Sitting of 10 June 1904

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER KILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have

  1365
  been complied with, viz.:—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.
  St. Marylebone Electric Lighting Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Swindon Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section B]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Education Board Provisional Order (Swansea) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Marylebone Chapels (St. James, Westmoreland Street) Bill [Lords]; South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Reports to lie upon the Table.
  Bills to be read the third time.
  St Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [Lords], Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Public Accounts Committee. Second Report brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and co be printed. [No. 207.]
  Leyton Urban District Council Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section A]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Stirling and Dunblane, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Barrow in Furness, against to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Old Town; Cragg; Heptonstall; Hebden Bridge; Glasgow; Sheffield (four); Darlington; Salford (two); Batley: Kilmarnock; North Ormesby; Leeds (thirteen); Armley (three); North Cowton; Christ-church; Kelloe; Charlestown; Foleshill; Bolton (two); Macclesfield: Dewsbury; St. Pancras Borough Council; Cheetwood (two); Runcorn; Davenham; Barnton; Northwich (four); Plumbley; Sproston; Goostrey; Church Hulme; Weaverham; Over; Hartford; Comberbach; Winsford (two); Acton; Middlewich; Great Budworth; Bartington; Sandiway; Norley; Pickmere; Wharton Works; Little Budworth; Lostock Graham; Kensal New Town; Paddington (three); Queen's Park; West London (three); Harrow Road; Catherine's Park; Leinster Square; St. John's Wood; North Mundham; Woodbridge; Ventnor; Cubbington; Huntspill; Highbridge; Coulting; Westonzoyland; Bridgwater; Spaxton; Combwich; Middlezoy; Lower Boddington; Crosshill; Woodford Green; Paddock Wood; West Wiltshire; Grenoside; Harbury; Burbage; Lad-dingford; Worsthorne; Haverton Hill; Burnley; Openshaw; Ollerton; Bedminster; Chacombe; Conway; Williamscott; Mobberley; Peterhead; Manchester (two); Perth; Thirsk and Sowerby; Orrell; Mereclough; Clitheroe; Pembroke; Holbeck (two); Bloxham; East Peckham; Stoke Newington; Sapcote; Cheshire; Alderley Edge; Pontefract; Goose Green; Dalston; Leamington (two); Wakefield (three); Cropredy; Knutsford; Alverthorpe; Garaton; Middleton; Festiniog (three); Bradford (two); Withington; Kenilworth; Bath; Perry Barr; Clutton; Beeston Hill; Wortley; Bramley; Putney; Hanley; Bristol (three); Llaintainam; Plymouth Pwllheli; Aberdaron; Snelson; Adderbury; Pentre Halkin; Brenchley;

  1367
  Chiddingstone Hoath; Greenfield; Walthamstow (three); Hedon; Great Bentley; Regent's Park; Buckley; Lowdham; Lloc; Edgworth; Llanelly; Bishopteignton; High Brooms; Teignmouth; Empingham; Shaldon; Widcombe; Dawlish; Gateshead; Flint (two); Pendreg; Red Hill; Rawtenstall; Buckland; South Hants; Portsmouth; Mold; Leeswood; Great Clacton; Newcastle-on-Tyne; Kempston; Cleethorpes; Bedford; New Wortley; Tonbridge; Trawsfynydd; Earlestown (two); Tunbridge Wells; Droylsden (three); Islington; Rhiw; Hooley Hill; Dean; Crowborough; Helmshone; Barwell; Hinckley; Swannington; Plumpton; East Holywell; West Ealing (two); Ealing (two); Dunham Hill; Bulwell; Nottingham; Stromness; Christleton; Cardiff (six); Derby; Halifax (two); Llainlar; Woburn Green; Ovenden; Wheatley; Illingworth; Akroyden; Middlesbrough (five); Penygarnedd; Marlow; Kidsgrove; Billy Row; Breedon-on-the-Hill; Leighton Buzzard; Grays; Keswick; Melksham; Halt-on; Silverdale; Sittingbourne; Whitwick; Bredgar; Fenny Stratford; Queensbury; Hawkhurst; Cosely; Bradshawgate; Willington; Coalville; Rhydfelen; Bilston; Penrith; Devizes; Thringstone; Berriew; Holland Park Avenue; Southwark; Fletchertown; Llanfyllin; Nantfyllon; Llansantfraid; Brithdir; Star-gate; Woodsetton; Tipton; Crawcrook; Stoke-upon-Trent; Harpenden (three); Finchley; Gorton; Huby; Stony Stratford; Crumpsall; Southport (four); Clayton West; Leicester; Wing; Thorpe Fen Dykes; Walworth; West Hartlepool (nineteen); Redland; Ludham; Openshaw (two); Tottenham; High Spen; Govanhill; Pollokshields; Skegness; Selly Oak; Meagar; Wainfleet; Bradford; Newton Heath (two); Alderley Edge; Lichfield; Bradfield; Acle; Fleggburgh; West Caister; Friskney; Stow Hill; Lincoln (three); and Longsight; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Bedminster Down; Kettering; Enfield (two); Bedford; Chiswick; Clifton; Tottenham; Cotham; and Winchester; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions against; from Bridlington; and City of Lond on; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Maidstone; Carlisle; and Eccleshall; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Liverpool, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (NATURAL FERTILISERS).
  Return [presented 9th June] to be printed. [No. 206.]
  SOUTH AFRICAN MINES (MORTALITY).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 24thFebruary; Mr. Trevelyan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 205.]
  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Copy presented, of forty-sixth Report of the Board of Superintendence, with Appendices, for the year 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 612 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3180 and 3181 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
  Account presented, of the Receipts and Expenditure under the Seamen's Fund Winding-up Act from 1st January to 31st December, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Payments for Elementary School Expenses.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is permissible for the local education authority to pay the salaries or other payments due to any elementary school by one payment made to the correspondent or headmaster of any school, and distributed by him to the proper recipients, without involving such correspondent or headmaster as an accounting officer to the auditor of the local education authority's accounts.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am advised that sums paid to a person for distribution in the way suggested in the Question would render that person an accounting officer whose accounts would be subject to audit. A simple form of account has, however, been suggested by my Department for use in cases where sums are paid for distribution to one of the managers of a school as correspondent, and relate only to salaries. If this is produced at the audit the personal attendance of the manager would not, I think, in ordinary circumstances be required.

  Tibet Expedition and Dum-dum Bullets.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the troops, or any of them, on active service in the invasion of Tibet are provided with the dum-dum bullet, originally manufactured for the British Army in India, or any other bullet of an explosive character; and, if so, what explanation, if any, can be offered for the use of such bullets in the Tibetan Expedition, having regard to the undertaking against their use in the Boer War and the declaration signed by all the delegates of the European Powers, except the delegates of Great Britain, at the Hague Conference to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the body or is pierced with incisions.
  1370
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Government of India have not informed me what ammunition is being used in Tibet, but I am making inquiry. No bullets used by the Indian Army or by the British Army in India are of an explosive character.

  Sir Antony McDonnell's Salary.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for India what pay, if any, chargeable to the Revenues of India in respect of the year ending 31st March, 1904, has been received by Sir Antony Patrick McDonell as salary or pension, or both; and what services has this official during this period rendered to the Indian Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) During the period in question Sir A. P. McDonnell has been in receipt of the Bengal civil annuity of £1,000 earned by his past services in India. He has received no salary as member of the Council of India, having been employed in another department of the public service.

  Evictions on the Teenan Estate.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the receiver on the estate of Joseph Byrne, situate near Ballyshannon, commonly known as the Teenan Estate, obtained ejectment decrees against some forty tenants at the March quarter sessions for county Donegal, and that caretaker notices have since been served on those tenants, notwithstanding the fact that the great majority of them had paid a year's rent, and some two years rent, part harvest rent; that thirty-five civil bill decrees and six ejectment decrees have been obtained at the present quarter sessions against all the remaining tenants; and whether, having regard to the fact that the tenants were and are anxious to purchase their holdings, but are unable to do so owing to the circumstance that a portion of the proceedings were in another Court, whereof the receiver has been appointed by the Land Judge, what steps will be taken to enable the tenants to purchase their holdings, and, pending the purchase and so long as the current

  1371
  rent is paid, to stay proceedings for their eviction and the destruction of their interest in their holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am not aware that the statements in the first part of the Question are accurate. The Land Purchase Acts contain ample provisions enabling tenants to become proprietors of their holdings, and I cannot admit the accuracy of the statement that they are unable to purchase in the present instance. The Executive has no power to intervene in the manner suggested at the conclusion of the Question.

  Irish District and County Council Officials and Political Meetings.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether paid officials of district or county councils in Ireland may, without violation of the official regulations, take part in political meetings.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Local Government Board is of opinion that officers of county and rural district councils should refrain from publicly identifying themselves with any political Party. The Board has always advised officials to this effect whenever its opinion has been sought.

  The Cape Parliament—Chinese Exclusion Bill.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Cape Colony, in reserving his assent to the Chinese Exclusion Bill, passed by both Houses of the Cape Parliament for the consideration of the Crown, while that assent was given to all the other measures passed by the Cape Parliament during its session, acted on his own initiative or at the suggestion of Lord Milner or the Colonial Office; and when will the temporary bar to the Chinese Exclusion Bill becoming law in Cape Colony be removed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Governor reserved his assent to the Bill because, as he intimates, it appeared to him to be one of a class his assent to
  1372
  which he is bound to withhold by the-Royal Instructions issued to Governors of the Colony. The Bill as passed has not yet been submitted to me by the Governor, and I am not, therefore, as yet in a position to advise His Majesty upon it.

  The Governor-General of India.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury who is now Governor-General of India, having regard to the statutory provisions by which it is enacted that a Governor-General of India vacates that office by absence from India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Under Section 50 of the Indian Councils Acts, 1861, Lord Ampthill, being the senior of the two Governors of Madras and Bombay, has become acting Governor-General, and will hold the office of Governor-General, with the emoluments, until some other person shall be appointed to it, and shall have arrived in India.

MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not intend to move the first clause standing in his name, but the second which repealed the Act of 1902, so that everything might be in the one Bill and it would not be necessary to refer to other Acts.
*MR. MOUNTsaid if he might interrupt the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark at this point he would say the promoters were prepared to accept the first Amendment on the Paper and also the next two. They would have preferred to have a consolidation Bill, but as the hon. Member had put down these-new clauses they were prepared to accept them.
MR. CALDWELLsaid if he understood from the observations made by the hon. Gentleman representing the promoters of the Bill that it was the bona-fide intention to carry out the clause he was quite prepared to move it, but it must be on

1373
the condition that advantage must not be taken of any proposal in the House of Commons to make an alteration in another place.
*MR. MOUNTsaid he could not say, of course, or make any promise, as to what would happen in another place, but he should accept this clause as consolidating the two Bills; that was the intention of the promoters.
MR. CALDWELLsaid if this was a mere subterfuge on the part of the promoters—
*MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member had said as plainly as he could that it was the bona-fide intention of the promoters to regard this as the consolidation of the two Bills.
MR. CALDWELL: That having been stated in the House, I beg to move the new clause.
A clause (Seizure of pirated copies).
"It shall be lawful for any police constable, on the request in writing of the own-r of the copyright, or of his agent thereto authorised in writing, and on production to such constable of a copy of the entry of such copyright in the book of registry, certified and impressed as aforesaid, and at the risk of such owner, to seize without warrant any pirated copies of such musical work which, within view of such constable, and in any public place or place to which the public have access on payment or otherwise, are being hawked or carried about for purposes constituting an offence under this Act, and to bring the same before a Court of summary jurisdiction for the purpose of its being determined in accordance with the provisions hereinbefore contained, whether the same are or are hot liable to forfeiture and destruction."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
MR. CALDWELL: The next is consequential, as is also the third.
Another clause (Repeal of Act).
"The Musical {Summary Proceedings) Copyright Act, 1902, is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
Another clause (Definitions).
"Musical copyright' means the exclusive right of the owner of such copyright, under the Copyright Acts in force for the time being, to do or to authorise another person to do all or any of the following things of a musical work:—
"(1) To make copies, by writing or otherwise, of such musical work;
"(2) To abridge such musical work;
"(3) To make any new adaptation, arrangement, or setting of such musical work, or of the-melody thereof, in any notation or system.
"Musical work' means any combination of melody and harmony, or either of them, printed, reduced to writing, or otherwise graphically produced or reproduced.
"Pirated musical work ' means any musical work written, printed, or otherwise reproduced, without the consent lawfully given by the owner of the copyright in such musical work.
"The expression' plates' includes any stereo type or other plates, stones, or matrixes or negatives used for the purpose of printing or reproducing copies of any pirated musical work."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
MR. CALDWELLsaid the next clause he proposed to move was the limitation of the Act. There could be no doubt as to the necessity of this.
Another clause (Limitation of Act).
"This Act shall not apply to any musical copyright which is not registered in terms of The Copyright Act, 1842, and no proceedings shall be competent in respect of any offence committed prior to such registration."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid the clause which he asked the House to insert could, he thought, be inserted without demur on the part of the promoters. It was calculated to encourage the practice of music, and was a concession which could be granted without serious difficulty to the publishers.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member would not be in order in moving the clause, which seemed to be to create a new obligation in the law of copyright, and not to be relevant to the purpose of the Bill.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid on the point of order he submitted that the clause was somewhat germane to the purpose of the Bill which should condition the form on which copyright should be given. He submitted that although the clause was very near the boundary line it did not go over the boundary.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought it was more than near the boundary, it was over the boundary, and would not be in order.
MR. CALDWELLsaid the next Amendment opened a very important question. Under the present law a copyright might be held without registration, and this clause made it necessary that before action was taken the copyright must be registered. The registration of copyright ought to be compulsory for the reason that if it was not people could not tell what was copyright and what was not. The whole state of the law was in a very flimsy condition so far as copyright was concerned. A copyright was not, as many supposed, something in the nature of a patent, something which was a title in law, and when they were creating penal offences registration should be made compulsory, because a man should know before an offence was committed exactly what was copyright and what was not. There was no compulsion at the present time; a man waited till an offence was committed because by so doing he saved the 5s. registration fee. In view of the great value of these copyrights, running as it did into hundreds of thousands of pounds, surely the least thing the owners could do was to register them within one month of the first publication. If a man delayed registration, the difficulty was increased in connection with prosecutions. Let them begin at the very foundation, so as to facilitate the task of tracing both the registration and the assignment. The certificate of entry in the register would be prima facie evidence of ownership. All that was asked for was that the owner of the copyright or the assignee of a musical work published before or after the commencement of this Act should, if he had not already registered, do so within a month either of the commencement of the Act or the publication of the work in the
1376
United Kingdom. This Act proposed to give the owner of the copyright power to arrest or to get a search warrant, and to enter the house of an Englishman, which was the Englishman's castle. If a man was to be granted such power was it too much to ask that by-registering his copyright he should place his title beyond all question of dispute? How otherwise were they to know if a man claiming a song was really the owner of the copyright?
Another important point was as to when did the copyright begin? That was one of the most essential things in connection with the matter, because on it depended the date when it expired. That point was argued before the Royal Commission on Copyright in 1878. Copyright, be it remembered, lasted during the life time of its author and seven years beyond, or for forty-two years, whichever was the longer existence. These were important matters to bear in mind when they were proposing to hand, over such drastic powers as were conferred by this Bill to the owners of musical copyrights. On what ground could they object to a clause of that kind? If the owner of a song thought he had a valuable property why should he object to pay the registration fee of 5s. at once instead of waiting to see if it should turn out a success? The next provision was that the registry book should set forth the true name and place of abode of the author and composer and the true name and abode of the owner of the copyright; otherwise the provisions of the Act should not apply. He was told there was objection to that. But why should there be? If a man was to have the privilege of securing the apprehension of another or of getting the issue of a search warrant with penal consequences, why in the world should he object to having his own name and address entered in the register as proof of his ownership? In dealing with the ownership of copyright why should a man register under a nom de plume? He would have to take legal proceedings in his own name, and surely in the case of criminal prosecutions it was only right he should use his own name. It would facilitate, too, the identification of the persons concerned; it would make their identity clear. For instance, there were hundreds of "John Smiths," but if

