Sitting of 9 May 1904

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been com-
  736
  plied with, viz.:—Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill [Lords]; Harrogate Waterworks Tramroad Bill [Lords]; Leeds Corporation (Waterworks) Railway Bill [Lords]; Maidenhead Bridge Bill [Lords]; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill [Lords]; South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Commons Regulation (Merrow) Provisional Order Bill; Commons Regulation (Oxshott) Provisional Order Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Plymouth Corporation Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Barnard Castle Gas Bill [Lords]; Lancashire Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Thames River Steamboat Service Bill (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No 3) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Sutton Gas Bill; Bishop's Stortford and District Gas Bill, without Amendment.
  Kettering Improvement Bill, with Amendments.

PETITIONS.

  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from London; Leicester; Plymouth; Leicestershire; Shipley; Seghill (two);

  737
  Stratford; Cheltenham: Swindon; High-worth; Battersea; New Delaval; Scholes; Wigan; East and Mid Surrey; Whitchurch; Alverstoke; Wincanton; Hanley, Throckley; Guildford; North Durham; Pilsby; Whitchurch; Newnham on Severn; Reading; Newcastle Emlyn; Great Yarmouth; Sparkbrook; and Bristol (two); to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Luton; Merthyr Tydfil; Wakefield; Leicester (three); Mountain Ash: Awsworth; Paisley; Charles Forknall; Newark; Stonebroom; Belfast; Leamington; Willington Quay; Aston; Gateshead (eleven); Bloxworth; Greenock (twelve); Newburn; Seaton Burn; Gosforth; Poole (six); Market Harborough; Naseby; Morden; Lower Lytehett; Waterloo; United Kingdom Alliance; Street; Guildford; Dundee (two); Wood Green; Harrogate; Knaresborough; Inverness; Battersea (three): St. Cleares; East Ham; Hebburn Colliery; Willenhall; King's Lynn; Peterborough: Wishaw; Craigcuk; Durham; Trafalgar Square; Upton; Wigton; Great Harwood; Clapham; Lavender Hill; New Delaval; Willington; Pembroke Dock; Bradford (four); Southend-on-Sea (two); Coseley; Tunstall; Birmingham; Dunstable; Langdon Hills; Roden; Bristol; Deptfoid; Nautwich; Rotherhithe; Brxton Hill; Camberwell; Whitehaven; and Small Heath; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Idle, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  Petition from Bristol, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854 TO 1894.
  Copy presented, of Fifteenth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Copy presented, of Orders made by the County Council of the county of Middlesex altering certain Polling Districts in the Tottenham Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (CONTINUATION CLASSES).
  Copy presented, of Reports, Statistics, etc., on Continuation Classes (Scotland), 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Crofters' Commission for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREW'S.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of the University for the year ended 30th September, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 162.]
  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREW'S.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of St. Andrew's for the year 1902–3 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 163.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (CODE, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools, with Schedules, by the Board of Education [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3153 to 3156 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy. Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of Patients seen, and the

  739
  number of miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics between 1st October, 1903, and 31st March, 1904 [by Act];
  Local Loans Fund. Accounts of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of the Capital and Income of the Local Loans Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1903; with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to De printed. [No. 164.]

  ULTIMUS HÆRES (SCOTLAND) ACCOUNT AND LIST OF ESTATES.
  Return ordered, "of Abstract Account of the Receipts and Payments of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Scotland, in the year ended the 31st day of December, 1903, in the Administration of Estates and Treasure Trove on behalf of the Crown."
  "And of Alphabetical List of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the same year."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Extension of Jurisdiction of County Courts.
    DR. SHIPMAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts consequent upon the Act of 3 Edw. 7, c. 42, the commencement of that Act having been deferred to the 1st January, 1905, to enable some measure to be introduced, or will the Government rely solely upon rules.
    (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) It has always been the opinion of His Majesty's Government that the Act 3 Edw. 7, c. 42, required to be supple-
    740
    mented, and the terms of a Bill for that purpose are under consideration.

    Return of Licensed Premises and Licences Refused.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant the Return relating to licensed premises and licences refused, standing on the Notice Paper this day.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am unable to grant this Return. The information desired under headings (1) and (2) could not be obtained: such information as is available under heading (3) has already been published in Parliamentary Returns: and it is impossible to give the estimate suggested under the heading (4) as the number of licences which could be extinguished by means of any given sum of money must depend upon the particular premises selected, and the amount of the compensation required in each ease. An, estimate of the maximum annual sum which each compensation authority might have at its disposal has already been laid before the House.
    The Return referred to is as follows—
    Licensed Premises and Licences Refused, —Adress for Return showing (1) the value of Licensed Premises in each licensing area; (2) the estimated value of such premises without, the licence; (3) the number of Licences Refused during the past five years on the ground of non-requirement in each licensing area; (4) the estimated maximum reduction which might be effected under the Licensing Bill in each area.

    Licensing Bill—Collection of Compensation Charges.
    MAJOR JAMESON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under the new Licensing Bill, the charges will be

    741
    collected in a district where no valuation on houses is made, or whether they will only be collected where funds are required as compensation where licences are not renewed.
    (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Under Clause 3 of the Bill quarter sessions can only impose the charges for the purpose of providing compensation. If no reduction of licences takes place under Clause 1, and therefore no compensation money is required, no charges can be imposed.

    The Valuation Bill.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the boards of guardians and assessment committees are very anxious that the Valuation Bill should not be proceeded with till sufficient time has elapsed for the full consideration of the Bill; and whether he will fix such a date as to allay such anxiety.

    Year.

    England.

    Scotland.

    Ireland.

    Acreage.

    Produce.

    Acreage.

    Produce.

    Acreage.

    Produce.

    Wheat.

    Bushels.

    Bushels.

    Bushels.

    1899

    1,899,827

    62,380,067

    47,256

    1,768,320

    51,866

    1,731,244

    1900

    1,744,556

    49,528,385

    48,832

    1,779,125

    53,821

    1,682,285

    1901

    1,617,721

    49,882,607

    36,225

    1,418,262

    42,934

    1,470,127

    1902

    1,630,892

    53,529,442

    47,258

    1,799,277

    44,244

    1,601,660

    1903

    1,497,254

    45,102,329

    41,131

    1,481,258

    37,596

    1,175,972

    Barley.

    1899

    1,635,634

    56,164.313

    240,496

    8,222,891

    169,678

    6,816,708

    1900

    1,645,022

    50,977,265

    240,195

    7,995,373

    174,173

    6,231,384

    1901

    1,635,426

    49,557,593

    235,115

    8,533,696

    161,684

    6,535,563

    1902

    1,579,027

    54,947,154

    229,080

    8,137,256

    167,877

    7,944,597

    1903

    1,545,354

    49,081,389

    214,050

    7,502,478

    158,791

    5,835,644

    Corn Crops.†

    1899

    5,710,963

    203,813,660

    1,259,788

    43,770,643

    1,359,495

    60,036,261

    1900

    5,652,619

    185,033,010

    1,252,406

    44,238,519

    1,335,782

    58,295,819

    1901

    5,473,636

    176,852,210

    1,241,610

    46,171,736

    1,306,573

    59,172,138

    1902

    5,506,945

    207,712,702

    1,244,676

    40,040,773

    1,296,930

    63,459,722

    1903

    5,402,034

    188,801,836

    1,240,126

    44,617,669

    1,296,295

    55,364,589

    † Exclusive of rye, for which no estimates of produce are made.

    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I do not propose to take the Second Reading of this Bill until after Whitsuntide.

    Acreage of Wheat, Barley, etc
    MR. J. A. PEASE: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state what was the acreage of wheat, barley, and total corn, the produce of the same, and the average prices of the above in each of the following years, 1849–1853 inclusive and 1899-1903 inclusive, in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The acreage and production of wheat, barley, and total corn (excluding rye, for which no estimates of produce are obtained in Great Britain), in each of the years 1899-1903 inclusive, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, were as follows:—Acreage and Produce in England, Scotland, and Ireland in each of the five years 1899–1903.
    The average prices of British wheat, barley, and oats, as published in the London Gazette, for each of the years 1849–1853 and 1899–1903, inclusive, were as follows:—

    Year.

    Average Price per Imperial Quarter

    Wheat.

    Barley.

    Oats.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    1849

    44

    3

    27

    9

    17

    6

    1850

    40

    3

    23

    5

    16

    5

    1851

    38

    6

    24

    9

    18

    7

    1852

    40

    9

    28

    6

    19

    1

    1853

    53

    3

    33

    2

    21

    0

    1899

    25

    8

    25

    7

    17

    0

    1900

    26

    11

    24

    11

    17

    7

    1901

    26

    9

    25

    2

    18

    5

    1902

    28

    1

    25

    8

    20

    2

    1903

    26

    9

    22

    8

    17

    2

    These prices relate to England and Wales. There are no official returns of the price of corn in Scotland, and for information relating to Ireland reference might be made to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland. No official statistics of acreage and production exist for Great Britain for the years 1849–53. In 1854, however, an estimate of the acreage under crops, based upon inquiries conducted in eleven counties, was made by the Poor Law Board for England and Wales. This estimate was as follows:—Wheat, 3,807,846 acres; barley, 2,667,776 acres; all corn (wheat, barley, oats, beans, and peas), 8,476,592 acres. No estimates of produce were made For Scotland, for the same year, statistics were also collected by the Highland and Agricultural Society, who presented a Report to the Board of Trade. The following figures were given as the area and production in Scotland in 1854:—

    Area.

    Production.

    Acres.

    Bushels.

    Wheat

    168,216

    4,848,499

    Barley

    207,507

    7,639,601

    All Corn (Wheat, Barley, Oats, Bere, Beans, and Peas).

    1,370,706¼

    47,960,590*

    * Exclusive of the Produce, of Peas.

    An unofficial estimate for the year 1853, by Lawes and Gilbert, placed the acreage under wheat in the United Kingdom at 4,058,731 acres, and the production of that cereal at 11,574,982 quarters.

    Postage in England of Lottery Circulars.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that circular letters associated with lottery drawings, conducted at the Fritz Dorge Bank, 16, Zoltan Street, Budapest, were on the 23rd April last posted in London to persons in the United Kingdom; and, having regard to the effect of such circulars, will he instruct His Majesty's Consul-General at Budapest to institute some inquiry with a view to ascertain the name and address of the agent in this country by whom these operations are conducted.
    (Answered by Earl Percy.) We are informed that some complaints have been made to the General Post Office on the subject of the receipt of letters of this nature, and the question whether inquiries can be usefully made in the direction indicated is under consideration.

    Recommendations of Mercantile Marine Committee.
    MR. LODER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to carry out the recommendations of the Committee appointed last year to inquire into certain questions affecting the mercantile marine.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) A Bill to give effect to the first four recommendations of the Committee to which my hon. friend refers has been introduced in another place. The Bill proposes to require sea cooks to be certificated in certain cases, to extend the present system of inspection of ship's provisions, to ensure some knowledge of the English language on the part of seamen engaged in the United Kingdom, and to provide a deterrent for the offence of failure to join a vessel after signing articles. Other recommendations of the Committee shown on page xi. of the Report, Cd. Paper 1607, have been dealt

    745
    with as follows:—The recommendation in favour of efforts being made to increase the number of merchant seamen who are members of the Royal Naval Reserve has been brought to the notice of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, Departmental action has been taken to give to seaman who feel unjustly treated, when they receive an adverse character report on discharge, a right of appeal to the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office where they are paid off. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has made regulations facilitating the neutralisation of foreign seamen who have served an adequate time (five years, including residence in the United Kingdom) on British ships, provided that they intend to continue to serve or to reside in the United Kingdom. Steps have been taken to facilitate and encourage the adoption of the provision scale recommended by the Committee. This recommendation, together with those in favour of comfortable living quarters for seamen on board ship, and the training of boys with the object of increasing the number of British seamen, has been commended to the leading associations of shipowners. The desirability of officers possessing a knowledge of the elements of medicine and surgery (Recommendation No. 8) was brought to the notice of the chief Associations of Owners and Officers.

    Licences withdrawn in Scotland for Causes other than Misconduct.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will grant a Return showing the numbers of licences withdrawn in Scotland for causes other than misconduct in each year since 1880.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Such information as is available on the subject of the number of licences granted and refused in Scotland will be found in the annual volumes of the Judicial Statistics issued since 1897. It does not include particulars as to the grounds of withdrawal; and, as the licensing au thorities are not required to state their grounds, it would be impracticable to
    746
    obtain them with any certainty, and I am not prepared to grant the Return.

    Land Purchase Act—Protests of Irish Joint Stock Banks.
    MR. WILLIAM MOORE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the letters addressed by various of the joint stock banks of Ireland to the Under-Secretary of Ireland protesting against the disabilities under which these banks will be placed by the Land Purchase Act of 1903 as compared with the Bank of Ireland; and whether arrangements could be made so as to ensure a fair distribution amongst all the joint stock banks of Ireland, including the Bank of Ireland, of all the accounts connected with the working of that Act, and, in particular, that the Public Trustee should be authorised to keep the accounts of any estate with any bank he may think fit to select, having due regard to a fair distribution of the business, and that for that purpose the deposit receipts of the joint stock banks of Ireland should be considered authorised securities; and further, that all the joint stock banks of Ireland should be authorised to receive the annuity instalments, collecting them free, and accounting for same periodically to the Treasury, but being permitted to retain same for a period to recoup them for the expense and trouble of collection.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am aware that representations have been made by the Irish joint stock banks. It would not be possible to make arrangements for putting the other banks on the same footing as the Bank of Ireland. The Bank of Ireland is the Government Bank in Ireland; its special relations with Government have existed ever since its foundation, and have been recognised and confirmed by numerous Acts of Parliament. To distribute the accounts of the Public Trustee or other accounts under the Land Act in the manner suggested would cause inconvenience and confusion without any compensatory advantage. As regards the instalments of purchase annuities, it has been arranged that they can be paid in through any bank for remittance to the Land Commission Account at the Bank of

    747
    Ireland in Dublin. I see no reason for allowing any delay in the remittance of moneys so received; such delay would merely tend to increase the cost of working the provisions of the Land Act.

    Sewage Nuisance near Carrickfergus.
    COLONEL MCCALMONT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a sewage nuisance has been reported to the Local Government Board (Ireland) as having broken out on the Belfast road near Carrickfergus; and, if so, will he state when steps will be taken to remedy it.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A complaint of this nature has been made to the Local Government Board, and in a communication received from the district council it is stated that the council is making every effort to have the necessary drainage scheme carried out at an early date.

    Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the total amount of funds which the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction has disbursed (including all contributions from local rates and Government sources) from its inception up to the 31st March last, and the proportion of same which has gone in salaries and emoluments to officials.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The information will be found in the published annual Reports of the Department, which have been brought down to the 31st March, 1903. It is not yet available in respect of the financial year ended 31st March last.

    Estate at Mount Shannon.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a farm of 235 acres at Mount Shannon, the property of Mr. Marcus
    748
    Keane, D.L., is advertised for sale on 10th May, and that there are on the adjoining estate a number of tenants whose applications to the Commissioners to purchase their holdings have been refused on the grounds that their holdings are not sufficient security for an advance; and whether he will direct the Estates Commissioners to consider the advisability of securing this farm with a view to the enlargement of these holdings.

    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There is some difficulty in identifying the estate to which reference is made. Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate to me the name of the owner and of the locality in which it is situated; further inquiry will then be made.

    Retired Volunteer Sergeants—Uniform.
    SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under the regulations governing the Volunteer force, a sergeant of at least ten years standing may, with the consent of the officer commanding the district, and upon the recommendation of the commanding officer of the regiment, have permission to wear the uniform of his rank after retirement; whether under such permission, a sergeant in retirement receives his uniform from the depôt of his former regiment; and whether, as it to wears out, he has to purchase any renewals of the same at his own cost.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Under the Volunteer Regulations a sergeant after ten years service in the rank who is specially recommended by his commanding officer may, under the authority of the officer commanding the regimental district, be permitted to retain his rank and to wear the sergeant's uniform of his corps with the letter R on the shoulder straps. Volunteer uniform is provided and issued regimentally. It is purchased from the capitation grant and distributed under corps rules. A retired Volunteer earns no capitation grant, and has therefore no claim to a renewal of uniform.

    Conveyance of Military Passengers from Clonmany to Leenan Fort, County Donegal.
    MR. MURPHY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that the conveyance of military passengers by car between Clonmany railway station and the fort at Leenan, county Donegal, is performed by a car owner resident in Buncrana, fifteen miles from the Leenan Port, although there are car owners in the town of Clonmany competent to perform the service of conveyance of such passengers; if so, will he state if the work has been offered for contract by tender, and have applications been received by the War Department and by the district office in Belfast from car owners of Clonmany for the work, in view of the custom of the War Department to get such work done by local men when they are competent to perform it; what is the present contract price for single and double journey to Leenan; if any of the tenders for the work were less than the sums being paid at the present time; and if this contract was carried out under the rules of the War Department.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The hon. Member has been somewhat misinformed. There is not, and never has been, any contract for the conveyance of military passengers between Clonmany and Leenan Head Fort. In January, 1902, the General Officer Commanding Belfast District made inquiries among the local car drivers to ascertain what the proper fare should be, in order that officers might know what figure they should insert in their claims for repayment by the War Office. As the result of this inquiry the rate of 7d. a mile (including the return journey and allowing three hours detention) was notified in district orders for the information of officers, as the amount which they could recover in travelling claims.

    Commission of Crown Agents on Goods purchased for South Africa.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the amount paid in commission to the Crown Agents for goods purchased by them for South Africa during the last four years.
    750
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have been furnished with the following statement:—

    Stores.

    Commission.

    South Africa.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1900.

    Transvaal

    6

    9

    8

    1

    3

    1901.

    Transvaal

    25,039

    0

    0

    250

    7

    8

    South African Constabulary

    27,550

    0

    0

    275

    10

    1

    Orange River Colony

    2,788

    0

    0

    27

    17

    7

    55,377

    0

    0

    553

    15

    4

    1902.

    Transvaal

    136,785

    0

    0

    1,367

    16

    11

    South African Constabulary

    53,549

    0

    0

    535

    9

    11

    Central South African Railways

    131,096

    0

    0

    1,310

    19

    1

    Concentration Camps

    35,796

    0

    0

    357

    19

    1

    Orange Rive Colony

    6,715

    0

    0

    67

    2

    10

    363,941

    0

    0

    3,639

    7

    10

    1903.

    Transvaal

    237,322

    0

    0

    2,373

    3

    2

    South African Constabulary

    62,830

    0

    0

    628

    5

    7

    Central South African Railways

    1,588,594

    0

    0

    15,885

    17

    4

    Orange River Colony

    22,116

    0

    0

    221

    2

    10

    1,910,862

    0

    0

    19,108

    8

    11

    Output of Gold, and Kaffirs Employed, in South African Mines.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the monthly output of gold in the Transvaal (in ounces and in pounds sterling) in 1902, 1903, and 1904 (as far as known); what was the number of Kaffirs employed in the Transvaal gold mines in the months of January, February, March, April. May, and June of 1903, and of January, February, March, and April, 1904 (output and number of Kaffirs calculated on the same basis as that of the figures already given).
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The figures are:—

    Witwatersrand Mines.

    Value.

    1902.

    OZS.

    dwts.

    £

    January

    70,340

    19

    298,786

    February

    81,405

    9

    345,782

    March

    104,127

    19

    442,303

    April

    119,588

    15

    507,980

    May

    138,602

    17

    588,746

    June

    142,780

    12

    606,493

    July

    149,179

    11

    663,674

    August

    162,750

    19

    691,322

    September

    169,377

    4

    719,468

    October

    179,660

    5

    763,149

    November

    182,749

    7

    776,270

    December

    189,537

    2

    805,101

    Total

    1,690,100

    19

    7,179,074

    Other Districts

    17,560

    6

    74,591

    Total Transvaal Gold Mines

    1,707,661

    5

    7,253,665

    Transvaal Gold Mines.

    Coloured persons on last day of each month.

    In employ.

    At work.

    1903.

    January

    48,058

    43,307

    February

    51,540

    46,917

    March

    56,577

    51,962

    April

    60,557

    55,340

    May

    64,480

    57,898

    June

    60,221

    59,491

    1904.

    January

    75,120

    69,004

    February

    78,629

    72,150

    March

    72,340

    April

    (not yet received)

  QUESTION IN THE HOUSE.

    Royal Army Medical College.
    Dr. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what progress is being made in the building of the Royal Army Medical College; and when the temporary arrangements for the instruction of lieutenants on probation and captains are to come to an end by being transferred to the new college.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): The building of the Royal Army Medical College has not yet commenced; but the plans have been prepared and the contract documents are being drawn up. Under these circumstances I am unable at present to reply to the litter part of the hon. Member's Question.

    South African War Medals for Natal Volunteer Ambulance Corps.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE (Bethnal Green, N.E): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received the report or information, called for by his predecessor, regarding the services rendered during the war in South Africa by the Natal Volunteer Ambulance Corps, which was formed from the local British Indians residing in Natal; and whether any action has been taken in regard to the grant of Queen's Medals to the members of the corps.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Yes, Sir. The information concerning the services of this corps has been received, and the leaders of the corps, 32 in number, inclusive of Dean Booth, who acted also as medical officer, have been granted Queen's Medals. The further question of the grant of medals to the sirdars and bearers of the corps has been referred to the General Officer Commanding for report.

    Ballyboy Farm—Terms of Housing by War Department.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Department was aware, when taking the Ballyboy farm on the estate of Lady Pole-Carew, that James Kenealy had been evicted from it; and whether, as the action of the War Department will impede the objects of the Land Act of last year, which contains provisions for the restoration of evicted tenants to their old farms and homes, he will recommend its surrender.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The farm in question was not leased or taken by the War Department, but the right of exercising over the land was secured by the Royal Artillery at £1 a month for a term of five months. The point raised in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question does not therefore arise.
    MR. CULLINAN: But has not the action of the War Department deprived the evicted tenant of the privileges of the Land Act of last year?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No, Sir; it has not debarred him from exercising any right he may have under Act of Parliament.

    Island Bridge Barracks Workshops.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the carriage and wagon building shop at Island Bridge and the machinery and other necessaries in connection with it are lying idle; whether carts and wagons are being imported; whether he intends to utilise this workshop any more; and whether he will state the amount expended on carts and wagons for the Army which were imported into Ireland for the years 1900, 1901, 1902 and 1903.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: There is no workshop at Island Bridge Barracks for the purpose of building vehicles; repairs only are carried out there as may be necessary, and the workshops will be utilised for that purpose as hitherto.
    MR. NANNETTI: Will the hon. Gentleman give the Return asked for in the latter part of the Question?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No, Sir; it would involve a great deal of trouble, and I do not think that the information when obtained would be of such value as to justify the labour entailed.
    MR. NANNETTI: The hon. Gentleman's predecessor gave me an exactly similar Return last year for other articles, and surely the same could be granted this year.

    Military Stores for Irish Garrisons.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the contract value of the saddlery, harness, and wallets supplied from the depot at Woolwich for the troops in Ireland during the years 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1903; whether any work is now being executed at the Island Bridge saddlery shop; if any work is being done, of what is its nature; and whether there are any skilled artificers employed therein; also whether he will

    755
    give the Return of contract price of brushes imported into Ireland for Army purposes for a similar period.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: As the hon. Member has been informed on a previous occasion, the Ordnance Workshops at Dublin, as at other stations, are only used for the repair of stores, and manufacture is not permitted.
    MR. NANNETTI: Will the hon. Gentleman give the Return I ask for?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No, Sir; I do not think the information would be worth the labour involved.
    MR. NANNETTI: I want it for the information of the people of Ireland. Will the hon. Gentleman not give it for that purpose?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question has already been answered.
    MR. NANNETTI: I will put another Question down.

    Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the Royal Commission on Militia and Volunteers was appointed with a view to the cooperation of those forces in connection with the military system in existence at the time of its appointment, he will say whether the Commission is to report, taking into consideration the conditions existing under the old system, or has been directed to base its Report upon the altered circumstances brought about by the rejection of the old system.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No alteration has been made in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers. I do not know what the character of the Report is likely to be, nor whether it is likely to be affected in any way by the recent changes in the organisation of the War Office. I see no reason why it should be so affected.

    Foot Guards Officers' Overcoats.
    SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of
    756
    State for War whether the officers of the Foot Guards have been ordered to provide themselves with a new great coat of French grey lined with red; and will he state what was the date of the last change in officers' uniform.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The officers of the Foot Guards have been directed to provide themselves with a new great coat of Atholl grey by 1st June. The last changes in the uniform of Guards' officers were made in February, 1902.

    Transvaal Labour Ordinance—Plague at Hong-Kong.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any official information to the effect that the charter for the steamer to convey Chinese coolies to South Africa has been cancelled owing to the prevalence of plague at Hong-Kong; will he state whether Chinese coolies awaiting shipment at Hong-Kong are quartered in Chinese houses, or have arrangements been made for keeping them apart from the infected population; if so, will he state what kind of accommodation is provided, and in what part of Hong-Kong it is situated?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The answer is in the negative. I am informed by the Officer Administering the Government of Hong-Kong that intending emigrants on arrival at Hong-Kong during last fortnight have been accommodated in ordinary Chinese lodging-houses in Kowloon, of which a number have been hired and placed under special medical inspection, a permanent isolated depot I is being built four miles from Kowloon I and isolated temporary accommodation I will be ready in two days; all emigrants who satisfy emigration officer and pass strict medical examination will be sent I there pending shipment; those rejected I being sent home.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any information respecting the alleged outbreak of plague among the

    757
    recruited Chinese labourers now collected at Hong-Kong; whether he is aware that plague usually begins to increase at this period of the year; and whether, under these circumstances, he proposes to take any steps to postpone the introduction, of indentured Chinamen into the Transvaal.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I received a telegram from the Officer Administering the Government of Hong-Kong on Saturday stating that one case of bubonic plague had occurred in a lodging-house partly occupied by emigrants—the patient was a rejected emigrant; and that there has been no other case among emigrants up to the present time. I believe this is the case. So long as the medical advisers of the local Government do not regard the conditions under which the Chinese labourers are introduced as involving undue risk, and subject to such precautions as they think necessary. I do not, as at present advised, propose to interfere. I may add that the langth of the voyage from China is largely in excess of the period of incubation of the disease, and this very greatly reduces the risk of the introduction of plague.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, owing to the outbreak of plague at Hong-Kong, the charters for the steamers on the point of starting with Chinese indentured labourers for the Transvaal have been cancelled.
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir.

    Mortality in the South African Mines
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies how soon he expects to publish the promised Return on the mortality in the South African mines.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I telegraphed to Lord Milner inquiring when I may expect the Return, and he informs me that he has not yet received Returns from Rhodesia, but is again communicating with Administrator, and also with Governor, Cape of Good Hope, who were asked to supply information as regards Kimberley direct to me. Lord Milner adds,
    758
    the Transvaal mines have lately shown very satisfactory decrease in death rate, which was 36 per 1,000 in March, and 32 in April, as compared with 49 and 52 for corresponding months of last year. Lord. Milner further adds, that if it had not been for one unfortunate accident involving 43 deaths, as to which he has sent a report by last mail, the death rate during April would have been only 26 per 1,000 per annum. Notwithstanding this accident, however, April rate is lowest yet recorded on mines; is over 50 per cent, below general average for year 1903, and 38 per cent, lower than rate for corresponding month of 1903. I expect to receive Lord Milner's despatch, with Returns, by the end of this month.

    Congo Independent State—Case of Silvanus Jones.
    MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the sentence of ten years imprisonment and a fine imposed on Silvanus Jones, a British Colonial subject born in Lagos, by the Court of First Instance at Boma, in the Congo Independent State, on 12th February, 1904, and confirmed by the Appeal Court on 15th March, 1904; whether the prisoner maintained that the crimes he committed were authorised, both by the procedure of his superiors as well as by their direct orders; whether documentary evidence of the issue of such orders by the executive was required by the Court and refused by the local Government of the Congo Independent State; and whether, seeing that the Court itself attributed the acts of which Silvanus Jones was found guilty to the environment in which he found himself, and the example he received from his chief, and that material evidence was withheld, His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps in the matter.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): His Majesty's Government have only just received a full report of the case from the Acting British Consul at Boma, and have it now under consideration.

