Sitting of 29 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-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz:—Darien Gold Mining Company Fill [Lords]; Hythe Corporation Bill [Lords]; Leven's Patent Bill [Lords]; Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords]; Tees Valley Water
  56
  Board Bill [Lords]; Weaver Navigations Bill [Lords].
  Ordered. That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz:—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water Bill. Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  South Metropolitan Gas Bill. Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  Bolton Corporation Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  North Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Gamble's Divorce Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That Standing Orders 204 and 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No.13) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 2) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Gamble's Divorce Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with the Documents deposited in the case, of Gamble's Divorce Bill [Lords].—(Mr. Attorney-General.)
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses for Gamble's Divorce Bill [Lords]; and also that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses against the Bill if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce Witnesses.—(Mr Attorney-General.)
  Franchise and Removal of Women's Disabilities Bill. Second Reading deferred from Friday till Friday, 9th June.
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Clacton Improvement [Lords]. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Clay Cross Railway (Abandonment) Bill; Great Berkhampstead Gas Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to—Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the London County Council to
  58
  put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." [Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers upon a Joint Committee of the Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies; for leasing certain railways of the Metropolitan Company; for confirming an agreement between the two companies in relation thereto; and for other purposes." [Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Portsmouth Street Tramways Company to construct additional Tramways in the urban district of Gosport and Alverstoke, and street works in that district and in the urban district of Fareham, in the county of Southampton; and for other purposes." [Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time limited for the completion of the tramways, light railways, and works authorised to be constructed by the Hastings Tramways Company and to revive the powers for the compulsory purchase of land by that Company, and to authorise the construction of certain deviations of their authorised light railways and other works; and for other purposes." [Hastings Tramways Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for taking lands for the construction of certain tramways, widenings, and works authorised by the South Lancashire Tramways Acts, 1900 and 1901; to abandon certain tramways authorised by the Act of 1900; and for other purposes." [South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Great Central Railway Company to establish a Pension Fund and guarantee pensions for the benefit of their salaried officers and clerks; to alter, modify, and repeal certain provisions of the Acts relating to the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund Corporation; and for other purposes." [Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords.]
  Gamble's Divorce Bill [Lords]. That they communicate Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Gamble's Divorce Bill [Lords], as desired by this House, with a request that the same may be returned.
  Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [Lords]; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [Lords]; Hastings Tramways Bill [Lords]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords]; Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]
  Metropolitan Pneumatic Despatch Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Rochdale; and Hartlepool; to lie upon the Table.
  FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL.
  Petition from Barton Hill, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  Petition from Newport (Mon.), for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR BILL.
  Petition of the Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  Petition from Newbury, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  Petition from Rochdale, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of Messrs. F. H. Dale and T. A. Stephens, His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, Board of Education, on Intermediate Education in Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consents of the South Hayling Parish Council and the North Hayling Parish Meeting in the case of the Hayling Island Gas Provisional Order [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 177.]
  RAILWAYS (CERTIFICATES) (EWELL AND LONG GROVE RAILWAY).
  Copy presented, of Draft Certificate of the Board of Trade authorising the construction of a Railway from Ewell to Long Grove [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address May 25th; Sir Henry Fowler]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 178.]
  INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered May 18th; Sir George Bartley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 179.]

  ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Return for the year ended March 31st, 1905, of Pensions

  61
  specially granted under Articles 730, 1173A, and 1207 of the Army Pay Warrant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3383 and 3384 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Visit of Local Government Board Medical Inspector to Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the statement contained in the report of the County Medical Officer of Health for Ross and Cromarty concerning the insanitary condition of the Island of Lewis, will he state when the Local Government Board's medical inspector proposes to visit the island.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The medical inspector and inspecting officer of the Local Government Board visited the Island of Lewis in April and inspected a number of townships. Their report is now under the consideration of the Board.

  Escape of Trawler "Roi des Belges" from Stornoway.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that, although an arrestment was put on the trawler "Roi des Belges" when she put into Stornoway during the week ending May 6th, she was allowed to leave the day following that on which she arrived; and will he state briefly the circumstances of the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) An arrestment was put on the "Roi des Belges" when she put into Stornoway with her main steam-pipe broken; after the repair of the pipe, arrangements had been made for taking coal on board next
  62
  day. The vessel, however, slipped out to sea in the early hours of the morning without the coal. The arrestment was at the instance of the law agent for certain fishermen whose nets had been damaged outside the three-mile limit, and was executed to found jurisdiction, but no citation could be placed in the hands of the master owing to his sudden departure.

  Withdrawals from Post Office Savings Banks.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of withdrawals from the Post Office Savings. Bank by telegraph for each year since the system has been introduced, and the number of telegraph notices of withdrawal during the same period.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The number of withdrawals made from the Post Office Savings Bank by telegraph and by return of post respectively during each year since the introduction of the systems were as follows:—

  (1).—Withdrawals by Telegraph.

  Year.

  Number.

  1893(Dec. 1st to Dec. 31st)

  978

  1894

  44,163

  1895

  72,431

  1896

  94,477

  1897

  117,507

  1898

  141,783

  1899

  161,190

  1900

  167,389

  1901

  192,308

  1902

  220,032

  1903

  215,416

  1904

  211,977

  Punishment for Errors in Registered Letter Division, East Central District Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the punishment awarded to sorters in the Registered Letter Division, East Central District Office, for errors of duty apart from discipline cases, as compared with the punishment awarded generally to officers in the East Central Sorting Office, to ascertain whether such punishment results from the high pressure at which the registered letter sorters work, owing to inadequate provision of force.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The hon. Member is in error in supposing that a case for inquiry is established by the act that a larger proportion of errors deserving punishment appears to exist among the sorters in the Registered Letter Division than in the sorting office of the East Central District. The explanation of the discrepancy is merely that the system under which registered letters are checked from hand to hand
  64
  brings errors of carelessness to light; while in the sorting office, where ordinary mails are dealt with, similar opportunities of fixing the responsibility for errors do not exist. I am satisfied that the force employed is not inadequate.

  Promotion in the Postal Service.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can specify any instances in the postal service, other than postmen in the London postal service, in which officers are systematically promoted over an intervening class.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The hon. Member is in error in supposing that postmen in the London postal service are systematically promoted over an intervening class. Such a procedure does not exist in any part of the Post Office.

  Appointments for Male Learners in Dublin Post Office.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any appointments have been made in Ireland since the last examination in Dublin for male learners; and whether he can state why the examination was held if there were no vacancies.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. In order that vacancies, when they occur, may be filled without delay it is necessary to hold examinations in advance of the vacancies. I regret that the probable number of vacancies was in this instance, as I informed the hon. Member on the 22nd instant, † over-estimated.

  Promotion of Men with Less than Twenty Years Service to Chief Inspectorships in the Metropolitan Police Force.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men belonging to the Metropolitan police force, having less than twenty years service, have been promoted to chief inspectorships during the last ten years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Twenty-one men of the
  †See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 947.

  65
  Metropolitan police force, having less than twenty years service, have been promoted to chief inspectorships during the last ten years.

  Importation of Crew from Antwerp to man the "Oakwood."
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a crew of sailors and firemen were brought from the port of Antwerp to the West India Dock, London, to join the British steamship "Oakwood," and that these men had to pay to a shipping master at Antwerp six francs each for a berth; and whether, in view of the number of sailors and firemen unemployed in London at the present moment, he will cause inquiries to be made as to the circumstances under which this crew was brought to London.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade have made inquiries and the facts are, I believe, as stated in the Question. The Board of Trade have no power to interfere in the matter, but I may say that the present current rate of wages is higher in London than at Antwerp.

  Cost of Seamen's Outfits and Ordnance purchased for the Navy and Royal Marines and Fleet Reserves.
  MR. COGAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the cost of the seamen's clothing, boots, other articles of outfit, small arms and ammunition, material for manufacture of ordnance, and explosives, respectively, purchased for the Navy and Royal Marine and Fleet Reserves for the year 1904–5.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The information asked for appears to be available in the Navy Estimates of last year, Votes 2 and 9; but if the hon. Member desires any further particulars which can be prepared without undue clerical labour I will endeavour to supply them.

  Cost of Stationery and Printing for Parliament and Public Departments.
  MR. COGAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the cost of the stationery and other paper, printing, parchment and vellum, books
  66
  and maps, stationery and paper for both Houses of Parliament, printing and binding for same, and other paper and printing respectively, purchased for the Public Departments of the Civil Service supplied through His Majesty's Stationery Office and otherwise for the year 1904–5, or for the previous year.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The figures of expenditure from Stationery Office Votes on account of Parliament and Public Departments in the year 1903–4, as appearing in the Appropriation Account for the year, are as follows:—

  For Public Departments.—

  Subhead E.

  Printing

  £280,243

  Subhead F.

  Paper

  204,528

  Subhead G.

  Parchments

  8,285

  Subhead H.

  Binding

  77,908

  †Subhead I.

  Books and Maps and Miscellaneous Stores

  112,499

  For Parliament:—

  Subhead J.

  Total

  £90,196

  The accounts of the expenditure for Parliament were not kept separately under the different subheads, but the following is an approximate subdivision:—

  printing

  £77,760

  Paper

  9,250

  Parchments

  700

  Binding

  1,250

  Books and Maps and Miscellaneous Stores

  1,236

  £90,196

  The figures of Stationery Office expenditure for 1904–5 cannot yet be furnished.

  Vaccination Regulations.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON:To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the importance attached by medical vaccinist authorities to the existence of an adequate area of marks as an evidence of efficient vaccination, and in view of the practice of the Board in awarding a
  † The figures for Books, etc., and Miscellaneous Stores were not kept separately until 1904–5.

  67
  bonus to public vaccinators on similar evidence of the efficiency of the vaccination work, he will consider the desirability of specifying the cicatricial area necessary to a successful vaccination, and of requiring the public vaccinators to inspect their vaccinations at the end of three months after the performance of the operation with a view to satisfying themselves that the specified area has been produced; and whether he will consider the desirability of embodying a definition of successful vaccination in the Board's instructions to vaccinators under contract, and in Form E required by the Board to be filled up by medical practitioners who are not public, vaccinators.
  (Answered Mr. Gerald Balfour.), Awards are made to public Vaccinators on other considerations besides the "existence" in cases vaccinated by them "of an adequate area of marks." I have no power to define successful vaccination or to prescribe the duties of private medical practitioners in the matter referred to in the Question, but I will consider to what extent it may be I practicable to give effect to the hon. Member's suggestion, so far as public vaccinators are concerned, whenever it becomes necessary to revise the regulations respecting their duties.

  Publication of Dr. Farrar's Report on Cases of Cerebro-Spinal Meningitis at Irthlingborough.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will publish, as a Parliamentary Paper or in the Press, the report of Dr. Farrar, the Local Government Board inspector, into the cases of cerebro-spinal meningitis at Irthlingborough, Northants; and whether he will state what steps, if any, are being taken to prevent, so far as possible, the introduction of the disease into this country and to isolate and stamp out outbreaks of this disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Dr. Farrar's report on this subject will, I hope, shortly be completed. I propose that it should then be printed and published. Communications have been made to the medical officers of health of
  68
  the ports at which immigrants from the Continent are usually landed with a view to these officers being on the watch for the possible importation of cases of cerebro-spinal meningitis from abroad. As I stated on Thursday † last, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for the Radcliffe Division, the Local Government Board are prepared to entertain proposals from the local authorities to make compulsory for a limited time the notification to them of cases of this disease where they deem it desirable.

  Protection of Lives of British Officers Serving with Mahsuds on the Indian Frontier.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the assassination of Captain Bowring in September, and of Lieutenant-Colonel Harman in February last, by Mahsuds enlisted for frontier defence, the Government of India is taking precautions to prevent other valuable lives from being sacrificed in the same way.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The subject has engaged the very careful attention of the Government of India. Immediately on the murder of Colonel Harman, the Mahsuds in the Southern Waziristan Militia, some 400 men, about a quarter of the whole strength of the corps, were disarmed, and a full jirga of the tribe was summoned to meet the Chief Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province. The Chief Commissioner reported that the attitude of the. representatives of the tribe at the meeting was satisfactory, as also appeared to him to be the condition of the tribe as a whole. It has been decided not to reinstate the disarmed men, but to make a fresh enlistment of from 100 to 150 selected Mahsuds, for whose individual conduct the tribe would be willing, in accordance with an undertaking given at the meeting, to furnish a full guarantee. Steps are being taken to select recruits and obtain the necessary security from the tribe in the case of each of them. It should be added that the murderers in both cases were apprehended and duly executed. The state of these frontier
  † See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 1394.

  69
  forces will be closely observed. I would take the opportunity to express my profound regret for the loss of these two officers and my appreciation of the value of their services. Captain Bowring held the important post of Political Agent in Southern Waziristan and was an officer of great promise. Lieutenant-Colonel Harman was Commandant of the Southern Waziristan Militia. The gallantry displayed by him and by Captain Plant, who without hesitation rushed unarmed upon the assailant and seized him, was the means, though Colonel Harman's life was sacrificed, of saving the lives of their brother officers who were with them at the time the attack was made, and I feel that no words of mine could add to the feeling which their devotion will excite in this House.

  Conduct of Troops in Rawalpindi.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he has received any official information as to the conduct of troops in Rawalpindi after it was found that a native, charged with having killed a sergeant of the 9th Lancers and admitted to bail, had absconded; and will he state what steps the Government of India have taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am informed by the Viceroy that no occurrence has taken place upon which such a report, as that referred to by my hon. friend, could be founded.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants— Application of Patrick O' Neill.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received the application for reinstatement of Patrick O' Neill, of Inchaclough, near Cahirciveen, whose landlord is Mr. Lionel Hewson; whether he is aware that the landlord is willing to reinstate; and whether the Estates Commissioners will intervene in the matter and inquire whether the present occupier of the holding is willing to accept compensation.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The application has been received, and will
  70
  be inquired into if the estate concerned should come before the Commissioners to be dealt with.

  Estimated Total Cost of Proposed College at Glasnevin
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cost of the ground proposed to be taken in connection with the proposed transfer of the Marlborough Street College students to the residence for men and women to be erected on Colonel Lindsay's farm at Glasnevin, the estimated cost of the building for men and women, the estimated cost of furnishing this residential building for men and women students and making it ready for their occupation, and the estimated total cost of the proposed college residence for men and women students.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The cost of the site was £15,500. Tenders for the building and equipment of the new residence have not yet been considered, and the Commissioners are therefore not at present prepared to give the other information asked for.