1377
they added the exact address identification was made easy. The real name and place of address was also essential in the matter of tracing assignments. The Copyright Commission in their Report stated that they were satisfied that registration under the present system was practically useless. Well, they could not possibly have criminal proceedings founded upon disputed titles of copyright. Then again, the Commission went on to say that great annoyance was caused to persons who were obliged to resort to the register whether for the purpose of registering works or of searching for entries on the register. It was reasonable to ask that the present system should be simplified. He took it that valuable copyrights were the very foundation of this Bill. A man was asked perhaps to buy such a copyright. Naturally he wanted to make sure that the copyright was a valid one, and he went to the register accordingly. If this clause were carried the scope of his search would be limited in area; he need only look over the register for one month from the date of the publication of the musical work and he would have a definite name and address to search for. If he did not find the entry he would know that the title was defective, thus this clause would constitute a protection for the public.
Again, the Royal Commission reported that they had been satisfied by the arguments in favour of registration that it was advisable to insist that it should be made more effective and complete, and that to this end it should be compulsory. Surely if that was the opinion in 1878, it was more than ever necessary now. What course was pursued in regard to patents and the Merchandise Marks Act? Did not this Rill follow the analogy of the latter? In the case of the Merchandise Marks Act there was compulsory registration, and as registration was to be the foundation of criminal proceedings nuder this Act, in the interests of the public the registration ought to be compulsory. In the Minority Report of the Musical Copyright Committee, he had distinctly stated that if proper safeguards for the public were provided he had no objection to the penal clauses or to the powers of appre-
1378
hension and search, but he strongly held that those powers ought not to be given if the rights and necessary protection of the public were absolutely ignored. That was his position in moving this new clause, and he hoped the owners of valuable copyrights would not play into the hands of the owners of worthless copyrights by objecting to a clause which would affect only the latter. Under the Berne Convention, holders of foreign copyrights were entitled to the same privileges and protection as the people of the country concerned, and in the proposed new clause no distinction was made. The words were, "First publication in the United Kingdom," and the foreigner had the came month in which to register his copyright. Under Clause 15, the case of the foreigner was provided for, so that before he could take action the foreigner wag obliged to register, and the proposed new clause simply put him in exactly the same position as the man in Bond Street. There would De no interference whatever with the validity of a copyright under the Act of 1842. The foreigner would have all the rights he at present enjoyed, but if he desired the benefits of the present Act he would have to comply with its requirements, and that surely was only fair. Those requirements were reasonable and necessary for the protection of the public. He begged to move.
Another clause (Registration by owner of copyright).
"The owner of the copyright, or his assignee, of every musical work, whether published before or after the commencement of this Act, shall, where not already done, within one month from the commencement of this Act, or within one month of the first publication of the musical work in the United Kingdom, whichever is the longer, make entry of the copyright in the registry book of the Stationers' Company in terms of The Copyright Act, 1842, and in the case of all musical works first published in the United Kingdom after the commencement of this Act the entry shall, in addition to the other requirements of the said Act, set forth the true name and place of abode of the author and composer and the true name and place of abode of the owner of the copyright, and otherwise the provisions of this Act shall not apply to such copyright."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)said he was not in the least interested in this Bill, and intervened only because the Amendment raised a matter of public importance. Almost the whole basis of the hon. Member's argument was taken away by the fact that the House had already accepted an Amendment in the following terms —
"This Act shall not apply to any musical copyright which is not registered in terms of The Copyright Act, 1842, and no proceedings chall be competent in respect of any offence committed prior to such registration."
What was the case as the Bill stood with that Amendment? It was quite right that a person who was to be prosecuted under the Act should have some means of ascertaining whether what he was doing was really illegal. By the Amendment which had been accepted no offence could take place under the Act unless the copyright had been registered; therefore an individual had only to go to Stationers' Hall to find out whether the music he proposed printing was pirated or not. Having obtained the information he could proceed or not as he chose, but if he went on he certainly did so wilfully, and ought to come under the stringent provisions of the Act. But the hon. Member desired to go further, and to say that not only must the copyright be registered before any offence could take place, but that the copyright might be lost if it was not registered within one month of the publication of the work in this country. Why that limit should be imposed he could not understand. So far as the pirate was concerned it was quite sufficient that the registration should take place before the act of piracy was committed. There also arose the question of what constituted publication in this country, and that might be a difficult matter to determine; at any rate there would be no hardship upon the would-be pirate, because under the Amendment already accepted he would have the opportunity of ascertaining whether he was pirating or not.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that was not the case. If the copyright was not registered the man could not possibly know whether he was pirating.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Therefore he could not be prosecuted. He wanted to point out that they were attempting in the clause as at present framed to make it applicable to a person in a foreign country who had rights under foreign treaties with this country, and who had the right of registering in his own country not in any limited time, and he registered so as to be able to get certificates at Stationers' Hall. He asked the House not to interfere with thes3 rights of foreigners; these matters had been carefully considered in the Act of 1886 which carried out the international obligations of this country. If they altered the law in this respect music might be published in this country and foreigners might have no opportunity of registering at all, and so they would be deprived of the advantages which international relations conferred upon them. Even if this clause was accepted it would certainly have to be considered carefully, as it would be impossible to interfere with those rights in an Act of this kind, which was merely to put an end to wilful piracy of a copyright of a British subject or of persons abroad who were in international relations with us and who gave us the same treatment.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid the Solicitor-Genera) had raised two objections to the very reasonable proposal of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark. He could not understand what objection there could be either on the part of the Government or on the part of the promoters to a proposal which was familiar in the law of every other country. All they wanted was that there should be registration of the copyright within a certain period of time. The Solicitor-General had said that they had already provided for registration, because no man could commence proceedings unless his music was registered. To his mini that was not sufficient protection, because a man wanted to know before he sold a copy of music that it was not a pirated copy, and his only means of ascertaining that would be by going to a public office in which a register was kept. It was not enough that the registration should be taken out; immediately before or after the proceedings were initiated. His second

1381
objection was that the musical copyright was governed by treaty. So was the Patent Law, but that did not impair their right to make by statute such regulations as they pleased with regard to the efficacy of foreign patents in this country. The patent agents took good care that they informed the owners of foreign patents of any changes in the legislation or administration in this country, and therefore there was no difficulty in the matter. The third objection taken by the Solicitor-General was in regard to publication. What was publication? It was provided for in the Bill because it said that there must be publication, and that did not mean singing the song bat publication as evidenced by the Act. This clause seemed to him a reasonable one, because he thought that facilities should be afforded on the one hand for preventing piracy, and on the other hand there should not be an injustice inflicted on those who unwittingly sold pirated copies.
MR. MALCOLMsaid that during the discussion of Clause 12 in Committee an Amendment was inserted upon this very question to meet the objections of the hon. Members opposite. Clause 12 of the present Bill provided that—
"The proprietor of the copyright in any musical composition first published after the commencement of this Act, or his assignee, shall print or cause to be printed upon the title page of every published copy of such musical composition the date of the first publication thereof and otherwise this Act and the Act of 1902 shall not apply."
So that any person who wished to know whether he had got a pirated copy or not had only to see that it bore the date of publication. In the Grand Committee this clause was amended in accordance with the terms he had just read. The hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire had told them a good deal about the bona fides which ought to exist, and he had said that if they accepted certain things on behalf of the promoters he understood that to mean that they would not go behind his back and insert those things which had been refused, in the House of Commons. He thought that principle ought also to hold good in the House of Commons in regard to compromises arrived at in the Grand Committee.
MR. CALDWELL: But those words were not accepted.
MR. HEMPHILL: I know that there was no acceptance of those words in the Grand Committee.
MR. MALCOLMsaid there were one or two details in regard to this clause to which he wished to draw attention. If the owner of a copyright changed his address there might be hundreds of copies in stock, but not one of them would be valid because they would not contain the true name and address of the owner. As his right hon. friend had said, they had gone as far as they possibly could go in insisting upon compulsory registration. On behalf of the promoters he was not prepared to go any further to make it more difficult for the owners of copyright to come within the purview of this Act.
MR. DALZIELsaid that if it was true that thousands of pounds had been lost by the proprietors of copyright music owing to the system of piracy, all that this clause did was to insist upon them protecting themselves by going through the ordinary form of registration at Stationers' Hall. His hon. friend proposed that a month after publication the copyright should be registered. The hon. Member opposite had replied to this argument by saying that the date of publication was going to be printed on every copy. He would point out, however, that there was a very important difference. He might publish something to-day and if he had a provisional copy he could put any date on it which he liked. The House was not generally aware that at least half a dozen London newspapers were published of which they never heard anything, simply in order to protect the copyright. As to what was publication, it was decided almost every year in the Courts. It consisted in printing and publishing and selling across the counter to the public day by day or month by month. That would apply with regard to this case. If a piece of music was sold by an agent that would be publication. It seemed to him very extraordinary that a simple suggestion of this kind could not be accepted. What

1383
was the objection to it? All that was asked was that the publishers of music should be placed under what was the ordinary law in regard to copyright. If they thought they had a valuable piece of music which they desired to have copyrighted they should be obliged to send a copy of it to the Stationers' Hall and another copy to the British Museum.
MR. MOUNT: We are going to do that.
MR. DALZIELasked what was the objection then to the proposal of his hon. friend. A period should be fixed within which the music should be formally registered. It was said that a prosecution could not take place unless the music was copyrighted. That was quite true, but it should be remembered that criminal proceedings were to take place in cases of infringement. Under the Bill as it stood, it would be possible to register and to take proceedings almost the following day. The obligation should not be put on the public of sending from day to day to the registration office to see what had been registered. He strongly urged the promoters of the Bill to adopt the suggestion of his hon. friend. They ought to do it in their own interest, and he could not see why they objected. It was of importance to publishers that the title of a song should be protected. If they did not protect it somebody else might come forward with an inferior piece of music with the same title which they themselves wished to employ.
MR. LLOYD MORGANsaid he was unable to understand why the promoters of the Bill were unwilling to accept the proposal of his hon. friend. He had not heard any reason which struck him as being sufficient for refusing to accept it. He was a member of the Standing Committee on Law, but he was not sure whether he was present when the clause to which his hon. friend referred came on. The fact that a clause was accepted or rejected in Committee did not preclude a Member from raising the question in the House if he desired to do so. When they said that a clause was passed by the Standing Committee on
1384
Law it merely meant that they took the best terms they could get there, but that was not a reason why they should not try to get better terms when the Bill came before the House. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman-opposite that there was a good deal to be said for amending the new clause. It might be that the clause ought to be very considerably amended. He did not think a month was a proper time. It was too short, and he would suggest that six months ought to be inserted. There certainly should be some period of time during which the owner of copyright ought to register if he wanted to get the benefit of the Bill. The Bill imposed penalties on people who printed, distributed, or sold, or were found to be in possession of copies of music which turned out to be pirated. Suppose a man purchased a large amount of music after finding out that it was not registered, and it was registered afterwards, it seemed to him that that man was to be penalised when he was found in possession of music which was not registered at the time he bought it. That was an extraordinary position to take up. He appreciated the answer which would be made. It would be said if he proved it was not registered at the time he bought it that would be a good defence. No doubt it would, for no magistrate would say that he sold music which he knew to be pirated. But though he could not be convicted he might be seriously penalised in other ways. He might have to meet a charge brought under the provisions of the Bill, which were of a very drastic character. He would also be a loser by the transaction as well, because once it was brought home to him that the music was registered he would not be able to sell it. He was not an opponent of the Bill, but he could not help feeling that if they were going to introduce a clause of this kind hon.Members were entitled to offer observations upon it.
M. HARWOODsaid the House was asked to adopt what was practically a new principle in regard to copyright. A register conducted in the way suggested by the Bill would be quite impracticable. Anyone who knew the immense number of pieces of music published knew that it would be

1385
impossible to search the register unless they were entered at the time of publication. There would be no difficulty in registration, but there would be difficulty and expense unless the pieced were entered at the time of publication. One of the peculiar features of pirated music was that it bore no date, and the consequence was that one would not be able to tell whether it was published before or after registration. The principle of the clause proposed by his hon. friend was that it would prevent the copyrighting of a lot of rubbish. A distinguished Judge said the other day it was a thousand pities that such rubbish could be copyrighted. If it was rubbish they would not spend five shillings in registering it. An infringement of the provision of the Bill would involve a criminal prosecution, and surely they had a right to ask for some practical reason against the proposal of his hon. friend.
*MR. MOUNTsuggested that if the hon. Member would substitute twelve months for one month the promoters would accept the proposal.
*MR. WEIRsaid he objected to any extension of the time. In his view one month was ample. Why should all this special care and attention be paid to composers of music? Let them take action at once, if they considered they had a good thing, and protect themselves.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid he understood that the Second Reading of the clause had been accepted. When the clause had been read a second time the hon. Member could move an Amendment to it.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid that in order to put matters straight he formally moved to leave out the words "one month," in order to insert "twelve months."
Amendment proposed to the clause—
"In line 3, to leave out the words 'one month' and insert the words 'twelve months.'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left outstand part of the clause.
*MR. WEIRsaid that if a man had what he conceived to be a valuable property, whether a musical composition or mechanical invention, he should protect himself at once by registration. If he did not care to take that trouble, then he should suffer the consequences. He thought twelve months was altogether too long. A prior usage nullified a patent; why should not prior usage nullify a musical production which had not been registered? He should vote fur one month instead of twelve.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he hoped his hon. friend would not press his opposition to the Motion now before the House. He was Chairman of the Committee which had considered this Bill, and had followed the discussions very closely. The question which had raised a great deal of difficulty upstairs was that of international copyright. He understood that this concession went a very long way to meet that difficulty, and that if it were not made a great deal of hardship might be inflicted on foreign composers.
Question put, and negatived.
Qnestion "That those words be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, added.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that this Amendment was consequential on the last. In the first clause he dealt with the original owner of the copyright; in this clause he was dealing with the assignee of the copyright. When the original owner of the copyright had the power of prosecution under this Act after it became law, it was equally necessary that the assignee's title to do so should be made clear. Therefore the public had a right to know who was the real owner of the copyright. Piracy meant the publication of musical works without the written consent of the owner, and therefore to whom was a man who wanted to publish a work to go in order to obtain authority to publish that music? Suppose a man wanted to act honourably and wished to say to

1387
the owner of the copyright: "Are you -willing to allow me to publish this music?" But the real owner, the assignee, was not registered at all, what happened? The object of his Amendment was that the assignee should go to the registrar and put his true name and address on the register, so that the public might know who was really the owner of the copyright. He begged to move.
Another clause (Registration of assignments of copyright).
"The assignee of the copyright of any mnsical work first published in the United Kingdom after the commencement of this Act shall within one month of his becoming assignee of such musical copyright, cause an entry to be made in the registry book of the Stationers' Company kept in terms of The Copyright Act, 1842, setting forth his true name and address, and the deed of assignment or other deed or title under which he became and is assignee, and otherwise the provisions of this Act shall not apply to such copyright.'"— (Mr. Caldwell.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he quite recognised the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman had moved this Amendment. But the objection he had was to the words at the end of the clause, which, provided that in the registry book of the Stationers' Company there should be Bet, forth the true name and address of the assignee and "the deed of assignment or other deed or title under which he became and is assignee." That would compel the publication, and therefore the putting in the hands of the public the private transactions between the publisher and the composer. The rest of the hon. Gentlemen's clause he was prepared to accept.
MR. HEMPHILLasked would it suffice if the name and address and the date of the deed of assignment were set forth. That would obviate the necessity of setting forth the deed itself.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he would point out that the assignment of a foreign copyright would be in the books
1388
of a foreign country. All that was now necessary under international arrangement was that the assignee would lodge a proper certificate in this country. He did not see how the proposed clause could apply.
*MR. H. D. GREENEsaid that under the proposed clause, if the assignee did not register his assignment within a month, he would forever lose all right under the statute. It appeared to him that a locus penetentiœ should be given in such cases; and that the assignee should be given the benefit of the Act when he did register. Therefore the clause should end "or until he shall so register it."
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that there was no reason for making the Bill more severe than the Copyright Act. The Act of 1842 did not enforce the statement of a date. It was very undesirable to encumber a new Bill with restrictions and difficulties of this kind.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he would move to omit "one month" in order to insert "twelve months."
Amendment proposed to the clause—
"In line 3, to leave out the words 'one month' and insert the words 'twelve months.'" —(Mr. Galloway.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he would move to omit the following words: "and the deed of assignment or other deed or title under which he became and is assignee." He would take care that the arrangement which had been arrived at should be honourably carried out.
Amendment proposed to the clause—
"In line 6, to leave out the words 'and the deed of assignment or other deed or title under which he became and is assignee.'"— (Mr. Galloway.)
MR. CALDWELLsaid that this was a matter in which there should be no misunderstanding. All he wanted was to fix, as it were, the title under which the assignee secured the copyright. He quite accepted the hon. Gentleman's