    Alleged Congo Atrocities—Letter from Belgium Consul-General at Liverpool.
    MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to a letter dated 15th, April. 1904, addressed by M. Sève, Consul-General for Belgium at Liverpool, in which the report of His Majesty's Consul in the Congo Independent State, dated 11th December, 1903, given in the White-book, Africa, No. 1, 1904, is characterised as a libel; and, if so, will he say whether such language employed by a representative of a friendly Government is a breach of international courtesy; and, if so, what slops His Majesty's Government are taking to mark their sense of the impropriety of such action on the part of a foreign official.
    EARL PERCY: The attention of His Majesty's Government had not previously been called to the letter referred to, but steps will be taken to bring the matter to the notice of the Belgian Government.

    The Capture of Illig.
    MR. WHITE RIDLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Italian squadron did not participate in the bombardment of Illig and if they have taken any part in the operations against the Mullah.
    EARL PERCY: The operations at Illig were carried out in pursuance of a plan agreed upon by the two Governments, the Italian battleship being held in readiness to give assistance if it should be required. The decision of the Italian Government not to place troops in the field during the successive campaigns against the Mullah (a decision which was communicated to His Majesty's Government at the commencement of the operations) does not lessen the value of the service which they have rendered in allowing their territory to be used as a base for military operations which could not otherwise have been carried out at all.

    Valuation of Licenced Premises in Scotland.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that it is customary in Scotland to value separately the goodwill of
    760
    licensed premises for estate duty purposes, will he state how many years purchase of net profits is usually accepted in Scotland as a fair valuation of goodwill of such businesses: and what is the average annual amount of licence values on which estate duty has been paid in Scotland during the last three years.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The practice in Scotland in valuing the goodwill of licensed premises does not differ materially from the practice in England; and there are no statistics available that would enable the Board of Inland Revenue to give an answer to the Questions asked.

    The New Florin.
    MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the name of the artist who designed the new florin coin, by whom such artist was selected, and whether after open competition or not; whether his attention has been called to the facts that the horizon slopes from left to right, that the figure of Britannia is so designed that the head and body are not in the proportion usually associated with the best representations of the female form, that there are no indications; of a second foot, and that the rim of the coin has no beading to support it; and whether he proposes to withdraw the coin from circulation, and in a subsequent issue to correct these errors.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The design for the new florin was executed by the late Mr. De Saulles, who was appointed Engraver by the Mint in 1894, There was no competition. The post of Engraver to the Mint was abolished on Mr. De Saulles's death. There is no intention at present of making a new design.
    MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to the details of the design?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has not been called to them otherwise than by the Question, and I purposely refrained from discussing a matter of taste across the floor of the House.
    MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly, there is no question of withdrawing the coin. I thought my answer conveyed that.

    Licensing Bill—Brewery Shareholders as Licensing Justices.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will insert a clause in the Licensing Bill to provide that proprietors, directors, or shareholders in breweries, shall not be debarred from sitting upon the Licensing Bench when they have no personal interest in the business under discussion.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I do not contemplate adding any such clause to the Bill. Of course if my hon. friend desires to take the opinion of the House on the point he can put down an Amendment.

    Post Office Sorters' Wages Grievance.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if, seeing the inconvenience to the sorting staff of the Post Office which is caused by the present system of paying salaries, he can see his way to authorising the payment of such salaries fortnightly as petitioned for by that body.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I have received memorials from members of the sorting staff asking for the payment of their wages fortnightly and also a memorial asking for payment weekly. There are difficulties in meeting the wishes of the memorialists; but I propose to go more fully into the question before arriving at a final decision.

    Railway Rates Inquiry.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will state why no tenant farmers
    762
    have been placed on the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture to inquire into the rates charged by British railway companies for the carriage of foreign and colonial produce; and whether the President will appoint at least two such representatives of a class who are so much affected by such rates.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The Committer held its first sitting on Thursday last, and has arranged to invite chambers of agriculture to specify the complaints of members of their several chambers. The adoption of the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet would entail a considerable enlargement of the Committee and disturb the balance of its composition. It is not, therefore, possible for my noble friend, the President of the Board, now to give effect to it. We are, however, very anxious at all times to secure the assistance of tenant farmers in connection with inquiries initiated by the Department, but in this instance the subject-matter is one of considerable technical difficulty, and such assistance can most usefully be given by means of oral and written evidence as to particular rates which appear to call for examination.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: But do not farmers possess technical knowledge on this subject quite as much as railway directors?
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Quite so, but my noble friend thinks tenant farmers will do better by giving information to the Committee than by serving on it.

    Carriage of Milk by Railway—Locked Churns.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: T beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, seeing that there is still much doubt amongst fanners as to railway companies allowing milk churns to be locked, the Board of Agriculture will circulate a leaflet explaining that all railway companies allow milk churns to be sent by rail either locked or sealed

    763
    and at the same rate as for unlocked or unsealed milk churns.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: A leaflet on the subject referred to by the hon. Member is in course of preparation.

    Land Purchase in Ireland.
    MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when a future tenant pays what he considers an exorbitant rent, and also joins in an agreement to purchase his holding, doing both under protest and under pressure of a writ for arrears, and therefore not voluntarily, and the tenant wants the holding to be impartially valued, will the Land Commissioners sanction such a sale and the payment of a bonus to the landlord in respect of it without getting the holding valued.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The holding of a future tenant sold under the Act of 1903 comes within the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 1 of that Act under which an advance can only be made if the Commissioners are satisfied with the security and consider that the agreed price is equitable.
    MR. FLAVIN: Then what remedy has the future tenant if he cannot obtain his land at a fair price?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The position has not worsened since my statement last year.

    Courtown Harbour.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will arrange with the Board of Works for the sending of their dredger as speedily as possible to dredge the entrance of Courtown Harbour, county Wexford.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is not sufficient depth of water at Courtown Harbour to enable the suction dredger to be worked there. The other dredger is not at present available, as it will be required at Howth and Dunmore during the whole of the season.

    Irish Police—Mr. Crane's Letter.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a letter in the newspapers last month from Mr. C. P. Crane, resident magistrate for the county of Kerry, dealing with the constitution and reform of the police force in Ireland; and, if so, will he say if it is permissible for a paid servant of the Government to engage in public controversy in such matters.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Resident magistrates are prohibited from addressing communications to the public Press connected with their official duties without obtaining the previous sanction of the Government. Mr. Crane's letter referred to a controversy then being carried on in the newspaper Press in England in reference to the discipline of the English police. It does not, I think, come within the letter of the prohibition.

    Garryhinch Estate, Queen's County.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the date upon which the Warburton, Garryhinch Estate, Queen's County, was placed in the Land Judge's Court; and whether any, and if so, what steps have been taken for the sale of this property to the tenants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The petition for sale in the case of this estate was presented to the Land Judge in 1885. The order made by the Judge was for the sale of the life interest only of the owner. In answer to the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my reply to the similar Question addressed to me by the hon. Member on the 29th May, 1902.†

    Lord Killanin's Property, County Galway.
    MR. ROCHE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho is aware that the seven tenants on Lord Killanin's property in the district of Creggs, Craughwell, county of Galway, have signed agreements to purchase their holdings at twenty-two-and-a-half years purchase, and that the size of six of the

    765
    holdings is seven acres each; and, if so, whether, seeing that a grazing farm consisting of 50 acres belonging to the said landlord is in the immediate neighbourhood, and in view of the uneconomic size of their holdings, the Estates Commissioners will withhold their sanction to these agreements until an effort is made by them to acquire the grazing farm in the interest of these small tanants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: When application is made to the Commissioners in respect of the proposed sales, they will have due regard to all the circumstances before sanctioning the agreements.

    Railway Rates for Irish Butter.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that Irish traders cannot get through rates for butter from Ennistymon and Milltown Malbay, county Clare, to the English markets; that they have been asking for it for years, and have been refused; and, if so, whether, seeing that those traders are (mite ready to pay the existing rates, but ask that it be entered as one rate, the Department in Ireland will take action in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: A complaint to this effect has been made to the Department of Agriculture and is under investigation.

    Sergeant Gallagher's Pension.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what pension has been granted to Sergeant Gallagher, late of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Ballylinan, Queen's county, who at present fills an unestablished position in the Customs. Liverpool.
    MR. WYNDHAM: £41 18s. 2d. a year.
    MR. DELANY: Will his pension be applied to paying the debts he left behind him?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Division of Untenanted Land by the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in
    766
    the division of untenanted land acquired by the Estates Commissioners for the enlargement of small holdings and other purposes of the Purchase Act of last year, the Estates Commissioners will treat the herds employed on these lands as persons to whom money may be advanced to purchase one of the new holdings.
    MR. WYNDHAM: If the herd comes under one of the classes of persons mentioned in Section 2 of the Act, the Estates Commissioners will consider the advisability of giving him a parcel of land or, if they think fit and the land is available, they may make him a tenant and give him an advance under Section 53.

    Labourers Acts—Unexpended Balances.
    Mr. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what course the Government propose to adopt in regard to the unexpended balances lying to the credit of several unions in Ireland under the Labourers Acts; and can he say how these balances are to be disposed of in the case of unions where the demand for the erection of labourers' cottages has not arisen and where such cottages are not required.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The question of the application of the unexpended balance of the Exchequer contribution is engaging consideration. It is not, however, proposed to deal with this balance in the Labourers Bill.

    Weir Estate, County Sligo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Weir Estate, situate near Riverstown, in the county of Sligo, is still under the jurisdiction of the Land Judge's Court; and, if so, will he explain why and under what circumstances the Knocalassa grazing farm, forming a portion of that estate, was sold to an outsider over the heads of the other tenants whose small farms could with advantage be enlarged by the breaking up of this ranche.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The estate is no longer under the administration or control of the Land Judge. The farm in question was sold before the passing of the Act of 1903.

    Florence Knox Estate, County Mayo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that untenanted land on the Florence Knox Estate, county Mayo, will, by order of the Land Judge, be offered for sale by auction on the 13th inst.; that the Ballina Rural District Council has adopted a resolution requesting the Estates Commissioners to secure the land for the purpose of relieving congestion in the neighbourhood; and that the tenants on adjoining uneconomic holdings have memorialised the Estates Commissioners, with a view to the improvement and enlargement of their holdings by the division amongst them of the untenanted land now offered for sale; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the district in question is congested, will he take steps to secure that in this case effect is given by the Estates Commissioners to the intentions of Parliament n passing the Land Act of last year.
    MR. WYNDHAM: An application for the purchase of this land has been made to the Commissioners, who have instructed one of their Inspectors to make an inspection and report.

    Achonry National Schools.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the name of the present manager of the Achonry, county Sligo, National Schools; whether the manager resides in the district; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that the estate on which these schools are situate has recently been sold to the Congested Districts Board, and that the inhabitants of the locality are Roman Catholics, he will recommend the Commissioners of National Education to appoint the Rev. B. Dunn, P.P., as manager.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The manager of the school is Mr. Charles Phibbs. He resides as Chaffpool, 2¾ miles distant
    768
    from the school. The nomination of a manager does not rest with the Commissioners of National Education, but with the patron, Captain Armstrong.

    Irish Guards and the R.I.C.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what arrangements, if any, have been made for the appointment to the Royal Irish Constabulary of pensioners from the Irish Guards.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Arrangements have been made for the admission to the force of a limited number of reservists from the Irish Guards. The number is at present limited to 100 in any one year, or 900 men in all at any one time.
    MR. MACVEAGH: While soldiers are being taken on recruiting for the R.I.C. is stopped. What is the arrangement?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Reservists must possess all the qualifications required from other candidates for the R.I.C. and they must also have had their names registered as candidates for the force within three months after their enlistment. None have, as yet, been admitted.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: But has recruiting for the Constabulary been stopped?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Partially for this year, and after that it will proceed on the basis of the new scheme.

    Ballyvarley (County Down) Disturbances.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any report as to the attack on two teams of hurlers at Ballyvarley, county Down, on Sunday; whether he is aware that Ballyvarley is a Nationalist district and that the inhabitants had no objection to the sports taking place in the district; whether District Inspector Bell or any of the police under him were witnesses of any of the assaults; whether District Inspector Bell has taken statements from any, and, if so, how many, civilians; whether any prosecutions are to be instituted; and whether steps are being taken to protect

    769
    those engaged in legal sports on Sundays in this district.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; I have received a report of this occurrence. Proceedings will be instituted by the Crown against a number of persons. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the affirmative.

    Irish Department of Agriculture.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the local technical committees as such were not in any way consulted by the Department in reference to the new directory, seeing that the paid officers of those committees were summoned to Dublin by the Department to take part in a consultation about the directory; and whether he will take steps to avoid a recurrence of this action.
    MR. WYNDHAM: In respect of the first part of the Question I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 18th April.† I will bring the suggestion at the end of the Question under the notice of the Department.

    Lisburn Disturbances.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a disorderly demonstration took place in Lisburn on Saturday; whether he is aware that the three Orange bands which took part were imported from Belfast; and whether, in view of the fact that in the interests of peace the Nationalists abandoned their sports, he will make representations to the local Orange leaders as to the advisability of their pursuing a similar course.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The occurrence to which the hon. Member refers was not a Party demonstration in the sense attached to that word in Ireland, but was merely one of numerous excursions that take place in the locality in the spring and summer months. It had no connection whatever with recent events in Lisburn. There was no disorder beyond a few cases of drunkenness.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of the prosecution of a man named Robinson in connection with the Lisburn disturbances, he will arrange to have the prosecution taken up by the Crown, in view of the fact that the police were witnesses of Robinson's conduct.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Proceedings have been instituted against Robinson for injury done to the goal posts, by the committee of the Lisburn Hurling Club. The case will be heard at petty sessions on Thursday next. The police authorities are of opinion, in which the Government concurs, that an amicable arrangement having been arrived at the better course for the Crown will be to leave the question of litigation to the parties.

    Alleged Offensive Notice in Pallaskenry.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that in the public street in the village of Pallaskenry, in the county of Limerick, a notice in capital letters, offensive to Roman Catholics and calculated to promote religious animosity there, has been exhibited daily on a notice board on the walls of a house; and whether, in the interest of the peace of the locality, he will take steps to prevent its exhibition in future.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has been good enough to send me a copy of the notice. I understand it has been displayed in its present position for thirty years, and that Roman Catholics manifest the utmost indifference to it. This, if I may say so, seems a very sensible attitude.

    Kilkeel Petty Sessions.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the last petty sessions in Kilkeel, county Down; whether he is aware that a prosecution by the local guardians for overcrowding had to be adjourned for the third time

    771
    owing to the refusal of Mr. Bull, R.M., to wait half-an-hour for the evidence of the dispensary doctor; and that it was explained that the doctor was delayed owing to the difficulty in obtaining a locum tenens for the dispensary work; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the parties concerned, and of the fact that Mr. Bull is a public servant and had not to attend any other Court on that day, he will cause representations to be made to him as to the inconvenience produced by his conduct.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This case has been before the Court on three different occasions. On the first the dispensary doctor, who is also Sanitary Medical Officer, was in Court. When called he refused to give evidence unless paid his fee of one guinea. The Solicitor for the district council refused to do this and asked for an adjournment. On the next occasion the doctor failed to appear, and an adjournment was again applied for and was granted. On the last occasion the case was first on the list. When called on the doctor again failed to appear, and the case was put at the bottom of the list. When it was reached the doctor was still absent, though his dispensary is very near to the Courthouse. It was intimated that when the doctor had finished his business at the dispensary he would attend. This was an indefinite undertaking, which might mean minutes or hours, and the plaintiff again applied for a third adjournment. In the exercise of their discretion the magistrates, of whom Mr. Bull was one, granted the application. Their action was quite legitimate and proper.

    Irish Land Commission Report.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state when the annual Report of the Irish Land Commission will be issued.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Annual Report of the Land Commissioners deals with their proceedings in respect of each financial year ended 31st March. The Reports have hitherto, as a general rule, been presented in July or August. Every exertion will be used to complete the Report for 1903–4 in June. The major
    772
    part of the Report consists of statistical tables which require much care and accuracy in their preparation; but if there is any particular set of tables which the hon. and learned Member would wish to have in advance the Commissioners will be happy to endeavour to meet his wishes as far as possible.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: We desire to have this Report—or as much of it as possible—before we discuss the Land Commission Vote, which it is intended to take on an early day.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the Report when presented contain a Report from the Estates Commissioners?
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is to be an Interim Report from the Estates Commissioners, but I think it would be unwise to try to increase the labour of the Land Commission by putting it in their Report, which I believe will be laid before the other is ready; I will do my best to facilitate the publication of that part of the Report, which the hon. Member may deem pertinent to the debate.

    Royal Irish Constabulary and Public-House Property.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland under what circumstances are members of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed in districts where public-houses are situated in which they have an interest; and will he take steps to have them transferred elsewhere.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The regulations provide, in such a case, that the member of the force shall be stationed in another county.
    MR. SLOAN: If I give the right hon. Gentleman instances, will he see that the transfers are made?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Certainly.

    Ballinasloe Asylum Medical Superintendent.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

    773
    Ireland if the appointment of Dr. Kirwan, to be medical superintendent of the Ballinasloe Asylum, over the head of Dr. Mills, who was acting superintendent, has been sanctioned; and, if so, on what grounds.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The appointment has not yet been confirmed by the Lord-Lieutenant, who is in correspondence with the committee of management of the asylum on the subject.

    County Meath School Teachers' Salaries.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two teachers in county Meath, Circuit 9, District 24, roll, boys' school 5,732, girls, 5,605, had their salaries reduced in consequence of an epidemic which lasted only two months, during which time the school was closed; whether it is the practice of the Board to continue full salaries for twelve months in the event of epidemics; if so, will he see that the money withheld be now paid to these teachers.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The question of the payment made to the teachers of these schools will be reconsidered by the Commissioners.

    Banbridge Disturbances.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenan of Ireland a Question, of which I have given him private notice, whether he is aware that an Orange drumming party were allowed to assemble in Banbridge. county Down, on Thursday, with the object of preventing an Irish concert in the local town hall; that district Inspector Bell allowed the mob to demonstrate in front of the Town Hall and made no effort to disperse the party: and that the houses of Nationalist traders and citizens were subsequently attacked by them; and, if so, will he say whether any of the rioters will be prosecuted.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I only received the notice as I came into the House and have not had time to get any information. If the hon. Member will put the Question down on the Paper I will answer it.

    Bank of Ireland and Imperial Moneys.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, taking the average daily balances over the financial year 1903–4, he can state approximately the total balance held by the Bank of Ireland, from day to day, on the head of Imperial Revenue and of other Irish Government moneys in respect of which no interest was allowed by the Bank to the State.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The average daily balance on the Exchequer account at the Bank of Ireland in the financial year 1903–4 was approximately £662,000. The average total of the balances on the last day of each month in that year of the other accounts of public moneys on which no interest is allowed by the Bank was about £1,193,000. I have already explained that the benefit derived from the use of these balances constitutes the Bank's remuneration for the work entailed by the Government accounts, and was also taken into consideration in 1892 when the Bank's remuneration for management of the public debt was last fixed.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: But is there any reason why the Bank of Ireland should have a monopoly of this business?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, because they keep all the Government accounts and because of the relations which exist between the Government and the Bank.

    Sunday Postal Delivery at Knocknagoshel County Kerry.
    MR. MURPHY: I bog to ask the Postmaster-General whether any decision has yet been arrived at in reference to the application to have letters delivered on Sunday at Knocknagoshel, county Kerry; and if, in view of the inconvenience existing, he will cause the necessary change to be made forthwith.
    LORD STANLEY: I have received no recent application for a Sunday delivery at Knocknagoshel, but when the question was last considered it was found that

    775
    owing to the comparatively high cost of the existing postal service in that district, the expense of affording the desired improvement would not have been justified. I am having further inquiry made to ascertain if there is any change in circumstances and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

    Dublin College of Science.
    MR. MOONEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Kerry, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury can he state to what authority was the selection of the architect for the new College of Science in Dublin due; and can he state how long ago was the selection made.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The Treasury is responsible for this selection, which it authorised on the 4th ultimo.

    Licensing Bill.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the Licensing Bill for England becoming law, its provisions will be extended to the other parts of the United Kingdom.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): This Question is of a somewhat hypothetical character. Perhaps we had better wait until we pass the Bill before deciding the point.

    Votes of Absentee Electors.
    SIR ELLIOT LEES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is prepared to take any steps to give effect to the Resolution passed by the House on the 8th March in favour of means being given whereby mariners, fishermen, railway servants, and others may record their votes at Parliamentary elections when, by reason of their calling, they will be absent on duty on the day of the poll.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I see no objection to appointing a Committee; at any rate, the Government will offer no opposition to the Select Committee the hon. Gentleman desires. If he will consult
    776
    with the President of the Local Government Board as to the reference to that Committee, I have no doubt he will find no difficulty in drawing up its terms in a manner to meet the case.

    Ground Landlords and Licensed Houses.
    MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state the number of public-houses that have been closed during the last ten or twenty years by the ground landlords of London; whether he has any official information showing that when closing public-houses upon their estates the ground landlords compensate the publicans for depriving them of their licences; whether it is the practice of the landlords to give the licence-holders anything besides timely notice that after a specified time their establishments will be closed; and, if not, will he cause inquiries to be made into the matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have no official information on the subject on which the hon. Gentleman desires an inquiry, neither have we the machinery for making such an inquiry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What class of Supply will be taken next Thursday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have little hope that the debate on the Licensing Bill will close much before Wednesday. The Vote in Thursday's Supply that has been asked for is the Lunacy Vote, and I propose to put it down first. The second set of Votes will be those relating to the Post Office, unless the right hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members desire some alteration in the programme.

A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
MAJOR JAMESON: I desire to call your attention, Sir, to a serious breach of privilege. It is in reference to a circular which came to me last Thursday from the Church of England Temperance Society, and they had the bad taste to put the name of His Majesty on the

777
top of it. I believe His Majesty is a constitutional monarch, and—
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member say that he received it on Thursday morning?
MAJOR JAMESON: Yes, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member should at once have brought it before the House.
MAJOR JAMESON: I may remind you, Sir, that I asked you whether I should bring up the matter to-day.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but the hon. Member did not tell me that he received the circular on Thursday. He did communicate to me the fact that he had received the communication, and I do not think I am depriving the hon. Member of any useful opportunity, for I came to the conclusion and so informed him that there was nothing in the circular which I could submit to the House.
MAJOR JAMESON: I think. Sir, you cannot have read the circular, or you would agree with me. What I wanted to say was that the name of the hon. Member for Norwood appears on the paper, and I think that he and the secretary should be summoned to the Bar at once.
MR. SPEAKER: I cannot go into that, A matter of this kind ought to be brought before the House at once.

THE PORT OF LONDON BILL.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling on a question connected with the Motion standing in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, "That the proceedings on the Port of London Bill may be resumed." The Standing Order referring to this Bill is headed, "Special Standing Order fur the Session 1904"—a title which has no authority—and it provides for the carrying over of the Bill from last session to the "next session." The point I wish to raise is one of great importance. If this is a Standing Order, it must remain in force until rescinded by
778
the House; and, therefore, if the Bill does not go through in the present session, it might be carried over until next session. I wish to know if that is your view of the matter.
MR. SPEAKER: This is no doubt a Standing Order and I think the heading correctly describes what it is. As to the words "next session," they clearly apply to this particular session. The Standing Order was passed in 1903, and a reference to the Journals of the House would plainly show what session was referred to as "next." It is not an unknown form of Standing Order; and when the operation of such an Order lapses, it is usual to omit it when reprinting the Standing Orders of the House.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will this Standing Order, even if it is not rescinded by a Motion of this House, lapse with the session?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes; it is usual, as I have said, to omit such an Order when reprinting the Standing Orders of the House.

NEW HILL.
  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (REGISTRATION) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Qualification and Registration of Parliamentary Voters, and for other purposes relating to Elections," presented by Mr. Cremer; supported by Mr. Bell, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Burt, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Crooks. Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. John Johnson, Mr. Parrott. Mr. Shackleton, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham); to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

  LICENSING BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BURT: I move that this Bill be read a second time upon

  779
  this day six months. This is a bad Bill, it cannot be made into a good one, and that seems to me to be a sufficient reason for my Motion. The Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, stated that he believed it would put an end to controversies upon this subject, and that it would promote temperance. We shall see as to whether it will end controveries; my own belief is that it will open up now controversies without settling any of the old ones. If I could believe that it was a Bill which would promote temperance I certainly would not be here to move its rejection. The Prime Minister said a good deal in his speech on the introduction of the Bill about the intemperance of speech on the part of temperance advocates. I am not here to defend those speakers. I recognise, however, that many of them have shown very great disinterestedness in devoting themselves to a great and beneficent reform. Occasionally, no doubt, they may have shown themselves to be extravagant, fanatical, exaggerative, but there is one thing which they can never exaggerate. They cannot exaggerate the evils which spring from the traffic in intoxicating drink. I usually, when I wish to say anything about these evils, select phrases from well-known authorities who know the subject intimately. I shall quote from Mr. Charles Buxton who was once Member of Parliament for Weymouth, and I am glad that we still have a Buxton a Member of this House. Now, Mr. Buxton was a philanthropist, a lover of his fellow-men, a devout Christian, a good man, and a brewer. He once wrote an article on the subject of how to stop drunkenness, and in the first page of that article he said—
  "If you add together all the evils generated in our time by war, pestilence, and famine—the three great scourges of mankind—they do not exceed those which spring from this on ecalamity of our national drunkenness."
  On the next page he said—
  "The struggle of the school, the library, and the Church all united against the beer-house and the gin palace, is but one development of the war between heaven and hell."
  The evils are admitted; hundreds of Acts of Parliament have been passed to deal with them; and nobody in this House can say that the present condition of affairs is satisfactory. There is one thing upon which we
  780
  are all agreed, and that is that there are too many public-houses, and that it is desirable to diminish them. This Bill is professedly an attempt to diminish the number of public-houses. It may perhaps be a matter of opinion as to whether the lessening of the number of public-houses diminishes drunkenness. Some people say it does, others say that it does not. My own opinion is that it depends very much upon circumstances. There have been instances in which a lessening of the number of public-houses has diminished drunkenness and other instances in which it has not. In this connection I will quote Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, to whom, I think, the nation owes a deep debt of gratitude for the courage, public-spiritedness, and disinterestedness with which he his tackled the subject. In a speech Mr. Arthur Chamberlain delivered at Leeds a few months ago, he said—
  "In Birmingham, where for many years we have reduced the number of licences by twenty or thirty each year out of a total of over 2,000, our action spread over the whole town had no effect in reducing drunkenness; it could not lie expected to have any effect in reducing drunkenness. Then we fixed our attention to a definite area with 115 licences and refused the renewal of fifty-four licences. We did this with I he consent of the brewers. It was before the day of Mr. Balfour's unhappy interference. The result of refusing fifty-four licences was a decrease in the arrests for drunkenness in that district by 30 per cent, and the improvement continues to this day."
  In the case of Liverpool, according to an answer of the Home Secretary in February last, the amount of indictable crime and intemperance in 1902 was only one-third of what it was in 1890, and during the period of twelve years ending 1902 the number of public-houses in Liverpool had been reduced by 493. On this point there is some very important information in the Judicial Statistics of 1899. It may be said that Birmingham and Liverpool are county boroughs and that the same process could go on under this Bill. Even in the case of county boroughs the powers of the magistrates are considerably weakened and it is quite certain to my mind that under this Bill it would be impossible for this process to have been carried on to anything like the same extent in Birmingham and Liverpool. The enormous compensation demanded and the comparative smallness of the amount