  Salary of Teacher of Mohorough National School, Roll No 5,094.
  MR. KENDAL O' BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the rate per annum upon which the salary of the teacher of Mohorough National School, Roll No. 5,094, was calculated and paid for the quarters ending the 31st day of March, 1901, and the 30th day of June, 1901.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Mr. McCarthy was paid at the rate of £87 per annum for the quarter ended 31st March, 1901. This rate was paid in error, as the correct rate was £85 per annum, and there has consequently been an overpayment which the teacher will be asked to refund. The payment made was intended to represent the total of his consolidated income, including residual capitation grant, under the fourth clause of the fourth schedule to the Irish Education Act of 1892. From the 1st April, 1901, the consolidated income of all teachers was divided into two

  71
  portions, and the second portion (the residual capitation grant) was paid in one sum at the end of the financial year. The other portion was paid quarterly. In the case of Mr. McCarthy the portion paid quarterly amounted to £74 per annum, and it was at this rate he was paid for the quarter ended 30th June, 1901.

  Surrender to the Congested Districts Board of Holdings on the Stoney Estate, County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Congested Districts Board in giving sums of money to landholders on the Stoney Estate, county Mayo, on condition that they would surrender their holdings; have those tenants been supplied by the Board with other holdings in return for the surrendered ones; and, if so, are the new holdings larger than the old or surrendered ones; if they have not been supplied with new and larger holdings, can he explain the action of the Board in purchasing the old ones and clearing out the tenants therefrom.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A portion of this estate, consisting of the townland of Murrevagh (extent 200 to 300 acres), was extremely congested when the Board purchased the property. This townland was occupied by upwards of fifty tenants, each of whom held on an average from twenty to thirty separate plots. The Board purchased the interests of sixteen of these small tenants, seven of whom were aged men and women unable to work their holdings, and the remainder either had other holdings or had made up their minds to sell and leave the district. The Board have not supplied any of these persons with new holdings. The object in buying them out was to enable the Board to increase the holdings of those who remained.

  Sitting of Sub-Land Commission for hearing Cases from Cork and Kinsale.
  MR. CREAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can say when the sittings of the Sub-Land Commissioners
  72
  for the hearing of land cases from the unions of Cork and Kinsale, and adjourned in April, will be resumed.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Cork cases on the list were disposed of at the former sitting. The hearing of the Kinsale cases will be resumed at Cork on 23rd June.

  Improvement of Falchorrib Harbour.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the County Council of Donegal, at its meeting on the 23rd May, passed a resolution urging that, in view of the near approach of the herring-fishing season, the projected improvement of the harbour at Falchorrib, under the Marine Works Act, should be proceeded with at once; and whether he can now say when the work will be commenced.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have received a copy of the resolution; but I am unable to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's Question of 4th April. †

  Changes in Clones Police Force.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain what was the reason for the recent retirement of the district inspector and change of head constable in Clones; and whether it is usual to have both these officers of the one religion in the same station.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The district inspector retired on pension on his own application, and the head constable was transferred in the interests of the public service. It is not unusual that the district inspector and the head constable at a station should be of the same religion. The requirements of the service are the paramount consideration in such matters.

  Cyprus.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now able to communicate to the House the result of the
  † See (4) Debates cxliv., 307.

  73
  friendly intervention, of the High Commissioner of Cyprus in regard to the difficulties which have arisen in that island respecting the election to the vacant Archbishopric of Cyprus and the Bishopric of Paphos.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's Question on the 1st June † last, when I stated that the High Commissioner's offer of friendly intervention in this matter had had no satisfactory result.

  Cost of Outfit, Small Arms and Ammunition for Army and Auxiliary Forces.
  MR. COGAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the cost of the clothing and materials for clothing, boots, small arms and ammunition, miscellaneous items of out-fit, such as blankets, materials for the manufacture of ordnance, and explosives, including cordite, respectively, purchased for the Army and Auxiliary Forces for the year 1904–5.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The charge to Army Votes 1904–5 in respect of clothing, and material for clothing, boots, small arms and ammunition, and miscellaneous items of outfit (including camp equipage, accoutrements, and barrack, hospital, and prison stores), can only be given approximately, and may be put roughly at £2,306,000. As regards materials for the manufacture of ordnance and explosives, including cordite, purchased for the Army and Auxiliary Forces, no figures can be calculated.

  Canadian Government Age Guarantees of Whisky.
  MR. KILBRIDE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received a full report from the Colonial Office as to the practice of the Canadian Government in granting certificates, on the payment of a small stamp duty, to distillers and merchants endorsing the age guarantee affixed by such traders to pot-still whiskies bottled in bond, as the Excise officers know by the official books the exact time such
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 497.
  74
  whiskies have been in Government custody; and, if so, whether, in the interest of the trade, the public health, and increase of the revenue, he will instruct the Excise authorities to adopt a similar practice in these countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Further information has bean received with regard to the practice of the Canadian Government in granting certificates, but I am informed that the Canadian system is applicable only to unblended spirits, and could not be adopted to the circumstances of trade in this country, where most of the spirit sold consists of blends of spirit of various quality and of various age.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Portland—Dismissal of Mr. Clement Millard.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon): I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether there were any complaints made against Mr. Clement Millard, superintendent civil engineer at Portland, before his dismissal; whether those complaints were inquired into by the Admiralty; arid, if so, when and how; whether notice of the grounds of complaint was ever given to Mr. Millard; and whether he had an opportunity afforded him of answering them.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE, Hampshire, Fareham): The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension with regard to the reasons which led to the discharge of Mr. Millard from the Admiralty service. He was discharged, not as a result of complaints made against him, but upon a careful consideration of his general record, which had been increasingly unsatisfactory for some time, and which had previously necessitated his removal from Chatham to a less responsible post. The inquiry recently held at Portland was primarily concerned with investigating certain serious charges made by Mr. Millard against an officer who had formerly served under him.

    75
    Those charges were found to be groundless, and whilst certain countercharges were brought against Mr. Millard by the officer referred to, they were not considered of sufficient importance to call for a more thorough investigation, nor was the decision of the Admiralty in any way influenced by them. The decision to dispense with Mr. Millard's further services was based solely upon his inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office, and the Admiralty, after the fullest consideration, and acting under the authority vested in them, came to the conclusion that they could no longer retain him in the Government service.

    Promotion in the Army.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state who is the officer or what is the authority whose duty it is to make inquiries and obtain the information which enables officers to be selected for promotion, or any staff appointment, or special service; and whether the selection is based on personal knowledge or entirely on formal reports.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The confidential reports of officers of the Army are in the custody of the Military Secretary, who is also secretary of the Selection Board. Selections for command or promotion are made by this Board, and when further information is required about any officer it is obtained from General Officers Commanding by the secretary. These selections are made partly as a result of personal knowledge and partly from a study of the formal reports on an officer throughout his career. Staff appointments are made, on the same principle as promotions, by the member of the Army Council who presides over the branch concerned.

    Army Officers' Appeals.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any authority to which officers of the Army may appeal when they consider themselves aggrieved by the action of their superior officers; and what steps
    76
    such aggrieved officers are permitted to take to obtain an inquiry into their complaint.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: An officer who thinks himself wronged by his Commanding Officer may appeal to the General Officer Commanding, and if he thinks himself wronged by the General Officer Commanding in respect of his complaint not being redressed, may demand that it be forwarded to the Army Council. The Army Council examine into such complaint and give their decision thereon. If the officer considers that his complaint is still unredressed he may appeal to the Sovereign, which appeal will be submitted by the Secretary of State for War.
    GENERAL LAURIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that until very lately the Military Secretary received upwards of 100 officers every week to enable them to lay before him any points on which they were aggrieved, and that the Commander-in-Chief also held periodical levees for the same purpose? Is there now any opportunity afforded for personal statements?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I can assure my hon. and gallant friend that complaints are constantly received and dealt with, and no privilege has been taken away from the officers.

    Linked Battalions.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the system of linked battalions is still in force among the infantry of the Line; whether drafts for battalions serving abroad are still furnished from the battalions serving at home; whether, in all cases, one of the linked battalions is serving in the United Kingdom; or, if not, in how many cases are both battalions serving abroad; and how, in such cases, drafts are trained and furnished to both battalions.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The system of linked battalions is still in force and drafts are still furnished from battalions serving at home. There are four regiments which have no battalion at home. In these cases the drafts are

    77
    furnished by the details with the provisional battalion formed for the purpose, or, if these are insufficient to feed both battalions, the battalion which is on short tour abroad is treated as if it were at home and is liable to be called upon for drafts for the other battalion, its link, which is abroad on its proper foreign tour.
    GENERAL LAURIE: May I ask whether the battalion of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, now under orders for the Mediterranean, would relieve one of the so-called home-service battalions, or whether this would not make a fifth regiment abroad without a linked battalion at home; and also whether, in the case of four battalion regiments like the 60th Rifle Brigade, the right hon. Gentleman considers that when each of these has three battalions abroad and one at home it can be held that each battalion abroad has a linked battalion at home.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, it could not be. I must ask for notice as to the first supplementary Question.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I apologise to the House for pressing this matter, but it is of some importance to the profession. May I ask whether instead of counting four home-service battalions abroad it would not be well to take the Army List statement, which shows seven.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERmade no reply.
    MR. SWIFTMACNEILL: That's a poser.

    South African War Stores Inquiry.
    SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEin accordance with private notice, asked when the Report of Sir William Butler's Committee would be presented to the House; when the evidence would be available; and how and by whom the recommendations of the Committee had been communicated to the Press before being presented to the House.
    MR. ARNOLD- FORSTERsaid the Report had been received and communicated both to the Council of Defence and
    78
    the Public Accounts Committee, as representing the House of Commons. The evidence would be presented as soon as it was printed. He was not aware how the recommendations of the Committee had reached the Press, and certainly it was not through the War Office

    Garrison Artillery Volunteers.
    SIR ANDREW AGNEW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any of the guns belonging to ships lately discarded by the Admiralty could be made available for Garrison Artillery Volunteers; and, if so, whether he will supply them to those Volunteer companies that still have nothing but muzzle-loading 64-pounder guns to drill with.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This question is at present under consideration. It is probable that a certain number of guns will become available at an early date.

    The Colonial Conference.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has already communicated with any of the Colonial Premiers with a view to arranging for a conference of Colonial Premiers in 1906.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): No, Sir.

    Turkish Disturbances.
    MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government, in view of the disturbances reported to His Majesty's Ambassador at the Porte, will enter into friendly conference with the Governments of France and Italy with a view to the early augmentation of the existing Consular staff in the European and Asiatic provinces of Turkey, by the appointment of travelling Consular attaches and assistants to the Consulates in those vilayets.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.): His Majesty's Government do not consider that there

    79
    are sufficient grounds for suggesting to the French and Italian Governments a simultaneous increase of the Consular staff of the three countries in the Ottoman Empire. The Consulate at Adrianople has been recently reopened, and no further increase appears necessary at present.

    Mecca Pilgrims.
    MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can announce the steps which have been taken, or will be taken, for the safe escort of British Mahommedan natives of India travelling between Jeddah and Mecca, and Medina, during the present pilgrim season.
    EARL PERCY: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. The pilgrim season for this year is now over, and no complaints have been received from the Government of India in regard to the amount of protection afforded by the Turkish authorities to pilgrims from British India.

    Agrarian Crime in England.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the malicious burning of the house and property of Mr. Ripper, a farmer at Thelnetham: and whether, seeing that nineteen horses, cows, and pigs were burned to death, he will say what action has been taken by the police, and will Mr. Ripper get compensation for this malicious outrage.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): No, Sir. My attention has not been called to this case. It would be a matter for the local police, and not one in which I have authority to take any action. The farmer would not be entitled to compensation from public funds unless the case came within the provisions of the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is there any official connected directly or indirectly with the Government who has any authority for dealing with these outrages?
    MR. DILLON: Has not the Executive Government of this country the same duty in regard to crime and outrage as the Executive Government possesses in Ireland? Who is responsible?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The responsible authority in this case is the standing joint committee of the county in which the outrage is committed.
    MR. DILLON: After Questions are over I shall raise this as a matter of order. I shall inquire if we are not entitled to ask from some representative of the Executive Government in England what special measures it is intended to take to put a stop to the commission of outrage in England. Are not the same steps taken as in Ireland?
    MR. FLAVIN: Was not this man's house fired in two or three different places? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to that?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I shall be happy to get any information in my power.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Are such cases reported to the Home Office?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: No; but when such cases are brought to my notice it is my practice to inquire into the facts.
    MR. DILLON: Here we have a Minister willing to make inquiry. Surely, then, we have a right to ask for information such as is constantly given in the case of Ireland?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not think hon. Members can ever say I have refused information.
    MR. DILLON: Oh, no! We make no complaint against the right hon. Gentleman. But several of our Questions have been refused at the Table, and I want to raise that as a point of order. Perhaps as the right hon. Gentleman has promised to make inquiry into any case as to which we require information, the Clerk at the Table will accept our Questions,
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A solution might be arrived at if hon. Members would frame their Questions somewhat differently and invite the Home Secretary to make inquiry.

    Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Edward Robinson, a blacksmith, of Warmington (Warwickshire), applied four times (on January 25th, February 8th, February 22nd, and March 29th, 1905) for a vaccination exemption certificate to the Kineton bench of magistrates for his child born on December 4th, 1904, and on each occasion was refused; and whether, in view of the frequency of such cases before certain magistrates, he will bring in a Bill substituting a statutory declaration by the applicant to be filed by him at the time of the registration of the birth for a certificate of exemption.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I have no information as to the case to which the hon. Member refers. I may point out that proposals of the kind which he suggests were fully discussed when the Bill for the Vaccination Act, 1898, was before the House and that they were rejected. I am not prepared to introduce legislation dealing with the matter.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: And what remedy has a man who conscientiously objects as in this case?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of any further Question.

    Unemployed Women.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that in some districts women are occupied in trades and their names figure in the registers of existing labour bureaux, which may be taken over by central and other bodies mentioned in his Unemployed Workmen's Bill, the terms workmen and
    82
    unemployed persons will be held to include women workers.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Having regard to the provision in Section 1 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, to the effect that, unless the contrary intention appears, words importing the masculine gender shall include females, the terms ''workman" and "unemployed person" as used in the Bill would include women.

