Marquess drew arrested his attention, because it was part of an argument which some weeks ago prevailed very strongly in his mind and made it appear to him absolutely impossible to accept anytime limit. It seemed to him the whole position of difficulty would be realised again at the end of the allotted time, and that the difficulty of the position would be accentuated by the fact that during that period the premiums had been paid by the licensees who hoped eventually to obtain compensation if deprived of their licences. But he had been entirely converted by the arguments that had been used in favour of the Bill by many persons who had been strongly advocating it and not the least so by those who had spoken from the Government Bench, for they had impressed so strongly upon him the fact that the main purpose of this Bill was to enable those in authority to get rid of redundant licences within a reasonable period, and they made it apparently so hopeful a possibility that all the redundant licences would be got rid of in some such period as fourteen years, that it seemed to him there would be no hardship whatever to any licensee who held his licence beyond that time; because surely they did not wish to reduce the licences beyond the point at which the real needs of the people might demand that a certain number of licences should exist. If they did that they plunged themselves into a difficulty far more serious than anything they had at the present time to face. They would have, undoubtedly, then to face the difficulties of those clubs which in secret, without regulation, without inspection, would so very greatly tend to the deterioration of the morals of our people.
  He remembered perfectly well the time when he was in Australia that there was started in the colony in which he lived that which was known as a large irrigation colony, and one of the principles of that colony was that there should
  896
  be no licensed public-houses existing in it. What was the result? The result was that there was a great deal more secret drinking, a great deal of bad conduct in consequence, and eventually it was found that it would have been a far better thing to have had properly licensed public-houses. He did not think many of them would at all desire to see such a reduction of public-houses as would exceed the point at which they were naturally demanded by the needs of the people, and therefore, with that very strongly in his view, he could not see that there would be any hardship whatever that would accrue in the case of a licensee who should survive the period in which it had been asserted the redundant licences would practically have been got rid of. In that he should associate what he was saying as well as he might with the very eloquent words which fell from the noble Earl who, speaking from one of the Benches behind the Government Bench, with that grace and eloquence which gave such point to all the arguments that he brought forward, had claimed that if there was to be any real temperance reform they must address themselves to some such questions as that to which he had alluded, viz., the danger of the clubs.
  Now he did not know, of course, what the result might be of any division that might be taken upon this Amendment of the most rev. Primate. Little as he might know about Parliamentary affairs he could not help noticing with regard to most Acts of Parliament that they seldom seemed to Come up to expectations of their friends, and they seldom seemed to realise all the apprehensions of their opponents, and he dared say it would be very much the same with this Bill when it became an Act. But if the Bill produced anything like the results which he had heard from the Government Bench its promoters expected it would produce in the reduction of redundant licences, then he wanted to urge as strongly as he could that if the Amendment were adopted there would be no hardship in the case of any licensee who, during those fourteen years, and with the seven years of grace afterwards, might have been contributing during the first fourteen a certain premium to the compensation fund, but who was not likely to be deprived of his licence because the number of redundant licences,

  897
  he supposed, by that time would have disappeared. For that reason he most earnestly hoped the most rev. Primate's Amendment might be accepted and that the Government would, after all, see their way in a modified form to adopt it in the Bill.
  *LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHsaid it was impossible not to sympathise with the words that had fallen from the most rev. Primate and those who had supported him in this Amendment, and although he spoke as an opponent he hoped he should not be wrong if he said that the idea underlying, the Amendment, namely, that the people of this country through the licensing authorities should have a free hand after a certain number of years, was deserving, at all events, of great consideration at the hands of their Lordships. Various arguments had been urged in the course of the debate against this Amendment and against the proposal for a term of years, and he thought that one of the most powerful arguments which he would not say had been unnoted, but at all events had not been very strongly urged, was that it would to a great extent hamper any future legislation that might occur after this Bill became law. In the course of this debate both in their Lordships' House and in another place it had been hinted, and that not obscurely, both by the promoters and by the opponents, that when this Bill became law the last word upon this most important question would not have been spoken. The opponents of the Bill had signified their intention very freely to do all they could to alter what they conceived to be a very bad measure. Those who supported the Bill had again on their part said that the way lay open to any future legislation should the present Bill not come up to expectations. To this it had been objected that although a future Parliament and future Government had no doubt the full legal right to alter anything which was passed now, they were not very likely to do so. How that might be he did not know; there were, of course, many people who might not see quite eye to eve with the Government in this Bill.
  This Bill had been brought forward under certain circumstances and it
  898
  had been debated under somewhat peculiar circumstances, and many people thought that this great subject had not received the full attention it should have received. It seemed to him that if this Amendment, which was now under discussion, became law and they prescribed a term of years they would get into the difficulty, and perhaps a larger one than might be at the present moment recognised, of making a certain bargain with the licensees and the owners of public-houses, and that if they once created a term of years they would have a great many considerations, so to speak, built upon it. They would have certain contracts that would be formed upon the basis of a fourteen Years certainty as to the question of compensation. They would have also many agreements depending upon that. They would besides have what had not been much touched upon at present, but was a most serious consideration in this Bill, viz., how they were to value the different licensed terms with regard to compensation, and if they once admitted a term of years he thought they would have bases of valuation founded upon it. They would also have bases of insurance in many different forms upon this term of years, all of which when the time came might be somewhat difficult to upset, whether it was a good thing or a bad thing to upset them.
  It was quite possible that as years and probably not very many years went on, public opinion, which had shown a great interest in this question, might become stronger and stronger perhaps in view of a thoroughly well thought-out temperance movement, excluding fanatical consideration, because he believed fanaticism, unless inspired by genius, would generally defeat its own object. But there might be a strong public. opinion to influence the Government of the day in such a way that they could not well afford to disregard it. It might be the wish of the country that the licensing authorities should have a much freer hand in dealing with these licences, and that the question of compensation, although it might be admitted to be a fair principle, ought not to stand in the way of reducing the number of licensed premises which so many people at present were agreed

  899
  should be the case. He would assume for a moment that these things had a very marked effect in the course of five or six years, and that legislation was forced upon the Parliament and Government of the time; what were they then to do with those existing fourteen, and, perhaps, if the Amendment were fully carried out, twenty-one years? Fourteen years was a long period in the life of an individual; it was a still longer period in the history of any nation or any Parliament, and what he would suggest to their Lordships was, that it would be perhaps somewhat unwise to fetter the present legislation with a condition, which, although the present intention was good, would hamper and fetter the action of Parliament and the Government in the future.
  He could not help thinking this was, perhaps, the strongest argument for not passing the Amendment which had been moved with regard to this time limit. In many cases, particularly in this case, when a new departure of considerable magnitude in the licensing question was being adopted, it was extremely difficult to tell exactly what might issue from it. The promoters of this Bill thought that one thing would result from it; the opponents thought that another thing would result. One side thought it would effect great salutary reforms, and the other that it would be productive of great evils. A late statesman, among his many clever sayings, used to say that nothing happened except the unforeseen, and it was quite possible that the opinions of the Government on the one hand, and of the opponents on the other, might both be right. The strong probability was that they would both be wrong, and that an entirely different effect from what was expected now might turn out to be the result of this Bill. That appeared to him rather to intensify the argument that it would be somewhat unwise to put out our hands further than it was possible to draw them back. Let them not create a difficulty in the way of reviewing any possible abuse that might arise from this legislation, or, on the other hand, of improving and carrying out any good effect that it had done. They had better follow out the old pro-
  900
  verb to let well—or if some of their Lordships preferred it—to let ill alone.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid no doubt there was a great deal to be said for this Amendment, in the sense that it would operate as a sort of promise to give a reasonable time to turn round for reasonable interests, whether they were called vested or not, and at the end of the term, a great deal too long time, it would tend to restore to the people of England full control, free from any moral as well as any legal criticism. The terms were undoubtedly extremely liberal, and he could not help feeling that if they had been accepted by His Majesty's Government they would have made a very good bargain for—he would not venture to say their clients—but at any rate for those persons who in the general opinion of the community were largely interested financially in the passing of this Bill, because if by general agreement this Amendment of the most rev. Primate had been accepted, and if it had been accepted in the House of Commons, no doubt there would have been a very strong claim of fairness that this was to be a modus vivendi for the next fourteen years, during which it would be very unfair to reopen great questions in regard to licence duties. He could not help feeling himself that, having regard to the way in which this Bill had been carried so far, those who dissented from it had a perfectly free hand to deal with it in a most stringent way if ever the majority should be on their side, and he might remind their Lordships that this question of high duties—not so high necessarily as in the United States of America, but very much higher than anything that had been contemplated in this country—was quite within the scope of any Government, and if he were interested in the trade of the licensed victuallers, which he was thankful to say he was not, he was not sure that he would not feel inclined rather to get a settlement upon some reasonable terms which would secure him a considerable period of years than trust to the accidents of the political future.
  He would now turn to the speech of the noble Marquess, who had made the principal speech on behalf of the Government