  781
  of money available would make it absolutely impossible to diminish to any considerable degree the number of public-houses under this Bill. I do not want to weary the House with extracts, but I will quote again from Mr. Arthur Chamberlain. He says—
  "I have calculated the amount that would he raised in Birmingham by the proposed tax and I have checked the results by an independent estimate made by the Clerk to the City Justices. I find the maximum sum produced in Birmingham would be about £14,000. This would not allow a reduction of more than seven licences per annum."
  At the present time licences in Birmingham are being reduced at the rate of thirty per annum. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain proceeds —
  "That would take 180 years to bring down the number of licences in Birmingham to the proportion recommended by the Royal Commission."
  This refers to the Royal Commission appointed by the present Government, and presided over by a nobleman for whom we all entertain the greatest admiration. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain goes on to say that this effect would follow throughout the whole country. I will not go into further detail because I think this in itself absolutely and completely condemns the present Bill.
  The system upon which we have hitherto dealt with this licensing question has been by the licensing magistrates, and this Bill very considerably cripples, if it does not entirely destroy, the power of the magistrates to deal effectively with the diminution of the number of public-houses. You transfer the power from the local magistrates to the quarter sessions. I do not know that magistrates are in any case particularly amenable to public opinion, but quarter sessions are much less amenable to public opinion than the local justices. The local justices, at any rate, do understand local circumstances and the requirements of the district. I do not say that this is an appeal from Philip sober to Philip drunk, because the magistrate as Philip is always sober, but I do say it is an appeal from intimate and complete local knowledge, not perhaps to ignorance, but to less complete knowledge of local circumstances. Surely one of the requisites of sound judgment is knowledge. I know it is not the only one, because
  782
  you also want impartiality and a certain amount of intellect, but you do require knowledge; and I suppose the magistrates, as a rule, are not likely to be biased on a question of this kind, nor can I believe that quarter sessions are more likely to be judicial and fair in determining the question than are the local magistrates.
  I find myself to-day in an unexpected position. I never dreamt in my wildest excursions of fancy that it would devolve upon me to stand up in defence of the magistrates against the attacks of a Tory Government. I am not astonished, because, after thirty years in this House, the poetry, the romance, and the surprises of life have vanished. The magistrates are not a revolutionary body. I suppose the great majority of them have been appointed by Conservative Governments and that they are nearly all Conservatives, if not in politics, in character and position. And yet the Government do not trust them. Well, I must do the Government the justice to say that they do not always treat their friends so scurvily. But I suppose there was a conflict of interests, and with their usual chivalry they have sacrificed the interests of the weaker to the stronger. What is the magistrates' offence? It is because they have been to some extent responsive to the enlightened public opinion of the country, and they have used their power to some small extent during the last few years in diminishing -the number of public-houses and the evils that spring from them.
  Now I will say a word or two on the question of compensation. I myself have for many years been very strongly opposed in principle to any sort of compensation. There is no legal claim. That is admitted. The Home Secretary frankly admitted that there is no legal claim. I do not know that there is any moral claim. I do not think that there is any claim in equity. I admit it may be advisable on grounds of expediency and policy, as a sort of compassionate allowance, as somebody said, and for the sake of accomplishing a great public object to forego—and I would be one of the first to forego—our legal claims, and give compensation, even though we may consider that it is tinctured with a sort of

  783
  injustice. What public object is going to be gained by compensation in these circumstances? We gave compensation in the case of purchase in the Army. We said, and said very truly in that case, that there was no legal claim, and that the buying of commissions was illegal. But compensation was paid. I have no doubt that some other cases could be found, for this House never deals untenderly or unkindly with vested interests, especially if they are the vested interests of the well-to-do. I recall the case in which £20,000,000 were given to abolish slavery, and alter all we have less glorious pages in our history than that. But in both of these cases the evil was uprooted. It was ended altogether. But this does not end the evil. It establishes, it entrenches, it strengthens the position so far as the drink traffic is concerned. It may be said that the money is to be found by the trade. Is it? If it is I would say with my right hon friend behind me, why does not the trade manage the affair from beginning to end? It is powerful enough, it is combined, it is very capable of taking care of itself, or this Bill would not be under discussion here to-day. I read a speech a day or two ago delivered by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire who was presiding. I think, at the annual meeting of the Licensed Victuallers' Association. Speaking of this Bill, he said—
  "He thought they would he wise in accepting the Bill."
  he did not seem to be very sure —
  "It required amending, but in it they found the great principle that a licence-holder's property was Ids own, and that if it was to he taken away he was to he paid for it."
  I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his law. I do not think the law says that the licence is his own. It is a privilege conferred by the State that the State may take away. It is admittedly given for a year, and for a year only. Then we have the enormously enhanced value of the licences that this Bill will confer. Licences, according to Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, have a capital value of £300,000,000, and he states that this Bill doubles their value, making it £000,000,000. I am not a Chancellor of the Exchequer, or an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am a very poor arithmetician. Fractions and millions
  784
  always perplex me. These are large amounts. The increased value is, I maintain, State created, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer when framing his next Budget should look out to see that he gets his share of this additional £300,000,000. I have no doubt it will help him very considerably. He is carrying a heavy load. I am not saying that he is staggering under it because he does not stagger, but it is a tremendous load. I have no doubt if he would consult his uncle he would tell him where he could get, and get honestly from public money or money that ought to belong to the public, a few millions that would greatly help him in his financial difficulties, and there always will be financial difficulties so long as this Government is in power. Napoleon said he found the vices much better taxpayers than the virtues. Well, if that great military genius, that evil genius, could come back again, which heaven forbid, I know somebody who could show him how to bleed the virtues and let the vices off, if not scot-free, certainly on the easiest possible terms.
  This Bill, in my opinion, begins at the wrong end. It safeguards the interests of the trade, but absolutely leaves unprotected the greater interests of the public. In fact it makes new raids upon the public. The Prime Minister strongly deprecated the attacks of temperance advocates on the publicans. But I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been very unfortunate in his visits to temperance meetings, because t have attended a good many and have never yet heard a publican attacked. I am not going to attack the publicans. I have a good many friends among them. I have known many good ones and I never knew a thoroughly bad one. Many of them are my friends, and some of them have even voted for me. And considering that I am not one of their best customers, I think it was very disinterested of them to treat me so kindly. I do not think, however, that they need any particular defence. I think, like other good people, they are sometimes only too conscious of their virtues. I have it from the Archbishop of Canterbury that there is apparently a great rivalry between the Church and the trade as to which of them rear the most virtuous families. The Archbishop,

  785
  quoting from the "Licensed Victuallers' Annual," said that they actually declared, deliberately affirmed, that it is a matter of statistical proof, that the publicans' families turn out very much better than the clergymen's. Now, I would just warn my publican friends that it does not necessarily follow that the public-house is a better school of morals than the Church. There may be other circumstances. Look at the pains that we take in selecting the publican. No man of bad character has a shadow of a chance of getting a licence. I can speak very disinterestedly on this subject, because I have taken great care never to apply for anything that requires a very high standard of character. Now, all I can say is that we are all interested in this question, and I hope that this wholesome rivalry in the reading of virtuous families will go on with moderation and without acrimony.
  There is another matter still of a domestic kind which concerns me still more, and that is John Bull's family, and the effect that this Bill is likely to have upon that family. Now, John has a very big and heterogeneous family. Many of his children are in rags, living on the verge of starvation, and their poverty, their misery, and their crime is largely caused by the traffic in intoxicating liquor. John has a big income; and, if he would but spend it wisely instead of worse than wasting so much of it on fireworks and intoxicants, there would be enough and to spare for everyone. I do not think that we, on this side of the House, alone desire to remedy this evil. I do not think that the Government is indifferent to it. What is the cure? Is there a cure? Can nothing whatever be done? The Prime Minister seems to think —he says, and I am sure he thinks it— that we will never get rid of the public-house in this country. Well, Sir, the right lion. Gentleman is a logician; he is an expert dialectician. I admire him in that capacity, especially when he has a bad case. His reputation as a logician is assured and unassailable, but I beg him to have some regard for his reputation as a prophet. Is it not hazardous for him to lay down a universal negative proposition on a subject of this kind, with no
  786
  time limit? The public-house, as a house of resort for the public, is a necessity, and probably will remain a necessity; but the right lion. Gentleman uses the term in its usual acceptation as a place for drinking. He does not know. The Prime Minister knows what is; he does not know what may be. The time may come, hopeless as the outlook is, when the insatiable thirst of our countrymen may abate, or when they may go back to the less fiery and stimulating and simpler liquor such as I believe sufficed to meet the wants of our first parents. I admit that we have to deal, as practical men, with the subject as it is; but can anything be clone now? I think something can be done. We cannot go. I admit, in advance of public opinion; but do not let us lag behind public opinion; do not, above everything, let us try to throttle, thwart, and defeat enlightened public opinion. I myself have great faith in education. We have been watching His Majesty the King's visit to Ireland. I read a speech of His Majesty's which interested me very much. I thought it better than any King's speech I have ever seen introduced by any Government—in which His Majesty said: "In the better education of the people lies the one great hops for the future." Well, I believe that—not in the technical, conventional sense, not simply in the teaching of elementary knowledge or even in carrying it beyond the elements —but the development and perfection of the whole man, physical, moral, intellectual—spiritual, if you like—teaching men habits of gentleness, justice, and self-restraint. These things Governments cannot do. They cannot impart these qualities. "Therein the patient must minister to himself." But Governments can do something; they may do much. They may provide healthier and better surroundings, physical and moral. To use the language of a great statesman whose memory is dear to millions of his fellow-countrymen and to multitudes beyond the seas, it should be the business of Governments to make it easy for the people to do right and difficult for them to do wrong. Well, Sir, this Bill goes not a step in that direction. It carries us backward. It increases the difficulty. It tends to strengthen and perpetuate

  787
  our great national curse, and I move its rejection.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To have out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months."'—(Mr. Burt).
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid he wished to ask the indulgence of the House on the first occasion on which he had ventured to address it. On the occasion of the First Reading of the Bill, when the Prime Minister declared that this was a temperance Bill, he was met with laughter by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If it were not a temperance Bill a great many of his hon. friends would not, however, be supporting it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had no monopoly of the desire to promote temperance. If they had any such monopoly they had used it very badly for the last thirty years, because they had passed no temperance legislation, and had only been strong enough to throw out Bills which had been proposed, but not strong enough to carry Bills of their own. He did not intend to criticise what was called the temperance party. The drink question was a terrible question and a complicated question, and a question which undoubtedly entailed great evils on the people of this country. They all recognised that the temperance party, who had devoted themselves to the work of diminishing drunkenness, had accomplished a great work for which they could not possibly be criticised; but when he considered their political action and the course they had adopted in the House he did not think that their record was quite as satisfactory. They had opposed legislation, and they had said that the only settlement to which they would agree would be a settlement according to their own ideas. Teetotalers—he was a teetotaler himself—were in a vast minority in the country. The great majority of the people without being drunkards desired to drink, and it was impossible for the small minority of teetotalers to dictate to the majority. Water drinking had not, however,
  788
  diminished the natural combativeness of the temperance party in their incursion into the political domain as they had, to a certain extent, lost sight of their proper work, namely the reclamation of drunkards and the prevention of others from becoming drunkards. He maintained that from the point of view of temperance there was nothing to be gained and a great deal to be lost when the temperance party forgot their primary work and developed a Party spirit and a political agitation. No man was saved from temptation by that course; and the whole movement was turned into a wrong direction by it.
  Thirty years ago there was an opportunity of passing a measure, which, had it been passed, would, ere now, have succeeded in bringing about a better condition of affairs. Mr. Bruce's Bill provided a ratio of population and a time limit of ten years which would have expired long ago if the Bill had been passed. A generation would not have been lost and a very material step forward in the direction of temperance would have been taken. Instead of that, the only measure proposed by Gentlemen mainly identified with the temperance party was a measure of local option. He did not intend to discuss the question of prohibition; and he thought it would be admitted that prohibition—whether State prohibition or local prohibition—had been a failure in the past, and had not cured the evil which it was intended to cure. Besides failing in its primary object it also caused the added evil of disobedience to the law. He remembered an unwilling supporter of local option saying he was in favour of it because he was convinced that there was not a single district in England where it could be put into force; and from the point of view of temperance it would be quite an illusory measure. He thought that greater advantage would be derived from a measure which was not so far-reaching or sweeping as local option, but which would reduce public-houses to a far greater extent. He knew there were some people who said that the need for a reduction in the number of public-houses had not been proved by statistics; but it was a matter of common sense and common knowledge

  789
  that if they reduced public-houses they would also reduce drunkenness and drinking. All experience was in that direction. When Parliament gave what almost amounted to free trade in public-houses it was followed by a great increase in drunkenness. Since 1830 public-houses had been reduced in number, and brought under more stringent control; and the result was that the amount of drunkenness in the country had diminished, at any rate, to a certain extent. Again, with fewer public-houses, not only in the towns but also in the country, police supervision would be immeasurably greater; and, more important still, there would not be that keen competition between the lower classes of public-houses which existed at present. Ho thought the House did not always realise how difficult it was, in a little country town where there was a congestion of public-houses with a very small business possessed by each, for a publican to make a living of even the most precarious character. A great many of the small houses hardly paid their way, and the publican was forced very often into the most disreputable and improper means of earning a living. He thought, therefore, that it would be agreed that a reduction was desirable.
  He thought also they need not stay to argue the question of the discretion of the magistrates. He did not think that anyone would deny that the magistrates had full control. As to the question of compensation, which was the main point in the Bill, he did not think they need stop to argue regarding its merits at any great length. The necessity for compensation had been admitted by both the Majority and Minority Reports of the Licensing Commission. The Minority Report said that it was a question of expediency and a matter of grace, and the lion. Member for the Spen Valley used similar expressions in his Report. Since then a manifesto had been issued by a number of temperance reformers in which the expediency and justice of some kind of compensation was admitted. Therefore the question need not be argued on its merits; but they would require to ask three things—was the compensation proposed excessive? should there be a time limit? and would the
  790
  number of public-houses be sufficiently reduced? With regard to the question of the time limit, he knew that a great many temperance reformers were anxious to see a limit introduced, even if it were for such a lengthy period as twenty or thirty years. It was an attractive proposal that at the end of a certain period the country should not be liable for compensation of any sort to the trade; but he did not think that they would escape from their difficulties if a time limit were introduced as they would only be throwing the difficulty off their own shoulders on to the shoulders of those who would have to deal with the matter at another time. Under the Bill there would be a very material reduction in the number of public-houses; and it would be impossible to expect a man to invest capital in a public-house if he were to be dispossessed at the end of a year. If a time limit were to be introduced, it seemed to him it would be essential to change the yearly licensing system which now existed into a five years or seven years licence. It would be far better not to introduce a time limit, but to review the licences every year and compensate any licensee whose licence was taken away, from the fund to be raised by the trade. It was a condition put forward in the Reports of the Licensing Commission by the gentlemen who admitted the principle of compensation, that compensation should come from the trade and not from the public; but what they had given with one hand, they now seemed to be taking away with the other, because they slated that the money to be raised by the trade did not really belong to the trade but to the Government. That was an almost Oriental maxim of government.
  Was the amount of compensation proposed by the Government sufficient for the reduction of public-houses? The hon. Member for Morpeth read a passage from an article written by Mr. Arthur Chamberlain giving the amount available for the reduction of public-houses in Birmingham, and he put the reduction down as seven public-houses per annum; but if the hon. Gentleman had consulted the Return which had been presented to the House he would find that Mr. Arthur Chamberlain had underestimated the amount by nearly one half, and that in

  791
  Birmingham double the number of public-houses estimated by him would be abolished every year. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain also pointed out that the diminution arising from the refusal of licences on the ground of misconduct or by reason of character or structure would continue. There were certain districts in the country in which no doubt little or nothing would be done; but there were many other districts in which the magistrates would be anxious and willing to make very material reductions. For that reason he should like to have the compensation fund increased if possible, and that might be done by increasing the amount to be paid by the larger houses. He could not see any reason for this falling oft. It was quite probable the houses shut up would be the small houses, but he could not see that that was a reason why the bigger houses should not help to par compensation, having regard to the trade they derived from the shutting up of the smaller houses. Another source of income, the tax upon clubs, was left out of the Bill. As public-houses were closed, and in proportion as they were closed by this drastic measure, so clubs would spring up, and it seemed to him only fair that, as those clubs would have their profits increased owing to the closing of public houses, they should pay something towards their extinction.
  The hon. Member for Morpeth had suggested that the magistrates had been thrown over because they were the weaker of the two parties competing for the friendship of the Government. The magistrates were a very influential body and he did not think the features of this Bill had been influenced by any thoughts of that kind. Under this Bill the magistrates were not dispossessed; their functions had been readjusted and in some directions increased. Had it been possible he would have preferred to see something in the nature of a joint committee of magistrates and county councillors, and he would have liked to see the control under the county councils, under which bodies they would get an authority which they would not obtain from a plebiscite or under local veto. But that was a very strong step to take at the present time and therefore everybody would be glad that the discretion of the magistrates was retained. In the county boroughs
  792
  the powers of the magistrates had been increased instead of being diminished, and if they turned to the counties, and the administration of licences in the counties, the only ground for saying that the power of the magistrates was reduced was the transfer of the application from the petty to the quarter sessions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who had taken the magistrates under their protection had not extended their friendship to magistrates who sat in quarter sessions, yet the men who sat in quarter sessions were the same men who sat in petty sessions the only difference being that they were collected in some county town. Although the petty sessions was an excellent Court everybody would agree that it was by no means an ideal Court for dealing with these matters. Neither for that matter was the quarter sessions. He had seen at quarter sessions sixty or seventy magistrates come down who never by any chance attended on any other occasion, some of them keen temperance reformers and others on the other side, and he had seen such Courts sit for three days upon licensing questions. Such Courts could not deal with licensing in a judicial and proper spirit, and it would be of the greatest advantage for the power to be taken from such a Court and handed over to a small committee which would review the cases all over the country, and which would come to an impartial decision It was said by some that if a case was transferred to the quarter sessions it was taken away from the public Court, but the county town was not so far away; the persons who would form the Court were representative of the people sitting in the local Court, and what local knowledge they had not themselves they could easily obtain. They would be in exactly the same position as the highways committee which had charge of the roads throughout the county. It was a fact that it was perfectly easy for the chairman of quarter sessions sitting in the county town to review the whole affairs of the county. Instead of being flouted and dispossessed under this Bill, the magistrates on the contrary, had a greater control than they enjoyed in the past. The Bill would do away with the partiality which had been shown under the present system.
  He was fully conscious of the greatness of the evil with which they had to do, and

  793
  he recognised all that had been said by the hon. Member for Morpeth. Intemperance was injurious alike to the welfare and health of the community; it was a bar to all true progress, and in the towns and boroughs where the people lived what must be an unwholesome life, the evil became more injurious, and the difficulty of dealing with it greater. But because they were not prepared to say that prohibition was the way to deal with it, and because they believed that this Bill and later systematic changes would help temperance, hon. Gentlemen opposite had no right to assume that those in favour of this Bill were not in favour of temperance reform. He welcomed this measure of the Government's because it gave them a measure at once. It did not put them off as they had been put off for the past thirty years with the suggestion that they should wait until a more complete measure could be passed; it was a step, an instalment in the direction of reduction, and it would be for the benefit of the cause of temperance reform.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE, speaking as having been the chairman of licensing magistrates in one of the large cities of the country, said he was keenly disappointed that a Gentleman like the noble Lord, whose family had been so closely associated with temperance reform, was going to support this Bill. If the noble Lord had understood what would be the working of it he would have come to a very different conclusion. He was, no doubt, sincere in his belief that this Bill would conduce to the reduction of the number of public-houses and so to temperance reform, but a close study of the Bill ought to lead him to quite a different conclusion. The real object of the Bill was not to protect the public but to safeguard the trade. That was admitted by the Home Secretary in his introduction of the measure, and if it had been specially drawn by somebody connected with the trade it could not have better answered the purpose. Had the Government followed the recommendations of their own Royal Commission they would have done something to reduce the number of public-houses, but the process of this Bill was so cumbersome and slow, and so restricted and limited in its effect, that it
  794
  was impossible that it could be effectual in reducing licences to any great extent. It dealt with a traffic which, according to the Majority Report of the Commission, was productive of the greatest evil and national degradation, and under the circumstances the Government should have applied themselves to a Bill which would really have mitigated the evil and been in favour of temperance reform. This trade was a monopoly which brought to those who carried it on enormous wealth, influence, and political power; it was a monopoly for which they ought to pay because it produced serious and detrimental results to the community. It also entailed a large cost to the community in the provision and maintenance of the police, workhouses, and hospitals, and therefore it was only right that the trade should pay for the monopoly they held. This Bill would turn a temporary yearly interest into a permanent vested right, and a temporary lucrative privilege into a vested interest of enormous value. It would do that not only in the case of old licences, but, in the teeth of the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission, in the case of new licences also, so that the recipient of a new licence would practically be given a valuable present which could only be taken away by the State, in the public interests, after paying a large sum in excess of what was paid for it. But even more serious in its effect upon temperance reform was the fact that the Bill would turn a worthless licence also into a vested interest, and thus prevent a continuance of the voluntary reductions which had been taking place during the last few years. In the large cities and towns, in consequence of the changed character of certain neighbourhoods, many licences became worthless, and the owners were glad to give them up because of the impossibility of making the property pay. In Liverpool alone, since 1889, ten licences per year on an average had been voluntarily surrendered. The effect of this Bill would be to stop this surrender.
  As to compensation, the contributions to the compensation fund were to be made on the basis of the rateable value. The rateable value of these houses, however, was

  795
  nothing like the real value. A public-house rated at £700 would sometimes fetch £30,000 in the market. But while the contributions were to be assessed according to the rateable value, compensation was to be paid on the basis of the real value, and he submitted that it was necessary that the basis of contribution should bear some relation to the basis of compensation if a proper fund was to be provided. The Bill fettered and limited the control and discretion of the magistrates in a number of ways. In fact, the anomalies in the Bill were most extraordinary. At present when a renewal was applied for the application was heard by the full bench of magistrates, and if the application were refused an appeal could be made to quarter sessions, but under the Bill there were two tribunals and two jurisdictions. A full bench of magistrates would be competent to deal with the question of whether a licence should be taken away on the ground of misconduct on the part of the holder or of unsuitability of premises, but the moment it came to the question of whether the licence was necessary for the neighbourhood they became quite incompetent to deal with it, and the determination of the point was left to a smaller body—a committee of themselves. An anomaly of that sort would not be appreciated by the great body of magistrates. Then in regard to an application for a new licence the proposal in the Bill was equally absurd. Under the present law an application for a new licence had to go before a licensing committee of seven. If granted, it was then taken before a confirming body—the full bench of magistrates—and if they refused there was no appeal. But under this Bill an application first went before this small body of seven, and then to another special committee of the same number, with the Recorder in the chair, for confirmation, which meant that the full bench of magistrates would be ignored altogether. A more anomalous and complex system of procedure could not be put into an Act of Parliament. Why had not the Government adopted the recommendation of their own Royal Commission, in which the representatives of the trade concurred, viz., that if a new authority was to be constituted it should be composed partly of magistrates and partly of
  796
  members elected by the town council? That, at any rate, would have been better than the present proposal and was adopted for Scotland last year. There was yet a further anomaly. The Acts from 1828 to 1902 would have to be read together; therefore as it was not taken away, there would still be an appeal to quarter sessions on the questions of misconduct, structural defects, or unsuitability of premises; but there would be no appeal on the quest ion of non-requirement by the neighbourhood. The Government did not seem to understand their own Bill or the effect of its own procedure. If they did understand it, it was difficult to conceive how they could place such an absurd proposal before the House of Commons and the country. The effect of the Bill would be to retard temperance reform, which all social reformers so greatly desired, and therefore he should support the Amendment.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid the hon. Member for the Morpeth Division had not dealt with the difficulties of this question. All were keenly alive to the evils of intemperance, and were desirous of a fair measure of temperance reform. The problem was how to secure at the same time a fair measure of justice to the brewer and the publican and a fair measure of social reform from the temperance point of view. He believed the present Bill was a valuable measure of reform as regarded the licensing system of the country. The first question to be considered was the advisability of making the alteration proposed by the Bill in regard to the administrative action of the magistrates in refusing the renewal of licences which in their opinion were not required. Two conditions were necessary in any true administrative reform, viz, that a discretionary power should be given to the county authority, and that that county authority should be autonomous within its own area. In that respect the opponents of the Bill did not appear to appreciate the distinction which at present existed. In the county borough there was no autonomy, inasmuch as an appeal against a refusal to renew a licence lay from the county borough to the quarter sessions of the neighbouring county authority.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: So there is under this Bill.
  MR. CRIPPSwas certain the lion. Member was mistaken. The object of the Bill was to make the county borough authority autonomous and independent within its own area. That was a measure of reform, though to refer to a matter of detail, he agreed it was a mistake in an administrative matter of this kind to introduce the Recorder, who was nothing more than a judicial authority. That, however, was a matter for discussion, and he hoped it would be put right in Committee. He sometimes wondered whether the various advocates of temperance reform were really cognisant of the result of granting discretionary power to magistrates in country districts. The petty sessional division was altogether too small an area to properly exercise discretion in regard to the refusal or renewal of existing licences, and so long as they retained the existing power within those areas so long would they have but little temperance reform They were having no real temperance reform at the present moment, although occasionally some particular bench took an extreme view; but if they took the country as a whole he challenged any advocate of temperance to prove that this discretionary power within petty sessional districts had in substance and in truth promoted temperance reform. This was not the fault of the magistrates. The fault was that they could not introduce any fair system either of shutting up public-houses, or compensating public-houses without they had got a sufficiently large administrative area and they could not get any such area in any less district than the county itself. As regarded the details of this Bill it was not necessary to discuss them now, but a great many changes were necessary. He wanted the county to have more power, and the fault of this Bill was the attempt it made to maintain the power of existing petty sessional areas. He thought the county authority ought to have power to draw-up a county scheme in order to readjust licences according to the ratio between public-houses and population in all parts of the county. He believed it would be found that the fault of this Bill was not that it gave the county authority too
  798
  great a power, but not sufficient power to get rid of any evils existing within its area. What was the present position as to the discretion in the petty sessional area? It could be overruled by quarter sessions. Most magistrates who had had great experience in quarter sessions would agree with him when he said that they required for the proper administration of this Bill within the county area more power than was proposed, and they must have power to act on their own initiative and declare that what they did might be applicable to the county at large. He did not believe that any lion. Member who had had any experience in this matter would deny that it was necessary to have a county authority and that it ought to be autonomous.
  With regard to compensation the objection taken to it was that it was said to create for the first time a vested interest in licences which had been granted. That expression required analysis in order to see whether it was accurate or not. What did the Bill propose? He was not prepared to go beyond the recognised compensation principle, and if it could be shown that the Bill went further he hoped it would be altered in order to bring it in conformity with the general principle, whether applicable to licences or any other form of property. What was the principle put into force every day? They compensated a man when his licence was taken, not on the basis that he had a vested freehold interest —that was never done—buthe was compensated on the basis that the interest he had would probably not be interfered with. As he understood it that was exactly what the Bill proposed. The publican or the licence-holder was a new title to that which he held at present, and he was not to be given a greater interest. He was not to be compensated as though he had a greater interest than lie possessed at the present time, but lie was simply to be indemnified. At the present moment his interest was rated, it was assessed for the death duties and the income-tax, and considered in every compensation case when licensed bremises were taken away owing to the requirements of public or social policy. That was a proper principle, for whenever they

  799
  interfered with any individual either in regard to his property or his livelihood; whenever they interfered with the owner of property the principle of indemnity had always been adopted, and it ought to lie adopted in this case. The principle was that the person interfered with should not be in a worse condition because he was going to be interfered with on grounds of public policy. It was stated on the face of the Bill that no licenced holder or no licensee was to have a greater interest for the purposes of compensation than if this Bill had not been passed. He did not want to go into detail, but he would challenge any one on cither side of the House to show that that was not a proper principle which had been recognised in all other cases, and therefore he could not understand why it should be looked upon in this case as unfair and unjust or as giving to the publican or licensee anything which he was not entitled to. There was one other matter as regarded compensation to which he desired to allude. If temperance reformers in this country at all. However anxious they might be about temperance reform, the supporters of this Bill were just as anxious for the fair claim of justice, because if they disregarded it in one case it was very likely that it would be establishing a bad precedent. Whatever might be said as regarded intemperance, the Government was likely to suffer even more if it disregarded the ordinary and primary principles of justice which must be applied in this, as in all other cases.
  He would now deal with objections which had been taken in the exaggerated pamphlet sent out by Mr. Arthur Chamberlain. He said that this Bill proposed to take property which otherwise might be taxed for Imperial purposes, or in other words, it anticipated something which might have under ordinary circumstances gone to the Exchequer. There was an absolute answer to any such suggestion. Of course it was true that all property in this country was capable of being taken for the purpose of national taxation. The real question always was whether that form of property could justly be taken,
  800
  having regard to existing conditions, for the purposes of the Imperial or National Exchequer. Let them apply that argument to the present Bill. If the licence-holders were not taxed fairly he admitted that the case would be made out as had been suggested on the other side of the House, but could such a case be made good for a moment? Were the brewers and the licence-holders not bearing their fair share of taxation now? Was it not certain that the additional charge now being put upon them was a charge that they could not be legitimately asked to bear for the purposes of the National Exchequer? It was a special charge which they would not have been under except to provide the compensation fund which was necessary under this Bill. Prejudice entered very largely in cases of this sort, but surely it was excess of prejudice to say that the funds which were being provided under this Bill were not being provided by the trade, but were being provided from a source which under other conditions would bring in illustration he would give. It was suggested in Mr. Arthur Chamberlains pamphlet that the amount of compensation was so small that they would not gain any real measure of temperance reform. That was arrived at by the suggestion that this Bill appreciated the value of existing licences from about £3,000,000 to £6,000,000. This was an absurd estimate. The pamphlet he had alluded to said there would only be a reduction in Birmingham of seven licences in a year if they took the average value. They should remember that it would be chiefly the poor miserable class of public-houses that would have to be compensated on the present Bill, and this class of public-house in Manchester was one of the primary sources of the evil of intemperance. Did anyone who had dealt with this matter practically in his own district, and who considered the claims of temperance on one side and the claims of justice on the other, imagine for a moment that the value of these public-houses, which ought to be suppressed, would be anything like the average value which had been stated, which included large hotels, which were