    The Stanley Revision.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can now say when the scheme of the Department drafted to meet the conditions in the Post Office in 1903, as shown in the evidence of the men before the Bradford Committee, will be issued.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The scheme to which I presume the hon. Member refers was laid on the Table of the House at the end of March last and came into operation on April 1st.

    The Port of London.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the attention of the President of the Board of Trade had been called to the great improvement works, estimated at £10,000,000, to be guaranteed by the State, which are about to be taken in hand for the improvement and extension of the port of Antwerp; and what steps he proposes to take in order to place the port and docks of London in the hands of a public body, with a view to similar improvements being made on the Thames.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): As stated by me in reply to previous Questions of a similar nature, the Government is not prepared to make any proposals with respect to the port of London this session.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Government, having raised the question and paralysed the action of the dock

    83
    companies, do not intend, then, to take any action to improve the port of London?
    MR. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to my Answer.

    Carnarvonshire Provided Schools.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the plans of repairs to and improvements upon provided schools within its area, involving an outlay of more than £1,500, submitted by the Carnarvonshire Educational Committee, have been approved by the Board of Education; and, if so, whether they are now in course of being carried out.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): Since September 30th, 1903, the Board have informed the Local Government Board that, so far as educational requirements are concerned, they have approved plans for improvements of six council schools, the enlargement of three council schools, and the building of one new one. There are probably, besides, a few cases of small repairs and improvements. As the Board have not received any intimation of the sanctioning of a loan in any case except that of the new school, I am afraid I cannot say precisely the cost involved in the carrying out of these repairs and improvements, but I think it is quite likely that they amount to £1,500, more or less.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The sum should be £15,000, not £1,500. It is a misprint in the Question. Will the hon. Gentleman inquire if the repairs, etc., will cost the large amount?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I will certainly inquire if the hon. Member desires it, but I am tolerably certain that further inquiry will only confirm the figures which I have given.

    Denbighshire Education Dispute.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made on the 18th inst. by the chairman
    84
    of the building committee of the Den bighshire education authority, to the effect that the council had appointed a surveyor before the appointed day to visit, inspect, and report upon the condition of every school in the county, provided and unprovided, and that the building committee had proceeded to execute the necessary repairs of the provided schools in accordance with the recommendations of the surveyor's report; and whether he is now in a position to verify the accurary of this statement.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I find on inquiry that a provisional survey of council schools in Denbighshire was made before the appointed day. Communications received from the local authority in March, April, and May, in response to requests made by the Board of Education for the remedy of defects in council schools, were to the effect that these matters were postponed until they could be reported upon by a surveyor and architect who was not appointed until the end of March and who entered on his duties on the 1st of this month. I cannot say what repairs were executed on the report of the provisional survey, but I infer from the communications which passed between the Board and the council that they were not of an important character. I will send the hon. Member a copy of my reply to the Denbighshire County Council.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Baronet has not answered the Question whether the same surveyor did not survey the council and voluntary schools under the same appointment; I think we are entitled to an Answer to that.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I am prepared to give a fuller Answer. The same surveyor did survey both the voluntary and the council schools. As regards the voluntary schools, they were required at the beginning of March to effect certain repairs and improvements by the beginning of April, whereas similar repairs and improvements in the council schools asked for by the Board of Education were deferred until the appointment of a new surveyor.

    Inspection of Denbighshire Schools.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Denbighshire Education Act Inquiry Committee, which met at Chester on April 17th, 1904, appointing Mr. J. Price Evans to inspect all public elementary schools in the county, and to prepare a detailed report upon the school buildings within three calendar months of that date; whether he is aware that this resolution was confirmed by the Denbighshire County Council, acting as the local education authority, at its first meeting held on the appointed day, June 1st, 1904, and whether he has received a communication from the clerks of the Denbighshire Education Committee upon the subject.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I am not aware that the Board were ever informed of the resolution referred to.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: Was not a communication sent to the hon. Baronet?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Yes, and I have addressed to them a letter, the reply to which, when I get it, I will communicate to the hon. Member.

    International Fishing, Territorial Limits.
    MR. MACONOCHIE: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether, in view of the resolution passed at a meeting of the general committee of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, he will say whether the representatives of the Scotch Fisheries Board on the International Scientific Investigation Council are attempting to obtain the extension of the international territorial limit of three miles to that of nine miles.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The British members of the International Council represent the Government, and not the Fishery Board for Scotland. I am not aware of any foundation for the allegation that they are attempting to obtain an extension of the territorial waters to a nine-mile limit. So far as I am aware, they have never made and are not now making any attempt to do so.

    Threatening Letters in Ireland.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the Constabulary Return of offences committed in Ireland from December 1st, 1904, to April 19th, 1905, what steps are taken by the constabulary authority to verify the genuineness of the eighty-five offences classed as intimidation under the head of threatening letters or notices.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): These cases are first inquired into by the local police under the supervision of the county inspector. The cases are then submitted to the Inspector-General. If any doubt exists, they are re-investigated, and no cases are included in the Return unless he is satisfied that they are bona fide.
    MR. FLYNN: What steps are taken by the constabulary authorities to test whether in these cases of alleged intimidation the people complaining are not themselves responsible for sending out the notices.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Every possible step is taken to get at the facts.

    Irish Land Act—Appointment of Public Trustee.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what were the special qualifications possessed by Mr. Arthur M'Clintock that induced the Government to appoint him to the office of public trustee under the Land Act of 1903; what were his place of education, previous occupations, and experience of finance; what are the names, place of education, salaries, and previous experience of the persons since appointed in the department; and how many of them were appointed by open competitive examination.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In reply to the first part of the Question, I beg to refer to the Answer given by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover to a similar Question on February 8th, 1904.†
    † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 592.

    87
    I have no further information on the subject. The Estimates for the current year make provision for an allowance of £350 to the public trustee to enable him to obtain clerical assistance. The selection of clerks is left to him, and the two officials at present employed were not appointed by competitive examination. One of them served some years in the Land Commission, and the other had experience as an accountant.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Are we to understand he has a right to appoint his staff without any examination?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, the clerical staff is entirely appointed by him.
    MR. MACVEAGH: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Questions what were his place of education, previous occupations, and experience of finance; and what are the names, place of education, salaries, and previous experience of the persons since appointed in the department.
    MR. WALTER LONG: So far as I know, there is no record kept?
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the particulars I have asked for are kept in the establishment register of every department?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I believe not.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it is so. I will put another Question down.

    Carntall Presbyterian Church.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the painting of crosses on the walls of the Presbyterian Church at Carntall, county Tyrone, by Orangemen, with the object of intimidating the clergyman of that church for having employed a Catholic mistress in the local national school, was reported by the police as an outrage; if so, whether it is included in the Return of outrages and other offences of an indictable character issued to Members
    88
    on May 24th, or any preceding Return, and under what heading is it described; if not, can he explain its omission.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Answer to the first inquiry is in the negative. The painting of the crosses on the church was doubtless intended to indicate disapproval of the appointment of the teacher, but this Act, however objectionable it may have been, does not constitute an indictable offence. The Return referred to includes indictable offences only.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Had it occurred in the South of Ireland a very different view would have been taken.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Why was not the case included in the Return under the heading of injury to places of worship, which I notice is blank.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Probably it was not regarded as an injury.

    Clanmorris Estate, County Mayo.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state on what date two men named Good and Black, who reside at Westport, applied for parcels of the grazing lands on the Clanmorris Estate, county Mayo, the quantity of land applied for by each of them, and the grounds given to justify the application.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: The application was made by the vendor's agent on 11th October, 1904, when terms of sale to the Commissioners were being arranged. No formal application from these persons themselves has been received. The application on their behalf is made on the ground that they are tenants on the estate.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has inquired into the charge made against two clerks named Good and Black, who are engaged in the office of Mr. Ruttledge, sub-sheriff for the county Mayo, of having induced two bailiffs on the Clanmorris Estate to consent to give

    89
    them small patches of their holdings, with a view to enable them to obtain an advance of money from the Estates Commissioners; and if not, whether he will grant a full inquiry into the whole case, and, if the charge be sustained, order a prosecution of these parties for attempting to obtain money and land under false pretences.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No charge of the kind indicated has been made, and no necessity exists for an inquiry such as is referred to. But, as I informed the hon. Member on the 18th instant, † the Commissioners will fully investigate the claims of these persons before deciding whether they shall receive advances for the purchase of "parcels" of the land in question.

    Annfield Estate, County Mayo.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an advance of money has been sanctioned for the purchase of the Annfield Estate, in the parish of Kilcommon, in the Ballinrobe Union; whether he is aware that there are about 300 acres of grazing lands on this estate, and that there are three congested townlands on its borders, Davros, Mollyroe, and Rathgranagher; and whether, seeing that over 100 acres have been given to one man who has already several large farms, and 180 acres to another man who has land elsewhere, leaving only about 20 acres of land for the enlargement of holdings on that property, he will see that these lands will be taken from these persons and divided amongst those whose holdings are uneconomic in the district.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This property, which has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board, contains 200 acres of tenanted land and 467 acres of untenanted land. It is not situated in or near a congested district. The Board's object in purchasing was, first, to enlarge those holdings which required enlargement, and, secondly, to exchange the remainder of the untenanted land for land in congested districts, so as to relieve congestion there. They have
    † See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 745.
    90
    arranged to give 183 and 112 acres respectively to farmers who are giving in exchange 382 acres near the Roche Estate, on which the holdings require enlargement. One hundred and seventy acres are reserved for the Annfield tenants.

    North Kerry Evicted Tenants.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of tenants who have bought or agreed to buy their holdings in North Kerry; the number of applications made by evicted tenants for reinstatement in their holdings; how many evicted tenants have been reinstated since November 1st, 1903, by the landlords to their evicted farms; and how many evicted tenants have been reinstated by the Estates Commissioners to their holdings or equivalent ones since November 1st, 1903.
    MR. WALTER LONG: One thousand six hundred and fifty-seven agreements for purchase have been lodged, and in fifty-seven of these cases advances have been made. Four hundred and twenty-four applications for reinstatement have been received, but, of these, ten are outside the operation of the Act. Nineteen of the applicants have been, or are in process of being reinstated by the landlords. None have yet been reinstated by the Commissioners.
    MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of any evicted tenants who are going through the process of reinstatement?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Of course not.
    MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the landlords refuse to reinstate evicted tenants?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously I cannot without inquiry.

    The Irish Executive and the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has read the correspondence which passed between the Irish Executive and

    91
    the Estates Commissioners, and in which the Attorney-General stated that there were instructions and orders contained in the correspondence; and, if not, whether he will examine this correspondence with a view to its publication.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir; but I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given. I have stated that no regulations of the character mentioned in Section 23, Subsection 8, of the Act were made, but that communications of a Departmental and confidential character passed between my right hon. friend the Member for Dover and the Commissioners. Neither this correspondence nor any instructions or orders contained therein will be published.
    MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman stated to us that he had searched the records and that nothing in writing conveying instructions to the Commissioners was to be found, and he further stated that he was not in favour of concealing anything and that there was no secrecy about it. I therefore repeat my Question, whether he is prepared to publish these letters containing the instructions referred to in the Report of the Commissioners.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Was the instruction under which Section 5 was altered made verbally or in a written document?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Of course I could not ask the last Question. In regard to the Question by the hon. Member for Mayo, what I said, I think, was that I could find no record; and, so far as I am informed, no regulations such as those contemplated in the Question were issued or even framed. There were confidential communications of the ordinary Departmental character. It is quite obvious that it would be a departure of the gravest possible kind to enter into the confidential communications between the Executive and branches of the Executive.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say
    92
    that the alteration of Section 5 was made by a confidential document and is a confidential matter?
    MR. WALTER LONG: It is a little difficult to answer these Questions, because I think there is a misunderstanding. I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by the alteration of Section 5. I have repeatedly said that there were communications of an ordinary confidential and Departmental character between the Government and a branch of the Government. There is all the difference in the world between that and the issue of regulations. When my right hon. friend the Member for Dover was responsible for this branch of the Government the communications that passed were of a purely Departmental and confidential character, and it would be a gross departure from previous practice to disclose confidential transactions which took place under my predecessor.
    MR. DILLONsaid that he could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's Answer and he would repeat his Question on another occasion.

    Cavan Land Sale.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why no pink schedule map or other record can be found either with the Clerk of the Crown in Cavan or in the Land Commission Office, Dublin, of the land case of Patrick Patterson Raffney, Virginia, county Cavan, tried by County Court Judge Waters, in Bailieboro, in May, 1888.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The obligation to frame a schedule and prepare a map was imposed for the first time by Section 1 of the Act of 1896.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two acres of land are now about to be taken from Patrick Patterson Raffney, Virginia, county Cavan, by his landlord, which compose the area on which his rent was fixed, as tested by competent surveyors both of landlord

    93
    and tenant, and which have always been in his possession, to be given as bog plots to other tenants to enhance the price of the pending land sale; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: An application for the sale of the estate, which includes Patterson's holding, has been received by the Commissioners. They have no information whether the facts are as stated in the Question, but will cause their inspector to inquire into and report on the matter.

    Bellaghy Schools.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay on the Table the minutes of the National Board of Education dealing with the proposed amalgamation of the Bellaghy boys' and girls' schools, and the correspondence on this subject with the managers of the schools.
    MR. WALTER LONG: It is understood that this Question refers to the male and female national schools at Ballynease, near Bellaghy. On 2lst June, 1904, the Commissioners made an order directing the amalgamation of these schools, but, the manager having objected, the Commissioners reconsidered the matter, and on 8th November, 1904, rescinded their former order. The Commissioners consider that, as the case has now been settled, no good object would be served by publishing the minutes and correspondence.

    Boyce Estate, Bannow.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for the restoration of Mrs. White, evicted tenant on the Boyce Estate, Bannow; and, if so, what progress has been made in giving back to the tenant her old home.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir; but no proceedings for the sale of the estate have yet been instituted before the Commissioners. The application will be
    94
    inquired into should the estate come before them.
    MR. FFRENCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a planter on this holding and that at the time of the eviction there was some £1,500 or £1,600 worth of property on it belonging to the tenant? Has anything been done to recover it for the tenant.?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I imagine that is one of the matters that will be inquired into.

