Sitting of 22 May 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, owing to continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners
  938
  of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERlaid 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.:—London Government Scheme (Hackney and Edmonton Unions) Bill; London Government Scheme (London and Middlesex) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERlaid 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, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  East Cowes Gas Bill [Lords]; Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords]. McConnell's Divorce Bill [Lords]; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  London and North Western Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]. As

  939
  amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Rhondda Urban District Council Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Dearne Valley Railway Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Malone's Divorce (Validation) Bill [Lords]; Sheffield University Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  North Eastern Railway Bill; North Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Canals Bill. Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Canals Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Sir John Brunner.)
  Bolton Corporation Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bishopric of Bristol Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 31st May, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Weybridge and Walton-upon-Thames Electric Supply Bill; Chelsea Electricity Supply Bill, without Amendment.
  Wrexham Gas Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with
  940
  respect to the arrangement of Polling Districts for the election of County Councillors." [Polling Districts (County Councils) Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law relating to the arrangement of Polling Districts in Parliamentary Boroughs." [Polling Arrangements (Parliamentary Boroughs) Bill [Lords.]

PETITIONS,
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Middlesbrough, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  Petition from Atherton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (CHILDREN) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (AFGHANISTAN).
  Copy presented, of Treaty between the British Government and the Amir of Afghanistan, dated 21st March, 1905, with Papers relating thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of the Post Office Savings Bank Regulations, 1905, dated 15th May, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1902–3.

  941
  Part II. Scientific Investigations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3377 and 3378 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).
  Return ordered, "showing the number of Appointments as permanent messengers in the several Government Offices, or in the Palace of Westminster, and as park-keepers or gardeners under the Office of Works, which became vacant between the 1st day of April, 1904, and the 31st day of March, 1905, and the number of persons appointed to fill such posts who had served previously in His Majesty's Army or Navy, in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committees of 1876–7 and of 1894–5; and showing, further, how many were given employment under the Post Office."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Discharges at Sheerness Dockyard—Stopping of Overtime Work.
  MR. JOHN HOWARD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that overtime is being worked by the very class of men employed at Sheerness Dockyard who are being discharged; and whether, in view of the amount of work in hand at the present time, and likely to be undertaken in Sheerness Dockyard, he will consider the advisability, with a view to retaining men who are being discharged, and who are given as likely to be discharged, of stopping overtime for the present.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No overtime is being worked by the classes of men from whom discharges are being made at Sheerness Dockyard, except on one small special job, on which it is impossible to put more men, and which must be completed by the end of the month. A certain amount of overtime is necessary
  942
  each week, but this is of such a character as is essential for the economical working of the yard, e.g., lighting fires and furnaces before bell-ringing, pumping water, making good any breakdown to shop machinery, etc. This class of work is performed by men specially selected for the purpose. Such overtime, therefore, being normal, does not affect the number of discharges, which were calculated after making allowance for overtime of the nature stated and wastage due to death, superannuation, etc. The amount of work now in hand at Sheerness and in prospect for the next few months has led to the discharges being increased from twelve to twenty per week for the present, in order that the men borne on the books may be remuneratively employed.

  Discharges at Sheerness Dockyard.
  MR. JOHN HOWARD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give approximately the number of discharges contemplated by the Admiralty amongst the men employed in Sheerness Dockyard from 22nd May, 1905, to the end of the financial year, and the rate at which these discharges are to be effected; also whether he can state the number of discharges that have taken place in Sheerness Dockyard from 1st January, 1905, to 22nd May, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The number of discharges contemplated from the 22nd May to the end of the financial year is 540. The rate of discharge, which was at first twelve per week, has recently been increased to twenty per week. The total number of discharges between the 1st January, 1905, and the 22nd May is 190, including men discharged at their own request and on superannuation.

  Findings of the International Labour Conference.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the conclusions come to by the recent International Labour Conference, on which His Majesty's Government were represented, will be laid before Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The conference has only just

  943
  finished its meetings, and I have not yet had time to consider its conclusions, so I am not yet prepared to answer the right hon. Baronet's Question. I hope, however, to do so very shortly.

  Errors in Sectoring of Lights on the Irish Coast.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the errors in the sectoring of the Roancarrig Light, Berehaven, as shown by its actual bearings when compared with the information given in the Admiralty Chart and List of Lights, have yet been rectified; and, if so, for how long a time had the errors existed; whether the sectoring of South Arran Light was rectified in 1903, whether it is now correct, and for how long the previous error had existed; and will he explain why the light at Oyster Island, as shown in the Admiralty Lists of Lights, is described as showing from South 29 degrees East through East to South 21 degrees East, a sector of 352 degrees, instead of from South 29 degrees East through South to 21 degrees East, a sector of 8 degrees; and who is responsible for the error; for what reason the Imogene Buoy is coloured red and the Rosebeg Buoy coloured black, both buoys being on the same side of their respective channels.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that they are not aware of any errors in the sectoring of Roancarrig Light as shown by its actual bearings when compared with the information given in the Admiralty Chart and List of Lights. They state, however, that with the improved new character of light which will shortly be exhibited at this station, an observer will notice in clear weather when close to the light that the cuts are more sharply defined than with the existing light. As regards South Arran Light, which is cut by the land, I am informed that it was not affected by the painting of the screen part of the lantern in 1903, and that the information about the light given in the Admiralty publications is practically correct. The Commissioners inform me that it escaped their attention, when the Notice to Mariners in regard to the Oyster Island
  944
  Light was issued, that the wording of it conveyed the impression that the white are was visible over 352 degrees instead of 8 degrees. They will take steps for this to be corrected in the next issue of the List of Lights, and the responsible authority will be asked to consider whether the case is one in which a Notice to Mariners should be issued in the meanwhile. As regards the two buoys mentioned in the latter part of the Question, the Commissioners state that the Imogene Buoy, being the starboard landmark for a danger in the approach to Dundalk Harbour, is coloured red, while the Rose-beg is coloured black as it is considered safer for shipping to treat this latter buoy as the seamark for a port land danger to vessels passing up channel rather than as starboard landmark of a danger in the approach to the Port of Dublin.

  Cheap Mattresses—Insanitary Flock.
  MR. FULLER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the insanitary condition of certain cheaper kinds of flock used in the manufacture of cheap mattresses; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, for the prevention of the spread of infectious disease arising from the use of insanitary and unwashed materials.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) My attention has been drawn to the sale and use of unwashed flock for bedding and other purposes. The compulsory cleansing of the materials referred to could not be generally secured under the existing law. The point has been noted for consideration, but I cannot at present hold out any prospect of legislation on the subject.

  Children in Workhouses and Workhouse Infirmaries.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of children at present in the Metropolitan workhouses and workhouse infirmaries and in provincial workhouses and workhouse infirmaries respectively.

  945
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) On the 1st January, 1905, the latest date for which information is available, the

  Number of children charge able to Poor Law unions in London.

  Number of children charge able to Poor Law unions in London.

  Total.

  (A) Not including insane and idiots:—

  1. In workhouses, other wise than in infirm wards

  1,090

  14,638

  15,728

  2. In infirm wards or infirmaries

  1,878

  4,069

  5,947

  (B) Insane and idiots in workhouses*

  12

  288

  300

  2,980

  18,995

  21,975

  *There were also 736 children in the Imbecile Asylums belonging to the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District.

  Boarded-out Poor Law Children.
  MR. MELVILLE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of Poor Law children at present boarded-out beyond and within the union respectively.
  (Answered, by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) On the 1st January, 1905, the numbers of pauper children in England and Wales who were boarded-out beyond the union and within the union were 1,806 and 6,814, respectively. This is the latest information which is at present available.

  Children Emigrated to Canada by Boards of Guardians.
  MR. TOULMIN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of children emigrated to Canada by boards of guardians during 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) During the year 1904 the Local Government Board issued Orders authorizing
  numbers of pauper children relieved in workhouses and workhouse infirmaries in England and Wales were as follows:—
  expenditure by boards of guardians in respect of the emigration to Canada of 374 children.

  Officials in Edinburgh Post Office over the Regulation Age.
  MR. McCRAE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of officials in the Edinburgh telegraph staff who have reached the age for retirement laid down in the Civil Service regulations.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Under the Order in Council of 15th August, 1890, retirement is compulsory for every officer on attaining sixty-five years of age. No officer on the telegraph staff at Edinburgh has reached that age.

  Auxiliary Rural Postmen entitled to qualify as Rural Postmen.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether auxiliary rural postmen who perform five hours duty daily, or less, and who are beyond the age limit, are

  947
  eligible to qualify for appointment as rural postmen under any regulations now in force; and, if such privilege does exist, was it in operation in 1890–91.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The class of rural postmen is recruited alternately from ex-soldiers or ex-sailors and from boy messengers who pass through the assistant postmen's class. Auxiliary postmen as such have no claim to appointment as rural postmen, but they are occasionally appointed under exceptional circumstances. A man who is beyond the age limit is not, therefore, excluded from appointment, if he was within that limit when he was first employed by the Post Office and has rendered continuous service since that time. These conditions were in operation in 1890–1.

  Appointment of Male Learners to Dublin Post Office.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General, with reference to the examination for male learners in February, 1904, whether he can state how many of the eleven successful candidates have since been appointed, what is the cause of the delay in appointing the remainder, and when they are likely to be called in.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I presume that the hon. Member refers to the examination for male learners in the Dublin Office. If this be so none of these candidates have yet been appointed owing to the decrease in telegraph work and to a smaller number of vacancies on the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists having occurred than was anticipated. It is impossible to say when they will receive appointments, since it depends upon the occurrence of vacancies.

  Irish Portal Veterinary Service Staff—Increased Pay for Back Service.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in connection with the recent establishment of the Irish Portal Veterinary Service, which was not proposed to have retrospective effect, whether he can state if the Treasury intend to accede to the request of the inspectors and of the Department of Agriculture that back service with increased pay should be granted.
  948
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) This matter is still under the consideration of the Treasury.

  School Attendance of Children—Obligation of Parents to send Medical Certificate in cases of Absence.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, with a view to avoid the hardship and expense caused to working people by the practice of school attendance officers of making a rule that parents must either send every child to school or get a doctor's certificate, and in view of the cases of death of children sent to school, when ill, because the parents could not afford to obtain such a certificate, he will issue instructions to county councils showing that it rests entirely with the school attendance committees to decide on the merits of each case, and as to whether they will send a particular case to be prosecuted before a magistrate or not.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) School attendance officers have no power to make rules on the subject referred to. Their practice should be governed by such directions as they may receive from the local education authority, who have full powers to deal with individual cases on their merits and to give such general instructions as to the evidence required for non-attendance at school as will promote the convenience of all parties concerned. The justice of the peace may also accept other evidence than a medical certificate as an excuse for non-attendance on the ground of illness. It seems, hardly necessary for the Board to issue instructions on the subject.

  Evasions of the Medical and Dentists Act by Limited Companies.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received an opinion from the Law Officers of the Crown concerning evasions of the Medical Acts and of the Dentist's Act under the provisions of the Companies Acts; and, if so, whether he will communicate it to the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The Board of Trade have

  949
  received an opinion from the Law Officers, but I am unable to accede to my hon. friend's request, as such opinions are treated as confidential.

  London and North Western Railway's Rehousing Scheme at Regent's Park.
  MR. GRAHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that property has been purchased and plans prepared by the London and North Western Railway Company at Gloucester Gate, in the immediate neighbourhood of Regent's Park, for the rehousing of the Working-class inhabitants to be displaced by the scheme for reconstructing and enlarging Euston Railway Station, according to the Act of 1900, Section 50; and whether, having regard to the fact that these sites are one mile and a quarter distant from Euston Station, and to the residential character of this neighbourhood, to the objection expressed to the plan by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and to the fact that sites near the Hampstead Road and quite close to Euston Station have already been acquired by the London and North Western Railway Company, which would be most suitable for the purpose, he will take steps so that the company may carry out their original intention of building the working-class houses in the latter position.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The London and North Western Railway Company have made application to the Local Government Board for their approval of a scheme for providing housing accommodation for 840 persons of the working classes near Gloucester Gate, Regent's Park. The Board have not received any objections to the scheme, but an inquiry with regard to it will be held by one of their inspectors on the 30th instant, at the Town Hall, St. Pancras. The inspector will be prepared to receive at the inquiry any representation as to the suitability of the site or the advantages of any other site.

  Unstemmed Tobacco.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the quantity of pounds weight of unstemmed tobacco
  950
  (whole leaf) cleared from bond from 1st January to 31st March in the current year; and the quantity of stems returned for drawback from 1st February to 30th April in the current year, and the basis of moisture upon which this quantity is calculated.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The quantity of unstemmed tobacco (whole leaf) cleared from bond for home consumption from 1st January to 31st March in the current year was 8,789,474 1bs. The quantity of stems (tobacco stalks) deposited for drawback from the 1st February to 30th April in the current year was 445,404 1bs. This quantity consisted of a very large number of deposits at varying degrees of moisture. It would not at present be possible to state the quantity of stems at the standard moisture of 14 per cent, which it represents.

  Crossgar (County Down) Water Supply and Sewage System.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the insanitary condition of Crossgar, county Down, owing to bad water supply and want of a sewage system; and whether he will have a Local Government inspector sent to report on the state of the town.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Representations as to the defective sewerage and unsatisfactory water supply of Cross-gar have been made to the Local Government Board. The matter has been brought to the notice of the district council, who, the Board understand, are carrying out works to improve the sewerage and provide a water supply.

  Sherlock Estate, County Cork.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether definite steps have been taken concerning the sale of the Sherlock Estate, Ballyrobin, Cloyne, county Cork, at present in the Land Judge's Court, and how the case now stands.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am informed that the abstract of the owner's title has been lodged in Court, but the rulings on it have not yet been issued.

  Pension of James M'Keogh, late Shoemaker at Dundrum Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. MOONEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the value of allowances for pension purposes to assistants in the Dundrum Lunatic Asylum is £40; if he can state why James M'Keogh, late shoemaker at the asylum, received pension calculated only at the rate of £25 per annum for allowances; and on what grounds are the inspectors justified in withholding this allowance from an attendant of ten and a-half years service.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This Question is based on a misapprehension. No pension was awarded in the case.

  Grazing Rights on Glennamaddon Mountain.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a notice issued by Mr. R. V. Stoney, of Rosturk Castle, county Mayo, warning tenants, residing on land which he sold to the Congested Districts Board, against grazing cattle or sheep on Glennamaddon Mountain, north of the Lockspit, or east of Murrivagh Mearing; and whether, seeing that this mountain forms part of the estate sold by Mr. Stoney to the Congested Districts Board, he will take steps to secure that those tenants shall not be prevented from grazing on it as they have been accustomed to do.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This mountain, which consists of 1,965 acres of rough grazing land, is part of the property which was purchased by the Congested Districts Board, but when Mr. Stoney offered to sell to the Board 196 acres of arable land, of which 174 is untenanted, they accepted his condition that they should resell to him, for the price which they had given to him, the mountain land referred to. The price of the arable land so purchased is £3,975, and the price of that resold to Mr. Stoney is only £600. This mountain land did not form part of the tenants' holdings, nor had they any rights of grazing over it.

  King-Harman Estate.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the five case of grass farms on the King-Harman Estate, in which the Estates Commissioners have agreed to consider favourably to purchase the tenants' interests through the vendor, he can state the amount proposed to be paid for the landlord's interest in each case, and the number of years purchase of the rent the amount represents; also the amount proposed to be paid for the tenant's interest in each case, and the number of years purchase of the rent the amount represents; have any of those tenants refused to sign their purchase agreements on the ground of excessive price; whether the Treasury have sanctioned or are prepared to sanction the arrangement for advancing money to the vendor in this case, or in the case of other properties, for purchasing the dual interest of landlord and tenant in grass farms for the purpose of division amongst the smaller occupiers; and, if so, if he can state the names of the cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In the cases referred to in which the Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of grass farms hitherto occupied by tenants, they propose to purchase the lands as untenanted, and do not therefore put a separate valuation on the interests of the landlord and the tenants respectively. The dealings with the tenants are carried on by the proposed vendor, and not by the Commissioners. The Commissioners propose to give for the lands, as untenanted, such prices as they consider the lands can be resold for, having due regard to the security. They have no information that these tenants have refused to sign agreements for purchase. There is no proposal that money shall be advanced to the landlord to enable him to purchase the tenants' interests.

  Irish Agricultural Department's Horse-Breeding Schemes.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the horse-breeding schemes of the Irish Agricultural

  953
  Department hackney and Welsh stallions are still used; and, if so, how many are there and where are they located; and "whether the employment of hackney stallions in the congested districts has been attended with such results as to justify their further use in these or other districts of the country.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Hackney and Welsh stallions are not used in connection with the Department's general horse-breeding scheme. Of the stallions transferred from the Congested Districts Board in 1904, several are still in use, viz., three of the hackney breed in Donegal, three in Mayo, and one in Leitrim; while of the Welsh stallions, one is located in Mayo, and four in Gal-way. Opinions differ widely as to the suitability of the hackney breed for congested districts, but, while the Department do not encourage this breed, they have not seen their way to deprive farmers in congested districts of all the sires located there by the Congested Districts Board.

  Payment of Army Officers through Banking Agents.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the entire sum assigned in the grant for the pay of officers in the Army is paid over at monthly or other intervals to a private banking firm, constituted Army agents for this purpose, who disburse the pay to the individual officers, that the sum is paid to the agents out of the Treasury en bloc at some interval before it becomes payable to the individual officers, with the result of giving the agents the use and control of this public money during these periods, he will say under what authority this system originated and is maintained; whether any similar or analogous system obtains in other Departments of the public service; whether it has been brought to the attention of the War Office that the effect of constituting private bankers paymasters of the Army officers is to give one firm a practical monopoly of the banking business of officers in the Army; and will he explain why the practice of the India Office and Admiralty is not
  954
  followed, whereby an officer can draw his pay personally or by power of attorney from a Government Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The agents are only paid the money as it becomes due to the officers. The practice has been in force for very many years. It is maintained by the authority of the Secretary of State, with the sanction of the Treasury. The War Office is not aware of the practice of other Departments in the matter. There are three firms involved, not one. The practice has been maintained in the interests of the officers concerned. From July 1st any Army officer will be able to draw his pay either locally or through the agents as he prefers. Regimental officers can do so at present.

  Militia and Volunteer Submarine Miners
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to his recent statement that all Militia and Volunteer submarine mining divisions in the United Kingdom were to be dispensed with, he is aware that recruiting for the same is still being carried on; and whether capitation grants are to be paid for the men so enrolled.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Recruiting is still being carried on in certain cases, since there are duties in connection with our ports which can still be performed by these units. Capitation grants will be paid, when earned, according to the conditions which may be fulfilled.

  Quartering of Troops at Duncannon.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a memorial from the people of Duncannon and the surrounding district, asking for a return of the military to Duncannon station; and whether, in view of the barrack accommodation and rifle range at Dun-cannon, he will accede to the wishes of the memorialists.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The hon. Member was informed last November that the memorial

  955
  mentioned had been received and that the views of the memorialists as to the quartering of troops at Duncannon would receive full consideration in connection with any scheme involving the redistribution of the troops in Ireland. I have nothing further to add to this information.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Army Mobilisation Arrangements.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House the proportion of field artillery and cavalry held to be necessary for the effective mobilisation of every division of infantry 12,000 strong; and if such proportion is available for the sixteen divisions of Volunteer infantry provided for service in emergency; and, if not, how many field batteries und squadrons of horse would be available if the Regular Army was absent from Great Britain.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): Two brigades of field artillery and one squadron of cavalry form the proportion of field artillery and cavalry laid down for each division of Regular troops for service abroad. Should the Regular divisions be absent abroad, brigades of field artillery would be available for such Volunteer divisions as are proposed for home defence, and in the event of all the Regular cavalry being sent abroad, the Imperial Yeomanry would take their place.

  Plague Mortality in India.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the number of deaths from plague in India from January 1st, 1905, to the week ending April 1st last; whether he will give the latest information in his possession as to the mortality from plague during the month of April; and whether he will arrange for the publication of the weekly tabular returns of plague in the English newspapers.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOK INDIA (Mr. BEODBICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): From January 1st to the week ending April 1st inclusive the number of plague deaths was 471,744. In April for the four weeks ending April 29th the mortality was 215,961. Under arrangements lately made the plague mortality in each calendar month will be reported to me by telegram, and I propose to communicate it regularly to the Press for the present. The weekly-statements are not in a form suitable for the requirements of the Press, and they are three weeks old when received.

  Treaty with the Afghan Ameer.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when he will lay upon the Table a translation of the Agreement recently concluded with the Ameer of Afghanistan, together with other Papers relating to the Mission to Cabul.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Papers will be laid on the Table to-day and will be distributed without unnecessary delay.

  Beer Manufacture—Analysis of Ingredients.
  DR. HUTCHINSON:I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the results of the analysis made by the officials of the Inland Revenue during the past two years ending April 30th, 1905, of all the ingredients used in the manufacture of beer, including regenerators and yeast foods, and whether the Inland Revenue officers have full knowledge of all the-substances used by brewers in the manufacture of beer; and will he state what penalties, if any, there are against the-brewer for not making a full return of all the materials he uses.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): During the two years ended April 30th, 1905, the following samples of materials used in brewing have been examined at the Government Laboratory:—1,893 samples of malt, rice, and maize, in various forms, sugar, glucose, invert sugar, syrups, etc.; 238 samples of yeast foods, heading powders, and liquids, antacids, antiseptics, hop.

  957
  substitutes, etc. The object of the analysis of these samples was either the determination of the brewing value for revenue purposes, or to test their purity, particularly as regards freedom from arsenic. The results of the analysis may be summarised as follows:—In 1,972 cases no objection was raised to the articles of which samples were examined. In seventy-nine cases the articles submitted were not objected to, but the applicants were informed that the non-interference of the Board would not protect the user from any action which might be taken under the Foods and Drugs Act. In the remaining eighty cases objection was raised to the use of the articles submitted on some one of the following grounds—(1) that the samples examined showed the presence of arsenic beyond the limit recommended by the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning; (2) the presence of copper; (3) the presence of Quillaia bark or extract; or (4) that they were alcoholic flavouring essences. Inland Revenue -officers have full knowledge of the substances used by brewers for sale in the manufacture of beer. The penalty incurred by a brewer for not entering a full account in his brewing book of the materials used in brewing is £100.

  National Debt.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now give an estimate of the amount by which the National Debt will be increased in the current financial year by the liabilities classified as "other capital liabilities" in the Annual Returns relating to the National Debt.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In the Budget Statement it was provisionally estimated that the issues required on Capital Account in 1905–6 would be about £9,000,000. Towards this sum we had in hand, as the result of surplus borrowings in 1904–5, £844,000. So the gross increase of liability would be £8,156,000. But there is provided in the Votes for 1905–6 in reduction of existing liabilities £1,685,000. So the net increase of liabilities on this head would be £6,471,000. Against this increase must
  958
  be set the reduction in the National Debt under other heads, namely—

  By terminable annuities included in the Fixed Debt-Charge

  5,340,000

  From minor sources

  300,000

  And the repayment of Ex-chequer Bonds as explained in my Budget Statement

  4,000,000

  Total reduction

  £9,640,000

  Thus the net diminution in the aggregate liabilities may be estimated at rather more than £3,000,000.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There must be some increase m capital expenditure?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, roughly £6,500,000.
  MR. MCCRAE: Is it not the case that the Sinking Fund provides for a reduction of £10,000,000 yearly, whereas the actual reduction will be only £3,000,000?
  MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I really do not understand the object of that Question. As I have said, the net reduction will be a little over £3,000,000.
  MR. MCCRAE: But does not the Sinking Fund provide for a reduction of £10,000,000 annually?
  MR. DEPUTY- SPEAKER: Notice had better be given of any further Question.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: We understand that the net result this year will be a reduction of the National Debt by £3,000,000?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Rather more than £3,000,000.