  801
  not likely to be affected by a Bill of this kind? The view of temperance reformers generally was that something like a quarter of the existing public-houses ought to be suppressed. He wished to point out that public-houses which would be suppressed would in the main be the quarter of the least value. They would consist of those houses which would be shut, up on account of structural unfitness. The 1869 beer-houses would be brought in. In the cases where they wanted this Bill most the value of these particular houses was infinitesimal compared with the better and larger houses which no one wished to interfere with at all. How could they take an average of them and apply that to the extent to which temperance reform might be carried under this Bill? It was a matter of statistics in each case. If this Bill was properly administered, and if the public-houses which really ought to be suppressed were suppressed, without prejudice, where they were too numerous, this Bill would be sufficient to initiate a true temperance reform which he himself desired as much as anyone on the other side of the House.
  There was another matter on which he desired to say a word—the question of the time limit. It seemed to him that such a limit would be adverse to the true interests of temperance, and that it could only be introduced in order to prevent the fair working of the Bill itself. Suppose they had a time limit of ten, fifteen, or twenty years, which he understood was the proposal connected with the name of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division, and that after such period they were going to tax all existing public-houses up to the full value. The hon. Member's theory was that they should have no compensatory value left in the hands of the licensee at all. That, as he understood it, was the true meaning of the time limit in the opinion of temperance reformers. It would be grossly unjust. There was no more reason to tax public-houses up to their full value than if they went to Regent Street or Bond Street and taxed business premises there up to the full value.
  MR. WHITTAKER: Is it freehold?
  MR. CRIPPSsaid no one had ever heard of goodwill being freehold. But a public-house had the value arising from the probability of continuance of trade. If there was a limit of ten, fifteen, or twenty years, without any such compensation as he had referred to then this whole question would be raised again at the end of the period. He did not wish to be a prophet, because he knew that prophets often failed, but he should like to say that he did not think anything could be introduced more likely to wreck the whole benefit of the Bill than a time limit. They would get two results from it. They would get people trying to hang on and wait until the end of the period, and on the other hand the moment they introduced a time limit they necessarily diminished the corresponding amount of the funds with which they had to deal in order to bring about a measure of temperance reform, and administrative authorities would be seriously crippled in carrying out their duties in decreasing the number of public-houses where they were not wanted. This might be a good or a bad Bill, but if it was a good Bill they should not introduce a crippling condition by applying a time limit. Let them give their weight and authority to having it passed in the best practical form and not in a maimed form which would do harm to the temperance cause. After all, this Bill was a simple one framed on business lines. It might, of course, be possible to say that the trade should insure its own business. He admitted that that was possible, but if they wanted to press forward the cause of temperance they wanted more than a system of that kind. They wanted a system which would reconcile justice with the cause of temperance reform. He hoped this Bill would receive the assent of the Members of the House, and that this question would not be for ever delayed because certain temperance reformers sought to go too far and give the go-by to principles which must be maintained.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid the noble Lord the Member for South Birmingham did him the honour of referring to some statements he had made with reference to compensation, and challenged him to state whether he still adhered to them. The Prime Minister said the other day

  803
  that those who were not prepared to accept the compensation proposals of the Government desired to hunt the publicans like wild beasts. He was one of those who signed the Minority Report of the Royal Commission which recommended a scheme of compensation. It recommended a scheme of compensation not as a legal right, but as a matter of grace and expediency under well defined conditions, and to contend that because they made a recommendation of that kind they ought to accept a proposal for compensation of any kind, shape, or form, however ridiculous it might be, was an argument which did not seem worthy of this House. One of the conditions on which compensation was recommended in the Minority Report was that a large and immediate reduction in the number of public-houses should be secured; another was that it should be merely a temporary arrangement to overcome a temporary difficulty; another was that it should extend the discretion of the justices absolutely to every class of licence; another was that it should be carefully contrived so that it could create no vested interest whatever; and last of all it was to clear the way to effective measures of temperance reform. This Bill violated every one of these conditions. Talk about hunting the publicans like wild beasts! Temperance reformers had no hatred of the publican. They detested his trade. He would rather break stones on the high road than derive his income from that trade. They wanted to reduce the facilities for drinking and to diminish drinking in the land. He for one was willing to ease the way to that reform, but they must have the reform. He went further and said he would give much to get a settlement of this question, but this Bill would not settle it. The only thing properly clear about this Bill was that would settle nothing, and it would cause a clear and settled determination to reverse it.
  The hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division told them that the licence-holder should be indemnified. He was indemnified now by the monopoly he had enjoyed. He got a privilege which thousands of his fellow-citizens would like. He had a special privilege at the expense of the
  804
  rest of the community which were debarred from it. When he got that privilege granted to him he knew the conditions under which it was granted. He knew that he was liable to lose it at the end of any year, and knowing those conditions there could be no wrong or injustice when they were fulfilled, and it was taken from him. Every man in the trade knew that when he went into it, and he stayed in it with a full knowledge of the law and of the risk. A vast majority of them had gone into the trade since the law became notorious, and those who went in before had remained in it with the knowledge that they could be got out during the last sixteen years. They had deliberately stayed in, knowing the risk, and they had made enormous profits. If out of these profits they had not written down the value of a precarious security they ought to have done so. If they had not provided a depreciation and reserve fund they ought to have done so. If they had not done it they had put the money into their pockets. When they were considering the reductions made in licences in 1903, it should be remembered that throughout the country there were no brewster sessions in 1902, and therefore these reductions practically covered two years. That was his point If they took the average from that point of view the number of licences refused renewal in the first instance by brewster sessions before the Royal Commission was 331 per annum, and since the Royal Commission, for the years for which they had returns, the average was 221. Only two-thirds as many had been refused renewal in the first instance as before, and therefore there was no case whatever in the contention that the magistrates had acted in any way recklessly or harshly, or as a matter of surprise.
  One of the conditions specified was that under any scheme of compensation there should be a large and immediate reduction in the number of public-houses. Under the scheme now proposed no reduction whatever was certain. None was assured. None was compulsory. The maximum levy was only to be about 1 per cent, on the capital value of the licences of the country, and the maximum levy could only be raised if every quarter sessions

  805
  every year raised the full amount. Did a single Member of the House believe that every quarter sessions every year could raise the full amount? No, nothing of the kind! If they excluded county boroughs and took county areas alone, there were 900 licensing areas or divisions. From the Government Returns he found that the amount available in those 900 districts would give £605 per year per licence. He was disposed to take the low value on the licence that would be taken away. He believed that it would be the smallest and least valuable of the licences that would be abolished; and it would give £605 per annum in each licensed area— a miserably small amount. He would give one or two more illustrations of what could be done in the county and licensing areas. Those who knew the city of Leeds were aware that it was not without an ample supply of public-houses: but under this Bill, assuming that in Sheffield the average value of the licences abolished was £1,000—and he thought that was an excessive value—he might state that under the reduction scheme at Birmingham, where the brewers bought up the licences under a scheme of their own—they valued them, on the average, at £1,000—the Licence Assurance Corporation had occasionally in their reports given particulars of the amount of licences lost and the amount assured, and they had worked it out at £10,000. Well now, it would take Sheffield twenty-seven years under this Bill to bring its licences down to the same proportion to the population as that which existed in Leeds, and it would take Sheffield thirty-two years to bring down their licences to the proportion which obtained in London. It would take Swansea to bring down the proportion of licences to the level of Cardiff twenty-five years. Brighton had at present 605 licences. If Brighton were licensed as London was, it would have 210 licences. He was aware that Brighton was a pleasure resort. So was London, to which people swarmed from all parts of the world. If Brighton abolished licences worth £1,000 it would take that town forty-two years to abolish the licences, and if the licences were worth £750 it would take thirty-two years. Norwich had 579 on-licences. If that city was as London, it would
  806
  have 186; and if these were worth £1,000, it would take more than ninety years to get down to the level of London. And this was said to be a great scheme of temperance reform! Again, take the county of Huntingdonshire. Under this scheme there would be £993 a year to deal with. That being a county, he would put the value of a licence at £500. He supposed that one licence for every 300 of the population was sufficient. There were plenty of counties in England and Wales where the proportion was less. But it would take that county 165 years to bring the licences down to the level of 300 of the population. And if the licences were worth only £250, which was a very modest figure, it would take eighty-two years to bring the county down to the level of London. The President of the Local Government Board was not in the House. Had the right hon. Gentlemen been there, ho might have been interested in the figure; for Wiltshire. In tint county £6,000 would bi available for division amongst nineteen licensing divisions. If the worth of each licence was £300 each, what prospect was there of getting rid of any number of licence? And it must be remembered that these figures depended upon the maximum power being used each year. The licences to he got rid of under the scheme of the Bill by compensation would not be additional to the number got rid of at the present time. A great many—one third—got rid of would come under the compensation scheme as "not required"; one third as "not required, and for other reasons"; and the remainder because the charge against them was flagrant and persistent misconduct. The tendency would always be to put even these under the compensation scheme. Therefore, unless the fund was very ample they would not get rid of any more licences than at the present time.
  The Prime Minister referred to the action of the temperance party, and not of the temperance party alone but of the majority of the people in this country, in 1888 and 1890. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if they had lost something by that action. He ventured to say that they had done a great deal better without those Bills of 1888 and 1890 than they could have done with

  807
  them. Any one who viewed the facts of the case could demonstrate that they had got rid, through the action of the justices, of vastly more licences than could have been accomplished under those Bills. Those measures would have stopped a large ratio of reduction which the magistrates had made; and, moreover, the Bills would not have supplied sufficient funds to have secured the reduction of a greater number. Ho maintained that the scale of levy on the trade for compensation under the present Bill was altogether inequitable. The levy bore no proportion to the compensation that was to be paid to the houses that were to be abolished. The lowest percentage was to be paid by the smallest and least reputable beershops and public-houses in the back slums and by the flaring gin-palaces. The largest percentage was to be paid by the medium houses. He thought that attention ought to be called to the fact that this was an alteration that had been largely made since the Bill was described to the House by the Home Secretary.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said he would explain that presently. The hon. Member was entirely wrong.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid that he was entirely right, and for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman then explained that the levy to be raised would be £1 for a house of £15 and £2 for a house of £20. Therefore the percentage was not now increased at the lower end. And the percentage had been reduced in the largest houses. As the total sum to be raised was to be the same, therefore it had to be made up on the medium houses. He would give an illustration of how the thing worked. One house valued at £50 was to pay £15, or 30 per cent, on the value. Four houses valued at £12 10s. each a year would pay £4 each, or 8 per cent. Ten houses of the value of £50 a year each would pay £150. One house of the value of £500 would pay £60. One hundred houses valued at £50 each £1,500 a year: one house worth £5,000 would pay £100. That showed that the medium house was to pay most. If there was a genuine publican—a man
  808
  trading in his own right, the medium man—he would have to pay most, and this was the Government which talked about hunting the publicans like wild beasts! They were protecting the big brewers, which meant the small beerhouses and the big licensed houses which had got the capital to enlarge their premises—and these were the houses which were to pay little. No, it was not the temperance party that was hunting the publicans like wild beasts! Further, the publican who was to contribute to this levy was not to get one farthing of compensation. This Bill did not provide farthing for the tenant. Under the most favourable considerations the tenant was to pay one-fourth of the levy, but he would have to pay the whole of it. In many cases he was to be allowed to deduct it from his landlord under contract; but the poor fellow would find he had contracted himself out of the possibility of making his living. Before the Royal Commission they were told by a man from Hull that some of them were tied to the brewers for everything but the sawdust. A man who had to enter into bargains of that kind was necessarily not in a position to defend himself against contracts with his superior. What, then, apart from the question of contract, was the money to be paid for? It was to be compensation for the difference of the value of the house with or without a licence. But that was the landlord's interest; the tenant was not in it at all. The amount that was available for compensation must, therefore, all go to the landlord; the tenant would not get a halfpenny. The tenant had no interest in the licensed premises in that sense at all; and unless he held a lease of a house which had increased in value he would not receive one half-penny. Hunting the publican like a wild beast indeed! Then the compensation was to be perpetual, whereas the recommendation in the Report of the Licensing Commission was that it should be a temporary expedient to meet a temporary difficulty. They had always contended that the levy should depend on the reduction, and not the reduction on the levy. The only way in which they could maintain the absolute freedom of the justices and uphold their discretion was to allow their

  809
  power to reduce licences to remain if they so desired; and if compensation was to be provided it should only be provided for such reduction as they determined. This Bill proceeded the other way. A maximum was given, and within that limit the reduction should be confined.
  The Prime Minister stated that an unlimited reduction without an unlimited levy was against the laws of arithmetic. He ventured to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was not an authority on arithmetic. He and many others could suggest to the right hon. Gentleman a method by which that could be easily managed. Mr. Edward North Buxton, who was an eminent representative of the trade, was examined before the Commission, and when he was asked what the effect of additional taxation on the trade would be, he said that it would have to be, got out of the public one way or the other. A year ago the Morning Advertiser stated that no doubt there was more than one way of taxing a trade, but that it was obvious to anyone that it was the persons who consumed the commodity in which the taxed trade dealt that would ultimately have to pay. If, therefore, there was to be a tax on the trade, the Morning Advertiser added, the only question was, what would be the fairest way of apportioning it, and what would be the easiest way of levying it. That was all the trade cared about; and, therefore, they need not trouble about the trade not being in a position to afford to pay, because according to their own statement they did not mean to pay anything. But supposing the trade did pay they would save all they paid at present for insurance, and also the money they put aside for depreciation and sinking fund. Those were not small items. Many estimates as to the value of licences had been made; but he went carefully into what he regarded as a very moderate estimate. He estimated that the market value of the on-licences in England and Wales was £125,000,000. The insurance premium ranged from 5s. per cent, to 25s. per cent, and taking an average of 10s. per cent, that would amount to £625,000, and if an average of 15s. per cent, were taken that would amount to £937,500. He did not believe the levy would ever amount to
  810
  more than that. The total amount was to be £1,200,000; but the full amount would never be levied in any particular year; and, therefore, the maximum would probably be from £700,000 to £800,000, which would be about, equal to the cost of insurance which would be saved to the trade if they provided a compensation fund. Therefore, nothing would be taken out of the pocket of the trade.
  His next point was that the remaining houses would be enormously increased in value. They would be more valuable because they would be more profitable. One of the contentions of the trade was that the amount of drinking did not depend on the number of houses; and that if the houses wore reduced in number the amount of drinking would not be correspondingly reduced. If that were so, the same trade would be done by a smaller number of houses at much less expense and with vastly greater profit. Indeed, this Bill would be forcing on the trade what would be a very profitable transaction. There was not the slightest doubt that in almost every town in the country the trade would willingly agree to r duce the number of houses it they could come to an equitable arrangement among themselves. That was the difficulty which confronted the trade, but the Bill would remove it for them and would add enormously to the value of the remaining houses. In any event, whether the reduction in the number of houses reduced drinking or not, and he believed it would, it would it not reduce drinking in proportion to the reduction. Comparing the period from 1883 to 1903, he found that the on-licences in England and Wales had in proportion to the population declined 30 per cent., but the amount of beer sold averaged 50 percent, more per house. The number of houses were reduced, but the average quantity of liquor sold had enormously increased; and the houses wer in consequence vastly more profitable. The Bill would save the trade their insurance money and also their depreciation fund. It would enormously increase the value of the remaining houses, and, according to the trade themselves, they were going to get the cost out of the people. Once or twice he had reminded

  811
  the House that the brewing trade of this country was now paying only a little more than a third of the taxation that beer paid in the first thirty years of the last century. During that period, the taxation on beer and malt averaged from 14s. to 20. per barrel. The 10s. duty on beer was dropped in 1830; and the tax was now only 7s. 9d. as compared with from 14s. to 20s.; and, moreover, the price of the grain used in making beer was vastly lower. The process of manufacture had been scientifically improved, so that the brewers now produced five barrels where they only previously produced four. The liquor cost enormously less to make, and it paid less duty, and in truth the trade could afford to pay anything put upon them. It was the enormous profits which resulted from the making of beer that enabled the brewers to pay the fabulous prices they did for public-houses.
  The compensation part of the Bill was bad; but that part of it which interfered with the discretion of the justices was worse. It was intolerable and indefensible, and a gratuitous and ignominious surrender to the trade. The Bill seemed to proceed on the presumption that when a system of compensation was to be provided for the trade that the trade was making some concession to the nation. But the only justification there could be for compensation in any shape or form was that it should reduce licences, and accomplish a really substantial measure of temperance reform. But this Bill slammed the door against reform and locked it. It flouted and defied every phase of the temperance movement. The whole scheme smacked of the brewery. They would be told it would make no difference in the practicable administration of the law, but the quarter sessions were to be exalted and glorified while the local justices were to be humiliated. In 1894 sixteen licences were abolished in Sheffield, and in each case there was an appeal and in fourteen cases the licence was reinstated. After those appeals had been held Mr. Dearman, the chairman of the Licensing Bench, said—
  "I have consulted a great many of my colleagues in the borough, and they all think it is really time to alter the law with regard to these appeals."
  812
  The whole meaning of that observation was that an authority without local knowledge, local interest, and local information, was not a body to sit in appeal on local questions. In the Royal Commission the Court of quarter sessions was scarcely supported by a single witness outside the trade witnesses. Both the Majority and the Minority Reports recommended a very material modification of the licensing authority. The Majority Report proposed to popularise the local authority; they proposed that the local authorities of all boroughs and county divisions should consist of two-thirds nominated by the justices, and one-third nominated by the county council, and that the appeals should be to the county and borough justices. The borough justices were to be put in in case of appeal in the boroughs. It was their idea to increase the local interest. The Minority Report recommended that the licensing authority should consist half of justices and half of borough or county councillors, and that the appeals should be to similar bodies similarly constituted. Under this Bill neither quarter sessions nor any other body could move until the local authority recommended. The quarter sessions had been a greater millstone, a greater obstacle in the wav of licensing reform in the county divisions than in any other part. The Return presented the other day showed the reversal of decisions, reinstatements where the licences had been refused, and renewals by the county licensing divisions in vastly more cases than in the county and municipal boroughs. In the Scotch Act of last year the local justices of the peace were put on to the appeal body, and carefully put on to the licensing authority. Why had there been a change in this case? Why had there been this utter reversal of the policy last year pursued with regard to Scotland? It was one of the accidents of licensing legislation that we should get nearer to the local body. Why this change? It was in order that the local authority should be fettered and impeded in its decisions. In the case of the 250 municipal boroughs, there was no reason for it. In those 250 boroughs there were 20,643 licenees of all kinds, and of those fifty-nine were refused in eight years, on the ground that they were not required. Fifty-nine!

  813
  out of 20,643! One out of every 2,800 in each year! One in every thirty-four boroughs! What case was there for taking their authority out of the hands of those boroughs? On the contrary, they ought to be relieved altogether from the authority of quarter sessions and put in the same position only more thoroughly. Instead of that they had been lectured and intimidated, and almost bullied by the Prime Minister for having done that which, as honest men they were compelled to do, and now they were to be humiliated and degraded. There was not an atom of justification for this proceeding.
  With regard to those licences which were to be refused on the ground that they were not required, the local justices were to report, to recommend, to request. They were to be in the same position as an ordinary petitioner before the Court; they were only to ask. There was all the difference in the world between throwing on the Court of quarter sessions the responsibility for reversing the decision of the local authority, and the responsibility of acting on or ignoring a request. Under this Bill if the Court of quarter sessions was willing to refuse the licences they could not act without the money. What were they going to do in Huntingdon with a fund of £999 for the whole county, or in Wiltshire with £305 as the fund at the disposal of the authority. The limitations were all one way. There was no limit whatever to the power of both authorities to do nothing, but there was a very great limitation to their powers of doing anything. They were not stimulated; there was no compulsion, and they had full discretion to do nothing, but when it came to doing anything there were great limitations. The local authority was to recommend, and the Court of quarter sessions might ignore the recommendation and reverse the decision. But even if there were an energetic local authority and Court of quarter sessions, both might be unwilling to move because they had not sufficient money. Then a report was to go to the Court of quarter sessions, but apparently nobody else was to go. The Court of quarter sessions was not to see the witnesses or to hear the evidence, and to his mind when a licence had to be dealt with a very great deal depended not only on the
  814
  character of the evidence but the way in which it was given. But that was not to be so here. Special arrangements were to be made for the trade, but there was to be no counsel to cross-examine the trade witnesses, and no opportunity given for recalling re butting evidence. If the local authority and the witnesses disagreed, then this administrative body was to be made a Court. It seemed to him that the process ought to be reversed. The precise duty which was to be taken from the local authority—the refusal of licences on the ground that they were not required—was that which more particularly required local personal knowledge and ought to remain with them. When the Court came to deal with the question of compensation it would not know how much would be required; it would not know what the value was of the license it was going to refuse. He imagined the value of the licence would be ascertained after it was refused, and therefore the Court would not know how much money it was spending, and in its anxiety to keep within the mark it would refuse still fewer than it otherwise would. Was the full Court of quarter session; to fix the levy, and if so, were they to fix it before the local justices made their recommendations? If it was to be fixed afterwards the full Bench might so fix the levy that it would be impossible to get rid of the licences. Practically there were to be three tribunals, viz., the local body to recommend, the committee to hear, and the full body to decide whether the necessary money should be prodded, and every one would be a hindrance to the getting rid of a licence. In many cases local justices now refused renewals on the grounds of non-requirement, combined with some other reason. The cause of refusal would in future have to be separated, and, whereas the combined grounds made a strong case for refusal, those grounds taken separately would frequently result in the licence being renewed.
  Again the tendency was to hinder the reduction of licences. The justices were to give reasons for their decisions. He submitted that the local licensing authority was an administrative body and, as such, was entitled to decide whether a licence was required,

  815
  not on the evidence alone, but on the evidence and its own judgment combined. There were many reasons justifying the refusal of a licence which could not be put into writing in such a form as would secure conviction in a Court of Law, and this provision would alter for the worse the administration of the licensing law. The importance of the power of the local justices to refuse renewals could not be over-estimated. Local just ices frequently granted licences on conditions which they had no means of enforcing other than the threat of non-renewal. Many things took place in connection with the conduct of licensed houses which could net be brought within the offences specified in the Statute, but it was absolutely essential for the good conduct of such houses that the magistrates should have the power of dealing with them. When it was known in a district that the worst managed public-house was likely to lose its licence, it created a competition amongst the houses to avoid being the victim. That stimulus to better management would be removed. The Bill was full of pit-falls, limitations, and restrictions, all of which were in the interests of the trade.
  Reference had been made to the exclusion of temperance men from the bench. The House ought to recognise the distinction between opinions and interest. Brewers, publicans, and owners of public-houses were not, as such, prevented from sitting as licensing justices; the disqualification applied only to the area in which their property was situated, and in which, therefore, they had a direct financial interest. Their brewing opinions did not disqualify them from sitting elsewhere. Why, then, should men with views on the other side be disqualified? Every man on the bench who was worth his salt had opinions on this question; some declared they would not refuse licences unless they were enabled to grant compensation, others were in favour of free trade in liquor; all kinds of opinions were held, but no proposal was made to disqualify the holders from sitting on the bench. With regard to interest, there was a clear line of demarcation, but if they attempted to deal with opinions they would venture on treacherous
  816
  grounds. If temperance men were to be excluded from the bench what was to be said about brewers' solicitors acting as clerks to the magistrates or even sitting on the bench? Several cases of the kind were instanced before the Royal Commission. At a recent meeting of the Holt Brewery Company, as reported in the Birmingham Daily Post, after the usual business of moving the adoption of report, a shareholder asked—
  "Why the auditor, who was also a magistrate, should take fees from the company and do nothing to help them?"
  Another shareholder in concluding his remarks asked—
  Whether the auditor had sat as a magistrate at the licensing sessions, and whether he had voted in the interests of the company."
  In replying the chairman said—
  "As to the auditor's attendances at the magistrates' meetings, lie had made inquiries and found that there were tour meetings which affected the trade—the auditor did not attend at three— [Cries of "Shame"]—and at the one he did attend the voting was by ballot."
  But the auditor was not without a friend, for his partner was at the meeting, and in pleading for his re-appointment said—
  "His partner was strongly opposed to the principle of confiscation as laid down by Mr. Arthur Chamberlain.…He knew his partner canvassed people successfully.…His partner's sympathies were with them, and anything he could do for them, or in the interests of the trade generally he would certainly do."
  Was no objection to be taken to that sort of magistrate? Only last year a Member of this House sat illegally with other magistrates, and, although warned by the Lord Mayor, and the justices' clerk, persisted in taking part in the election of the licensing committee. The Attorney-General's attention was called to the matter, but, on the ground that he had received satisfactory assurance that it should not occur again, he declined to prosecute. In the face of these facts, to exclude temperance magistrates would be most unfair; and any such policy if pursued towards one side would have to be applied equally to the other.
  The reduction of licences, though desirable, was not a great end in itself; but the power to deal with the licences was of vital importance. The locality ought to have power to issue licences

  817
  on entirely new conditions or to refuse them altogether at its discretion. This Bill would place an insuperable obstacle in the way of anything of that sort. Freedom should he given to localities to face the national scourge as best they could; until such freedom was given the evil would never begot rid of. Speaking in 1876, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said—
  "The attempt to deal with this subject for people, and without the people, has been a conspicuous failure… But where statesmen have only made the matter worse, where Parliament has legislated to no purpose, I am still sanguine that the people themselves, if wholly trusted, would do something to mitigate the plague and stay its ravages,"
  He was well aware that the problem was thorny and difficult; but it was also urgent, imperative, and vital. His objection to the Bill was that it was an altogether retrograde, obstructive, and deplorable measure, which stereotyped and intensified present difficulties, created new obstacles, entrenched the public-house, and endowed the brewer.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): It is a relief that in this matter, at any rate, unlike some others which have been recently before the House, Members on both sides have started from a certain common premiss. We all recognise the vast evils of drunkenness, we all regard the present system as unsatisfactory, and we all wish to do something to remedy the defects which admittedly exist at the present moment. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley, who devoted great care and acumen to the subject, has, like Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, endeavoured to impeach the figures upon which the scheme relies, and pronounced them totally inadequate. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain based his statement on an estimate of the total value of the licences, which he gave as £300,000,000, a sum which even the hon. Member has divided by nearly three. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain then took the amount that would be recoverable by this charge upon the Birmingham licensed premises at £14,000, and it turns out to be £29,000, so that he has multiplied the value of licences by nearly three, while on the other hand, in a city which he is supposed to know
  818
  he has divided the figure by which the compensation was to be made by two. That is not a very bad beginning for the figures which the hon. Member for Morpeth, with that charm and modesty that always characterises him, has put before us, and which he not unnaturally warns us against being committed to by this Bin, The hon. Member for the Spen Valley took the county of Huntingdon, and showed that the total fund available was only £900. But the hon. Member should not forget that this small sum recoverable by charge for the purposes of contribution showed that there must be very few public-houses in Huntingdon or that they are of small value.
  MR. WHITTAKER: The number of public-houses in Huntingdonshire is enormous.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The basis of the hon. Member's figures is £1,000 in the towns and £600 in the country. The hon. Member is quite wrong, and those figures are far too large. As my hon. friend the Member for Stretford told us in his very able and valuable speech, when you add the 32,000 1863 beer-houses which are brought in under this Bill, the figure of £1,000 in towns is preposterously large. I may say that I am now taking the value and not the number of public-houses. It is impossible for me to go into the figures at length at the present moment, and I can only give the figures which happen to come to my notice. For example, Liverpool estimates that the sum for this contribution will be £35,000 a year, and values the licences likely to be extinguished under the scheme at £500. At that rate they will be able to reduce licences in Liverpool at the rate of 70 per annum under the scheme, in addition to 25 a year which lapse at the present time. There is a report in this morning's newspaper which shows that the reduction which the county of London will be able to make under the scheme is 23 per cent. That is not a very bad result. The result of the present system, speaking broadly, over the length and breadth of the land, is that nothing is done in the way of reduction. I say that deliberately. Though there may be some 300 houses out of 100,000 reduced