    Irish Police and the Public.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, 2nd April, whilst Thomas Sheridan, together with two of his friends named Murray and Noone, was standing outside his own door, Constable Daly asked why they were shouting, which they denied; that Sergeant Dumphy, although Noone had gone into the house, ordered Constable Daly to draw his baton and attack Sheridan and Murray; and that the constable struck Murray twice, and dragged Sheridan out to the road and then released him; whether he is aware that they subsequently followed him into his own house, where Noone was, and arrested Noone in the house, handcuffed him, and took him to the police station, where he was kept until a late hour and then taken before Mr. Hazel, J.P., Athenry, at midnight, a distance of eight miles, and released, when summons was served upon him; and whether, seeing that Mr. Villiers, J.P., lives within a few hundred yards of the scene of arrest, and that when the charge was heard before a bench of six magistrates the chairman commented upon Sergeant Dumphy's action adversely, and that the magistrates unanimously refused information, he will say what steps, if any, he intends to take in this case.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In this case a charge of assault has been preferred against the police, and it would obviously be undesirable to deal with the question while that case is sub judice.

    Coagh Police.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain for what reason twenty-five extra police were drafted into the village of Coagh on the 19th instant; and will the extra charge be levied on the district.
    MR. WALTER LONG: On this occasion a force of twenty extra police village to preserve the peace, in view of an apprehended disturbance. These police belonged to the established force of the country, and no charge, therefore, is leviable on the district.

    Police Searches for Firearms in Ireland.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to prosecute the search for firearms in other parts of Ireland as is at present proceeding in county Roscommon; if he will state the amount of ammunition discovered by the police to date; and will he state the number of searches made, with the result in each case.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I must decline to make any statement as to the intention to search for unlicensed firearms. On the 15th inst. searches were made in four houses in the Castlereagh district under the authority of warrants issued pursuant to the Peace Preservation Act, 1881. In each of two of these houses a loaded gun was found and seized. No separate ammunition was found.
    MR. DILLON: Was this on the De Freyne Estate?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Will further searches be conducted?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    River Shannon Fisheries.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain
    96
    persons are claiming ownership of, and preserving to the exclusion of the public the fishing of, certain portions of the River Shannon, near Limerick, the former owners of which sent in claims to the Shannon Navigation Commissioners in 1838, and who received the amount awarded them in 1839; is he aware that the Commissioners in making those awards paid the full market value of each such fishery and fishing at that time; and will he say if such portions of the River Shannon are vested in the Irish Board of Works.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): If the hon. Member will communicate to me privately what are the particular portions of the Shannon referred to in the Question, and who are the persons who are alleged to claim ownership and the right of preserving to the exclusion of the public, and in what form the claim is expressed, I will make inquiries of the Commissioners.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Shannon Navigation Commissioners recommended that certain fishery rights should be reserved for the use of the public, but reserved the right to give permission to fish such places, and that those recommendations were adopted by several sections of the second and third of Victoria, chapter sixty-one; and will he instruct the officers of the Board of Works in Limerick to have notices posted on the banks of such parts of the river, notifying to the public that such parts are the property of the Board, and are free to the public to fish and navigate until further notice.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: As regards the public right to navigate the River Shannon, Section 36 of the Act 2 and 3 Vic., cap. 61, declares that the "River Shannon is and for ever hereafter shall be to all intents and purposes a public navigable river," and goes on to provide that the public may have and enjoy free passage upon the river for their boats, barges, etc., on paying the rates and tolls and complying with the regulations of

    97
    the Commissioners. Section 44 of the same Act lays down that it shall be lawful for the River Commissioners from time to time to sell and dispose of or to demise for such term as to them shall seem expedient all fisheries and rights of fishing which are, under the provisions of the Acts or otherwise, vested in them. No section of the Act provides that any part of the River Shannon shall be reserved to the public to fish, and do not consider it necessary to issue such a notice as is suggested by the hon. Member.

    Portavogie (County Down) Post Office.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can arrange that postal money orders shall be procurable at the post office, Portavogie, county Down, seeing that the nearest postal money order office is four miles distant.
    LORD STANLEY: I regret to find that the money order business which would probably be transacted is much too small to warrant the establishment of a money order office at Portavogie, even under guarantee.

    Counter Risks of Irish Post Office Employees.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that officers in charge of counter duties are compelled to make good all their losses from their salaries; that at Clones, Enniskillen, and Portadown junior men and learners are frequently employed upon duties involving monetary responsibility; and that recently a learner at Clones lost 7s. in one day; and whether he will order that only skilled and experienced men and women are to be entrusted with business of this character.
    LORD STANLEY: It is the general rule that officers employed on counter duties are required to make good deficiencies resulting from their errors. At offices such as those to which the hon. Member refers it is not infrequently necessary to employ junior officers on counter duties involving monetary responsibility, though such duties are entrusted as far as possible to experienced officers, but learners are not so employed unless acting as substitutes for sorting
    98
    clerks and telegraphists. The learner at Clones was so acting, but he did not lose 7s. in one day. He had on one day an apparent deficiency of 7s. 5½d., but 6s. was subsequently found in the drawer of another officer, where he had placed it in error.

    Galway Postmen and the Bradford Report.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to resolutions relating to the findings of the Bradford Committee, adopted by the County Galway Branch of the Postmen's Federation; and whether it is his intention to redress the alleged grievances.
    LORD STANLEY: The resolutions to which the hon. Member refers do not appear to have reached me. I shall be glad to consider any representations the postmen at Galway or elsewhere may desire to make to me; but I have no intention of altering my decision with reference to the recommendations of the Bradford Committee.

    The Naval Battle.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask whether the Government have any intelligence to communicate to the House regarding the alleged naval action in the Straits of Korea.
    EARL PERCY: We have not received any official confirmation of the report.

  PRIME MINISTER'S ILLNESS.
  Questions relating to the Valuation Bill, the Colonial Conference, the East Ham Borough Council, the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, and the fiscal policy of the Government appeared on the Order Paper addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury. When these Questions were reached,
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)requested hon. Members to postpone them.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he regretted to

  99
  gather from the right hon. Baronet that the First Lord of the Treasury was indisposed. In the absence of the latter, he asked the right hon. Baronet for information as to the course of business.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I was at Downing-street in the morning when the Prime Minister arrived from the country. I regret to have to inform the House that the right hon. Gentleman is suffering from a severe chill, and that, by the advice of his medical advisers, he is confined to his bed. I understand that there is no chance of his being in the House for the next two or three days. In these circumstances I think hon. Members will agree with me that it would not be convenient on Tuesday to proceed with the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick, and we propose to take it on the earliest possible day next week. For Tuesday I propose to put down Supply—Report of Supply of May 8th—and either the Vote of the Local Government Board, on which, I understand, it is desired to raise the question of motor speeds, or the Vote of the Board of Trade, on which a number of hon. Members wish to raise the question of a Ministry of Commerce.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Before fixing a day for the Motion of my right hon. friend the Member for Berwick the Government will no doubt ascertain the general convenience in the matter, and especially the convenience of my right hon. friend.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: Certainly every endeavour will be made to meet the wishes of the Opposition. On Wednesday it is proposed to take the Agricultural Rating Bill, and on Thursday Supply, whichever of the two Votes mentioned for Tuesday is not taken.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Who will act as Leader of the House in the absence of the Prime Minister?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: If it is necessary for me to discharge the duties of that office I will do so to the best of my ability, as I have done before. I did not hear that the Prime Minister was ill until I came to the House. My right
  100
  hon. friend then told me that he had seen the Prime Minister and had been charged with a special message to the House. I thought it right that my right hon. friend should deliver that message.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Would it not be possible to take the Unemployed Bill this week. The session is wasting, and there seems little prospect of progress being made with the Bill.
  MR. BUCHANAN: There is, too, the Scottish Churches Disputes Bill.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I do not think Bills of such importance should be taken in the absence of the Prime-Minister.

  NEW BILLS.
    CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
    "To amend the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886," presented by Mr. Lamont; supported by Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Cathcart Wason; to be read a second time upon Thursday, July 6th, and to be printed. [Bill 231.]
    ACQUISITION OF LAND BILL.
    "To provide for the Acquisition of Land by local authorities," presented by Mr. Atherley-Jones; supported by Mr. Moss, Mr. John Burns, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Slack, and Mr. Fenwick; to be read a second time upon Thursday, July 6th, and to be printed. [Bill 232.]

    FINANCE BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.), in the Chair.]
    MR. JOSEPH WALTONmoved as follows—"On and after the first day of August, 1905,. one penny shall be substituted for one

    101
    shilling as the duty on coal under Section 3 of the Finance Act, 1901." The hon. Member said that, when the deputation from the coal trade waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer on April 12th, 1904, that Minister stated that he was keeping an open ear for any evidence and an open mind for the consideration of the Report of the Commission on Coal Supplies. This year the Chancellor was good enough to receive deputations both from the coalowners and coal exporters and the miners, and on those occasions he had said that he would make a statement in reply to the representations made to him on the Finance Bill. Those concerned in coal exports were, therefore, anxiously awaiting the statement. They expected to hear from the right hon. Gentleman to-day both in relation to the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioners on the coal supply question and also in reply to the statements made to him on the subject by the deputations he had received.
    Since last year they had received the Report of the Royal Commission on Coal Supplies, and he ventured to say that they were indebted to that Commission for the most exhaustive investigations they made and for the lucid statistical and other information they had communicated. The main conclusions of the Commission were: First, that the coal export trade was of supreme importance to the country and essential to the prosperity of the coal producing districts; secondly, that there was no necessity to restrict artificially this export; and, thirdly, that the coal export duty did restrict such export. The Royal Commission rightly said that the coal export trade was of supreme importance to the country, and essential to the prosperity of the coal-producing districts, for no less than 5,000,000 people in this country depended for their livelihood on the coal mining industry, and no less than 80 per cent, of the cost of raising coal was paid in wages. Secondly, the Commission reported that there was no need to restrict artificially the exportation of coal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when he proposed the imposition of the tax in 1901, justified his
    102
    proposal largely on the ground that we were so rapidly depleting our coal resources that it was, in his opinion, desirable to check the expansion of the export trade. The Report of the Commission was really of the most fascinating and interesting character. They reported that under 4,000 feet in depth there were no less than 100,914,000,000 tons of coal, a quantity sufficient at the present rate of production to last for the next 450 years; but, in addition to that, they had unopened coalfields containing nearly 40,000,000,000. This altogether, the Commission informed them, Was enough, at the present rate of production, to last 690 years.
    Then they were alarmed somewhat about the quantity of Welsh smokeless steam coal. The Royal Commission reported that we had got nearly 4,000,000,000 tons, which, at the present rate of production of 18,000,000 tons per year, would last 222 years. Therefore, he thought the somewhat alarmist view put before the House and the country to justify the imposition of the tax had been proved to be absolutely groundless. Not only, however, was this the case, but the Committee should remember that by the rapid substitution of electric power for steam power there was a probability that the output of coal in this country would diminish in the future rather than increase. The Commissioners, too, gave them another interesting fact. They expressed the opinion that, if the coal consumed in the United Kingdom were applied and used in a scientific way, a saving of from 40,000,000 to 60,000,000 tons annually could be effected. They were told that domestic consumers used 32,000,000 tons per year, and that, by the adoption of central heating, hot-water pipes, or stoves, they could reduce that consumption by one-half.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that, in his opinion, the tax did not artificially restrict the export of coal, but the Royal Commission took the opposite view, and, after the fullest investigation, they stated that the duty did restrict such export. The fact was that an extra 1s. duty per ton to be defrayed between the pit and the consumer must inevitably have a material effect, especially in markets where other

    103
    sources of supply were available, and the British exporter had either been compelled to make a sacrifice of price to maintain his trade or to lose his position in the foreign markets. They found that the output of coal in the United Kingdom had gone up 7,250,000 tons since 1900, but there had only been 2,100,000 tons increase in exports, the other 5,150,000 tons having been absorbed by the home consumption or by the increased consumption of coal in bunkering. Bunkering coal had increased in the last four years by no less than 5,400,000 tons, mainly owing to the fact that it was free from any export duty, whereas in the coal subject to the tax the increase had only been 2,000,000 tons, though previous to the imposition of the tax our exports increased at a substantially greater ratio. He wished to state the case with absolute fairness, and he freely admitted that in 1904 as compared with 1903 there was an increase in the exports of coal of 1,300,000 tons with an increase of 400,000 tons of bunker coal in addition; but we had been fortunate in having abnormal demands springing up for coal in various quarters of the World. Last year the situation was saved by the strike in America, and this year, where in the first four months compared with the first four months of last year there had been an increase of 400,000 tons, we had benefited by the great strike on the Continent, affecting mainly Germany and the Netherlands. In the first four mouths of this year we sent to Germany and the Netherlands an increase of 1,455,000 tons, so that, except for that, our exports would have shown a decrease of 1,026,000 tons.
    In the grouping of the statistics prepared by the Government Departments they had put certain countries together, which made it difficult to arrive at the exact result of the tax so far as the counties in which he was interested—Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire—were concerned, and he had, therefore, abstracted the figures, and he would very briefly state what had been the effect of the coal tax on the export trade of the United Kingdom to Holland, Belgium, and France. The coal produced in Scotland, Northumberland,
    104
    Durham, and Yorkshire, was of an ordinary quality and had no monopoly of any market. So far as Holland, Belgium, and France were concerned, there had been a decrease of exports to those countries from the United Kingdom, since 1900, of 3,000,000 tons; whereas, on the other hand, there had been an increase of exports from Germany to those countries of nearly 3,000,000 tons. Let them take the example of imports into France: Our export trade in coal to France in 1900 was 8,500,000 tons and in 1904 it was only 7,000,000 tons, a decrease of 1,500,000 tons, whereas Germany sent 400,000 tons more in 1904 than in 1900. Again, Belgium's trade with France had only diminished 9 per cent., whereas our trade with France had diminished 17½ per cent. The larger output rendered possible by the export trade enabled the collieries to be worked regularly and to the fullest capacity, and, seeing that the cost of production was enormously increased if collieries worked only four days out of six, consumers might rest assured that it was to their interest that the collieries should work full time if they were to get their coal at reasonable prices. Coal, also, was so essential an element of outward cargoes that any diminution of our coal exports must cause a rise in the import freights of goods.
    If last year's output of coal in the United Kingdom were the highest on record, they should not lose sight of the fact that the trade of other nations had developed much more rapidly. The output of the United States had doubled in the last ten years, and the output of Germany had doubled in seventeen years, but it had taken thirty-five years to double our output. The Royal Commission had reports made to them by various British Consuls in centres where a large quantity of coal exported from this country was consumed. They stated that it was self-evident that the export duty must affect our competitive power and have an influence on the exportation of coal, and they stated that this view was supported by several British Consuls. The Vice-Consul at Rouen stated that the tax injuriously affected the introduction, of British coal into the French market; and again, the Director of