  Admiralty Expenditure at Whale Island.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on what conditions, and by virtue of what authority, the sanction of the Treasury was given to the expenditure by the Admiralty, in the financial year

  959
  ending 31st March, 1905, of a sum of £4,000 on buildings at Whale Island, not authorised by the Navy Estimates of that year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Board of Admiralty represented to the Treasury, in January last, the urgency in the public interest of providing accommodation at Whale Island for the instruction of naval lieutenants by the coming autumn, and the Treasury gave its assent accordingly. No excess on Navy Vote 10 for 1904–5 was entailed by the expenditure of £4,000 shown at page 135 of the current Navy Estimates, and consequently the authority of the Treasury was that governing the transfer of moneys between sub-head and subhead of the same Vote. As the hon. Member is aware, the Estimate of Navy Vote 10 for the current year, which includes this service, has been passed in Committee of Supply.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: What authority had the Treasury for allowing the Admiralty to spend money for a service not provided for in last year's Estimates? Do the Treasury assume the right to authorise any Department to apply public money for public services not sanctioned by the House?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Treasury has power, as the hon. Gentleman must know, to convey money voted under one sub-head for the Navy to another sub-head of the same Vote. That is the authority which we used.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: What I am asking is what authority the Treasury has when the House has not sanctioned expenditure on a particular service to allow the Admiralty to spend money on it. Taking money from one sub-head and applying it to another is a totally different thing.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Treasury did it under the authority I have stated by transferring from one subhead to another. In this particular case there was no money provision under the sub-head to which the transfer was made. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware from his experience as a
  960
  Civil Lord of the Admiralty that the Treasury does take the responsibility of sactioning expenditure in anticipation of Parliamentary approval.

  Monastic and Conventual Institutions and Succession Duty.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the property held by monastic and conventual institutions is made liable to succession duty; and, if so, what amount has been so paid for the past financial year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is. impossible to give a full Answer to my hon. friend in reply to a Question. Much depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. But a full statement of the law and practice will be found in the Report of the Select Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions of 1871 which was presided over by Mr. Villiers. No claims to exemption were received last year on the ground that property in respect of which duty was claimed was held on trust for monastic institutions, and such claims would not be admissible if received; but it is impossible to distinguish the duty, if any, paid on such property within the last twelve months from the duty received from other sources.

  Dog Duties—Compounding Fines.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a case in Islington in which the Inland Revenue authorities seek to impose a fine of 2s. 6d. on an individual against whom it was alleged he had not taken out his dog licence sufficiently early; under what statute are the collectors authorised to levy such fines, and into what fund are they paid; and whether, in view of the fact that such proceedings are liable to abuse, he can see his way to put a stop, to them.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The case is one of a kind very common under the practice of the Board, whereby, in. virtue of the powers conferred by Section 35 (1) of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890, offenders in the matter of dog licences are offered the opportunity of

  961
  paying a small fine as an alternative to appearing before the police magistrate. It is always open to an offender to elect this latter alternative, but, out of many thousands annually, the cases in which such election is made are relatively few. It may be inferred from this that the option of paying a fine is regarded as a privilege rather than as a hardship. The fines are paid into the Local Taxation Account. In the particular case to which the hon. Member has drawn my attention, the licence was not taken out until March 9th, after the detection had been made. If, in such circumstances, the offence were wholly condoned, I am afraid that very few licences would be taken until the authorities had detected the default.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: Does the regulation apply to the Inland Revenue in Ireland?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Dog licences in Ireland are on altogether a different footing.
  MR. LOUGH: What is the total amount realised by these fines? Is the amount of each fine fixed by a particular officer? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the practice is open to abuse?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I
  cannot tell the amount without notice. The amount is fixed in each case by the Inland Revenue Department. The person from whom a fine is claimed has the alternative of a prosecution if he thinks that it is fixed arbitrarily and too high and he can go before the magistrates. But the fine obviously is a lesser penalty than the law imposes.

  Magistrates as Motorists.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that at a special sitting of the county magistrates, at Andover, to hear the first batch of thirty summonses against motorists for driving to the common danger around Andover during the Easter Holidays, Captain John Robert Stanford, of White Hatch and West Tilbury, a magistrate for Wilts and Dorset, pleaded guilty to
  962
  driving a car at the rate of over thirty-seven miles an hour, and was fined £10 and costs; and, if so, whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been directed to the case with reference to the removal of this gentleman from the commission of the peace for two counties.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I have had no other intimation of this matter than that contained in the Question. I have mentioned the matter to the Lord Chancellor, who informs me that the circumstances of the case are not yet sufficiently before him to enable him to form any opinion.

  Parliamentary Agents—Messrs. Bircham & Co.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state if other borough council clerks, for whom Messrs. Bircham and Company act as Parliamentary agents, receive, as in the Holborn case, 33⅓ per cent, of the profit charges; and, if so, whether such payments are known to the public bodies concerned.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I am not in possession of the information for which the hon. Member asks.
  MR. CROOKS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take care that no circular is sent to the various local bodies asking them to give preference to this firm of Parliamentary agents because they are in the service of the Government?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR'Sreply was inaudible.

  Poor Law School Children.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of children at present maintained in the district and separate Poor Law schools of the Metropolis and of the provinces respectively.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On the 1st January last, the latest date for which

  963
  information is at present available, there were 7,805 pauper children chargeable to Poor Law unions in London, and 4,329 children chargeable to Poor Law unions in the rest of England and Wales, who were maintained in district and separate schools.

  Pathological Parcels by Post.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he could see his way to rescind the regulation as to the compulsory registration of pathological material sent by post, and allow in its place some distinctive mark upon the envelope.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): In view of the risk attending the transmission of pathological material by post it is important that special precautions should be taken. The regulation which requires that such material shall be registered is, in my opinion, a necessary one, and I regret that I cannot see my way to modify it.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: Arising out of the Question I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that something like half a million of these specimens were sent through the post during last year, and the law was not carried out, while no injury was caused to anybody. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of post offices closing at 8 o'clock on Saturday nights and not opening till 8 o'clock on Monday mornings, a great deal of inconvenience and even danger is caused, and will he therefore reconsider the question.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. I think special precautions should be taken in the interests of the staff, and I am not prepared to modify the present arrangements.

  Ex-Soldiers and Sailors in the Postal Service.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the meeting at the Royal United Service Institution on May 16th, whereat complaint was made of the little employment
  964
  offered by Government Departments to ex-soldiers and sailors of good character; and if he can state generally how many former soldiers and sailors are now in the employ of the General Post Office, to how many permanent employment was given between April 1st, 1904, and March 31st, 1905, and to how many temporary employment was given.
  LORD STANLEY: My attention has been called to the meeting at the Royal United Service Institution and to the complaint to which the hon. Member refers, and I have to say that there is clearly some misapprehension. In connection with the Return for which the hon. Member is asking full particulars will be obtained, but I may say at once that during the last financial year about 1,000 ex-soldiers and sailors received Post Office appointments in the United Kingdom under Civil Service Certificates, in addition to a considerable number who were employed in various unestablished capacities.

  Sea Encroachment on the East Coast.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL TUFNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will grant an inquiry regarding the damage which is being caused to the eastern counties through the encroachment of the sea on the coast.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): I regret that I am not able to add anything to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Lowestoft Division of Suffolk on March 30th† last.

  Customs Watchers' Grievances.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what, if any, concessions he is prepared to make in answer to the petition of the Customs watchers.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): This matter is
  †See (4) Debates,cxliii., 1735.

  965
  still under my consideration, but I hope to be able to make a statement thereon, if not before Whitsuntide, soon after.
  MR. CAUSTON: I shall repeat the Question this day week, with special reference to the appeal of the upper section with regard to pensions.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I will do the best I can to get the information asked for.

  Solar Eclipse Expedition.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government are intending to take any steps to secure for the public benefit a record of any scientific observations of the forthcoming total solar eclipse on the August 30th next.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Yes, Sir. An expedition is being sent out at Government expense to make observations.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON: Where is it going?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I believe to Morocco.

  Communication between Parliament Buildings and Westminster Hospital.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the fact that on the physical disablement of any Member of Parliament there is at present no means of summoning immediate professional aid other than the services of any hon. Member connected with the medical profession who may happen to be on the premises, he can make a statement as to erecting a telephone to Westminster Hospital, and as to the intention of the Treasury to make an adequate money grant to the hospital to secure prompt medical assistance in the House when needed,
  LORD BALCARRES: I am able to inform the hon. Member that telephonic communication with the Westminster Hospital was arranged on Friday last. The Post
  966
  Office will make the connection early this week. The last part of the Question is one for my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

  British School at Shaw, Lancashire.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the British elementary school at Shaw, in Lancashire, has (as was stated by the managers in their application for a final order, dated November 7th, 1903) been heretofore carried on as a non-sectarian school, the religious instruction in which has been undenominational, and not, superintended by any clergyman; and that the vicar and other present managers of the school have recently publicly announced that the Catechism and Collects of the Church of England will be henceforth taught in the school; and whether, having regard to the character the school has hitherto borne, and to the fact that it is the only undenominational school out of the six schools in the district, the Board of Education propose to take any such action as is open to them to prevent the religious instruction given in the school from being denominational.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): The Shaw British School has been a voluntary school in private ownership, and has, it is believed, been recently acquired by purchase from its previous owners. The character of the religious instruction given in a voluntary school is under the control of the managers, and no new order for foundation managers is applied for in this case. I understand that it is contended that the transfer of a voluntary school under these conditions constitutes the provision of a new school within the meaning of Sections 8 and 9 of the Education Act, 1902, and I am proposing to receive a deputation on the subject.

  Sneem Steamboat Service.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in consequence of the withdrawal of the Clyde Shipping Company's

  967
  steamer from Sneem, the winkle industry, which during the previous season resulted in the earning of over £300 by families in the district, has been completely destroyed; and whether, in view of the effect of the agreement made between the Congested Districts Board and the railway company, the clause by which the Board has bound itself not to grant a subsidy to any shipping company for the next five years will be cancelled.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The Board have no information that the fact is as stated in the first inquiry. I have already given the reasons why the agreement between the Board and the railway company cannot be withdrawn. The object of this agreement was to obtain favourable railway rates upon the withdrawal of the subsidised steamship service, and that object has been attained.
  MR. BOLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct an inquiry into the industries destroyed by the action of the Congested Districts Board?
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir. I cannot see that an inquiry is necessary. The Board have made the best arrangement they could.
  MR. BOLAND: But the public opinion of the whole county condemns the arrangement.
  MR. FLAVIN: What object is gained, seeing you have destroyed an industry and done great injury to a whole district?
  MR. WALTER LONG: We secured special arrangements with regard to railway rates.

  Insurance of Kerry Fishing Boats.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in how many individual cases the scheme issued some months ago by the Congested Districts Board for the insurance of fishing boats has been taken advantage of in the fishing districts of the county Kerry.
  MR. WALTER LONG: In one case only, so far.
  MR. BOLAND: Is it because the rate is too high?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I believe it is because the arrangement has only been in force a short time. I do not think there is any allegation that the rates are too high.

  Irish Agricultural Department— Veterinary Branch.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why certain competent clerks in the veterinary branch of the Agricultural Department have been deprived of all hope of promotion, and, after more than ten years service, are limited to a practically stationary salary of £95 a year, whilst other persons of less experience and not superior in qualification have been brought in at much higher salaries to do the same class of work.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The facts are precisely the reverse of what is stated in the Question. On the 11th instant † I informed the hon. Member that these clerks are on the scale of salary proper to the grade to which they belong, that is to say, a scale increasing by annual increments up to £150 a year.
  MR. NANNETTI: In view of this public scandal will the right hon. Gentleman order an inquiry?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not think there is any ground whatever for an inquiry.

  Cost of Suppressing the Carrowkeel Meeting.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state how many county and district inspectors were in charge of the constabulary sent to suppress a meeting at Carrowkeel, county Galway, on April 30th; their names and the districts to which they belong; and if he will state the total cost connected
  †See page 33.

  969
  with the constabulary, directly or indirectly, connected with the Carrowkeel meeting.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Four; namely, County Inspector Lopdell, of Galway, W.R., and District Inspectors Glasgow of Clifden, Egan of Oughterard, and Spier of Spiddal. The total cost is about £100.

  Proclamation of the Carrowkeel Meeting.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland who was the resident magistrate who issued the proclamation forbidding a political meeting at Carrowkeel, county Galway, on April 30th; upon what information he proceeded and the grounds upon which he took action; when was the proclamation issued; and if, before issue of the proclamation, the facts upon which the magistrate acted were submitted to the Government.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The proclamation was issued by Mr. Bell, resident magistrate, on April 29th. It was based on an information sworn by the district inspector of police, referring to the placards convening the meeting, which called on the people to assemble in their thousands and show by their presence that a certain farm must be divided among the people. The remainder of the information was to the purport and effect that the object and effect of the meeting, if held, would be intimidation, and that the meeting would cause a breach of the peace. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the affirmative.

  Alleged Police Violence at the Carrowkeel Proclaimed Meeting.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that violence was used upon Mr. Thomas Higgins, J.P. at the proclaimed meeting at Carrowkeel on April 30th last; that without provocation on his part he was seized by six constables and thrown over a stone wall; that at the same meeting Councillor Kennedy, of Dunmore, was seized by several constables and thrown to the ground; and that other acts of violence were perpetrated;
  970
  and whether such conduct on the part of the constabulary has been sanctioned by the Government.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No violence—properly so-called—was used to either of the gentlemen named, but only sufficient force was exerted to prevent the proclaimed meeting from being held. The hon. Member himself and Mr. Higgins. followed by a crowd of 200 persons, including Mr. Kennedy, were stopped by the police when nearing Carrowkeel. The county inspector informed them that no meeting would be allowed. Mr. Higgins attempted to force his way through the police, and, on being prevented, jumped, over a low wall into a field and commenced to address the people. He refused to desist, and was then pushed on by a constable, whereupon he jumped back into the road, and the crowd returned by the way they had come. Mr. Higgins was not thrown over a wall, nor was Mr. Kennedy thrown to the ground. The action of the police on the occasion received the approval of the Government.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what the Irish Government's definition of violence, "properly so-called," is? And will he say whether anything short of breaking a, man's skull is considered violence?
  MR. WALTER LONG: The meaning, of that sentence is that the police had orders to prevent the meeting from being held, and I am informed that they used no violence in carrying out their orders. But they compelled those who tried to hold the meeting to desist.
  MR. DILLON: Did the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to get independent testimony as to the action of the police; or is the report on which he has based his approval of the action of the police the report of the-police themselves?
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir; the only information I have is that given to me by the police who were responsible. I have read other accounts, and I have no reason to believe that the police

  971
  departed from their strict duty in the matter, or gave an inaccurate account of what occurred.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: They did throw this man violently over the fence.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Could not the right hon. Gentleman have consulted the hon. Member for Galway in this House? Does he not think it worth while, before taking the word of the police, to consult a Member of this House who is on an equal footing with himself in this House?
  MR. WALTER LONG: That is a most astonishing Question. The hon. Member for Galway is the complainant in the matter. [NATIONALIST cries of "And the police are the defendants."] All I can do is to give to the House the information I have received, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information I have given.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it proposed to suppress the expression of public opinion in Ireland?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Judging by recent events, I should say certainly not.

  South of Ireland Fisheries.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fast that the herring fishing season does not open in the majority of English and Manx fishing grounds before the months of June or July, and in view of the fact that large quantities of immature mackerel are captured by herring boats off the south coast of Ireland in the months of April and May, to the injury of the mackerel fishing and curing industry, and that the evidence given before the public inquiry in 1892 proved that large quantities of small and unsaleable haak are also captured by herring nets in these months, the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture will take steps to hold an inquiry into the complaints made by the fishermen of the south and south-west coast of Ireland regarding the injury caused to the mackerel and haak fishing industries by
  972
  the practice of herring fishing at an carly season of the year.
  MR. WALTER LONG: As I have already informed the hon. Member, this matter formed the subject of an exhaustive inquiry in 1892, since when the situation has not, so far as the Department are aware, been changed in any way. It is therefore considered that no good purpose would be served by holding a further inquiry.
  MR. FLYNN: In view of the fact that the inquiry was held thirteen years ago, when the vast majority of fishing boats did not engage in this work—except a small number of Scottish boats—will not the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind the responsibility of the Irish Board, hold another inquiry now?
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Irish Board fully appreciate their responsibility, and see no change in the situation such as would make an inquiry desirable. But if the hon. Gentleman is in possession of any facts which he thinks alter the position, I shall be very glad to consider them.
  MR. FLYNN: I will raise the question on the Vote for the Congested Districts Board.

  Allotments for Irish Herds.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners, when purchasing grass farms, always consider the case of the herds on the farms; and if he could state, even roughly, how many herds have been made proprietors, and how much land, on an average, such herd has obtained.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners endeavour to provide for herds when allotting parcels of the untenanted lands upon which they have been employed, provided they come within the classes of persons entitled to advances. It is estimated roughly that about thirty-seven herds have been so provided for. The area allotted to each varies in accordance with the quality of the land and the size of the farm upon which the

  973
  herd has been employed. Approximately the acreage varies from sixteen to twenty acres, and the average purchase money would be about £500.

  Irish Agrarian Returns.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the intention of, and what object is served by, issuing periodical Parliamentary Returns of Agrarian Offences in Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that no such Return is issued for England, Scotland, or Wales, he will take steps to discontinue it.
  MR. WALTER LONG: These Annual Returns are furnished for the information of Parliament. They have been so furnished for a great many years, and it is not intended to discontinue them.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Why are these Returns made for Ireland and not for England, Scotland, and Wales? What is the object?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not know. I will inquire.

  Terms of Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of years purchase paid by a tenant under the Purchase Act of 1896 who bought his holding at a reduction of 20 per cent, on the rental; and whether he can state the number of years puvchase paid by a tenant under the Act of 1903 who bought his holding at 20 per cent, reduction on rental.
  MR. WALTER LONG: In the case of a purchase under the Land Purchase Acts, 1891 to 1896, when the annuity amounted to 20 per cent, less than the rent, the purchase money represented twenty years purchase of the rent. In the case of a purchase under the Act of 1903, the purchase money, under the same conditions, represents a little over twenty-four and a-half years purchase of the rent.
  MR. FLAVINsaid the hard fact remained that the average price of land
  974
  had been raised from seventeen years to twenty-four years purchase.
  MR. LAMBERT: Does the twenty-four years include the bonus?
  MR. KILBRIDE: No, the bonus is added.

  Rural District Councillors as Teachers
  MR. O'KELLY; I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether any disqualification attaches to rural district councillors, otherwise qualified, from acting as teachers in evening national schools.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have nothing-to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's similar Question of the 3rd instant.†

  Sunday Football in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN,: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he in aware that, for a considerable time past and especially on the 14th instant, the Gaelic footballers of Coalisland and Cookstown have paraded on Sundays through Tullyhogue, Grange, and Stewartstown, and fired revolvers to the annoyance of the inhabitants attending Divine service; and what action, if any, does he propose to take in order to avoid similar occurrences in future.
  MR. WALTER LONG: On two Sundays within the past three months a football team from Cookstown has proceeded to Coalisland, and two return visits, also on Sundays, have been paid by the Coalisland team. On one of these occasions the latter team sang a Party song when passing Stewartstown Protestant Church. On another occasion the Cookstown team sang Party songs, and it is alleged that a shot was fired by a member of the team near Tullyhogue, but of the latter occurrence the police have no evidence. I understand that on the one side games on Sundays are objected to, while on the other the situation is aggravated by Party displays in hostile
  † See (4) Debates, cxlv., 816.

  975
  localities. The police will take all necessary measures for preserving the peace, and for preventing any interference with Divine service.

  Gaelic Footballers Sunday Visit to Clonoe.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what were the number of extra police or those doing extra duty and the cost, in consequence of the Gaelic footballers visit to Clonoe, on Sunday the 14th instant; and will the charge foe levied on the district.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The police employed on this occasion belonged to the district, and no extra cost was involved.

  Balbriggan Harbour.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Dublin Port and Docks Board any statement regarding the necessity of immediately dredging Balbriggan Harbour; and, if so, whether he has arrived at any conclusion on the; subject.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Port and Docks Board applied to me for a grant to maintain, improve, and enlarge the accommodation of this harbour, and I was obliged to express my regret that there were no funds at the disposal of the Government out of which such a grant could be made.
  MR. CLANCY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman provide funds?
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is not in my power.

  Rossmacowen Eviction.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any official information as to the conduct of the police at an eviction at Rossmacowen, on the Clinton Estate, county Cork, some twelve months ago.
  MR. WALTER LONG: My right hon. friend the Member for Dover replied to
  976
  a Question put to him on June 14th,† 1904, by the hon. Member for West Cork, relative to the action of the police at this eviction. I presume my hon. friend's Question has reference to a statement which was recently published in the Press to the effect that on the same occasion "men's heads were split with batons, women were violently assaulted, and a man was stabbed." I am informed that considerable opposition and resistance were offered to the sheriff and his assistants, all of whom were struck several times by missiles, and that an inmate of one of the houses used a pitchfork, which was wrenched from him by a sergeant of police. In the scuffle the man received a scratch on the cheek from one of the prongs of the fork; the injury was trifling. This is the only foundation for the statement to which I have referred, and which in other respects is absolutely and entirely untrue.
  MR. FLAVIN: How is it it has taken twelve months to get this remarkable information?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have said my right hon. friend the Member for Dover dealt with it in 1904.
  MR. MACVEAGH: How was the right hon. Gentleman able to read the thoughts of the hon. Member for South Antrim.?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I did not. I read what I gathered in the Press.

  Dursey Island Eviction.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, at the recent eviction on Dursey Island, James Leary was stabbed by a policeman with a bayonet; and whether he has yet received a report on the conduct of the police on that occasion.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have received a full report of the proceedings on the occasion mentioned. Leary endeavoured to wrest a rifle from a head constable, and in so doing his hand was cut by the backsight or foresight of the rifle; but
  †See (4) Debates,cxxxvi., 26.

  977
  there is no truth whatever in the statement that Leary was stabbed with a bayonet. Bayonets were not fixed.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this occasion one of the islanders jumped into the sea and swam ashore to the mainland in order to escape the violence of the police?
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked whether the great Naval Powers of the world were informed by the Admiralty of the great victory of the British Fleet in evicting old Healy on Dursey Island without loss of life, or injury to the "Storm Cock."
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Morley Estate, County Cavan—Turbary Rights.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Morley Estate, county Cavan, were to be supplied with turbary, and that the holdings wore to be inspected according to the terms of sale; and will he say if there has been any alteration in these arrangements.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Neither the originating application nor the agreements for purchase make any reference to a supply of turbary. The Commissioners are aware that there is turbary on the estate, and the question of a supply for the tenants will be considered by them. All cases which do not come within the provisions of Section 1 (a) and (b) will be duly inspected and reported on.

  Morley Estate Purchase Agreements.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of purchase agreements which have been lodged in the Morley Estate, county Cavan; if advances have been sanctioned in any cases; and, if so, how many, with the date of the sanctioning of such advance.
  MR. WALTER LONG: 389 agreements for purchase have been lodged, but an advance has not yet been sanctioned in any case.

  Poundage Rates on Irish Land Payments.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in country districts where there is no bank tenants who have purchased their holdings are compelled to pay poundage rates on the postal orders by which payment of their purchase instalments are made; and whether he will take steps to relieve them of this impost.
  MR. WALTER LONG: When a tenant purchaser remits the instalment of his purchase money by means of a money order, of course he pays the usual Post Office charges, which range from 2d. for £1 up to 6d. for a £20 order. The latter Question is one for the postal authorities.

  Moneymore Disturbances.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Captain Walsh, R.M., reported to the Inspector-General, or any of his superiors, the undertaking admitted by him in evidence, at Moneymore Petty Sessions, county Derry, to have been made with four local Orangemen, that certain contingents of Nationalists attending a Nationalist demonstration at Loop, county Derry, should not be allowed to pass through Moneymore; and, if so, whether such undertaking was sanctioned; whether in the four days between this compact and the demonstration, these contingents were informed of this decision; and, if so, by whom; and whether, seeing that some members of these contingents who had to pass through Moneymore to reach their homes received injuries from a baton charge, that Nationalist processions have repeatedly passed through Moneymore without disturbance, and that Captain Creaghe, R.M., in giving judgment, said that, until the interference of the police, the procession was orderly, he will say what action the Government proposes to take.
  MR. WALTER LONG: As a necessary precaution to preserve peace and order, it was decided, with the sanction of the Government, that no Nationalist procession should be allowed to pass through Moneymore on this occasion save those on whose direct route it lay to and from the meeting. Moneymore is mainly inhabited by persons of the opposite Party, and the passage of Nationalist processions through it has frequently been accompanied by the breaking of windows and other disturbances. Captain Welch did not report the undertaking referred to in the first part of the Question, because such an undertaking was not given; but he informed four representatives of the local Orange lodge of the decision which had been arrived at. The Nationalist contingents from Lissan and Moneymore passed through the village without hindrance on their way to the meeting. Later in the day the police learnt that a party from Loop were accompanying the Lissan and Moneymore party towards Moneymore, though it was three miles out of their direct road home, and warning was at once sent to them that the Loop party would not be allowed to pass through Moneymore. The warning was disregarded. The police blocked the way and repeated the warning, but they were rushed and attacked by the entire procession. A baton charge was ordered, but not until injuries had been inflicted on the district inspector and others of the police. Some of the Lissan party, who were the first to attack the police, were hurt. Mr. Creaghe, in giving judgment, said that the Lissan and Moneymore procession was orderly until joined by the Loop party, when the three parties seemed to have turned into a very riotous, improper assembly. The steps taken by the Government were absolutely necessary for the preservation of the public peace. The Government do not propose to take any further action.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Did not Mr. Walsh in his evidence state that he did give this undertaking?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed he did not.
  MR. MACVEAGH: He swore he did. Really the right hon. Gentleman should
  980
  make sure of his facts before answering, a Question.