1389
assurance, and would agree to the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. HEMPHILLsaid it would be necessary to insert words in lieu of the words that had been omitted. He would suggest "the date of the deed of assignment or other instrument, if any."
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he had given the House an undertaking, and would ask the hon. Gentleman to accept his word. They were all agreed; and he would undertake that there would be no attempt to go back on the arrangement which had been arrived at.
*MR. WEIRasked if the date would be inserted.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid that words would be inserted which would make the matter clear.
*MR. H. D. GREENE*MR. H. D. GREENE moved to add the following words, "until it has been so registered."
Amendment proposed to the clause—
"At the end to add the words 'until it has been so registered.'"—(Mr. H. D. Greene.)
Question proposed, "That these words be there added."
MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Amendment would stultify the whole clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, added.
*MR. SPEAKER: The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Durham is not in order, because it is not relevant to the present Bill, as it would merely give power to diminish in certain cases the right of the holder of a copyright. The second Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is in order.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid the Amendment he would move went to the root of the Bill. It was not, however, destructive in its character, but it introduced a very material modification. The Bill, of course, had been conceived in the interests of the music publishers rather than in the interests
1390
of the public, though he did not complain of that. That objection was met because this clause was rather against the interest of the publishers than in their favour. Undoubtedly the lion's share of the profits of the music went to the trade; a very small proportion went to the composer. No one had much sympathy with publishers because of the profits made by them. Of course the profits made by the music publishers varied and they could only take an average in matters of this kind. He might point out that the average profit to the composer would be about 2d. for every copy sold, whilst it would be a very moderate computation if they said that the publishers' profit was 1s. A grievance then clearly existed. The effect of these high prices in music was that the public were not able to obtain music with that facility which they desired. There was a very strong combination among the music publishers of this country who dictated the prices to the trade. He merely wished to put this matter in an open form before those who were in charge of this Bill who, he admitted, had met in a most reasonable manner the objections which had been made to this Bill. The clause he was proposing was open to some very strong objections and in the opinion of some might seem rather harsh, but having regard to the knowledge obtained from the working of the Copyright Act of 1842, and of the Patent Acts, he thought it would work very well in practice. Inasmuch as they were satisfied that the demand of the populace for musical culture had largely increased, and that complaints were constantly being made by the people of the high prices at which music was sold, it was only right that the requirements of the poorer classes should be to some extent safeguarded by this House, and what he proposed was this: that when anyone was summoned for an offence under this Act, it should be open, not only to the party summoned but to anybody, to point out to the magistrate that the facilities for the public for obtaining this music were of an unsatisfactory character, and that the prices charged were prohibitive, and that the magistrate should then be empowered, if he thought fit, to impose a nominal fine or deal with the

1391
action as frivolous. Under the Patent Acts the practice was somewhat different. Under the Patent Acts anyone could go to the Privy Council and show that there was no proper opportunity for the public to acquire a patented article, and the Privy Council could order greater facilities to be afforded. Under the Copyright Act of 1842, it was competent for the Privy Council to proceed under somewhat analogous methods. If the proprietor of the copyright of any book, after the death of the author of that book, refused to re-publish it, and it was to the benefit of the public that it should be re-published, an application might be made to the Privy Council, who, under the circumstances, could grant a licence to the applicant to publish the book despite the provisions of the Copyright Act. He was quite sensible to the objections to which the clause was open through leaving this discretionary power in the hands of the magistrates, but it must be remembered that a magistrate had now the power to dismiss a charge he considered frivolous. He begged to move.
Another clause (Discretion of Court as regards fine and costs).
"Where in any proceedings before a Court of summary jurisdiction under this Act, the Court is satisfied with regard to any musical work that the reasonable requirements of the public with reference to such musical work have not been satisfied, the Court in its discretion may refuse to giant a search warrant, and where an offence is proved may impose a nominal fine, and the cost in the action or proceedings shall be in the absolute discretion of the Court."—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the clause be read a second time."
THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,)said the objection to this clause had been stated by the hon. Member who moved it. The prices of music, like the price of other things, were not independent of the law of supply and demand. All the protection that the hon. Member wanted was given already in the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, in Sections 16 and 18 of the Acts of 1879 and 1848 respectively, which declared that if at the bearing of a
1392
charge for an offence punishable by a Court of summary jurisdiction the Court thought that, though the charge was proved, the offence was of so trifling a nature that it was inexpedient to inflict any punishment the Court might dismiss the information and again, if the information were dismissed, the prosecutor might be rendered liable for costs. Under all the circumstances he did not think it would be convenient to add this clause to the Bill.
MR. HARWOODsaid this matter was more important than the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. The prices of music were prohibitive, and the question of supply and demand was not allowed to operate in the matter. It was all a matter of a close corporation, and those who were acquainted with its working knew that it worked in a very injurious way, with the result that preposterous prices were charged for songs. The almost invariable minimum price was 4s., and the cost of publication was about twopence. Yet anybody who desired to publish a song was bound to come into the ring or else he could not get his song published. This was a matter which this House ought to consider. They had to consider not only the rights of the publishers but also the rights of the public. The public ought not to be shut out from purchasing music by the prohibitive prices charged, Such conditions should be laid down as would ensure that if it was desirable for the public to have a piece of music they should be able to obtain it at a reasonable charge, and if they could not get it they should be able to assert their rights. The reason it was not necessary to discuss this question of piracy with regard to books was because the publishers of books were wise enough to publish them at reasonable prices. It might be said that even if accepted this clause would not be put into operation very much, but his contention was that the effect of its being in the Bill would be that such steps would be taken by the publishers as would prevent its being put into operation at all He appealed to the House that in this matter they should do something to meet the demands of the public.
*MR. WEIRexpressed surprise at the attitude of the Solicitor-General, who

1393
must know that an inventor in order to protect himself should take immediate steps to patent his invention and that prior use invalidated a patent. Why should so much care, consideration, and regard be bestowed on the owner and composer of a piece of music? Why should he not register his production as soon as he completed it? A month, as proposed in the Amendment, gave ample time to any author, composer, or owner to register. It was not fair to the innocent vendor of a piece of music that he should be the victim of legal proceedings, although he had adopted every means to ascertain whether the music he offered for sale was pirated. Registration was often delayed until legal proceedings had commenced. What an injustice to the enterprising trader! He came to the House to-day to support the Bill, if a good one, but after listening to the debate he had come to the conclusion it was a bad Bill. He considered it a shameful attempt to bolster up a rich and powerful combination to the detriment of the public. He was not adverse to an author, composer, or inventor securing the largest possible profit, but the fact should not be lost sight of that Parliament granted a privilege in the protection of copyright, and in doing so required that the rights of the public should also be recognised. This powerful ring in charging four shillings for a piece of music which could be sold for sixpence, at an enormous profit, Catered for the wealthy classes only. By all means let the æsthetic millionaires have costly editions, which might bear on the cover hand-painted violins, other musical instruments, and cupids, at, say, five guineas and upwards. But for the masses of the people there should be an edition at a price within their reach. Why should the jaded shop or factory girl who found a solace in music be unable to cultivate her taste? An edition at, say, sixpence a copy selling in hundreds of thousands would prove far more profitable to the composer, owner, and vendor than a limited sale at four shillings. Railway companies long since realised that their largest revenue was derived from third-class passengers. This combination of music publishers did not seem to have grasped the fact that large sales at moderate profits produced the best results. He objected to one-sided legislation in the interest of monopolists. The taste for
1394
music in this country was growing and should be encouraged.
*MR. H. D. GREENEsaid it was with a feeling of humiliation that he sat through a debate in which the statute law of England was bartered away by hon. Members from one side to those on the other. Hon. Members had already repealed the statute which WAS passed in 1902 after careful consideration. It was difficult to sit still while such things were going on; but he could not see the criminal law of the country reversed and upset by bargains between hon. Members. The Under-Secretary's protest was half-hearted, and if the proposed clause were not rejected or decisively challenged by anyone else he would divide the House himself. The clause proposed that where proceedings were taken before a Court of summary jurisdiction the Court might refuse to grant a search warrant, impose a merely nominal fine, and exercise absolute discretion in regard to costs, if it was satisfied that the reasonable requirements of the public with reference to the musical work which was the subject of the proceedings had not been satisfied. His first observation in regard to the clause was that it was absolutely unnecessary, because under the general law and Summary Jurisdiction Act the Court already had discretion to reduce imprisonment or fine and to deal with the question of costs. That was provided for in Section 4 of the Act of 1879. Then, again, he would call attention to the fact that there was no minimum fine which the magistrates could, under the Bill, impose; it was in their power to impose any penalty they chose so long as they did not exceed the maximum. It was, therefore, an absolutely unnecessary and redundant provision to insert in the Bill.
The conditions of the clause were objectionable. Who was to show the justices whether the reasonable requirements of the public with reference to a musical work had not been satisfied? What were the means of investigating this question? The hon. Member who moved the clause said something about some person coming in to satisfy the

1395
justices. Did he really mean that when a man was being criminally prosecuted some third party might be introduced, possibly with not very laudable motives, to start an inquiry not as to whether the prisoner was guilty but whether or not the reasonable requirements of the public had been satisfied? How could prosecutions be conducted under such circumstances? It meant that the ordinary practices of the magistrate's Court were to be absolutely annihilated, and it certainly seemed to him to be unjust to the accused person that an element of such a disturbing kind should be introduced for the consideration of the Court while the question of his guilt or innocence was under consideration. He ventured to assert that there were no means of investigating whether or not the reasonable requirements of the public—whatever they might be—had been satisfied. The proposition that when the Court was solemnly trying whether a man was guilty or not guilty of forgery it was to stop to consider whether somebody else had or had not satisfied the public requirements should only need to be mentioned in order to be scouted. The man being tried might have all the appliances of forgery —a complete establishment, for forging musical copyrights—his guilt might have been brought home to him, and yet the magistrates were invited to let a guilty man escape because some want of the public was not satisfied. That was totally illogical. If it might be applied in the case of musical copyright, why not in other cases? Why should the justices be asked to entertain entirely extraneous considerations in these cases?
This position had arisen from an entire misapprehension of the Act; passed in 1886. Up to that year if a person was guilty of producing a musical piece, or singing a song, the owner of that, piece or song, if he had not given his sanction to the performance, could sue the performer in the High Court, and, if the action was successful, the offender had to pay forty shillings for every representation together with double the costs of the suit. That was a civil action but it was a harsh proceeding, because many people quite inadvertently sang copyright songs. Owing to the scandal caused by the operation of that law,
1396
Parliament interfered in 1886, and provided that in such actions the jury might only give a nominal amount of damages instead of forty shillings for each representation, and, instead of allowing double the costs of the suit, the amount of costs was to be left to the discretion of the Judge. He took it that the hon. Member opposite had forgotten that that Act only applied to civil actions, and had nothing to do with the Act of 1889.
*MR. SOARESsaid, as one who supported the Bill, and who hoped it would pass through the Report Stage that afternoon, he trusted that the promoters would see their way to accept this clause, or, at any rate, some modification of it. He admitted that he did not quite like the clause as it stood at present, inasmuch as it contained a great deal of surplusage, but he wished to see some means devised which would prevent a rich man from purchasing the copyright of some newly composed piece of music, and restricting its performance to his family circle or his friends. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent a man from so purchasing a piece which might be as valuable as Handel's Messiah, and thus inflicting a serious loss on the public. It might be said that when a man bought a picture the public had no means of access to inspect it, but when the day came for legislation with regard to them he would be prepared to advocate the same course to be taken in regard to pictures as in regard to music. The Bill was admittedly a new departure in legislation, and therefore, they ought to make it as perfect as possible.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he was one of these who fully appreciated the motives of some hon. Members on the other side of the House who had endeavoured to defeat this Bill; but he could not understand that their object was altogether laudable. They had been impressed with the fact that musical publications were sold at a very high price, and acting, as they believed, in the interests of the public, they were attempting to secure facilities being given to the public to obtain cheaper music.

1397
He had a substantial interest in one of the large musical publishing firms, and he was convinced that it was not only in the interests of the public but of the shareholders of these firms that an endeavour should be made to meet the popular demand for cheap music. A good many publishers had made a strenuous effort to publish cheap music, but their efforts had been frustrated by the pirates. One firm of publishers had been good enough to send him a large number of popular songs, published at 6d., among which was "An Old Love Dream," sung by Madame Belle Cole. But it was no good publishing these songs at 6d. if a few days afterwards they were hawked about at 2d. or 3d. It had been suggested that the cost of publication was extremely small; but this was to ignore some of the heavy expenses which had to be incurred. A relative of his who used to write songs for a firm of publishers received from them £800 a year, in return for which he sent them about a dozen songs a year. He also received a royalty after a thousand copies had been sold. There was, therefore, a very large expense involved in the publication of these songs. Moreover, many songs did not take hold of the public, and the publishers had to take the risk of the songs attaining popularity. As to the Amendment, there was too much of the personal equation in it. If the matter was left entirely to the discretion of the magistrates, different standards might be established all over the country as to what were "the reasonable requirements of the public," and, therefore, he thought this proposal could not practically be carried into effect.
*MR. SPEAKER: Those questions are not raised by this Amendment. The question is whether the magistrates in cases of this kind are to be empowered to consider the question of "the reasonable requirements of the public." It is merely a question whether that power is to be granted or not, and not what those reasonable requirements are.
MR. BRIGGsaid he had had some experience upon this question, and he had heard many legal gentlemen plead before him,
1398
and he had always found that one good lawyer was able to reply to another. When a person applied for a search warrant he had to state the circumstances, and the magistrate must decide upon them. Under this Bill the magistrate was called upon to give a definite decision, and that was just where he could make use of this provision and use his discretion. There ought to be no politics in this question, and the object of hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to be to see that the public got as much cheap music as possible. Any proposal that would effect this object would be appreciated on both sides of the House. He thought the Amendment now before the House would have this effect, and it would make it easier to obtain better music at cheaper rates.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he felt that the law was at present harsh in its operation and very much restricted as regarded the public interest, and in this Bill there ought to be reasonable proposals to moderate those restrictions, and make less severe the hardships which had been felt in the operation of the present law. The provision in the proposed clause seemed to be a very reasonable one, for in a matter of this sort the discretion of the magistrates ought to play some part in guiding them to a decision. If the supporters of this Bill were desirous that the law should be made more reasonable and less oppressive, perhaps they could suggest some better proposal than this Amendment. Instead of doing this the supporters of the Bill seemed to be insisting upon having their pound of flesh in the interests of the copyright owners. He held no brief for the musical copyright owners, but under the circumstances he had no alternative but to give the hon. Member for Mid Lanark all the assistance he could in order to prevent this Bill passing into law in its present shape.
MR. CALDWELLsaid this clause represented the rights of the public in this matter of copyright. The owners of copyright music were asking for drastic legislation of a kind which was not possessed by anyone else, and the Opposition were asking, in return for that, that they should in this Bill give some recognition to the principle

1399
that the public had some right and interest in the question of musical copyright. Like all other rights conferred by Parliament, they should be exercised reasonably and in the interests of the public. What had these copyright people done? Both before the Committee and even now, they said that they did not recognise any interest on the part of the public because copyrights were personal property. In his opinion, if copyright owners were to have these drastic powers, which were not possessed by owners of anything else in the kingdom; if they were to be given powers of obtaining search warrants, and such penalties as could be inflicted under this Bill, then at least they ought to show before the magistrates that the reasonable requirements of the public were being satisfied. The cause of piracy was the difference between the exorbitant price charged to the public and the price at which the music could be produced. Mr. D'Eyncourt, a well-known metropolitan magistrate, said he wondered why copyright owners did not reduce the price of their music, and he further stated that so long as the present price of music was; maintained they would always have this kind of thing going on. He also said that he wondered why copyright owners did not look at the matter in a; more sensible way and lower the price, Here they had the opinion of a well-known magistrate who conscientiously believed that the cause of piracy in music was due to these high prices. The magistrates would have no discretion whatever under this Bill, and they would have to grant a warrant. They wanted to put the magistrates in this position, that they would have an indication from Parliament that they would be allowed to bring their discretion to bear, and refuse to grant a search warrant where, in their opinion, the reasonable requirements of the public had not
been met. It had been said that they were now dealing with a new stale of things, and that nothing would meet the case but a search warrant. Look at the position of the public with regard to this Amendment. Up to this moment there had been no recognition whatever of the rights of the public as regarded their reasonable requirements. They were anxious to put into this Bill power to enable the Privy Council to determine what were the reasonable requirements of the public; but they found that they could not get such a provision into this measure. Therefore they were quite willing to take the other reasonable position, and provide that the magistrate should have the discretion provided for in this Amendment. Parliament in the year 1888 found that the owners of copyright were acting unreasonably in the matter, and consequently power was given to-modify the penalty, and the question of costs was also left to the discretion of the magistrates. They were only asking for the recognition of that principle here. They wanted the magistrates to have this power, for if they possessed such power, in his opinion, it would be sufficient to bring about a change. If the promoters of this Bill went on pressing these proposals in the face of these facts, and if they resisted the acknowledgment of the rights of the public, which were not in any way recognised in this Bill, the House would do right is coming to the conclusion that it was impossible to grant these drastic powers. If they would only recognise the rights of the public in this limited sense of giving a discretion to the magistrates, then he should certainly not oppose them being granted the extreme powers now being asked for.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 74; Noes., 161. (Division List No. 144)

AYES.