  901
  against this Amendment. He would not follow him into the regions of morals and spoliation. He thought that had been adequately dealt with, but he should like their Lordships to consider one or two cases which came very vividly to their recollection where the House had absolutely disregarded claims very much stronger in point of law and equity than any claims where people, either through brewery companies or otherwise, had bought at enormous prices. When the Irish Land Act was being passed, a strong case was made for those who had bought estates in the Encumbered Estates Courts, with a Parliamentary guarantee of title in every way, but nevertheless they, and of course their Lordships' House, was party to that Act, much as they disliked it, passed it, although, no doubt, it would have been in their power had they chosen to make exceptional legislation, perhaps at the expense of the Treasury and national credit, which had guaranteed those titles. He might remind their Lordships of another case, with regard to the importation of foreign cattle, in which the very keen desire to protect the health of our herds was not always entirely dissociated from the desire to enhance the price of our herds. Parliament first of all passed laws requiring slaughter of cattle at the port of entry and various urban authorities—London, Liverpool, and other places—went to a very great expense under Parliamentary sanction and with money borrowed with the sanction of the Public Works Loan Commissioners to erect abattoirs at the port of entry. In a very few years the sense of what was due to our home cattle and their health became so intense that they thought they could not even allow animals to come from foreign countries, even although they might be slaughtered within that quarantined and limited area. The whole of these important yards had to be turned over to the scrap heap. The question was put very strongly that these urban authorities had invested very large sums of money in obedience to Parliamentary obligations but their claims were utterly disregarded. Of course all of their Lordships in going through the history of legislation and the interests injured could find many other industries where legislation had given no thought to the claims or interests of private people. As recently as the other
  902
  day in another place a very strong claim was put forward in connection with strips of tobacco, and although it was conclusively proved that the unhappy importers had lost very considerably they only got back from the Government about one half of the proved losses they had sustained. Therefore he thought that this exaggerated sentiment of conscientious devotion to the interests of brewers and others who had speculated in public-houses and shares was a little misplaced in dealing with this question of legislation.
  He would like to touch upon another point in the noble Marquess's speech. The noble Marquess seemed to be very much perplexed as to how it would be possible to adjust with any fairness a scale of compensation which would operate in the way proposed by the Amendment. He, the speaker, should have thought that if this clause of the most rev Primate, or any similar clause were passed, it would be a very elementary calculation for any man in business to see that year by year the value of a licence was a diminishing quantity. The value of the licence would be for a term running for twenty-one years, and in the first year the person whose licences were suppressed would lose an interest amounting to about twenty-one years. In the second year it would go down by one year, and so on, and therefore there would be no abrupt break such as the noble Marquess suggested would baffle the ingenuity of calculators. Perhaps it was not much good stating these things although they might recommend themselves to the reason of those accustomed to arithmetic or affairs, yet not to the votes of those who, he was afraid, were determined to support the Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh!
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he was very glad to hear that "Oh! because that implied that when they went into the division lobby they would be better supported than they were before. He should wait with curious expectancy to see whether that would be so.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only made an interjection because I thought it very hard that all the noble Lords who sit on this side of the House

  903
  should be considered incapable of arithmetic or affairs.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he only commented on the arithmetic presented by the noble Marquess.
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid he had listened with the greatest attention to what fell from the most rev. Primate, but he thought in that speech there were three fallacies. In the first place, he thought their Lordships agreed with him the other night that it was wrong to take away these licences without some compensation at the present moment. That was agreed on all hands. What he had to say the other night was this: that if it were wrong to take them away now it would be just as wrong to take them away at the end of seven years, as was suggested by the Minority Report, and, if at the end of seven years, then it would be just as wrong in principle to take them away at the end of fourteen years. The most rev. Primate had said they were going to give twenty-one years, and that was quite long enough. He maintained that if it were wrong to take them away to-morrow without compensation it would be equally wrong as a matter of principle to take them away that day twenty-one years. As a matter of detail whether the wrong would be so much or not he would not say, but as a matter of principle it was absolutely just as wrong to take away something which was his—he did not care what they called it, expectation or whatever it was—at the end of twenty-one years as to take it away to-morrow. But then the most rev. Primate said there would be no hardship or grievance because in the meantime the licensee would be able to reap a golden harvest, and people would go on drinking although they reduced the number of houses. He was afraid the reduction would not be so great, and therefore if the number of houses were reduced, those houses that remained would only get the profit which those houses which had been done away with would otherwise receive. That was his second fallacy.
  What was the whole basis of legislation of this kind? It was, he thought, with common consent, that the increase in the number of drinking-shops, be-
  904
  cause they were drinking-shops, offered a temptation to men going to or from their work which they were not able to resist, and that therefore the increase in the sale of alcoholic liquors and the increase of drunkenness was a natural consequence. He thought the whole object of this legislation, and he was quite sure the whole of the right rev. Bench would agree with him, was to take away the temptation, so that a man should not be tempted to do that which he would not do if there were not a public-house open for him to go to, and that the reduction of drunkenness would be very largely in proportion to the number of licences taken away. "But," says the most rev. Primate, "I have spoken to several gentleman who are largely interested in this trade and they agree with me, and would be very glad to see this Amendment passed." He had not the smallest doubt they would. Why? They were perfectly aware of the conduct of the magistrates up to the present moment, and the magistrates had said, "Although it is very wise that we should diminish the number of public-houses we will not do it unless we can give them some compensation. We think it would be a wrong and injury to them to take away something that they have got, something which the nation has agreed they should have, unless you are going to give them compensation." What would happen? At the end of seven, fourteen, or twenty-five years, he did not care what number of years they fixed as their time limit, the action of the magistrates would remain. The law would be the same. The justices would say at the end of seven years or fourteen years what they did now; they would not permit the injustice of taking away a man's licence unless they could give some compensation. The action of the magistrates would be the same seven, fourteen, or even twenty-one years hence, and he did not wonder at the brewers, who were perfectly able to take care of themselves and who could see through the whole of this matter, saying to the most rev. Primate, "We shall be quite content with your plan, because we know perfectly well that at the end of any term of years the action of the magistrates will be as it is to-day, and we shall get through your

  905
  Amendment a permanent interest in the annual licence." For those reasons he strongly objected to the Amendment of the most rev. Primate.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I cannot help welcoming the speech of the noble Viscount as containing in its fulness a principle which we have always expected to lurk within the Bill. The most rev. Primate began his speech by endeavouring to establish the proposition that this Bill sets up something like a freehold where only au annual legal licence is conferred, but the noble Viscount proved the most rev. Primate's proposition even beyond any limit that the most rev. Primate can have conceived. He said that in seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years the claim for compensation would be exactly the same as it is now. I ask you, my Lords, in passing, to consider if there can be a more convincing proof of the contention of the most rev. Primate than the speech of the noble Viscount. What is it, after all, that the most rev. Primate wishes to enact? He wishes by a liberal provision of years to provide for the extinction of that interest which is not legal according to the admission even of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, but which is equitable according to the more charitable views of those who are interested, I will not say in the trade, but in the ordinary traditions of fair dealing as against a trade which it has been proved has been recognised far beyond the limits that the law contemplated. The most rev. Primate desires by a long period of years to extinguish those interests. I must confess I think Ins proposal unduly liberal to the interests which it is proposed to extinguish. But I do not suppose the most rev. Primate in his wildest dreams could have expected such support as he has received from the noble Viscount who has just sat down. The noble Viscount maintained that at the end of twenty-one years the interest of the licence-holder will be as great as it is at the present moment, that the magistrates at the end of twenty-one years will say, "We cannot extinguish this licence because it would be doing an injury to a man who has held it for all these years." There could be no greater proof of the proposition of the most rev. Prelate.
  Now, my Lords, what is twenty-one years? It is the life of a young man. In Scotland we have a system of leases which is supposed to extinguish the interests of the tenant in nineteen years. But what
  906
  is the interest of the farming tenant in Scotland? It is an interest given by the landlord from an estate possessed by the landlord and taken over by the tenant on that understanding. What is the interest of the tenant in the licensed public-house? Why, we have had proclaimed from the Woolsack, in oracular tones, what I am bound to say we knew already, that the interest of the tenant is for one year and for one year only. I do not wish to push that argument too far; but contrast the position of the licence-holder with a licence of that description, which is not a bit better than the game licence which most of your Lordships take out, with the interest of the Scotch farming tenant which is supposed to be exhausted in nineteen years.
  I have not taken part in the debates on this measure because I am well aware that many of your Lordships have wished to speak, and when many of your Lordships wish to speak I wish to remain silent, because I wish to give place to a better man. I quite admit the objections in detail to the proposition of the most rev. Primate. I see there are objections of partial injustice. There will always be objections of partial injustice in great propositions of reform in important classes of the community. My belief is simply this: that the ideal temperance reform is not by compensation. If I had the opportunity of introducing a Bill, I would not introduce compensation at all by money. I would have compensation entirely by the expiration of time. I do not care what your limit is; I am sure it would be much larger than either justice or equity demanded, but I am certain of this, that the only way in which you will ever achieve a real temperance reform in this country is by fixing a date, at the expiration of which all interest in the licence will be held to be exhausted, and the nation then will resume its claim, its absolute dominion, over the interests which have been so created at the expense of the State and of no other than the State.
  My noble friend Lord Spencer, in his speech on the Second Reading, quoted figures which show the enormous value of the interests embarked in liquor—interests admittedly constituted, or largely constituted, since the important

  907
  decision in "Sharp v. Wakefield" when there could be no excuse for anyone interested in that trade saying he was not aware of the law and the interests which he possessed under the strict letter of the law. I agree with all that my noble friend said, but he did riot draw the particular deduction—at least, not in my hearing—which I should have made from those figures. My deduction from those figures is, of course, in the first instance that which was made by my noble friend, that this capital has been largely invested since the authoritative declaration of the law which no one could mistake; but the second deduction, to my mind, is infinitely more important than that, which is that these interests represent a capital—I will not say which should belong to the State, but which is the free gift of the State, or almost the free gift of the State, and which therefore is a heritage which the State is alienating. Until the State has resumed the control of that great boon which it has given to a particular interest there can be no real reform in regard to the liquor question, and the State itself—that is a minor view in comparison with public morality and public safety—cannot resume the revenues which it should draw from this interest, and which, as the Bishop of London clearly proved in his eloquent speech—one of the few speeches which I have heard in this House which was too short—are drawn by communities like New York from that interest. Well, my Lords, I say that you cannot any that the State by giving a licence or the public by giving a licence, whichever you choose to call it, gives an enormous profit very often to the person who holds that licence. There are instances of men who have been offered £18,000 for a licence before they left the hall in which that licence was granted. To whom does that £18,000 belong? According to the noble Marquess, the Lord Privy Seal, so far as I have been able to hear his argument, we are bound to compensate every extravagant price that has been given for a tied house because that price, forsooth, has been given while the Legislature did not interfere to prevent an extravagant price being given by private contract for a tied house. We are bound, if I followed the instance given by the
  908
  noble Marquess, to compensate every brewery shareholder who has made an unprofitable investment in a brewery company, because he said that there were brewery companies which had realised very poor dividends and which had an equitable claim, as I understand him, to compensation. What is this vast spectacle of compensation which the Government holds out to us—the Government which is so anxious, as he says, for temperance reform—the compensation to every human being who has made a foolish bargain, provided only that that foolish bargain be connected with liquor?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not because he has made a foolish bargain, but because he has done it under a Parliamentary title.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: What is the Parliamentary title?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl knows quite well that one-third of the licences are held under Parliamentary title, and that the remainder are held subject to the sanction of Parliament at that price because Parliament has taxed the holders at that price, and in all cases of expropriation for any public improvement they are paid for at that price.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not deny that the prices paid by the Government for expropriation are extravagant. I do not deny that one-third of the ante-1869 beerhouses are held under a tenure which I lament, but I am not disposed to say that because Parliament does not interfere with the annual tenure of the other two-thirds of the public-houses of this country that that constitutes a Parliamentary title, and that we are bound to compensate the extravagant prices which are paid under a misapprehension for houses held under that title. I do not wish to go into polemics on this question. The noble Marquess is not so versed in interruptions as he thinks. I have watched his very frequent interruptions, and if he cannot interrupt to better purpose than on the present occasion, I think he had better reserve himself for a