  Ballinlonghane, Galway, Fishery.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, from time immemorial, the people of Ballinlonghane, Galway, have earned their living by fishing close to the village; that recently bailiffs have forbidden them to cast their nets there any longer, claiming such right solely for the owner of the Galway fishery: and that the nets belonging to Michael Joyce, Martin Joyce, and Thomas Corcoran were seized: and whether he will stop these proceedings, and restore to the people the rights of fishing so long enjoyed.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed that these nets were seized by bailiffs of the Board of Conservators, not upon the ground that the rights of any private fishery were encroached on. but because the nets were unlicensed and set in an illegal manner. I understand that the Conservators are considering the question of a prosecution. The matter is not one for the Executive to deal with. If the rights of the fishermen have been invaded, they have their remedy at law.

  Galway Harbour Loan.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Board of Works is specially in charge of Galway Harbour owing to a still undischarged loan; and, in view of the fact that the entrance to the harbour is now somewhat impaired, he will say if the Board of Works or the harbour master have received any communication showing that the harbour is becoming difficult of access for vessels of 3,000 tons, even when these have been lightened in the roadstead; and whether the Board of Works will soon take steps to improve the Galway entrance, either by procuring the dredger connected with the Agricultural Department or by other means.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Board of Works have appointed a Receiver to collect the revenues of Galway Harbour, and all financial arrangements are subject to their approval as mortgagees. The

  981
  upkeep of the harbour is in the hands of its Commissioners. It is known that the entrance of the harbour needs dredging, but the Board of Works have not received a communication stating that access was difficult for vessels of 3,000 tons. As regards the last portion of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, I would refer him to my reply to the hon. Member for Galway City.

  Limerick Post Office—Wage Scale.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why the maximum salary at the Limerick Post Office was reduced from 50s. per week to 48s., seeing that the Bradford Report recommends that the salary at this office be increased; and will he say if he has received a petition from the local staff.
  LORD STANLEY: The scale rising to 50s. a week is now obsolete, but officers at Limerick appointed before April 1st will retain that maximum. I have received a memorial from the staff, and I am having inquiry made as to whether the next higher scale rising to 52s. a week is warranted.

  Male Learners in the Limerick Post Office.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are seven male learners in the Limerick Post Office with services ranging from two years eight months to one year ten months; can he say when those who entered in August, 1902, and who are acting as temporary force pending revision will be appointed; whether he intends to compensate these learners for the time they are waiting appointment, or will their appointment date from the time it was necessary to create the temporary force; and whether, as regards the learners with twenty-two months service, he can hold out any prospect of appointment for them, other than the vacancies that may arise from superannuation, dismissal, or death.
  LORD STANLEY: I am aware of the facts, which are substantially as stated by the hon. Member. As the revision depends on the occupation of a new office and other contingencies, I regret that I am unable at present to state when
  982
  the learners acting as sorting clerks and telegraphists will be appointed. In the meantime, however, they receive an acting allowance which is in excess of their pay as learners, and I do not propose to give them further compensation or to date their appointments from the beginning of their temporary employment. The senior Limerick learner is at present No. 9 on the district list for employment at other offices. When the Limerick learners reach the top of the list there may be opportunities of offering them appointments at other towns.

  Galway Harbour Loans.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the amount advanced, by way of loan, by the Board of Works to the Galway Harbour Commission; the year in which such loan was made; the amount of interest to date collected on such loan; the rate of interest charged; the amount of loan still due.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: (1) Loan of £24,000, sanctioned June 1st, 1832, interest 4 per cent. This loan was commuted under 30 and 31 Vic., cap. 56, the sum of £9,322 14s. 10d. principal, and £1,949 13s. 7d. interest being remitted, making a total remission of £11,272 8s. 5d. The commuted debt £10,000 was made repayable in fifty years at 3¼ per cent. The interest paid on the commuted loan to March 31st, 1905, amounts to £9,461 8s. 7d., and the principal now outstanding is £4,291 8s. 7d. (2) Loan of £28,100 sanctioned August 20th, 1880, rate of interest 4 percent., period twenty-five years. Interest paid to March 3lst, 1905, £14,537 12s. 4d., principal outstanding £12,173 19s. 9d. (3) Loan of £8,200 sanctioned March 13th, 1883, rate of interest 4 per cent., period twenty-five years. Interest paid £4,261 18s. 3d., principal outstanding £4,114 4s. 2d.

  Galway Harbour—The Government Dredger.
  MR. CHARLES DELVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the announcement that the Tralee Harbour Board expect to be through with the dredger by the 1st of August, and the fact that the need for dredging at the entrance to the new dock

  983
  of Galway is pressing, and that the Galway Harbour Commissioners have been making representations on the subject to the Board of Works for years, he will place the dredger at the disposal of the Galway Harbour Commission early in August.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The dredger is engaged during the whole of the present year, but the Board of Works are endeavouring to make arrangements to render it available for use at Galway as soon as possible next year, and they are in correspondence with the Harbour Commissioners on the subject.

  Next of Kin of Late Helen Blake.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if any sum of money was allowed from any source for the prosecution of inquiries as to the next of kin of the late Helen Blake; if so, by whom these inquiries were conducted, where they were held, and when; and what was the total sum expended, if any.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: No sum of money has been allowed from any source for the prosecution of inquiries as to the next of kin of the late Helen Blake.

  Volunteers and Imperial Defence.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Committee of Imperial Defence has had under consideration the continuance of the state of affairs declared to exist in 1900, that there was no effective organisation for the utilisation of the Volunteers, notwithstanding the recommendations to that end of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission in June last; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think it would be desirable that any Question dealing with the organisation of the Volunteers or of any other military force should be addressed to the Secretary for War and not to the Chairman of the Committee of Defence, with whom the matter does not rest. Perhaps my hon. friend will
  984
  put this Question down to the Secretary for War for another day.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I will raise the question on the Motion for the adjournment for the Whitsuntide holidays.

  The Scottish Churches Dispute.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now inform the House on what day he proposes to introduce the Bill which has been promised for dealing with the difficulties that have arisen in Scotland in connection with the property of the Free Church and the United Free Church.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have previously said, I have every expectation of being able to introduce this Bill before Whitsuntide, but short of that general statement I do not think I can give any precise information on the subject of the Question.
  MR. BRYCE: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is aware that great impatience on this subject exists in Scotland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, yes; I am aware of that impatience, and I think the anxiety on the subject is well justified, but I doubt whether time would really be gained by modifying the general outline of policy.
  MR. BUCHANAN: As the General Assemblies meet this week could the right hon. Gentleman not arrange to have, this Bill introduced while they are still in session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware that the General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland meet this week, and that was one of the reasons why I thought it might not be desirable to introduce the Bill during their session.

  Naval and Military Expenditure.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the character of his proposals for Imperial defence and the growing

  985
  opinion in favour of large reductions in the national expenditure to enable the country to meet its liabilities, he can see his way to undertake that the Government shall reconsider the outlay proposed in the Estimates for the present year, and so initiate steps to relieve distress and abate the growing discontent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman has put this Question under a misapprehension. In the opinion of the Government the Estimates of the year are not in any excess of the national requirements; and I am sorry to say that the general lines of defensive policy which I endeavoured to sketch last Thursday do not, to my mind, hold out any hope of a reduction of the important kind which appeared in our debate on naval expenditure.
  MR. LOUGH: Might not expenditure on capital account be somewhat modified in view of the declarations made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has not seen our proposals for capital expenditure as yet. The Bill has not been brought in.

  The Colonial Conference.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, if the present Government is still in office at the time of the holding of the Colonial Conference in 1906, it is their intention to authorise the British representatives to discuss with the colonial representatives the question of mutual preferential trading between the mother country and the Colonies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The subject has not yet been considered by His Majesty's Government, but as the hon. Gentleman asks me the Question, it seems to me impossible for any Government to endeavour to restrict the discussions of a Conference with the Colonies; and certainly, if it is difficult for any Government, it would be especially difficult for a Government which desires closer commercial union with those Colonies.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Is it definitely settled that there is to be a Colonial Conference next year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, there was a Resolution passed at the last meeting of the Colonial Conference that there should be a Conference not later then 1906.
  MR. LOUGH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman bound by a general pledge to do nothing during the existence of the present Parliament to advance the subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I was talking of the Conference, not of this House.
  MR. SOARES: Is not the right hon. Gentleman bound by the terms of his Edinburgh speech?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Apparently you are bound by nothing.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, with regard to an Answer which he gave two minutes ago to the hon. Member for Barnstaple—which Answer caused great surprise to a great many Members of the House—whether we are to understand that he meant to imply that he was under no obligation to inaction in the matter of colonial preference except in this House, and that out of this House the Government were free to take any step they chose so far as any undertaking or pledge on his part was concerned; and, secondly, whether we are to understand him to say that he is not bound by anything he said on this subject in his Edinburgh speech?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether I am bound to inaction with regard to colonial preference outside this House. Why, of course I am not. When the right hon. Gentleman is discussing it every day from a public platform, I suppose I may be allowed to answer him?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is a difference between discussion and action.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman means that we desire to use our majority in this House for dealing with the fiscal question in the course of the present Parliament, I must reply that we certainly do not mean to do so.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is it limited to proceedings in this House? Are we to understand that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I really do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman means.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Are we to understand that while the right hon. Gentleman is restricted by what he has said from proceedings or discussions in this House he is free, the Government are free, to take any administrative steps they choose which will have the effect of committing the country to a certain elementary stage, at all events, of this policy?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the Government ought to commit the country on the subject of fiscal reform during the continuance of the present Parliament.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Government is now bound by the specific statement made by Lord Lansdowne that they would not submit the question of colonial preference to the Colonial Conference without first seeking a mandate from the country on the question of the reference to the Conference?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not remember that at all.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The statement was specifically made in the House of Lords.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it was not, as a matter of fact.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if that is not his view as to the attitude of the Government? Does that represent his view of the attitude of the Government, that the Government will not submit the
  988
  question of colonial preference to the Conference without first of all seeking a mandate from the country on the question of the reference to the Conference? Does that represent the attitude of the Government at the present moment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no question of a reference to the Conference. The Conference comes together through its own action in 1906. [An HON. MEMBER: Who calls it?] That Conference is, like all its predecessors, and, I hope, all its successors, free to discuss any question. It is not free to bind the Colonies. It is certainly not free to bind this country or His Majesty's Government. I do not see how it would be possible for us or for our successors to limit free discussion in this Conference.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman would make the House understand the matter better if he would answer the second part of my previous Question, which he has not done hitherto. Does he depart from the pledge he gave in his Edinburgh speech?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I in no sense depart from the policy I announced in my Edinburgh speech. I frankly admit when I made that speech I had not in contemplation the fact that a Conference was to come together automatically next year, and I said nothing about it. What I did say was that, in my judgment, in the present condition of public opinion in this country, it would neither be possible nor right for the Government to adopt any system of fiscal reform unless the plan had first been submitted to the country. That was the policy of the Edinburgh speech, and anybody who has read it must know that that was the policy of it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The pledge given in the Edinburgh speech was that the country would be consulted, first as to the submission of this matter to the Conference, and then again, if necessary, as to the question of approving or disapproving the results of the Conference. There were to be two consequential references to the country in the matter before anything was done.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman somewhat misuses the word "pledge" in regard to that speech. I can understand that my hon. friends on this side of the House may say that any announcement of policy I made was in a sense a pledge to them; but I cannot see how the announcement of a policy on this side of the House can be regarded as a pledge to the other side of the House. Of course, if you go to the country, as Mr. Gladstone did, saying you will do one thing, and then, when you are returned, you do something else, that is another thing. But, as far as hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned, it is open to me at any time to say I have changed my opinions. But, as a matter of fact, I have not changed my opinions. They remain what they were, and I repeat that when I made my Edinburgh speech—I ought, perhaps, to apologise for not remembering it, but I really had not in my mind this Conference of 1906, and as I had not it in my mind it was not in any way referred to—the policy referred to was clear, and to that I adhere. There are two alternatives. The Government may be returned to office on the broad question of fiscal reform, and it may say, "We have that mandate end we are going to act upon it, and, if returned, we intend to recommend it to the House of Commons." I stated at Edinburgh that I did not think that could be done. I had not in my mind that a Conference would meet in the course of the present Parliament Perhaps it will not. The Edinburgh policy was that any policy agreed upon by the Government should be submitted to the country, and that is the policy of the Government now. To it I still adhere.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking leave to move the adjournment of the House at the evening sitting on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely—"To draw attention to the statement made by the Prime Minister that the question of colonial preference will be submitted to the Colonial Conference in 1906"—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said that, Sir.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: "May be submitted to the Colonial Conference in 1906 before the country has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon."
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had the support of the requisite number of Members, but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,
  The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until this Evening's Sitting.

NEW BILL.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Acts, 1881 and 1892," presented by Mr. Gerald Balfour; supported by Mr. Grant Lawson; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]

  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE AGREEMENT).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3rd May], "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Agreement of the 2nd day of February, 1905, between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company, and to report whether it is desirable in the public interest that the Agreement should become binding."—(Lord Stanley.)
  Question again proposed.
  MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY (Devonport) rose to propose the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper. He was not objecting to the appointment of this Committee, but his point was that to use the words of his Amendment, "having regard to the public statement of the Postmaster-General that under no circumstances can any alterations be made in the agreement with the Telephone

  991
  Company to which he has given his assent, this House fails to see the necessity for the appointment of a Committee to consider it."
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I may point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Amendment will not be in order. It is a direct negative, but he will be at liberty to make his speech.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid his objection was that while he considered it necessary that there should be a Parliamentary Committee, he objected to it being appointed with truncated powers, to it not having a free hand, and to it receiving in advance instructions from the noble Lord that it must either accept or reject this agreement. In view of the past experience the House had had, and in view of the ill effects of all the various previous agreements, he did not think that was a position which Parliament would desire to acquiesce in, and he felt he was justified in that view, because there was overwhelming evidence to show that during the whole time agreements had from time to time been arrived at by successive Postmasters-General, the House of Commons had had no opportunity of genuinely considering those agreements, otherwise much money would have been saved to the nation, and they would have had an efficient and adequate telephone system at much cheaper rates than they had now. This agreement completed an operation, part of which had already been carried out. The agreement of 1901 dealt with the buying up of the London plant—the London exchange area—and this agreement proposed to complete the operation by buying up the plant of the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it went beyond that. It really included the purchase of the buildings in the London area which were not included in the 1901 agreement.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): Yes, I think that is so.
  MR. KEARLEYcontinuing, said they had this important fact, that the 1901 agreement provided for the purchase of the London plant, and now in 1905 they had an agreement which contemplated
  992
  the purchase of the whole of the plant of the United Kingdom, plus the buildings in London, which in itself meant a very large sum. It was, therefore, more necessary now than ever before that Parliament should consider with the greatest care what was going to happen under this agreement. Yet the Committee which it was proposed to appoint was to have its power restricted at this important moment. It was not treating Parliament in the way it had a right to expect to be treated. They were a deliberative body, and the noble Lord had no right whatever to say to a Committee—"Here is this agreement, take it upstairs and consider it; if you do not like it reject it; if you think you can accept it, do accept it, but you are not to make a single suggestion by way of amendment, because if you do that you will be going beyond your powers." There was another point. Supposing this Committee went to work and its deliberations occupied a long time. Supposing it did not come to some decision before the end of the session. The right hon. Gentleman told them the agreement would then come into force whether the Committee came to a decision or not. That was a most astonishing position to put Parliament in. They could not urge at this moment that there was any urgency, because the purchase agreement would not really become effective until the expiration of the licence of the National Telephone Company in 1911, so that there were six solid years in front of them, during which they ought to have an opportunity of considering this in all its bearings. This Committee, when appointed, ought to have a free hand.
  Let them consider for a moment the effect of the various agreements come to between different Postmasters-General and various telephone companies. He would endeavour to review these agreements in chronological order, so that the House might appreciate the point he was endeavouring to make. Every one of these agreements, without a single exception, had had this effect, that it had worsened the national interests and bettered the interests of the telephone company. No single Postmaster-General had conserved the national interest; on

  993
  the contrary, every agreement that had been made had acted definitely to the benefit of the telephone companies.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not think the hon. Gentleman will be entitled to go into criticism of the agreements themselves. The question before the House is whether the Committee shall be appointed to consider that question, and he is now anticipating the work of the Committee.
  MR. KEARLEYpointed out that the Committee was proposed to be appointed to deal with a particular agreement. His argument was directed towards this. If the Government put a limit on its powers, the Committee would not have the full opportunity of doing justice to the national interest, and he was using, as an illustration, what had happened in regard to previous agreements. He proposed to point out that the effect in the past of not submitting these agreements genuinely to Parliament had been bad and hurtful to the national interests.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That would be a good argument for sending this agreement to a Committee, and the hon. Member is entitled to do that.
  MR. KEARLEYcontinued that his argument was that the powers given to the Committee were too restricted. He had not the faintest objection to the appointment of the Committee. He thought, indeed, that a Committee should be appointed and he welcomed this appointment. He would next review what had happened under these various agreements which had been entered into on this matter, and which had not been genuinely submitted to Parliament. The telephone system of this country was not one of Very long standing; it was only about twenty-five years old. In 1880 the first real telephone company was formed, the United Telephone Company. In 1880 the Postmaster-General, as representing the Government, took action against the United Telephone Company, and it was successfully maintained in the Courts of Law that the telephone was really a telegraph, and consequently the
  994
  use of this discovery was prohibited by the Courts. He mentioned that to show to the House what a lack of concern for the national interests had been displayed by the Government, because, after having achieved that success in the Courts of Law, the Postmaster-General, instead of taking over the business and operating it in the interest of the country, entered into an agreement, with the United Telephone Company and granted them a licence for thirty years, the licence which expired in 1911, and the only consideration he got was that the Post Office should receive a royalty of 10 per cent. Now, in 1884 Mr. Fawcett, who was then Postmaster-General, announced that the policy of the Government was that there should be free competition in the telephone business, and the result was that as many as fifteen or twenty rival companies sprang into existence; but in 1901 the patent under which the telephone system was then being worked expired. That brought them down to the next agreement of 1892, the most fatal agreement into which this country entered, and he wanted to direct the special attention of the House to it. They had made a point of free competition, but under the agreement of 1892 there was created an absolutely entrenched monopoly. It was put in an unassailable position, and the Government aided and abetted that monopoly in swallowing up its rivals, and it further enabled it to make whatever charges it liked without any obligations as to supply except that it could supply where it chose. There were no terms as to the dividend to be paid, and the company did pay as much as 40 per cent., although it had been the practice, to limit dividends for gas and other undertakings. The Government also secured for the company the control of the streets. It was the Post Office itself that gave the telephone company the control of the streets.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: That is not so.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that later on he would have something to say about the right hon. Gentleman's share in these transactions. He repeated that the

  995
  agreement of 1892 wrenched away from the local authorities the power they had over the telephone company in regard to the streets.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must come to the point. He is now fourteen years back; he must come a little more up to modern date. The House cannot go into an elaborate discussion. The question before the House is simply whether or not it shall appoint a Committee to consider this last agreement, and I shall have to stop the hon. Gentleman if he persists in his present course.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the powers of this proposed Committee were restricted, and he was endeavouring to show that by restricting those powers there would be brought about a similar state of things to that from which the country was suffering now. Under the 1892 agreement, the Government agreed to purchase the trunk lines, to supply trunk lines as they might be required, and empowered the telephone company to make exchanges with various post offices throughout the country. The obligation upon the Government to construct trunk lines on behalf of the telephone company was a tremendous backing, and it was not to be wondered at that the company succeeded in swallowing up all rival competition. In evidence of that, he might say that, although prior to the agreement the capital of the company was little more than £750,000, yet within two years it had grown to £4,000,000, much of which consisted of "watered" capital.
  How had Parliament been treated in this matter? His argument was that if Parliament had been taken fully into consultation much that had happened would not have occurred. The dissolution in 1892 took place at the end of June. It was not a sudden dissolution. It had been hailed from the housetops for a month or six weeks before it took place. During the last week in May a Treasury Minute was issued describing the proposals which were to be included in the agreement of 1892. A Bill was introduced and instantly got its Second Reading, and in the first week of June was referred to a Committee upstairs.
  996
  Ten days after the reference, the Select Committee reported that the responsibility for the details of the agreement must rest with the Government, but they thought that the agreement should be laid before Parliament. He thought every Member would agree that that Report bore the impression of the matters not having been considered seriously. It was a hurried transaction in a hurried Committee; there was no real Parliamentary consideration of the agreement, otherwise such an agreement would not have passed and the country would not have been saddled with the conditions of to-day. On August 11th, after the Government had been defeated at the polls, and on the very night of the division on the Asquith Amendment, which resulted in the eviction of the Government, the then Postmaster-General signed the agreement. He submitted that that was not a genuine consultation of the wishes of Parliament.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The agreement had been most fully explained at the Table, not only by myself, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. KEARLEY: said he had seen many Ministers fully explain agreements at the Table after midnight, with perhaps half-a-dozen Members in the House. What he was urging was that an agreement of such far-reaching importance should be genuinely considered by a Committe upstairs without any fettering of its powers. But that was not what happened. What was the hurry in signing the agreement on August 11th? The Asquith Amendment that night brought the Government to an end. Many Members considered then, and had considered ever since, that it was a very doubtful transaction indeed. It was contested in this House by Sir John Lubbock and in the House of Lords by Lord Hobhouse, and it was to prevent a repetition of that sort of thing that he was urging that this Committee should be given untrammelled and unrestricted powers to deal with the present agreement. As a result of the 1892 agreement, there had been shackled upon the country this telephone monopoly with its inefficient, inadequate, outrageously dear system. London had had to bear the