  819
  at the present time, I say that the reduction is absolutely inappreciable in its effect upon the cause of temperance. On the other hand, as giving a general sense of instability and insecurity to the holders of licences whose trade might be ruined in a moment by the caprice of the bench, a serious damage is caused to licensed property, with a consequential effect on the character of the licence-holders.
  Then there is the second point which was referred to by the hon. Member for Spen Valley and also by the hon. Member for Morpeth. Both stated that our proposal of a compensation fund hits the middleman, lets off the smallest men and also lets off comparatively the largest men. I do not like to traverse statements which the hon. Member opposite put forward, but I doubt whether the hon. Member is accurate in saying that to the middle class of licensees belong the greater number of tree houses. But the hon. Member will not deny that the peril of having their licences dealt with is infinitesimal in the case of large hotels like the Euston, the Paddington, or the Métropole. Those hotels are asked to contribute very largely to the fund for the mutual insurance of their weaker brethren. That is what the scheme comes to. This fund is a mutual insurance fund, and the large hotels pay some thousands a year in some cases to this fund by way of premium, though the risk run by them is infinitesimal. The hon. Member for Spen Valley devoted a very considerable portion of his speech to showing the greater amount of compensation which the licence-holders would get by reason of the undue appreciation which would result in regard to the value of the licence.
  MR. WHITTAKER: What I said was that they would get an increased value to their premises, for they would have a much more profitable business by the reduction of licences and in that way they would get a return for what they paid.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member says they will get an increased value by reason of the extinction of other licences, and he declares that they would be in a position TO get better compensation by reason of that. The House should take note of the important clause in the Bill which provides that compensation payable
  820
  for the extinction of a licence is to be calculated as before the passing of the measure. It should not be forgotten that this moment of time is taken to deal with the principle of compensation, and, therefore, the undue appreciation which will result to the value of the licence feared by the hon. Member seems to me to be unfounded.
  I will deal rapidly with the hon. Member's last point with regard to the alteration proposed in reference to the jurisdiction exercised by the local justices. The hon. Member said that it was an insult to the justices of petty sessions that quarter sessions should now decline that which the local magistrates asked, instead of reversing that which the local magistrates now decided. What an extraordinary complaint. If the hon. Member and four of his colleagues were to sit and adjudicate upon a matter and arrive at a decision and I were to reverse it, I think they would have very good reason to complain, and much more reason to feel hurt than if they had asked me for something and I had declined it. That is the exact situation. At present justices sit in brewster sessions, and quarter sessions may reverse their decisions. In future, quarter sessions are to have the benefit of the views of local justices, and they may in exceptional circumstances decline to follow what they say. As has already been pointed out, in only seven cases have decisions been reversed out of 250. If that is so on the much more important issues, and if they are allowed to decide whether a licence shall go without compensation or not, that is a serious matter. Their function in the future under this Bill will be merely to decide whether a certain house is unnecessary, and whether it shall be extinguished with compensation. The hon. Member for Stretford said that the aggregate of quarter sessions is a far better tribunal to decide these questions of refusal and compensation. Why? Because they are all human, and when they meet the village publican out shooting, at a cricket match, at a harvest home, or among other incidents of village life, it is a disagreeable thing for those who sit in petty sessions and know the man to take away his licence and seriously to damage him in his business. Nothing could be more disagreeable, and

  821
  justices constantly shrink from the duty. I But when it is necessary to undertake this work, is it not better that the point should be decided on facts presented to quarter sessions by the local justices, and after a separate and independent investigation on the part of quarter sessions instead of by the local justices? Is it not much better that they should decide that point than that local gentlemen should do so? I quite agree with the point that the knowledge of the local magistrates may be more intimate, but I venture to think that their natural human prejudices are more likely to operate than in the case of a remoter body. I might incidentally say that a large portion of British justice is founded on the desirability of taking jurisdiction away from a local district instead of having it actually resident. I ventured to say at the beginning of my observations that the present system is indefensible, that it gives no guarantee that the worst houses should go, or that the best should stay. Its effect is inappreciable on temperance, but damaging to the principles of natural equity and justice. And why is this? I beg hon. Gentlemen interested in temperance, who, perhaps, have not seen as much of this as I have, to think of the dilemna justices are in at the present moment. They have to say on their consciences that public-houses are or are not wanted. They can see perfectly well that a house is not wanted for the purposes of a district, but they have to ask themselves, "Shall we take it away without compensation?" That is the problem. Is it surprising for the moment that in hundreds and hundreds of cases where a licence ought to be extinguished because it is not required in a district, the magistrates, being kindly, honest, and just men, shrink from inflicting so grievous a wrong.
  Just permit me for a moment to trace the thing back. The predecessors of the justices are responsible for the very excess which it is now desired to reduce. They themselves granted the licences that are now superfluous and which make areas ingested with public-houses. And against whose opposition have they granted them? First, always let it be said, against the opposition of temperance people, but next, and less vehemently expressed
  822
  against the opposition of the licence-holders at the time. Of course, they did not wish to be competed with. They opposed in every case. Who ever heard of a new licence being applied for which was not strenuously opposed by all the publicans in the neighbourhood? The old public-houses are just those which ought to be extinguished. These houses existed fifty or sixty years ago, and the owners are the very people who opposed the new licences that made the district congested. The congestion which the owners of these very public-houses resisted is now to be made the occasion of taking away the property to which they have a right, and which they have never forfeited by bad conduct. I ask any fair man if that argument alone were put to him sitting on a bench, and if he had not been committed by previously expressed views on the subject, whether he would nor think that sufficient to establish the hardship of the case. Hon. Gentlemen who have studied the subject are aware that the matter does not stop there. The State rates and taxes, licences, and assesses them for death duties. In other words, when it suits the pecuniary interest of the State it is assumed that the licence has a permanent value. The instructions issued by the Inland Revenue on the subject, and signed by Sir Algernon West, are as follows—
  "Death of lease-holder publican. In each of these cases it is assumed that the licence will continue to be renewed."
  But when the question to be considered is whether the licence should be extinguished the State is, according to hon. Gentlemen, to say that the licence has no permanent value. I ask what view would humble ordinary folk take of a Government which said: "In assessing for taxation I treat you as a permanency, but for the purpose of abolishing you I treat you as a phantom?" The gross injustice of such a position would not be exhausted even then. Assume the case of a young man succeeding to a public-house that had been in his family for years, and paying death duties on the succession. Assume that the licence is then extinguished, and that in the same town a number of other public-houses are pulled down for some street improvement.

  823
  Those houses would be legally compensated on the basis of thirteen or fourteen years purchase; but the young man who had paid death duties and whose licence was taken away for the same reasons of public expediency would get nothing. I take one more illustration, because it is stronger still. There is the case of the unfortunate man who for many years has conducted his house well under the most rigorous licensing law with heavy penalties in every direction, and whose licence is suddenly taken away without compensation, while in the same neighbourhood public-houses demolished in the clearing of an insanitary area are awarded full compensation. I venture to think that the Government that permits such a state of things to continue, desolating to the cause of temperance, and still more desolating to the cause of justice, would be unworthy of itself. Yet all the strongest Governments of the last thirty years have failed in the endeavour to deal with this question, because they have not recognised what Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bruce, Lord Derby, and the right hon. Member for Montrose have all recognised.
  "I strongly oppose any legislation"
  —the right hon. Member for Montrose has said
  "which would overlook the fact that immense capital has been embarked in your trade in the ordinary expectation that the trade would not be interfered with."
  That principle, admitted by all great Liberals of the last thirty years, a principle perfectly sound, is affirmed by the almost uniform practice of the tribunals dealing with the matter, by the law of compensation since 1845, and by the law of taxation on which the Inland Revenue authorities act, and is consonant with the ideas of every fair-minded man in the community.
  I assert, on this very hastily outlined sketch of the subject, if anybody is not convinced by these arguments that compensation is a sound principle he is not capable of being convinced at all. Really the crucial point in the Bill is whether the method of awarding compensation prescribed in the Bill is the right method. It is not just or right to say that it creates a vested interest. For forty years this so-called creation
  824
  has existed. [Cries of "No."] The House of Lords described the interest as terminable in "Sharp against Wakefield," but that decision does not exhaust the law on the subject. Other branches of the law have affirmed over and over again that that which the House of Lords called a terminable interest is a valuable interest. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Yes, it has. I will not give cases in this House, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and I will satisfy him afterwards, that from the Master of the Rolls forty years ago to the present Master of the Rolls that principle has been affirmed, and those tribunals which have assessed compensation upon twelve, thirteen, or fourteen years purchase have been affirmed. It may well be that the law describes this as a terminable interest, but that is not really ad rem. The point is that the law says it is a valuable interest; the law has said it a dozen times. Before this Bill was brought forward, and indeed in the time of the First Reading, it became pretty obvious from the speeches directed, not against the Bill, but against something else, that everybody except extremists on temperance matters — I believe even the hon. Member for Spen Valley, in a public document, said that they were for compensation, but that the compensation should come out of the trade. Now, we have the authority of Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, apparently endorsed by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley, that they are not entitled to take this compensation out of the trade in order to compensate the trade, because what we get from the trade is wealth, and all wealth is taxable; and we must not use for compensation the trade wealth which is available for general taxation. If that means anything, it means that you cannot get any wealth from anyone for the purposes of compensation because all wealth is taxable, and the State must have everything.
  MR. WHITTAKER: That was not my argument.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I absolve the hon. Member. It is not his argument. I am afraid that I have identified him with a Birmingham authority.

  825
  There is another point which is advanced by people for whom I entertain the sincerest respect. It is that there ought to be a time limit in the Bill. It I understand the argument rightly, it is that you have now to deal with a property which has no permanent value, but that at the end of, say, twenty years, you would still have an excessive number of public-houses which by that time would have had a fair run, and ought then to take their chance, having been granted so considerable a delay. May I venture to say that that is contrary to the scheme of the whole Bill. The scheme of the Bill is that the trade itself should compensate for extinguished licences, and a fund is set up to achieve that object. Translated into insurance language, that means that all the trade compulsorily comes into a scheme of mutual insurance, and for that the members pay considerable premiums every year. Let me give an example. I take a licensed property, freehold, let on ninety-nine years lease to a lessee on a ground rent of, say, £250 a year with a premium of £2,000. This property would pay a considerable tax in order to contribute to the fund which extinguishes licences. Obviously a well-conducted and prosperous house would be unlikely to be interfered with during the twenty years, but after the lapse of that time, and after paying a heavy premium every year, the licence-holder would still run the risk of losing his licence. The only way in which the holder of a long lease in such a case as this could make provision for that risk would be to set up an insurance fund for himself in addition to contributing to the mutual insurance fund. I venture to think that that is not a business proposition. It is not good business, nor is it sound justice. No one who has really considered this subject really anticipates the greatest things from any legislation in the cause of temperance. Legislation can do something; this Bill, I believe, will do something considerable; but I believe myself that the real hope of temperance in this country lies rather in the removal, so far as we can, of the misery to which the hon. Member for Morpeth referred, the misery of the poorer classes, the insanitary condition
  826
  of their houses, and the too frequent overcrowding, which are the terrible sources of drunkenness. I am for legislation which mitigates those griefs, for administrative action such as that of the London County Council for providing more recreation for the people, more open spaces, and better and more airy houses. From those things which make for a change in the hearts of the people, much more is to be anticipated than from any legislation. But we must do what we can in the way of legislation, and this proposal, which I believe has the assent of all rational temperance reformers, does at least achieve the great object of doing something for temperance without doing it, the worst dis-service of identifying it with injustice.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that the advice given by the hon. Member on the other side to temperance reformers was of such a nature as to make these latter exclaim "Save us from our friends." The noble Lord, in his maiden speech, said that those whom he termed extremists on this question had always been the obstacle to true temperance reform; but he was bound to say that history did not justify that remark. Some extremists regarded this Bill as retrograde. His opinion was that the Bill was unique in its character in the history of the Mother of Parliaments. They had had legislation for centuries in the House of Commons in regard to licensing questions, and that legislation had always treated this trade as a dangerous trade, which must, necessarily be curtailed in the interests of the people. Never before in history had a Bill been introduced solely in the interests of the trade; and he insisted that the Bill from beginning to end was a measure to conserve the interests of the trade. There was not a word in it about the needs of the people in regard to temperance reform. The Prime Minister had spoken of it as a temperance reform Bill, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had said that in the same sense as he had declared the Education Bill to be an education reform Bill. He ventured to say with all reverence that the Bill might fitly be described as doing those things that ought not to

  827
  be done, and leaving undone those things which ought to be done. It was a much worse Bill than that designed by the Majority Report of the Royal Commission. There were many defects in that Majority Report which were remedied by the Minority Report; but even a Bill framed on the lines of the Majority Report would have been better than this Bill, and more acceptable to those interested in social reform. It served the interests of the trade, which needed no protection whatever.
  The question was asked why they shoud touch this subject at all; but the answer was found in the position the trade assumed after the legislation of 1902. That legislation did undoubtedly to a certain extent reduce drinking and it did a much more important thing, it quickened the magistrates throughout the country in regard to the evils of drinking, in the way of reducing drinking facilities. Then the trade came and set its foot down and declared that it would stand it no longer; and just as 120 free-trade Conservatives frightened the Prime Minister, on the occasion of a celebrated Amendment, so the trade had frightened him. This was really the genesis of the Bill. The Prime Minister then turned round and called the magistrates ill-names and determined to check their powers for restricting the number of licences, and for what? Simply for doing their duty; simply for taking steps in a limited way to restrict the number of licences because they felt that the results of the present licensing system were so deplorable. After having studied the Bill very carefully, he had come to the conclusion deliberately that it was one made by and for the brewing interest, just as the Education Bill was made by and for the Bishops. The same mistake had been made in framing this Bill as in framing the Education Bill. One side only had been taken into account. He noted the fact that the maximum rate of charge had been reduced, since the Home Secretary introduced the Bill, from £150 to £100, and he asked if this had been done in order to meet a still more pertinacious demand on the part of the brewers.
  Reiterating his statement that the Bill was retrograde in character, he
  828
  maintained that its influence would be most disastrous upon the work of social reformers. He had never entirely rejected the idea of compensation. As a licensing magistrate he quite appreciated the difficulty with regard to the selection of the licences to be reduced, and he was quite free to admit that it would in certain cases facilitate reduction if some principle of compensation were adopted. He should, in fact, be greatly more pleased with the Bill if the fund placed at the disposal of the magistrates was something like adequate; and he proceeded to argue that inasmuch as the suppression of licences would enhance the value of those remaining, the trade could very well afford to pay a much larger sum for compensation. He maintained that the gigantic tied-house system was one of the questions that should be kept prominently before the House, and he described the rateable value as an unfair basis of payment. He argued that the tenant would not get compensation, and he illustrated this point by a reference to Norwich. There, he said, there were nearly 600 licences, and three-fourths of them were in the hands of three or four large brewers. Transfers were numerous and tenants were mostly under a fortnight's or a month's notice. What compensation could such a man claim under this Bill? He was afraid he would get practically none at all. The whole amount would go to the brewers, who, although deprived of one house, would have increased trade at another. The arrangements between the publican and brewer in the Bill were most defective; they invited the owner to press the publican to contract out of any right he might have of sending in a claim under the Bill. He argued that it should be compulsory upon licensing authorities to raise a compensation fund, and he again turned to Norwich to illustrate the effect of the Bill in checking the voluntary surrender of licences. It was admitted that there was a large excess of licences, and, although there had not been a single licence withheld because the needs of the neighbourhood did not require it, there had been a reduction of fifty effected during the last few years. That reduction could go on no longer, because an absolute property would be created in houses such as had been allowed to drop

  829
  because they were not profitable. By the limited fund proposed it would take from fifty to seventy five years to accomplish such a reduction as was desirable, and he believed this reduction might have been obtained without any compensation. At Norwich the brewers undertook to consider a scheme, and he had no doubt that in five years they would have been able to reduce the number by at least fifty without doing corresponding harm to the trade, but this was absolutely stopped as soon as the Prime Minister uttered the words he did to the deputation which waited upon him. Congested districts where there were excessive licences were being dealt with, and would have been dealt with, but now under this Bill licensed houses would become such valuable property that it would be impossible to do anything that would appreciably affect the drinking habits of the people.
  The Bill was a reflection upon the conduct, the prudence, and the judicial character of the magistrates; and it destroyed the value of the personal acquaintance of the licensing magistrates with the needs of the neighbourhood. If they could reduce the drinking habits of their fellow countrymen to the average which now existed in the United States, they would be doing more to benefit the commercial and social life of the community than any tariff reform that could be proposed. He agreed with the Colonial Secretary that they could not rely upon legislation to make the great changes which needed to be brought about in the community; still the House was bound to take such measures as it could to remove the over-numerous temptations to drink, to help the weaker vessels and to give them a chance. If the Bill advanced in the slightest degree the great social reforms which they all desired he would support it, but instead of that it trifled with and hindered the great cause of temperance reform; its root principles were wrong, it aimed at protecting the trade instead of the people; and he should, therefore, feel bound to vote against its Second Reading.
  MR. LLOYD WHARTONsaid he would heartily support the Bill, the result of which he believed would be that justice would be
  830
  done in future in many cases where it was impossible for justice to be done in the past. He wished to regard the Bill from two standpoints, viz., as a member of the Royal Licensing Commission, and also as a justice and chairman of quarter sessions. The, Royal Commission recommended a scheme of compensation very much akin to that proposed in the, Bill, but he was bound to admit that he preferred the scheme of the Government. Raising money would be a much easier matter under the Bill. The scheme of the Royal Commission was that every house should have a declared value, and should pay a percentage on that value to the county fund. That scheme would raise considerably less than would be raised by the Bill. It had been said that the sum raised by the Bill would be inadequate. He thought not. The sum required was £1,200,000 a year. If they wanted to sweep away all the public-houses in England of course it would be very inadequate, but what reasonable people wished to do was to sweep away those licences which were, unnecessary. The measure of necessity was the use of a house. Not so much in the towns but in the country there were plenty that might be got rid of at £100 a-piece. If they averaged the price of removal of these houses at £500 each they would be giving a very generous average. Reckoning on the basis of £1,200,000 a year to deal with, and with an average removal of £500, they would remove 2,400 public-houses a year, or at the end of twenty years 48,000 houses would be suppressed. As there were 112,000 public-houses in England he thought that the suppression of 48,000 of them in twenty years should satisfy the most greedy and extreme temperance reformer.
  It was suggested there hould be a time limit of twenty years. The result of that would be to almost entirely frustrate and abolish the financial basis of the Bill. Take a man who had for twenty years been paying £100 a year, At the end of that time he had paid £2,000. Another man who had a public-house near by at the end of nineteen years lost his license and got full compensation. But the man who had been allowed to hold on for twenty years, and at the end of that period for some reason had his license

  831
  suppressed, did not get a brass farthing. He did not think the hon. Member would say there was any justice in that. It might be said that the Royal Commission suggested a time limit. That was true, but their proposal was that every seven years the compensation fund should be reviewed, not stopped, because financial considerations might require that a review should be made, and it might be necessary to have further or less borrowing powers.
  He did not think they would pass a slur upon the justices by passing this Bill. They were asked to inquire locally, as they were now, and to send up a report to the Court of quarter sessions. The Court of quarter sessions would he should think, in almost every case be able to agree with them, and so suppress the house concerned. Why had they not done it in the past? From one of the large towns in the county of Durham two cases were sent up on appeal to him as chairman of quarter sessions. One case was that of a publican who was compelled by the justices to spend about £300 upon his premises, and immediately after, for some unknown reason, there being no complaint against the man, the local Bench decided to take away his licence. That decision was reversed on appeal, but had there been power to award compensation it would probably have been upheld. The other case was that of a widow who had had a licence granted to her. She had £1,000 of her own, and she borrowed £1,400, and with this money she set up in the house. Very soon after the house was gutted by fire. She patched up the place as well as she could, and spent all her profits in repairing the ravages of the fire. This went on for two years, and then, when the repairs were nearly finished, the local bench thought fit to refuse the renewal. That decision also was reversed, and he thought they did rightly, though had they had the power of compensation they might have supported the decision of the Court below. He believed the Bill, so far from creating injustice, would enable magistrates to do justice and to remove hardships, and for these reasons he should support the Second Reading.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid the cases quoted by the right hon. Gentleman were exceptional, and did not afford much assistance. The renewal in the latter of the two cases was refused on the ground of structural defects, and that was one of the conditions under which, even after the present Bill, the licence might be withdrawn without compensation. The Colonial Secretary had used some extra-ordinary arguments. In connection with the proposed time limit, he had pointed to the hardship that would be suffered by a man who paid to the compensation fund for twenty years, and then had his licence taken without being compensated. Was not the obvious answer that the man had had twenty years protection for his twenty years payments? He had really been insuring himself against accidents. The right hon. Gentleman had also argued that the House was merely following the "Sharp v. Wakefield" decision to its logical issue in declaring that the owner of a public-house was a mere licensee in the bare meaning of the word, whereas a Government Department had recognised him as possessing a vested interest by assessing compensation when the property was taken under compulsory powers. No more absurd proposition was ever put before the House. The Department had simply taken things as they found them. They had recognised that the man had, so to speak, a reasonable expectation of life for so many years, and had assessed compensation on that basis. As to the compensation fund, which was alleged to be ample, he had analysed the figures as far as they were available for various countries. In Durham there were about 2,000 public-houses, varying considerably in value, and the total amount available for compensation would be about £25,000 per annum. Such a sum was a mere bagatelle, and in the opinion of persons qualified to speak would do nothing to ameliorate the present state of things. Wales enjoyed an unfavourable preeminence in respect to the number of public-houses. In a division of Glamorganshire there were sixty-one public-houses to 6,000 inhabitants. In Prestatyn there was one public-house to every twelve adult persons, whereas in Manchester the proportion was one to 130 persons, and in West Ham one to 355.

  833
  Did the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the great evil of intemperance could be removed by such means as this Bill provided? It afforded no remedy by which the evil could be effectively grappled with. The people in the North of England, recognising the great evils which they suffered from the abuse of the public-house system, did not regard this Bill as offering a final solution of the difficulty, or even as going one step in the right direction.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  MILWR AND DISTRICT MINES DRAINAGE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid he rose for the purpose of moving the rejection of the Bill. He had no personal concern in the matter one way or the other, his action being simply prompted by what he conceived to be the interests of the district. The Bill was opposed by the Holywell District Council, the inhabitants of Holywell, and also by riparian owners of the land and other persons interested in local industries. If passed it would seriously affect the water supply of Holywell, a growing town of 3,000 inhabitants, and the local industries. Any interference with the water supply of such a town must have a v ry serious effect on its prosperity. It had been suggested that this Bill had been passed by a Committee of the House of Lords, and that therefore this House ought not to oppose it, but, after all, the House of Lords was not always perfect in its judgment, and it was quite possible that in the case of this Bill, as in other matters, the House of Lords had made a mistake. This Bill was promote by a private company. Some time ago the persons interested in the promotion of this Bill carried out a scheme of mine drainage
  834
  for the purpose of discovering lead; the scheme was not a success and the object of this Bill was to interest the public in the scheme of working lead mines if they were found to exist, which at present was not the case. His contention was that no one for the purpose of developing lead mines had a right to injure local industries or the water supply of a rising town like Holywell. Under the first scheme no damage had been done, but under this Bill the promoters proposed to extend the present drainage scheme, and by driving tunnels in all directions to tap the limestone area from which the water supply of Holywell was drawn. The scheme was a pure speculation which might or might not result in the discovery of lead, but however it might be they were certain to find water, the draining of which would not only deplete the water supply of Holywell but also seriously affect the source of the Holywell stream, upon which a great many local industries depended. A well-known illustration of what would occur was the Severn Tunnel, which tapped the limestone area, with the result that it drained all the surrounding country within an area of twenty-four miles. This scheme proposed to drain to a depth of 200 feet and within 300 feet of the main source of the Holywell water supply. Anybody acquainted with geology would realise the risks which were run in going so near a limestone area. The hon. Member quoted the evidence given before the House of Lords Committee by geological experts to the effect that, this scheme if carried out must lower the level of the water in the Holywell stream and might do so to such an extent as to dry up the spring at St. Winifred's Well altogether.
  He asserted that it would affect injuriously seven or eight mills which were dependent on the stream for their power, and that without these mills, which employed large numbers of men living in Holywell to whom many thousands of pounds were paid in wages, Holywell could hardly exist. The effect of this scheme would be even more far-reaching having regard to the fact that one of these mills, which was engaged in chemically treating seaweed, over and above the people it employed in the neighbourhood, employed some 200 people on the coast of Donegal for the

  835
  collection of the seaweed treated, and that industry might be closed altogether owing to the depletion of the water in Holywell Stream. The hon. Member, in support of his Resolution, drew attention to the fact that in 1885 there was a suggestion to tap the water in St. Winifred's Well for the purpose, not of a private speculation, but of obtaining a water supply for a town, and the result of a local inquiry into the matter had been that the Provisional Order sanctioned by the Local Government Board was cancelled and that scheme was not permitted to proceed. The House was now asked to agree to a proceeding which the Local Government Board had vetoed in 1885. There was every justification for asking the House to reject this Bill, especially having regard to the fact that there was no provision for compensating any industry that might be injured and no provision that any injury done to mill owners or others would be made good.
  The House would find precedents for the course he now asked them to take in the case of the Croydon Corporation, which proposed to sink two wells, one at Addington and one at Beddington, to provide a water supply for Croydon, but who were not allowed to do so because the sinking of the well at Beddington would, it was proved, deplete the water of the Wandle and inflict incalculable injury; in the case of the Nottingham Corporation, in which case the opposition of the town of Newark was successful on the ground that if the Nottingham Corporation sank the three wells proposed it would rob Newark of its water supply; and in the case of the Wolverhampton Corporation, whose Bill was thrown out on Second Reading on the ground that the action they proposed to take would injure the water supply of the surrounding districts. He pointed out that in all these cases the Bills were promoted by public corporations for a public purpose ye they were not successful. He therefore submitted that this was a Bill that ought not to be allowed a Second Reading, and he moved that it be read a second time this day six months.
  SIR CHARLES McLARENsaid he supported the
  836
  Motion of his hon. friend, and, like him, he had no personal interest in the matter. He thought this was one of those Bills which ought to be dealt with by the House on some grounds of definite principle. It was a Bill of an extraordinary character, and unless the House was prepared to lay down some rule to deal with those who wished to suck all the water from the land, large towns would be at the mercy of Promoters of bills whose only object was speculation. This Bill was promoted by a great many landowners, who had, however, limited their liability to a very small amount, and if the Bill were allowed to pass the inhabitants of Holywell would be ruined without any hope of reparation. His hon. friend had stated so fully the specific grounds upon which injury was feared by the inhabitants of Holywell that it was un-necessary to emphasise them. He would, therefore, deal with one point to which his hon. friend had not alluded. St. Winifred's Well was believed by Roman Catholics to have miraculous powers; it was the only well in this country to which pilgrims resorted for the cure of their ailments. Upon this point he had made some inquiries, and had discovered that some 15,000 persons came down every year to bathe in St. Winifred's Well and be cured. From this source the town of Holywell derived a very large amount of revenue, and it was perfectly clear if the water was diverted and the spring dried up it would result in a great loss to the town. One peculiarity of this Bill was that although it proposed to extract the water from the district, the promoters had made no provision of any sort for compensating reservoirs. The peculiarity of this water was that it did not flow on the surface of the ground as was usual in the district, but went down fissures in the limestone strata, and at a certain level the water rose up again in great volumes. It was quite obvious that if tunnels were driven down below the existing stream the subterranean reserves would be drained to such an extent as to make the water flow not in its accustomed channel. If tunnels were driven 200 feet below St. Winifred's Well that might have the effect of drying it up. It had been a law for sixty years that water might be abstracted from underground channels to any extent