    105
    Customs at Paris told them that the English coal tax enabled German coal to be sold 1s. per ton cheaper than Cardiff coal. Let them, for instance, take the question of gas coal. We had had a monopoly of French orders for gas coal, but since the tax had been put on there had been, for the first time, an inroad made on our trade with the Paris Gas Company, and at the present time they had entered into a contract for 250,000 tons of German gas coal. The Consuls reported that during the last three years our exportation of coal to France had decreased, whereas the importation from Germany had increased sensibly. Then let them take the case of Belgium. There was a Report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Antwerp, starting that the quantity of coal and coke imported into Belgium from the United Kingdom had fallen off considerably in the last four years, and the competition of German coal was undoubtedly the cause of the decrease. It seemed evident that the competition would continue, greatly to the detriment of British coal. So long as the powerful Westphalian Syndicate, whose object appeared to be to drive British coal out of the Belgium market, continued to supply coal at a much less cost than the British coalowner could afford to do, imports from the United Kingdom would necessarily fall off. Ho showed that since 1900 British exports to Belgium had fallen off 542,000 tons, while German exports had increased 750,000 tons. He (Mr. Walton) could quote further examples from the reports of Consuls in various parts of the world, and especially in Europe, but they represented exactly the same state of things as those he had already read. It might be said that a shilling export tax on British coal was no detriment to us in competing against Australian coal, but that was not so. Let them take the case of Valparaiso. In 1903 we sent to Valparaiso 317,000 tons of coal, whereas Australia sent 485,000 tons. The shilling tax meant an absolute bounty in favour of the Australian coal producer as against the English producer, and that was quite counter to the fiscal doctrines and proposals as they understood them of His Majesty's Government's present advisers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that the tax had not operated injuriously
    106
    to the British coal trade, but he submitted that he had shown conclusively that, so far as Scotland, Durham, Northumberland, and Yorkshire were concerned, we had received 1s. per ton less at the pit's mouth on coal we exported in competition with Germany and Belgium than we should get if this tax did not exist.
    The tax violated the principle of equal incidence of taxation; it was imposed on one great industry, an industry which was taxed to the hilt in regard to every rate and tax, local and Imperial, levied in this country. In addition to all the other rates and taxes which the industry had to pay equally with every other industry, it had to bear the burden of this tax amounting to £2,000,000 a year. In 1901 the Member for West Bristol said that it there were one kind of taxation more odious than another it was unfair taxation, and he could conceive nothing more unfair than that increased expenditure should be controlled by the voice of the whole people if one class only should be left to bear the increased burden. This was true in the case of the coal tax. The coal industry only was left to bear the burden of increased expenditure to the extent of £2,000,000 a year, and he hoped that it did not require anything more to be said to demonstrate how absolutely unjustifiable and indefensible it was to continue the tax. The coal trade in 1900 was in a prosperous state; to-day three collieries out of four in the United Kingdom were being worked at a loss, and the value of the coal exported had gone down on an average 5s. a ton. He estimated that the 46,000,000 tons exported were worth £11,500,000 less than when the tax was imposed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would recognise that this placed an enormous disability on the trade to bear this imposition.
    He would give one example from his own constituency. He received a letter only last month telling him that the result of the tax had been that his informants had been compelled to sell their coal on the Continent at a heavy loss, that in consequence of this, they had decided to close the pit the next week. This would throw from 600 to 700 men out of

    107
    employment and cause great distress in the neighbourhood. In 1901 Sir Michael Hicks Beach said that, if he believed the tax would be paid by the miners, he would not impose it. Representatives of miners would take part in the debate, and he was sure they would have given to them statements which would clearly prove that the miners had suffered substantially in the reduction of their wages in certain districts solely as the result of the tax. He believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was disposed to consider the question fairly, and though, perhaps, he would not see his way to take the tax off to-day, he hoped that the facts and figures in the Report of the Royal Commission, and which he had been able to produce, would lead him to say the tax was an unfair and an unjustifiable tax, and ought to be discontinued at the earliest possible moment. He would commend to him certain words of his distinguished father the Member for West Birmingham, who, speaking at a meeting of miners in 1903, said—
    "You miners are only waiting to be eaten up. If you look, you will see that the production of coal in Germany, France, and America has been increasing with gigantic speed, and it is as sure as anything that in a comparatively few years they will want no more of your coal and that they will be, probably, exporters of coal here. What is your stand-by?"
    He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be their standby by removing this flagrantly unjust impost by which the export trade was so seriously handicapped.
    MR. JOHNSON, in seconding the Motion, stated that he spoke for the great mining community of workers in the country, numbering over 5,000,000, upon whose means of livelihood there could be no doubt that the tax had made inroads. They, therefore, protested against the retention of a tax which was so detrimental to their interests. Since last year they had had the Report of the Royal Commission, and it had done two things. It had exploded the popular impression that, in consequence of the limitation of the possible quantity of coal in this country, we ought to keep the coal in the country as a national asset, because we had at least 450 or 500 years possible supply, and they
    108
    could therefore afford to be calm in their deliberations; and it had also exploded the fallacy that a tax would not restrain trade. The Report was very conclusive, and it indicated that the tax had very considerably interfered, and was likely very considerably in the future to interfere, with the exportation of coal. A gentleman from Durham last year told him that he had lost two contracts, one for 275,000 tons, and another for 40,000 tons, absolutely in consequence of the tax.
    He would give some quotations from the Diplomatic and Consular Report issued August 11th, 1904. In Belgium the imports from the United Kingdom during 1902 were, in money value, £463,520, and the report indicated that, as compared with 1901, there was a diminution of £100,000; in Denmark it indicated that the British export duty on coal had not very materially increased the supply of German coal but, it said, if the tax were reduced by 6d. then it would absolutely prohibit the German coal from entering the market. The total import of coal into the port of Bordeaux in 1903 was 891,858 tons, which was a reduction of 93,840 tons as compared with 1902. This, he thought, was a pretty clear indication that the effect of the coal tax had been to restrain the trade. Another quotation would show how the tax had injured the trade. The imports of British coal into Bayonne had decreased—Welsh coal from 160,539 tons in 1901 to 155,123 tons in 1902 and to 119,589 tons in 1903, and north-country coal from 75,876 tons in 1901 to 45,345 tons in 1902 and to 50,298 tons in 1903, whilst the imports of German coal had increased from 3,719 tons in 1901 to 35,760 tons in 1902 and to 60,705 tons in 1903. This showed that the tax had so handicapped the coal exporters of this country that Germany had been able to compete with British coal so successfully that whereas in 1900 they sent no coal at all to Bayonne, in 1903 they sent 60,705 tons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might reply there had been an increase of our exports, but this was entirely due to the strike in the Westphalian and Belgian coalfields, and, as had been pointed out by German delegates at, a conference, in supplying this coal "The

    109
    British working men, in their judgment, had been cutting the throats of the Continental working men." But this matter could not be settled absolutely on the question of exports, however considerable it might be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might reply that there had been an increase of 1,455,507 tons, but that enormous increase had been due to the Westphalian and Belgian strike, in consequence of which we had supplied the market on the Continent that year.
    Coming to the question of the value of exports, he wished to say that it was the value of the exports which determined the question of the profits and ultimately of the wages. He was not going to postulate that the reduction in prices and following on that the reduction in wages was absolutely due to the shilling tax, but it had had a considerable influence upon it. While not postulating that the whole fact of the reduction was due to that, he wished to point out that if the condition of the coal trade in 1901 was such as to warrant the then Chancellor of the Exchequer imposing this tax that condition of things had now entirely passed away, as was shown by the present prices and wages, and therefore the tax ought to be now abolished. In the county of Durham in 1900 the price was 10s. 3·72d., in 1901 8s. 6·73d., in 1902 7s. 3·79d., in 1903 7s. 0·82d. and last year, in 1904, 6s. 5·97d. That indicated that between the putting on of the tax and the present condition of things there had been a reduction of price of 4s. a ton, which was sufficient evidence, if evidence were wanted, that the coal tax ought to be repealed. With regard to the question of wages. On the 1st January, 1901, in the same county, the wages were 65 per cent. above the standard rates, in 1902 40 per cent. above, in 1903 33¾ per cent. above, in 1904 32 per cent., and this year 27½ per cent. above. In other words, in the county of Durham they had had reduction of wages equal to 38 per cent. In the case of Scotland they stood at 100 per cent. above the standard rates early in 1900, and to-day they stood at 62½ percent. below that point. In South Wales they were 73¾ per cent. above standard rates in 1900, and since then they had been reduced 40 per cent.
    110
    He did not wish to pursue this matter further. He had indicated by the Report of the Commission and in the evidence he had given that this tax had been a considerable restriction on the trade, and from the wages and prices he had been able to adduce he had shown that the shilling tax had considerably handicapped us during that time. Whatever the reason might have been for the imposition of this tax, that condition of things had now passed away, and the tax ought to be removed. When the right hon. Gentleman was looking for revenue he ought to find some other sources than the working man's wages out of which to take it. There were other interests which at the present time did not contribute one penny to the revenue of this country which might be tapped. The owners of royalties were getting now £6,000,000 out of the royalties of the mines in this country and did not contribute a penny towards the national expenditure. On the other hand, the colliery owner had to sink his capital in the pits, while the miners themselves had to invest their lives, as it were, day by day when they descended the pit, yet these were the men who were called upon to pay the revenue. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, if he could not abolish the tax this year, would next year tax those sources which had not yet been tapped, that the burden might be taken off the shoulders of the working man.
    New clause (Reduction of Coal Duty)—(Mr, Joseph Walton), brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the clause be read a second time."
    MR. HOUSTONsaid that, as he intended to adopt a different attitude on this occasion to that which he had adopted in previous years, he would like to explain his reasons for so doing. He had in previous years supported the several Chancellors of the Exchequer in voting for the imposition of this tax. The reason was simple. In time of war and stress he thought it did not do to too closely examine the sources from which the Chancellors of the Exchequer collected

    111
    funds either for the expenditure of this country or for warlike enterprises, but when the war was over he thought it was time now that, we were at peace to turn our attention to retrenchment and reform and take advantage of the opportunities to remedy injustices and to equalise the burdens of taxation, which might be much more evenly distributed than they were now.
    He considered this tax unfair and unreasonable. In the first place, the class of coal affected most severely was the cheaper quality of coal mined in Scotland and in the North of England, which entered into competition with German and Belgian coal. He did not regard the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a true disciple of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who told the House that taxes were not paid by consumers but by those who supplied the commodities affected. This tax was therefore borne by the British coalowners and the workmen who mined the coal. It affected us also in other directions. With the shilling tax the coalowner could not compete with the cheap German and Belgian coal. The shilling tax represented something like 16 per cent. and he, in order to compete, naturally attempted to shift the burden on to other shoulders. He therefore pressed the shipowners for lower rates, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to know whether the shipping industry of this country was flourishing or not. The steamship lines which paid income-tax other than those which received subsidies were almost nil. They were not only not paying interest on the capital involved, but they were not providing for depreciation. Moreover, on every ton of bunkers purchased abroad by British ships the shilling tax had to be paid, and on every ton of coal exported to railways abroad, owned almost exclusively by British subjects, the tax was imposed.
    There were many ways in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could obtain an equal amount of money, though possibly they would not be so popular, and they might mean votes. For instance, a tax on bicycles would bring in a large amount, but few Chancellors of the Exchequer would venture to impose one. The present coal duty
    112
    was most unfair, and, with a view to conserving our great national asset (Smokeless Steam Coal), he suggested that a tax of 5s. or 10s. should be imposed on every ton of South Wales anthracite smokeless steam coal sold to a foreign Government. If it was thought that that would fall unfairly on the coal-owners, the Government themselves might purchase some of the collieries and keep the coal exclusively for our own Navy. In view of the fact that this coal would retain its quality almost indefinitely by being stored in submerged deposits, he submitted that its unrestricted supply to foreign Governments, who, while friendly to-day, might be our enemies tomorrow, was a grave mistake. If it was true that smokeless steam coal could not be obtained elsewhere, foreign Governments would pay almost any price to obtain it; therefore the Chancellor of Exchequer could supply any deficiency which might arise through the abolition of the present duty by the imposition of a considerably higher tax on coal sold to the foreigner. As he did not propose to support the Government on the present occasion, he had deemed it his duty to express his view to the Committee.
    MR. PARROTTsaid it was very refreshing to hear supporters of the Government denounce the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Several colliery proprietors on the other side of the House were greatly interested in the selling of coal, but instead of speaking against the coal tax they sat quietly by for fear of offending the leaders of their Party. The tax was not only testing the loyalty of the followers of the Government, but also trying the patience of their opponents. Personally he had been connected with the coal trade as a producer for over fifty years, and he had never known such a tax to be imposed before. Predecessors of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had urged in reply to deputations that they had nothing to do with the late war, but that it was necessary for them to get the money, and as the coal trade was exceedingly prosperous they had placed this burden upon it. It was argued that the colliery proprietors would not have to pay the tax, but it had since been proved