  997
  brunt of the burden, and had been exploited to the extent of 75 per cent. more in charges than any other part of the country. The natural outcome, of that agreement was a great agitation throughout the country, and when the new Government came in a new Committee was moved for. The Committee was duly appointed, and it was in the midst of its deliberations when another dissolution came. It reported to the House that it had not had time to complete its investigation and that it hoped to be reappointed in the next session. It never was reappointed, and perhaps the noble Lord would explain why it was never reappointed.
  LORD STANLEY: I was a member of the original Committee which came to an end—the 1895 Committee—and there was another Committee appointed. That really continued the work, although it was not reappointed as soon as we came in.
  MR. KEARLEYsubmitted that the Committee was not reappointed at all in the true sense of the word. No Committee was appointed until 1898. The agitation continued in the country, and many municipalities were taking steps with the idea of getting licences, because they were able to prove that they could really give a telephone service at a much lower rate. Some of them estimated that they could give the full benefit of unlimited user at five guineas an instrument, and London sent in figures to the Postmaster General showing that they could give unlimited user at £10. As a result of that persistent agitation another Committee was appointed in 1898, over which the late Mr. Hanbury presided. Everybody regarded Mr. Hanbury as a thoroughly capable, fearless and good business man, and many Members of the Opposition held that he had not had the recognition which his great abilities deserved. The Committee recommended—
  "After reviewing the whole of the evidence, your Committee is strongly of opinion that general, immediate and effective competition by either the Post Office or the local authorities is necessary, and considers that a really efficient Post Office service affords the best means of securing such competition."
  There is no doubt about that recommendation. It was clear, definite, and
  998
  emphatic. What happened? The 1901 agreement proceeded from the recommendation of that Committee, and all the brave talk about general and effective competition vanished into thin air. Mr. Hanbury himself was shunted to the Board of Agriculture.
  LORD STANLEY: Did he not speak on the subject?
  MR. KEARLEY: Yes, he spoke on it He accused me personally of objecting to the proposals because I wanted to get a telephone for my own selfish interests on the cheap. That was the sort of criticism that the late Mr. Hanbury directed against certain hon. Members at that particular time. The agreement of 1901 dealt with the purchase of the London plant. The Post Office itself decided to start competition, and laid down the condition that there should be free inter-communication between the two systems forthwith. But there was no real competition at all. The Post Office entered into a sort of silent partnership with this huge monopoly, and instead of the general and effective competition recommended by the Committee they made an agreement for uniformity of rates. That was to say, they bolstered up and continued rates that were already 50 percent. higher than the necessities justified. That was the outcome of the brave recommendations of the Committee upstairs. The Post Office bolstered up the rates to the detriment of the national interest and to the great strengthening of the telephone monopoly. In the prelude to the proposed new agreement, the noble Lord stated that the House had expressed its approval of the 1901 agreement after full discussion. That was true as far as it went in a Parliamentary sense. But would the noble Lord deny that that agreement was carried on pure Party lines?
  LORD STANLEY: Did the hon. Member ever know an Amendment to the Address on which the Party Whips were not appointed?
  MR. KEARLEY: This was not an Amendment to the Address.
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, it was an Amendment to the Address.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he was not sure, but it did not matter. The fact remained that that important agreement was not left to the freewill of the House. The noble Lord's statement supported that. But why should an important question like that have been dealt with on the Address? Why was not a Committee appointed and an opportunity given, as he wished to see done now, for full, free, and untrammelled consideration of the question; with power to move Amendments to the agreement if necessary? That was the point he was now making. He submitted that the Committee about to be appointed should be free to deal with the 1905 agreement, and to amend it if it thought fit. It had no such power at present. It was prevented from so doing. It could reject or accept the agreement, but if it came to neither determination before the end of August the agreement would come into force without any expression of opinion at all. That was surely not fair. There were so many important points in the agreement, and yet this was the Last opportunity that would be afforded to Parliament to consider the question at all.
  LORD STANLEY: No.
  MR. KEARLEY: Oh, yes.
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member has no right to say that. The hon. Member has made a statement which is contrary to the fact. The Prime Minister has distinctly said that there will be an opportunity given in the House of considering this agreement.
  MR. LOUGH: The Committee's Report.
  LORD STANLEY: No; this agreement.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the noble Lord would have done much better if he had allowed him to explain. What he meant by the last opportunity was that this was the last time they would be able to consider this agreement.
  1000
  Did the noble Lord not see that his intervention was rather premature.
  LORD STANLEY: No.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that there were none so blind as those who would not see. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh !"] This was the last occasion on which it could come before Parliament because this completed the operation, and, when this agreement was got through Parliament sanctioned the buying up of everything belonging to the National Telephone Company. He never suggested that there would be no further opportunity for debating this question. He was aware that the noble Lord had stated that there would be another opportunity, but that was not the point. His point was that this discussion closed the contract, and therefore it was more than necessary that the Committee before which this agreement was going to be considered should have powers to amend it if necessary. What could be the object of purchase? Obviously to give the country an improved service and a lower rate. If the Post Office had no idea of doing that then the Government had far better leave this monopoly in its present position. The object must therefore be to give the country an improved service and lower rates. He wanted to know if the Government were in a position to do that. Upon the price they paid and the conditions they made would depend the future rates for the telephone service. If they made a bad bargain—and they certainly would if this Committee had not power to amend the agreement—either the existing rates would continue, or, upon the instigation of the Treasury, the rates would be reduced. He thought the Treasury would take good care to see that such rates were charged as would pay interest and sinking fund on the amount of the purchase money. It was to save the House from once more making a bad bargain that he was anxious that the Committee upstairs should have free and unrestricted power to deal with this matter, and that was the reason why he had put down the Amendment on the Paper which had been ruled out of order. He apologised to the House for entering so fully into this historical survey of the

  1001
  question, but he had done so because it was impossible for him to put the case clearly before the House without entering into these various agreements.
  MR. TENNANTsaid there were one or two things upon which he did not feel perfectly certain. One of them was with regard to the interruption which had just been made by the noble Lord the Postmaster-General. He wished to ask him what opportunity would be given to this House to discuss the agreement between himself as Postmaster-General and the National Telephone. Company beyond the debate which they were having to-day? The second Question which he wished to put to the noble Lord was what powers would the Committee which they were about to appoint have in regard to this agreement? He thought he should have the noble Lord's concurrence when he said that he thought it was of great importance that this Committee should have powers to send not only for persons, papers and records, but should also have power to say whether Clause 7 or Clause 8 or Sub-clause B was a good or wise proceeding. In other words, he thought it was necessary the Committee should have the power of making Amendments. He thought it of great importance that power should be given to this Committee not only to say that they would take this agreement en bloc, but that they should be able to say whether they disapproved of this section or that sub-section, and generally to amend it if they thought necessary. What he felt more strongly was that this was a question of abstract justice, and he meant by that the justice of the Post Office towards the National Telephone Company's employees. He appealed to the House on grounds of justice. These women and others had been employed in the service of the National Telephone Company for a long time, and they had put their lives and training into its service. In other words, they had put their capital into this particular business because they had had to be well educated for their position. What did he read? He read in Clause 8, Sub-clause 1, that it was probable that The Postmaster-General would be prepared to take into his service a considerable
  1002
  number of the employees, but that he was not prepared to accept any obligation on this score, and he left the matter to the National Telephone Company. He knew that this company had paid very large dividends, but he was not aware that they had overpaid their staff. He knew there had been general complaints that they had not done this. He thought it was very hard lines upon these women who had put all their training and capital into this business that they should not be taken over.
  LORD STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that I accept the second Amendment on the Paper.
  MR. TENNANTsaid he was not aware of it, and he was very glad that the noble Lord had assured the House on this point. After that assurance there was no need for him to trouble the House further.
  MR. YOXALLsaid he was glad the noble Lord had seen his way to accept the second Amendment on the Paper, but he wished to ask him one or two further Questions. Supposing the Committee discovered that by the terms of the agreement the interests of the employees had not been fully considered and safeguarded, what power would a Committee of this House have in the matter? Would they be able to strike out words and insert others in order to safeguard the interests of the men and women concerned? He believed there were no less than 13,000 persons employed by the National Telephone Company, but at any rate there were a great number. He wished to know definitely would the Committee be able to insert in the draft agreement words to give these employees protection for their service and some guarantee for a continuance of their employment? Would the Committee be obliged either to reject this agreement altogether or take it as a whole? Would the noble Lord be able to sign the agreement just as he pleased, no matter what the opinion of the Committee might be? If so what was the use of appointing this Committee at all? He had no doubt that he intended to do the utmost he could to secure employment for these employees, but he

  1003
  wanted to know how far this would be possible.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not succeeded in his attempt to hustle the House of Commons in regard to this matter. As a matter of fact, this agreement was practically made in February last, and now it was the 22nd of May, and this was the first occasion they had had an opportunity of even asking a few Questions upon this most important matter. He thought they were indebted to his hon. friend for pressing this matter forward, and for the historical account he had given of the negotiations which had taken place upon this subject between the National Telephone Company and the Post Office. The noble Lord told them that if they did not grant this Committee without any discussion in Government time they would not get any discussion at all, and the agreement would go through. He thought it was a pity he made that statement, because when the Government came to consider the matter, they found that they had to give them this free opportunity, but they still kept the Committee tied up. He was aware that they promised after the Committee had finished its Report that there would be another opportunity for a full discussion in the House. His hon. friend had made a request that this Committee should be left free to get whatever evidence it required in regard to this most important matter, so that the noble Lord, and the Government, and the House of Commons, could pay full attention to any recommendation that was made. He hoped it would not be understood that the Committee must accept every line in the agreement just as it stood, and that it was no use for them taking any other course. That was not the usual method of proceeding in this House. He thought that the Committee should consist of fifteen members. Originally there were only seven, but they had gradually squeezed the noble Lord and he had given consideration to the matter and agreed that the employees should be represented. He believed that these employees would not be worse off when employed by the State than when employed by the company, but that was a
  1004
  question which they would be able to raise in the House. The noble Lord had promised to give that matter his attention, but he thought the Committee should be entirely free and be able to go into everything that was material.
  There were some large questions upon which it would be necessary to give the House more information. The first question which occurred to him was, why did the noble Lord make this agreement now? In 1904 they were anxious to know what the noble Lord was going to do, because it was then possible to have gone into the whole matter and bought out the undertaking of the National Telephone Company; and had the noble Lord done that before June 30th, the Government would have taken over the undertaking in December last. Month after month passed, but the noble Lord came to no agreement, and no notice was given in 1904 to buy out the company. After that time nothing could be done for seven years, and now they had this agreement before them. Now the noble Lord had entered into this arrangement. He wanted to know why he was tying the hands of future Postmasters-General?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not discussing the Motion before the House. He is entering into a discussion upon the agreement, and that is not in order.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he thought there was an understanding assented to by the Prime Minister that in this debate they would be allowed to go into the general question of the agreement. He thought a good deal could be said on the proposal that a Committee should be appointed, but he desired to bow to the ruling. They were in great difficulty with respect to this Motion to appoint a Committee, for none of them wished absolutely to oppose the appointment, but they did want to give reasons why it should be a strong and a perfectly free Committee, able to consider every part of the agreement, and to amend it in any direction they pleased.
  The other point he desired to put was in regard to the interests of the municipalities in this matter. He thought the interests of those municipalities which

  1005
  had set up telephones of their own should be considered, and that the Committee should be able to hear evidence, and to hear what suggestions they had to make. This was not the first agreement that had been made. There were purchase clauses in all the licences granted to municipalities. He thought those municipalities would be very anxious indeed about the terms inserted here. They were much more liberal than in other cases, and especially those of Glasgow, Hull, Ports mouth, and one or two others. They were most anxious to give evidence in regard to the position in which they would be placed if this agreement should be put through, and he thought the House should have an assurance from the Postmaster-General that the evidence which the municipalities desired to tender would be freely received and freely considered. They were placed in great difficulty by the action of the Government because they did not want to oppose the granting of the Committee. Indeed, they did not think that the matter could be rightly disposed of without a Committee, but they objected to the way in which the time had been shortened. The Committee would require to work under pressure. It would have to hurry very much to get its Report ready. On that ground he would ask the Postmaster-General whether a later date than August 3lst could not be adopted for the completion of the contract. It did not seem to him that there was any hurry. He hoped the noble Lord would tell them, in the interest especially of the greatest municipality of the country—
  LORD STANLEY: It does not affect London.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that surely the 1901 agreement was modified by it.
  LORD STANLEY: Not practically.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the matter wanted consideration. In the 1901 agreement there was no obligation to purchase any buildings or any land. [An HON. MEMBER: Order!] He did not think that was out of order. He was only giving reasons why the agreement should be considered without pressure with regard
  1006
  to time, and without limitation of the subjects to be considered. This agreement did modify the agreement of 1901 and brought in other subjects besides the purchase of plant. He thought the noble Lord should consider whether a later date should not be mentioned. At any rate he hoped he would see his way to allow all the evidence to be brought up, and that it would be fully considered, and further that any suggestions made would receive the sympathetic consideration of the Government.
  MR. FIELDsaid he did not desire to detain the House at any length, but he should like to ask the noble Lord what powers the proposed Committee would have in the matter of receiving evidence from the commercial community. If it could not receive such evidence the Report of the Committee would not have the value which otherwise it would have. That was his view, and he hoped the noble Lord would correct him if he was wrong. Recently he took part in a debate as a member of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. In the discussion there was considerable difference of opinion among commercial men as to the telephone agreement. After all it was the commercial community who were most concerned in the telephone service. He was at the annual meeting of the Trades Protection Association in London the other day, and this agreement was discussed. The opinion of the Chambers of Commerce, and of the Trades Protection Association, and commercial men generally, was really the opinion which ought to be taken into account in the settlement of the question, for, after all, it was more a commercial question than anything else. Another point he desired to bring before the noble Lord was this. He had been waited upon by a deputation, and he had received many communications with respect to the staff. Although the time was far distant when the Government would take over the telephones a large number of the staff were very anxious to know how they were going to be circumstanced under the new agreement. It appeared to him that it would be unwise to approve of this agreement without

  1007
  consulting the commercial class, and, after all, Parliament was the representative, or was supposed to be the representative, of the whole community. Undoubtedly the commercial class were precisely the people who used the telephone, and they could give very useful evidence in regard, not alone to the further utility to which the telephone service could be devoted, but also with regard to the way in which this transfer ought to take place, and the terms on which the existing plant could be taken over and utilised. He did not wish to go further into the matter at present. He was obliged to the noble Lord for the concession which he had already made when he accepted a portion of the Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not know whether it was that he misapprehended the meaning of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or whether it was that they misapprehended the character of the Committee, because he noticed repeatedly it was suggested that the Committee should have power to amend the agreement. It was not possible on the part of the Committee to amend the agreement. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] Might he explain to hon. Members that a Committee, whether a Select Committee, or Committee of the Whole House, was a Committee to which the House had committed a definite matter for consideration, and no Committee, not even a Committee of the Whole House, had power to do more than report, to the House for the House's decision. They could not give a Committee of this House absolute powers.
  MR. TENNANT: You give your Select Committees power to alter Private Bills. Is not this the same sort of thing?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Member was perfectly right in regard to Committees on Private Bills. These were judicial bodies, and they had power to come to judicial decisions. But that was not the case with a Select Committee of this sort, or with a Committee of the Whole House, which made alterations in Bills. No doubt their decisions were generally accepted and generally final, but, after all, they might be altered
  1008
  on Report. All that a Committee could do was to report to the House, and upon that Report the House might act as it pleased. It might accept or reject the Report of a Select Committee. It was impossible to conceive that this Committee should have power to amend the agreement. What the Committee was appointed to do was to consider the agreement, and to report whether it was desirable in the public interest that it should become binding as it stood. When the Committee had so reported, it I would be for the House to accept or reject the Report, or differ from the Committee. The House was not bound by the Report of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite seemed to think that the Committee had the power of amending, which it had not. It seemed to have the power of calling any witnesses it pleased on the point it had to consider. Meantime, as he understood the situation—and he believed he understood it rightly—it was this. There had been signed, conditionally he supposed, by the Postmaster-General, what was at this moment an inchoate agreement, and it was only proposed that a Committee—a most proper Committee to be appointed, and he hoped it would be appointed without difficulty—should be appointed to consider whether the agreement should become binding. It seemed to him that the powers of the Committee would be adequate for the purpose for which it was appointed. The terms of reference were sufficient, and if the terms of reference were such as to enable the Committee to cut the agreement into little bits he should think that a very dangerous reference indeed to make to the Committee. He only rose to remove what seemed to him a slight misapprehension as to the functions and powers of the Committee.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid he thought the noble Lord had been misunderstood, and that it was his intention that this Committee, when appointed, should have the agreement sent to it, and that the Committee should have all the powers and privileges which any similar Committee possessed. This House might give the Committee power "to send for persons, papers and records," and if that was so, perhaps the

  1009
  noble Lord would say, if the Committee should report recommending some alteration in the agreement, what position this House would be in then when it considered the Report of the Committee. He thought the noble Lord had always endeavoured to be very fair with the House. He remembered Last year that he raised this question when the Postmaster-General was asking a grant of £3,000,000 to extend the telephones. The noble Lord gave a very definite pledge. He said that he did not wish to be bound with regard to the form, but he pledged himself that the House should have every possible opportunity, so far as he could arrange, for considering the agreement, and that no agreement should be binding on the Government until it received the assent and ratification of the House. That brought him to a very important point. He thought the House was generally agreed that there should be an acquisition of the telephones, and it was merely a question of terms. What the House was concerned in principally was to get the best possible terms, and he asked the noble Lord, if they agreed to the appointment of this Committee, and if it recommended an alteration in the agreement, what position would the House be in in considering the Report of the Committee.
  LORD STANLEYsaid the hon. Member had stated that he had rather left the House in the dark on certain points. He wished now to clear up these matters for the House. He would explain what his position was in the matter. Last year the only obligation he came under was that before the agreement became binding this House should have the opportunity of saying "Yea" or "Nay." He said at the time that he thought probably the best way would be for the House to appoint a small Select Committee which would take evidence and submit their Report to the House. He thought the House could not possibly do otherwise. He thought it was the best way then, and he thought it was the best way now. The House should have an opportunity of saying "Yea" or "Nay" to the agreement. Even if he had the power to limit the powers of the Committee, it would be absolutely against his intention to do so.
  1010
  He wished the Committee to be a Select Committee, on exactly the same terms as every other Select Committee. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION benches: That is all we want.] He desired it to make the fullest inquiry that might be necessary and then report to the House. His hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn had put the case better than he could-viz., it was not in the power of the Committee to alter the agreement. They might make recommendations if they liked; and these recommendations would come up to the House in the same way as the Report of any Committee, and then the House would have to consider whether or not these recommendations, if adopted, vitiated the agreement. For his part he would have to consider whether he could go on, in view of the recommendations, with the agreement, seeing it could only be accepted as a whole. If hon. Members had been under a misunderstanding, he apologised.
  The hon. Member for Islington asked why an agreement should be now come to. Everybody wished to see the matter brought to a satisfactory conclusion. They did not wish in 1911 a hiatus with no telephone company, and that would be obviated if this agreement was ratified at once. At the present moment a great deal of the complaint against the National Telephone Company was due to the fact that, apart from London, there was no interchangeability between the two systems. A message on the Post Office system could not be taken for the National Telephone system, and vice versa. The instant this agreement came into operation that would cease; and as a business matter that should appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  The hon. Member for Rugby, he thought, was under some misapprehension as to how far this agreement would affect the employees of the National Telephone Company. What he had endeavoured to secure in the agreement was that the rights of the National Telephone Company's employees should be satisfactorily adjusted up to the time they became Post Office servants. It could be no part of the agreement between the National Telephone Company and the Post Office as to what the Post Office should do

  1011
  with these employees after the undertaking was transferred. It was impossible five or six years beforehand to say whether A., B., or C. would be efficient at a particular date; but he believed that every single man and woman now employed by the National Telephone Company, who was certified by those best able to judge, viz., their superiors, to be efficient in 1911, would be taken over, and necessarily taken over. He pledged himself and his successors to take over the bulk of these employees, but not every individual.
  MR. TENNANTsaid that the noble Lord had said that if the Committee recommended Amendments to the agreement, these would be considered by the House; but the noble Lord had not said whether it would be in his power to say whether any particular Amendment should be adopted.
  LORD STANLEYsaid that that would be quite impossible. He had signed a particular agreement and could not alter it. If the House said that, in view of the recommendations of the Committee, they disapproved of the agreement as a whole, the agreement would drop to the ground.
  MR. BLAKEsaid there was no doubt that the Committee had no power to make Amendments to the agreement. They could consider the whole agreement and might say what were its good and its bad points, and how the latter could be improved. He was very suspicious of some of the terms of the purchase agreement, having regard to what took place at the meeting of the National Telephone Company. However, the noble Lord the Postmaster-General had clearly stated on a former occasion, and had reaffirmed it that day, that the agreement would not become binding unless the House ratified it. But that was not altogether carried out by the last clause of the agreement, and it was important that the discussion should not come to a close without a distinct understanding that, notwithstanding the difficulties the last clause might produce, the Government would carry out the spirit of the undertaking of the noble Lord.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he gave the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that the House should have an opportunity of saying "Yea" or "Nay" to the agreement before it became operative.
  MR. BLAKEsaid that that was so far satisfactory; but he would point out that the agreement would become binding on August 31st if not disapproved of by Parliament before that date. He supposed by "Parliament," the House of Commons was meant.
  LORD STANLEY: Oh! yes.
  *SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLEsaid that this was an agreement between two parties; not with the Post Office alone, but between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company. The right hon Member for Wolver-hampton, who was chairman of the National Telephone Company, he thought should have been in his place, and might have been appealed to by the hon. Member for Islington quite as fairly as the Postmaster-General had been appealed to as to any change in the time in which the agreement was lo come into operation.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that those on his side of the House were anxious that the House should have a full and free opportunity of deciding upon the policy of the noble Lord in entering on this agreement and the terms upon which that policy was to be carried out. In view of the past history of this company it was necessary that, before a decision was finally come to, the negotiations for the agreement should be discussed in the full light of day. He understood that the noble Lord was now willing to allow suggestions to be made by the Committee.
  LORD STANLEY: I always was.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he was very glad to hear it. He understood that the policy of the noble Lord was that the Committee could say "Yea" or "Nay" to the agreement; that the Committee were empowered to call witnesses in regard to certain portions of the agreement; and

  1013
  that if, in the course of their investigations, it appeared to them that Amendments ought to be made to it, they were powerless to make those Amendments.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he had distinctly stated that the Committee could recommend alterations, and that that was all the Committee could do.
  MR. DALZIELsaid they were always glad to have something given by the Minister in charge of a Bill which was worth having, but he was not going to take something from the noble Lord after a Committee had sat which would be worth nothing whatever. The question was whether it was desirable, in the public interest, that this agreement should be sanctioned. There was no suggestion here about new proposals or fresh terms, or anything of that kind. The one point on which the Committee was to give judgment was not whether or not this Agreement should be altered, but to say "Aye" or "Nay" to the agreement. What was the Motion that would be put before the House? It was that the Select Committee's Report be adopted, so that when this agreement came back to the House the House would not have any authority to alter a single stop or comma in it. The noble Lord, who made this agreement on behalf of the Government, would make it a vote of confidence in himself, which would mean that they could not give a vote which would at all imperil the continuance, so long as his Party was in power, of his tenure at the Post Office.
  When the proposal was made last year to send this agreement to a Select Committee, he spoke immediately after the noble Lord, and assented to it, because he thought the Committee would then investigate the whole matter before a definite decision was arrived at. But now, after it came back from the Select Committee, every Member of the House would be denied the opportunity of making any Amendment to the agreement, because the noble Lord had said they must take it or leave it, for the recommendations which the Select Committee would make to the noble Lord would not give sufficient opportunity to the House to discuss it. In a matter of this kind the public thought that the immense
  1014
  Parliamentary influence of the persons involved in an agreement of this kind allowed them to make terms which ought to be very fully and completely inquired into, and the House, as the matter at present stood, had not sufficient opportunity to do that. In the ordinary acceptation of the word "Select Committee," this House would imagine that such a Committee would examine into both sides of the argument and make a Report; that they would call witnesses as to the merits and demerits of the proposal contained in the Bill, and would be able to alter the Bill or they would be able to present a Report without looking at the Bill at all. Then there was a Select Committee to which a Bill might be referred, which could alter every clause of the Bill if they chose, so that it did not do for the hon. Member for King's Lynn to say they could not appoint a Committee to deal with this agreement in any way. This House could give a Select Committee power to deal with any one of the clauses or with the whole of the clauses of this agreement exactly in the same way as reference might be given to a Select Committee to deal with any Bill.
  A further reason why they should be careful was that the whole agreement was based upon what was called the tramways arrangement, it being altogether forgotten that the tramways had a continued monopoly and that this telephone company had to stop on acertain date. So that there was and could not be any comparison whatever. Now what he desired to come to was this, the noble Lord apparently was willing to listen to suggestions from the Select Committee. He was willing that this agreement should go to the Select Committee and that any suggestions they made should be considered in the House. In his opinion that would be a Parliamentary procedure for which there was no precedent whatever. There was no precedent for a Committee making suggestions as to Amendments and making no Amendments. He wished the noble Lord to keep, an open mind upon this matter and not to make it a matter of confidence, a condition of things which would leave them in a very much freer position than they were at present. Therefore he proposed