  837
  without paying compensation to neighbours. That was a very hard law in many instances and would be so in this case. The promoters of the Bill were unable to take advantage of the law without coming to this House to get compulsory powers, and he submitted that the House should put upon the promoters the most stringent terms that capital should be found, not only to complete the works, but to provide compensation to the interests of the riparian owners and local industries in the district which might be injured by the abstraction of the water. He believed that if power was given to take the underground water without compensation the town of Holywell would be ruined.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now.' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. YERBURGHsaid that the particular area which the Bill proposed to deal with in the county of Flint was acknowledged by all experts to be very rich in minerals, and the Bill was promoted on the ground that it might be the means of the development of very valuable industries. He had received a telegram from the town clerk of the borough of Flint, which stated that that evening the town council had adopted a resolution unanimously approving the scheme before the House, on the ground that it would be of great advantage to the district. Some years ago a very valuable mining industry existed there. Many men were employed, a great amount of money was paid in wages, and the district was prosperous. The mines were flooded and the industry could not be carried on for the time. An attempt was made to take the water out of the mines by pumping, but the expense was found to be so great that it was abandoned. In 1875 a company was formed for the purpose of draining the mines on similar principles to those proposed in the Bill for the Milwr district. The same objections were raised against the Bill promoted by that company and the same arguments used as against the present Bill. In
  838
  spite of the opposition, however, the Act was passed, and none of the prophecies regarding it were fulfilled. The Well of St. Winifred, which was so deservedly esteemed by Roman Catholics, still poured out its waters for the benefit of the pilgrims who visited it, in undiminished volume. He understood that Holywell, which opposed the Bill, did not get the whole of its water supply from this well, but from other wells, and he was informed that the Local Government Board were pressing Holywell to obtain a further supply elsewhere. All the questions raided by the hon. Gentleman in opposite were entirely questions for the Committee upstairs. He hid studied the case very carefully, and he could see nothing whatever which would weigh in his mind against the scheme proposed in the Bill. The Bill had already been before the House of Lords, who had made exhaustive inquiry, and had met all the objections to it which had been put forward that night. He was prepared to give his hearty support to the Bill.
  MR. MOSSsaid he wished to support the Second Reading of the Bill, the objections to which were merely fantastical. It was said that the scheme of the Bill would interfere with the water flowing to St. Winifred's Well, but up to the year 1874 mines were in existence in the neighbourhood of the well, and were worked at a level below the well, yet the flow of water to St. Winifred's remained unaffected. The House was not now competent to examine the details of the Bill. That duty should be left to a Committee.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he had had experience of the objections which might be taken to an interference with an underground supply of water. He held that when there was a conflict of opinion, and a possibility of those who were benefitting by the existing over-ground flow of water being damaged by the diminution of that flow, it was necessary that the promoters of the drainage scheme should give satisfaction that there would be full compensation if any damage resulted Although he was not prepared to go the length of voting against the Second Reading, he

  839
  reserved to himself full power to oppose it at a subsequent stage, unless the supporters of the Bill would say that in the event of damage happening to the neighbourhood by the abstraction of the underground flow of water, that would be compensated for.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said that if he thought that the effect of the Bill would be to damage the flow of water to St. Winifred's Well or Holywell, he would vote against it and invite the House to do the same. But he had no evidence before him to that effect. His hon. and gallant friend had referred to the question of compensation, but he took it that it would be really impossible to estimate any money compensation to pilgrims and others who might be deprived of the benefit they had derived from the well. It was impossible to measure the many advantages which might be gained, and what he was going to suggest was that a Committee—supposing that the House sent the Bill to a Committee—might easily insert a clause in the Bill to provide compensation water, if the evidence justified them in so doing, and to require that the promoters of the Bill should undertake that so many thousand gallons of water every day, should flow in a particular channel. If some such clause as that were inserted then neither the pilgrims or the mill owners would be in any way injured, but unless they sent the Bill to a Committee it would be impossible to insert any such clause. Seeing that this was really an engineering question, he suggested that the Bill should be read a second time and sent to a Committee upstairs. He thought the House might take it that primâ facie the promoters had made out a good case in favour of their Bill, because it had gone through a Committee in another place.
  MR. MCKEANsaid the Chairman of Committees had told the House that there was no evidence that the proposed scheme would interfere with the flow of water. He thought anyone who was anxious to get evidence on the subject had abundance of it already available. The hon. Member for Chester had stated that the same arguments which were used against this scheme
  840
  were used years ago against a similar scheme for the drainage of mines in the district, and that the prophecies then indulged in had not been realised. He himself held that every argument used against the former Bill had been absolutely verified by the fact. There was now a diminished flow of water, so that the hon. Member's argument had no foundation in fact at all. The urban district council of Holywell, and the inhabitants of Holywell, had petitioned against this Bill, and the fact that they had done so indicated that they believed they would be damnified by the proposed scheme. The suggestion of the Chairman of Committees that the Bill should be sent to a Committee reminded him of the invitation, "Will you walk into my parlour said the spider to the fly." The district council and the inhabitants of the place knew the merits and demerits of the proposal, and he thought the House would be well advised in going by the opinion of the local people. The fact that the Bill had gone through a Committee of the House of Lords was to him rather an argument against than in favour of it. He would quote to the House the opinion of an undoubted expert, Mr. Joseph Haynes, mining engineer, said that, in his opinion, it was impossible for any of the proposed tunnels to be constructed without artificially lowering, or entirely taking away, the present supply of water used and enjoyed by the inhabitants within the drainage area. He submitted that on purely archæological grounds the scheme ought not to be sanctioned, but St. Winifred's Well had a higher claim to their protection than could be found in archæological reasons. It was a great sanatorium to which people suffering from diseases which had baffled medical science went and were completely cured. The House should not permit this act of twentieth century vandalism.
  MR. J. H. LEWISstated that a tunnel constructed some four miles from St. Winifred's Well had reduced the flow of water from between six and eight million gallons to about four million gallons a day, and asked what results were likely to follow from the driving of five tunnels, the nearest of which was to approach within

  841
  one mile of the well itself. He had read with considerable care the evidence given before the Lords Committee, and he had tried to form a perfectly impartial judgment upon it. He was afraid that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman in this particular instance as to providing compensation water was impracticable. If the Bill could be carried without any possibility of doing harm to St. Winifred's Well, and if the industries on the stream and the interests of the people employed there could be safeguarded, he should not have the slightest hesitation in voting for the Bill. He frankly admitted that the scheme would increase the amount of employment. The question to be considered was, were these benefits to be obtained by sacrificing those interests which have been in existence for 100 years? They depended on a cheap water supply, but for that they would have ceased to exist long ago. They had a right to some consideration at the hands of the House, and he hoped that in trying to do good to one part of the district they would not do harm to another. His position in the matter was one of extreme difficulty. He had been for nineteen year associated with works on the stream, and that being so, he would not vote one way or another.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTONsaid the merits and demerits of the Bill could only be decided in the usual way, by formal and responsible evidence given before a Committee. Those opposed to the Bill asked the House to cut short at this stage of its career a measure ostensibly for the development of a new district, and the employment in new
  industries of a large number of people. He submitted that the House should not accept that responsibility without formal inquiry for which the machinery of a Committee-room gave ample opportunity. There the promoters and objectors could meet face to face and state their views by means of sworn evidence, and a Committee hearing statements of such an intricate and technical character in this way must surely be a more competent and judicial tribunal than that House could possibly be, depending as it must do on what might be, after all, but loose and irresponsible statements made in the course of a Second Heading debate. He himself could not come to a decision on a matter of this kind without formal and fuller inquiry. He therefore hoped that the Bill would be sent to a Committee.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid the flow of the water in this stream had suddenly reverted to what it was formerly. That was in consequence of the wet year. There had been a deficiency of rainfall during the past twenty years, and springs and wells all over the country had been abnormally low. This year for the first time they had resumed their ordinary flow. What had happened in the district referred to was exactly what he should have expected as the result of the dry years and could not be attributed to the action of the Halkin drainage as stated by the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes, 61. (Division List No. 116.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.

  Burns, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Burt, Thomas

  Dewar, Sir T. R.(TowerHamlets

  Allen, Charles P.

  Butcher, John George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Caldwell. James

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cawley, Frederick

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chapman, Edward

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Bell, Richard

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cremer, William Randal

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Bond, Edward

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Emmott, Alfred

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Fenwick, Charles

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Slack, John Bamford

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

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Smith, H C(North'mb. Tyneside

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Levy, Maurice

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Spear, John Ward

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. W(Cum. Penr.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Fyler, John Arthur

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tomkinson, James

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Norman, Henry

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Toulmin, George

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gretton, John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Tuff, Charles

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Valentia, Viscount

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Rea, Russell

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harwood, George

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H (Somers't, E

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Russell, T. W.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Shackleton, David James

  Wylie, Alexander

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Voxall, James Henry

  Keswick, William

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Langley, Batty

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Yerburgh and Mr. Moss.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Dowd, John

  Boland, John

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Halley, William

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Law, Hugh Alex, (Donegal, W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Roche, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Crean, Eugene

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Kean, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Mooney, John J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Young, Samuel

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Sir Charles M'Laren.

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kelkenny)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn "—(Sir A. Acland-Hood)—put, and agreed to.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [9th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was,
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon tins day six months.'—(Mr. Burt.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SPEARheld that the House and the country were deeply indebted to the Government for the temperance measures they had passed for England and Scotland, and for proposing this measure, which would reduce the number of licences. It was a measure which should receive the most careful and anxious consideration of the House. He held that I here were too many licensed houses and he was convinced that they would not secure any substantial reduction in the number except by recognising the principle of compensation. Hon. Members opposite had acquiesced in that principle under certain conditions, and that marked a nearer approach between the two sides than had hitherto been the case with temperance legislation. He appealed to all sides of the House for a careful consideration of the measure on these grounds. Excessive drinking had done enormous damage to the country, and considering the amount of money annually spent they should be anxious to do something to curtail that expenditure, and the evil consequences that followed thereon. Although the licence-holder had only one year's right, he had a moral claim of something like twelve or fourteen years holding in his licence. It was the recognition of that claim which had caused magistrates to abstain from withholding licences when in many instances it would have been in the interest of the community for them to cancel them. He held the reduction of the number of public-houses would cause some reduction in the amount of liquor consumed, but at the same time it would bring more custom to the surviving houses, and he thought the principle enunciated in the Bill that the surviving houses should compensate those whose licences were lost was sound and equitable. As far as
  846
  that went he was in sympathy with the Bill. His objection to the Bill was not that it acknowledged the existence of that interest, but that it proposed to turn that interest into a permanent freehold. He was anxious to deal fairly by the licence-holder, but to create a permanent holding in the licence would be to inflict a great injustice on the rights of the people. He earnestly appealed to the Government, therefore, to introduce into the Bill a time limit. He would like to see a liberal time limit, even going so far as eighteen years, and the compensation given under the time limit should be on a sliding scale. There should be full compensation given to houses closed during the first year, seventeen-eighteenths during the second year, sixteen-eighteenths during the third, and so on. The contributions to the compensation fund should be pro rata or a similar sliding scale. It had been said that would inflict injustice on men who paid contributions for several years and then got no benefit from it. But those who had contributed to the fund all these years would have been receiving the advantage of the trade which they enjoyed, and there was no ground of complaint from that point of view. As the end of the time limit approached, having regard to the fact that a great number of the unnecessary houses would be closed, it would be quite easy for the surviving houses to form a mutual insurance fund for any further reductions that might be made.
  His chief reason for advocating the introduction of a time limit was that they might do nothing to alienate the rights of the people to deal with this question as they thought right, after they had taken precautious to deal fairly with the vested interests of the licence-holders. He had another reason. Under the system proposed, contributions to the compensation fund would be levied on the better class of hotels. He did not say that the levy was too great, but they must remember that they were paying towards a fund from which they could never expect to receive any return whatever, because it was hardly likely that those licences would be withheld. It was too much to expect them to contribute heavily

  847
  for all time towards the fund. In justice to them the time should come when the goodwill of the trade should have been supposed to have been equitably dealt with and the houses stand on their own responsibility. He should be glad, too, if the Government could see their way clear to insist that new licences should be granted with full knowledge that no compensation would be paid in case of their suppression. With regard to the magistrates' control he should be glad if the change could be avoided, although the decision of brewster sessions had always been liable to be overruled by quarter sessions. But whatever the tribunal was the people must have access to it to represent the wishes of the neighbourhood. If the Government fastened a permanent freehold in licences round the necks of the people they would not be promoting the cause of temperance reform.
  MAJOR JAMESONsaid it appeared to him that the Licensing Pill transferred no further power to quarter sessions, with the exception that it created a new power by allowing quarter sessions to agree that compensation should be paid, and in default of agreement as to the amount. H failed to see how in any way injustice was done to the magistrates. In his opinion, it would be absolutely necessary, in view of the probability of the justices' policy as to renewals, that some safeguards should be provided to insure that no injustice was done to those who were interested in the licence, other than the licensee, whereby they might suffer the loss of thousands of pounds in consequence of some trivial fault of the licensee which might only involve a nominal fine in itself. He intended, therefore, to propose an Amendment to Clause 1 to provide that there should be in all cases an appeal to quarter sessions for any first offence that was not enumerated for appeal to quarter sessions. Justices had in reality every right they were entitled to, and quarter sessions had alone to determine whether compensation should be given or not. By a large majority of the House, when the last Licensing Bill was under debate
  848
  it was practically allowed that compensation ought to be given to those who were deprived of their licences. Even the right hon. Member for East Fife stated he would give them a "solatium"; thus approving of compensation, and only differing in the name he chose to apply to it. Again, in the somewhat remarkable speech they had on the First Reading of the Bill from the hon. Member for Spen Valley, who quoted a decision of 1852 to show that the public-houses had no claim to compensation— he would certainly say that licensed houses which had had fifty years of tenure since then had an inalienable right to compensation. That was absolutely beyond any argument. The hon. Member for Spen Valley also stated that public-houses had filled the gaols and prisons. He deprecated that assertion; excessive drinking might have helped to do so, but the ill-effects of drink had been far worse where no well-conducted public-houses were, and it had been shown without fear of contradiction that the number of public-houses in any district had had nothing whatever to do with the amount of drunkenness in that district. The hon. Member for Spen Valley forgot to add that the public-houses had also filled the Exchequer, for they had been taxed and pigeoned beyond any industry in this country, and he would ask hon. Members to recollect that when Mr. Goschen raised money from the trade for the purpose of compensation, they were plundered of their money, which was taken away for an entirely different purpose.
  The hon. Baronet the Member for Camborne took the Prime Minister to task for having met the representatives of the trade with his usual courtesy. It was a great pity, in his opinion, that in a debate on the question of licensing, courtesy appeared to be forgotten by their opponents. He did not believe that any members of the trade desired anything but the public good and the public welfare, and it was monstrous that the good and well-being of the people should be claimed to be the desire of one Party only in that House, and that Members who were connected with the trade should be excluded by them from desiring to participate in the same. Those

  849

  who stated that there should be a time limit to compensation appeared to forget that justice did not cease at any limited period, and that fifty years hence right would be right and equity would be equity. He regretted he was unable to speak on the subject of this Bill on the First Reading, but he had not the good fortune to be called, and he looked upon it that he lost the chance of, a lifetime, for, for the first time during the ten years he had been in that House, he had the honour of sitting next to the hon. Baronet the Member for Camborne, for whom he had the deepest respect, and he could not help thinking that if he had had the opportunity of speaking to the House in the happy position in which he was then placed be could have brought home the fact of what a duet they could have played by relating what happened under similar circumstances in America. There the temperance party who desired licence reform sent out two lecturers all over the great cities of the United States, one was to lecture and the other was to be exhibited as the "miserable victim of intemperance." They were to take turn about as to which happy position they occupied. They agreed to take their turns in this way, but the "miserable victim of intemperance" declined to be the, lecturer when the lecturer desired to take his turn as a "miserable victim of intemperance" so at the end of the first fortnight the lecturers were obliged to return home without having accomplished their work. He could not help thinking if the hon. Member for Camborne and himself were to pose before the House, one to lecture on intemperance, and the other (himself of course) to pose as "the miserable victim of intemperance," they, at all events, would not quarrel as regarded the positions they occupied, and there might be a happy alliance between the two.
  The rejection of this Bill had been moved by the hon. Member for Morpeth, who told them that vested interests were well taken care of, especially the interests of the well-to do. He would like to point out that this Bill was to secure the interests not only of the well-to-do, but of those who would be thrown into penury and want by being compelled to renounce a trade which had been legalised by the State, and which
  850
  had been conducted by them as respectable and honest citizens. The hon. Member for Morpeth quoted Napoleon who stated that "vices were better taxpayers than virtues." The hon. Member, in quoting the greatest despot that this world had ever seen, was advocating the despotism of the few as against the wants and desires of the many He spoke seriously of the great care that was being taken that no one who had a shadow of a slur upon his character should have a chance of getting a licence. Surely that would commend this Bill, not only to the hon. Member who had moved its rejection, but to every Member of the House. He stated that the families of public-house keepers as a rule turned out better than the families of ministers or of clergymen, and yet these were the very people he desired to see robbed of their trade, and plunged into misery and penury. He then spoke of John Bull's family, who, he said, should be taken care of. He stated that if there were no Public-houses for him to go to, there would be enough money and to spare for all the wants that he or his family could have. Surely the teachings he should have learned from those places in America where total prohibition was practised and where there was more drunkenness than in any other country in the world, should have been a lesson to him in making such an assertion. The hon. Member for Morpeth also desired to revert to the liquor that met the wants of our ancestors. Did the hon. Member mean the liquor that was drunk by Adam and Eve, or did he mean the liquor of our immediate ancestors in Great Britain and Ireland fifty years ago, when it was the fashion to drink a bottle of port per head every night and lay in a stock of gout for all their unfortunate descendants. If so he differed from him upon this point. The hon. Member stated that his great hope was that people would not take more spirituous liquor than was good for them, and in this he cordially agreed, but that hope was in education.
  The hon. Member for Morpeth had spoken of His Majesty the King's speech in Ireland the other day, in which His Majesty stated the enormous benefits that higher education would bring to Ireland,

  851
  and he trusted that would go to the hearts and minds of every Member of this House. But while speaking upon education, he would once more remind them that Mr. Goschen taxed the trade to the amount of £450,000 per annum in order to find money for compensation for non-renewals of licences, and that that money had been misappropriated, and part of it given to the county councils for the purposes of education. The hon. Member in moving the rejection of the Bill spoke of the healthier and better surroundings of the people, which alone could wean the British working man, who was inclined to take more spirituous liquor than was good for him, from the habit they all deplored. That alone could be done by better housing and by making him more comfortable at home, and the money of some of their greatest brewers and distillers had been voluntarily given for that purpose. He trusted that both healthier and better surroundings would be found by the State as well as by private individuals, but the rejection of this Bill would only increase the evils of which the hon. Member who moved its rejection spoke, and he hoped that in the interests of sobriety and of the honour and justice o1 this country the Bill now before them would be passed into law.
  COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid that if a time limit of seven or eight years were fixed it would afford ample time for writing down the value of licensed premises. It seemed to him that public opinion was so far awakening upon this subject that they ought to review the question some years hence. He hoped and believed that then public opinion would demand a far more drastic dealing with the question, and a more drastic reduction of licences than it did at the present day. They were told that the time limit would introduce a great deal of injustice to the trade, and that they would have to provide what had been railed a double insurance in order to insure themselves if a time limit was fixed. He thought it had been forgotten that the situation with which they were now dealing was a new one, and public opinion had very much awakened within the last few years in regard to dealing with licences, and it was now earnestly desired that some speedy step should be
  852
  taken to curtail the number of licences. It had also been realised that there had grown a certain limited vested interest in licences, and it seemed to him that some sort of limit, not so long as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Devonshire of eighteen years, but more like seven or ten years, should be adopted, and that would provide ample opportunity for the writing down of the licensed value above the value of the house without the licence. He thought that extra value had been very much exaggerated. Although it was quite true that there might be large gin-palaces and places where the licensed value was enormous, where the reduction would take place was in the public-houses in back streets and in country villages where the licensed houses were too thickly together. They had been told of instances where the business, but for the licence, would not be kept on, but if such business was a losing game then there could be no extra value in that house because it had a licence. There were many public-houses where the value was not increased by more than £50 or £100 because of the licence on account of the competition with other houses near at hand. It would not be just to pay a competition value. He had heard of an instance in a village where there was keen competition between two breweries to acquire a certain public-house, and one brewery gave a price far above its proper value in order to prevent the other brewery acquiring it. That was not the real value of the house, and therefore a competition value ought not to he accepted. It seemed to him that public opinion was so much awakening on this subject that they ought to have an opportunity for reviewing this question a few years hence.
  The hon. Member for Spen Valley said he had hoped the Government would have produced a Bill which would have settled this question. To settle this question would take a, long time, because public opinion changed very much from time to time, and public opinion upon this subject was now very different to what it was thirty years ago. Thirty years ago a Bill could not have been brought in dealing with compensation, but now such a proposal was made

  853
  with the general approval of the country. Therefore he thought it was no hardship on the publican to put a time limit in the Bill, and to ask him to write down every year by 10 per cent. the value at which the house stood above its mere property value, and at the same time to provide for the extinction of some other licences. If his own licence was taken away the publican would benefit, and if his licence was not taken away he would benefit because the licences on each side of him might be taken away. The time limit would make the publicans and the brewers look more to the needs of the locality and judge more as to what houses were likely to continue. It would make them more careful as to the sort of house they bought and the sort of man they put into it. He hoped that the Government would see their way to introduce a time limit into the Bill. He should vote for the Second Reading because he thought that the time limit was a matter for discussion in Committee, bur he reserved to himself the entire right of exercising his judgment on the Third Reading as to how far the provisions of the measure had been improved.
  MR. MUNRO FURGUSONclaimed to take an interest in the fate of this measure as a Scottish Member, because they could not have freehold licences on the south side of the Tweed and yearly licences on the north side. Therefore he felt that the change of a licence from an annual to a freehold tenure was a matter in which the representatives of Scotland were equally interested. He found himself in very general agreement with the two last speakers. He believed it was essential to have a time limit, and although he did not adopt exactly the same form as the hon. Member for Morpeth, yet it came to much the same thing in the end. The
  854
  question of a time limit traversed the whole principle of this Bill, which proposed to hand over the whole monopoly value of licences in England to the trade. He had an Amendment on the Paper which, instead of handing over the whole of the monopoly value of licences to the trade, as the Bill did, would secure the whole of the monopoly value to the people. That was the real issue raised between them in the discussion. He believed the policy of securing to the country the monopoly value of licences was a feasible policy, and it was one upon which he appealed to the Colonial Secretary, who took a great interest in this measure. Probably the least controversial of the measures enacted in the Transvaal since its union with the British Empire was the Transvaal Liquor Law, which provided for the elimination of the element of private property from the retail trade in liquor. That was the object to which they should direct their attention. It had been said that there was no alternative to the present policy, but ho would suggest the elimination of the element of private property altogether. If there were no alternative, there might be strong arguments in favour of the Bill. It was said if property in licences was rendered secure and stable that capital would be attracted to it, and that it would be made respectable and responsible, and so forth; but the whole history of the conduct of the liquor traffic in England did not support that proposition. In the publications of Mr. Sidney Webb, and others who had given the history of the liquor trade, it was shown that the influx of capital into the trade had not been followed by responsibility, respectability or sobriety. He did not believe that any influx of capital would secure the end they all had at heart. That was where this measure would fail.

  855
  The only security they had under the present system was the maintenance of the control of the justices and the maintenance of the public rights. What he objected to in the Bill was that it surrendered the public rights and in large measure the control of the justices. It surrendered the public rights in this way it could not be said there was a freehold in licences at present. Licences did not fetch twenty-five years' purchase now. They might do so under the present Bill, but at present they did not fetch anything like the same number of years' purchase as ordinary private property. The balance was a public asset. They had no right to surrender that asset. They were the trustees of the public, and the public had rights under the existing system which they ought to be slow to surrender. For himself, he declined to surrender those rights and also to surrender control to the extent asked for by the Bill. He thought that under the Bill they would lose valuable public assets, and instead of travelling on the right road they were travelling on the wrong. The right road to follow was the elimination of private property in licences. That principle was not entirely strange to them. For the last two or three years many of them had been working hard on that question, and, if their efforts were not progressing rapidly, they were progressing surely, and the results were good. He himself was not an abstainer; but he took a part in that movement because he felt that the influence of the liquor traffic in local and political affairs was a bad influence. He wished to eliminate it, and he believed that under the trust system they would get rid of it in time. In Scandinavia the whole liquor traffic was under the trust system, and no one in Scandinavia
  856
  would dream of returning to the former system of individual profits. The whole of that country was in favour of the elimination of private property in licences. Not only was that system applicable to a democratic country like Norway and to a monarchial country like Sweden, but it had been established to a great extent in Russia. He was not defending the Russian system, but it had accomplished a great deal of good, and had brought to the Russian Exchequer a gross revenue of £55,000,000, and a net revenue of £32,000,000, or £33,000,000. This country might, however, compare itself more fairly with Scandinavia. In Scandinavia alternatives to public-houses were established on a scale of which there was no conception in this country. In Gottenburg no resident would assert that the old system was better than that now established in that city. There public institutions were supported out of the liquor traffic, to the great advantage of the community. He thought, on the whole, that it could not be denied that that system was a success.
  It was not fair to say that there was no alternative policy to the policy of the Government. It should not be assumed that the whole of the monopoly value of the trade belonged to it. The greater portion of it, in his opinion, belonged to the public, and the Government were asking the House to transfer a public right to the trade. As the representatives of the people they were not justified in doing that. By the Amendment which he suggested the retail trade would be freed from the the liquor ring, and by giving fair notice compensation could be allotted to the trade. What that compensation should be was a matter of argument. Lord Peel proposed five years, he himself

  857
  proposed seven years on the Scottish Licensing Bill, and he would not object to ten years if he could get a settlement of the question. But beyond ten years he would not go. He had had requests from a very important association in his constituency asking him to support the extension of the Bill to Scotland, but he declined, on the ground that the association was asking for what did not belong to it. They had now the choice between two opposite paths, the path which led to the control of the liquor traffic by the people for the people, and the path which led towards the transfer of the whole of the value of existing licences to the trade.
  He himself did not believe in the importance of the clause to which the right lion. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had alluded. The proposal was really nothing new. What was to be the criterion of the value of a public-house in a mining district? They might sink a shaft so that the value of a licence which was £300 before might be increased to £3,000. It was difficult now to fix ground values, but it would be ten times more difficult to fix the value of a licence so that the future unearned increment might go to the community or to a compensation fund. When the Archbishop of Canterbury stated the other day that the Bill would be likely to turn a publican's licence into a freehold it was contended by The Times that the licensed value would be as before the Bill was passed. But The Times admitted that the Bill omitted to provide any authentic record of value, which, however, it added was a defect which could be easily remedied. He himself was not quite sure that it could be easily remedied. The question was by what method they were to arrive at the value. The policy of the Government was to come to terms
  858
  with the trade; but they could not come to terms with the trade except by surrender, and if they could not come to terms with the trade they must adopt the policy of the elimination of the element of private property. He was satisfied that the progress of that principle was such that the country would be ready to adopt the larger system, and that it was moving slowly but surely in the direction of eliminating private property. In his own county there were eight or nine trust companies. In many of the mining villages the miners had formed companies and established public-houses, the profits of which were more like four figures than three and were laid out in counter-attractions such as libraries, public halls and wash-houses. The system was not altogether defensible in theory, but it was very effective in practice; and it showed how, in even a rough community, they could have an element of control of the liquor traffic which was capable of producing results far better than any scheme which any Government had been able to introduce. They required greater security than they had in those village trusts; but the trusts in their essence had shown that even under very difficult conditions they had been able to eliminate private property. That was not an impossible, policy in this country, according to the experience they had had. He had had this question very much at heart, and had worked for it in co-operation with many who did not hold his own political faith. Ho believed that as far as both Parties were concerned, the influence of the trade was an evil influence, which could not be got rid of except by the elimination of the element of private property in the control of the retail trade. If they had been able to show