    113
    that they and the miners had had to bear the burden. Possibly at the time the coal trade was able to afford the tax, but since then the proprietors had been doing badly, and although he was more concerned with the miners, he liked to see the proprietors doing well, because they could then afford to pay their workmen according to the work they performed. In the present case they were suffering, and he failed to see how any intelligent gentleman like the Chancellor of the Exchequer could sit idly by and imagine that colliery proprietors and miners were escaping the tax.
    The mere fact that a particular trade was doing well did not make it fair that a heavy tax should be placed upon it. But the coal trade was now doing badly and the tax still continued. Unless something was done there would soon be a serious stir in the country. Miners could not go on for ever suffering reductions. Last year when the question was discussed, 600,000 miners were under notice of reduction, the coal tax being urged by the colliery proprietors as largely responsible. That reduction was quietly submitted to, and during the last two or three weeks further reductions had been made or notices thereof given. No business man would quietly allow his trade to be taxed in this way. In his, opinion it was wrong to tax trades; the Chancellor of the Exchequer should seek his money from some other source. It was recently stated that 500,000 people had incomes of only £50,000 a year; he wondered at the time how they managed to pull through, but they were the people who ought to pay taxes, especially for purposes of war, not the working man who were blamed in this House and elsewhere for encouraging the war—
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me or my colleagues. We have never suggested that any blame attached to working men for supporting their country during a great war.
    MR. PARROTTsaid he remembered reading speeches in which it was stated that, as the working classes had encouraged the war, they must not mind being called upon to pay.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Member used the word ''blamed," and he misunderstood his point.
    MR. PARROTTsaid he was not in favour of taxing any trade, and if the right hon. Gentleman took the tax off the coal trade he would be doing what a wise man ought to do. He could not understand any gentleman outside a lunatic asylum crippling so important a trade as the coal trade. It was said that Chancellors of the Exchequer nowadays were not satisfied with hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of pounds; they had to deal in millions. The coal trade could not afford to have millions taken from it; workmen and employers were suffering; and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to sweep the tax off altogether.
    MR. PIKE PEASEsaid that although he did not agree with all the arguments adduced by the other side he thought sufficient had been said to show that there were other sources of revenue which for the country at large it would have been better to have touched, rather than the coal trade. Being to some extent interested in the trade he did not feel justified in taking a prominent part in opposition to this tax, and therefore he had not spoken in previous debates on the question. But he thought the position had changed considerably since last year. A variety of objections, had been put forward against the tax, some opponents making it clear from their own point of view that the coalowners paid the tax, and others that the burden fell on the miner, while many held that the consumer alone had to pay. It was very difficult to say upon whom the incidence of this tax fell, but it was a peculiar fact that some of those who were most ardent in their opposition to fiscal reform, and who would say, if this coal was exported from a foreign country, that the tax fell on the consumer, now believed

    115
    that it fell on the producer. He remembered distinctly the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick saying that the incidence of the coal tax fell upon the miner. Of course it might be said that one was an export tax and the other an import tax; but that did not really affect the principle of the argument, as it made no difference to the argument whether the tax was paid on one side of the water or the other. The crucial test to apply to the tax was whether it was the best means for the country at large of obtaining revenue. He believed it to be economically unsound and involving a deliberate transfer of trade to German coalowners at the present time.
    His reason for saying that the position had altered since last year was based upon the Report of the Royal Commission. On April 12th, 1904, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, replying to a deputation representative of the coal-exporting districts, who sought the abolition of the tax, said that he regarded the question as being in a manner sub judice, and that he could not deal with it until the Commission on Coal Supplies had presented its Report. As all knew, the Commission had now presented its unanimous Report, and the facts and conclusions to which the Commissioners drew attention were as follows:—(1) that the coal export trade was of supreme importance to the country and essential to the prosperity of the coal-producing districts; (2) that there was no necessity to restrict artificially this export trade; and (3) that the coal export duty affected our competitive power and restricted such export trade. Everyone would wish that a man should be taxed in relation to his power to pay, but that was impossible if worked out. An artisan, for example, who earned 30s. a week and drank two glasses of beer paid far more in proportion than the man who did not drink. Yet nobody in the House would think it wise to take the tax off alcohol altogether at the present time. It had been suggested that royalties should be taxed more heavily. He represented a firm which paid a very large amount in royalties every year; but he did not think that that would be the best means of obtaining revenue. If an extra penny
    116
    per ton were put on royalties it would simply mean that the royalty owners would increase the royalties by the additional penny. There were other ways by which revenue could be obtained. He knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer's powers were limited under our present fiscal system, but he wished to remind him of the altered condition of affairs, and to express the opinion that it would be wise in the near future to remove the tax.
    MR. FENWICKpointed out that every speech in the course of the debate had been in opposition to the tax. There was no doubt, as the hon. Member for Darlington had truly said, that the position had materially changed since the tax was first imposed. There had been started a tariff reform crusade, the object of which was to increase our export of manufactured goods and to enlarge the opportunities of employment for the working classes. Those were laudable objects, but this tax, which operated in the opposite direction, was imposed and had been continued by the votes of Gentlemen who supported the tariff reform movement. It could not be denied that the operation of this tax tended to restrict our competitive power in markets abroad. The recent Royal Commission had declared that to be self-evident, and if it restricted our competitive power it also tended to restrict the opportunities for employment.
    He could not help wondering at the situation in which the House frequently found themselves. When they were considering the question of the production of gold, it was necessary that it should be extracted with the greatest possible expedition, even though cheap indentured foreign labour had to be employed for the purpose; but when it was a question of extracting black diamonds in the shape of coal it was a matter of small consequence if the power of production was restricted—the commodity could remain in the earth as a sort of patrimony for generations to come. But the discoveries of science made it every day more likely that unless the potential wealth which we possessed in our enormous coalfields was realised quickly we

    117
    might not be able to gain a single advantage from its possession. Labour Members and trade union leaders had been again and again charged with inconsistency in supporting trade unions and opposing protection as though there was any analogy between the protection which trade unions offered to the labourer Against the selfishness of capital and the protection which tariff reformers proposed to give to capital at the expense of the interests of labour. The inconsistency lay rather with the tariff reformers, who were responsible for the imposition and the continuance of this tax. Trade unionists, when charged with inconsistency, were entitled to say to the tariff reformers, "Pluck the beam out of your own eye before you attempt to remove the mote of inconsistency from the eye of Labour Members and trade union leaders."
    MR. PIKE PEASEasked whether the hon. Member could name a single country where a protective system had been introduced and wages had not risen.
    MR. FENWICKsaid it was often contended that coal was not a manufactured article. He maintained, on the contrary, that the moment coal was brought, to the surface it was as much the manufactured product of the miner as locomotives or steamships were the manufactured product of the engineer or the shipbuilder. It was true to say that coal was not a manufactured article only so long as it remained embodied in the bowels of the earth. Further than that, it was a manufactured article, the export value of which was greater than almost any other that could be named. From 6O to 80 per cent, of the export value of coal consisted in wages. Was there another article of manufacture where wages formed so large a proportion of the export value? In his judgment there was not. What they had to complain of was that this was not a tax upon a particular industry, but a tax on a particular portion of a particular industry. There might have been some defence to urge for the tax if it had been imposed on all coal raised, but instead of that it was only on the coal
    118
    raised for the export market that the tax was levied. He considered that was very unjust.
    The Royal Commission stated in their Report that the tax was one which hit most severely those districts where the price of coal was slightly above the margin for which coal might be exported free. That was the peculiar position of Northumberland. According to the official figures for 1903, the latest available, the total revenue derived from the tax was £2,300,000, and of that no less than £583,000, or more than a quarter of the total, was collected from the two ports of Blyth and Tyne. Although it might be true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol said when the tax was first imposed, that the export of coal of small value must form a very small proportion of our whole export, still it was equally true that in some districts the proportion sold at low prices was very great indeed. In the county of Northumberland there was a practice of ascertaining the average selling price of coal every three months. The figures for the last five ascertainments were 6s. 4·45d., 6s. 3·39d., 6s. 3·59d. 6s. 2·69d., and 6s. 2·94d., giving an average for a period of fifteen months of 6s. 3·33d. per ton, which was little more than 3¼d. over the margin at which coal would be free of duty. Could they imagine an industry which was in that position being able to bear an export duty of 1s. per ton? It was utterly impossible, and if it had not been for the fact that we had had the benefit during the past three years of strikes, first in America, then in France, and at the beginning of this year in Germany, there would have been several collieries in Northumberland absolutely closed down. While he was at home during the Easter recess, only a few weeks ago, he was told that several collieries were working only one and two days per week; the price obtainable was not sufficient to pay for the working of the coal, much less to find wages for the miners, and yet this tax was maintained on the industry. It was monstrously unjust to levy this charge on an industry which was in that condition.
    It had been said again and again—and this was the only justification

    119
    he had ever heard for the continuance of the tax—that the duty would fall on the foreign consumer. He was at a loss sometimes to follow hon. Members when they were dealing with fiscal questions. If it was an import duty on corn it was said that the foreign producer would bear the tax, and if it was an export duty on coal it was said that the foreign consumer would pay it. If that was so why did we not propose to tax both exports and imports and get our revenue for nothing? But they knew perfectly well that the foreigner did nothing of the kind. He objected to this tax also, because there was no corresponding duty upon any other trade or industry in this country. He opposed the war policy as strongly as he possibly could. He still thought that it was wrong. Nevertheless, those connected with the coal industry were not unwilling to bear their fair and proper share of the burden of taxation rendered necessary by a war which was hateful to them. But why should they be saddled with more than a fair proportion of the financial responsibility required to maintain the government of this country? There were other industries in the country in connection with which both employer and employed had reaped as great advantages as the miners and mineowners during the last three or four years of comparative prosperity. Did anyone ever suggest that they should be taxed in the special way the coal industry was taxed? There was not a single member of the Government who represented a constituency that was at all affected by the imposition of this duty. If there had been, that representative would have been called upon long ago to resign and confront his constituents on the subject. He had little hope that, at present, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to accept the new clause that had been proposed by his hon. friend the Member for the Barnsley Division. This coal duty was of such an exceptional character and so unjust in its operation that its absolute removal either by this or some other Government, could not be long delayed.
    MR. LAMBTONsaid that in speaking in support of the re-
    120
    duction of the coal tax he would be only following the course he had taken in 1901, and he might say that four years experience had not diminished his belief that it was a bad tax. The objections, expressed by hon. Members to the imposition of the tax in 1901 had been amply borne out by the Royal Commission. The Commission had dealt with the matter in a broad spirit, and he thought the tax should be dealt with in a similar manner. It was a tax upon a locality and upon a single trade. If the revenue was necessary the taxes imposed should be spread fairly over all exports and not confined to coal. He was not scientific enough, to accept the doctrine that all taxes upon imports and exports were paid by the foreigner. In his opinion this tax was a departure from that freedom of trade which was the safeguard of our national industries.
    Why was this particular trade selected for taxation? At the time it was imposed the tax was supported on grounds of remarkable inconsistency. It was said that it would be paid by the foreigner; that coal-owners were so rich and prosperous that they could afford to pay a tax of two or even five shillings; that the tax was excellent because it would diminish exports and keep coal in the country; that by sending coal abroad we were getting rid of our national capital for the benefit of the foreigner; and that we should keep our coal in the bowels of the earth for the benefit of posterity. All these arguments had been shattered by the Royal Commission. That Commission had upheld, what every man with the most elementary knowledge of the coal trade knew, that the tax was, a burden and a hindrance to trade and must diminish our competitive power abroad. It also showed that the export of coal was a matter of national importance and absolutely essential to the prosperity of the coal-producing districts. The tax not only affected our coal trade but also our shipping trade. On general grounds he would oppose the tax as he represented a constituency strongly affected by it, and he thought it ought to be removed as an act of justice, because it. was a partial tax, detrimental to localities, carrying on a great national industry.
    MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he was delighted to hear the voice of the hon. Member for Darlington in this discussion. The side which the hon. Member had taken with a large amount of diffidence was a good augury that the cause of those who were opposing the coal tax was winning. They must peg away for a short time longer. They were sure to win when they were able to convert such an ardent tariff reformer to the belief that this tax was an economic fallacy. He would not follow the hon. Member into any fair-trade doctrine, but ha had his own opinion about it. He thought he knew as much about the Continental miners as the hon. Member could know and, without boasting too much about the situation of our own workmen, it was, he knew, infinitely better than that of the workmen on the Continent or any country where protection existed. Hon. Members must have gathered that there were two features about the miners' representatives, some of whom had been thirty, some twenty, and others a fewer number of years in this House. They had never interfered in discussion except they had something of value to say on the subject-matter before the House; and secondly, they had their full share of the British bulldog instinct. They were as persistent and tenacious as the animal which represented John Bull. In that case they had indicated from the beginning until now that they had no idea in their mind of slackening of their opposition to this coal tax so long as it remained in force. They would make the same objections to it, advance the same arguments against it, and the sooner that it was removed the better it would be for the welfare of the country and the interest of the men they represented.
    The hon. Member for Barnsley, in his clear statement of the case, made an allusion, in passing, to a matter to which sufficient attention had not been paid, although it was most important, and had been urged from the first by the miners' representatives. The hon. Member mentioned that a colliery in the neighbourhood of Barnsley had been stopped owing to the imposition of this tax. That was a matter that wanted looking into more closely. Whatever alteration
    122
    might have come in the minds of the hon. Member for Darlington, the hon. Member for Liverpool, and others and whether they in their hearts were against this coal tax, or gave that opposition with their lips—they should be consistent and oppose it by their votes. He, himself, believed in the economic fallacy of this tax. He and his colleagues had always maintained that there were villages in every mining county in this country which depended entirely up on the mines for employment and for the support of their adjuncts—the village shop-keepers; and that to stop a mine employing 600 workmen meant the depopulation of a district; to deprive 600 men of their employment, and they and their families of bread, except they were kept by the voluntary subscriptions of their fellows, was to cut off the incomes of the men who had private property and had laid out their money in building shops. The result was to augment the volume of the unemployed, which was a soreness in the great social fabric; to increase the volume of labour seeking employment; and to render employment risky and precarious.
    Hon. Members talked of a 1s. tax as a mere bagatelle in the contract market. He did not think he had ever made a contract in his life, except one, and that he had never regretted from that day to this. He was persuaded to go on a certain journey; he went as a whole man and came back a half one. He trusted the bona fides of employers in this matter; and they said that the difference of 2d. or 3d. in the price per ton made all the difference between profit and loss. He believed that coal-owners on both sides of the House would admit that they had been shut out of contracts by a difference of 2d. or 3d. per ton. Employment had, in that way, been diminished, profits had been lessened, and wages had been lowered. They had been told by the hon. Member for Darlington that the foreigner paid the tax. He had always looked upon the foreigner as being as keen a business man as any Englishman, and as having as full a desire to buy in the cheapest market. He would not give 1s. per ton more for English coal if he could get the article for 1s. per ton less in his own country.