Austin, Sir John

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Donelan, Captain A.

Barlow, John Emmott

Crombie, John William

Duncan, J. Hastings

Boland, John

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Edwards, Frank

Brigg, John

Cullman, J.

Elibank, Master of

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Dalziel, James Henry

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

Burt, Thomas

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Fenwick, Charles

Caldwell, James

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Ffrench, Peter

Cameron, Robert

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Hammond, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hayden, John Patrick

Helme, Norval Watson

Murphy, John

Slack, John Bamford

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

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

Ure, Alexander

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Partington, Oswald

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Joicey, Sir James

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Priestley, Arthur

Weir, James Galloway

Jordan, Jeremiah

Reddy, M.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rigg, Richard

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Kilbride, Denis

Roe, Sir Thomas

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lundon, W.

Russell, T. W.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Atherley-Jonos and Mr. Harwood.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Murnaghan, George

Sheehy, David

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Milvain, Thomas

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmoud

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Aird, Sir John

Forster, Henry William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fuller, J. M. F.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gardner, Ernest

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Balcarres, Lord

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

Myers, William Henry

Baldwin, Alfred

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

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

Grant, Corrie

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds

Paulton, James Mellor

Bill, Charles

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gretton, John

Peraberton, John S. G.

Boulnois, Edmund

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Percy, Earl

Bousfield, William Robert

Gunter, Sir Robert

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Plummer, Walter R.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Price, Robert John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Rankin, Sir James

Causton, Richard Knight

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Ratcliff, R. F.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Reid, James (Greenock)

Chapman, Edward

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

Hunt, Rowland

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

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

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Kennedy, Patrick James

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

Soares, Ernest J.

Dickson, Charles Scott

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

Spear, John Ward

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Spencer, Sir E.(W. Bromwich)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Duke, Henry Edward

Leveson-Gower, Frederick NS.)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd U'niv.

Dunn, Sir William

Lloyd-George, David

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Thornton, Percy M.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Macdona, John Cumming

Tuff, Charles

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Valentia, Viscount

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

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

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Malcolm, Ian

Wallace, Robert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Fisher, William Hayes

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

1402

1403

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.Mount and Mr. Galloway.

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

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HARWOODsaid he desired to move the Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-west Durham. They were now discussing a very serious departure in English law which ought not to be adopted except very good causes were shown. Already music had more legal safeguards than any other productions of a similar nature. Music had all the protection afforded to books I and overproductions, and it was specially protected by the power of seizure, and the House ought to be very careful before it took a step of the kind proposed in this Bill. They ought to ask themselves the question, "Why do these people come here I for protection?" Why was the House of Commons asked to deal with this case specially, and to adopt special provisions to deal with a certain class of copyright? They were being asked in this case to go beyond the ordinary criminal law. The House ought not to do this without having sufficient cause shown. Why did this particular trade ask them to apply remedies which no other trade possessed? Those who opposed this Bill were not unreasonable, but they did maintain that a good case ought to be made out before such proposals were passed into law. There were some very serious factors in this problem. This was a disease, and the House of Commons was being asked to apply a very severe remedy. They must ask what was the cause of this disease. The real cause was that the whole trade of musical publication was rotten. It was conducted upon the principle of a close corporation, and the whole thing was in the hands of a few. It was a trust, and it was one of the most outrageous examples of a trust. Not only was the printing of music conducted upon this close corporation principle, but it was a fact that anyone who did not fall in with the lines adopted by these people had no chance at all.
The House might perhaps forget that it was being asked that afternoon to do something which ought not to be done without a great sense of responsibility. They were asked to bring in the severity of the criminal law and the power
1404
of seizure on behalf of a particular trade. Was that trade meeting the difficulty properly itself? They were asked on behalf of music publishers and music sellers to give them these powers. Had the House not a right to say to them, "Are you doing all that we can fairly expect of you to stop this disease." He agreed that piracy prevailed largely, but it was inevitable under the circumstances, and it was only the natural result of the rotten condition of the whole business. He thought the House ought to insist that the music publishers on their part should do all that could be reasonably expected of them to cure this disease. [Cries of "Oh!"] His argument was not to be answered by exclamations of that kind. They had just heard the opinion of a well-known magistrate upon this question, and he had told them that the real cause of piracy was the absurdly high price of music. Everyone knew how perfectly absurd the price of music was. Music was now published at preposterous prices and this Bill bolstered up a most ridiculous way of doing business. Whilst he acknowledged the elasticity shown by the promoters to the opponents of this Bill, all they had conceded did not meet the case. The music trade ought to be put on a sound business-like basis. But there was a deeper question. He did not know if hon. Members hid fully recognised how enormously the taste for music in recent years had developed amongst the masses of the people. They could not buy music now at a reasonable price except in a roundabout way, and they ought to be able to buy music which was now old at 1s. 4d. at 4d. and 6d.
*MR. SPEAKER: That question cannot be discussed upon this clause.
MR. HARWOODsaid that by moving this Amendment he was practically moving the rejection of the Bill. The position was simply this. This House was now asked to pass more stringent legislation to protect a trade which was already well protected. Before the House passed this measure they ought at least to receive every assurance

1405
that the publishers would put their trade upon a proper footing. Because no such assurances had been given, and because he believed that if this Bill passed the evils complained of would be intensified and the masses of the people would be shut out from obtaining cheap music, he begged to move the deletion of Clause 1.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Harwood.)
Question proposed, "That the words of the clause to the word 'or,' in page 1, line 6, stand part of the Bill.'"
MR. GALLOWAYsaid the hon. Member for Bolton had been good enough to say that the objections raised to this Bill had been met in a reasonable spirit.
MR. HARWOOD: Hear, hear!
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he was glad to heir that acknowledgment. There were five clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid.-Lanark and they had accepted four of them, and in regard to his fifth clause the mover admitted that it was not a practical one and would not work. When the Bill was read a second time hon. Members on the other side professed that they were anxious to prevent piracy, and to enable the owners of property to have the proper use of their property. In regard to the Amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark the promoters of the Bill had given way a good deal—more than they might otherwise have done—because there was only one day for the discussion of the Bill. He hoped that the House would see that it was passed in some form. The only desire the promoters had was to give those who possessed property the right of enjoying it, and he hoped they would; not allow the House of Commons to suffer under the stigma of having refused a just and proper remedy for an intolerable condition of things.
MR. CALDWELLsaid those who were promoting the Bill were promoting it from the point of view of property. Property was the word used by the hon. Member for South West Manchester.
1406
The hon. Member said, "Oh, it's like your watch."
MR. GALLOWAY: I never said anything of the kind.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that, at any rate, the hon. Member's argument was all to that effect. Copyright was an interest conferred by Parliament for the promotion of music among the community, while at the same time giving reasonable remuneration to the composer. It was not property in the same sense as a watch which a man could use, sell, or deal with as he pleased for all eternity. A watch could be handed down on the hereditary principle. Copyright was limited in its duration and it was clogged about with restrictions. Had Parliament dealt with the question as a vested interest? In 1888, owing to the abuses on the part of the owners of copyright, Parliament stepped in and said, "We will curtail your right which you say is a right of property," and absolute discretion was given to the Judges to give nominal damages and to determine who should pay the costs of proceedings. This Bill wanted to give increased powers to the publishers of music, and it was a matter of the most vital interest that he House should consider whether those powers ought to be granted, having regard to the whole circumstances of the case. The powers asked by the musical copyright people were not granted in any of the other copyright laws of this country. Those powers were asked on account of the course pursued by the music publishers themselves. They charged such exorbitant prices for the music they published that there was a temptation to piracy in the very same way as when a Customs duty was high there was a temptation to smuggling. No better evidence of that could be found than in the action of the stipendiary magistrates. They knew the piracy existed and they knew the popular sentiment was against the music publishers on account of the high prices which they charged. That was the reason why piracy had increased. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department had told them that the effect of the discussion of musical copyright was that prices were going to come down.

1407
Take the case of one publisher—the president of the Musical Copyright Association. He had brought out a sixpenny series of music exactly the same in form and substance, and everything else, as the 4s. and the 2s. pieces.
MR. MALCOLM: How much of that has been pirated?
MR. CALDWELL: Well, a good deal has been pirated.
MR. MALCOLM: Out of seventy-eight there have been thirty-nine pirated.
MR. CALDWELLsaid it was because the songs were popular that they were pirated. If they had not been pirated the hon. Member for South-west Manchester would have got up and said that those songs which were sold at sixpence were rubbish. The publisher to whom he had referred sold the sixpenny series to the trade at twopence and that included copyright, advertising, and other expenses. The ordinary trader sold it at 4½d., and the hawker, who had another class of customers, sold it at 3d. or 3½d. That took place last October. When the music publishers came to this House asking further powers, they should remember that they would have popular sentiment to reckon with in a matter of this kind. They were already beginning to realise it. It look a long time to educate the public, but in course of time they did waken up. The musical copyright people asked power to proceed against the printers and the man who caused pirated music to be printed. Nobody would have the slightest sympathy with them, and for his part he would not modify in any way the penalty proposed so far as they were concerned. But there were other parties involved—those who had little shops, and those who hawked in the streets. It was proposed to put these people under the most drastic legislation. He had never concealed his view that, given proper recognition of the rights of the public, he did not object to the most stringent law to put down piracy. The new clauses were brought forward in the hope that proper recognition of the public rights might be placed on the Statute-book, but the publishers had not shown the smallest
1408
inclination to meet the public demand. It was impossible to carry out criminal legislation of the kind now proposed unless they had popular sentiment at the back of it. There was in the Act of 1892 a most effective law against piracy. They found that seizures of music were constantly being made under the powers conferred by that Act, and in his opinion publishers had already ample protection. There was no evidence that they had sustained any very substantial loss. The remedy for piracy was not that proposed by the Bill. The remedy lay in the hands of the publishers themselves.
MAJOR SEELYasked the hon. Member for Bolton not to press his Motion which, as had been frankly admitted, was designed to defeat the Bill. There seemed to be an impression that the object of the Bill was to benefit the publishers of music. He knew nothing of the publishers of music, but he knew something of the composers. One of the principal sufferers was a constituent of his, the composer of the best known songs throughout the English-speaking world, and the system of piracy which had grown up had involved him in the loss of thousands of pounds. For every publisher there were dozens of composers, every one of whom was a sufferer.
*MR. WEIRsaid he was sure every Member must sympathise with the composers, but the music publishers were to blame for the loss which they suffered. The promoters of the Bill had appealed to the House to allow it to pass. He had been in the House the greater part of the afternoon, and there had been very little of a conciliatory spirit shown by the promoters of the Bill. They had given way on one or two small points, but it was important that the interests of the public should be considered as well as those of the publishers to whom Parliament had given a privilege. He was as touch a stickler for the rights of property as any man, but they must also consider the welfare of the community. They all recognised that music should be sold at a price within the reach of the masses of the people. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 said that any person who distributed or carried about

1409
any copies of pirated music was liable to certain penalties. If he happened to have half-a-dozen copies, or even one single copy, of a piece of music in his pocket to give to a friend, it might be said that he was distributing it, although he had no knowledge whatever that the music was pirated, and he would be liable to conviction under this Bill and to all the penalties provided in it. Although he wished to give these copies of a piece of music to his friends out of the goodness of his heart, he could be attacked by this powerful organisation of music publishers, who were already amply protected under the existing law. Then Sub-section 3 said if any person "sells, or causes, or procures to be sold, or exposes, offers, or keeps for sale, or solicits orders by post, or otherwise, for any copies of any pirated musical work." How was a buyer to know that the music was pirated—
*MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was going through the Bill line by line, and delaying the business of the House.
*MR. WEIRsaid that the powers sought by the promoters of this Bill were of such an arbitrary character that he did not think the House ought to grant them for the benefit of any trading body. He knew of no law conferring on any other set of traders such powers and privileges as was proposed to be given to music publisher. The public welfare should be regarded first, and the music publishers should not have the power to treat the public in such a high-handed fashion as the Bill proposed to allow them. He sincerely trusted that the House would not pass legislation of this kind. If the promoters of the Bill had been more conciliatory more progress would have been made.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after the word, 'Prints,' to insert the words 'for sale.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
MR. CALDWELLsaid that in any copyright Act since 1842 the words used were "causes to be printed for sale," and the same should be adopted in this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'or procures.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
MR. CALDWELLsaid that this Bill violated all the other precedents in copyright legislation, and hence they were compelled to move these Amendments. No doubt it would be said that this was a frivolous Amendment, but he maintained that it was absolutely necessary. The words "or procures" were not in any other Copyright Act. The promoters of the Bill, having got a good place in the ballot, evidently thought that they could drive anything through the House as they pleased. It was the promoters themselves who had been the obstructionists. He begged to move.
*MR. WEIRsaid he hoped the House would accept the Amendment. These words would lead to much trouble and litigation in the future.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 0, after the word 'printed,' to insert the words 'for, sale.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR CALDWELLsaid that the words he proposed to leave out were not in the Copyright Act of 1842. They constituted another attempt on the part of the promoters of the Bill to introduce into the measure offences which were not included in that or any Copyright Act. What was the interpretation of the words "carrier about"? Suppose a man bought a piece of music, could a policeman seize him, and take it out of his hand on the ground that he was carrying it about? That was to say he was carrying it about in the same sense that he was carrying his pocket handkerchief. But that was not all; this man could be summoned to the police Court, to show cause why the music should not be destroyed, but the magistrate would say "I have nothing to do—the man has lost his piece of music, and I make no order." And no [order whatever would be made. It was a very dangerous thing to grant such powers to a body so wealthy as the Musical Copyright Association, which had thousands of pounds at their back.

1411
He had looked through all the Copyright Acts since 1842, and could discover in none of them anything in the nature of "distributing or carrying about." Sub-section 3 covered everything that was necessary to be covered, and Sub-section 2 was therefore obviously not required. It was extremely undesirable that these new offences should be created. It should not be an offence for a man to have a copy for his own personal use. A man who was distributing, but not distributing for sale, was not liable under the present Copyright Acts; and, therefore, he would move the omission of the sub-section.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 8 to leave out Sub-section (2) of Clause 1."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words of the sub-section to the word 'or,' in page 1, line 9, stand part of the Bill."
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he would not follow the example of the hon. Member for South-west Manchester, who spoke for two hours on the Second Reading of the Bill. He thought, after the Bill had been through Grand Committee, that the House should be given some explanation as to why all those Amendments had been accepted. The Amendment was an important one; but lie did not agree with his hon. friend the Member for Mid-Lanark in thinking that the Bill was a bad Bill. If, however, the whole of the Bill was to be eliminated, it would be better to drop it altogether. Apparently the promoters did not take any interest in what the Bill was to enact, as long as they had the name of passing it through the House in some shape. The Amendment was an important one; and the promoters ought to explain their attitude regarding it.
MR. DALZIELsaid he regretted that the promoters did not indicate whether they were prepared to accept the Amendment or not. There was a great deal to be said for the Bill; and he regretted that private conference had not saved the House from what had happened to-day. However, the Bill was safe enough, as it was understood the Government would star it. Therefore, they could consider these matters without endanger-
1412
ing the Bill. He remembered in the Grand Committee a question of a similar character was debated the whole day, and afterwards accepted. He thought the promoters would be wise to accept the Amendment. The sub-section seemed to show how careful they ought to be in passing this Bill. He confessed he had some sympathy with the promoters; but when the former Bill was passed the music publishers closed their shops for a day in order to allow their assistants to hunt down hawkers. However much that action might have been justified, although it was subsequently not justified in law, they ought to be careful in handing over powers without understanding what they were doing. This sub-section would make it possible for a railway company or a carrying company, such as Carter Paterson, to be made a party to a prosecution because without knowledge they carried pirated music sent by one person to another. The sub-section might be interpreted in two ways; and they knew the sort of people, not very experienced, who would nave to interpret it. It was in the interests of all concerned that the law should be perfectly clear.
*MR. WEIRsaid he had been waiting in the hope that the hon. Member for South-west Manchester would accept the Amendment. There were ample powers given to the Publishers' Association in other sub-sections. As his hon. friend had stated, every railway company and carrying company would be liable. They would receive a parcel of music, and for carrying it they would be liable, and involved in litigation. They could stand litigation; but what about the humble individual. A person buying music and having paid for it ought not to be landed in a lawsuit. He was surprised that the promoters of the Bill did not see fit to accept the Amendment.
CAPTAIN ELLICE (St Andrews Burghs)said that the sub-section was an entirely new sub-section, which was not to be found in former Copyright Acts. The promoters were acting in the interest of one particular class, and not in the interests of the public. They were told that they should not throw away the baby in the bath; but the promoters had

1413
accepted so many Amendments that nothing now remained except dirty water. He would support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 145.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Myers, William Henry

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Aird, Sir John

Flower, Sir Ernest

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Asher, Alexander

Forster, Henry William

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fuller, J. M. F.