  909
  speech in reply. All I venture to urge is, that the Motion of the most rev. Primate contains terms which are most generous to the trade, that those who really wish for temperance and for the national control over this particular business, which is conferred and given by the nation without any just contribution in return, are bound to vote for the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. I, myself, do not think it errs on the side of generosity. I, myself, should prefer an Amendment which by simply giving a time limit to all licences without interference, except for misconduct, would give a valuable property which would be exhausted in fourteen years, or less possibly, but certainly in fourteen years, and which would bring this system to an end. There would be, I admit, no formal reduction of licences, but there would be practically a reduction of licences because the non-paying licences, many of which are only kept going in the hope of compensation, and in the hope of being bought up by some of these brewery companies, would extinguish themselves, knowing as they would that their doom was coming within a limited time. I say, then, that I would welcome the most rev. Primate's Amendment as an important step in licensing reform, but speaking individually I cannot believe it to be conclusive—I do not believe it to be the best form of reform. I think that by that which I have sketched out, which would be intelligible, simple, and which would extinguish licences much more than is generally supposed, you would arrive at a better result than even the most rev. Primate will achieve, and certainly better than the Bill of the Government can hope to promote.
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think we all regretted we did not have the advantage of an expression of the views of the noble Earl who has just sat down upon the Second Reading of this Bill. I am very glad, indeed, that the noble Earl has repaired that omission to-night, not only by giving us his views on the Amendment of the most rev. Primate, but by telling us what, if he had been in the place of His Majesty's Government, would have been the sort of temperance legislation he would have asked the country to accept. The noble Earl would have given a time limit and nothing else. I do not think
  910
  he specifically stated the number of years to which the time limit should extend. Possibly he might take the number of years that the most rev. Primate looks forward to, namely, twenty-one years. I do not know what the exact amount might be, but this I do know, that the policy is not a new policy, but is one which was introduced by a member of the noble Earl's Party, the late Lord Aberdare, and I say that the result of that policy would be for that period, be it long or be it short, to keep in existence every one of those houses which are considered undesirable, and which can be done away with under the provisions of the Bill before the House. I say that the policy would stereotype for the whole of that period the existence of those houses. The noble Earl said the non-paying houses would be got rid of, but the noble Earl seemed to think those houses are not disappearing now. They are, however, disappearing every year, and I do not believe for a moment the passing of this Bill will make any difference in the continuance of these houses. They will be the very first houses that the magistrates will recommend quarter sessions to abolish because they will not be worth anything. They will say, "Here is a house doing no business whatever. It will cost you nothing to buy it out, therefore let it be the very first to try an experiment on," and these houses will disappear in a wholesale manner throughout the country. The noble Earl made a great point of the monopoly which the State has alienated. I deplore quite as much as the noble Earl that that monopoly has been alienated by the State, but it has been done. Large sums of money have changed hands on the part of very innocent persons and not only on the part of those who have made large sums of money out of the liquor traffic. Large sums have passed owing to the State having alienated that monopoly, and I ask, are your Lordships going to say the State is to resume possession of that monopoly without giving compensation to those who have so invested their money? I think we are rather confusing two subjects in the way we are dealing with the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. There is first the expectancy of the renewal of licences, and, secondly, the resumption by the State of the monopoly value which it has

  911
  alienated. The Bill of the Government does not pretend to deal with the question of the resumption of the monopoly value. The Amendment does. But what the Government proposes is to deal with the question of the expectancy of renewal which is entertained by every licence-holder in the country. It may not be a well-founded expectation, but at any rate it has existed for a very large number of years, and the Government propose to take away that expectancy of renewal from the licence-holder by the process of making him insure against its loss.
  I heard the noble Marquess opposite, I think, say that there was ample reserve funds in the hands of the trade to provide for insurance after the fourteen years, and during the ensuing seven years in which they are to be secured by the most rev. Primate. Well, my Lords, but what are the burdens in connection with the extinction of licences which are being put upon this trade? In the first place, they were told in 1890 by Mr. Goschen that an additional tax must be placed upon whiskey in order that licences might be expropriated. That tax was duly put on, but no licences were expropriated and the trade up to this moment has continued to pay that tax, although no licences have been expropriated. Then they are told to, and I believe they do, insure against the risk, which is not altered by the Bill, of forfeiture owing to misconduct. Then, thirdly, they are to make the provision required by the Bill, and now the most rev. Primate says in addition to that they must set by during the short period of seven years a sum sufficient to compensate them for that which the State will take away without any compensation at the end of the third seven years. After fourteen years they will have to set apart another sinking fund which is to provide for the extinction of their monopoly value. But the most rev. Primate says: Yes, but what a golden harvest they will make during these seven years! I ask, is it in the interest of the State that they should make this golden harvest? It will mean that for seven years they cannot lose their licences even on compensation. It will mean that they must push their opportunity to the utmost they possibly can in order that they may recoup the amount of money they are
  912
  to lose under the proposals of the most rev. Primate. All I can say is that, in my opinion, every part of the value of the licence-holder's property—and I am not afraid to use the word property—that was not fully compensated for during those seven years would be so much property confiscated. Why do we want this time limit? Under the Bill the extinction of licences will go on continuously, and I believe by the time fourteen years have expired, and perhaps earlier, there will not be more licences in existence—and they will be carried on in well conducted, convenient houses—than are required for the interest of the population of this country; but if there be, the compensation fund will continue, the remaining houses as they become more valuable will have to pay more towards that fund and so house after house, wherever one is not required, can be extinguished under the Bill.
  My Lords, after all this is a new departure. It is an experiment. The noble Marquess opposite said he did not wish to have his hands tied. My Lords, His Majesty's Government do not wish to tie the hands of this country. Why should we look ahead for twenty-one years? There is nothing in the world at the end of seven or fourteen years to prevent the most rev. Primate coming forward and making the proposal he makes to-night, and we shall have the advantage at the end of that time of all the experience of the extent to which licences will have been extinguished by this Bill. So your Lordships will be better advised, instead of tying your hands for twenty-one years from this year 1904, to allow the Bill to pass in the condition in which it now is, and to give an opportunity to Parliament, and possibly to noble Lords opposite or their friends at the end of fourteen years, of bringing in another measure, even for confiscation, if they can persuade the people of this country to accept such a measure.
  VISCOUNT PEELsaid he had come down to the House in the fullest hope that even at this eleventh hour on the debate on that great question it might have been possible for a compromise to be arrived at—a reasonable settlement which would appeal not to heated partisan feeling, but to the general sense

  913
  of fairness and justice of the country. The most rev. Primate came forward with a suggestion, which he himself, holding the views that he did, found very difficult to accept. He said for the sake of peace and for the sake of looking forward to a period when we would get rid of compensation by the State and of this monopoly enjoyed by individuals, let us have a period of fourteen years during which there will be a halycon period of security. But that was not all. After that halcyon period had expired there was to be a seven years supplementary period of lease during which the whole profits of their trade, which he thought would be very considerable, would go into the pockets of the licence-holders. That seemed to be a very large concession to make. The Amendment, he understood, even proposed to bring within its scope the ante-1869 beer-houses, thus giving them a most liberal system of compensation. He hoped he should not seem extreme when he said that he regarded these beerhouses as absolutely unentitled to any consideration of compensation whatsoever. It was by a mere chance that they ever got into the privileged position they occupied, and more than that, in the year 1882 when it was the brewers' interest to get rid of competition, they joined with other parties in sweeping out of existence without an atom of compensation, a great number of off-licences, which had just as much right, if any right existed, as the on-licences had. Was the consideration of the House to be extended to these 1882 beerhouses which were swept away? But extreme as he thought the concession of the most rev. Primate to be, he for one was ready to accept it because he regarded it as a way out of the difficulty. He had never presumed to think that the Government would not accept such a compromise, which they could easily have made acceptable in the other House if they chose, and which they were told that night on high authortiy had been accepted by some of the best, the most respectable, and the leading members of the trade itself. If their Lordships, by the division that night, rejected this most liberal and extreme compromise which had been offered to the trade, he very much doubted whether they would be able to persuade
  914
  the country ever to make such a liberal offer again. He regretted it.
  He was proud to hear the noble Earl Lord Rosebery say that he was against any money compensation. He was very proud to hear that, because that had always been his own view from the first, and he had expressed it in his Report. He held that there should be a time notice issued to the trade, and that for an unexpired period of that notice commutation should be allowed, because the licences would be taken away from the trade at an earlier period. Those left for the period of years would have the full enjoyment of the period, and they would have exhausted any right they had. A seven years period, he admitted, might be too short. Let them make it fourteen, but do let them at the end of it see some chance of getting rid of this present state of things in regard to which the Government themselves had held out a hope and a promise that it might come to an end by their system of the seven years licence, which they themselves had advocated Whether he period was seven years or ten or even fourteen, they would at the end of it see some chance of getting rid of the present state of things. If they could only get some hope of an end of the present state of things he would accept almost anything, but if hese terms were not accepted then, speaking for himself, he should feel at liberty to adhere to his own plan of a notice of seven years for England and five years for Scotland. But let them make it more than that if they liked, rather than go on perpetuating this trade, perpetuating the vested interest, tying up the hands of posterity for all time, and continuing a state of things which, in its present conditon, was absolutely intolerable to the country at large.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPONsaid he ventured for a few moments to intervene and to express what appeared to him a just and reasonable view of the present proposal before their Lordships. He had been one of those who had never been able to share the strong and, perhaps he might be forgiven if he said the fanatical, opposition to every conceivable idea of compensation. In his judgment, it might be perfectly true law that the members of this trade were not entitled