  859
  such results in Scotland, and if Lord Grey had been able to show such considerable results in England also, it could not be said that there was not a substantial policy opposed to the policy of the Government.
  With gambling and speculation in licences they had nothing to do. From the rates at which licences were sold, it was evident that, those who went into the trade went into it as a speculation, and they certainly should not be given twenty-five years purchase. The liquor monopoly had bean fairly plundered by private adventures and he should very much like to see that brought to an end. He should hesitate to oppose the Bill if it had a time limit, because he was perfectly satisfied that within a limited period the country would be educated up to the point of supporting a much more general system of licensing control under the trust system than am thing they had been able to get by voluntary effort. He was sure also that a great deal of the money which was required to improve the general community could only be obtained from this monopoly; the value of which was £20,000,000 a year, and which was now used in a manner which was disastrous to the public and local life of the country.
  MR. PEELsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said he would vote for the Bill unless he had any other alternative placed before him; but the alternatives mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were certainly not before the House and he was quite certain they never could be. The hon. Gentleman had been advocating two systems. He had been advocating the system
  860
  associated with the name of Lord Grey. That system had certainly worked in some cases well; but he was quite certain it could not be introduced all over the country.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that what he stated was that he should hesitate to vote against the Bill if it contained a time limit.
  MR. PEELsaid that the hon. Gentleman was, therefore, prepared to vote for the Bill under certain circumstances; although he really advocated a totally different system. The temperance party were themselves strongly opposed to Lord Grey's scheme. He had himself some practical experience of that in his own constituency, and also as a member of the London County Council. Lord Grey came before a committee of the London County Council, of which he was a member, and argued with his usual vivacity and eloquence in favour of his scheme; but the temperance party rejected it. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the question of the elimination of private profit. Did he mean the municipalisation of the liquor tram? He believed the temperance party was also opposed to that. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Camborne Division was very much opposed to it. Ho himself was also opposed to it, because he believed that no system could be worse than placing the management—he was not now talking of control—of the liquor traffic in the hands of the municipalities. It would be the worse kind of municipal trading it was possible to imagine. He thought the municipalities had already laid upon them all the duties they were capable of discharging; but, even if they had not, the liquor traffic was one which

  861

  he would not like to see laid upon them. The Bill had been opposed strongly, but more as to its details than as to its principle. Only those opposed the Bill root and branch who, like the hon. Member for Camborne, were opposed to any kind of compensation whatever. They apparently thought that compensation should come from nowhere, from the pockets neither of the publican nor of the public. Into that dilemma the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division refused to be drawn. It carried with it the further difficulty that as the fund available for compensation would necessarily be limited, there must inevitably be some limitation of the discretion of the magistrates in dealing with the whole of the licences under their control. He believed, however, that the limitation of discretion implied in the limitation of the fund was much more verbal than real, because the discretion of the magistrates could hardly be said to extend to the taking away of all the licences under their control.
  The point he particularly wished to deal with was whether the Bill would give to the licence-holder a, greater degree of security or a greater interest than he at present possessed. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain had placed the value of public-house property in the country at £300,000,000, which value he had declared would be doubled by this Bill, and that consequently the sum available for compensation would be extremely small in proportion. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division, a much more accurate authority, had rudely dispelled this dream of wealth, placing the value at £125,000,000, and even he had probably not taken into consideration the fact that compensation
  862
  was not to be based on the value of the licence and of the house together.
  MR. WHITTAKERexplained that his figures related to the value of the licences only.
  MR. PEELsaid he had not understood that. It was an extremely difficult sum to arrive at, and he failed to see how it could be done without a proper valuation, as the value of the houses varied considerably. But what was the precise advantage or value given to the trade by this Bill? At the highest it could not be described as a freehold, because that would entitle the owner to compensation out of public funds. The most the Bill would do was to entitle the publican to compensation out of the trade, and as the risk of losing the licence rarely materialised, except for misconduct, he thought that such a provision could hardly appreciate the value to any extent. The meaning of the words in Clause 2—"That the houses should be valued as if this Act had not been passed"—was rather obscure. If it meant that the present value, as estimated under some scheme, was to be taken as the value for a number of years to come, it would not allow for the ordinary fluctuations of value.
  With regard to the time limit, there were great difficulties in the way of fixing any definite term. As the Bill gave power of borrowing on the fund, it was obvious that a time limit would be perfectly useless unless the money so borrowed had to be repaid within the term of the limit, and the money having to be repaid in a shorter number of years would diminish the number of houses that could be bought up. Two kinds of time limit had been suggested. One was

  863
  that at the end of a certain number of years no compensation whatever should be paid. To make such a definite provision would be neither fair nor workable. It would fall very unequally on different classes of houses. Some would have enjoyed a greater security of tenure; others would have enjoyed a greater share of trade in consequence of the suppression of competing establishments; but a very large number, which had derived no advantage whatever from the suppression of houses, and had been paying to the compensation fund all the time, would suddenly find themselves in the position of having their licences taken away. He thought something more limited would have to be devised. The object of the Bill was not, he believed, to give any undue increment of value to the trade, and the idea should be rather to allow Parliament at the end of a certain period to deal with the question more freely. It had been the practice for owners to keep a certain number of public-houses going as a means of bargaining, as certain benches of magistrates had made it a rule not to grant a new licence unless an old one was surrendered. The Bill gave a statutory position to these negotiable instruments, and one of the conditions laid down for obtaining a new licence was the surrender of one or more old ones. He thought that full compensation for such houses ought not to be exacted, and he suggested that some provision, with proper safeguards, should be introduced by which the magistrates would have a discretion in the matter. Another class of cases in which a distinction should be drawn, were those in which licences were withdrawn on the joint grounds of misconduct and non-requirement.
  864
  He thought there was not sufficient stimulus in the Bill to quarter sessions to take action on their own account. They had no right to initiate any reduction of licences; they could act only when requested to do so by the brewster sessions. When the report was presented at quarter sessions it was only a report, and there was apparently no means by which that report could be defended. He thought, however, that the criticism of the position of magistrates at brewster sessions went for very little. Any Bill which provided a fund to be levied on the public-houses to be devoted to the extinction of some of their number must be open to the difficulty that it was limited and that to that extent the power of the magistrates was limited. But if they refused a Bill of this kind they were really thrown back on the system advocated by the hon. Member opposite of having no compensation at all. Those were the two alternatives— either compensation out of the trade and a limited number of houses taken away, or no compensation at all. He thought (here was no possibility of a Bill giving no compensation ever being carried in this House.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Birmingham) [H.L.];Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways; Donegal Railway.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill. Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [H.L.].A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Trafford Park Dock and Railway Bill [H.L.]. Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
South Shields Gas Bill. The Lord Balfour informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 19th of April and Monday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Ipswich Dock Commission Bill [H.L.].Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Richard Jaeger's Patent Bill [H.L.] Committed.
Hutchesons' Hospital and Hutchesons' Educational Trust Bill [H.L.];Chippenham Gas Bill; Sheppy Gas Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill; London, Tilbary, and Southend Railway Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection. That the Lord Estcourt be proposed to the House as a member of the Select
702
Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Aberdare; read, and agreed to.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill. Read 2a and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Marylebone Chapels (St. James, Westmoreland Street) Bill [H.L.]; Minehead Urban District Council Water Bill [H.L.]; West Riding Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Doncaster Corporation Bill; Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill; Surrey Commercial Dock Bill. Brought from the commons read 1a;and referred to the Examiners.
Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1902 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Great Eastern Railway (Steamboats) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Birmingham) Bill [H.L.]. To be read 2aTo-morrow.
Metropolitan Common Scheme (Hillingdon East) Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Common Scheme (Farm-borough) Provisional Order Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Read 2a(according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To morrow.

PETITIONS.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Bedfordshire County Council; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  STREET BETTING BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Scarborough Branch of Anti-Gambling League; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Code of regulations for public elementary schools; with schedules.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3153. Germany.
  No. 3154 Turkey (Aleppo and Adana).
  No. 3155 China (Swatow).
  No. 3156 Greece (Morea, Aetolia, and Acarnania).
  No. 3157. Argentine Republic(Rosario).
  No. 3158. China (Wuhu).

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) CONTINUATION CLASSES.
  Reports, Statistics, etc., 1902–1903.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854 TO 1894.
  Fifteenth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission; with Appendix.

  CROFTER HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1886–1887.
  Reports by the Crofters Commission, being for the year ended 31st December, 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits paid, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the visitors of lunatics, pursuant to the Lunacy Act, 1890, between 1st October, 1903, and 1st March, 1904.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Orders, made by the County Council of Middlesex, altering certain polling districts in the Tottenham Parliamentary Division.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  Annual Statistical Report, by the University Court of the University of St. Andrew's, to the Secretary for Scotland, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, for the year 1902–1903.
  Annual Report on the state of the finances of the University of St. Andrew's under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, for the year 1902–1903.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TIBET.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for India in his place, I beg to ask whether he can give the House any additional information concerning events in Tibet.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, the Secretary of State for India has received the following telegram from Lord Ampthill, dated 8th inst.—
  "Macdonald reports Colonel Brander, 6th May, attacked 2,500 Tibetans, strongly intrenched beyond Karo-La Pass. After four hours stubborn fighting, enemy was defeated and retreated. Enemy's loss not yet known. Loss on our side: 32nd Bengal Infantry, Captain Bethune and three men killed, and thirteen men wounded; 8th Goorkhas, one man wounded. All quiet at Gyangtse on the 6th May."
  That is all the information I can give the noble Lord. I may say that this telegram has been already communicated to the Press.

  EDUCATION (TRANSFERRED SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.]
  [FIRST READING.]
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST ASAPH: My Lords, in asking leave to present a Bill relating to education I desire at the outset to make one fact clear. I am wholly and solely responsible for the measure submitted to your Lordships. I have not sought the advice or support of those leaders and organisations with whom I might naturally be supposed to be in communication. The Bill comes before your Lordships simply on its own merits, and compromises no one except its author. I recognise that the lonely presumption involved in such a step calls for some explanation. Although the Bill and the problem with which it

  705
  attempts to deal are in no sense limited to the Principality, the circumstances that suggested such a measure occurred in Wales.
  The Act of 1902 aroused in Wales as Well as in England slumbering antipathies, almost precisely in the same measure and intensity as happened after the passing of the Act of 1870. Last year the county councils of Wales invited the representatives of the voluntary schools to meet them, with a view to effecting a friendly arrangement for the management of the voluntary schools, and providing that the interests of religious education
  "should be safe guarded on the lines of the syllabus of some larger School Boards, supplemented by facilities, where demanded by the parents, for special religious instruction, to be provided by the denomination requiring it, on the colonial plan."
  Although the invitation was courteous and generous, there were some who naturally doubted whether Wales offered the best soil and climate for so tender a plant as a concordat, and they therefore declined the invitation. However, in North Wales, representatives of the voluntary schools met the committee of the county councils. The conferences and negotiations, conducted in the most friendly spirit, brought out two interesting facts. In the first place it appeared that the managers and the teachers actually engaged in the work of the schools were singularly destitute of any experience or consciousness of that religious difficulty which is so acutely felt by many public speakers. Moreover this difficulty assumed reasonable and manageable proportions when it came to be discussed in private by those who, to use the graphic phrase of the most distinguished representative of the county councils,
  "Had not got their war paint on."
  In quoting the terms then agreed upon I wish very distinctly to say that those terms do not now bind or compromise anyone. It was agreed that in all the schools in the area under discussion a syllabus of religious instruction on the lines of the London School Board syllabus should be taught from 9 to 9.45 a.m. on four days in the week in provided schools, and on three days in the week in the non-provided schools, and that there should be facilities in provided schools
  706
  for unrestricted religious teaching on one day to the children of those parents who desired it, and that on two days there should be facilities given in the non-provided schools for unrestricted religious teaching; and that there should be an annual examination. It was also agreed, but under protest, and as an experiment; that—
  "The teachers may, if willing, give the unrestricted religious instruction in provided as well as in non-provided schools."
  Those were the terms asked for and agreed to upon what is, of course, the centre of the whole difficulty, the religious question.
  In considering those terms, I was urged to their acceptal, not because they would solve a present and irritating difficulty, but because those terms would have secured substantial and systematic religious teaching in all the board schools in the area. And later on I shall show that this was a strong reason for their acceptal. Why then, it may be asked, did the concordat fail? Not from any misgiving as to the sincerity of those who offered those terms, but for the insuperable objection, to my mind, that the concordat lacked legal sanction and legal security. Had that concordat been carried out, and its loyal fulfilment legally secured, we should not only have had educational peace, but, what I value much more, we should have had real and systematic religious instruction in all the elementary schools in the area concerned. After that experience, I think I realise fully now, not only the strength and the weakness of both sides, but the possibility of finding by moderation and conciliation a solution for the difficulties, so grave and often so unedifying, that now trouble our schools.
  I have therefore made bold to bring this Bill before your Lordships. In its main principle it is a natural extension of the principle of the Act of 1902. It clothes the local education authority created by that Act with a power which will facilitate the adjustment and adaptation of that Act to meet the special conditions of the locality. Under that Act, the necessity for the provision of a new school is in a measure to be decided by the wishes of the parents. Upon the same principle I propose that

  707
  the parents should have what seems to me to be the incontrovertible right of a parent, viz., the right to decide the character of the religious instruction given to his child. The Bill would give the local education authority and the governing body of any association of voluntary schools, if so authorised by their managers, power to make an arrangement with reference to the transfer of their schools.
  I believe you can safely entrust these bodies with freedom of contract. The local education authority and the Schools Association represent organisations that are not too large for local knowledge, and not too small for common sense. If the local education authorities are worthy to be entrusted with the secular management of all the elementary schools in their area, they can surely be entrusted with the freedom asked for them in the Bill, and I am confident that the associations and managers of voluntary schools will be strong enough to protect their own interests. The Bill would give both sides a free hand in making arrangements touching control, the appointment of teachers, the religious instruction given in the schools, and the renting, leasing, and repairing of the buildings. I lay great stress upon the opportunity which such an arrangement would give of promoting the cause of religious instruction in all the elementary schools within the area.
  I will illustrate this from Wales and Monmouthshire, where there are 320,000 children in all the elementary schools. Of that number 90,000 are in non-provided schools, and less than 80,000 of these children are in Church of England schools. Put briefly, only one in four of the children under education in Wales are being taught in our Church schools. How religious instruction stands in the board schools is shown in the Blue-book of 1895. There are 307 School Board districts in Wales and Monmouthshire. Only in fifty-four out of that number is there any syllabus of religious instruction, and only in seventeen is there any examination in religious knowledge.
  This brings me to the question of undenominational instruction. A careful perusal of the Blue-book I have named
  708
  demonstrates how vague and misleading that phrase is. In the great majority of the Welsh board schools, undenominational instruction means reading of the Bible without comment. What exactly happens—I speak from knowledge—is this. At 9 o'clock the head teacher reads to the assembled school, without note or comment, three, sometimes five, verses, taken haphazard from the Bible. Even in the few schools where comment is allowed, this reservation occurs frequently—
  "That no reference is to be made to the doctrines taught therein."
  This is one type of undenominational teaching. In the Appendix to the Blue-book another type is given in the syllabuses of religious instruction given in various English Board schools. I find in some of those syllabuses that the Apostles Creed is taught; that the duties as inculcated in our own Catechism, only phrased in the exact language of Scripture, are taught, and that these syllabuses in the subjects specified, and in the time allotted to them, compare not unfavourably with some of our own diocesan syllabuses. And yet this, too, is called undenominational instruction.
  What is the explanation of the wide and deep difference between these two types? The Cowper-Temple clause, interpreted in the spirit of its framers, not only allows but anticipated such a syllabus of religious instruction as I have quoted. The point is not only academic but of vital interest. The Welsh School Boards supply the type of that undenominational instruction which Mr. Gladstone called at one time "the popular imposture," at another time "the monster." In the debate in June, 1870, on the Cowper-Temple clause, Mr. Gladstone said that he regarded
  "an attempt to exclude all reference to tenets and doctrines as an invasion of the freedom of religious teaching, such as ought not to be tolerated in this country."
  And he made it clear that the Cowper-Temple clause did not in his view
  "impose limitations upon the freedom of religious teaching."
  In the same debate, Sir Roundell Palmer said that he regarded the Cowper-Temple clause as preserving substantially

  709
  the integrity of religious teaching, and he added these words, that—
  "Distinctive catechisms and formularies were necessarily symbolical of the predominance of particular denominations, and although convenient and useful, they were not necessary for the integrity and freedom of religious truth and teaching."
  I submit that the undenominational teaching I have described is a local and unauthoritative interpretation or gloss which has been put upon the Cowper-Temple clause. The practical point then is this, ought we not, as Churchmen, to take every opportunity of securing in the board schools of this country the full freedom and liberty of religious instruction allowed and contemplated by the Cowper-Temple clause
  Thee considerations may minimise the necessity but not the justice of the claim for facilities. In Wales, we were invited to consider facilities upon the Colonial plan. The Education Act passed in 1880 by the Legislature of New South Wales is an admirable illustration of how inside facilities may be provided. On the ground of justice, I cannot see how the State can refuse the claims of parents to have their own children taught their own faith at the cost of their own denomination in the public elementary schools of the country. No doubt there may be practical difficulties in providing facilities in some remote country parishes where there is only a provided school. Even here in London, where it is calculated that there are 300,000 Church children in board schools, it might be difficult at a day's notice to provide a permanent, adequate, and efficient organisation for so vast a work.
  I need not at this stage discuss further details in the Bill. It may be said, my Lords, that these proposals are founded too exclusively upon a Welsh experience. Perhaps the symptoms in Wales are more pronounced, and therefore easier of diagnosis, but the trouble in England and Wales is really the same. The measure I present to your Lordships is entirely permissive. For example, in my own diocese there is a portion of the county of Shropshire, and no arrangement
  710
  is necessary in that staid and admirable county. And the same applies to many other parts of the country. I cannot explain why the Principality suggested itself as a fitting subject, when the Free Church Council had said Experimentum fiat. But, my Lords, I do not complain of this—I do not complain of the tropical eloquence in which criticism of the Education Act luxuriates, but I think there is one very strong ground for complaint.
  It is an open secret that the protagonists in the opposition to the Act are in favour of a purely secular system of education in our elementary schools. Let them say so clearly. We shall then know exactly where we are, and there will be a clear issue before the country, I know intimately many leading Nonconformists, and I know well that they will not support the policy of secular schools. To me the great danger ahead appears to be that while religious men are wrangling about the form of instruction to be given, the secularist will meanwhile steal the key of the schools. I believe this Bill would do much in many cases to avert that evil, and in that belief I now venture to present the measure for your Lordships' consideration.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 1a"—(The Lord Bishop of St. Asaph.)
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the First Reading of this Bill, nor do I intend to follow the right rev. Prelate in the interesting speech which he has delivered. I might be tempted to refer to several points he has made, but I do not propose to do that, as I believe the proper occasion for a full discussion of this important measure will be when it comes up for Second Reading. I rise for the purpose only of informing the right rev. Prelate and his friends, and of stating publicly, that certain portions of the Bill will probably meet with very strong opposition. The Bill has not yet been printed, but as I understand from the remarks of the right rev.

  711
  Prelate, it will give a locus standi to different denominations to teach the doctrines of their own particular denomination in provided schools within the school hours. Well, I do not wish to go into that question now. I merely warn the right rev. Prelate that if that is the purport of his Bill he may expect very strong opposition to it. If he proposes to do that, he certainly goes very much further than the Bill of the Government in 1902, which in that respect left the religious question as it was. He raises a very serious and a very difficult question, and, therefore, I have thought it right on the introduction of the Bill to make this statement.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S: My Lords, though it is not without some diffidence that I venture to address your Lordships for the first time, I feel personally bound to ask the indulgence of the House for a few brief observations upon the introduction of this Bill, because in the spring of last year, in common with the Bishops of Llandaff and Bangor, I failed to see my way to co-operate with the right rev. Prelate in the negotiations for an educational concordat to which he has referred. I explained at the time to my own diocese my reasons for a decision to which I necessarily came with great regret. Though I continue of the opinion which I formed last year, that it would not have conduced to that educational peace which all men of goodwill must always desire for all the Welsh dioceses to have accepted the invitation of certain Welsh education authorities to a conference, the basis of which, under the circumstances then existing, was impracticable—I have, nevertheless, always recognised that the diocese of St. Asaph— where the proportion of Church schools to the population stands exceptionally high, and in the welfare of which I have reason for taking deep interest—was fully justified in exploring for itself, in detail, all the possibilities of a satisfactory concordat. A certain amount of risk to the common cause from their several points of view was obviously incurred by both parties to those limited negotiations, but I am persuaded that the net result, upon
  712
  the whole, has been an appreciable gain in a clearer apprehension of the principles hitherto regarded locally on either side as essential, and also of the legal conditions under which it might be possible to submit to the test of experience the practicability of adjusting conflicting principles by means of a local concordat initiated and maintained through the power of goodwill.
  The St. Asaph negotiations failed, as I understand, mainly, if not solely, because without some modification of the existing law adequate security could not be given by local education authorities for the effectiveness of proposals in regard to which both sides had then come, rightly or wrongly, to a substantial agreement. This being so it is easy to understand that the right rev. Prelate has deemed it his duty to follow up his previous negotiations by asking Parliament to remove the existing legal disability upon local option which last year barred the way to the desired concordat. Though this Bill is thus the logical outcome of the St. Asaph negotiations, it is capable of wider application and would cover a considerable variety of proposals for local agreements. It might have, I believe, a practical bearing upon the possible revival of somewhat similar proposals which have been under more or less definite consideration in several parts of England. But Parliament is not asked in this Bill to approve of the particular lines of either the St. Asaph concordat or any other concordat which has been suggested. All that the Bill proposes to do, as I understand, is to make legally practicable in England and Wales the application of the principle of local option in order to facilitate various local experiments in educational conciliation. Its underlying principle of local option therefore has a considerable degree of affinity to the Scottish plan, which has recently received some instructive, and, I may add, unexpected compliments, from both sides in another place.
  There is, I think, when the proper time comes, in view of all the present educational circumstances of this country, something to be said against as well

  713
  as for this application of local option. But without at present committing myself at all either for or against the Bill, the text of which I have not yet seen, I gladly support its First Reading, since it is an attempt at conciliation founded upon experience, and as such certainly deserves the careful consideration of Parliament and the country. In the careful consideration which I hope this Bill will receive from different points of view before it comes on for Second Reading, a prominent place should be given to the necessity of earnest good will on both sides before local option as a step towards the permanent solution of the religious difficulty can be expected to succeed. What are the immediate prospects of such a growth of goodwill? I need not remind your Lordships of the unfortunate form in which strong feeling on one side of this educational controversy has been manifested by large numbers in England. But as an illustration of the attitude of managers of Church schools in my own diocese, I may remind your Lordships that Mr. A. P. Lawrence, K.C., in his recent Report to the Board of Education upon the Carmarthenshire public inquiry, presented to both Houses of Parliament, stated that—
  "No suggestion was made in cross-examination of any sort of sectarian narrowness on the part of any manager. The managers called before me were, remarkable for their open-minded and liberal disposition towards the Nonconformist scholars."
  Before the Education Act came into operation in any Part of the diocese of St. David's, with the exception of one or two boroughs, the governing body of the St. David's Association of Schools recommended managers in districts where there was only a Church school to avail themselves of the provision of the Act enabling them to appoint a Nonconformist assistant teacher, and also in the exercise of their powers under the Act so to arrange the time-table of religious instruction in all schools as to confine the use of distinctive Church formularies to two specified hours in the week, providing, when desired by parents, alternative hours in Holy Scripture for Nonconformist children at the hours when lessons in distinctive Church formularies were given to Church children.
  714
  The sole object of these spontaneous recommendations was to facilitate the application of the equitable principle that it is the duty and right of parents to decide what religious instruction their children are to receive in elementary schools. I earnestly wish I could also have adduced similar evidence of the general existence of corresponding goodwill on the part of the Welsh local education authorities. It is, on the contrary, notorious that Welsh county councils have adopted the short sighted policy of unfair discrimination against voluntary schools in educational administration. Feeling over differences is apt to run rather higher in Wales than in England. But, on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the possibilities of recovery contained in the generosity and good sense of the Welsh people are great. As things now stand, however, the fact remains that the present attitude of the Welsh county councils towards voluntary schools is, as far as Wales is concerned, a most serious obstacle in the way of educational peace. Whenever this obstacle is removed and solid evidence of earnest goodwill on both sides alike so forthcoming, I do not for my part despair of a gradual solution of this religious difficulty, which has for so many years in England as well as in Wales retarded educational progress and obscured the unifying root-principle of our common Christianity.
  EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, having been brought more closely in contact with recalcitrant county councils than many of your Lordships, I may, perhaps, be excused for rising to speak on this subject. The Bill which the right rev. Prelate has introduced appears to offer no excuse for not reading it a first time, for, as far as I can gather, it is merely an enabling Bill. I was very glad to hear from the noble Earl who leads the Opposition that the only comment he had to make upon it was that those parts of the Bill which referred to provided schools would receive careful scrutiny, and, possibly, opposition at his hands. But the main part of the Bill deals with non-provided schools, and I hope the noble Earl will give those clauses his favourable consideration. I do not wish to go into any of the details

  715
  of the measure, which, of course, would be more properly dealt with when the Bill comes up for Second Reading, but there are points in it to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. It appears to be so far an enabling Bill that nothing will come to pass under its provisions unless county councils and voluntary school managers and trustees concur in making an agreement under it. Further, in so far as non-provided schools are concerned, in the event of the agreement coming to an end after a term of years, those schools would revert to the exact position they occupied before, and would not be taken over as provided under the Act of 1902 and considered in the light of new schools. Therefore, in the event of the agreement proving not satisfactory, these schools would go back into the same position that they were in before the agreement was made.
  With regard to one matter to which, no doubt, considerable attention will be called —the modification of the Cowper-Temple clause—I might observe that there does not appear to be any great change with regard to the effect of that clause so far as non-provided schools are concerned. Denominational teaching is given in the non-provided schools now, and any agreement which provided for that denominational teaching to be continued in the event of a non-provided school being taken over by the county council would be merely a continuation of what exists at the present time. I think the Bill deserves careful consideration at the hands of your Lordships. It is brought forward by a right rev. Prelate who is not remiss in defending what he considers matters of principle worth defending, but is known also throughout the length and breadth of the land to be ready to compromise if he can maintain the principles he thinks essential to his case.
  I do not know whether your Lordships fully appreciate the condition of affairs in parts of the country in which the Act of 1902 has not been brought into force. In certain cases it is not merely a refusal to bring the Act into force such as has been described this evening. There is a good deal more besides that. In certain cases attendance officers have been prevented from doing their duty in so far
  716
  as non-provided schools are concerned. Where the attendance officer was assumed to be serving both provided and non-provided schools, he has received instructions from the county council to pay no further attention whatever to the attendance in non-provided schools; and where attendance officers were merely serving non-provided districts and non-provided schools their services have been dispensed with, and there is no attendance officer in those districts at all. The result is simply disastrous upon the attendance at those schools. I am informed that in one county alone the diminution in the attendance in non-provided schools brought about in this way will result in the loss in that county of Government grants to the extent of not less than £4,000 or £5,000.
  It is not so much the actual results at the moment that we must look at. We must look deeper into the matter and see what the eventual results are likely to be. This is not only a refusal to administrate an Act, but it is a deliberate attempt to make use of the powers conferred by Act of Parliament on local authorities in order to injure and hamper non-provided schools. I would suggest that the first duty of the Government and of Parliament is to vindicate the law. Defiance of the law in an individual is a serious thing enough; defiance of the law by local authorities is, to my mind, a far more serious matter. If it is not checked— and rapidly checked—by a firm hand, it must prove a serious danger to the State and to the community at large. Defiance of one particular law must surely lead inevitably, if gradually, to the defiance and the contempt of law in general. There is, to my mind, no greater danger than to allow individuals or local bodies to get it into their heads that they can defy any law that Parliament has passed. Therefore, while I hope your Lordships will read this Bill a first time, and while I am sure your Lordships will give to its further passage through the House your earnest consideration, I would urge upon His Majesty's Government that the Bill they have introduced in another place should, for the reasons that I have ventured to place before your Lordships, be pushed on vigorously and without delay. If there is any necessity for such a Bill at all, it should not be allowed to lie for