  1015
  to add after the word "agreement" the words "with such Amendments if any as may be deemed expedient." It might be that no Amendments would be required at all, but what was the use of all this? What was the use of having a Select Committee to strengthen the right hon. Gentleman as to his policy if that Select Committee was not to be allowed to alter or amend any particular clause in the agreement? He might have perfect confidence in the agreement he had made, but even then he would be consoled by the fact that he would have a majority of his supporters upon the Committee. Therefore he submitted that the noble Lord ought to be able to accept this Amendment. Such a thing would add great force to the recommendations of the Committee, and he firmly believed it would save much time when the recommendations came back to the House. He asked the noble Lord to accept this Amendment, which involved a very important question of policy. As they stood to-day no one would be satisfied that sending the agreement to a Select Committee would be of any use whatever without power being given to that Committee to alter it. To send it to a Select Committee without such power as that would be a farce, and therefore he appealed with confidence to the noble Lord to accept his Amendment and shorten the discussion. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 5, after the word 'agreement,' to insert the words' with such Amendments, if any, as may be deemed expedient.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DILLONsaid it appeared to him that there was a grave doubt whether, under the terms of reference as they stood, it would be in the power of the Chairman of this Committee to carry out the pledges of the noble Lord. They had all heard those pledges, and, so far as he was concerned, with one exception, they were satisfactory. But the moment the Committee was set up the power of the noble Lord to redeem his pledges was gone. He had no power over
  1016
  the Committee, and supposing the Committee proceeded, in pursuance of the pledges the noble Lord had given, to consider the suggestions made by the Committee in their recommendations, the Chairman of the Committee might say the terms of reference did not contemplate any Amendment and therefore they were out of order. Where was the noble Lord then? He would be under pledges to this House, but his power to redeem those pledges would be absolutely gone, and he would find himself in this House in the position of a person who is denied the facility to redeem pledges which he has made with the best will in the world, and there would be no remedy. The last clause of the agreement would come into force because the House of Commons would be asked to decide this matter without hearing those recommendations which the Committee wished, but were not allowed to make, and if they did not decide then the agreement would come into force after August 31st whether they sanctioned it or not. Therefore it was necessary to see whether the terms of reference made it binding on the Chairman of the Committee to carry out the pledges given by the noble Lord. That was his first point, and the words of his hon. friend below him had that for their object.
  He passed to another point of some importance in regard to which one pledge of the noble Lord did not satisfy him. What the Committee was called upon to do under the terms of the reference was to recommend alterations in this agreement. He did not agree with his hon. friend below him on one point, and he did agree with the noble Lord that it would be against all precedent to give, if it were possible to give, to a Committee upstairs the power of altering this agreement. The thing was not practicable, because an agreement was an agreement between two parties, and the moment the Committee upstairs altered the agreement then that agreement was at an end, because unless the other party agreed to the alterations it was no longer the agreement that was entered into. Therefore, the demand to allow the Committee upstairs to alter this agree-was an impossible demand. What they wanted was this: They wanted full

  1017
  power, and they wanted it made clear in the terms of reference given to the Committee, to recommend alterations in the agreement.
  That brought him to his second point, where he disagreed with the noble Lord. He did not think the Committee ought to be compelled by the wording of the reference to report whether "on the balance" they thought this agreement ought to be accepted or not. He objected to that. He thought they ought to be allowed to report in any of three ways, either whether "on the balance" the agreement ought to be annulled, or that it ought to be accepted in the public interest, or they ought to be allowed to make an open Report saying that, in event of certain alterations being made which they recommended, they would recommend that the agreement be accepted. Under the terms of reference as they now stood they would not be allowed to do that. Why should not they be allowed to make such a Report, because that was the Report which he thought they ought to be allowed to make, namely, that they were in favour of the agreement being made with the telephone company in the public interest, but not on the terms of the present agreement. Then the agreement would be altered and would go back in that form to the telephone company and the telephone company, with all the chances before them, would agree to accept the modifications suggested by this House, or go a long way in that direction. Why, then, should the Government tie up the hands of the Committee, and thus give warnin to the telephone company that they only had to stand firm to get what they wanted. He claimed that the terms of reference were most skilfully drawn so as to turn the proceedings of the Committee into an absolute mockery, because the Committee of the House of Commons, after the recommendations of the Select Committee were brought before them, were tied to two great alternatives, either to destroy the agreement altogether, or to accept it with all its faults. The Committee might hesitate greatly in the public interest, and say, "We will accept it;" but, on the other hand, were they to tell the Committee to devote weeks of labour; to examine
  1018
  witnesses with great expense; to make a series of recommendations, but to wind up their inquiry by the adoption of the agreement, and thereby stultify themselves? Because, did any body suppose that the telephone company, with such a point in their hands, would ever take the trouble to read over the recommendations of the Committee under such circumstances?
  They were engaged on a very important discussion which might mean millions to the public of this country. These great contracts were very serious matters. He did not profess to know anything about this matter, and it was not in the least necessary that he should know anything about it, but it was a very technical matter, and the House ought to proceed cautiously because of that fact, and because it involved a question of millions. He had heard it stated that if this matter were carefully considered, and the principles, even of the tramways terms, applied strictly to this bargain, that the telephone company would get £2,000,000 less for their interest. He did not know if that was true, but, in any case, the House ought to be very careful in regard to anything in respect to which such a statement could be made, and it should do its best to get the best terms possible. He did not blame the noble Lord, because he had done the best according to his judgment; all he said was that the House should have a word in the matter; but, because the noble Lord had made what he thought to be the best terms possible, he had drawn the terms of reference in such a way as to make the labours of the Committee absolutely nugatory. He suggested that the noble Lord should leave it open to the Committee to send down to the House what he called an open Report to the effect, if they held that opinion, that they considered it extremely desirable in the interests of the public service that the telephones should be bought up, and that on certain lines and terms which they suggested they would agree to the purchase. But if those terms were not made then they agreed to make no recommendations.
  SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid he personally knew nothing about this matter, but he had noticed in the papers first on one day that the contract between the Government and the telephone company had been made, and then that the shares of the telephone company had gone up. Then a day or two afterwards that statement was contradicted and it was said that the shares had gone down. The hon. Baronet on the other side of the House had informed the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton was the chairman of the telephone company. That was news to him, but the hon. Baronet then complained of the absence of the right hon. Gentlemen in this debate. He should have considered it would have been in very bad taste if the right hon. Gentleman had been in his place on this occasion, and he commended him, if he were connected with this company in any way, upon his absence that afternoon. It would have been very much better if others had also been absent. He had heard certain insinuations with regard to this matter and he called them most unworthy insinuations, because he declined to believe that any Gentleman in this House had acted in this matter in any way unworthy of the best interests of the State. It seemed to him that this Amendment might be withdrawn if the noble Lord would agree to a suggestion which he ventured to make. It was perfectly clear to any business man that the terms which had been entered into could not be varied by any Committee upstairs. It was quite clear that it was within the province of that Committee to make alterations in this provisional agreement which would not be in any way binding on the Telephone Company. Both sides must agree, before it could be a binding agreement, but it did seem to him that the difficulty might be easily got over. Let them assume that this Committee recommended that the noble Lord should see the telephone company and made certain suggestions; the noble Lord should consider those suggestions, and after the Committee had reported, place himself in communication with the telephone company, and if he was unable to obtain any modification in this provisional agreement, he should
  1020
  give a pledge to this House that the agreement should not become binding on August 29th, but that the House should have an opportunity of discussing this matter.
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Baronet could not have been in the House when I was speaking, for what he has asked for I have already offered.
  SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid he did not understand the noble Lord to give such an undertaking as that, but if he had done so he was satisfied.
  LORD STANLEYhere interjected a remark which was not heard in the gallery.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had taken part in a good many discussions in connection with this agreement with respect to the telephone company. He had opposed all these agreements because it always appeared to him that for some reason or other the company always got the best of the public and the Post Office. But if the noble Lord would accept the suggestion of his hon. friend he thought this agreement would be most desirable and it would be very desirable to see it carried out. The hon. Member for Mayo pointed out that the noble Lord was not entirely free in this matter. They had not only to deal with the noble Lord but also with the telephone company itself. The company had its agreement, a most unfair agreement, he thought, so far as they Were concerned. It was to continue its existence until 1911 and then it was to be bought under certain conditions. It was admitted that it was injurious to the public that the telephone company should act under that agreement until the year 1911, and therefore he thought it was most desirable that they should come to some arrangement with the company to enable the service to be freer before then than it was at present. His hon. friend had proposed this Amendment. The words were as follows, "With such Amendments, if any, as may be deemed expedient." He presumed his hon. friend meant that he would have the agreement

  1021
  taken clause by clause, and that Amendments should be moved one by one on those clauses.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he recognised that as the agreement was a provisional one it might be inconvenient to take it clause by clause, and he would alter his Amendment by making it "suggested Amendments."
  LORD STANLEY: I could not accept that.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the question was that Amendments might have to be taken on the agreement itself, and he did not see how that would be possible or how it could be dealt with in the agreement itself, and he did not see how his hon. friend could deal with the matter at all by way of suggested Amendments. The Committee would look into the matter and discuss it, and then issue their Report, and then what would be done would be to move Amendments in this House on the Report itself. He thought it could be done under the Motion itself. But if there was any doubt on the matter, then he suggested to the noble Lord that if he thought it might be desirable that any of the recommendations should come before the House as the recommendations of the Committee, they might add these words, or words in this form, "either in its accepted form or in any form in which it is suggested by the Committee." That was the ground of objection.
  LORD STANLEY: It is the same thing.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid it was not quite the same thing. The House would have to receive the Report, and, assuming there were certain suggested alterations, the noble Lord would have to consider those suggested alterations himself, and if he were of opinion that it was desirable that they should be made, he would go to the company and say, "You hold us perfectly fast; you may say that I have made a provisional agreement subject to ratification by the House; but I think the suggested alterations are sound, and I submit it to you whether in your own
  1022
  interest, and in the interest of the public, it would not be desirable that you should; give your assent to them." But as the agreement stood, the company could refuse its assent; and he wanted to make it as easy as possible for the noble Lord, to whom he thought the House owed a debt of gratitude for the agreement he had come to. The company had on previous occasions been very difficult to deal with; it had always been in favour of its pound of flesh, and it had the power now to stand up for and to insist on its pound of flesh, much to the harm of the country, until the year 1911. He gathered that the noble Lord wished the Committee to be able to make recommendations; that being so, there being many Members on that side of the House who did not think it would be possible under the present wording of the Motion, he hoped the noble Lord would accept such words as he had read out, or words tantamount to them, so as to make the matter clear.
  LORD STANLEYdesired to make his position perfectly clear. As representing the Post Office he had made the best agreement that he possibly could—in his own opinion at all events—in the interests of the country, and he believed that that agreement was the utmost that they could expect, but he wished to be fortified with the opinion of a Select Committee of the House. The proposed Select Committee had the full powers which appertained to every Select Committee; it would be able to declare what its opinion of the agreement was, also in what part, if any it thought the agreement defective. That power belonged to every Select Committee and he was neither adding to nor taking away from it. When the Committee had considered the question it would make its recommendation as to whether in the best interests of the country the House should accept the agreement or not, giving its reasons. He had not the slightest pride in this matter, and if he found that his judgment had been wrong, and if the Committee found that he had been wrong, he would not hesitate to say so to the House of Commons. He would then let the agreement drop, as he could do by means of a vote of the House of Commons, and Commence de novo with a new agreement.

  1023
  He really thought that that was all the House of Commons ought to ask him to do. Personally, he believed that the Committee would find that this agreement was in the best interests of the country, and he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid the noble Lord had just stated that this Committee would have full powers, but they on that side of the House were afraid that those powers were somewhat circumscribed by the terms of the reference.
  LORD STANLEY: No.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid that was where the difference of opinion came in, and he suggested, in order to make it clear that the Committee had full power to consider the whole matter, that the noble Lord should strike out the words after "report" in order to insert, "as to any recommendations thereon." That preserved the attitude of the noble Lord, and it would also meet the wishes of hon. Members on that side of the House.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he would not be surprised if they were at a complete agreement, but they on that side of the House felt, whether rightly or wrongly, that if the reference was maintained in its present wording the Committee would or might be restrained from making a full examination of the subjects which this agreement raised. They only wanted to be sure that the Committee would be quite free to examine the whole question and to make whatever Report it pleased, and he thought that if from the end of the reference there had been omitted the words "and to report whether it is desirable in the public interest that the agreement should become binding," the matter would have been nearly all right.
  MR. DILLON: "To report thereon" simply.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that if the words had been "To consider and report on the proposed agreement" they would have taken no objection at all. Ultimately the House of Commons would have to decide this matter; but they would not have the necessary information to enable them to give a full judgment upon the
  1024
  question unless the Committee was left perfectly free. They wanted the Committee to examine the agreement from every standpoint, and to look at the telephone question from every standpoint, and then to make a wide and open Report. If the noble Lord would make the matter entirely open they would be satisfied, and the debate would come to an end.
  LORD STANLEYsaid that if the present Amendment were withdrawn, and the House would agree to it, he would be willing to insert words so that the reference should read, "and to report as to any recommendations thereon and whether it is desirable in the public interest that the agreement should become binding." That would be inserting the the words suggested by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. For his own satisfaction he desired the Committee to say whether they considered it desirable in the public interest that the agreement should become binding.
  MR. DILLONsaid that was exactly what he objected to, as it was making the matter in the Committee a question of confidence in the Government, denying to the Committee the power to give an open Report. They would then get, not the true mind of the Committee, but only the mind of the noble Lord's supporters.
  MR. KEARLEYsuggested that it would meet the views of the Opposition if the noble Lord would leave out all words after "report" and insert "thereon."
  MR. DILLONsaid that would not do at all. The noble Lord wished to retain the words "whether it is desirable that the agreement should become binding." The agreement was the noble Lord's agreement, and he wanted to force the Committee to say whether or not they approved of his agreement. That was what the Committee ought not to be forced to do.
  LORD STANLEYsaid that for his own satisfaction and justification, he must ask the House to keep those words in. If there were any words he could add

  1025
  which would give a third alternative he was perfectly ready to put them in, but he must insist on retaining in the Resolution the words "whether it is desirable in the public interest that the agreement should become binding."
  MR. KEARLEY: With recommendations.
  LORD STANLEY: I am quite ready to put in "and any recommendations thereon."
  MR. DILLON: The noble Lord does not see my point.
  LORD STANLEY: I quite see the point of the hon. Member. That is where we differ.
  MR. DILLONasked whether it amounted to this—that the noble Lord objected to leaving it to the Committee to give an open Report.
  LORD STANLEY: No.
  MR. DILLONsaid the retention of these words did not leave it open to the Committee. Under them the Chairman and the Committee would be bound to bring up a Report for or against the noble Lord's proposal, and he would not allow the Committee, even if they wished to do so, to give an open Report saying—
  LORD STANLEY: We seem to be nearly in agreement.
  MR. DILLON: But still it is an important point.
  LORD STANLEY: The words are—
  "Whether it is desirable in the public interest that the agreement should become binding with or without modification."
  I will read it to the House. I do not know whether the hon. Member will then withdraw his Amendment. It will then read—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Agreement of February 2nd, 1905, between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company, and to report as to any recommendations thereon; whether it is desirable in the public interest that the agreement shall become binding with or without modifications."
  MR. DALZIELsaid that under the circumstances he should be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question amended, in line 4, by inserting, after the word "Report," the words "as to any recommendations thereon," and in line 5, by adding, at the end of the Question, the words "with or without modifications."
  Amendment proposed—
  "After the words last added, to add the words, 'and also whether the interests of the employees of the National Telephone Company have been duly considered.'"—(Mr. Luke White.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  LORD STANLEY: I accept the addition of those words.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Agreement of the 2nd day of February, 1905, between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company, and to report as to any recommendations thereon whether it is desirable in the public interest that the Agreement should become binding, with or without modifications, and also whether the interest of the employees of the National Telephone Company have been duly considered."
  "That Mr. Benn, Lord Bingham, Sir Horatio Davies, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Helme, Sir William Holland, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Joseph Nolan, Sir Charles Renshaw, Colonel Royds, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley be nominated Members of the Committee."—(Lord Stanley.)
  MR. DALZIELsaid he noticed that the Government had two more Members on this Committee than the Opposition had, and as a rule in such Committees the Goverment only had a majority of one. He thought the noble Lord might

  1027
  be satisfied with having a bare majority of his own supporters on the Committee. He raised this objection upon Lord Bingham name, but he did not object to Lord Bingham any more than any other member of the Committee. He thought the Government should be content with one more, and in view of the importance of this matter he suggested that the noble Lord should take one of his own supporters out. He might take out any one he pleased.
  LORD STANLEY: I do not know exactly what the right proportion on this Committee is between the two sides, but if I find that the proportion is wrong—
  MR. DALZIEL: It is.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not sure that it is, but if I find that it is so, after consultation, I shall prefer to add one more to the Committee from the opposite side.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he should be perfectly willing to accept that. If the noble Lord counted the Irish Members as members of the Opposition he would find that the Government had a majority of two. He begged leave to withdraw his objection.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."—(Lord Stanley.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Three be the quorum."—(Lord Stanley.)
  MR. DALZIELsaid that with regard to the question of three being a quorum—
  LORD STANLEY: I am quite ready to make it five.
  MR. LOUGHsaid this was a most important matter and—
  LORD STANLEY: If the hon. Member does not accept five I am ready to stick to three.
  Question, "That Five be the quorum," put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Agreement of the 2nd day of February, 1905, between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company, and to report as to any recommendations thereon whether it is desirable in the public interest that the Agreement should become binding, with or without modifications, and also whether the interests of the employees of the National Telephone Company have been duly considered.
  Mr. Benn, Lord Bingham, Sir Horatio Davies, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Helme, Sir William Holland, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Joseph Nolan, Sir Charles Renshaw, Colonel Royds, and Mr. Stuart Wortley nominated members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum(Lord Stanley.)

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  MR. SOARESsaid the Amendment he wished to propose was to leave out the word "levied" in line 18 of the first clause. His object was to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reason why that word was inserted. It seemed to him, in effect, to be a question more or less of verbiage. In a Bill of this kind it was important that every word should be carefully considered, and they did not want a word inserted which they did not know the

  1029
  definite meaning of. It was not a question of a few pounds being dealt with, because this Bill dealt with millions of pounds. He wished to know whether the word "levied" was a word of any service, and whether it was necessary for it to be inserted at all. In ancient times lawyers used to be paid by the number of words they could insert in a deed of conveyance and they used to get as many words as possible inserted which meant exactly the same thing. The word "levied" had fallen into desuetude and they did not want it continued in Acts of Parliament. He had searched for definitions of the word "levied" and he found that it meant "raised." If the word "raised" were put in he thought the word "levied" would not be required. In Clause 4 they found that certain rates were not to be charged any longer, and it only stated that they should cease to be "chargeable" and not "leviable and payable." He begged to move
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 18, to leave out the word "levied."—(Mr. Soares.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'levied' stand part of the clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said he hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press this Amendment. The form of words embodied in the clause were those which had been uniformly used in finance legislation for many years past. It was not used in connection with the income-tax because Section 26 of the Act of 1896 shortened the income-tax clause and provided that the income-tax should be "charged, levied, and paid." The same meaning was attached to the single word "charged." He did not think there was much substance in the addition of the word, but as it had always been used in Acts of Parliament there might
  be inconvenience caused by its omission, because it might be argued that the House of Commons meant something different when the old form was used. The form adopted was the form which had appeared in every Finance Act for the past ten years. He hoped the hon. Member would agree that it was not quite a reasonable or necessary Amendment. He therefore suggested that they should adhere to the words which were customary, because any departure from them might be assumed to imply a difference of intention on the part of the Hose. He thought it would be a mistake to alter the custom, and consequently he could not consent to do so. He hoped the Committee would not spend much time over very minute points of this character.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the acceptance of this Amendment would seriously alter the Bill.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he had often heard it said that they ought not to pay any attention to good grammar in Acts of Parliament. If the words "charged and levied" were satisfactory in the case of the income-tax why should they go on for generations using this bad grammar. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to strike out all unnecessary words.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid if the right hon. Gentleman was right in stating that there was a definition in an Act of the nature indicated, surely the correct way to proceed would be to extend that definition to the tea duty, and not have a differentiation between one tax and another. His hon. friend's Amendment, if carried, would bring that about.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 159. (Division List No. 168.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh. O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Barry. Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Purvis, Robert

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Randles, John S.

  Bigwood, James

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bill, Charles

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bingham, Lord

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bond, Edward

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bowles, Lt. -Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords., N. W

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brassey, Albert

  Helder, Augustus

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Butcher, John George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Campbell, J. H. M.(Dublin Univ.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Carlile, William Walter

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln),

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Smith, Rt. Hon. J. P. (Lanarks

  Chapman, Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Spear, John Ward

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Coddington, Sir William

  Lawson, Jn. Grant (Yorks. N. R.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stroyan, John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

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

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tuff, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tufnell, Lieut. -Col. Edward

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maxwell. Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Moore, William

  Willough by de Eresby, Lord

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Finlay, Sir R. B (Inverness B'ghs

  Mount, William Arthur

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Forster, Henry William

  Myers, William Henry

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Gardner, Ernest

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Pease. Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Percy, Earl

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Austin, Sir John

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Benn, John Williams

  1032

  1033

  Blake, Edward

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  O'Shauglmessy, P. J.

  Boland, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Parrott, William

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Partington, Oswald

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Johnson, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Joicey, Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burns, John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Price, Robert John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Priestley, Arthur

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Cameron, Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cawley, Frederick

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Leng, Sir John

  Roche, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Maurice

  Rose, Charles Day

  Crombie, John William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Crooks, William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Slack, John Bamford

  Dillon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Crae, George

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kean, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Edwards, Frank

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Moss, Samuel

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Emmott, Alfred

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Ure, Alexander

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wallace, Robert

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Norman, Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Young, Samuel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Mara, James

  Soares and Mr. Barran.

  MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN moved the omission of the words "or Ireland" in line 19, in order to exclude Ireland from the operation of the proposed tea duty of sixpence the pound. His object in making the Motion was two-fold—firstly, in the interest of the poorer classes of Ireland, and secondly, because this was the proper Parliamentary way to propose a differentiation between the amount of tea duty in Ireland and the other portions of the United Kingdom. If this Amendment should be carried, he would move another Amendment to provide that the tea duty in Ireland should be threepence the pound. While his proposal would
  1034
  commend itself to Irish Members, he hoped it would not be distasteful to British Members. In the first place Ireland was a country where tea was very largely consumed by the working population who were extremely poor; and therefore Ireland felt the burden of this tax more than either Scotland or England. Not so many years ago there was a school of thought, which included a large proportion of the population of these islands, in favour of a free breakfast table—a school which was supported by one of the greatest Finance Ministers of this country. But since then they had travelled far in an

  1035
  opposite direction; for now there were heavier duties on all the elements which constituted the spread of a breakfast table, such as tea and sugar, except the loaf of bread, than there had been for a long period. The Irish people had always protested against the tea duty being imposed upon them. The pious aspiration for a free breakfast table had not been realised, and in an opposite direction the cry had gone up to broaden the basis of taxation. That meant, of course, that the load of taxation was to be taken off the shoulders of those best able to bear it and put on the already over-weighted backs of the poor. If that were true in regard to this country, how much more in regard to the working population of Ireland. It would be easy, he contended, to make out a case for the entire exemption of Ireland from tea duty.
  The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Bristol, used the argument that the high duty on tea should be maintained because it was necessary to raise taxation in order to meet the enormous expense of the late South African War, and that the working classes who had steadily supported that inglorious and wasteful campaign by their votes and every other manifestation of their feelings ought not to complain of an increase of the tea duty. But that argument did not apply to Ireland or to the Irish people. Therefore, they were justified in protesting against the tea duty when it was raised from 4d. to 6d., and from 6d. to 8d. They acknowledged that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken heart of grace and reduced this duty from 8d.to 6d. per lb., but the duty was still too heavy; and he claimed that Ireland had a strong and overwhelming case for total exemption from the tea duty.
  He had no doubt they would be told that to exempt Ireland from tea duty would involve the setting up of separate Customhouses in Ireland and Great Britain. He did not acknowledge that. For many years the tea duty was collected in Ireland by the Excise authorities and not by the Customs. If spirits could be moved from one country to the other by the Excise authorities, tea could be moved in exactly the same way. There
  1036
  was, therefore, nothing in the separate Custom-house argument. Tea was moved in bulk in the same manner as spirits and it could be followed to where it was consumed and the duty imposed there. The chests could be marked in a certain manner and it would be impossible to smuggle it in large quantities. At the present moment there were countries where there was a heavy duty on tea, but ladies who were fond of an afternoon cup of what was called English tea—of course; it was not English tea—were allowed to take small quantities of tea into those countries; but the Custom-house authorities did not allow them to take in large quantities in bulk. Therefore the difficulty which might be raised by the Treasury and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the exemption of Ireland could be easily surmounted. Irish Members had at present to complain of the Customs and Excise authorities who took very little trouble to trace the movement of articles of trade and consumption between Ireland and this country; and if they wanted to ascertain the volume of trade between Ireland and Great Britain they were told it could not be given. The mere fact that it was difficult was no argument against the attempt being made to ascertain it. The officials of the Customs were not so overburdened with work that they could not devise regulations to prevent smuggling or illegal transit of tea between the two countries. For the reasons stated he contended that Ireland was entitled to this exemption; and he begged to move.
  MR. DILLONseconded the Motion of his hon. friend the Member for North Cork. The main justification for the proposal was the vital fact stated to the House the other day, that while in this country the proportion of direct taxation was 48 to 52 of indirect taxation, the proportion in Ireland was 25 per cent. of direct taxation and 75 per cent. of indirect taxation. These figures showed how, by the system of so-called equal burden, Ireland was overweighted. For long years after the principle of equal burden had been accepted in this country they were told of its injustice to the poorer classes of England and that direct taxation should at least be equal to half of the whole taxation, if not more

  1037
  than half. But in Ireland the classes which paid indirect taxation contributed 75 per cent. of the whole, and that in itself condemned the English system of taxation as applied to Ireland. The same system of taxation when applied in one country might be just and even generous to all classes in that country which was prosperous in its trade; but it might be cruelly unjust to the population of another country which was poor. Taxation was applied to Ireland which was only suitable to Great Britain; then mitigation was tried; but yet the House would not agree to any difference of taxation as between the two countries because it might involve the erection of Custom-houses and other impediments to trade. There, again, arose the difference between England and Ireland. They had learned in this country that the more the impediments to trade were removed the more the people flourished. No such lesson was learned in Ireland. The great principles of free trade had not brought prosperity and wealth, but ruin and misery to Ireland. All Irish affairs were considered and settled, not in relation to the circumstances of the Irish nation, but to the circumstances of another nation altogether. Hon. Members opposite admitted all that; but yet they said they would not consent to break up the United Kingdom and introduce separate tariffs. They argued that a reduction in the duty on tea would involve separate Custom-houses. It might involve a small amount of inconvenience; but it was not true to say it would involve separate Custom-houses. His own impression was that separate Custom-houses as between England and Ireland only ceased to exist in 1820. The duty on whisky, which was a very important Irish export, differed in the two countries down to 1860; the difference being much greater than that now proposed in the case of tea. Whisky was a product of the country; and the danger of smuggling was therefore infinitely greater than in the case of tea, which was not grown in Ireland; and which it was easy to see was not exported.
  He admitted that a certain amount of inconvenience would be involved if the Amendment were accepted. For his own
  1038
  part, he would be prepared to adopt a different method; namely, that a portion of the revenue collected should be returned to an Irish body responsible to the Irish people for the benefit of the poor of the country, not in a demoralising way, but in order to develop the resources of the country. That would, however, be impossible until there was a body responsible to the people; and as long as there was no such body to control the expenditure the money would certainly be wasted. Therefore, they were stopped on that line. They now, however, were proposing a specific remedy; namely, that the huge injustice of the undue burden of indirect taxation in Ireland should be mitigated. The difficulty in connection with separate Custom-houses had been greatly exaggerated; but, in any event, the Government were bound to take some steps to obviate the injustice. That was the first duty of the Government.
  He believed that a great deal of the misfortune of Ireland was due to over-taxation. It was an enormous difficulty; and he regretted that the House did not realise the extent to which it had kept the people in poverty and discouraged enterprise of every kind. It was an admitted experience in the history of nations that there was a certain point of over-taxation which rendered it absolutely impossible to accumulate wealth or successfully carry on trade or manufacture. They in Ireland had been prevented from accumulating wealth from the fact that among other causes taxation was out of all proportion to the taxable capacity of the people. It was very difficult for Englishmen to appreciate that view. In Ireland a million sterling of over-taxation should be multiplied thirty or forty times as regarded England; and the over-taxation of Ireland by £2,500,000 represented something like £90,000,000 in England. Would not that be considered a serious matter even for a wealthy country like England. Only the other day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol declared that he felt the greatest foreboding at the increase of taxation and expenditure in this country. What must be the opinion of a man who applied his mind with a sympathetic spirit to Ireland. In that

  1039
  country taxation had doubled in fifty years, whereas the wealth of England had increased at least tenfold during that period. Ireland, on the contrary, was poorer to-day than it was sixty or seventy years ago; and although the wealth of the country had decreased its taxation was trebled. A case such as they were making was not met by silence or by voting it down. It was a question of principle, and the Government were bound to produce some scheme which would give some hope to the Irish people.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 19, to leave out the words 'or Ireland.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Question proposed "That the words 'or Ireland' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that easy communication between Great Britain and Ireland had enormously improved during the last seventy or eighty years. That Dublin and Belfast should get any amount of tea they wanted free from taxation and that Liverpool and Glasgow should pay 6d. per pound more for their tea, and that in the absence of all Customhouse restrictions between the two countries, was an impossible suggestion. Every grocer would naturally go to Ireland to obtain his tea, so as to retail it in this country at an enormous profit. They should consider the relations, not only between one financial entity and another, but between one man and another, and it would not be just that the inhabitants of Dublin or Belfast should pay 6d. per pound less for tea than the inhabitants of Liverpool and Glasgow.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid it was absolutely essential to reduce the tea duty as far as possible in Ireland, because of the present condition of that impoverished country. It could not be too often repeated in the House that to the Irish people generally, the mass of whom were the poorest and worst fed people in Europe, tea was the first necessity of life. Although a great deal was heard in the House of the evils of intemperance and the measures suggested for the prevention of that great and crying evil, the Government would not do
  1040
  that which, above all, would do most to promote temperance in Ireland, namely, make tea cheaper. There should not be any difficulty about it, seeing that the Minority Report of the Childers' Commission found that in the matter of taxation England and Ireland were separate fiscal entities. It was absurd to say that they were to regard the peasant of Connemara as being in the same position as a rich yeoman of Yorkshire, and it was forgotten also that at the time of the Union Ireland was altogether independent of Britain, that the very Union was based on the idea that there was to be a separate system of taxation, and that, even in 1816 and 1817, it was expressly provided that abatements and exemptions should be had in respect to particular things which were affected at the time. Even in 1860, as had been pointed out, there were separate duties. The duties of the two countries were not assimilated on any grounds of convenience of collection, but on general Imperial grounds. It was quite possible to put heavy penalties on any person who tried to smuggle tea from Ireland into England, and since they had to pay a heavy bill to the Treasury it was not too much to expect that they should provide officials smart enough to stop smuggling.
  It was most unjust to ask Ireland to pay an extra 2d. in the £ on account of the South African War, out of which they got nothing. The indirect taxes of Ireland in ratio with the direct taxes were as 75 to 25, and it had always been the policy of this country to assimilate and make equal as far as possible the direct and indirect taxation. The taking off of 2d. on tea would not reduce the indirect taxation to the level of direct taxation, but it would go some way towards it, and he thought the argument that it could not be done because it would be troublesome to manipulate was most unjust. So far as he was concerned he would vote for a reduction of 4d. on tea all round, but if that could not be done, there was no reason why Ireland, which suffered much more than the rest of the country from this imposition, should not be relieved. He should support the Amendment, and in doing so considered he had advocated nothing that

  1041
  was impossible to be obtained, and that it would only be a measure of justice that Ireland should be considered in this matter.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would not repeat the arguments which he put forward when discussing the general question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, nor would he argue as to the amount of inconvenience or cost to traders on both sides of the Irish Channel that would be involved in the execution of such a proposal as had been made. Under the Amendment he thought the cost, inconvenience, and danger to the revenue of this country would be much greater than hon. Members opposite had been inclined to allow. He did not propose to argue this question at length, because, even if it were shown that there was no force in that practical objection, he still held that this was not a proposal he could accept, or that the Committee would be wise in adopting. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that it was clear that a system of taxation which was just in one country was not necessarily just in another country. That was an obvious principle which no one would dispute, but they were not now considering general questions of taxation, but a particular tax, i.e., the tea tax. If tea were an article of exclusively Irish use, and if some other beverage were substituted for it by the English people, he should think there was some substance in the contention of the hon. Member for East Mayo; but tea was used as much per head of population in Great Britain as in Ireland. It was used by the poor in this country just as much as by the poor in Ireland. It was said that it was monstrous for them to suppose that the poor Connemara peasant was in the same position as the rich gentleman in Yorkshire; but it was equally absurd to tell them that the poor dwellers in the East End of London were in the same position as the rich Irish farmer. They could not take the rich of one country and the poor of another country and compare them.
  The hon. Member for East Mayo argued that a much larger proportion of the taxes of Ireland were borne by the indirect taxpayer
  1042
  than was the case in Great Britain. This was true, but it did not follow that the amount of indirect taxation collected in Ireland was greater per head of the population than in England. The contrary, of course, was true, and the contribution of direct taxes per head of population in Great Britain was greater than in Ireland. The contribution per head of population in Ireland was not greater, and the tax was not greater; and he could not be a party to the suggestion that they should have one rate of taxes in Ireland and another and heavier rate of taxes for the same class of people in this country, and support this to the country at large on the ground that relief was needed for the poor of Ireland. If relief were needed, let it be given to the poor man everywhere and not single out one particular country for relief in this respect.
  Another statement had been made in the course of the debate that, owing to this and other high taxes, capital had been prevented from being invested in Ireland, and that the accumulation of wealth in that country had been arrested. Anyone who had given a little attention to the matter would come to the conclusion that there were other courses more potent in deterring the investment of capital in Ireland. They would all be glad to see more capital invested in that country in fruitful occupations, but he did not know on what ground the hon. Member for East Mayo suggested that the accumulation of wealth in Ireland was less than in England; at any rate, there was evidence that amongst the poor there had in Ireland been a steady accumulation of wealth, for there had been a steady growth in the amount put into the Post Office Savings Bank, larger, he thought, in proportion than the growth that had taken place in Great Britain. This certainly did not lend colour to the statement that taxation was pressing more heavily on the poor in Ireland than on the poor in this country. He could not be a party to this or other proposals to set up two different systems of finance for two parts of the United Kingdom. No such proposal had ever had any support from his predecessors in recent years, and he did not imagine it would receive any support from the Party opposite.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that if the contention that this matter was one for the individual, and not one in regard to which the two countries should be looked at as separate nations were sound, there was an end to the question for ever. He submitted, however, that such a treatment of the question was incorrect, inconclusive, and unjust. It was easy to say that the poor man in both countries should have the same consideration, but the generalisation was not entirely true. For instance, no one would suggest that the population of India could bear the same taxation per head as the people of Great Britain. The contention of the hon. Member for Durham was sound only when the historic, social, and economic conditions of two countries enabled a fiscal unity to be created. How could Gentlemen entirely drawn from Great Britain be expected to deal justly with the principles of taxation which should affect another and a different country? An Englishman. named Pitt, created the Union, but it was subject to certain conditions. The Irish case was that those conditions had never been fulfilled and that the bargain which Pitt made ought to be kept. He noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that none of his predecessors had entertained the claim which was now made by Ireland, and then he added the word "recently."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Gladstone did not entertain it.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he gave up Mr. Gladstone at once. The last understanding Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question was Sir Robert Peel. He knew the case and the obligations with which he was bound. The bargain made by Mr. Pitt was that equal taxes should not be demanded; that for every £1 an Irishman paid, £3 10s. should be paid by an Englishman, and that for every £1 paid on tea by Irishmen, three and a-half times as much should be paid by Englishmen, until the wealth, population, and commerce of Ireland should enable a change to be made. The English kept the accounts and consequently they were able to make the condition true with
  1044
  regard to debt, but not with regard to wealth and population. If this arrangement was so simple and just, why was it that under this fiscal system the one Island of Great Britain had always flourished while the other was ruined? The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not appear to have got accurate information upon this question. Cocoa was used twenty-five times as largely in Great Britain as in Ireland, and coffee nearly ten times as largely in proportion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the consumption of tea in this country was as great and a little greater than in Ireland.
  MR. LOUGHsaid they must take into account these tea substitutes. Let them take two countries like France and England. The French would not care about a tax being placed upon tea, because they drank very little, but if they were to put a tax on coffee England would not be affected so much as France. At the time of the Union Ireland had a population of 12,000,000, and the taxes amounted to £1,250,000. Now the taxes amounted to £10,000,000 and the population had gone down to 4,000,000. That was the effect of the working of this cruel system which the hon. Member for Durham thought was not open to any criticism, and which the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had blessed. Something must be wrong.
  A great deal of nonsense had been talked about Custom-houses. He considered that they would have to restore the Custom-houses in Ireland, even if they had to alter the taxation, because without them they could never discover the economic facts which affected any country. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Durham should speak of the difficulty which would be created by tea being smuggled across the Channel. That difficulty did not exist in regard to whisky which Ireland could produce at 1s. per gallon, and which was worth 10s. or 12s. a gallon when it reached this country. There would be no difficulty in carrying out this change in regard to Custom-houses. Take tea. Would less tea be used in Ireland if it were let in free than with a duty of 6d. per 1b. The great

  1045
  British interest in tea was that everybody should drink plenty of it. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but he wished to point out that tea was mostly grown in British territory and was conveyed in British ships to this country, and the Irish people displayed their loyalty in this matter by drinking mostly Indian tea. He thought the Irish people were only doing their duty by pointing out these inequalities. There were poor women in Islingtion, but it should be remembered that the burden of taxation in Great Britain was adjusted by conditions which did not exist in Ireland. That was seen by the Return which was published the other day in regard to the wages of agricultural labourers. The same wage could not be got in Ireland as in England because the economic conditions were different. We might levy the same tax on tea in Ireland, but we could not create the same condition of ability to pay the tax. Until we made the people of Ireland as wealthy as in Great Britain it was unjust to put the same tax on Ireland. The question whether the difference could not be adjusted by reducing the tax ought to be seriously considered.
  MR. POWERsaid that while there were, no doubt, difficulties in making the proposed differentiation of the tea duty, these difficulties had been grossly exaggerated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the hon. Member for Durham. "Where there's a will there's a way." and if this House wished to act in a just way it could carry out the suggestion contained in the Amendment. Ireland was a country in which the poorer class largely drank tea. He regretted it, because he thought they could find better substitutes for their diet. If the people used more cocoa or coffee it would be better, but things must be taken as they were at present. Before the famine, when they largely fed on vegetables, they were mentally and physically a finer people than at present. It was notorious that the tea consumed by the poor people of Ireland was of a very much better quality than that consumed in the poorer districts of Great Britain. While there was great poverty in Great Britain as well as in Ireland, it should be remembered that the poor here were
  1046
  very much better able to bear taxation than in Ireland. At the present moment thousands of men were employed in Mayo on relief works and the highest wage they received was 1s. a day. Thousands on the western seaboard were, he would not say on the brink of poverty, but actually in a state of famine, a heavy gale last year having caused a failure of the potato crop. He ventured to say that the unemployed here would reject the wages which were paid to the men engaged on public relief works in Ireland.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: You are not in order in going into the question of the unemployed.
  MR. POWERsaid he merely mentioned that as an illustration of the incapacity of the average poor man in Ireland to bear a tax which might be imposed on the people of this country. In considering the question of poverty in Ireland they should recollect that enormous sums had come into the country from America. But for that assistance the people would be very much poorer than they were. The old arguments against the claim now made on behalf of Ireland had been trotted out to-night. There was no use in comparing the poor of Ireland with the poor of Yorkshire, because the cases were entirely different. Since the Union the poor people of Ireland had suffered much at the hands of the richer people of this country who had violated the terms of the Union when it suited them.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that while the tax fell heavily on a portion of the people of Ireland it bore equally heavily on, say, the poor people of the East End of London. That argument had already been dealt with by some of his colleagues who had pointed out that the conditions in the two cases were absolutely different. When they spoke of the poor people of Ireland they did not speak of isolated cases, but of the overwhelming majority of the population. He had in his hand a report which had been circulated by Lady Dudley, the wife of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who had had brought under her notice the conditions of extreme poverty which existed in the

  1047
  West of Ireland. He was sure such conditions did not exist even among the poor of the East End of London. In the West of Ireland families of twelve persons were to be found living in cabins of one room. From a Government Report recently issued he found that the meals on which the agricultural labourers in Ireland lived were: Breakfast, bread and tea; dinner, bread, tea and potatoes; and supper, bread and tea. Upon such meals they had to live and do their heavy work. That was the reason why the Irish representatives asked for a reduction of the tax on tea. That pointed to the great truth that a tax upon tea was not a tax upon a luxury, but upon a necessity of life. It must not be imagined for one instant that the Irish Members had no sympathy with the poor in this country and that they would not be glad to see the tax removed in Great Britain also. The objection to that came from the benches opposite. The removal of any tax on tea was very popular in other portions of the Empire; indeed, there were parts of the Empire in which a tea tax did not exist and where, if the Government attempted to reimpose it, they would lose place and power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, trying to make an argument against the position the Irish Members had taken, said that the deposits in the savings banks in Ireland were growing. Admitted, but who were making these deposits? The police and other officials generally. The deposits in the country districts were not growing. The poor people in the West of Ireland had not money enough wherewith to buy the necessaries of life, much less to put it away in a bank. Another objection they had to the tea tax was that the Irish people had not sanctioned the war which necessitated this expenditure.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question before the House is the tea duty, and not the late war.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid he accepted the Deputy-Chairman's ruling and protested once more against the imposition of the tea tax in Ireland.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that the arguments brought
  1048
  forward by hon. Members opposite went a long way to show how unfair and unsuited to Ireland was the system of taxation which had been adopted in this country. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Islington, who seemed to speak as if this system had been adopted in order to get money out of Ireland. That was not the case. The system had been adopted simply because we had not in our fiscal principles given any consideration to Ireland whatever. Of course, it was perfectly true that the poor man in this country was oppressed by taxation as much as the poor man on the other side of the Irish Channel. But the poor man here had the compensation which was derived from the general prosperity of the country; and, therefore, he contended that the present system of taxation did press with special force on the poorer class in Ireland. The proposal to set up separate Custom-houses between England and Ireland did not seem to him necessarily out of the question; for, after all, Custom-houses were made for man, and man was not made for the sake of Custom-house simplicity. But he attached considerable importance to free commercial relations between different parts of the country in the interests of unity. Take the German Zollverein—
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This is a debate on the tea duty.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he was trying to deal with the argument which he understood to be one of the main points against the Motion before the Committee, viz., that it would involve the setting up of separate Custom-houses between England and Ireland. Custom-houses were objectionable, but what was infinitely of more importance was good feeling between different parts of the Empire; and if they were to insist upon unity between England and Ireland, then it was important that the predominant partner should do what the predominant partner in the German Zollverein did, and, instead of establishing a system which did good to the strongest and harm to the weakest, be content, for the sake of the political ends it had in view in the future, with a system under which the strongest

  1049
  men suffered very considerable pecuniary loss, while at the same time securing the advantage of the growth of unity of feeling. While he agreed that the burden of the tea duty fell especially heavily on Ireland, he did not think the Amendment was the way to secure a remedy. What he would advocate was a reduction all round of the duties which pressed especially hardly upon Ireland, and the placing of the burden on the general imports of the country.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not in order in pursuing that line of argument.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that while he thought the burden of taxation on tea in Ireland was too heavy, he was convinced that the present proposal was not the way to remedy the evil.
  MR. DILLONsaid that he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the Partick Division with the most intense interest. The hon. Member met their protest in a very fair and sympathetic spirit. The financial grievance under which Ireland suffered was due to the faot that the system had been constructed without any reference to that country. The system was based on the interests of a rich manufacturing country and pressed most cruelly on a poor country like Ireland. He hoped there would be another opportunity of discussing the question.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he wished to protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeating fallacies which had been
  exploded again and again. The poor man in Ireland was oppressed by this taxation because the amount of poverty in that country was almost infinitely greater than in England. His hon. friend suggested it would be better to substitute cocoa, chocolate, or coffee; but if these articles were used, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money for another Mullah Expedition he would immediately double the duty. The existing system, in his opinion, disclosed a deliberate intention as against Ireland on the part of the Treasury.
  MR. FIELDsaid that the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was exceedingly disappointing. More tea was consumed per head in Ireland than in England; and in the circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer might very gracefully assent to the proposal embodied in the Amendment. He urged that not only from a temperance point of view, but even from a humanitarian standpoint. Tea was the main beverage in the South and West of Ireland; beer being scarcely used at all. He hoped in the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision. It would not cost the Government much. There was a higher standard of taxation than that of the mere establishment of a separate Custom-house. The poor had no right to be taxed to the same extent as the rich; and that was the difficulty in Ireland.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 234; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 169.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Bull, William James

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Butcher, John George

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Carlile, William Walter

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bigwood, James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Bill, Charles

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Bingham, Lord

  Chapman, Edward

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bond, Edward

  Cive, Captain Percy A.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Coddington, Sir William

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Brassey, Albert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Campton, Lord Alwyne

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert]

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randles, John S.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Rankin, Sir James

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kerr, John

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Keswick, William

  Ritchie, Bt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lawson, Jn. Grant (Yorks., N. R

  Runciman, Walter

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, H C(North'mb.Tyneside

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. J. P. (Lanarks

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Finlay, Sir R. B (Inverness B'ghs

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

  Stock, James Henry

  Fison, Frederick William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Forster, Henry William

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Tuft, Charles

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets

  Moore, William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Heath, Sir Jas.(Staffords., N. W.

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Helder, Augustus

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wylie, Alexander

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

  Percy, Earl

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  TELLERS TOR THE AYES—Sir

  Hoult, Joseph

  Price, Robert John

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Viscount Valentia.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Purvis, Robert

  NOES

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Crean, Eugene

  Austin, Sir John

  Caldwell, James

  Crombie, John William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Cameron, Robert

  Crooks, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Delany, William

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Blake, Edward

  Clancy John Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Boland, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  1052

  1053

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leng, Sir John

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Doogan, P. C.

  Levy, Maurice

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Russell

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Reddy, M.

  Edwards, Frank

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Ellice, Capt E. C(S Andrw's B'ghs

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Richards, T. (W. Monmouth)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roche, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mooney, John J.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Moss, Samuel

  Sullivan, Donal

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Toulmin, George

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Ure, Alexander

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Johnson, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Dowd, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roseommon, N.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  O'Malley, William

  Young, Samuel

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Mara, James

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Shaughnessy P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Parrott, William

  Field and Mr. Flynn.