  915
  to any compensation, but on the other hand, it did seem to him that it would be a very ungenerous and unworthy attitude on the part of any of these entrusted with the legislation of the country to take up the position that, when they had allowed certain interests to grow up they would s and on legal rights and not on equitable considerations.
  But he had another reason, which he ventured with all humility to put before their Lordships and to ask them to consider. There was no moment of a man' life in which he ought to act with greater consideration for others than the moment when he was assured that he had embarked on an enterprise for good, because (and this is almost always the dark shadow which waits on the enthusiasms of men) they are tempted, in their earnestness to abolish a great abuse, to forget the just steps by which alone that abuse can be vitally remedied. The history of the past was instinct with examples to remind them that the policy of achieving good at the expense of a little evil had almost always reacted on the progress of good. While he found himself, as he believed the majority of the Members on both sides of that House found themselves, earnestly desirous to put an end to a state of things which contributed to the misery, poverty, and degeneration of this country, then, because conscious of a real enthusiasm to do something to put an end to that state of things, he was the more apprehensive and the more anxious to ask himself whether the method which seemed to be right would transgress by one iota the interest of others.
  He could not see one iota of injustice in the method which had been proposed by the most rev. Primate. It was in the nature of a twenty-one years notice given to the trade. Did it do any injustice collectively to the trade? He thought not. The whole trade collectively would have the advantage of trading for twenty-one years with this advantage given into their hands that the last seven years, were to be seven years of uninterrupted progress. They would be the seven not lean, but fat years of their licences. If the value of the licence was diminished as a saleable commodity as the twenty-one years came to a close, was the value of the trade diminished during those
  916
  twenty-one years? Was it not the fact that those who were the survivors would be in a position in which they were making considerably more profit than would otherwise be the case? and therefore it seemed to him that collectively the position of the trade would be one in which there was not one iota of injustice. Was the Amendment unjust to the individual? It was urged that it was the survivor who would be the unfortunate person, but, in his opinion, the wise and far-seeing business man would elect to take advantage of the seven fat years rather than accept compensation at the end of fourteen years. If he thought for one instant that by carrying this measure they would inflict an injustice on the individual, he would rather postpone it for ten years. But he did not believe that. He had been strongly apprehensive of the danger of a time limit until he had been shown there was to be no interference, because the prolongation of opportunity was an abundant opportunity for the man who did not receive compensation at an earlier period. For that reason he hoped some modus vivendi might be found by which the principle of this Amendment would be accepted and passed by their Lordships.
  THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid that on the Second Reading of the Bill he had ventured to say that while he saw many elements of good in the Bill and many elements which he considered a step in the direction of temperance reform, at the same time there were shortcomings, which he would have liked to see filled up, and it was because he thought to a large measure this Amendment did supply these deficiencies that he was inclined to vote for it on the division. It seemed to him that the difference between the Government and those who were in favour of this Amendment was that they were satisfied with a general reduction of licences, rapid perhaps or slow, while those in favour of the Amendment were anxious to get rid of the present system altogether. The chief argument against the Amendment had been the one put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, who said that if it was unfair and unjust to take away a licence without giving compensation to-day, it was equally unjust to take away a licence without

  917
  giving compensation to-morrow or seven or fourteen years hence. With that he entirely agreed, but were they in the Amendment going to take away the licence without giving compensation?
  There were two ways in which compensation could be given, either in money as under this Bill, or in time as had been suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery. He undoubtedly agreed with him in preferring that principle to the principle laid down in the Bill, but at the same time this Amendment seemed to be a mixture of the two systems, and in his opinion it lacked the faults of both of them, because, as had been so well pointed out by Lord Onslow, the main objection to a system of compensation by time was that during that period you could not refuse licences. While that period is going on you stereotype and fix all existing licences, but it seemed to him that with the Amendment of the most rev. Primate the licences would be refused with compensation under the principle of the Bill, and then at the end of the time, seven years would be given in which licences would survive, and at the end of that time all existing licences would lapse. What, then, would be the position of the noble Marquess who spoke against the Amendment on behalf of the Government? What would be the position of the man who survived, and who would have held his licence for fourteen years and have paid his insurance? He would then have his licence fixed for seven years, and as had been pointed out by several speakers the value of his licensed house would be very much greater than it was to-day, and with all deference to Lord Cross, who said that if you reduce licences you will also reduce the drink, he thought it would be admitted that the proportion between the reduction of licences and of drink was not so great as to prevent the value of the remaining licences going up considerably. In the case of the man who held his licence for twenty-one years, in all probability his licence would be renewed on a new system which would reserve the monopoly value to the State. It was true the business of that man after the twenty-one years would not be so valuable as it was to-day, but was it not because they held his business was too precious to him and
  918
  too costly to the State that they wished to see this Amendment carried out? His licence would be renewed to him, but on different terms.
  He seemed to see two drawbacks to this Amendment. One was that it was useless to put an end to the existing system unless they had something to put in its place, and it seemed to him that the system in Clause 4 was not sufficiently defined to give a satisfactory alternative to the present system. Therefore he confessed that he would like to see the whole question treated in another Bill, where a very definite system would be introduced to take the place of the present one at the end of fourteen years; but not only that, he felt there was no very definite provision in the Amendment of the most rev. Primate for securing that the licences should all terminate at the end of twenty-one years. They might or they might not. He would, on the whole, prefer to see the whole question settled in another Bill which would bring all licences under the present system to an end in a definite period and establish another system in its place.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I suppose the debate on this important question is not likely to last very much longer, and I shall not prolong it to any extent, but I should like, as I feel very strongly on the subject, to address to your Lordships a few words on what has passed during the discussion of the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. My Lords, I confess I am deeply disappointed at the result of the debate. I am not disappointed at the arguments which have been used by the most rev. Primate and others, because I think they have been couched in the most moderate terms, in the most clear terms, and in the most able terms. But I confess I am disappointed at the speeches we have heard from the Front Bench opposite. My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Marquess and I should conceive that he was a most moderate man in his opinions and ready to consider a broad view of any question, and not the immediate view, but the view which would have effect in the future. Well, my Lords, I am afraid I have been disappointed with his speech. The noble

  919
  Marquess has really spoken as almost the absolute advocate of what I called in my speech the school of complete property. He has entirely neglected what I conceive to be a very prominent condition in this matter, and that is the legal position in which all these licence-holders are. They hold this monopoly of enormous value from the State on a basis which is not that of complete property. We have had it over and over again from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and others that this licence which is given to them by the State is only held for one year. But, as I said the other day, property of enormous value has been put into the hands of the brewing interest. Well, my Lords, they must have known that this property was not an absolute property; they must have known that it was a property held under certain conditions.
  There are other points of the noble Marquess's speech which I feel rather strongly about. There is a question of what would happen at the end of this period which the most rev. Primate gives us. I do not see that at the end of the period the question of giving power to the magistrates is to be considered unless there is an absolute right to some compensation—I mean a right to some money value for their position. There would be many people, quite fair and unprejudiced persons, who might be on the bench. The noble Marquess the other day, to whom I am quite sure I should be quite ready to trust any interest I have judicially, I think pointed to the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, and said, that if there had been a bench over which the noble Viscount was presiding, do you think that people would like to appeal to him? There is a class of people in this country who never believe that anybody can take action or give a decision independent of private motive. I always rebel against that. When I find the noble Marquess saying that the noble Viscount could not be trusted in a matter of this sort I am surprised, and I protest against it, because I think it is a very unjust view to take, and because I am sure of the high impartiality of the noble Viscount. Whatever he has said on the subject, were he sitting judicially on this question I am sure everybody could have complete confidence in him.
  920
  In regard to other matters the noble Marquess said that the proposal of the most rev. Primate amounted to pillage. I am surprised at such a doctrine as that, and if such violent views as that are taken, and when I see an absence of fair feeling and moderation on the subject, I feel in despair of appealing to your Lordships' House to bring this question to a satisfactory conclusion. I feel the greatest possible interest in this question. I know what enormous feeling there is in the country about it. I believe that the view we and the most rev. Primate take is perfectly fair and just towards the brewers and the brewing interest, and yet this proposition is scouted by the noble Marquess and the Government and no consideration whatever given to it. I am in despair when I consider such a view has been taken on this great subject. I lament it extremely, and I look with immense horror, if I may use such a word, as to what is likely to happen in the future in connection with this subject. I do not know if the noble Marquess and the Government understand what a deep feeling there is on this subject of licensing and temperance reform in the country. There is the deepest desire to take Some broad step to minimise this evil. The noble Marquess himself thinks that also but taking this Bill, which gives an enormous gift in perpetuity to the brewing interest, I maintain that it will not do anything to settle this great question. It will only add to the difficulties in the future, and in the future we shall have a greater agitation on this subject and greater difficulty than ever. I quite admit, and I bow to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that we shall have to deal with it. He gives us a long life and he tells us that fourteen years hence we may be dealing with it. It is very kind of him to give us such a long life, and it is quite possible some of us on this side may be alive then and in office then, though I do not think I shall be. I express my deep regret at the tone and turn given to this debate, and I deplore that the Government cannot hold out some hope of a compromise on this great subject, which would bring it to an end.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I believe