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Gardner, Ernest

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Austin, Sir John

Garfit, William

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn

Percy, Earl

Baldwin, Alfred

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

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Grant, Corrie

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Gretton, John

Plummer, Walter R.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Price, Robert John

Barlow, John Emmott

Gunter, Sir Robert

Pym, C. Guy

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Rankin, Sir James

Bignold, Arthur

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bill, Charles

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Boseawen, Arthur Griffith

Hay, Hon, Claude George

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Boulnois, Edmund

Helme, Norval Watson

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Bousfield, William Robert

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Bryee, Rt. Hon. James

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hunt, Rowland

Sasssoon, Sir Edward Albert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

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

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Chapman, Edward

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Charrington, Spencer

Kimber, Henry

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kitson, Sir James

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Legge, Col Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

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

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Stirling-Max well, Sir John M.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lloyd-George, David

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Crombie, John William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lowe, Francis William

Tomkinson, James

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tuff, Charles

Dalkieth, Earl of

Macdona, John Cumming

Valentia, Viscount

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

MaeIver, David (Liverpool)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

Walker, Col. William Hall

Denny, Colonel

Malcolm, Ian

Wallace, Robert

Dickson, Carles Scott

Manners, Lord Cecil

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

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

Dixon-Hartland, sir F. Dixon

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Donglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Milvain, Thomas

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

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

Dunn, Sir William

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Edwards, Frank

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Emmott, Alfred

Morpeth, Viscount

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Moulton, John Fletcher

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Mount and Mr. Galloway.

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

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ambrose, Robert

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Priestley, Arthur

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Reddy, M.

Boland, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Joicey, Sir James

Rickett, J. Compton

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Rigg, Richard

Burt, Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robson, William Snowdon

Cameron, Robert

Joyce, Michael

Russell, T. W.

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Kearley, Hudson E.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kilbride, Denis

Sheehy, David

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Lambert, George

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lundon, W.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cullinan, J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sullivan, Donal

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Delany, William

Murnaghan, George

Ure, Alexander

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Murphy, John

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Weir, James Galloway

Duncan, J. Hastings

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Elibank, Master of

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ffrench, Peter

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.Caldwell and Captain Ellice.

Hammond, John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Malley, William

Harwood, George

Partington, Oswald

MR. CALDWELLsaid he desired to move in Clause 1, page 1, line 9, to leave out from "sale" to the end of the subsection. They were new words, and there was no precedent for them in any of the previous Bills on the subject which had been brought in. They did not appear in the Bill which was brought down from the House of Lords, or in the previous Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South-west Manchester. When the hon. Member for South-west Manchester was about to bring in his Bill at the beginning of the session, he said it was substantially in the form to which he himself had agreed in the previous session. Having, however, obtained the benefit of the ballot, the hon. Member did not introduce the Bill in the form in which the hon. Member knew he would accept it. The hon. Member brought in a more drastic Bill. If a private Member loaded his Bill and made it as contentious as he possibly could, simply because he got first place in the ballot, and considered his Bill was through, he made a great mistake. The hon. Member told him after the ballot that he would beat him now.
*MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. Member during the few remaining minutes to endeavour to be relevant.
MR. CALDWELLsaid as he thought that no useful purpose would be served during the next few minutes, he would utilise the time to teach a lesson which might be useful to other promoters.
1416
What was the meaning of the words, "purposes of sale" in the sub-section? The hon. Member had taken the words from the Merchandise Marks Act in his endeavour to find the most drastic provisions he possibly could. The House had been given no explanation as to the meaning of the words.
And it being half-past Five of the clock further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
Bill as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday next.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
MR. BOUSFIBLDsaid that everything contentious had been cut out of the Bill, with the object of securing certain things on which everyone was agreed. The hon. Gentleman for Mid-Lanark had assured him that no objection would be taken to it.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that if the Bill were unopposed it could pass on Monday just as well as to-day. He had not yet read the Bill to see that it was all right.
Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Friday next.
Adjourned at twenty-six minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

The Lord Oxenfoord (E. Stair)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR aquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—London and India Docks Company. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Stretford Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
King's College Hospital Bill [H.L.]; Wolverhampton Corporation Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Great Northern Railway Bill; Midland Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
London and North-Western Railway Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 28th of April and 17th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.
Lothians Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Littlestone-on-Sea and District Water Bill; Brixham Gas Bill; Acton Improvement Bill Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Torquay Tramways Bill; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Soothill Nether Urban District Tramways Bill; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Seaton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Deramore; read, and agreed to.
Oakengates, Dawley, and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill; Great Central Railway Bill; Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Monson be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Marquess of Exeter; read, and agreed to.
North-Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill; Skipton Water and Improvement Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS—I. ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3180. Denmark.
  No 3181. France (Cochin China).
  No. 3182. Persia (the Persian Gulf).

  II. MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 612. Customs Tariff of Belgium.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 AND 1888.
  Special reports by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888.

  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Forty-sixth Report of the Board of Superintendence, with appendices, for the year 1903–1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
  Account of the receipts and expenditure under the Seamen's Fund Winding-up Act, from 1st January to 31st December, 1903.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minute, dated 26th May, 1904, declaring that Thomas Tootell, letter carrier, Post Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.] (NO. 95.).
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the Reserve Forces. And
  NAVAL AND MILITARY MEDALS BILL [H.L.] (No. 96).
  A Bill to regulate and restrict the wearing of Naval and Military Medals and Decorations—Were presented by the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore); read 1supe; to be printed; and to be read 2supe on Tuesday next.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894—Was presented by the Lord Muskerry; read 1supe; and to be printed. (No. 97.)

  CROWN AGENTS OF THE COLONIES.
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH,who had given notice to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system by which the Crown Agents of the Colonies are paid, and their methods of transacting the duties attaching to their office,"
  said: My Lords, since I brought this question before your Lordships' House in February last, I have received an enormous mass of communications from the Colonies and from merchants and various organisations interested in the matter. I hope that if I give but few figures and details you will not on that account imagine that I am not prepared to substantiate every statement I make; but I feel that I should be unduly trespassing on your Lordships' indulgence if I were to go into details. I shall, therefore, confine myself to certain leading facts which I think will justify the Motion I have placed on the Paper. At the same time I wish it to be clearly understood that I admit that under certain condition and for certain purposes Crown Agents are necessary. The point upon which I desire to criticise their conduct is in having, as it were, set up a sort of Government trade department instead of adopting the system in force, in private and commercial concerns, of open tenders.
  I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I state, as clearly and as concisely as I can, various incidents that have occurred in different Crown colonies which have caused the colonists to be very dissatisfied with the conduct of the Crown Agents. If there are any of your Lordships who do not understand exactly the position of the Crown Agents Office, I might explain that the Crown Agents do all the work of the Government, in buying stores and in constructing railways and public improvements for the Crown Colonies, which in our self-governing colonies is done by the colonies themselves, and which in India and Egypt is put up to open tender.
  The first colony to which I shall allude is British Honduras. The attitude of the Crown Agents in regard to that colony has been one of delay and obstruction. The colonists of British Honduras have for a long time desired to have a railway from the Port of Belize

  1329
  into the hinterland, and from thence a little distance into the territory of Guatemala, the object, of course, being to enable them to bring down to the coast the various timbers which are the main industry of that colony. A line was surveyed by a Mr. Shelford, of the firm who act as consulting engineers to the Crown Agents and the Colonial Office. In his report of the projected line Mr. Shelford spoke of the country as an "easy country," and yet the expenditure which they estimated it would be needful to incur in making the railway was put at £734,000. That seems to me, on the face of it, to be rather a preposterous estimate. The colonists themselves objected to the cost, and agreed to pay a reasonable sum to any private contractor for constructing a substantial and less expensive line. A London engineering firm undertook to build and equip a short line, which would have satisfied the requirements of the colony, for a sum under £80,000. The Crown Agents, however, raised objection, and so far no line has been made. That is an instance in that colony of the obstructive attitude of the Crown Agents.
  Now let us go to another colony, perhaps the most important of all our Crown Colonies—Ceylon. In Ceylon not only is all the material purchased through the Crown Agents, but the Crown Agents even have their own workshops. As showing the feeling of the colony with regard to this matter, I would read to your Lordships an extract from an article in the Ceylon Observer, which is, perhaps, the leading newspaper in the colony—
  "What is found to answer so well in India, the Straits, and Natal, not to mention other colonies, cannot be disadvantageous in the case of Ceylon. The large amount of capital invested in engineering and ironwork establishments throughout the colony, and the keen competition in this direction, as well as in mercantile and industrial enterprise, afford a quite sufficient guarantee for the execution of work and orders by contract, to the satisfaction of the Government and the public."
  In Ceylon what I think is a very doubtful and objectionable system prevails—the Government have their own workshops and carry out the work themselves. They do not put it up to public contract at all. The Ceylon Public Works Department carries out all the public works in the colony. All material which is imported for such
  1330
  works is obtained through the Crown Agents. There are in Ceylon Government engineering workshops, known as the Government factory. I am puzzled to discover why this condition of things should exist in Ceylon when there is no such establishment in Singapore, in Hong-Kong, or in any other Crown colony.
  We may be told that the work carried on in these Government workshops is less costly and of a higher class. Well, I have specific cases to show that that is not so. Let us take the case of the contract for the Post Office in Ceylon. Specifications and drawings were made in the office of the Public Works Department, and the work was put out to tender. Tenders were received from private contractors for the building, to be erected in accordance with these plans and specifications, but they were rejected on the ground that they were above the estimate of the Public Works Department. Now what happened? The Public Works Department had greatly under-estimated the cost, and therefore had to ask the colony to make up the difference, amounting to a large sum. Of course, if this had been put out to open tender, subject to proper inspection and control, the contractors would have had to bear the loss, but as it was the colony had to bear it. Besides the increased expenditure in money, the Public Works Department took twelve months longer to complete the work than was estimated as the time they would require by the contractors. Not only was this the case, but the specification to which the contractors had to tender as regards the quality of the material and so forth was not adhered to by the Public Works Department.
  Let me give one more instance which happened in Ceylon. In the case of the Haputale Hospital, a firm of engineers were asked to tender for its erection. Their estimate was Rs.87,000. The Director of the Public Works Department said this estimate was too high, the Department's estimate being only Rs.75,000. Accordingly the Crown Agents did the work, but the condition of things which obtained in the case of the Post Office was repeated. The Crown Agents required two Supplementary Votes from the Legislative Council in order to carry out

  1331
  the work, bringing the total cost to over Rs.100,000—a sum considerably in excess of that for which an estimate had been given by a first-class firm of engineers. In the specification sent out to the contractors it was required that teak wood should be used throughout, and the contractors provided for this in their estimate of Rs.87,000; but the Public Works Department not only expended over Rs.13,000 more, but used jungle timber very largely.
  I have before me a quite recent case. I am not justified in mentioning the name of the merchant, but it is a perfectly bona-fide case. I have it on the authority, personally given, of one of the leading merchants in Ceylon. This is his statement. An engineering firm in one of our Crown colonies lately received an order to import some machinery required in connection with a certain work the Government of the colony had in hand. In due course the London agents of this firm placed the order with the makers of the machinery. When the invoice for the same was received, it was found that 15 per cent. discount was allowed off the list price. On being asked if these were the exact terms the furnishers would have quoted had they received the order from the Crown Agents, the reply was that they were not, as they did not allow the Crown Agents any discount owing to the number of restrictions and conditions which they (the Crown Agents) attached to all orders, and which gave the manufacturers a considerable amount of extra trouble.
  I now come to a case in another colony—the Gold Coast Government Railway. That railway was constructed by Mr. Shelford, the consulting engineer to the Crown Agents. Mr. Shelford stated, in the paper which he read recently before the Royal Colonial Institute, that the average cost of what he was pleased to call this "light railway" was £10,300 per mile—a ridiculously exorbitant price. Messrs. Pauling and Co., who are, perhaps, more experienced in the construction of railways in South Africa than any other firm, offered to construct the Gold Coast line, for which the Crown Agents charged £10,300 a mile, for £6,500 a mile, and I wish to know why
  1332
  their offer was not accepted? The offer, however, was not accepted, and the Crown Agents constructed the line. And what sort of a line did they make? They made one of the most notoriously bad lines that has ever been made. I will read to your Lordships a letter on this subject from a gentleman of great experience, Mr. N. G. Lowe, who, writing from Sekondi, says—
  "We have had terrible work with the railway since it has been taken over. It certainly did not start well, and owing to the breakdown of a bridge, on which occasion a white driver and four natives were killed, traffic was stopped for ten days even though this was thirty-two and three-quarter miles beyond Tarkwa, and the restrictions placed on us now with the new regulations entail considerably more work than previously. We are unable to load and dispatch trucks with anything like the same rapidity with which we were able to do it when working under the construction. No trains are now allowed to run after dark."
  And why are they not allowed to run after dark? This regulation was enforced because the construction of the railway was so bad that the drivers refused to take the risk of driving after dark. Mr. Lowe continued —
  "I went up to Dunkwa last Tuesday, but owing to derailments it took me just on twenty-nine hours to go a distance of ninety-nine miles. We were also derailed upon our return journey yesterday. A very great deal of work will have to be done to put the line in anything like working order, and, unfortunately, the open lines-men are all new, and therefore without the benefit of past experience on the line."
  That is an example of one of the lines constructed by the Crown Agents as against the open tender. But there is another point in regard to this precious line. I hold in my hand a return which I have had made out with a great deal of care, showing the various rates per ton per mile that the different railways charge. It is of great public importance in the development of these countries that the railway rates should be as cheap and as reasonable as possible. I have compared the rates upon the British Gold Coast line with those on many other lines in South Africa, and I find that the rate per ton per mile is 2s. 6d., as compared with 6d. on the Cape Colony line, and 1s. 11d. 1s. 3d., and 3¾d. respectively on the lines made by the French in French territory. These facts, it seems to me, ought to be carefully investigated by an impartial Committee.