    123
    Therefore the 1s. must come out of the profits of the employers in this country and out of the wages of the workmen. No amount of reasoning on political economy constructed in the study of a political economist, and no amount of help given by permanent officials to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer to frame his balance-sheet, would clear that principle out of the commercial life and industry of this country.
    Now, he looked upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being a sort of Hyde and Jekyll. He looked upon the right hon. Gentleman as a man and as an official. He was confident that when the right hon. Gentleman got up to reply he would say that, as a man, he sympathised with them. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree with that. Of course, he had heard the right hon. Gentleman speak so to deputations which waited upon him. On coming away from one of these interviews with the right hon. Gentleman, he told his fellows that after the genial expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his kindly tone, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman desired to sympathise with them; and that led him to imagine that if the right hon. Gentleman could by any possibility remove this tax he would do it. But then the Chancellor of the Exchequer stopped him. Dr. Jekyll had laid his hands on Mr. Hyde; and while the man sympathised with them, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was seeking for an income. All human nature, like water, sought the least resistance. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that he was dealing with the least resistance. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that he was dealing with a very patient body of men—a body of men which, in 1901, if they had taken the advice offered them, would have struck against the imposition of this tax. They did not take that advice; they were too patient; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeking for income, traded upon that patience, while the Member for Worcestershire sympathised with them. So far as he was concerned this was no Party question. He did not speak thus on this matter because he was politically in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman.
    124
    He told any prospective Chancellor of the Exchequer, even if he came from his side of the House, that if this tax was not removed the same opposition would be given to him as to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    He and his colleagues had no regard, no solicitude, no incitement, no impulse beyond the welfare of their people. That was their motive power. A great deal was heard about Imperialism; about extending the Empire, and rounding it off scientifically. There was talk about Little Englanders and Larger Englanders. He was Little Englander enough to confess that anything which impinged on the earning power of the men he represented; anything that lessened their ability to get bread for their families; anything that would bring a blight upon the conditions of their domestic life, he would oppose. That was the heart of the Empire to him. And he should make it his first duty and sole care that nothing whatever should impinge upon the possibilities of their lives. To the deputation, to which reference had been made, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave expression to some words that were very pregnant to him. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "We cannot decide this question by general statements, however attractive; we must look to the actual facts of the trade."
    But in conjunction with that expression he would quote what was said by the Royal Commission, the existence of which the right hon. Gentleman had always given them, with due courtesy, as a pretext for not going into the matter. That Royal Commission had proved, on evidence taken, that it was the competition of the world that our employers had to contend with. But what were the actual facts? The Royal Commission stated that the mining industry—one of the most dangerous, difficult, irksome, and unpleasant trades that could be carried on, had had their wages reduced 60 or 70 per cent. by this tax in some cases. The wages of miners in Scotland had been reduced by 67 per cent.; and the reduction had been accepted loyally, if not cheerfully. Hon. Members referred to an income-tax of one shilling; what was that to a man with an income of £5,000

    125
    a year? The reduction in the miners' wages was equivalent to an income-tax of 4s. in the £. Had not the time now arrived for the repeal of the tax? Not a single argument which had been advanced by the Government in favour of it remained. He sympathised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was in a quagmire. The Royal Commission had reported against the tax; all the Consuls with one exception gave their verdict against it. It was said that not only were the owners making great profits, but that the miners were earning fabulous wages. In their very best days miners only earned 7s. a day; which, if it were five times as great, would not compensate them for the dangers and difficulties of their work. Wages had decreased fearfully; and in his opinion, if the tax were not removed, they would decrease still further. The tax could not be tested in a booming market. It could only be tested when the supply of coal exceeded the demand; and when producers were rushing into the market.
    Why should miners be specially taxed? One reason, which had been stated in the House, was that they were supporters of the Radical Party. They and their representatives opposed the war. Was that a reason why they should be taxed? When the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget in a splendid speech he said—
    "That it was one of the objects of any system of national taxation that every member of the community should contribute his fair share to the expenditure of a Government which in the last resort was controlled and directed by the popular will. But, it was obvious that such a change as he had described, without any change in taxation, might upset the financial equilibrium and, by altering the proportionate burdens of different classes or individuals might render inequitable and unjust a system of taxation which in other times and with other tastes was both fair and reasonable."
    The right hon. Gentleman further said that the indirect taxpayer paid 51·8 per cent, of the total taxation excluding the tax on coal. Why should the mining industry be jeopardised and foreign competition strengthened in this fictitious way. During the Franco-German war the coal trade of this
    126
    country was developed beyond the dreams of any man engaged in the industry. The result of the tax was to give an impetus to the coal trade of Germany, France, and Belgium. Where was the equity?
    He wished, in conclusion, to refer to the generosity with which hon. Members had listened to the arguments which had been advanced against the tax; and also to the kind attention which had been given to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be impervious to the arguments which had been advanced. They, the Labour Members, were connected with the working men in a manner the right hon. Gentleman could not know; they knew their hardships and dangers and how hard their lives were. He hoped that, if the Party of the right hon. Gentleman remained in office, the right hon. Gentleman would retain his present position, and that he would remove in his next Budget this most irksome and burdensome tax.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that no part of the Budget discussion, whether this year or last, had been conducted with more moderation, or with greater power and ability, or with closer reasoning and attention to the points actually involved, than that part (which related to the coal tax. He ought almost to regret to part from the coal tax, for it seemed to him to be the only tax the discussion, of which was concentrated on the real issues. He shared the opinion that the Committee owed a great deal to the investigations of the Royal Commission, which had enabled them to approach this subject with a completeness of knowledge that otherwise they could never have attained. He frankly admitted that the discussion was taken in very different circumstances to those which prevailed when the tax was imposed or when the discussion took place last year, and he was free to make the admission that neither he nor did he think that any one would be prepared to initiate the tax in the present circumstances of the trade. But what had to be considered was not whether we

    127
    should impose this tax now for the first time, but whether it should be removed from the statute.
    He did not propose to dwell at any length upon the tax as an important source of revenue which, in the circumstances of the present year, he could not afford to dispense with, and which at this stage of the Budget proposals he could not replace; but he did venture to observe that in considering the conditions of the coal trade at the present time and in the comparison which had constantly been made between now and the year 1900, the year before the tax was imposed, it should be remembered that the coal trade was, and always had been, subject to great fluctuations, and that the profits for everybody, for miners, for owners, for everybody interested, were abnormal in particular years; and if there was any prospect of such profits being permanently maintained, of course they would induce an influx of capital and create a demand for labour in that trade out of all proportion to what had been the case. But it was well known that following on these very good years—and this had always been so—there came bad years, and we had, therefore, the good with the bad years; and, just as he could not justify the tax by reference only to the best years, so the tax could not be condemned by arguments drawn solely from the bad years.
    The Report of the Royal Commission had undoubtedly cleared the ground to a certain extent, and had disposed of some of the arguments which had at different times been used in debate, arguments which he had not employed and to which he had not attached much importance in his replies. For instance, though they did not express in any number of years the duration of our coal supplies, they had shown it was still so large as to remove all anxiety lest the supplies should be exhausted. The Commissioners did say what hon. Gentlemen had repeatedly mentioned, that the export coal trade was of great importance to the country generally, not merely to the coal industry itself but directly to the shipping trade and indirectly to many other industries through freights being affected by the absence of outward cargoes should coal exports be greatly
    128
    diminished or on their extinction, were it possible for a moment to contemplate such a thing; and, referring to the tax itself, they said the export duty must affect the competitive power of this country and must have an influence on the export of coal.
    Figures had been cited in the course of the discussion in respect to particular districts, or ports, or sections of the trade, but the Committee would perhaps, allow him to, present a picture of what the trade as a whole had been in 1904 as compared with the preceding year. It was obviously possible out of the great mass of statistics to select a particular port or market and there show a great falling off in the export of coal, and it was equally true that the increase in a market might be caused by a trade dispute, a strike, or some abnormal circumstance, such as the war in the Far East, creating a demand for a particular coal. It was, therefore, important, for a true appreciation of the case, to examine the trade as a whole and not look merely to individual instances. Doing that, the result shown was that the number of men employed in the industry in 1904 was larger than the number in 1903, and the number of days work in each week only fractionally less— 5·07 as compared with 5·09. The production of coal was greater in 1904 than in 1903 to the extent of over 2,000,000 tons, but the average price at the pit's mouth had fallen, as hon. Members knew. In all the export coal districts—South Wales, Monmouth, Northumberland, and Fife—there was an increase in the number of men employed and the coal produced; only in Fife had there been a reduction in the days worked. Such was the condition of the trade as a whole. Was there any other great trade in the country of which it could be said that employment was better than in the year preceding? [Several hon. MEMBERS mentioned the textile trades.] He had not the figures before him, but he doubted if such a result could be shown in the woollen trade. The cotton trade was very bad in the early part of 1904, though in the latter part of the year there was a great revival. But even if any hon. Members could find specific trades where that was the case,

    129
    speaking generally, the condition in those trades was not better in 1904 than in 1903.
    The coal tax could not affect home consumption; it could only affect exported coal. In 1903 was recorded the largest export up to that time, and it was exceeded in 1904. Excluding coke, patent fuel, and bunker coal the exports in 1904 amounted to 46,255,000 tons as against 44,950,000 tons in 1903, an increase of 1,305,000 tons, or including coke, patent fuel, and bunker coal the exports of 1904 exceeded the exports of the previous year by over 2,000,000 tons. In relation to banker coal, which some gentlemen wished to exclude from this comparison because bunker coal was not subject to the tax, it should be remembered that up to 1900 no one had any particular interest in separating this from other coal, and to make a fair comparison about 2,000,000 tons would have to be deducted on this account and attributed to bunker coal which in previous years was not entered specially as bunker coal but included in the total actually shipped. He was also asked what about the coal not exceeding 6s. per ton. There was an increase of that coal in 1904 in round figures of 1,300,000 tons. To what was that increase due? Obviously the general fall in the price of coal must bring a larger proportion of coal within the limit of the exemption. That was probably the main reason for the increase in the exportation of coal not exceeding 6s. a ton, but another reason was mentioned by the Commission in their Report. In recent years there had been vast improvements in the methods and appliances for preparing and utilising small coal. A great deal of small coal previously unmarketable, and often left in the pit to the great detriment of the workings, was now brought up and found a ready market either at home or abroad. As coal was less able to bear the tax, so it came within the limit of exemption and the amount of coal exempted increased. In 1902 the percentage of all the exports which received exemption was 6·72. In 1903 it was 9·89. In 1904, when the value of coal had further declined, the percentage which received exemption rose to 12·32. It would thus be seen that, in spite of the tax, the export of coal had
    130
    continued to rise, and was greater in the last twelve months than in any previous similar period.
    MR. FENWICK: Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us the rate of development since the imposition of the tax as compared with the rate of development before the tax was imposed?
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: The increase in exports last year is much more than accounted for by the abnormal demand of the Russian and Japanese Navies.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied that one of the difficulties of discussing that subject was that they were told each year that the exports had been maintained by abnormal circumstances which could not recur, and hon. Members opposite were obliged to continue to advance the argument that although after each completed year the exports had increased, it was due to exceptional circumstances. At any rate, it was sufficient for his purpose to say, whether owing to abnormal circumstances or not, the export of coal, which dropped in 1901 from the very high figure of 1900, had now exceeded the latter figure and broken the record.
    It was said that the price of coal had fallen. That was true of the price abroad, perhaps, more than at home. He had had some letters from gentlemen living in coal-producing districts complaining that the price quoted by deputations to them as being the price free on board for exports was a price at which they could not buy at the pit's mouth even if they sent their own carts for it.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: A different class of coal.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that his informants told him it was the same coal. For the first three months of this year, when other abnormal circumstances had arisen, the increase was again retained and amounted to over 500,000 tons, of which coal not exceeding 6s. accounted for only about 160,000 tons, or less than a third. He invited the Committee to look to the proportion which coal exported from this

    131
    country bore to the total output of the country. That the coal trade had been suffering from low prices and was going through a bad time no one doubted; but was it the export trade, part of which was subject to this tax, which alone had experienced these bad times? He had shown that the exports had increased in spite of the tax. What had happened with regard to the amount of coal kept for home consumption? In 1900 the export was 25·93 per cent, of the total output. It had risen steadily in each year since then. In 1903 it was 27·7 per cent., and last year 28·32 per cent, of the total output. So this export trade, which it was suggested this tax would kill, bore a larger proportion to the total trade in coal now than it did in any of the previous years. Since 1900 the total output of coal had increased by 7,230,000 tons. The whole of that increase, and something more, had gone in exports, the home consumption remaining about stationary.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: But that included bunkers.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of course it did. He was aware that the hon. Member for Barnsley thought that bunkers ought to be excluded altogether from exports, but he differed from him upon that point. He altogether disagreed as to omitting bunker coal from the calculation. Not only did last year show the largest export of coal they had ever had—an increase even upon the high figure of the twelve months before—but it had shown that the whole increase on the output of coal had been in coal shipped from these shores, and not in coal remaining at home, which was free from the tax. It would be difficult, nay impossible, with those figures before them to contend that this tax was having the ruinous effect upon the export trade that hon. Gentlemen had attempted to prove. It was alleged that the tax was particularly injurious to trade with France, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Spain, Scandinavia, and the short trades, and yet the export to those countries continued to increase, In 1902 it was 15,800,000 tons, and it had risen to 17,700,000 tons in 1904. If they took the countries separately they would find the exports
    132
    in each case rose to a higher figure in 1904 than in 1903, and the figures for Germany were not affected by the strike. In the case of France alone had there been a fall—from 6,976,000 tons in 1903 to 6,757,000 tons in 1904, not a very considerable fall, but one deserving attention and which they must expect to see continued in the current year. The same fall was noticeable in the first quarter of 1905. What were the reasons for their losing their hold upon the French market? Undoubtedly it was largely due to the increased development of the Westphalian coalfields. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said but for the coal tax those fields would never have been developed.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: I never said that. I said they were helped to be developed.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman underrated the signs of development visible before the tax was imposed, the certainty that a great development would take place with the growing wealth and industrial progress of Germany, and that the competition of the Westphalian coalfields was further aided by the facilities for water carriage which they possessed, which enabled them to dispense with transhipment. That development was further stimulated by those favourable and preferential railway rates which formed no small weapon in the German commercial armoury. The Royal Commission reported that in this country coal exporters did not try to suit the requirements of foreign markets, and that the methods of Germany were more scientific and satisfactory. The great importance of cleaning, sizing, and sorting coal was insisted on. Our coal in a natural state was better and cleaner than the German, and the latter had only been brought into competition by careful cleaning and grading. Circumstances pointed to keener competition in the French market, where we should not in future, perhaps, hold the position that we had in the past. But the increase of our exports to a group of countries more than counter balanced this decrease in the case of France.