  921
  I am expressing my own feelings and those of my friends when I say that nothing would have given us greater satisfaction than to have found it consistent with our convictions to go into the same lobby with the most rev. Primate. In the first place it would be agreeable to us to act with one who throughout these discussions has approached the subject in such an admirable spirit of fairness and moderation, and, if I may be allowed to add, speaking for myself, I would say this, that I should have been glad to join with him in an attempt to resume for the public that great heritage of which he spoke and to support, if it were possible to do so, some reasonable scheme for extinguishing the monopoly value of these licences. I regard it as an unhealthy excrescence for the existence of which we are ourselves responsible, and if the most rev. Primate had been able to show us some way of getting rid of the monopoly value by a scheme fair to the persons concerned in this trade, and also not unduly onerous to those out of whose pockets the necessary compensation would have been derived, I should have been the first to recognise the value of the most rev. Primate's service. But I am constrained to say that I do not believe the proposal he has laid before your Lordships' House can be described in any such language.
  The noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery, supported the most rev. Primate's Amendment, but he laid before your Lordships a plan of his own and it was not by any means the plan of the most rev. Primate. It was a plan different from the proposals of the most rev. Primate on the one hand and I need not say different from the Bill of His Majesty's Government. My noble friend Lord Lytton put the case very clearly when he said that you can provide the necessary compensation for getting rid of the monopoly value either in time or in money. The noble Earl's proposal was that compensation should be offered in time, but, my Lords, is it not clear that if compensation in that shape is to be given it carries with it as an essential idea the idea of immunity whilst the time limit is running? The Government Bill, on the contrary, is based on an idea essentially of a different description. The essential principle in our Bill is that
  922
  we should obtain out of the pockets of the trade itself the means of putting an end to those licences which can be shown to be redundant, and it seems to me absolutely impossible to graft the scheme of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches on the scheme of the Government Bill.
  Well, my Lords, one word as to the proposal of the most rev. Primate. He has explained to the House that it is his great desire to afford to those who will be dispossessed of their licences an equitable and adequate measure of compensation. Now, my Lords, what is the measure of compensation which the most rev. Primate offers? He proposes that there shall be a total time limit of twenty-one years, and the noble Earl on the Cross Benches dwelt on the length of that period, comparing it with the nineteen years for which a Scotch agricultural lease runs. My Lords, analogies are always rather dangerous things, and I am not sure that agricultural analogies are not especially dangerous, although I used one myself the other night. But has not the noble Earl considered that the position of the Scotch tenant at the beginning of the nineteen years lease is not quite the same as the position of the present holder of a licence? I am under the impression that the Scotch tenant comes in with an absolutely clean slate. He may be an outsider. He takes the farm, and during the nineteen years he makes what he can out of it; but the licence-holder with whom we are dealing is a person who has already got the licence and who is entitled to expect that he will continue to possess it if he conducts himself properly.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Was he born with a licence?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No certainly not, but he has held his licence for a period of years during which he has had a reasonable expectation of having that licence renewed.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think the noble Marquess forgets that there must be a beginning for a licence as there is for a lease.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think that argument will hold

  923
  water. I wish to compare the position of the Scotch tenant, whom the noble Earl cited, at the beginning of his nineteen years lease and that of the licensee with whom we have to deal, and I maintain that the position of the two men is wholly different. I come back to the proposal of the most rev. Primate. His period of twenty-one years is divided into two parts. There is in the first place a period of fourteen years during which the licensee will continue to pay the insurance which can be levied from him under this Bill. During these fourteen years you are giving the licensee nothing; you are, to use a familiar expression, giving the dog a bite off his own tail, and so far as those fourteen years are concerned you cannot I claim that you are compensating the persons concerned. Then comes the final period of seven years—those seven years which the most rev. Primate describes a the halcyon years. I confess I do not see in the position of the licensee in those seven years anything so particularly attractive. We tell him, so it is suggested, that he is to push his trade for all it is worth, and reap a golden harvest, and I suppose in that short period of time to accumulate savings sufficient to indemnify him against the misfortunes which impend upon him. But at the end of the seven years comes "the blind Fury with the abhorred shears," and the poor man's life becomes of the most precarious description. I cannot honestly say that either in the fourteen years or the seven years is really to be found that amount of full and equitable compensation which I understand most Members of your Lordships' House desire to be provided for those whose business prospects are to be threatened.
  But, my Lords, look at it from I another point of view. What does the public get under this arrangement of the most rev. Primate? Why, my Lords, the most rev. Primate and many other advocates of temperance look forward to a moment when it will be possible to deal in a much more enterprising fashion with the great question of temperance and with
  the question of monopoly value. But, under the proposal of the most rev. Primate that moment is to be put off for no less than twenty-one years, the life of a man, as the noble Lord on the Cross Benches said. It is that proposal that is recommended to us by noble Lords who beg and implore us that we should do nothing to tie the hands of our successors How can we tie the hands of our successors more effectually than by setting up this period of twenty-one years, during which nothing can be done? I am constrained to say that while my inclination is to admire anything that is proposed to us by the most rev. Primate, I can see in the recommendation he has made to us nothing, except what is. foreign to the purpose of our Bill, unjust, to the licensees, and likely, I fear, to oppose a considerable obstacle to future measures of reform.
  *EARL GREYsaid he had heard with the greatest possible satisfaction the unqualified expressions of opinions from the noble Marquess, the Lord Privy Seal, and the noble Marquess who had just addressed the House on the question of monopolies. The former regarded monopoly as outrageous and the latter spoke of it as an unhealthy excrescence. On the discussion of the next clause it would be easy for him to point out that under the Bill in its present form the Government were giving a new monopoly to the holders of existing licences, and as he had never attached much importance to the time limit provided the compensation to existing licences was limited to their value at the time of the passing of the Act, he would vote with the Government against the Amendment of the most rev. Primate in the belief that the noble Marquess, the Lord Privy Seal, and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, would be faithful in the discussions which would take place on Clause 2 to the declarations they had made against monopolies.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 126.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Camperdown, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Carlisle, E.

  Lytton, E.

  Ripon, M.

  Carrington, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Beauchamp, E. [Teller]

  Crewe, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine)

  Temple, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Farrer, L.

  Cobham, V.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  St. David's L. Bp.

  Monkswell, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Peel, V.

  Armstrong, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery)

  Biddulph, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Brassey, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Braye, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Burghclere, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Coleridge, L. [Teller]

  Sudley, L.(E. Arran)

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  Davey, L.

  Welby, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Denman, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E (L. Chancellor)

  Lathom, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)(L. President)

  Londesborough, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal)

  Mayo, E.

  Estcourt, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow)

  Argyll, D.

  Onslow, E.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Grafton, D.

  Powis, E.

  Forester, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Glanusk, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Selborne, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Harris, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Hylton, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Westmeath, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Bath, M.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Killanin, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Yarborough, E.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll)

  Camden, M.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller]

  Lawrence, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Lindley, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Cross, V.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Halifax, V.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly)

  Winchester, M.

  Hood, V.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham)

  Zetland, M.

  Hutchinson, V.(E Donoughmore)

  Montagu of Beaulieu, T,

  Knutsford, V.

  Newton, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Landaff, L. Bp.

  Raglan, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain)

  Rathmore, L.

  Bathursd, E.

  Addington, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Alington, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Rossmore, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Derby, E.

  Belper, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry)

  Bolton, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton)

  Suffield, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Burnham, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Burton, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss)

  Grey, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Howe, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Clause 2—
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid that the object of his Amendment was that there should be no doubt as to the valuation that should be put on these premises.
  926
  Their Lordships had been discussing the question of valuation, and they must remember that these licence-holders paid death duties, and what was wanted was that the valuation for compensation should be on the same principle as it was assessed

  927
  on in the case of the death duties. He was told that the words were covered by what was in the Bill. That was so far satisfactory, but he was very anxious that there should be no possible doubt. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words, 'value of the licensed premises,' and insert the words, 'market value of the premises as licensed premises.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BELPER: I am informed that these alterations in the words are not necessary and that the object of the noble Lord is protected by the Finance Act. Practically the meaning of value is the same as that which he has given.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid this was a very important confession that was made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. If he understood the Amendment aright the value which would be called into existence was the value which the brewers owning the tied houses had in the supplying of beer to these houses.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that is quite wrong.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: Perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will explain what it does mean?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The only point, as I understand it, is to put in market value instead of value. These words mean the same thing, and there is really no reason for the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid the noble Lord had stated the object he had in view. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he had put down his Amendment, which was a somewhat long one, in order to raise essentially the question of the basis of calculating the value for compensation. He believed when the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, they were told that the value was to be the value before the passing of the Act, and before the
  928
  accumulation of value through the diminution of other licences. But the words had been changed in the course of passing the Bill through the Commons. They had a pathetic appeal, coupled with an attempt to compromise two members of the Government, just before the last division from the noble Earl below the Gangway, and he seemed to think he had got by his own construction of utterances by two members of the Government that this value was to be the value, not hereafter, but at the time of the passing of the Act. He did not believe for one minute that that was the operation of the clause as drawn, but he did want very clearly to secure that the value upon which compensation should be paid should not be the enhanced value, but the value before the licences were increased in value by the operation of the Bill. He thought the proposal in the Bill to measure value by death duties was an extremely delusive and wrong basis. It had been admitted that between 80 and 90 per cent. of these licensed houses were tied houses, the property of the great brewery companies. A limited company did not die, and, therefore, their interest in the licence never came to be valued for the death duties. If the magistrates cancelled or refused to renew a licence for a house in any town or populous district belonging to one of these companies what would be the effect? The brewery company would come and say that this particular public-house should be valued for what it was worth as if the owner had died. He was told that the usual thing in a town or populous district was for these brewery trusts or companies to get nearly all the public-houses in the place, and in one town they would find only two or three powerful companies. It was quite clear that, if in a town like Carlisle or Wigan, or any of those populous towns, they were to suppress two of these licences, the trust would be none the worse off, because the benefit to the remaining houses would go to the trust. But they would be compensating the brewery company on the basis that the licence had been sold in the open market. But it would never be valued because there would be no death at which the value could be calculated.
  Let them consider the case of a good sized village where there were two public-houses. Did anyone doubt that if one was