  1333
  Now that we are upon this subject, I feel bound to make some reference to the very remarkable character of the personnel of the Crown Agents' Office and the Colonial Office. I am perfectly well aware that both my right hon. friend the Secretary of State and the noble Duke opposite are anxious in every way I to serve the public interest, but what I do complain of is that the Colonial Office in its permanent departments is not a check upon the Crown Agents. In other words, there exists in a most curious and; remarkable degree a sort of family party in the Crown Agents' Department and the Colonial Office. The Permanent Under-Secretary for the Colonies is Sir Montague Ommanney. Mr. Ommanney, a nephew of Sir Montague Ommanney, is a member of a firm of solicitors who are solicitors to the Crown Agents. Mr. Shelford, who constructed the precious and costly line to which I have referred, is son-in-law to Sir Montague Ommanney, and is himself a member of the firm of Messrs. Shelford, who are also the con-suiting engineers to the Crown Agents.! If I may say so, that is rather like a condition of things borrowed from the comic operas of Gilbert and Sullivan. First of all, the work of the Crown Agents is handed over to delegated constructors selected by them, and then they are paid besides for the duty of reporting on their own work. That seems to me to be a condition of things which in the public interest is quite indefensible, and I think it certainly should be carefully and fully inquired into.
  Now I come to the case of the Transvaal, and I shall ask your Lordships' attention to the strong feeling which was expressed and the strong resolutions unanimously passed at the Johannesburg Chamber or Commerce in April last. I have no desire to quote to your Lordships the somewhat full-flavoured language used on that occasion, but the meeting consisted of the most prominent members of different firms throughout the Transvaal, and one or two very remarkable statements were made at that meeting and publicly reported. The meeting unanimously protested against the action of the Colonial Office in insisting upon all materials and articles being purchased through the Crown Agents. A Mr. Mitchell, of the firm of Gordon, Mitchell,
  1334
  and Co., stated that orders sent through Crown Agents had taken as long as twelve months to execute, whereas local traders were bound down by a restricted period of three or four months. Mr. Park said—and this is a most extraordinary statement—that Government officials had actually come to ask him to get out goods already ordered from the Crown Agents, but which the officials knew would not arrive in time. This protest of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce is supported by all the other chambers of commerce in the colony and in Orangia. The colonists feel particularly aggrieved, and, I think, naturally, that they should be compelled to submit to this state of things after the language used by Mr. Chamberlain, who promised the Transvaal that, to all intents and purposes, they should be treated as a self-governing colony. My right hon. friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies as recently as January last stated that—
  "The only safe way of dealing with our self-governing colonies is never to interfere with their wishes, unless Imperial interests are vitally concerned. This is true even of our Crown colonies. We ought never to forget that each of these great States has its own life, its own policy, and its own methods. So long as this fact is kept in view, the Empire will possess the surest foundations and ideal aspirations."
  Surely it is not an unreasonable contention on the part of the Transvaal that they should enjoy the same opportunities as the Cape and Natal enjoy of being master of their own improvements, and not be tied down to an office in London.
  The people in the Transvaal have a very lively recollection of the objectionable system of the Crown Agents which now prevails in our other African Crown colonies. In our West African colonies a certain brand of cement is the only one allowed to be shipped by them. There may be climatic conditions why this particular brand is the only one that ought to be used; but the most extraordinary proceeding, from a business point of view, is this, that the Crown Agents do not buy direct from the supplier, but from a steamship owner, delivered at the port at which they want it. What is the effect of this? The shipowner gets the supplier to give him a monopoly of that particular brand for the West Coast, and consequently is not put into competition either in regard to freight or first

  1335
  cost of the material. I see my noble friend Lord Londonderry opposite, and I should like to call his attention to the position as regards coal. The Crown Agents do not buy direct from the colliery owners and then see what they can do in the way of getting a cheap freight; they buy direct from the shipowner. As regards timber, there is this extraordinary state of things. Pensacolan pitch-pine, Swedish spruce, American pine—in fact, all timbers from all parts of the world—are bought for the West Coast of Africa viâ Liverpool, and are not delivered at the ports where required direct from the supplier.
  The volume of trade which passes through the hands of the Crown Agents is enormous. Sir Henry Fowler obtained a statement from the Secretary of State that in the case of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony alone, for 1903, nearly £2,000,000 worth of goods were purchased by the Crown Agents. I contend that the Crown Agents ought to be strong enough and capable enough to make their own contracts with the suppliers and be independent of particular steamship companies. This question of freights is a very anxious and serious one in the development of South Africa. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of the ingenious condition of things which has been created by a certain ring of shipowners in Liverpool. What they do is this. They say to the merchants, We will give you a rebate upon your freights of 10 per cent., but this rebate is not a discount; you are not to receive it at once, but it is to be held in suspense—in some cases for as long as a year and a half—and if during that time you ship any goods by any other line than ours you lose the rebate. That seems to me to be a scandalous condition of things, and I say that this policy on the part of the Crown Agents is only playing into the hands of the ring. It is true that the Crown Agents affected to offer Government freights to firms outside the ring, but they rendered that offer nugatory by the ridiculous proviso which they attached to it, the proviso being that in tendering the firms were to be prepared to ship goods from any port in the United Kingdom, How could you expect a merchant, say, in London, Southampton, or Liverpool suddenly, at
  1336
  a moment's notice, to ship freight from Middlesbrough, Bristol, or Aberdeen? Why were not tenders invited for the specific shipping of goods at named ports?
  I have mentioned the case of colonies which have suffered under the present system, and I have in each case given leading facts and figures. I should like, however, before I sit down to make some reference to the statements made by the noble Duke the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in the debate which took place when I last brought this subject forward. The noble Duke then said—
  "I would point out to the noble Earl that the Crown Agents do not receive money from the Imperial Exchequer."
  Well, my Lords, even if they do not, I do not think that is much of an argument against vigilance on our part, for we are trustees for the colonies which do not possess self-government. But I entirely take issue with the noble Duke on that statement. First of all, it was computed by the Foreign Office, and they allowed Sir H. Johnston to publish the information in a Blue-book and also in his work on the Uganda Protectorate, that the Uganda Railway might have been constructed for about £750,000 cheaper than the actual cost of construction. Of course, that loss came out of our pockets. We grant large sums of money to certain protectorates. Northern Nigeria receives some £300,000 or more annually from the Imperial Exchequer, and the supplies for this protectorate are entirely obtained through the Crown Agents. Therefore if the price paid is high, and the system wasteful, there is an annual loss to the taxpayers of this country.
  I should like to again press the question of commission. The noble Duke spoke of the Crown Agents being entitled to a commission of 1 per cent. I want to know what that 1 per cent. commission includes. The Crown Agents Office does not possess any great technical knowledge. It has to buy goods and materials of all kinds, and must employ expert buyers. Are they allowed no commission? I am informed, on high authority, that the Crown Agents' charges are, as the noble Duke said, 1 per cent. for anything they do., ½ per cent. on loans issued, ½ per cent. on repayment of loans, 1 per cent. on all orders executed by their Office, and, if this is for railway construction, then

  1337
  another 5 per cent. on all material ordered for such railway construction, and 2½ per Cent. for inspection of any such railway material charged by the consulting engineers, making at least 10½ per cent., besides solicitors' fees, which are charged on any railway construction carried out under the Crown Agents' Office.
  In purchasing goods on a large scale you have two very important elements to consider, not merely the question of price but the question of trade discount and also cash discount. I happen to buy largely for my different estates, and I know that on some material I get a trade discount, buying in a large way, of as much as 75 per cent. trade discount and 2½ per cent. cash discount, in all 77½. The Crown Agents, buying on a much larger scale, ought to get this trade discount. What I want to ask is, Do the Crown Agents get these trade and cash discounts, and, if they do, do the Colonies obtain the full benefit of them? As I have said, I do not wish for a Committee for the purpose of abolishing the Office of Crown Agents. I desire the Committee to bring to light the manner in which that Office is conducted, and especially to consider whether it would not be better to have a more rational and commercial system. The Crown Agents' Office has not got any special technical knowledge, and you can only get the best -of that technical knowledge checked and controlled by putting things up to public contract. Nothing can be worse than having these Government workshops and this close list of firms who alone are allowed to tender. One of the most successful Administrations which has existed has been probably the Administration of Lord Cromer in Egypt. Lord Cromer is allowed to buy whatever is required in the cheapest market. What is the view of the Indian Government? Lord Curzon said, in a speech delivered in January, 1903, on the occasion of visiting the collieries at Katrasgarh—
  "I do hope that India will become much mote of a self-providing country than she now is, manufacturing out of her own materials and with her own workmen a great deal that she now imports from abroad."
  That would be impossible under the Crown Agents' system. The Madras Government last September issued an order to the effect that tenders for all Government works of importance re-
  1338
  quiring engineering plant would be, in future, publicly advertised for, and other things being equal, preference would be given to local firms, provided the interests of the Government were not sacrificed thereby.
  I have now, my Lords, told my tale. I am afraid it has been rather a long one, but I have had to deal with a great many facts and figures. What I want to impress upon your Lordships is that in supporting the Motion which I now move you are only supporting the appointment of an impartial Committee. I hope that the Committee, if appointed, will not be guided by any political or Party bias, but will impartially examine into the facts of the case. It seems to me that, from the facts I have mentioned, and which I can prove, there are strong grounds to justify such an inquiry, and time is, moreover, a very acute feeling of irritation throughout our Colonial Empire. On these grounds I hope the Government will agree to the appointment of this Committee. I have every confidence that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State is anxious to act most fairly in the matter, and I cannot imagine that he would desire to shelve inquiry or give any but the fullest information on the subject.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system by which the Crown Agents of the Colonies are paid, and their methods of transacting the duties attaching to their office."—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  *EARL GREY: My Lords, I regret that the noble Earl towards the end of his speech made use of language which I cannot help thinking will convey an impression to some that the Crown Agents have a pecuniary interest in: raising the cost of works for which they are responsible. I do not think that can have been his intention, because we have been informed by the noble Duke the Under-Secretary for the Colonies—and the regulations which have been distributed leave no doubt upon the subject—that the remuneration of the Crown Agents is fixed by the Secretary of State, and that the commissions which are very properly charged to he various

  1339
  Colonies for work executed in them goes to a fund regulated, as I understand, by the Secretary of State. I associate myself with the noble Earl in regard to the rest of his speech, which I cannot help thinking has made a powerful impression upon the House. I make no imputation whatever against the personal honour of the Crown Agents. I believe they are as honourable a body of men as any in His Majesty's Service. But when we remember that the work of the Crown Agents' Department has increased very largely of late years, and that the Office is not paid for by British taxpayers—although I admit that work done in too costly a manner may involve heavy taxation which the British taxpayer has to pay—but the cost of the work is debited to the Crown colonies concerned, it will be recognised that we have a special duty to our colonial subjects to convince them that the methods employed by the Crown Agents1 Office are up-to-date business methods and that the work is done as efficiently and economically as possible. I have no reason to suppose that the Crown Agents would not themselves welcome an inquiry which could not fail to strengthen their hands and inspire an increased confidence in their methods.
  I am glad that the noble Earl abstained from suggesting that the policy of placing orders for stores and material in London through the Crown Agents is injurious to the public service. In that part of the Empire with which I am chiefly concerned a reduction in the cost of living is the first essential; and I think it is quite possible that in parts of South Africa the interests of the local merchant may be strongly opposed to the interests of the consumer, and that the Crown Agents, by placing their orders in London, may be able to safeguard the interests of the consumer more efficiently than if those orders were placed in South Africa itself. It is in other departments of the Crown Agents' Office that I think an impartial inquiry is really required. The noble Earl has pointed out in some detail—and I could supplement what he said if I chose to weary your Lordships—that departmental construction by the Crown Agents is as a rule costly. If the principle adopted with success by the Government of India were adopted in Ceylon and in our other Crown colonies, it
  1340
  is my firm belief that the work would be done better and cheaper than it is to-day. I am not going to refer to the subject of railway construction—it is a big subject,, and one which I think on some afternoon might well occupy the attention of the House—but I cannot refrain, having made some investigation into this question, from giving expression to my belief that whether you look to West Africa, East Africa, the Federated States, or the West Indies, you will find that railway and other works that have been departmentally constructed under the Crown Agents have cost more than they were estimated to cost; and if the Crown Agents were responsible for excess over the original estimates, as a firm of contractors would be, they would have to meet very large sums of money which now have to be found by the taxpayers of this country and of the Crown Colonies. I suggest that on another afternoon I may be permitted to move for a Return giving for the last ten or fifteen years the various works carried out by the Crown Agents in the different colonies, together with the original estimate of their cost and the actual amount expended.
  But I wish to confine my remarks to-day to that part of the Crown Agents' Department which is concerned in the placing of freight contracts. I believe that the Crown Agents,' owing to excess of caution and want of boldness, are responsible for keeping up the system at present obtaining, which operates as a direct restraint on trade, diverts trade which properly belongs to the United Kingdom to America, raises rates for transportation services by artificial methods, and is indirectly instrumental in increasing the cost of living in South Africa. The noble Earl has explained what the system, of the Conference Lines is. In addition to their fixed rate they add a further 10 per cent., and then, after the lapse of six months, and, in some cases, as long, a period as twelve and eighteen months, that extra 10 per cent. is given back to the shipper on condition that he has not sent one ton of cargo in the interval by a competing line. The shipper is further penalised by an intimation that if he sends any cargo by a competing line the Conference Lines will not convey goods

  1341
  for him except at a prohibitive price. The result of this system is that freights from the port of New York are one-half or one-third the amount of freights from ports in the United Kingdom. I will read to your Lordships a letter from the secretary of the Prince Line, Ltd., a firm of British steamship owners. It is dated 6th May this year, and addressed to the secretary of the Chamber of Commerce of Leeds—
  "Referring to my conversation with you recently with regard to the difficult position in which the British manufacturers seeking to do business in South Africa are placed in consequence of the much lower rates of freight ruling in New York for South Africa, you will be pleased to know that, with a view to helping our manufacturers as far as possible, we have decided to take goods for delivery in South Africa by our 'Saxon Prince,' which vessel will load in Manchester in the early days of June for South Africa, viâ New York. We may further state that it is our intention that the 'Saxon prince' shall be followed by other steamers taking cargo from the United Kingdom to South Africa, viâ New York."
  This system of penalising shippers who use competing lines in the way I have described under the rebate system is directly driving to America trade which belongs to this country.
  The only argument that I have seen against placing freight contracts, as the Indian Government does, in the open market is the statement of Mr. Chamberlain, who pointed out that the acceptance of a casual tender would place the Crown Agents or any other shipper absolutely at the mercy of the Conference Lines. I believe that fear to be absolutely unwarranted. I can speak from personal experience of Rhodesia, where, although we have only 12,000 white population, we were able, by fighting the Conference Lines, to obtain a rate £2 below that which the Conference Lines had previously charged; and if you can save £2, or even £1 per ton, on the tonnage going into a young country you aid considerably the development of that country. I would, therefore, strongly urge your Lordships to support this Motion, which asks that an inquiry should be made into the way in which the Crown Agents carry on the business entrusted to that Department. It is their practice in placing freight contracts to go to a selected list of shipowners, with the result which I have explained. Why do they not follow the example of the
  1342
  Indian Government, who advertise their requirements every Friday? They post up their requirements, stating exactly the nature of the consignments and the ports from which they are to be shipped. The tenders come in on the following Tuesday, and the answers are sent next day. Why cannot that practice be adopted by the Crown Agents in doing business for our Crown colonies?
  As I told your Lordships last year, one firm of shipowners is Continually carrying freights for the Indian Government to Calcutta, but has never had a chance of quoting for a freight contract for Colombo because Colombo is under the Crown Agents. It is the invariable custom of the Crown Agents to place their contracts with the Conference Lines. Last year the noble Duke the Under-Secretary offered to meet the demand which I then pressed upon your Lordships, and he stated that the Crown Agents were going to invite all shipowners to tender to carry goods to South Africa. But none of the independent shipowners responded. The reason is to be found in the fact that the form of contract made it impossible for any business man to look at it. Under the form of contract issued the contractor had to undertake to carry 60,000 tons to South African ports, with the condition that the Crown Agents should have the option of- forcing him to carry an additional 60,000 tons, but reserving to themselves the right to ship outside. It was a "Heads I win, tails you lose" arrangement. Another condition was that the rate should be uniform on all packages. As your lordships are aware, there are profitable freights and unprofitable freights, and to ask business men to expose themselves to the liability of being compelled by the Crown Agents to carry all unremunerative freights whilst the remunerative freights could be placed outside, was most unreasonable. It was an arrangement which no business firm would for a moment consider.
  Under the contract the person tendering was liable, at three weeks' notice, to be required to call at any harbour where the Government had collected 500 tons—that is to say, he might be compelled to call at four different ports and take up 2,000 tons. The harbour dues would reach £300, roughly,

  1343
  in each case, or £1,200 for the 2,000 tons; and then he would have to sail to South Africa without any more cargo, for the contract provided that the shipowner should not call at any ports after snipping the Crown Agents' goods. In their anxiety to safeguard His Majesty's Government and to obtain the best terms! possible, the Crown Agents invented a form of contract which was really beside the mark, and was at once placed in the rubbish basket. The Agent-General of Cape Colony gave an exactly similar offer, but as no responses came he has now withdrawn it and substituted a reasonable form of contract and one more closely resembling that adopted by the Government of India. If in placing their freight contracts the Crown Agents had adopted the practice which has been successfully carried on for years by the Government of India, they would have secured for British manufacturers the cheap rate of 10s. per ton to South African ports -which the Houston and Prince Lines gave to New York shippers for nine or ten months with this result, that a large amount of trade which ought to have been kept in England was made a present of to New York.
  Mr. Birchenough, in a capable Report which is known to your Lordships, stated that—
  "After careful inquiry I am convinced that no single circumstance has done so much to promote the growth of American trade during the last twelve months as these low freight charges between America and South African ports. It is pleasant to reflect that they are the result of the action of British and not of foreign steamship companies."
  I would add that even less pleasant is it to reflect that this action of the British steamship companies was absolutely necessitated by the ultra prudence, I might almost call it cowardice, of the Crown Agents. When we reflect that the Crown Agents are not responsible to Parliament we ought to be most jealous in this matter. If they were controlled by the Colonies I believe this scandal would not have occurred. I am glad to see that the inhabitants of South Africa are now organising a hostile movement against the shipping of Government freights by lines which practice this system of rebate. The House of Assembly at Pietermaritzburg actually marked their disapprobation of the freight
  1344
  arrangements by passing a Motion for the reduction of the Agent-General's salary. That Motion was rescinded the following day, but it was adopted with a view of calling attention to what was rightly considered to be a vicious practice in the hope that the authorities would see their way to remove it.
  The Associated Chambers of Commerce in South Africa have convened a meeting for next week at Johannesburg, and a resolution will be moved urging legislative action against the rebate system. The Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce and Trade passed a resolution praying the Government to introduce a clause in all trade contracts requiring the contractor to carry public freights at the same rate as Government freights. I omitted to state that when we saved £2 a ton in Rhodesia we stipulated in the contract that the shipowner should carry freight for the public at the reduced rate. I need not trouble your Lordships with the other resolutions in favour of getting rid of the rebate system. It is well known that the German Government, in return for subsidies, are able to make what regulations they please as to the rates charged to the ordinary public; and I maintain that His Majesty's Government, acting in co-operation with the Governments of Natal and Cape Colony, should have no difficulty whatever in bringing pressure to bear on the Conference Lines in such a way as to satisfy them that if they are to carry in the future any portion of the tonnage which the Government have under their control, they will have to abandon the present 10 per cent. rebate system, and carry for the public at the same rates as they are prepared to carry for His Majesty's Government.
  I believe that it was owing to the action of the Crown Agents that one independent line of steamers was driven to America, to compete against British traders and manufacturers, by the cheap rate of 10s. per ton from New York to Cape pores, and that if His Majesty's Government, through the Crown Agents, had supported that independent line, the rates to South African ports would have been reduced, to the great advantage of British trade and our fellow-subjects in South Africa. I do not believe