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Perks, Robert William

  And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10) (COLONIAL PREFERENCE).
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I rise for the purpose of moving the adjournment of the House in order to obtain information for the House upon a subject of the very highest importance. I am struck by the fact that when I have occasion either to originate a Motion or to make a speech in this Parliament it always takes the form of a desire and a demand for information. But usually we have been provided with some obscure, philosophic utterance which requires explanation; it is not so on this occasion. The matter which I shall bring, and which has been brought to-day before the House is perfectly plain, and what we want, and I think what we are entitled to, is a
  1054
  definite answer to definite questions on matters of fact, and therefore I am glad to say that my part in this debate will be really that of laying before the House the short and simple story of what has occurred.
  As matters stand, a statement has been made to-day by the Prime Minister which seems to us, and I think will seem to most people without much further explanation and light, irreconcilable with undertakings given by the Prime Minister and accepted by the country a few months ago. I go back, Sir, to August of last year. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham brought up the question of our commercial and fiscal relations with the Colonies, and expressed his strong opinion that the subject was ripe for some definite decision on the part of the Government, and a strong desire to learn what information the right hon. Gentleman could give as to the policy of calling a conference. A day or two afterwards the Prime Minister showed his estimate of the position in which the matter then stood by saying that he did not propose to take any steps at the present moment on the subject. So the matter was left at the end of last session. But a very few weeks passed and there

  1055
  was a change apparently in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, because early in October, before the usual interchange of amenities between politicians in the autumn commenced, the right hon. Gentleman, to the astonishment of everybody, and as much to the astonishment of his own supporters as to that of anyone else, organised an opportunity for himself in Edinburgh in order to unburden himself of his opinions on the fiscal question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham was going to speak two days later at Luton. I do not know whether there was any connection between the two occasions, but I noticed that the Member for Birmingham's engagement was of long standing, whereas, as I have said, the right hon. Gentleman—I cannot imagine with the view of forestalling his right hon. friend, but for some reason or other—came in in front of him on this occasion at Edinburgh Now, Sir, that can only have been done—this sudden creation of an opportunity—for the purpose of a serious declaration of policy. I mean that must have been one of the main objects, and it appears to me to be so from the references that are made to what he said, and that he himself has made to what he said on that occasion. I have here in my hand, in order to be sure of being accurate, a publication called "Handy Notes on Current Politics," a monthly vade mecum for Conservatives and Unionists, and a very short passage which I shall read in that speech, the only one which really concerns the question which I am putting before the House, is this—
  "My view, therefore, is that the policy of this Party should be, if we come into power after the next election, to ask the Colonies to join a conference on these lines [which he had described], a conference whose discussions shall be free, but whose conclusions shall not commit any of the communities concerned to any larger plan of Imperial union on fiscal or other lines unless their various electorates have given their adhesion to the scheme."
  The House will observe that this involved two elections. The next election after the date of his speech and then, if they came into power after that, they were to ask the Colonies, having obtained the assent of the country to that part of the policy, to join a conference on this subject. That was very unmistakable and clear, and it meant, of course, as
  1056
  I have just said, that the country woulp be consulted before this conference took place, and so it was understood by the right hon. Gentleman, and so, no doubt, a very closer observer of all the words that fell from the Prime Minister understood it, for at Luton, on October 5th, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham welcomed the speech and the sentiment of the right hon. Gentleman on the general question, but he said—
  "I cannot understand what is the necessity for a second plebiscite, involving as it would do two mandates, two general elections on the same subject, coming within a few months of one another."
  Afterwards he says—
  "I have thought it right to mention that as the only blemish which I see in a plan which in all other respects I heartily welcome."
  Then I come from October to January, when the right hon. Gentleman was at Manchester and the day after he made the speech in which he read the well-known half-sheet of notepaper, he said—
  "If the scheme which I have many times recommended to the country, and which last night I repeated in a succinct and unmistakable form, if that scheme were carried out, I do not see that the country could be called upon to decide the colonial aspect of this question until not only one, but two elections have passed."
  That is a confirmation by the right hon. Gentlemen after a couple of months had passed of the impression created by himself universally through the country, and acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. Let us go on to March 8th when the hon. Member for Oldham moved a fiscal Resolution in this House. What did the right hon. Gentleman say on that occasion? He referred again to the speech that he made at Edinburgh, and to the words I have quoted in that speech being as fair and categorical as any words could be. He says—
  "That was one element in the speech which I made at Edinburgh, and what was the other element? It was an appeal to the country in the face of the controversy raging on the fiscal question to discuss our colonial relations in a free conference. I do not believe that my statement on that subject was a bit more ambiguous than my statement on protection. It was clear, it was definite, it was complete, and it was because in my judgment the Resolution moved by the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House flies in the face of that second part of my speech made in Edinburgh, that in

  1057
  my opinion all who were good enough to accept the policy I recommended to the country ought to support me this evening."
  Here again the House will observe, in January, he boasts of the clear and complete and definite language he had used on this Very subject, and I have quoted to the House that clear and complete and definite language, and the House will see that it involved the fundamental principles that there was to be an election and a submission of the case to the country before the conference was held. Now let me move forward to April 11th. On that date there was a debate on the same subject in another place, and on that occasion I think the most instructive thing to quote was what was said by the Duke of Marlborough, he being the official mouthpiece in the other House of the Colonial Office—
  "The policy of the Government," says the Duke of Marlborough, "which had been carefully defined by the Prime Minister was, if they were again returned to power at the next general election, to summon a conference at which representatives of the various self-governing Colonies and of India would be asked to attend."
  I think that these quotations are almost enough to show that the right hon. Gentleman represented to the country that his distinct decision was to refer this fiscal question to a conference which should be specially called for the purpose, and at all events which should not have the question referred to it until after the people of this country had assented to that course being taken. But I find that on another day, a very short time before the date of the last quotation, my hon. friend the Member for Kincardineshire put a Question to the Prime Minister, and it was in these terms:—Whether,
  "In the event of the Colonial Conference which meets in 1906 taking place before a general election, the question of Imperial unity on a basis of preferential duties on colonial produce will be submitted to it."
  The Question was—If the conference comes off without a general election preceding it, is the question of Imperial unity on a preferential basis to be submitted to it, and to this the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that we have over and over again stated that
  1058
  in the course of this Parliament we propose to take no steps."
  —No steps—
  "With regard to fiscal reform."
  It will be observed it is "We take no steps in this House in the course of this Parliament." ["We."] Yes, he speaks for the Government. Then my hon. friend the Member for Barnstaple asks the First Lord of the Treasury—
  "Whether the British representatives at the Colonial Conference to be held in 1906 will have power, subject to the subsequent approval of the House, to negotiate a scheme of preferential trading on the basis of taxation of food and raw material."
  The right hon. Gentleman said he answered that when he replied to the hon. Member for Kincardineshire, so that he gave the "go by" to the Question of my hon. friend the Member for Barnstaple. But my hon. friend came back to the charge, and the Prime Minister replied—
  "We are not dealing with that question."
  Then my hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen, seeking to clear the matter up, pointed out that the Question referred to the question outside Parliament in the Colonial Conference, and the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I have over and over again said that in the course of the present Parliament we do not propose to deal with the fiscal question."'
  Now all this time the country was led to believe, did believe, and was justified in believing, that two elections, one to approve of the conference and the other to approve of the decisions of the conference, would be taken; the policy of two elections and two mandates was the working basis of all the descriptions given us on the subject and was the bulwark against any sudden alteration of fiscal policy. Now the right hon. Gentleman excuses himself by stating, in the course of a rapid cross-examination—it is not easy to bear in mind all that happened, but I have refreshed my memory from the reports in the evening papers—I understand he has excused himself on the ground of forgetfulness, that the meeting was to take place in 1906 escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice. Well, small blame to him for that. It was quite possible on October 3rd; but months

  1059
  passed—November, December, January, February, March, April, May—and all that time the right hon. Gentleman leaves the country, leaves his supporters, leaves his opponents under the impression that there were to be two elections, with what the right hon. Member for Birmingham has called a "double mandate"; but although he knew that was an error—I am assuming it as he says—he allowed the country to be deceived, and his friends and those who were somewhat suspicious of his policy to be deceived, by the words he had used and which did not represent what he meant. There was little reason why he should forget it all this time, all these seven months, because on one occasion, February 15th—my right hon. friend the Member for Berwick, speaking here, asked the Colonial Secretary point-blank, not thinking there was any misunderstanding about it, whether what the right hon. Gentleman had called the automatic conference would be held, and the right hon. Gentleman asserted that it would be. Therefore I do not think the Prime Minister can have been for a long period in ignorance, though I make this concession, that at the time he made his speech at the rapidly-organised meeting at Edinburgh he may have forgotten this somewhat important fact; and yet he had ample time to refresh his memory and inform himself; in fact, he could not fail to have been made aware of all that happened; but not until now, May 22nd, do we hear that he has made a mistake after all, that a conference to decide the question is to be held next year without any election.
  Do not let us confuse two things which are totally distinct; two separate undertakings have been given, one that there shall be no proposal in this Parliament having the effect of departing from free trade, and with that we have no concern this evening. It is not before us; and the other is that a Colonial Conference which would discuss the question of preference and food taxation would not meet in the course of the present Parliament, and not until the country had been consulted and had the opportunity of pronouncing an opinion whether a conference with that
  1060
  object ought or ought not to be held. That pledge repeated, as I have shown, is a pledge that cannot be disowned; and it seems to me, so far as we are at present able to judge, it has been repudiated to-day. Can it be that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his opinion and his policy? We wish to know what the reason is. The right hon. Gentleman is not altogether to blame for not paying too much attention to the Press; he sometimes receives somewhat sinister advice from the Press. Here is what a leading organ, writing, of the pledge, the Daily Telegraph, says ["Oh, oh!"]—I see the interruption comes from an Ulster Member not initiated in the arcana of tariff reform—
  "A pledge, a like in politics and ethics, must be construed according to the circumstances in which it is given. At the time the Prime Minister gave his undertaking, few believed it possible, not even the right hon. Gentleman himself, that there was any likelihood of the present Parliament completing its normal term of life, but circumstances for which the incompetence of the Opposition"—
  have hon. Members sunk so low in their own estimation that they are pleased to hear that it is not to their merits, but to the incompetence of the Opposition, that their prolonged existence is due?—
  "For which the incompetence of the Opposition is responsible, have changed the prospect, and what seemed impossible last year becomes not only possible but probable."
  I do not do the right hon. Gentleman the dishonour of supposing that he followed that advice or used that excuse. I have, as I promised, made a plain and simple statement of the facts, and I make no comment on them; I await the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. It is an important matter we are dealing with, the fiscal policy of the country and our relations with the Colonies; but it has a far higher importance than that, because if it is proved that the country has been thus misled, what we have to consider is what is the effectual means for preserving the dignity and character of pledges given by the Prime Minister and the honourable traditions of our public life. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington) rose to address the House, but was received with loud cries of "Balfour, Balfour," "Let him defend himself," "An insult to the House," "Let him defend his own honour," "Sit down," "Take it as read," "He wants to speak when he cannot be replied to," "Order," and "Chair."
  After some minutes—
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I appeal to hon. Members on that side of the House. ["No, no!"] The question of the Colonial Conference surely comes within the province of the Colonial Secretary. ["No," "The Prime Minister's personal honour," and "Order."] I have no doubt whatever the Prime Minister will speak ["When he cannot be answered"], and that there will be an opportunity of replying to him. ["No."] It is a very unusual precedent to prevent the Colonial Secretary speaking.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: I rise to a point of order. You have remarked, Sir, that it is without precedent—
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: Yes. As you have referred to precedent I desire to ask whether you can point to a precedent of a Prime Minister's honour being challenged when he has not at once risen to reply.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
  MR. LYTTELTONagain attempted to speak, but his words were lost amid cries of "Balfour," "Sit down," "We don't want to hear you," and "Order."
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must appeal to hon. Members to give the right hon. Gentleman a hearing. [NATIONALIST
  1062
  cries of "Police, police."] Might I be allowed to point out that the precedent would be a very dangerous one. If you make it impossible for right hon. Gentlemen on that side to be heard, it is equally possible for that to be done in the case of right hon. Gentlemen on the other side.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: He has no authority to speak for the personal honour of the Prime Minister.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Obviously the result of that would be a very undesirable one and not to the credit of the House. The Prime Minister has intimated that he will speak.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am quite sure there would be no indisposition to hear the right hon. Gentleman if the Prime Minister—
  The hon. Member, being unable further to make himself heard, left his place below the gangway, and, proceeding to the side of Mr. Speaker's Chair, was understood to say that the House would hear the Colonial Secretary if the Prime Minister would undertake to make a statement himself after the right hon. Gentleman had spoken.
  MR. LYTTELTONagain unsuccessfully essayed to speak, his opening words being once more drowned by cries of "Balfour," "Play the Game," "Send for the Horse Guards," "Time," "Personal honour," "Are you going to stand there all night?" and "Sit down."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs) rose.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do. The Leader of the Opposition having put a Question to the Prime Minister and asked for an explanation of the statement made by him, of his own words, I submit, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, quite respectfully, that

  1063
  the House of Commons is entitled to an explanation from the Prime Minister.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is perfectly right, and I have not the least doubt in the world that the Prime Minister will give an explanation. ["When?"] There may be other hon. Members who desire to ask Questions of the Prime Minister, and if the Prime Minister answers at once he will be debarred from giving any further answer. ["No."] I would appeal to hon. Members to allow the debate to proceed. ["Balfour."] I would give an assurance, if it were necessary, that the Prime Minister will speak in time for a reply. I heard an observation from one hon. Member that no reply would be permitted. I will give the assurance to hon. Members that they will have an opportunity to reply to the speech of the Prime Minister.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No Member got up on either side of the House after the Leader of the Opposition. The only Member who did get up was the Colonial Secretary, who presumably did not propose to question the Prime Minister, and I submit— [An hon. MEMBER: That is not a point of order.] May I further say that even if other Questions were asked in the course of the debate, no Prime Minister has ever been refused, by the leave of the House an opportunity of answering any Question put to him?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is usual that Motions should be seconded. In this case there was no seconder. Owing to the position of the right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to ask for a seconder. Still it is quite possible that some other hon. Members may wish to supplement what fell from the right hon. Gentleman. ["No."]
  MR. LYTTELTONagain rose, but was unable to proceed further than to say, "I am perfectly willing—"
  MR. J. F. HOPE: On a point of order, Sir, I call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Northwich is calling out "Police, police."
  LORD HUGH CECIL: May I interrupt to make an appeal to both sides of the House to allow the Colonial Secretary to proceed? This is a debate which is of very great public interest. No doubt it affects the declaration of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister, I have no doubt, will make his own explanation; but it also affects—and in my judgment that is the more important issue—the whole policy of the Government; and I am much more concerned to know what that policy is, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is right in supposing that the Government's policy has been modified. [Cries of "Speech."] I merely wanted to appeal to the Opposition to listen to my right hon. friend. I am anxious to know whether the Government policy has been modified, what the Government policy is, either from the Colonial Secretary or any other member of the Government. The personal question can be dealt with afterwards by the Prime Minister.
  MR. LYTTELTONagain attempted to address the House, but without success.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Nobody asked you to answer the Question.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: On a point of order, Sir, may I through you appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to ask his followers to allow the debate to

  1065
  proceed? [OPPOSITION cries of "Appeal to the Prime Minister."]
  MR. CHURCHILL: May I through you, Sir, appeal to the Prime Minister to relieve the House from this position by making the explanation that is demanded of him
  MR. DILLON: May I suggest that you send for the police and clear the House?
  MR. FLAVIN: I had the pleasure of being removed by the police. Is it not the turn now of some of the gentlemen of England to be removed?
  MR. DILLON: Why is not the same treatment good enough for you which was good enough for us? [Cries of "Send for the police"]
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Why does not the Prime Minister answer?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: May I appeal to you and ask you whether, for the credit of the House of Commons, the time has not come for putting in force the new rule for the suspension of the sitting. Unless that is done the duty devolves upon the Prime Minister, for the credit of the House, to at once respond to the appeal which has been made to him to speak [OPPOSITION cheers and MINISTERIAL laughter]; and if he does not respond to it, the responsibility for this discreditable and regretful scene rests upon him. [OPPOSITION cheers and MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The point which the hon. Member has raised as
  1066
  to the adjournment of the House has occurred to me, but I am anxious not to put that rule in force. The House has met to-night for a particular purpose, which has not yet been arrived at. But, if I may say so, it is an unusual thing for the Opposition to dictate to the Government the order in which speeches are to be made; and surely, if hon. Members will reflect, it is a very dangerous weapon to employ. If used on one side to-night, it may be used by the other side another night. [An HON. MEMBER: It has been used already.] As the Prime Minister has indicated [OPPOSITION cries of "He has not," "When?" and "Why does he not face it now?"] He said that he will [Renewed OPPOSITION cries of "No," "When did he say it?" and "He said nothing of the kind."] I certainly understood him to say that he would reply. [Cries of "When, when?"]
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,who was received with Ministerial interruptions and cries of "Divide, divide," said: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I venture to make an appeal to the Prime Minister as the Leader of the House. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!" and "Order, order!"] I think the Leader of the House must see that it will be impossible for this debate to proceed unless he, in the first place, makes a statement [Loud MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no" and OPPOSITION cries of "Order, order," and "Name, name"] on a subject—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Appeal to your own side.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): Yes, keep them in order. [Renewed MINISTERIAL cheers and NATIONALIST cries of "Suspend the Chancellor of the Exchequer" and "Send for the police."]
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has risen with a view of appealing to the Prime Minister and to the House. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): That is not in order. [MINISTERIAL cheers and OPPOSITION cries of "Order."]
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Other hon. Members have risen to make an appeal, and I think it is right that the Leader of the Opposition also should make an appeal. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He must feel, as deeply as I feel, that it is desirable that this scene should come to a conclusion. He may say something that may lead to that conclusion being arrived at. [MINISTERIAL laughter and cries of "No, no!"]
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to make an appeal to the Prime Minister on the ground that the question before the House is one upon which no one can make reply except himself. It is his speeches at various times and what he has said to-day at Question time which are in question, and no speech by the Colonial Secretary can touch that point. Therefore I would appeal to him, as the sole cause of any disorder [loud and prolonged cries of "Oh, oh!" "Name, name!" and "Divide" from the MINISTERIAL Benches]—
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman has spoiled the effect of his appeal.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Let me finish the sentence, sir. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No" and "Withdraw."] What I was about to say is that as the sole cause of disorder is the fact of his not speaking, the disorder would cease if he now replied in debate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to a point of order. Shall I be allowed to reply to the last speech of the right hon. Gentleman without losing my subsequent right to reply to the first speech?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The speech which fell from the right hon. Gentleman was in the nature of an appeal, and I am sure that the House would permit the Prime Minister to reserve what he has to say to a subsequent stage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I am now saying is merely in the nature of a personal observation and does not touch the general substance of the debate, and on that I have to say that, in my opinion, it would be highly improper for me immediately to follow the right hon. Gentleman. The debate which he has chosen, by an unusual but no doubt a perfectly justifiable course, to initiate is one which deals no doubt largely with myself, and also deals with my colleagues [OPPOSITION cries of "No"]—I am quite willing to take it that it deals solely then with myself. The right hon. Gentleman is not, I understand, the only speaker in the House. I have never yet in the

  1069
  whole course of my experience known a debate on the adjournment concluded in two speeches; least of all a debate which deals with a subject which arouses such vehement passion as the present one. It appears to me it would be absurd to attempt to anticipate all the subsequent attacks that may be made upon me by replying to the first attack that has been made; and never in the whole course of my Parliamentary experience have I known the House refuse to listen to a member of the Government dealing with a subject which concerns the head of the Government, nor have I ever known an Opposition who thought it their function to suggest the order in which the Front Bench opposite to them ought to deliver their speeches. I am bound to say the precedent to-night, if followed, will absolutely ruin the House of Commons.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You have done that already.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And as you, Sir, have most truly pointed out, and as must be obvious even to the right hon. Gentleman, if a Secretary of State is to be silenced by clamour simply and solely because Gentlemen opposite desire to hear somebody else [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh"]—well, I will put it differently—desire to anticipate by an hour or an hour and a half the pleasure of hearing somebody else ["Hear, hear!"], then I do not see how the dignity of this House is to be preserved. [Cries of "It has not got any" and "Move the closure."] I should, of course, take care—I should endeavour to rise at a time which would give any hon. Gentleman opposite the light of replying to any observations I
  1070
  might make; but never yet did I hear it suggested that it was consistent either with the rules of this House or with common justice that the criminal in the dock—for I understand that is the position I occupy—is obliged to make his defence before he has heard the whole accusation.
  MR. LYTTELTONthen attempted to continue his speech, but he was again received with disorderly cries from the OPPOSITION, such as "Divide," "Police," "Go to the Old Bailey," and laughter. He was proceeding to refer to the circumstances which governed the calling together of the Colonial Conference amid loud MINISTERIAL cries of "Pirie," when—
  MR. CHURCHILLintervened and asked if the Prime Minister would speak next.
  MR. J. F. HOPE,who rose amid OPPOSITION shouts of "Order" and pointed to the benches opposite: On the point of order, Sir, the hon. Member opposite—[Loud OPPOSITION cries of "Order" and MINISTERIAL cries of "Pirie."]
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I thought it was understood, after the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition and the reply made by the Prime Minister, that the House was prepared to listen ["No"] to the Colonial Secretary, the Prime Minister having stated that he would reply. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."]
  MR. O'MARA: Send for the police.
  MR. LYTTELTONagain endeavoured to address the House, but owing to renewed interruptions the only words which were audible were "I intend to stand here"—
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYamid cries of "Order," said: I beg, Sir, to move that the debate be now adjourned. [MINISTERIAL cheers and OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."]
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER and MR. DILLON rose together: Mr. Dillon shouted out, "On a point of order, Sir," and was greeted with loud MINISTERIAL cries of "Name," "Name." The Nationalists retaliated by crying out "Police," "Send for the police," and by cheering the hon. Member for Mayo, who remained standing, though unable to gain a hearing. Ultimately he resumed his seat.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Motion for the Adjournment of the debate would not be in order. The Motion before the House is that the House do now adjourn.
  MR. LYTTELTONagain rose, but the interruptions were renewed. "I am endeavouring to tell the House" were the only words which could be heard. The right hon. Gentleman stood at the Table of the House, awaiting a cessation of the interruptions, and was greeted with cries of "Time," "Time," by Mr. Dillon. Mr. Kilbride shouted across the floor of the House, "We cannot hear one word you are saying," while Mr. Reddy called out, "This is a proclaimed meeting."
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to move, Sir that the Question be now put.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERignored the interruption.
  MR. LYTTELTONcontinued standing at the Table, but was unable to proceed with his speech.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to move that the right hon. Gentleman be no longer heard.
  MR. LYTTELTONrefused to give way to Mr. Joseph Walton, but made no progress with his speech. There were continuous cries of "Go on" and "Time," while Mr. Dillon shouted out several times, "Call in the Irish Constabulary," and another Nationalist Member demanded, that "The Horse Guards be sent for." The Colonial Secretary was heard to say, "I have been invited to continue," but calls for "Long," and renewed cries of "Time," rendered inaudible the remainder of the sentence. The disorder continued, and a few minutes before 10.30,
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER rose and said: It is perfectly obvious that this scene cannot go on. It has now lasted for nearly an hour. In these circumstances it comes, I take it, within the words of Rule 21—namely, "that in case of grave disorder" the power rests with the Speaker to adjourn the House without Question put. That power I now exercise, and I declare that the House stands adjourned.
  Adjourned accordingly at half after Ten o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Rotherham, Maltby, and Laughton Railway; London United Tramways (Extension of Time).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]. Leave given to the Select Committee to continue sitting in the absence of the Lord Monk Bretton.
Whitby Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Mansfield Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Sandgate Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit To-morrow till Two o'clock.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Wellingborough and District Tramroads and Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]; Acton Sewage Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Cloncurry be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord
918
Ranfurly (E. Ranfurly); read, and agreed to.
Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Formby Township Bill [H.L.]; Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Clifden be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Monk Bretton; read, and agreed to.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Andover Lighting and Power Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Weaver Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Leven's Patent Bill [H.L.]; Darien Gold Mining Company Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Epping Bas Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Loughborough Corporation Bill; Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Highland Railway Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Formby Township Bill [H.L.]; Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Hill and the Lord Clinton be

919
proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Viscount Clifden and the Viscount Ridley; read, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill. Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 84.)