  929
  closed the other one would get practically the great bulk of the business of the village? Therefore, they wanted a system of valuation which would record the value at the time of the passing of this Act, and before any additional profit could accrue. He believed that in London, to some extent, the rateable value of licensed houses had been brought into some reasonable relation to their real value, but he was told that in the great mass of the country that had been very much evaded and that the public-houses were, in fact, rated at nothing like what they ought to be in relation to what the yearly tenant would pay. They were told that the arrangements for tied houses were very various. Sometimes they would be let at a high rent. More often the rent was not high, but the profit was made by compelling the publican, who might be a three months man, or a man who gave a blank transfer to the company, a mere man of straw, to buy all sorts of things at a very exorbitant price. One of the objects, he had no doubt, was to defraud the ratepayers by having the house appearing at a fictitious and low rate. In many cases the brewing companies and others had taken care to have the rateable value very much lower than the real value, and he had thought it would not be quite fair to take advantage of their dishonesty and permanently fix the compensation at the value they had put in as their yearly value, and the latter part of the Amendment was to open the door if they challenged the rateable value to enable them to come forward and say what the real value was. The Court of quarter sessions would sit in judgment and determine what the true value was, and that would be taken as true value for compensation. His object was to fix clearly that the basis of compensation should be the value at the time when this Act was passed and not the value when subsequent advantages had accrued. It was obviously quite impossible after a few years to say what was the value of a public-house at the time when the Act was passed. But if they took the value once and for all and recorded it there was no going back on it. That, he thought, had been recommended by the Majority Report of Lord Peel's Commission as well as by the minority of the Commission.
  930
  To come to the next part of his Amendment, he considered that as a basis of compensation ten years purchase of the difference between the licensed value and the non-licensed value of the house was ample value on which to award compensation for a precarious interest. As the property had been held in the past, it could be forfeited for misconduct or at the discretion of the magistrates, and he thought the ten years purchase was an ample amount to allow as a maximum, but he did not think it necessarily followed that every house to be extinguished should get that maximum, He held that there were many houses where the magistrates shrank from enforcing the strict letter of the law and forfeiting a licence for bad management, but where nevertheless there was such substantial bad management that the house was not by any means entitled to the full measure of compensation to be given to the well managed, well built, and well placed house suitable to the trade. He thought the magistrates dealing with this question were eminently fitted to judge as to the quality of the house and how much should be abated from the compensation on account of what he called the dubious and suspicious character of the house. There was the thing called the "long pull," which he dared say some Members of the House knew better than he did, and there might be the supplying of drink to a constable on duty and also keeping open after legal hours. In fact, there were a great many things which might be enforced for a ground for refusing a licence, but which the magistrates were inclined to treat leniently and to pass over with a caution. It was quite obvious that these dubious houses which were continuously at the edge of the law and sometimes overstepping it, ought to have these facts taken into consideration in connection with the measure of compensation to be awarded.
  Under the Bill the two questions of compensation and of the character of the House would be absolutely separated. The brewster magistrates would not be able to bring these two things before the same tribunal. Therefore they had not the same simple, easy, and familiar way of dealing with these things as before when the whole matter

  931
  was in the discretion of the magistrates. Under this Bill the facts laid before the Court of quarter sessions and the Committee of quarter sessions would be different in the two different cases. He therefore felt very strongly that the other part of his Amendment was of importance, namely, that there should be power to vary compensation according to the judgment of the Court. He thought that most noble Lords would feel that these country gentlemen who had been accustomed to serve their county for a long time were fair-minded men bringing an adequate legal mind with common sense and fair play to the consideration of these cases, and that they were well able ao assess compensation. [Cries of "Divide."] He was sorry to detain their Lordships, but the measure of compensation was one of the most important parts of the Bill. He had a copy of the Bill marked as it passed through the House of Commons, and he saw that the whole of this Section II. which they were now discussing passed under the closure both in Committee and on Report, while important Amendments brought in by the Government which were not in the original Bill had never been discussed at all.
  The next point in his Amendment was the apportionment of the compensation as finally awarded. He did not say that was so necessary a part of his Amendment as the others. He proposed that the authority in determining the compensation should also determine among the various interests involved how the money should be distributed. Later in the Bill there was a clause that a tenant should at any rate be compensated as if he was a yearly tenant, however short his tenure. There was another Amendment on the Paper to compensate the employees, but he did not attach the same importance to that He had tried to be as brief as possible consistent with explaining the object of his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 5, to leave out from the second word 'the' to the end of the subsection, and insert the words 'rateable value of the licensed premises and the rateable value the same premises would bear if not licensed at the time of the passing of this Act, capitalised at such sum not exceeding ten years purchase
  932
  of such excess value as the Court of quarter sessions or their committee, or in a county borough the licensing authority, shall think reasonable to be distributed between the licensed holder and other persons interested in the licence as the licensing authority shall think equitable. Provided that if a person interested in licensed premises is dissatisfied with such rateable value as giving a true measure of the yearly value of the licensed premises, he may within three months of the passing of this Act declare what in his opinion was the true annual value before the passing of this Act of the said licensed premises, and the quarter sessions or their committee, or in a county borough the licensing authority, shall consider and determine what was the true annual value, and the value so determined shall be the value on the basis of which compensation shall be awarded.'"
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid this Amendment dealt with two matters.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid if the whole of the noble Lord's Amendment were put it would cut out the whole of the noble Earl's. If the value of the premises were struck out the way was left clear for other Amendments.
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid he was going to suggest that the question of capitalisation of value was a separate and independent matter which might form part of another Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the House would see that if the whole of the sub-section was to stand part the next Amendment would be cut out.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must take the Amendment as I find it. I have no complaint to make of the noble Earl for having explained his Amendment at some length, but I confess I do rather deprecate the kind of general charge of dishonesty which the noble Lord thought it right to make against a 1arge number of persons engaged in a perfectly legitimate trade. I am sure he does not mean that everybody engaged in the liquor trade is dishonest.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid what he stated was that where premises were rated at a very much lower rate than the real rateable value it was dishonest.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The laws of this country provide a remedy

  933
  for low rating, and it is the business of the overseers and officials at quarter sessions to see that property is rated at its full value, and to accuse a perfectly honest trade of dishonesty because the noble Lord thinks their property is in some cases rated too low is using language which I think he would hardly justify if he thought of it afterwards. The noble Lord has deprecated the method which we propose for assessing this compensation, and says the method of applying to the Inland Revenue is wrong. I think he misunderstands the provisions of the Bill when he says the Inland Revenue would never have to rate these particular houses because, belonging to a company, they were never subject to death duties. Sub-section 2 of Clause 2 says the amount
  "shall be determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the same manner, and subject to the like appeal to the High Court as on the valuation of an estate for the purpose of estate duty."
  That is to say, they shall proceed on the same methods as when they have to value an estate when subject to death duties. That is all the clause says, and it appears a perfectly reasonable and straightforward proposition. Many things have been said about quarter sessions in these debates, and I observe the Inland Revenue now does not escape censure, but I think he would be a rash man who would lay it down that the highest Courts of the realm were really not competent to form an estimate of the value of licensed premises upon the basis of taking the value licensed and the value unlicensed. I think even the censorious mind of the noble Lord opposite will admit that the High Court is competent for such work, and I think it is preferable to rateable value, which is an annual thing. The basis which we propose is the capital value of the difference between the value of the house when licensed and when not licensed. As the compensation is to be a capital sum, it seems much more reasonable to estimate it on a capital value than to take rateable value, which is an annual sum, and necessitates your going one step further and then determining how many years purchase would be fair. That seems to be a very roundabout way of getting at capital value. I should, of course, deprecate ten years as a proper
  934
  figure. It is hardly necessary for me to argue it. I do not wish the House to approve of rateable value at all, but in order to deal as respectfully as I can with the remarks of the noble Lord, I might just say that I do not think ten years purchase does represent the capital value which under the proposals of the Bill we are bound to pay in compensation to the licence-holder. The Government prefer the Inland Revenue and the method of the death duties rather than the rateable value which is proposed by the noble Lord.
  The next and most important part of the Amendment is the proposal to stereotype the basis upon which to calculate compensation. The noble Lord proposes to stereotype it and take the value of the licensed house at the present moment and not the value of the licensed house when the licence is suppressed. I do not think that is an appropriate way to proceed when your Lordships reflect that the principle on which the provisions of this Bill are drawn is that a system of compulsory insurance should be set up. That is what our proposal amounts to. Compulsory insurance of course implies that the value of what a man loses should be insured to him, and the value of what he loses is the difference between the value it will be at the moment when the public - house is suppressed and the value it was the moment before, and that represents what he loses, what he compulsorily insured for, and what he ought to receive. I believe that what the noble Lord thinks is that under the Government proposal the liquor interest and the landlord might get too much money—that if the difference between the rateable value before the Act was passed and the then rateable value were taken the licensee would receive less than he would under the provisions of the Bill. That does not follow, because the change might be just the other way, and it might happen, and equally well, that instead of the licensed house increasing in value it would diminish in value and that under the proposals of the noble Lord the licensee and the interests connected with the licence would receive positively more by his proposal than under that of the Government. That, again, I think the noble Lord has not contemplated, I and yet it is the necessary consequence