  1345
  that the competing line which fought the Conference ring ever received any support from His Majesty's Government. It was, consequently, forced into the ring. You now have left one solitary independent line of steamers on the East Coast of Africa—the British India Steamship Company. The Mombasa trade, which averages 200 tons per month, is so small that in order to avoid the transit dues through the Suez Canal this company goes right round by the Cape. The first port it touches at is Delagoa Bay. The company have made frequent requests to be allowed to share in the Government freights to Delagoa Bay, but, so far as I know, they have never received an invitation to tender. A recommendation was made that the East Coast line of steamers should receive a subsidy from the State in order to enable it to carry on Imperial work. It is admitted, I believe, on both sides of the House that such a subsidy would be justified. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, pointed out the other day that, in view of the present state of national finance, it was impossible for the Treasury to consider the suggestion. If you are going to pay no subsidy to a line which is wanted for Imperial purposes, what are you going to do for it? I believe the British India Steamship Company would much prefer to have a fair chance of a portion of the 'Government freights to Delagoa Bay than receive a subsidy. Are the Crown Agents going to give this company a portion of their freight contracts? If that is not done, I warn your Lordships that through the action of the Crown Agents the only independent British line of steamers to Delagoa Bay and the East Coast will be driven to join the Conference ring.
  There is another point to which I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships. I happened to be in Germany the other day, and I elicited information as to the practice which exists for bringing the German manufacturer into closer touch with the South African consumer. As your Lordships will admit, it is most desirable, in the interests of all concerned, that the British manufacturer and the South African consumer should be brought in close connection with each other. The Germans and Americans
  1346
  have established a system of through bookings, but through bookings are impossible in this country so long as the 10 per cent. rebate system is kept up. It is absolutely certain that unless we organise our transportation service with the same care that the Germans and Americans are organising theirs, we shall lose in the race of commerce to South Africa. The total value of exports (domestic and foreign) from New York to British South Africa was, for the year ended 30th June, 1901, £2,498,397; for the year ended 30th June, 1902, £3,044,648; and for the year ended 30th June, 1903, £4,732,517. It has practically doubled in two years. The largest increases have taken place in foodstuffs and manufactured articles in which Great Britain could successfully compete were it not for the excessive freight charges prevailing from this country. I conclude with a most earnest appeal that the Government will appoint an impartial Committee to make inquiry into the subjects which have been referred to, or, if for any reason that should be considered inadvisable, that they will at any rate follow the practice which has been adopted so successfully by the Indian Government, and place their freight contracts out to public tender.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, your Lord-sips have before you the Parliamentary Papers relating to the commercial business of the Crown Agents for the Colonies, but perhaps I may be allowed to supplement a few remarks on those Papers. As your Lordships are aware, there are some forty-four colonies and protectorates that buy their stores through the Crown Agents, and it requires no effort of imagination to see that if each had its own agent to buy in the London market they would in all probability bid against one another and thus raise the price of stores to the detriment of the colonies. Moreover, it is very doubtful whether, if each had its own agent, the colonies would have the advantage of the services of such men of experience, trained in commercial pursuits, which they now possess in the Crown Agency. We believe that the cost to the colonies would not only be increased, but the system would be altogether unworkable. The noble Earl who moved

  1347
  the Motion now before your Lordships admitted that the theory and principles of the Crown Agents' Office were sound. He admits that the system has to exist, and he did not suggest to your Lordships any other system which should be adopted in its place.
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I said that as regards this issue of loans and all other such purposes it might be advisable to retain them, but I was opposed to their acting as Government buyers. I object to monopoly of any kind.
  *THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The view of the Government is that with so large a number of colonies, varying in size, in geographical, racial, and industrial conditions, it is essential to have an Agency with a general and uniform practice in commercial dealings, and with one set of rules and principles to guide it. Obstacles to anything like concerted action by the Colonies in the matter exists in their varying interest, and consequently we feel it is not unimportant, on Imperial grounds, that they should have a common business centre in London in the form of an Agency, just as they have for political and administrative questions a common central ground in the Colonial Office.
  I would remind your Lordships what are the advantages of centralising the business of the Crown Colonies in the hands of the Crown Agents. In the first place, there is the advantage of concentrating the large and long experience derived from business of many colonies in one body of men. This body of men—this Agency—we believe can buy in the cheapest market. They possess a power of control over manufacturers which one single agent could not possibly exercise. If a manufacturer does not supply the proper quality of goods or otherwise fails in his contract, the Crown Agents possess authority and power over him which one single agent could not possess. There is also an advantage in connection with loans and the management of sinking funds, and we believe the Crown Agents to be a much better body of men to deal with the many financial matters involved. The noble Earl will notice, on page 8 of the Parliamentary Paper, that the Crown Agents give advice and assistance, pay the salaries of officers
  1348
  on leave, and carry out many minor matters which are of great assistance to the Colonies, and which they would have difficulty in getting done if a body like the Crown Agents did not exist.
  These are, in rough outline, the functions of the Crown Agents. Let us consider for a moment the remuneration they receive. In the first place, they get 1 per cent. on all stores for railways and stores of a commercial character. The noble Earl who spoke first asked whether this 1 per cent. covered everything. My information is that the 1 per cent. is the sole and only charge in connection with any orders which the Crown Agents transact on behalf of the Colonies. The noble Earl was anxious to know whether there were also cash discounts and trade discounts. I am happy to inform him that both these considerations are laid down in the instructions of the Secretary of State to the Crown Agents. The noble Earl also asked whether the Crown Agents invited tenders for every order which was over £100 in value. I have a Parliamentary Paper here which has just been published in response to an inquiry in the House of Commons, which gives a list of the articles which the Crown Agents have invited tenders for, and the names of the different firms who have supplied the articles. In addition to this 1 per cent., the Crown Agents charge ½ per cent. on all loans, and ¼ per cent. on the payment of the interest on loans. From these receipts I are defrayed the salaries of the three Crown Agents and the cost of the administration of the office; and if there is any money over at the end of the year it is transferred to the reserve fund, the income of which is employed for the purpose of granting pensions to the Crown Agents. The salaries are fixed by the Secretary of State. There can be no inducement, therefore, as the noble Earl inferred on the occasion of the last debate, for the Crown Agents to make their orders as large as possible with a view to increasing their percentage. The noble Earl certainly made that statement on the last occasion, and; I understand from his remarks to-day that he does not in any way withdraw it Let me, as carefully as I can, explain this system of percentage.
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I did not deal with the question of percentages at all. I asked the noble Duke about the question of commission, and whether the 1 per cent. included everything.
  *THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The percentage which the Crown Agents get cannot in any way affect them, because their salaries are fixed and can only be altered by the sanction of the Secretary of State. Therefore, there cannot be any inducement for them to make their orders as large as possible so as to gain a greater percentage. As I have already stated, if there is any money over at the end of the year it is transferred to the reserve fund, the interest on which may be utilised, in addition to granting pensions, for the purpose of making good any loss that may occur in any year on the working of the office. Obviously, if the profits made by the Crown Agents were so considerable that the reserve fund increased to an unduly large degree, the Secretary of State would consider it his duty to reduce the scale of charges so as to make the profit and loss account balance as nearly as possible. The Colonies, in giving an order, state the price they wish to pay, and the Crown Agents are obliged to buy at that price, and are only permitted a small margin. It is, therefore, quite clear that the contention of the noble Earl that the Crown Agents, by the system of percentage, are deliberately encouraged to make large orders and buy in the dearest market is unjustified by the facts of the case. I confess it is very distasteful to me to have to allude to a subject of this sort at all, for, after all, we are dealing with a body of men of high character and long experience in the public service. It is only with the desire to show clearly to your Lordships that there can be no possible inducement for the Crown Agents to make their orders as large as possible with a view to increasing their remuneration that I have ventured to dwell on this matter at such length. I do not think I need say any more with regard to the position of the Crown Agents and the form of their remuneration. It is a system which those who are experienced in these matters consider the best that can be devised. But since the
  1350
  noble Earl seems to regard it with some disfavour and to think that the system is not quite perfect, I can assure him that if he can suggest any improvement on the present scheme, any point where he sees an improvement can be effected, the Secretary of State will bear the suggestion in mind. I do not think I need dwell on the personal reflections that the noble Earl made with regard to the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office.
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Will the noble Duke prove that my facts are wrong?
  *THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I do not propose to go into that discussion to-night, beyond saying that I do not think the noble Earl's reflections upon the Permanent Under-Secretary are altogether according to the best traditions of your Lordships' House. As to the question whether the system of the Crown Agents is sound or successful, I would point out that the late Colonial Secretary held an exhaustive inquiry into the subject. He wrote a dispatch to all the Governors inquiring their views on the system, and also inviting them to state any complaints they might have. I would impress upon your Lordships that this inquiry was not a perfunctory inquiry where only a pious expression of opinion was asked, but a searching and exhaustive inquiry, organised with the deliberate aim in view of ascertaining whether there was any cause of complaint against the Crown Agents' system. I think your Lordships will admit that this was a pretty severe trial for any administrative office to be subjected to. In this matter, as in all others, the late Colonial Secretary was most businesslike, and the inquiry instituted by him was carried out in the most searching and business-like manner.
  Replies from the Governors were duly received. A minority of them replied that they were perfectly satisfied with the system, and had no cause of complaint whatever. A majority of the Governors did say they had cause of complaint. At the same time, they said, in the most definite terms, that they were perfectly satisfied with the quality of the goods supplied by the Crown Agents, and also with the prices charged. Their

  1351
  chief complaint was directed to the delay in carrying out their orders. This delay was accounted for by the fact that orders to the Crown Agents had formerly to be referred to the Colonial Office for sanction. If your Lordships will turn to page 4 of the Parliamentary Paper, you will see that by Sections 5 and 7 this difficulty has been now removed. When once the Secretary of State has passed the Budget of a colony for the year, the colony is entitled to ask the Crown Agents to supply all the items specified without further reference to the Colonial Office. Another reason for the delay was the fact that manufacturers failed to carry out their bargains. I am sure your Lordships must have had personal experience of how difficult it is to induce manufacturers to carry out their bargains to time; and in the case of the Crown Agents, who had an enormous number of contracts to make, it is not surprising that there were many instances when they could not force the manufacturers to deliver goods at the exact date agreed upon. The penalty clause may be enforced, but the only result is that the manufacturer, the next time he tenders, includes in his tender the amount of the penalty he is likely to incur. The result of the replies of the Colonial Governors is well summed up in the second paragraph of the Secretary of State's dispatch contained in the Parliamentary Paper now before your Lordships. What does the Secretary of State say? He states that—
  "After a most careful consideration of the answers to his dispatch, my predecessor placed on record his opinion that the number of complaints was small in proportion to the number of the Colonies which had sent replies; that few of the complaints were serious; that, allowing for the percentage of mistakes for which allowance in all businesses must be made, and taking into consideration the very small charge for agency which the Colonies have to pay, the existing system had, beyond question, worked well for the Colonies; and that Crown Agents had deserved the confidence alike of the Governments of the Crown Colonies and of successive Secretaries of State."
  It is very easy to make complaints, but very often when inquired into there is frequently forthcoming a complete answer to show that the complaint is not in any way justified. On the lust occasion that we debated this subject the noble Earl who has moved the Resolution now before the House complained of the cost of the Gold Coast
  1352
  Railway, and he has alluded to that railway again this afternoon. He said on the last occasion—
  "The Crown Agents undertook the building of the Ashantee Railway. The estimated cost of that railway was £8,000 a mile, but the actual cost was £13,000 a mile."
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I stated in the course of my speech to-day that the cost was £10,300 a mile.
  *THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am alluding to the figures which the noble Earl gave on the last occasion. I am quite aware that he has come down in his figures to-day.
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am not aware of having stated the higher figure.
  *THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am quoting from the report of the noble Earl's speech which appears in The Parliamentary Debates. The exact cost of the construction of the Gold Coast Railway was £10,300 per mile.
  *THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: That is what I stated.
  *THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The noble Earl went on to say that this railway was very extravagantly built, and compared very unfavourably with other railways in Africa. Now the Congo Railway—with a 2ft. 6in. gauge—co to £10,400 a mile; the Cape Government Railway—which has the same gauge as the Gold Coast Railway, 3ft. 6in.—cost £10,524 a mile; the Natal Railway, with the same gauge as the Gold Coast, cost £13,771 a mile. The cost of these Railways was higher than that of the Gold Coast Railway. The noble Earl, in the course of his speech on the last occasion, said that—
  "Mr. Pauling, a well-known South African contractor, has built railways in tropical portions of Portuguese South East Africa, where the climatic and physical conditions are of the same character as obtained in the case of the Ashantee Railway. He built the railway from Beira to Mashonaland, as well as railways in Rhodesia, and the average cost of the railways he constructed has been £5,000 a mile."
  Well, my Lords, I have been at pains to find out the exact cost of the Beira-Mashonaland Railway, and it works out

  1353
  at £10,250 a mile, within £50 of the cost of the Gold Coast Railway. Yet the noble Earl who spoke last said the Gold Coast Railway was the most glaring instance of extravagant railway construction he knew of.
  *EARL GREY: A railway built with the credit of the Imperial Government and a railway built with the money found by a commercial company are two very different things. The Beira-Mashonaland Railway Company had to construct the line from hand to mouth and borrow money on extravagant terms.
  *THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am not concerned to know how the money was raised. There is a still more remarkable instance of the inaccuracy of the statements noble Lords make with regard to the practice of the Crown Agents. Your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion that this subject was discussed the noble Earl (Earl Grey) strongly condemned the present system, and quoted the case of the purchase of a steamer for Lake Nyassa by Sir Harry Johnston. The noble Earl said—
  "Some years ago Sir Harry Johnston, when he was Commissioner of the British Central African Protectorate, requisitioned for a steamer for Lake Nyassa. He drew out the specification and obtained a private tender from a firm of contractors. The Office of the Crown Agents thought that in obtaining this tender Sir Harry Johnston was encroaching upon their province. They made representations to the Colonial Office that the business of supplying the steamer belonged to their Department, and they insisted on supplying the steamer themselves. Sir Harry Johnston by acting individually was able to obtain a tender to supply that steamer at £8,000. The steamer offered by the Crown Agents was to have cost £13,000. The noble Duke is acquainted with the character of Sir Harry Johnston. He was most indignant at his Administration being asked to spend £5,000 more than he thought necessary. He went straight to the Prime Minister, and Lord Salisbury decided that in this case there was a reason for departing from the usual custom of the Government; he took the ordering of the steamer out of the hands of the Crown Agents and handed it over to Sir Harry Johnston. The steamer was built for £8,000."
  Now, what are the real facts of this case? Sir Harry Johnston sent home a specification and plans of the steamer, suggesting that they—
  "Might be placed in the hands of the Crown Agents so that tenders might he invited."
  1354
  That is what the noble Earl described as the Crown Agents insisting on supplying the steamer themselves. The specification was sent to the Crown Agents, who informed the Foreign Office that the ship would cost £12,500. The Foreign Office replied that the Superintendent of Marine of the protectorate had been authorised to negotiate privately with shipbuilding firms to see whether a lower estimate could be obtained. The superintendent at once departed from the original specification which he had himself drawn up. The speed was reduced from 13 to 11 knots; the double bottom on cellular system was omitted, together with an expensive system for pumping out the various departments; the thickness of the plating was reduced by 33 per cent; the limit of weight of packages was increased from 200 to 300 lbs. with the effect of greatly reducing the amount of riveting, planing, and other work. The limit of 200 lbs. was originally fixed by Sir Harry Johnston on the ground that, as the vessel had to be erected locally, she should be sent out in pieces suitable for transport on men's heads. Innumerable other alterations were made, such as a large reduction in accommodation, wooden masts instead of steel, and two boats were ordered instead of four. In fact, it was a totally different vessel from the one originally requisitioned, and there is not the slightest ground for supposing that the Crown Agents could not, if they had had the opportunity, have obtained tenders for the construction of this vessel as low as that obtained by the superintendent.
  I do not for a moment impute to my noble friend a desire to be other than perfectly accurate, but I have no doubt he has fallen into error by believing a statement made to him. It may be that Sir Harry Johnston himself gave him the information, but in these matters Sir Harry Johnston—I wish to use a Parliamentary term—is not quite to be relied upon. Speaking on 22nd March this year, at a meeting of the Society of Arts, Sir Harry Johnston enlarged upon tie iniquities of the Crown Agents in a somewhat similar strain to that of the noble Earl. He said—
  "People were sent out, not because they were absolutely suited for the work and would be chosen by a hard-headed business firm, but