PETITION.
  LICENSED HOUSES.
  Petition for early closing of; of public meeting at Carlingcot; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 447. Bermuda. Report for 1904.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the sea and inland fisheries of Ireland, for the years 1902 and 1903. Part II. Scientific investigations.
  INDIA (AFGHANISTAN).
  Treaty between the British Government and the Amir of Afghanistan, dated 21st March, 1905; with Papers relating thereto.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3377. Japan.
  No. 3378. France (Cochin China).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE (POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS): STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, 1905.
  The Post Office Savings Bank Regulations, 1905, dated 15th May, 1905. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  EXTRADITION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to include bribery amongst extradition crimes. Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read l a ; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No. 83.)
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order). A further Amendment moved; objected to; and, on Question, disagreed to. An Amendment moved, and (by leave of the House) withdrawn. An Amendment made. Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 85.)
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  BRITISH SHIPPING TRADE—FOREIGN RESERVATIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS.
  LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose "To call attention to the action of foreign maritime Powers in closing certain spheres of trade in which British ships have hitherto been engaged, with particular reference to the Philippines, Canary Islands, and the Marshall Islands trades; to ask whether any further information can be afforded regarding the negotiations which have passed between His Majesty's Government and the United States, German, and Spanish Governments on the matter; whether, if the position is still adverse to British ships, any steps are contemplated in protecting them from unfair competition; whether it is a fact that His Majesty's Government have reserved the water frontage of the British concession at Hankau to British ships, and, if so, whether the reports are correct that the restriction is evaded by foreigners registering their vessels as British vessels under the Companies Act in Hong-Kong."
  He said: My Lords, though the notice I have given appears to be a comprehensive one, I shall endeavour to confine myself as closely as possible to the points at

  921
  issue. My object in calling your Lordships' attention to these several matters and asking for further information regarding them is to show that foreigners are closing the door to our greatest Industry whilst the Government, up till the other day at all events, have taken no steps to prevent it except in one case which I will mention later on. I am aware that I may seem to be bordering upon a thorny and much-debated subject, but I contend that this question of our merchant shipping should not be looked on either from a free-trade or protectionist point of view. The question of free trade or protection is never brought forward in connection with the Royal Navy or the Army. As the Militia is the reserve of the Army, so is the merchant navy the reserve, and the only reserve, of the Royal Navy. On the merchant navy you depend for your food supplies, and for the transport of troops and munitions of war; and our merchant ships are the most material of the bonds that bind the Empire together. Our great shipping lines I may liken to the arteries running from the heart of the Empire to all our Colonies. The merchant navy is financed by private individuals, but nevertheless it is a national service of the greatest importance, and it is the duty of the Government to encourage and protect it.
  It is ridiculous to suppose that whilst we permit and encourage the foreigner to compete with us at advantageous terms, we should also allow him to debar, under any consideration whatever, any competition of ours in the countries over which he has dominion. The foreign shipowner is at present playing with us that interesting game known as "Heads I win, tails you lose." Whilst the foreigner is free to trade wherever he pleases, I find from the Report of the Steamships Subsidies Committee that British ships are not allowed to participate in the coasting trade of the following maritime countries:—Belgium, France, Russia, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Brazil, the United States, Egypt, and others.
  When I brought this subject of the coastal trade before your Lordships last year I was replied to by the noble
  922
  Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and on June 28th, some days afterwards, I received the following letter from Messrs. Burt, Boulton & Hay wood, Limited, of Cannon Street, E.C., viz.—
  "My Lord,—In reply to a question of yours asked in the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne is reported in The Times of Tuesday, June 14th, to have replied as follows:—'Out of the seven Powers which do a large amount of coasting trade, four—Germany, Denmark, Holland, and Portugal—admit our vessels freely to their coasting trade. France does the same with the exception of Algerian trade, which is specially reserved.' We felt sure at the time that this reply was reported that it was not entirely accurate, and that Lord Lansdowne had been misinformed, but, to make sure, we made a direct inquiry of the Ministers de Commerce in Paris, through our Paris house, and received the positive assurance that affairs are exactly as they have been for many years past in France, and that foreign vessels are prohibited from coasting between French ports proper, and between French ports and Algerian ports and vice versa. No doubt others will have written to you pointing out the discrepancy between Lord Lansdowne's statement, as reported, and the facts, but you would be doing great service to British shipping if you would kindly follow up the matter further, and endeavour to obtain some public correction from Lord Lansdowne of the error into which he has been led.
  Yours faithfully,
  Burt, Boulton & Haywood, Limited.
  (Signed) HAROLD BOULTON, Director."
  To such an absurd and unfair pitch has this reservation of the coastal trade got, that in Russia it includes a voyage from the Black Sea to St. Petersburg. Here a once lucrative British trade has been shut out by one fell swoop. Russia also declares it coastal trade from St. Petersburg or any Russian port to Vladivostock. Again, a British ship cannot—or rather, is not allowed to—carry a cargo from New York to San Francisco, or from any American port to Honolulu, for in the eyes of the United States this is a coasting voyage. Therefore, one of our ships seeking a cargo in New York has the whole of the United States sea-board and the Sandwich Islands wiped off her chart.
  The latest move of the United States is that, on the 1st of July of next year, the Philippines are to be included in the same category; thus British ships after that date may say good-bye to another trade which has been practically theirs up till now. At the recent annual

  923
  meeting of the Sunderland Shipowners' Society, the chairman said—
  "Unfortunately the United States were closing their Philippine trade at the end of July of next year. That was a matter which affected them very keenly, as it employed a large amount of tonnage."
  We cannot but sympathise with our shipowners when we see their limits of trade becoming more and more restricted, whilst at the same time the foreign competition they have to contend with is growing keener and stronger every day. Surely, my Lords, it is full time for His Majesty's Government to take action in this matter. Though in a comparative sense it does not appear to be of much magnitude, it is another encroachment on our shipping trade that the Spanish Government have decided to reserve to Spanish ships the trade between the different islands of the Canaries. The present trade, as it is carried on, provides a living for certain British owners, captains, officers, and men who shortly will perforce require to look elsewhere for the employment of which they have been deprived by foreigners. We found it so when large British lines trading from Singapore and Shanghai were sold to foreigners that the British captains and officers were displaced at the earliest possible time. I understand that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has informed the Merchant Service Guild that this question of the reservation of the Canary Islands trade is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government—I hope with better success than that which attended their negotiations anent the Philippine Islands trade.
  With regard to the action of the Germans in freezing out British trade with the Marshall and Caroline groups of Islands in the Pacific, this was lately brought before your Lordships' House by my noble friend the Earl of Jersey, and the noble Marquess the Foreign Minister a short time ago told your Lordships the nature of the communication he had received from the German Government. I see that the Federal Prime Minister took a very practical and forcible view of the situation in saying that if the Imperial Government obtained no redress for them they would retaliate by severely penalising German trade
  924
  with Australia. I cannot help thinking that this statement of the Federal Prime Minister had some influence on the terms of the reply given by Germany to the noble Marquess.
  The final, and what I consider the most important, matter to which, with your permission, I would allude is that, if reports are correct, the British Government have already taken steps in protecting British trade from the opposition of the foreigner. When on previous occasions I have advocated steps of the kind in this House the replies I have received have proved to be most unsatisfactory. But it is deeds, not words, which tell, and it affords me ample satisfaction when I hear that His Majesty's Government carry into practical effect that which in this House they have poured cold water upon. In the year 1861 the British Government secured from the Chinese the perpetual lease of a piece of land some 2,750 feet in length by 1,250 feet in breadth, situated on the left bank of the Yangtze, about fifty yards below the native city of Hankau. On this piece of land an important and prosperous tradecentre has been built up, and is known is the British concession at Hankau. As was to be expected, foreign competition became keener and keener until, finally, the George McBain line of steamers, tinder the British flag, and having certain important rights in the concession, was sold to the largest and most powerful of the Japanese shipping companies—the Nippon Yusen Kaisha. Thinking that the British Government would maintain their usual non possumus attitude, they naturally concluded that the rights and privileges of Mr. George McBain as a British subject in the British concession at Hankau would accrue to them as part of the goodwill of the business they had bought. The bona fide British shipowners trading to the concession took alarm, however, and saw that their interests would in all probability suffer very seriously. An appeal was made to the British Government, who, it appears, have decided to reserve the sites at this British concession to British national shipping,
  I am relying on The Times correspondent at Shanghai for most of my

  925
  details. Owing to the presence of foreign voters on the concession at Hankau it is said that the Foreign Office have supplemented their decision by laying it down that in case of necessity British votes alone should be considered. This step, if it has actually been taken by the Government, is of far-reaching importance. The magnitude of it can hardly be realised at the moment, for it is, I think I am right in saying, the first practical and drastic method they have adopted in preventing foreign encroachment on the rightful preserves of the British shipping trade. If, as I hope to hear, my statements are in accord with fact, I would also like to know whether the decision of the Government has been checkmated by the Japanese company referred to. So far as can be gathered, this company have now, at Hong-Kong, registered their vessels as British ships. It is said that this is in accordance with the law, although a glance at the composition of the company shows that two clerks of the Japanese company are the principal shareholders, and that the only difference is the flag the ships fly. I may say that the Japanese are by no means the only offenders in this respect.
  The reports of The Times correspondent at Shanghai are so detailed and circumstantial as to warrant credence being given to them. I do not suppose that His Majesty's Government are going to allow foreigners, under the guise of Britishers, to circumvent a decision they have arrived at, and no doubt the noble Marquess representing the Foreign Office can give satisfactory assurances on this point. I hope your Lordships will not think I have unduly trespassed upon your indulgence. Though we are yet paramount as a shipping Power we are too apt to forget how keen, how determined, and sometimes how unscrupulous foreign competition has become. It behoves us to meet it before it overwhelms us, for when our shipping trade is threatened it is an attempt not only to cripple our greatest industry, but to strike a blow at the foundations of the British Empire. I beg to put the Questions standing in my name.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I shall certainly not gainsay what has fallen from the noble Lord as to the importance of our merchant service, of whose interests he has shown himself a vigilant and assiduous advocate. Nor shall I contradict him when he tells your Lordships that he regards as extremely unfair to this country the existing arrangements under which, while the coasting trade of Great Britain and her dependencies is freely open to the shipping of other countries, the coastal trade of some at all events of those countries is entirely closed against British shipping. I am afraid, too, that the noble Lord is not inaccurate when he says that the tendency to impose this restriction is an increasing tendency, and it is, as he truly said, aggravated by the fact that, when speaking of coasting trade, we refer, not only to coasting trade in the narrower sense of the word—trade between one portion and another of the United Kingdom—but also to that much more extensive trade passing between one national port and another national port, such, for instance, as the trade carried by vessels plying between a Black Sea port and St. Petersburg.
  The noble Lord left us to infer the remedy which he would propose in order to combat this condition of things. I would venture to remind your Lordships that, so long as nothing is done by foreign Powers to infringe the treaty rights of this country, we have no title to complain if a foreign Power chooses to restrict its coasting trade, or any other part of its trade, to its own subjects. All we can do is to consider whether it is worth our while to use pressure, and, if so, to what extent, in order to bring about a mitigation of our grievances.
  It is sometimes suggested, and I rather think that that is virtually the suggestion of the noble Lord, that we should follow the example of other countries and reserve entirely to our own shipping the coasting trade of Great Britain and her dependencies. But that is not a remedy to which we could light-heartedly resort. It would carry us too far, for of the Powers which participate largely in this coasting business four, at any rate, admit us to their coasting trade. In regard to a fifth Power, France, I will make a point

  927
  of inquiring very carefully into the matter after what the noble Lord has said, but I am under the impression that France allows British vessels to participate in her coasting trade except that which passes between French ports and ports of the Algerian provinces. Then, if we were to debar foreigners from participation in our coasting traffic, we should diminish, or perhaps lose entirely, that extremely valuable entrepôt trade in which this country has a large interest. It must be remembered that many foreign vessels coming to our ports bring us their merchandise for reshipment to some other country, and it would certainly be a misfortune if that branch of our business were to be taken away from us. Then it is suggested that we might deny our coasting trade to those countries which do not admit us to theirs. But there we are met with a formidable difficulty—namely, that the countries which most completely exclude us from their coasting trade are precisely the countries which take the smallest part in our coasting trade. The Powers which I have in my mind are the United States and Russia.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I included inter-coastal colonial trade.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am quite aware of that, but I do not think it affects the argument I am using. Although there is the inequality which I have admitted, it cannot be said that at this moment, at all events, foreign countries monopolise any considerable share of our coasting business. The figures are rather striking. I believe I gave them to your Lordships last year, but I do not hesitate to repeat them. Of the smaller coasting trade around our shores no less than 99 per cent, is in the hands of British shipping, while of the larger Imperial coasting trade no less than 88 per cent. is done by British shipping and only 12 per cent. by foreign vessels. Another suggestion is that we should, at any rate, insist that such foreign vessels as ply to British ports should be compelled to comply with those regulations and legislative enactments by which
  928
  our own shipping is bound. There is at this moment, certainly, an inconsistency, and a most inequitable inconsistency, in allowing, say, a Norwegian timber ship to come to a British port without complying with those extremely salutary regulations of which the noble Lord has often spoken in this House and which are, to a certain extent, a burden on the shipping of this country. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed last session to deal with this matter. I believe that the time at their disposal was not found sufficient to enable them to arrive at a conclusion, and it has been lately announced that the Committee is to be reappointed this year. I am sure we must all hope that they will see their way to making practical and satisfactory recommendations on this important branch of the subject.
  The particular cases which the noble Lord cited illustrate very fairly the great difficulty of dealing with this problem. In the first instance there is the case of the Philippines. When the United States made peace with Spain they undertook that for ten years Spanish shipping should have equal treatment with United States shipping so far as the trade with the Philippines was concerned. Last year a Bill passed the United States Legislature under which all foreign shipping, except Spanish, is excluded from trade with the Philippines, that trade being reserved as coastal trade by the United States Government. The Act in question will not come into operation until 1906. When we became aware of this we put in a claim in favour of our shipping, urging that, as we were entitled to most-favoured-nation treatment at the hands of the United States Government, we might claim the same treatment for our shipping that the United States Government had bound themselves to accord for ten years to Spanish shipping. We were met with a reply, perhaps not entirely unexpected, which goes to show that the interpretation placed by the United States Government upon most-favoured-nation treatment differs materially from our interpretation. The United States Government hold, and, I believe, have held for some time, that the existence of an international compact, under which

  929
  they are bound to give most-favoured-nation treatment to any particular Power does not preclude them from making by treaty with another Power for value received special arrangements entitling that other Power to exceptional privileges or advantages. The United States Government hold that in this case their arrangement with regard to trade with the Philippines is such a special arrangement, and is not of a kind which entitles other nations to claim equal treatment on the ground that they have most-favoured-nation clauses with the United States. That is how the matter stands, and I am sorry to say that I do not see much prospect of inducing the United States Government to abandon that view. But I would ask the noble Lord whether it is not possible to exaggerate the dimensions of the difficulty which has arisen. This special arrangement between the United States and Spain runs for ten years from the date when it was made. It will, therefore, expire in 1908 or in the beginning of 1909, but the trade of the Philippines will only begin to be treated as coastal trade and reserved to the United States in 1906. We are, therefore, only discussing a trade which is, after all, not of first-rate importance, and which, in any circumstances, could be withdrawn from us after we had enjoyed it for the space of about two years; for I need not say that when the special arrangement between the United States and Spain comes to an end, we shall no longer be able to claim most-favoured-nation treatment.
  The second case referred to by the noble Lord was that of the Canaries. I find that in November of last year it was declared under Royal decree by the Spanish Government that trade between the different ports of those is lands should hence forth be treated as coastal trade. When that decision became known our representative called attention to the fact that considerable British interests were involved—interests which had grown up under the shelter of previous decrees. I do not know whether it was owing to this representation, but it was in fact, decided that the new decree should not come into operation
  930
  until this year. In the meantime our representations were renewed; but I am sorry to say, in this case also, we received a distinct intimation that, in the opinion of the Spanish Government, it is expected, for the protection of their mercantile marine and in accordance with the rules of the Spanish Customs reserving coastal trade for the national flag, that foreign shipping should not be admitted to the trade of these islands. There the matter remains, and I do not, as at present advised, see what means His Majesty's Government have of inducing the Spanish Government to take a different view.
  In regard to the Marshall Islands, I made a statement in your Lordships' House the other evening, and I do not know that it is necessary for me to add to what I then said. I was able to tell the House that the German Government freely recognised that the Convention of 1896 entitled British and German shipping to absolute equality of treatment in that part of the ocean, and I was able to say that the particular concession granted to the Jaluit Company was about to be cancelled by the German Government. I do not think I need add anything to that.
  I now pass to the last case mentioned by the noble Lord—the case of the wharves at Hankau. The story, stated briefly, is this. In the British concession at Hankau there is a small amount of wharfage which was reserved by this country—I believe the length of it is only sufficient to accommodate four hulks at one and the same time. There has been a considerable amount of dispute with regard to the conditions under which this wharfage was to be used. The old regulations were, I am bound to say, of a very unsatisfactory character. A meeting of the persons renting land in the concession used to be held, a good many of whom were not British subjects; they were able to recommend any applicant for the privilege of making use of this wharfage, and if their recommendation seemed to our Consul-General an improper one he was able to put a veto upon it; but if he did so the result was to prevent the

  931
  particular candidate recommended by the land-renters from getting his wharf; but it did not enable the Consul-General to give it to anybody else. Therefore the result used to be a deadlock and the wharfage might remain vacant and useless. New regulations have been drafted by our Minister under which the British Consul-General will be in a position to notify to the municipal council his approval of any particular application for wharfage, and that approval will be obligatory upon the council. As an alternative mode of procedure, it is provided that the land-renters may also recommend an applicant, but there is an appeal to the Consul-General, whose decision is final, and instructions have been given which is to make it perfectly clear that a preference be given. The noble Lord seemed to be apprehensive that these new rules would be eluded by bogus registrations, under the shelter of which people who were not really British subjects would appear in the guise of British subjects and claim rights accordingly. That point, I think has been sufficiently provided for in the instructions, because it has been laid down that the Consul-General is to give a preference to British steamers and that, in deciding between one applicant and another, he is to have regard to the ownership and agency of the line and to decide which applicant most truly represents British interests. I do not think, therefore, that there is any prospect of the new regulations being evaded. In regard to the un-satisfactoriness of the state of things under which we do not at present obtain on the coasts of other countries the privileges which we afford to others, I am afraid that I am unable to give the noble Lord much comfort. But I can assure him that in all these cases, and particularly as regards Hankau, we have done all that is possible to secure due regard to British interests.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  LORD HENEAGE LORD HENEAGE moved an Amendment to Clause 3, altering the time in
  932
  which it was necessary to give notice of the accident from "six" to "nine" days. He thought six days an adequate period in towns but contended that in regard to rural employment a longer time should be allowed after the happening of the accident in which to give the notice. He quoted several instances to show the necessity of extending the period if labouring men in remote country districts, who might not call a doctor in until several days after the accident, were to have the benefit of the Act.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, page 2, line 37, to leave out the word 'six' and insert the word 'nine.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
  LORD BELPERreminded the House that when this matter was considered by the Committee very strong evidence was put before them in favour of fixing a much shorter period than six days. Three days were suggested as ample time for the notice, especially as the period could be extended, where necessary, by application to the County Court. Indeed, some who gave evidence before the Committee were pressing the Government to make the time even shorter than three days. The period in the Bill—six days—was suggested by the Committee and accepted as a compromise, and in view of the safeguard giving a County Court power to extend the period, he questioned the wisdom of raising the point now when they had a certain prospect before them, if they did so, of the matter being reopened in another place in the other direction. It was not only in the interest of the employer but also in the interest of the workmen that the notice should be given as early as possible, so that the injury could be medically attended to without delay, and he hoped the compromise which had been come to would be allowed to stand. There was not the slightest doubt that if a case arose in which a labourer in a country district had failed, through ignorance or any other cause, to give the notice in the necessary time the Court would take a reasonable view of the matter and allow the claim for compensation to proceed. Personally, he could not see any difficulty in the injured labourer

  933
  giving notice of the accident before he left the farm, even though the injury might not appear to be of so serious a nature as to be likely to lead to a claim being made. If, in the future, it was proved that in the case of agricultural labourers the period in which the notice had to be given should be a longer one, that would be a fair case for amending the law; but at present, in view of the careful attention given to the matter by the Committee and the fact that the period of six days was agreed upon by them as a compromise, His Majesty's Government were obliged to adhere to the period in the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid that one of the principal arguments of Lord Belper appeared to be that if Lord Heneage's Amendment was adopted the question would be sure to be raised again in the House of Commons and difficulties would arise there. He (Lord Ripon) could assure the noble Lord that, if the Amendment was not made, the question would undoubtedly be raised in the House of Commons, and probably the view of the noble Lord (Lord Belper) would not be upheld by that Assembly. The noble Lord had declared that, in his opinion, it would be quite convenient for an agricultural labourer who was injured on a farm to give his notice before leaving the farm. But was that reasonable? It appeared to him (Lord Ripon) that the period of six days, shortened as it probably would be in most cases by the intervention of Sunday, was undoubtedly too short; and in the interests of working men he had hoped the Government would have given way and accepted the reasonable Amendment moved by Lord Heneage. The view of those who desired to limit the period to three days was so unjust that it was not entitled to any consideration at all.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid there never were any Acts of Parliament which had given rise to so much litigation and expense as the Workmen's Compensation Acts. He did not believe there was a Judge on the Bench who had not had occasion to
  934
  grumble at the time he had had to spend in construing those Acts. This all arose in his opinion, from the practice that had been growing up of legislating by reference—an evil which was perpetuated in the present Bill. There was hardly a section of the Workmen's Compensation Acts which was not touched by this Bill, and the result would be that the difficulties of construction would be greater than ever. He had proposed to move that the principal Act and the Act of 1900 should be printed as a schedule to this Act, with the additions, omissions, and substitutions required by this Act; but on consideration he thought that a method of dealing with the matter of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had given notice would meet the case. It was provided in the Bill that the Act should come into operation on January 1st, 1906, except as regards certain parts of it, and as the Act was to come into operation at different times he thought there might be a question as to how soon it might be possible to print the Act as suggested in the Amendment standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)reminded their Lordships that the greater tendency in recent years to make reference to Acts of Parliament relating to each other had been adopted from the necessity of minimising opportunities of obstruction, for every additional line gave opportunities for further opposition. He did not deny that this legislation by reference was a very great evil, and was not satisfactory either to the Legislature or to the Judges who had to construe it. But they had to do the best they could. He was himself chairman of the Statute Law Revision Committee, which succeeded in reducing the statutes at large from 100 volumes to ten. That result was of very great advantage to the community, but it was discovered that they were proceeding too quickly and it became the practice to obstruct these consolidating statutes, and they were thrown overboard at the end of the session. The consequence was that for the last ten years the Committee had not met again, for he had never asked the Judges and the other members to proceed further with their thankless and laborious task.

  935
  His Amendment was to omit Sub-section 4 of Clause 23, which provided that any copy of the principal Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900—
  "Printed after the passing of this Act by authority of His Majesty, may be printed with the additions, omissions, and substitutions required by this Act."
  And to substitute for it a sub-section directing the Clerk of the Parliaments to prepare and certify a copy of the principal Act and of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900—
  "With the omission of the parts expressly repealed by this Act and with the sections and sub-sections numbered in manner directed by this Act."
  for His Majesty's printer. The words which he proposed to insert were in the Act of 1885, in which for the first time this practice was introduced, but for some reason or other in later years the certificate of the Clerk of Parliaments had been left out. But it must be understood that this was to be done solely for the convenience of those interested, such as workmen and lawyers; and that authority was to lie solely in the Act as it was passed by Parliament and printed in the form in which it was passed among the Acts of Parliament of the session.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 23, page 16, to leave out Sub-section (4), and to insert the following new sub-sections: ' (4) Every enactment and word of this Act which is expressed to be substituted for or added to any portion of the principal Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900, shall form part of those Acts respectively in the place assigned to it by this Act, and those Acts, and all Acts, including this Act, which refer thereto shall, after the commencement of and subject to the savings contained in this Act, be construed as if the said enactment or word had been originally enacted in the principal Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900, as the case may be, in the place so assigned, and where it is substituted for another enactment or word, had been so enacted in lieu of that enactment or word; and the expression 'this Act' as used in the principal Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900, or this Act, shall be construed accordingly. ' (5) A copy of the principal Act and of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900, with every such enactment and word inserted in the place so assigned, and with the omission of the parts expressly repealed by this Act, and with the sections and sub-sections numbered in manner directed by this Act, shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments, and deposited with the Rolls of
  936
  Parliament; His Majesty's printer shall print in accordance with the copy so certified all copies of the principal Act and of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1900, which are printed after the commencement of this Act.' "—(The. Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid he had no objection to the Amendment, as it was intended altogether for convenience and as without it the amended Act as arranged by the printer, without any certificate from the Clerk of the Parliaments, would have been the actual enactment. He had been more successful than he anticipated, for his action in calling attention to this matter had led to an Amendment being placed on the Paper by Lord Cross as well as by his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He would have been glad to accept either of the remedies proposed, but of the two he preferred the Amendment which had just been moved by the Lord Chancellor. The point he desired to emphasise was that the law of the land must be the Act itself as it was passed by Parliament.
  LORD THRINGsaid the tendency of legislation by reference was to make the law a sort of Chinese puzzle. He did not, however, desire to express any opinion as to the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. But he doubted whether it clearly expressed what was undoubtedly intended—namely, that the text of the Act was to be the text as passed by Parliament.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended [No. 85].

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. (IRELAND) (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, this Bill proposes to give an extension of the power of appeal to your Lordships House from the Court of Appeal in

  937
  Ireland. Important proceedings occasionally come before the Court of Appeal in Ireland, taken by way of certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, or prohibition, valuation and rating appeals and the parties are unable under the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877, to take them by way of final appeal to your Lordships' House. This Bill proposes to extend the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords and make it exercisable in the case of any decision, judgment, decree, or order of the Court of Appeal in Ireland in any proceedings such as those to which I have referred. The Bill will be a very useful one and I hope your Lordships will accord it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Ashbourne).
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.