  935
  of his Amendment, and indeed I think he I gave an instance which told against himself. He said supposing the house is ill-conducted, but if that happens the compensation will greatly diminish under our proposal, because, when the time comes to calculate, it will be found that the house is an ill-conducted house, and therefore does not carry with it so much value as it formerly did, but under the noble Lord's proposal everything will have to be dated back to the time the Bill passes, when it was a well-conducted house, and therefore he will make it necessary for the compensation to be on the higher scale, as if it were a well-conducted house, whereas under our proposal the compensation would merely fall in proportion, or at any rate to some extent in proportion, to the ill-conduct of the house since the Act was passed, so that, I think, the noble Lord will see that his proposal would defeat his own ends, and for these reasons I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amendment. He seemed to think that any difficulties which his proposal led to would be set right by the proviso at the end of his clause, but that is not so. The proviso, no doubt, is a protection to the liquor trade, but it would not be a protection to the compensating authority if that happened, which I have shown might happen, namely, that, in consequence of the ill-conduct of the house he ought to receive less compensation. On the contrary, nobody is entitled to apply this remedy under the noble Lord's proposal except those who are interested in the licence, and therefore they would not make an application in the case I am supposing, and therefore it would act as no remedy at all. Lastly, he proposed to provide the distribution of the money between the various interests, and I do not, on the face of it, think his proposal differs from the proposals submitted by His Majesty's Government. Therefore, on none of the three grounds can we accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid the noble Marquess did not seem to understand that a house might be ill-conducted for the purpose of profit. He proposed that the maximum compensation should be ten years between the rateable value as licensed and the rateable value as unlicensed, but in order to meet the
  936
  question of misconduct which would not enter into money value he proposed that—
  [The remainder of the noble Lord's remarks were inaudible owing to Members calling out "Divide."]
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid that before it was moved that these words stand part of the Bill he wished to ask how they were going to carry out the proposal as it stood. How could they value what was the value of a thing twenty or thirty years back. Valuation was determined by the value of things which were constantly coming into the market. How was a valuer twenty years hence to say, with any accuracy, what would have been the value of a licence under an existing system of twenty years before.
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think the answer is a very simple one. As the Bill originally stood when introduced in the other House, the clause ran that the compensation was to be fixed as if this Act had not been passed. If it had come up in that form, the criticism of the noble Marquess would have been very well founded, but it has been altered in the direction that appears upon the Paper to-night, and I think it is quite clear that the intention of the Bill is that the conditions shall remain the same during the whole time whenever compensation is paid—that is to say, that when the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are called upon to decide how the compensation should be fixed they have got to consider how the licence would be affected by the conditions which are in existence at the present moment. We all know what those conditions are. The licence is subject to an expectancy of a renewal, although it is not necessary that it should be renewed, and all they have to take into consideration is what is the value of the licence, as if it were liable to be refused on the same grounds on which it can be refused now. I think it will be quite easy for the Inland Revenue to determine the value.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," resolved in the affirmative.
  *EARL GREYmoved to leave out, on page 2, lines 6 and 7, the words "calculated as if the licence were subject to the same conditions of renewal as were applicable." He said he felt so deeply upon this question that he trusted their Lordships, even at that late hour, would give him a patient hearing. The words which he moved to omit were incorporated in the Bill in the House of Commons at a very late stage, he believed they were not in the Bill as amended in Committee, but were only incorporated on the Report stage. The words that the compensation should be as if this Act had not been passed referred in mast people's minds not only to the expectancy of renewal and questions of tenure, but also to the measures of value at the time of the passing of this Act. This question was asked in the House of Commons of the Colonial Secretary. Mr. Whittaker, who he did not think had made any mis-statements of fact, because he knew this question from A to Z, stated in the House of Commons that the on-licences in England and Wales had declined 30 per cent. in proportion to population between the years 1883 and 1903, twenty years, yet the amount of beer sold in the houses that remained averaged 50 per cent. more per house, thus showing that although the number of houses was reduced, the average quantity of liquor consumed had enormously increased. The natural way of assessing a public-house was on the normal amount of business that it did, and it was evident that if the average consumption of beer increased by 50 per cent. in twenty years, although the number of houses had declined by 30 per cent., then the houses were steadily going up in value. His Majesty's Government were asked if they were going to compensate men for the additional monopoly value, which belonged to the State. Mr. Lyttelton, in reply said—
  "The hon. Member says they will get an increased value by reason of the extinction of other licences and he declares that they will be in a position to get better compensation by reason of that. The House should take note of the important clause in the Bill which provides that compensation payable for the extinction of a licence is to be calculated as before the passing of this Act. It should not be forgotten that this moment of time is taken to deal with the principle of compensation, and therefore the undue appreciation which will
  938
  result from the value of the licence feared by Mr. Whittaker seems to me to be unfounded."
  That was not only the view of a distinguished member of the Cabinet but of a distinguished lawyer, and every one was justified in reading into those words that it was not intended to give more than the value of the house at the time of the passing of the Act.
  He had in that House and out of it proclaimed his belief that this was a great temperance measure, because he saw in it a means of securing the certainty that all licences created after the passing of this Bill would be given to trust organisations, who would manage them as a trust for the benefit of the whole community. That proposal was very dear to him, because for the last three years he had given much time to an effort to build up, with the support of the Bishop of Chester and other friends, public - house trust companies in every county of England so that they might have an organisation established which might go before the licensing authorities and say to them that if it were decided to grant new licences they claimed that they should give these new licences, not to a private individual for his personal gain but to a trust organisation, which would, under conditions approved by the licensing authorities, undertake to manage them in the interests of the community at large. It occurred to them who had been doing spade work in this direction—and he believed if it had not been for their work the fourth clause would have been very difficult to administer to-day—that if they could build a ringed fence round the existing licences of England and Wales they were doing no small temperance work. If this Bill had been passed thirty years ago it was his firm conviction that millions of pounds which were now going into the pockets of brewers and distillers would have been appropriated to public purposes. It was because he was so pleased to see the amended words of the fourth clause, that made it absolutely certain that licensing authorities should bring all new licences under the principle of disinterested control, that he said that this Bill, for that reason alone, was a great beneficial measure, but when he saw that the other words in the Bill which were interpreted by Mr. Lyttelton

  939
  to mean that the compensation to be given to the holders of existing licences should be measured by the value that the house enjoyed at a time before the passing of the Act, he said here was a Bill which would not only bring new licences under disinterested management but would provide machinery to enable them to transfer from the trade to the trust existing licences, and so by degrees Gothenburg the entire country. He thought the supporters of the Bill, and he was quite sure the critics of the Bill, had not realised the great advantage which would result from this power. But the value of the provisions of this Bill which would enable quarter sessions to Gothenburg entire districts depended on the amount of compensation to be paid.
  It might be said that in some cases the value of licenses would diminish, and therefore it was desirable that the compensation should be measured by the value of the house at the time of suppression. It might happen, no doubt, that here and there the trade of a house might diminish, but in such few instances they were not justified in paying the slightest regard to them. It was a certainty from which they could not escape that the value of existing houses would steadily increase, and they would be doing the very things they denounced in terms of holy horror unless they arranged the compensation to which a man should be entitled as the value at the time of the passing of the Act, and not at the time of suppression.
  He had told the noble Marquesses on the Government Bench that unless they amended this Bill they would be guilty of the crime of giving to the brewers or owners of the existing public-houses a a monopoly value which they had now in their power to secure to the community. Were they going to secure this monopoly value to the public or not? They could do it without one atom of injustice to anyone. If they were faithful to their own speeches that night they had no option but to accept his Amendment or to introduce an amendment of their own fixing the compensation to which licensed houses should be entitled at present values. He had a
  940
  right to earnestly appeal to His Majesty's Government to meet him if possible on this case. He did not believe that the 4th Clause could work if it were not for the trust companies that his friends had been able to establish all over the country. He begged to move his Amendment, in the earnest hope that the Government would accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words, 'calculated if the licence were subject to the same conditions of renewal as were applicable'"—(Earl Grey.)
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid that all would sympathise with his noble friend's appeal to the Government, although he somewhat weakened his case by his vote on the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. He told the Government if they would not give him a pledge he would feel bound to support the most rev. Primate. He was afraid he did not get the pledge. He hoped the noble Marquess, the Lord Privy Seal, in his reply would clear up the question whether the value of the licence was to be based on the value at the time of the passing of the Act or at the time of the suppression of the licence. In his last speech the noble Marquess seemed to argue rather that the estimate was to be at the time of the suppression of the licence, but the Bill seemed to state at the time of the passing of the Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is quite correct. The Bill as it stands provides that the basis of compensation shall be the difference between the value of the house with a licence and its value without a licence at the time of its suppression. I hope that is clear. With regard to the speech of the noble Earl, he knows very well that we all of us take the greatest interest in has experiment of trust public-houses, and I think that the noble Earl, if I may say so with great respect, ought to be more appreciative of the action of His Majesty's Government in rendering possible a vast extension of his system which it never could have got on its own initiative, and which it would have been quite impossible to get as a private venture without the assistance of an Act of Parliament. I do not decry the value of