  1355
  because they were people whom somebody wanted to provide for."
  That was what Sir Harry Johnston said a few months ago. I will now read to your Lordships an extract from a letter which he wrote to the Crown Agents from Nakuro, Uganda Protectorate, dated 18th February, 1901, when he held a very different view. Quite gratuitously, and without being asked, Sir Harry Johnston wrote the following letter to the Crown Agents—
  "I should like in connection with this matter to thank you for the trouble you have taken during the last year in selecting those employees of the Administration with whose appointments you are more especially charged. No one whom you have sent out to fill the post of engineer, blacksmith, printer, dispenser, or unqualified hospital assistant has proved other than satisfactory. This care in selection has so materially assisted my work, and has made my relations with these men so agreeable, that I feel it is only due to you to make this communication."
  I would not have ventured to remind your Lordships of these facts at such great length except as a form of protest against the line of reasoning so commonly adopted. The form of reasoning employed is to find an isolated case where the Crown Agents are supposed to be at fault, and, without waiting to see whether the case can be explained, base upon it a sweeping indictment against the whole system and a declaration that the Crown Agents do not deserve the confidence of your Lordships, and that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the manner in which they conduct their business.
  With regard to the suggestion that the people of the Transvaal should be allowed to tender for Government requirements, it is obviously much cheaper to buy under the system which the Government have adopted. Assume that a Johannesburg order for machinery is placed with a merchant in England. The merchant purchases the machinery from the manufacturer, and pays the manufacturer when the machinery is shipped from England. He himself does not receive payment until the machinery is erected at Johannesburg. He thus stands out of the use of the capital involved in the order and of the amount of the freight from England to Johannesburg for the period between the date on which the machinery leaves England and the date on which it is erected at Johannesburg. He must, therefore, obviously include in the cost of the
  1356
  order, not only a charge to cover his office expenses, but also a charge to cover the loss of interest on the cost of the order and the cost of freight for the period named. The rate of such interest will be, say, 4 per cent. Now, suppose the same order were given to a merchant in Johannesburg. He would similarly buy from the manufacturer in England and pay when the machinery was shipped from England, but would have to stand out of the money so paid and the amount of the freight for the period of the machinery's journey from England to Johannesburg. But in his case the rate of interest on the capital which he would have to cover in the price would be at South African rates, that is, about 8 per cent., instead of 4 per cent., and his office expenses, owing to the high rates and the high cost of living in South Africa, would be at least two or three times those of a merchant living in England. It is clear, therefore, that the Johannesburg merchant would either have to charge a higher price for the same machinery, or, charging the same price, supply an inferior article.
  The noble Earl who spoke last referred to the subject of freights. My noble friend the Earl of Onslow will deal with that question later. I believe the Crown Agents have, on behalf of the Colonial Office, made as good terms for the shipment of freight from this country to South Africa as any other body of agents could have done. It is the view of the Secretary of State that there are no sufficient grounds for granting a Committee of Inquiry into the system adopted by the Crown Agents. The view of His Majesty's Government is that the Crown Agents' system is a good one, no better system having been devised; that they do their work in an efficient manner; that the system of remuneration is a reasonable system; and that the criticism of the method of payment is unwarranted. Moreover, a searching and exhaustive inquiry has been made into the administration of the Crown Agents' Office; the complaints that were brought forward were thoroughly dealt with, and the Crown Agents vindicated. Consequently, it is the view of His Majesty's Government that there are not sufficient reasons to justify a further inquiry into their administration. But the Secretary of

  1357
  State has desired me to say that he is willing to meet any specific charge that can be brought forward against the efficiency of the Crown Agents' administration either in your Lordships' House or by communication to the Colonial Office, and he will be most willing to publish the result of the inquiry. If, however, the complaints are similar in character to those brought forward in your Lordships' House, there will be no difficulty in disposing of them. In conclusion, I would beg your Lordships to remember, as you can see from the Papers before you, that both Mr. Chamberlain, who had the closest and most intimate knowledge of the work of the Crown Agents' Office during a period of eight or more years, and Mr. Lyttelton, the present Secretary of State, bear testimony to the successful manner in which the Crown Agents have conducted their business; and it is our view that they deserve the confidence, not only of the colonies whose business they transact, but we hope also of the majority of the Members of your Lordships' House.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I am sorry to learn from the speech of the noble Duke that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to refuse the Appointment of this Committee. I am especially sorry to learn it in the interests of the Crown Agents themselves. I was for some years associated with them at the Colonial Office, and I desire to speak of them and their administration with confidence and respect. I agree with the view expressed in the dispatch from Mr. Lyttelton as to the administration of these public officers, and I can assure your Lordships that nothing is further from my intention, in supporting the appointment of this Committee of Inquiry, than to do it in a spirit which would be calculated to cast the slightest reflection upon the methods pursued by the Crown Agents. I heard with regret the insinuations which seemed to be directed against Sir Montague Ommanney. I have known Sir Montague for some years. He was at the head of the Crown Agents at the time I was at the Colonial Office. I had for him a perfect respect. I believe him to be a capable public officer and a very honourable man, and I should not be doing my duty to him or to the public if I did not, having
  1358
  served with him so long, give expression to that opinion. It is clear that that view was also entertained by the late Colonial Secretary, for Mr. Chamberlain promoted Sir Montague Ommanney from the position of First Crown Agent to the important position of Permanent Under-Secretary; and I understand from the speech of the noble Duke that Sir Montague has in no way forfeited the good opinion which I and my successor entertained of him.
  But, my Lords, when I consider the nature of the criticism which has been made of the conduct of the Crown Agents, both by my noble friend Lord Portsmouth and by the noble Earl below the Gangway, I do think that it is very desirable indeed that there should be an impartial inquiry such as could be conducted by a Committee of this House. It is desirable for the purpose of affording to the Crown Agents the fullest opportunity of meeting any criticisms that may be made against them. What have we seen to-night? The noble Duke's speech was really mainly directed, not to answering the speeches which have been made this evening, but to answering speeches which were made some months ago. I do not in the least complain of the noble Duke in that matter. He could not, of course, tell what were the points likely to be brought forward, and in a complicated matter of this kind no one could be surprised that he was not able to give a detailed answer to the charges. He made what I think was a powerful reply to the charges which were brought forward earlier in the session. But we cannot go on in that way. My noble friend behind me will probably in about a fortnight reply to the noble Duke's speech to-day, and then the noble Duke after a month will reply to the speech of my noble friend; but that is not the way to deal with a matter of this kind. These criticisms are grave; there is no shirking the matter; they are grave, and are intended by those who bring them forward to be grave, and I venture to submit that it is only just to the Crown Agents that they should have the fullest opportunity of stating their views and of explaining their conduct before an impartial body.
  From what I have seen of the administration of the Crown Agents I should

  1359
  expect that they would clear away a great deal of what has been said against them. There may be points in which they have committed errors, but my own expectation would be that they would come, on the whole, broadly speaking, scathless out of such an inquiry. But an inquiry I hold is due to them, and it is due to the public. It is not right that charges of this kind should be made against public officers and should not be fully inquired into. The noble Duke's invitation to noble Lords who have brought forward this matter to send him letters and ask him to inquire into specific charges is of no use in a case in which charges have been publicly made. If my noble friend had thought fit to bring this matter before the Colonial Office before calling attention to it here that would be another matter. If the statements are true, they show an urgent necessity for a change in the administration of the Crown Agents' Office; if they are founded on misrepresentations, then the sooner those misrepresentations are cleared away the better. Therefore, I do very earnestly hope that the Government will reconsider their determination not to allow this inquiry.
  No inquiry within the Office itself will satisfy the public mind. No doubt there are a great many people in the country accustomed to deal with these questions who do criticise and always have criticised certain proceedings of the Crown Agents. Well, let those matters be brought to the test of an impartial inquiry such as your Lordships will give them, and then the reputation and the administrative character of the Crown Agents will be cleared and the matter put on a satisfactory footing. I myself, I confess, rather regret that my noble friend Lord Portsmouth did not make his Motion somewhat wider. I am sorry that it is so closely confined to the action of the Crown Agents as individuals. I am bound to confess that nine years ago when I left the Colonial Office I had no intention of revising the system; but in these days, when methods of conducting commercial and industrial business change so rapidly, when new methods are being introduced in one way and another so frequently, I can quite believe that there might be improvements made in the general system of this portion of colonial administration. I therefore think it would be desirable if
  1360
  the Committee were enabled to go fully into the whole question of the constitution of the Office and the duties entrusted to the Crown Agents. As your Lordships know, the Crown Agents deal only with Crown colonies. I think the noble Duke was rather knocking down something which had not been set up when he said it would never do to have a system by which every one of the forty Crown Colonies was represented by a separate agent in London. I do not think that was suggested at all, but I agree with the noble Duke that it would be a very absurd system. The Crown Agents have nothing to do with self-governing colonies.
  I confess there was one portion of the speech of the noble Duke which made me smile, and that was the part which related to the Transvaal. We have been told, over and over again that it is intended to treat that Crown colony as a self-governing colony, and it is rather surprising to find that while upon questions involving great matters of Imperial importance the Government are prepared to leave the decision in the hands of the Government of the Transvaal, yet when it comes to a question of how the stores for the Transvaal are to be bought they will not listen for a moment to the suggestion to treat the Transvaal as a self-governing colony. On the contrary, in spite of the protests of those in the Transvaal to whom upon all other matters they are inclined to bow, they determine upon this point—and if ever there was a matter which should be left to the decision of a local Legislature it is one of this kind—that they will adhere to the system of purchasing the stores through the Crown Agents. That seems to be an exceedingly unintelligible and inconsistent proceeding. If you mean to regard the Transvaal as a self-governing colony and to treat the nominated Legislature of the Transvaal as a representative Legislature, surely if there is one thing more than another which you might leave to be judged by them it is this question of the purchase of stores. I know how utterly impossible it is to maintain in practice the absurd theory which it seems to me His Majesty's Government have adopted of treating a Crown colony in any respect as if it were a self-governing colony. I feel bound to record my vote for the Motion before the House,

  1361
  but I shall do it more particularly because I desire the utmost vindication of the character of the Crown Agents, and because I believe that before such a Committee as we are asking for that object would be achieved.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes, but I must express the satisfaction with which I heard the remarks that have just fallen from the noble Marquess in regard to Sir Montague Ommanney. We are proud of our Civil Service. We believe it to be above suspicion, and it is not often in this House that we hear any suggestion that it is otherwise. I am prepared to agree with the noble Marquess that if there were any grounds for this inquiry it would be in the interests of the Crown Agents that it should take place. I do not think the Crown Agents have any reason to fear any inquiry into their system or their methods of business, but they have not asked the Secretary of State to allow this inquiry to take place. If they had, I do not know that he could have refused it; but your Lordships must remember that business of this kind is of a somewhat ticklish character. There is such a thing as trade jealousy, and I am not at all sure that it would be in the interests of the State that the exact manner in which the business of the Crown Agents is done should be made pubic, and that they should be subjected to cross-examination by those who are, after all, in competition with them.
  Have the charges that have been made been against the Crown Agents? The noble Earl who moved the Motion now before the House talked at great length about the action of the Government of Ceylon, but that action was taken by the Colonial Government, and had nothing whatever to do with the Crown Agents. The noble Marquess said he thought that when these charges are brought they ought to be thoroughly sifted by an impartial Committee, but we have had some experience of the nature of these charges. If the complaints are as flimsy and as easily dispelled as those that have been previously brought forward, I say that
  1362
  much the cheapest, safest, and easiest way is for noble Lords to bring those charges individually before the attention of the Colonial Office. We have the assurance that the Secretary of State will give them every consideration. There was one point that the noble Earl opposite did not quite comprehend. He asked, Do you not pay commissions, and, if you do, who do you pay them to, and who pays them? Commissions are paid, but the whole of those commissions cost the Colonies no more than the 1 per cent on the price of the stores. The 1 per cent. covers everything. The noble Marquess said that if we were going to treat the Transvaal as if it were a colony with a responsible Government in every way, surely this was one of the things in regard to which we could so treat it. We have had no representation yet from the Government of the Transvaal. We should like them to consider whether or not, if they order from a firm in the Transvaal, who, of course, would have to buy in England, they would have to pay an increased price, and if they are satisfied that it would be better for them to pay a heavier commission than they pay under the present system; that is a matter which the Secretary of State would take into consideration.
  I now come to what fell from the noble Earl below the Gangway (Earl Grey) on the question of freights. The noble Earl has always been a great champion of public tender. The noble Earl's view prevailed with the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, and tenders were invited for 60,000 tons of freights in the year 1904, but only one tender was received, and that tender was not in accordance with the terms of contract.
  *EARL GREY: I am not surprised, considering the conditions attached to the contract.
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am not going to weary your Lordships at this late hour with the conditions contained in the contract.
  *EARL GREY: That is the essence of the matter.
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The real reason they did not tender was that the Government refused to give the whole of their business either to the Conference Lines or to their rival. What then happened

  1363
  was that the seventh line was taken into the Conference by the other six, and the consequence is that we have no one carrying to South Africa to whom we can go for competition in the freight market. We should be only too glad to put our freights up to tender, but we know these is no company who will tender for those freights outside the Conference. A business arrangement exists between the British India Steamship Company and the Conference Lines. We have offered to give the British India Company an opportunity of tendering for Government freights if they will undertake to carry them to any of the South African ports They pass Capetown, Natal, and Durban, but by an arrangement they have with the Conference Lines they are precluded from landing freight at any other place than Delagoa Bay. We cannot in consequence employ them. His Majesty's Government have the greatest desire to get the lowest possible freight to South Africa, and, short of bringing in a Bill, which I do not think the noble Earl has suggested, to prevent combination among shipowners—a practice which is adopted by every steamship line—I do not see what the Government can do more than they have done in the matter.
  *EARL GREY: Simply follow the example of the Government of India.
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Government of India have a number of steamships companies to whom to offer their contracts who are not in the Conference ring, and we have not. I hope your Lordships will not insist on the Motion which the noble Earl has submitted but be satisfied with the fact that the late Secretary of State asked the Governors of every colony which deals with the Crown Agents whether they had any complaints to make, and went fully into the complaints received. He satisfied himself that the cases merely showed that there was sometimes delay, and those mistakes common to human nature, and he recorded his opinion, which has been endorsed by the present Secretary of State, that on the whole the Colonies were satisfied with the Crown Agents, and that it would be unwise in the interests of the Empire to depart from a system which had prevailed for so many years.
  On Question, resolved in the negative.

  THE YEOMANRY.
  THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTERasked the Under-Secretary for War for a Return of the number of Yeomanry regiments which assembled for their annual training between 18th May and 4th June inclusive, and the number of officers and men receiving the £5 horse allowance.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): Our Returns are not yet complete, but, I can inform the noble Marquess that the number of regiments out for training between the dates he mentions was twenty in all; seven commenced and finished their training within the dates mentioned, and thirteen assembled within those dates but did not complete before 4th June. As to the number of men and officers receiving the £5 horse allowance, I am afraid I cannot at present give any answer, but I shall be glad to do so the moment we get our Returns in. There were 11,381 horses returned last year as being the personal property either of the Yeomen themselves or of some members of their families; 562 were Government horses, leaving 10,666 which were classified as hired, but a great many of which would be individual horses, owing to the fact that a number of the regiments trained at the same time.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.