  717
  many days on the Table, but should be passed as soon as possible into law.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, it is inconvenient, indeed impossible, to discuss, even on the basis of so lucid a speech as that of the right rev. Prelate who introduced this Bill, the details of a measure not yet in your Lordships' hands. Obviously it is not at this stage that profitable detailed discussion can be carried on; but I should like to say a few words upon the principle that presumably underlies the action of the right rev. Prelate in endeavouring to promote some peaceful and harmonious solution of the difficulties which unhappily beset us in this matter, difficulties which must be a cause of genuine distress to every religious man. The speech of my right rev. brother was clear and incisive as his speeches always are, and it had the further advantage of being based on wide and thoroughgoing information and such knowledge as is second to none on the Episcopal Bench. But with a discretion which he is quite within his right in exercising he has felt it to be best to introduce this Bill—I do not for a moment say he was wrong—on his individual responsibility; and, as he has, I believe, already explained to your Lordships, the Bill is not to be taken as in any way a joint production of the Episcopal Bench or the result of consultation on our part as a whole.
  I confess I was a little disappointed in listening to the few words which fell from the noble Earl who leads the Opposition. I had hoped we might at least have had a kindly word of welcome to the endeavour which, wise or unwise as it may be in detail, at all events is an attempt to bring about a harmonious solution of existing difficulties. The noble Earl confined himself to a warning, from what the right rev. Prelate told us about the Bill, that we must expect that one at least of its principles would receive strenuous opposition. I was disappointed in this because as I have always believed no one is more anxious and keen than the noble Earl to further some solution of the difficulty we have had to face for the last two years. But I should like to say this. Although, as
  718
  the right rev. Prelate has said, this Bill is his own product and we, the other Bishops, are not responsible for it, it does not stand by itself, but is only one among many endeavours we have made to arrive at a peaceful solution. I myself six months ago endeavoured to my utmost power to bring about a conference or discussion with leaders among our opponents (if I must call them so), on the religious part of this controversy, in order to sec whether there was any solution attainable that did not appear on the surface. I tried in a letter which I addressed to my friend Dr. Horton to lay down the main principles from which we could in no wise depart, and I hoped that, granting these as common to both sides, we might discuss the details of their application. Those principles were three. First, that simple religious teaching should prevail throughout our elementary school system; secondly, that that religious teaching should be given by those who could give it genuinely as well as effectively; and, further, that in the large system of our elementary education as a whole, place should certainly be found for denominational teaching of some sort. Those principles being laid down. I hoped that it would have been possible to have a friendly conference on the best mode of applying them, I failed. I was told that unless we abandoned at once the principle that the person giving religious teaching should be one whose qualifications for that task might be inquired into and ascertained a conference was impossible. It was disappointing, and particularly so because I honestly fail to understand wherein lies the need for such a severance.
  I have tried with perfect fairness to bring to a point the difficulties which are felt by those who have opposed the Church on this particular matter. We find our opponents laying down the principle, and they would be indignant were we not to accept it, that they are as keen as we are for religious teaching being given, and yet so strong is their objection to what they describe as tests that they will have no inquiry made about the teacher to whom that great task is to be entrusted. There I feel it to be impossible for me and those who feel with me to give way; nothing,

  719
  to my mind, would be more contrary to reason or common sense than that we should lay down the principle that religious teaching shall be given, and that at the same time we should decline to allow managers to find out whether those who are to give it are, or are not, qualified for the duty. This objection to all inquiry is now strangely said to form an inherent part of the Liberal creed; but it seems to me wholly incompatible with a common-sense view, to take no higher standpoint. If a man is about to give teaching in drawing, will you not satisfy yourself that he can draw? In this higher matter, is it reasonable to sanction or enjoin the giving of religious teaching to little children unless you know that the man or woman who is to give such teaching can be trusted to give it genuinely as well as effectively? We are met with the reply, "See how well the system works to-day; you have commended the teaching in the London board schools; why not trust in like manner to the working of a similar system throughout the country?" I am almost ashamed to repeat again the answer to that argument, but I find it necessary to go on repeating it because it seems to be continually forgotten. Of the head teachers in the London board schools all but a trifling fraction have been trained in religious training colleges, and with that training behind them have become headmasters and headmistresses. But all will now be changed, owing to the power which the new Act most rightly gives to county councils and other authorities to make provision for the training of teachers at the public expense. They will be empowered to arrange for the training of elementary teachers in their own way, but they will be unable to make as a necessary part of the training such teachers receive, any instruction how to impart the religion they will be required to teach. Before many years pass teachers untrained in religious teaching will be found all through the country unless you make it to be the interest of those who apply for posts in elementary schools to be able to show they are qualified to give religious as well as other teaching.
  I mention this because it falls in with the argument touched upon by my right
  720
  rev. brother when he spoke of the teaching usually given in Board schools to day. I retract-no word I have ever used about the excellence of a great deal of the religious teaching given in Board schools under such Boards as those of London, of Liverpool and, in recent years, of Birmingham. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, who has presided over the London Board and Lord Stanley, who has been a prominent member, know that the teachers who fill the chief posts in London have nearly all been religiously trained. But that is not true of the country as a whole, and will become less true as time goes on. As we have heard from the right rev. Prelate, and I could expand the statistics he gave, there are a vast number of Board schools throughout the country where nominally religious teaching has been given; but, inasmuch as it has never been examined or inspected, there are no means of knowing, except by private information, which sometimes leads one to sad conclusions, whether that teaching is given with any efficiency. It is just because London, Birmingham, and other towns are constantly held up to observation as though they were typical of all Board school teaching that we need to draw attention to the peril involved in going forward without making any such arrangement as shall ensure that religious teaching is given by teachers genuinely qualified to give it. As regards the proposals of the Bill, I need not say with what great attention I shall study them when they are printed and placed in our hands. It is impossible for me to say more at present than that I most earnestly desire to see a harmonious conclusion brought to the difficulties which attend the working of the Education Act, if such a conclusion can be arrived at without any sacrifice of the fundamental principles for which we who care so deeply for real religious teaching have from the first contended.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT, OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, my first duty is to express to the right rev. Prelate who moved the First Reading of this Bill my gratitude to him for his courtesy in consulting my convenience in regard to the day selected for the introduction of

  721
  the Bill, and I trust he will not consider me guilty of any discourtesy if my remarks on this occasion are brief. It has always been the custom in your Lordships' House never to oppose the First Reading of a Bill, and I do not suppose that that custom will be departed from on the present occasion. Again, it has been the rule that the discussion on the introduction of a Bill should be very short and the speeches very few. I do not for one moment deprecate the number or the length of the speeches which have been delivered on this subject to-day. On the contrary, I think they will prove of great assistance to those who are responsible for the administration of education in the country, and will enable them to judge the spirit that pervaded your Lordships' House on the First Reading of this Bill. Neither do I regret the introduction of the Bill, for which, as the right rev. Prelate has himself explained, he alone is responsible. A fortnight ago, I speaking at Carnarvon, I laid great stress on the opinion of His Majesty's Government with regard to the administration and the working of the present Education Act. I then said that it must not be supposed that the Government desired to force unwelcome procedure or unpalatable legislation down the throat of anyone. I proceeded to say—
  "They (the Government) did not assert that the Act of 1902 was perfect. No Act could be a perfect one—certainly no Education Act—and no Act built on the Act of 1870 could be a perfect settlement of educational difficulties. The Government realised that if, in suite of the compromise they had endeavour, to embody in the Act, difficulties still arose in its working, it might be necessary that further changes should be devised. They were only too anxious to secure any solution of this difficult question which would be accepted permanently by all sections of the community."
  After those remarks I could not disapprove of the action of the right rev. Prelate in introducing a Bill which, whatever may be thought of its details, gives practical proof of his desire to take advantage of the opinion of the Government which I put forward on that occasion. I think it shows his ardent desire to promote efficiency of education all over the country, and his equally anxious desire to arrive at some solution of the difficult problem which is retarding the education of the country. I confess that I share
  722
  with the right rev. Primate regret that the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, should have stated at this early stage of the Bill that he intends to oppose certain of its provisions. So far as I gather from the speech of the right rev. Prelate, the Bill desires to do injustice to none; it is a desire to effect a compromise between all sections, such as I indicated in my speech at Carnarvon. Whether the proposals contained in the Bill are of a practical nature or not it is impossible at the present moment to decide. I do not pledge the Government either to approval or disapproval of the Bill. I would ask the right rev. Prelate to give a reasonable time for the full consideration of the matter and for the question to be thoroughly ventilated. If the right rev. Prelate will do this, I trust I shall be able when the Bill comes before your Lordships for the Second Reading to give him a longer and fuller reply. In the meantime, His Majesty's Government will give every possible consideration to the details of the Bill, and the right rev. Prelate may rely that when the next stage is taken, he will receive from this Bench a full and clear exposition of the views the Government hold with regard to his Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 72.)

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, the Bill which I am about to ask your Lordships to read a second time to-day has been framed to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee appointed by my right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, in 1902. The reference to the Committee was to inquire into and report upon the following matters —

  "(1) The causes that have led to the employment of a large and increasing proportion of Lascars and foreigners in the British merchant service, and the effect of such employment upon the reserve of seamen of British nationality available for naval purposes in time of peace or war.

  "(2) The sufficiency or otherwise of the existing law and practice for securing proper

  723
  food, accommodation, medical attention, and reasonable conditions of comfort and well-being for seamen on British merchant-ships.

  "(3) The prevalence of desertion and other offences against discipline in the mercantile marine.

  "And to make such recommendations with respect to these matters as they may think fit.'
  The Chairman of the Committee was Sir Francis Jeune, and he had associated with him Mr. W. F.G Anderson, Chairman of the Anchor Line and President of the Chamber of Shipping; Captain H. Acton-Blake, Elder Brother of Trinity House; Mr. Thomas Burt, M.P., late Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade; Captain A. J.G. Chalmers, of the Board of Trade; Colonel John M. Denny, M.P., ship builder, of Dumbarton; Mr. Walter J. Howell, of the Board of Trade; Vice-Admiral R. M. Lloyd, C.B: Mr. W. Milburn, junior, and Mr. J. Havelock Wilson, head of the Seamen's Union.
  The recommendations of this Committee have been formulated in the Bill now before your Lordships. I think your Lordships will recognise from the few figures which I shall quote to the House that my right hon. friend had good reason for appointing this important Committee. The total number of persons employed in the British mercantile marine in 1902 was 253,540. Of these, 174,538 were British, 39,825 foreigners, and 39,177 Lascars and other Asiatics. This represented a percentage of 68·84 British, 15·70 foreigners, and 15·45 Lascars and other Asiatics. The Committee came to the conclusion that there had been a distinct decrease in the number of British seamen employed in the British mercantile marine, and the recommendations which they made had in view the attraction back to the mercantile marine of British seamen, so as to largely reduce the proportion of foreigners. I have heard it said that the legislation proposed is grandmotherly legislation, but if grandmotherly legislation is represented by an attempt to promote the greater happiness and comfort of the merchant service, I am very glad to introduce the measure as such. Clause 1 of the Bill provides that every British foreign-going ship of 1,000 tons cross leaving a port in the United Kingdom will be required to have on board a competent cook, in the same way as such a vessel is compelled to have on
  724
  board properly certificated officers. A certificate of competency may be granted by any approved school of cookery in this country. The rights of men now serving at sea as cooks are safeguarded by the recognition of certificates of discharge as cook for two years previous to 3lst December, 1907, as equivalent to certificates of competency. It came out clearly in the evidence before the Committee that the food was good enough but was spoilt by bad cooking. This clause, I venture to believe, will rectify this state of affairs as far as it is possible to do so.
  Clause 2 of the Bill is also concerned with the food of our mercantile marine, and it provides for the inspection of the provisions of any British foreign-going ship the duration of whose voyage is likely to exceed twenty-one days. It may be said that this is a drastic clause, but I would call the attention of the House to the fact that its application will not he general. Under it the Board of Trade are given power, if they choose, to inspect the provisions of such vessels where occasion may require, and I do not think such a provision would inflict any serious inconvenience on the mercantile marine, but would, on the contrary, prove of great advantage. Clause 3 practically explains itself. It demands what I think is quite necessary, namely, an elementary knowledge of the English language on the part of seamen. That will be interpreted, of course, very generally. A superintendent will find out before he ships a man that he understands the simplest possible orders that may be given him—that he fully appreciates the meaning of such words as "port your helm," "starboard your helm," "go astern," and so on. Clause 4 will, I think, obtain general approval. It provides that where it is shown to the satisfaction of the superintendent that a seaman lawfully engaged has wilfully failed to join his ship, the superintendent shall report the matter to the Board of Trade, and that Board may direct that any of his certificates of discharge shall be withheld for such period as they may think fit, the object being to check the large number of desertions and refusals to join. The scale of the provisions set out in the schedule of the Report of the Departmental Committee has been

  725
  adopted by the Board of Trade, and is recommended to all shipowners. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"."—(Lord Wolverton.)
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, in making some comments upon this Bill and its Memorandum I recall a charge made against me by my noble friend representing the Board of Trade in this House when last session I myself introduced a Bill with a Memorandum to your Lordships' notice. I was accused of making inaccurate statements, and it is not a matter for surprise that on such authority your Lordships should have been influenced by it. Further inquiries have borne out my impression at the time that mine were the facts and the Board of Trade's the fallacies. Apart from inaccuracies, there are such things as "half-truths," and I would venture to call your Lordships' attention to the remarks in the Memorandum pertaining to Clause 1 of this Bill, viz.—
  "If the Bill becomes law, every British foreign-going ship of 1,000 tons gross leaving a port in the United Kingdom will be required to have on hoard a competent cook in the same way as such a vessel is compelled to have beard properly certificated officers."
  Your Lordships would imagine from this that all was well in the direction of British ships being properly manned by certificated officers. You are not told of the defective nature of the law in this respect whereby large vessels under the British flag go careering over the sea, carrying perhaps passengers and mails, without a certificated officer on board. You are not told of the lamentable, disasters which have occurred in consequence. You are not informed of the recommendations, urging immediate legislation, by the Manning Commission, who commented so forcibly on the dangers of uncertificated and incompetent officers, and the fact of there being so many unseaworthy British vessels in consequence. No! in the eyes of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade a ship's cook should be certificated, whilst those who actually navigate our ships may be uncertificated and irresponsible, a common danger to themselves and to the ships upon which so tie of your Lordships might be passengers. When we know that, under Section
  726
  92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, the "Oceanic" or the "Campania" could put to sea with simply a certificated master and one certificated officer, we cannot accept the wording of the Memorandum as at least the whole truth of the matter.
  This new Board of Trade Bill is an offspring of the celebrated Mercantile Marine Committee, the constitution of which I commented upon in this House. This Committee was undoubtedly constituted in a defective and unrepresentative manner, and was certainly not fitted for its purpose. It is proper to inform your Lordships that, owing to this, the Merchant Service Guild—the, largest and most influential organisation of its kind in the world—when invited, declined to have anything to do with the proceedings of the Committee. Owing, I presume, to the fact of two of the staff of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade being members of the Mercantile Marine Committee, surprising and remarkable promptitude has been shown in carrying out its recommendations. We may well ask why the same energy was not shown in regard to the really urgent and important recommendations of the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships the Manning Committee, the Subsidies Committee, and the Light Load-line Committee, which have involved great labour on the part of public men and much expenditure out of the national purse. For all the good the Marine Department of the Board of Trade have done with them, the Reports of these Committees might as well have been put in the fire. Most of the recommendations of the Mercantile Marine Committee have already been carried into effect without legislation. One, at least, has met with a storm of protest and is likely to cause very serious mischief. I will, however, confine myself to the Bill.
  With regard to Section No. 3 of Clause 1, I cannot see the need of the cook being a seafaring man. As to Section 5 of the same clause, I may say that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade do not appear to have the courage of their convictions, and ask your Lordships to sanction legislation to which they may or may not conform, as they please. Whether such legislation is in accord

  727
  with the traditions of this House I leave for your Lordships to judge. Shipowners having become alarmed at the chance of a "corner in ships' cooks." the Marine Department of the Board of Trade are holding out the olive-branch in this extraordinary way. Section 6 institutes another penalty to which the unfortunate shipmaster may be liable. The total amount of the several penalties which may now be inflicted upon him under the Merchant Shipping Act is something over £7,000, whilst the amount of protection he receives under the Act is practically nil. He gets all the kicks and none of the ha pence. If ships' cooks are to be officially certificated on the same lines as certificated officers, which is the Memorandum's somewhat unhappy way of putting it, it is highly necessary and perfectly proper that then should be some official control over them. It is absurd to suppose that they should be certificated by a Government Department, and then be able to set that authority at defiance. Misconduct, incompetency, or negligence on the part of a ship's cook should most assuredly render him liable to the suspension or cancellation of his certificate. The absence of this power in the Bill is a serious omission on the part of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, and I propose when the Bill reaches the Committee stage to move an amending clause to supply that omission.
  The remainder of the clauses contain nothing of material value, relating simply to extension of powers in inspecting ships' provisions, a knowledge of English on the part of foreign seamen, and the withholding of the discharge of a Seaman who wilfully fails to join his vessel. It will, indeed, be a humorous situation when the superintendents of mercantile marine offices must perforce examine each of the multitude of foreigners signing articles in British ships in their knowledge of the English language; and especially so when the superintendent himself may be quite devoid of any knowledge of nautical idioms and terms. The power to withhold a seaman's discharge will be of no avail, for it must be proved that the seaman wilfully neglected to join his vessel. Seamen, as well as other people, can always make specious excuses, and the clause is practically valueless, especially as seamen can always resort to
  728
  the "pier-head jump." The Bill, as a whole, is one of the weakest things Parliament was ever asked to sanction. I only wish the Marine Department of the Board of Trade would devote their time and trouble to something which would be of some real advantage to ships and seamen.
  LORD INVERCLYDE: My Lords, I was glad to hear from the speech of the noble Lord who moved the Second Heading of this Bill that he considers the measure one of importance. I agree that although the Bill does not appear to contain any serious provisions, it is in principle a measure involving matters of considerable importance. The Committee which sat in 1902, and of whose deliberations this Bill is the outcome, was a very strong Committee, and one which represented all classes of the shipping community. The shipowners were represented on it and also the seamen, and the result of the labours of that Committee is this Bill. It is not usual to find so much promptitude exercised in the introduction of legislation, and it is felt by most people connected with the shipping trade that it would have been a good thing if many of the recommendations made by other Committees had with equal promptitude been brought before, Parliament in a Departmental Bill. It seems to me that the matters dealt with by this Bill are worthy of careful consideration, and although it is no doubt possible that the clauses of the Bill may be improved in Committee, I trust it will pass into law. At the present time the shipping trade of this country has to face very great competition. It is not very long ago that the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade stated that it was not the desire of His Majesty's Government that anything should be done which would handicap British shipowners in competing with their foreign rivals. I was very glad to hear that statement. All that we ask with regard to shipping legislation is that whatever regulations are applied to British ships should be applied also to foreign ships coming into our ports. It has been pointed out over and over again that there are harassing restrictions applied to British ships which are not applied to foreign ships using our ports.

  729
  and we feel that something should be done, not only to bring shipping legislation more up to date, but to enable British shipowners to compete with shipowners of foreign countries on exactly equal terms. British shipowners are not in the least afraid of meeting any competition that may come from any part of the world, but what we say is, that any regulation which is considered good for British ships, should be considered as equally good for foreign ships that come into our ports. There are a few Amendments to this Bill which we shall propose when the measure is in Committee, but they will not be brought forward in any spirit of hostility to the Bill, but rather in the hope that it may be rendered more effective in its working. I would therefore ask my noble friend in charge of the Bill to allow a sufficient interval to elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee stage to enable us to bring forward Amendments.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, having spent the earlier portion of my life at sea, I am glad to find that something is to be done towards improving the health and comfort of the long-voyage seaman. Hitherto in our worst-found merchant ships, if a man was too timid to go aloft, too feeble or too lazy to work on deck, it was always considered that nature had intended him to be a cook, I think that your Lordships would prefer that I should leave the results to their imagination, instead of attempting to describe them. I look upon the Bill as a very good one as far as it goes, but I think that it might go still further in three directions—as regards cooks, foreigners, and provisioning—without injury to the real interests of shipowners. In the first place, as regards cooks, according to the Memorandum which accompanies the Bill, it has been framed to give effect to the recommendations of a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade, which was appointed in 1902. The Bill does not come into force until 1908. Six years is a long time for the seaman to wait until Parliament and the Board of Trade have made up their minds as to how he is to be fed, and I think that some of the clauses of
  730
  the Bill might be brought into operation at an earlier period.
  The Memorandum says that the rights of man now serving as cooks are safeguarded by the recognition of certificates of two years service as cooks as equivalent to certificates of competency. The clause referred to safeguards rights that are not yet in existence, for it gives a man three years and a half in which to serve the two years qualifying service which is to relive him from the necessity of passing the examination required by the Bill. I think that this part of the Bill might very well come into operation a year sooner—that is, on 1st January, 1907. Secondly, as regards foreigners, Clause 3, which requires an alien to know something of the English language, is an excellent one. But why should a man who is not a British subject, and who is still in his own country, be given three and a half years in which to learn enough of that language to make him safe to go to sea with? It is safeguarding rights which do not yet exist, protecting the interests of aliens who have not yet reached our shores, and who I hope will be excluded from our harbours by the operation of the Aliens Bill which is being discussed in another place. This part of the Act might very well come into operation on 1st January, 1906 If the Board of Trade has not already got the power, a section might be added to this clause giving the Board authority to issue regulations as to the minimum amount of English required, so that the standard should not differ too much in various ports. A foreign seaman should. I think, know enough English to be able to take the helm, lead, and lookout, without endangering his shipmates. In sailing ships, it is a question whether the qualifications should not be considerably higher.
  Thirdly, as regards provisioning, as there is to be an inspection as to the quality of provisions, it would cause very little additional trouble if such inspection included quantity also, as is done in the case of emigrants, under Clauses 298 and 299 of the Merchant, Shipping Act of 1894. A very good e scale of provisioning is to be found in the Appendix of a Report dated 7th May, 1903, which was presented to both Houses

  731
  of Parliament. In Section 9, page 11, of this Report, the Committee recommend the universal adoption of this scale on board all British ships. This Report is signed by a very strong Committee. I think that the Board of Trade should have in the background the power of compelling ships in certain cases to adopt the scale I have referred to. I should not think of suggesting compulsion, if it were not for the exemption sections contained in Clause 299 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, which I think can in this case be still further widened by giving the Board of Trade power to grant exemptions for one year, or a lesser period, to all vessels owned by certain companies and by well-known shipowners, as well as to single ships. To prevent abuse of these exemptions the Board should have power to refuse to renew them, if complaints were substantiated on inquiry. If shipowners could be brought to understand the immense width of these exemption clauses, I do not think that the majority of them would object to the alterations in the Bill that I suggest.
  When a horse is hard-worked, every ounce of oats that he eats, benefits the owner as well as the horse. This analogy holds good as regards the shipowners and the merchant seaman. Most shipowners are aware of this, and act accordingly. Lime juice will keep off scurvy, but men on board ship are constantly meeting with small accidents. Slight injuries in which the skin is broken would Seal more rapidly under the influence of the substitutes for vegetables which are contained in the scale I have referred to. Any expenses inclined by the owners would be recouped by the increased I calthiness of the crew. A sick list is a very expensive article. In addition to the expense, it has been objected that the additional weight of the improved ration would lessen the capacity of the ship for carrying cargo. An extra 1 lb. or twenty men for 112 days, would only; mount to a ton, and this Bill does not a fleet vessels of less than 1,000 tons. The additional expense which the Government has lately incurred in improving the rations issued to the Royal Navy, has been calculated at about five farthings per man per diem, which is a trifle compared with the wages which
  732
  are paid in the merchant service. In conclusion, I would ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill not commit himself by refusing to consider my suggestions at the present stage of the Bill, but to leave it open until the House is in Committee, by which time he will have had leisure to consider them in consultation with others. The Bill is a very good one so far as it goes, but it is capable of still further improvement without ultimately causing any additional expense shipowners.
  LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the introduction of a measure which, though of limited scope, deals with real evils. Great misery is endured on board ship from incompetent cooks. Some of your Lord-ships have read "Round the Horn before the Mast"—the book recently published by Mr. Basil Lubbock. It recalls Dana's well-know "Two Years before the Mast." Mr. Lubbock describes hard struggles with fierce gales; but the miseries of the voyage were chiefly from bad food, consisting of rocky loaves and some awful stuff misnamed "pea-soup." We can understand the joy of the crew when "Old Slush." the incapable cook, was disrated and ordered forward. Other provisions in the Bill, such as that requiring an adequate knowledge of the English language, are in conformity with the recommendations of the most recent Committee on manning. The Bill, in short, is good so far as it goes. It does not go very far. Nor is it possible to deal by legislation with the conditions under which, the manning of our mercantile marine is gradually passing more and more from men of our race into the hands of foreigners. In 1860—at the date of the Report of the Royal Commission, to whose recommendations we owe the Royal Naval Reserve—foreigners were 8·05 per cent, of the total number employed. The proportion has increased to 21·14 per cent.; and, as the Registrar-General pointed out to Sir Francis Jeune's Committee, the decrease in the number of British seamen and firemen is most marked in the later years. The causes are not far to seek. For deck duties in steam vessels few qualified seamen are required. In the stokehold—and especially in the tropics—the work is not

  733
  attractive, and there are other causes at work for which the men are responsible. The evidence of Mr. Anderson, whose firm are managers of the well-known Orient-Pacific line, as given before Sir Francis Jeune's Committee, fully explains the changes which are taking place—
  "The white firemen tried to make bargains with the commanders of the ships at sea, as to what speed they were to maintain. They had disgraceful scenes. They had to take men on board by force, handcuffed. They could not go on with it any longer. They decided to carry Lascars."
  Of the qualifications of the Lascars, especially for work as firemen in hot climates, the Committee reported in the highest terms. They said—
  "They are temperate, and those who came before us made a most favourable impression. The evidence shows that they make most amenable and contented crews."
  On some great trade routes white men, and chiefly British subjects, continue to be employed. In steamships in the coasting trade the percentage of foreigners falls to 3·7 per cent. High pay attracts good men. In the coasting trade in America and Australia, wages for firemen rise to £10 a month. From Liverpool, in the fast mail boats, the wages for firemen are £5 a month with provisions. There are no foreigners in these well-paid trades. We cannot fix wages by legislation. There is only one thing that the Government can do, and that it should do. The numbers of our Naval Reserve should be largely increased and thoroughly trained. We should have on our muster-rolls, as the French have, not less than 100,000 men. The retainers and the pay when under retaining would supplement the wages which shipowners, under the pressure of severe competition, are able to give. Such a policy would make our sea service more attractive. The cost could be covered by arresting the growth, and by gradually reducing the numbers, of the permanent force of the Navy to not exceeding 100,000 men. By the policy which I am endeavouring to urge our resources for manning the Navy in an emergency may be increased, our expenditure in time of peace may be cut down, and the discredit which is coming upon us as a nation, as the owners of a vast tonnage manned by foreigners, may be removed.
  On Question, Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  LORD WOLVERTON: I may inform the House that I do not propose to take the Committee stage until after the Whitsuntide recess.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, when this Bill is before the Standing Committee I shall endeavour to meet some of the objections which were raised to it on the Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord behind me.
  Bill reported without Amendment, and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

  PRIZE COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, this Bill proposes a small amendment in the law. Persons who administer oaths are appointed as persons who can properly administer oaths, but the appointment under the statute by which that matter is governed must be of persons who are to administer oaths in respect of proceedings in the High Court of Justice. Prize Courts are not included within that description. The result is that no such persons can be appointed for the purpose of a Prize Court. The object of this Bill is so to amend the law that captains and other persons on board any of His Majesty's ships should be empowered to administer oaths when proceedings are intended to be taken in a Prize Court.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, this is the same Bill that I introduced to your Lordships' House last session. The object of the Bill is to give a wider interpretation to a section in the Act of 1882, and to give bankers that protection which I think the authors of the Act intended to give them. It has been suggested, and the Court of Appeal has given effect to the suggestion, that a banker who carries a bill of exchange to a customer's account before the date on which the bill becomes due is, in fact, lending to his customer, and, therefore, is not protected by the Act of 1882. That was not the intention of the authors, and this Bill is intended to give bankers protection in such cases.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a,and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.