  941
  the experiment of the noble Earl. I think he has been very gallant; he has struggled against immense difficulties, and I am surprised at the success which he has achieved. But the Bill we have submitted, the methods of compensation, the powers given to quarter sessions to suppress licences, and the fact that quarter sessions can, if the noble Earl can persuade them, help him, will enable him to push his system in a way in which it could not have been pushed otherwise. I think the noble Earl should not be so capricious and so changeable in his attitude to the Bill as to say that if he cannot have his own way in this instance, his whole attitude towards the Bill will be changed.
  EARL GREY: I only made an appeal to the Government to be faithful to their speeches and not to give monopoly value to those who were not entitled to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The reason for compensation is that these licence-holders have a pecuniary interest in their licences which belongs to them equitably, and for which they are entitled to compensation if it is destroyed. That is the basis upon which we proceed. The natural consequence and conclusion of that premiss would at first sight appear to be that if the State takes away that which equitably belongs to one of His Majesty's subjects the State ought to pay for it; but we do not propose that the State should pay for it. What do we propose? We propose that the trade should pay for it. I can quite conceive a brewer arising in this House and saying, "That is very unfair; here is a Government proposing to take away the rights which belong to a licensee and they do not propose to pay for them out of the resources of the State but out of our pockets." The trade will, of course, get back a certain part of their contribution in the increased trade given to remaining houses, otherwise I think if the noble Earl will look at it justly and fairly he will see that if the trade get the increment which will result from the suppression of a particular house, they will only be treated fairly. Why should they pay for what they lose by the act of the State?
  EARL GREY: They are compensated.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl has not yet seen the point, if I may venture to say to. My noble friend the Leader of the House explained to the House that all you do is to give the dog a bite off his own tail. There is a definite pecuniary value which is taken away from the licensee. Instead of the State paying for its own act, it makes the trade pay. Therefore the State does not pay and the whole burden is thrown on the licensee. The licensee is deprived of what belongs to him, and the State pays nothing for it. That is all thrown on the trade itself. But for the fact that they will get the increased value which results to the remaining houses, I am afraid the brewers would come and say, "You have committed a great injustice," and therefore I am afraid the very basis of the noble Earl's argument breaks down. I always feel when an appeal is made with such evident earnestness to His Majesty's Government that it is not a thing to be brushed aside, and I do not desire to do so. But I think the noble Earl will see if he reflects that in this respect we are following the path of justice, and therefore I do not feel my way clear to accept the proposal. If the noble Earl is able now to persuade us or at a future stage I shall be quite delighted to consider his proposition, but I am afraid I see no prospect at present of His Majesty's Government changing their minds.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he failed to follow the conclusions at which the noble Marquess had arrived. He asked their Lordships to pat aside all the other questions imported into the discussion of this Amendment and just to consider what the Amendment was. If the words which his hon. friend proposed to leave out were omitted, then the compensation to be paid would be the sum equal to the difference between the value of the licensed premises immediately before the passing of this Act and the value which these premises would bear if they ware not licensed premises. The whole point was this, in estimating the compensation were they to take the value at the passing of the Act or the value at the time at which the individual house was abolished?

  943
  Let them suppose there were six public-houses in a village, and two belonged to each of three brewing companies. Three of these were abolished, and then there was paid in compensation a sum equal to the value of these three houses. These houses were compensated and they were gone. The other three houses remained. Did their Lordships imagine that one half of the drink would be stopped? if it was not, it was quite clear that the portion of the drink which did not stop and which he expected would not be far short of a half, would go to the other houses? When the time came at which one of these other houses was to be abolished, the compensation to be paid was the value of the licence at the time it was abolished; that was to say, they took into consideration the traffic which had moved from the other houses, and paid for it over again. All he contended was that they were paving over and over again in virtue of what they had already paid compensation for. He had listened to the noble Marquess with every desire to be convinced, but not one word he said appeared to him to interfere with the Conclusion which seemed to him to speak for itself, and all he could say was that if the compensation was to increase gradually as the houses diminished, he was afraid the rate of abolition would come to be more beautifully and beautifully less until it came down to nothing.
  *THE EARL OF CREWEsaid that the Amendment brought them back to their old friend, "monopoly value." If this value was, in the opinion of the Government, that kind of property which they had over and over again told the House it was they were perfectly logical in refusing to diminish it in any way. At the same time he desired to say that it raised a serious state of things if it was the opinion of the Government that this monopoly value once given away by a foolish act of the State was for ever and ever to remain in the hands of those who possessed it at this moment without the possibility of diminution of any kind.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that although he belonged to one of the few counties in which his noble friend Lord Grey's scheme did not work, yet he was
  944
  glad to hear from the noble Marquess that Lord Grey's proposal was not to be brushed aside. He thought everybody recognised that he and the Bishop of Chester were two hardworking socialists, as his hon. friend behind him said. What did Lord Grey want to do? As he understood the Amendment, it would require an immediate valuation of all licensed premises, and, what would be more important, a return of alcoholic liquors sold. He reminded the Government that this proposal was suggested in Mr. Butcher's Bill last year, and it could not be said that that Bill was hostile to the trade generally. He trusted that the Amendment would receive further consideration at the hands of the Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: What this Bill proposes is that a certain number of persons engaged in the liquor trade should be compelled to insure against the actual loss which they will sustain in the event of their business being taken away from them. What I understand is proposed by my noble friend Lord Grey, and those who have supported him, is that compensation should be paid not for the actual loss sustained by the person whose licence is taken away from him, but that he should be compensated on terms assessed with reference to the value of the premises at the time of the passing of this Act. I cannot help thinking that that is not an arrangement which would work out fairly. Supposing a licence to be taken away from the licensee in the year 1910; it is no compensation to him to be given a sum of money representing the value of that licence in 1904. There may be a wide difference between the two sums. The value of the licence may have risen or fallen. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment, and it seems to me to involve this further difficulty; that if it were adopted it would entail on us the duty of instituting a general valuation of all the licensed premises in the country. That would be an enormous work which would be in great measure superfluous, seeing that only some of the licensed houses would form the subject of compensation.
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid that in the Return moved for by Mr. Cochrane he

  945
  found a complete list of all the public-houses affected by the Bill, with their valuation, and with the amount ascertained which they would be called upon to pay under the Bill. Therefore this enormous work which was to occupy such a vast amount of machinery and take such a very long time had already been done, and appeared in a Paper which he held in his hand. It was obvious that the arguments addressed from that part of the House had hitherto been entirely unanswered. He suggested that if the debate were adjourned the Government might be able to furnish themselves with a better class of arguments in view of the statement that had been made in another place by the Colonial Secretary. If that were done, their Lordships might meet to-morrow at three o'clock instead of half-past four.
  *EARL SPENCER: I really do hope the noble Marquess will consider this. My noble friend who moves this Amend-has a very great claim on the Government, though I am afraid I do not agree with the votes he has already given in support of the Government. This is a matter of such enormous importance and will involve such gigantic sums of money that I do hope the Government will take this Amendment into consideration and not refuse what I think is the exceedingly reasonable request of the noble Earl. Their votes, we know, are overwhelming, but they might postpone the matter if they will consider it on Report. I think we have had only one very trifling concession from the noble Marquess, and he might consider this, and, if possible, hold out some hope of dealing with it in a somewhat more liberal way.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very sorry indeed if my imperfect powers of argument have not made the matter clear to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Coleridge, and to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. I did try to advance an argument which I hoped would have had some weight with the noble Lord. It seems that that has not been the case, and I cannot hope to succeed better by repeating my argument.
  946
  I therefore can only say that I think it would be right for the House to come to a decision. It is quite true the subject is a most difficult one, one of the most difficult in the Bill, and I frankly tell the noble Earl that if he can succeed in convincing His Majesty's Government, we shall be very glad to fall in with the opinion of such a temperance reformer as the noble Earl. The noble Earl's opportunities are not exhausted by this discussion; he can bring up the subject again on the Report stage.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: In order to give the Government an opportunity of consulting with their colleagues in the other House, moved that the House be resumed. He contended that the pledge which had been given by the Colonial Secretary in the House of Commons had not been kept.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I rise to order. Your Lordships are very liberal in matters of this kind, but there is a very great inconvenience in quotations from the other Home of Parliament. I do not know what passed there, and it is no business of your Lordships' House. I do not know under what circumstances this assurance was given, and I must ask your Lordships to agree that this is out of order.
  *EARL SPENCER: I agree that my noble friend is perhaps slightly out of order. If he had simply said he had heard on high authority that a certain statement had been made by one of His Majesty's Ministers he would have been in order. Bnt I think he is perfectly justified in continuing his argument and moving the adjournment.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he would move that the House be resumed and meet again at any time which met the convenience of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. In another place a member of the Government had definitely pledged His Majesty's Ministers that the compensation to be paid should be calculated as before the passing of this measure.
  Moved, "That the House be resumed."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Brassey, L

  Spencer, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Temple, E.

  Elgin, L. (E.Elgin and Kincardine)

  Ripon, M.

  Falmouth, V.

  Farrer, L.

  Beauchamp, E. [Teller]

  Gordon, V.(E. Aberdeen)

  Kinnaird, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly)

  Carlisle, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Carrington, E.

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller]

  London, L. Bp.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Crewe, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Grey, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

  Lytton, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)(L. President)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Salisbury, M.(L. Privy Seal)

  Powis, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Selborne, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Estcourt, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Tankerville, E.

  Forester, L.

  Bath, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Glenesk, L.

  Camden, M.

  Westmeath, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Harris, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Yarborough, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Killanin, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller]

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll)

  Zetland, M.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Hutchinson,V'(E. Donoughmore

  Lawrence, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Stetward)

  Knutsford, V.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Newton, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain)

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Raglan, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Rathmore, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Addington, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Rossmore, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry)

  Armstrong, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Belper, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Burnham, L.

  Windsor, L

  Haddington, E.

  Burton, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Londesborough, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 85.
  clause" their Lordships divided:—Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 38.

  Londesborough, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Harris, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Killanin, L.

  Powis, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Errol)

  Saint Germans, E.

  Belper, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Selborne, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Burnham, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Burton, L,

  Newton, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Clonbrock, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Crawshaw L.

  Rossmore, L.

  Deramore, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller]

  Ellenborough, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Ventry, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Forester, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Glenesk, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Addington, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Temple, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine)

  Ripon, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

  Halifax, V.

  Farrer, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Chester, L Bp.

  Monkswell, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Carrington, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Crewe, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Grey, E. [Teller]

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran) [Teller]

  Kimberley, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Barnard, L.

  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI think it may be convenient if we now adjourn; and as we have still a considerable part of the Bill to consider I suggest we might adjourn until half-past three to-morrow.
  EARL SPENCERassented.
  House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Report of the Select Committee made; to be printed; and to be considered on Tuesday next. (No. 180.)
  House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock to half-past Ten o'clock.