    133
    The representatives of the miners had pointed to the fall in wages which had taken place since this tax was imposed. With the fall in prices there had been undoubtedly a fall in wages, but to prove that wages fell because of the tax it was necessary to prove that the prices fell because of the tax. In 1900 wages, like prices, were abnormally high, and it was certain that worse times must come. But he had not been able to ascertain that the miners in the exporting districts had fared worse in 1904 than the miners in the non-exporting districts. [Cries of "Yes."] He was conscious that this tax stood in a peculiar position among our fiscal weapons. It was the only export tax that we had, and its effect upon the trade must be carefully watched. He could conceive positions in which it might exercise a very detrimental and even a fatal effect upon the trade. But it could not be said that it had excited that effect yet, or that the deterrent effect of which the Commission spoke had been sufficiently serious to impair the prosperity of the trade. The Commission reported that the volume of the coal export trade had steadily increased during the last thirty years, and that the rate of increase in exports had been greater than that of the total output. This showed that many other factors much more important than the coal tax had been at work. There was a case for watching the tax and a case for greater energy on the part of those engaged in the trade and for careful consideration by them of how their methods might be improved.
    MR. LAMBTON: We were told we had a monopoly.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the monopoly still remained in a great many markets. [Cries of "Oh."] But the competition was becoming keener. He could not understand what effect hon. Gentlemen opposite supposed the tax to have or what they thought would happen if the tax were taken off.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: We should get a shilling more for every ton.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if the coalowner and coalminer would have another shilling to divide for every ton, it was evident that they would not sell the coal cheaper, and therefore that they would be no better off in competing in the foreign markets.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: They would keep their trade. The export of South Wales coal for the first three months of this year is 500,000 tons less than in the same period of last year.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the export trade from Bristol Channel ports in 1900 was 18,500,000 tons, in 1903 nearly 20,000,000 tons, and in 1904, 20,800,000 tons. The hon. Member was perfectly right as to the figures for the first quarter of the year. But it could not be shown that this tax had seriously restricted the output or export of coal or lessened the amount of employment available in the exporting districts. The contrary was the case. Though he admitted that the tax must be watched, there was nothing in the facts or figures to make it imperative in a year like the present, with taxes and expenditure at the present height, to part with a source of revenue which brought in £2,000,000, and for which he could see no satisfactory substitute.
    MR. T. RICHARDSsaid if he rightly understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that no Chancellor would attempt to impose the coal duty for the first time in existing circumstances, it was only fair to argue that the circumstances were such that its reimposition should not be insisted upon. He believed that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol were Chancellor he would not reimpose the duty. He did not think there was a more unpopular man with those connected with the coal trade than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol when he put this tax on their industry. Since this tax was imposed the wages of the South Wales miners had suffered a considerable reduction. The state of things in the coal trade was serious, and he impressed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the reductions in wages

    135
    must be considered when they were dealing with the Amendment now before the Committee. In dozens of collieries in South Wales and Monmouthshire, and especially in Glamorganshire, the working of inferior seams had been, stopped directly as the result of this tax, and large numbers of men had been thrown out of work.
    On a fair estimate the miners in South Wales and Monmouthshire had drawn from £15,000,000 to £16,000,000 less in wages since 1900 than they would have received if the rate prevailing in that year had been maintained. He admitted the year 1900 was somewhat abnormal, and, although he was not prepared to state how far the tax had affected wages, he affirmed that it had reduced our competitive power. Although the output had been fairly maintained and the number of workmen had been increased, that was accomplished only by sacrificing prices and the consequent loss to the owner and miner. As compared with 1900 the wages of the miners were 14 per cent. less in 1901; 30 per cent. less in 1902; 35 per cent. less in 1903; and 40 per cent. less in 1904. In view of this terrible reduction in their wages, the miners thought something ought to be done to prevent it, and they thought a little restriction on the output would accomplish that result. The Committee knew what had been the disastrous results to the miners of their attempts to enforce ''stop days." As a consequence of the case in the Law Courts they had had to provide £57,000 damages out of the funds of their association, besides a large amount of costs. He joined in the protest against this tax, because he believed that it could neither be called preferential, protective, nor retaliatory, but was destructive of both profits and wages in the coal industry.
    The new Labour leader, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, had made extravagant promises, but the coal miners would be satisfied with something less than two jobs for one man. They would be satisfied with the removal of this tax and the finding of work for the men who were at present out of employment in the colliery districts. They had hoped from the Chancellor's
    136
    opening remarks that if he were Chancellor next year he would not reimpose the tax, but although that hope had been dissipated by his concluding observations, the Members representing the miners would offer the most determined opposition to any Chancellor who proposed to retain this unjust impost.
    MR. MILVAINsaid he had never been in sympathy with the coal tax. He had never voted for it, and he did not intend to do so to-day. It was a new experiment in finance, and he did not think it had been justified by the results. If it was desirable to tax this home industry he should have thought that it would have been better to put a smaller tax on the whole output of coal than to put a tax on only a portion, and that the portion which went out of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed to the fact that sure the tax was put on the exports had continued to increase up to last year. That was quite true, but it was rather inconsistent with the prosperity of the coal trade that there should be an increase in exports and a decrease in prices. He knew that in the county of Northumberland there were collieries on the seaboard which exported from 80 to 90 per cent. of their output. Was it not inequitable that the tax should fall so heavily on these collieries, and that it should not be felt in the collieries further inland which supplied the inland trade?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the tax required very careful watching; but there were certain circumstances which tended to increase the output which might have escaped the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the North the wages of miners depended upon ascertained prices. When prices were high, wages were high, and the miners did not work so many hours a day in order to obtain a living wage. But when the prices of coal were low, they had to work so many more hours a day in order to obtain a living wage. Consequently the output of coal was greater. It was an axiom, of political economy that when the supply was greater than the demand prices must fall. The Northumberland, coal trade was in competition with that

    137
    of the Westphahan Syndicate in Germany which had been nourished and encouraged by low rates and railway concessions. He would not go so far as to say that the syndicate had been subsidised by the German Government. At any rate it had not been burdened with taxation.
    What was the effect of this tax on the Northumberland coal trade with Germany? Our 1s. tax was a burden on the home trader and a corresponding subsidy granted by us to the Westphalian Syndicate. It therefore handicapped the home industry to the advantage of the foreign. That, surely, was a novel experiment in finance which could not be justified in argument. How was the home exporter to retain his foreign market in these circumstances? Simply by underselling the foreigner in his own market; and therefore the home trader was handicapped by the home taxation. He supposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew something of the endeavour to retain the foreign market for the British trader, and that he was familiar with the complaint of what was called "dumping" in this country. He did not say that the Northumberland coal traders were guilty of the offence of "dumping;" but he thought there was a strong temptation for them to do it. Why should the Government, under these circumstances, drive them by this tax to do so? But even in the darkness of this subject there was light. He himself, had always been a fair-trader and was a follower of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and he could not see that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was in any way carried out by this burden on home industry. The opponents of tariff reform always said that it was the consumer who paid the duty. That depended entirely upon supply and demand. If the supply was greater than the demand it was the exporter who paid; if the demand was greater than the supply it was the importer who paid. Every speaker had agreed that in the present case the tax was paid by the exporter. Indeed, there was another axiom of political economy well illustrated in this debate, namely, that so long as
    138
    there was competition within the tariff area, that competition would keep down the price of the commodity. For the reason he had given he had never approved of this tax and could not support the Government by his vote.
    MR. BURTsaid that on former occasions when this subject had been before the House of Commons he had spoken, perhaps, at unconscionable length, and he would have been inclined now to leave the case as it had been presented so admirably by the hon. Member for Barnsley and by his colleagues, the hon. Members for Wansbeck, Mid-Durham and for South Wales. But he represented a constituency that was very seriously and very directly affected by this tax. They had had a very interesting debate, if they could call it a debate, for, with the exception of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not a single word had been uttered on either side in support of the tax. But the right hon. Gentleman's speech was rather half-hearted; in fact, he thought when he was mentioning the various altered circumstances under which they debated the subject that day as compared with last year, it almost meant a declaration on his part that the tax would be abolished, if not this year, certainly next. He had ventured to predict that they would not have a single Member of a mining constituency who intended to be a candidate at the next election, standing up and saying a single word in defence of the tax. Like most other Members he had in opponent. There was no particular reason why he should be exempt from opposition more than another, and considering that his opponent, who had recently been holding a series of meetings, began all his speeches by telling the electors what an excellent Member they had—of course he could have no objection to his holding as many meetings as possible at a time when he himself was not able to attend. But it was rather a significant fact that this gentleman at us very first meeting said, without any one asking him, that if elected, he would oppose the coal tax.
    The, Royal Commission had unanimously decided that an overwhelming part of the evidence presented to them

    139
    went against this tax, that the tax had greatly weakened and crippled our competitive power and they gave some very reassuring evidence with regard to our coal resources. The facts and figures were almost bewildering in their magnitude. The Royal Commission of 1871 estimated our coal resources at about 90,000,000,000 of tons; but more than thirty years afterwards the recent Royal Commission stated that after nearly 6,000,000,000 tons had been taken out of our coal fields there were still over 100,000,000,000 tons of coal in Great Britain. In the case of a trade in which hundreds of thousands of men and millions of capital were employed it was absolutely necessary that it should be kept going to the fullest possible extent It was true that abnormal conditions, such as the strikes in America, France, Belgium, and Germany had helped to maintain their trade; but to his mind it was a very unhealthy condition if miners could only maintain their existence through the misfortunes of their fellows in other parts of the world. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rather objected to distinction being made between bunker coal and other exported coal, but he certainly thought that the distinction between coal exported to and bought by foreign countries, and coal that was used by our own countrymen in British ships was a very fair one to make. He, however, was mainly interested in the effect of this tax on wages, and there was not a shadow of doubt that it bore very injuriously on the wages of miners, for the coal-exporting districts had suffered much more severely in the reduction of wages than other mining districts. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the coal tax being called a war tax; but it would never have been imposed had it not been for the war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that, if it had not been previously imposed, he would not have imposed it at the present time.
    SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSONsaid he had always been opposed to this tax. The right hon. Gentleman said that the tax required watching. He himself contended that the proper way to
    140
    look at this matter was to take the total, cost of the article and to compare it with the price that could be obtained in a foreign country when subject to foreign competition. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer take the nett cost of the coal in this country, add to that the charges for freight, then add this shilling, and then face the competition of Germany, which had no shilling to add to her cost. If Germany could put her coal in one penny a ton cheaper than that, England was beaten out of the market. The tax represented 17 per cent. on the present price of Northumberland coal. The case was sufficiently simple in itself. The objection to the tax was, that it added to the cost. We could not add a shilling a ton to our cost without giving the foreigner the benefit of it, and the consequence was that the foreigner laughed at us and developed his collieries as fast as he could. It was perfectly evident that if we added 1s. a ton to the cost we were handicapped in competing with foreigners, but until the right hon. Gentleman took that view he was afraid he would not take the course they hoped, he would adopt and abolish this foolish impost. The debate had proved incontestably, by no one getting up to defend it, that this tax was a bad tax, and he trusted it might not be long before it was taken off. He had great sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, after all, he had to find revenue, and the area of taxation under our present system was a small one, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman might have given some indication that, if the area was widened, this would be the first burden that would be removed.
    SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he was somewhat surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given a straight forward promise that on the first opportunity he would relieve the coal industry of the objectionable tax. The arguments in favour of the tax had always been, first, that it was necessary to preserve our coal for the use of future generations, and second, that if we imposed this tax it would lead to a reduction of the price to home consumers. The Report of the Royal Commission had completely swept away both those fallacies.

    141
    No stronger justification could have been put forward for the arguments against this tax when it was first proposed than the Report of the Royal Commission, and if there was no justification, as appeared from that Report, for the imposition of this tax, there was no justification for its continuance any more than there was any justification for the imposition of any other tax on articles exported from this country. After the issue of that Report the right hon. Gentleman had not a leg to stand, upon, and he should have made it clear that on the first opportunity he would abandon the tax.
    The right hon. Gentleman made a great admission when he said under the present circumstances no such tax would have been imposed. That in itself made it quite clear that in the right hon. Gentleman's own mind, apart from the extraordinary year 1900, there was no justification for the tax. But on that occasion the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was told in this House that the coal trade was a peculiar trade and liable to violent fluctuations, and that when judging a trade for the purposes of taxation it was not fair to judge it otherwise than on an average of years. No justification had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the continuance of this tax. It was no argument to say that no trade, generally, was better. It was particular localities that suffered, and mining was unlike any other industry in the world. They could not stop their mines in the same way as they could stop a mill or factory. They must keep going, and the result was that if they could not get their regular customers to take their goods they had to make an effort to get customers elsewhere. The Government had no right to interfere with the coal industry and prevent it making use of all its markets, particularly when the Government was composed of gentlemen, some of whom held the opinion that we should not give preference to foreigners. We were certainly giving a great preference to those countries that produced coal.
    Great production was taken as a sign of prosperity in the coal trade, but that was not his experience. His experience was the men when earning good wages did not do so much work. It was only when
    142
    their wages were low that they worked longer hours and produced more coal. It was generally found, also, that when trade was bad in this country and there was a difficulty in getting customers at home people were driven to seek customers abroad. In Durham, for instance, when the iron trade became depressed, collieries which had been in the habit of sending coal to the iron consumers immediately began sending it to the ports for shipment, with the result that prices went down and exports up. Then it was said the freights were low. But even with the low freights to France and Germany, we had been unable to maintain our position. Shipowners would agree that the shipping trade had not been so depressed for many years, and that had doubtless prevented coalowners feeling the full effects of the tax. But freights would not always remain in their present low condition, as shipowners were losing money, and there would have to be an increase sooner or later.
    Then, too, in exporting to competing districts like France or Germany or Belgium, the tax had to be taken into consideration, and it affected the price all round. It was a remarkable fact that, the price for practically all coal sold abroad was fixed by the rate of the lowest contract; consequently, the effect of this tax was much more far reaching than could beat present realised. Home consumers generally obtained their coal at a lower price than foreigners, but a limitation of trade usually had the opposite effect, and if the Government persisted in making exporters accept a lass price in competing markets, where the tax had to be taken into account, the price to the home consumer would have to be raised to compensate for the lower price abroad. The coal business no more than any other could be carried on at a loss, and he hoped, especially after the Report of the Royal Commission, the Government would next year decide to remove the tax, which had been mischievous in every respect since its original imposition.
    SIR WALTER PLUMMERsaid he had been waiting to hear the case stated for the tax, but

    143
    speech after speech had been delivered alternately from either side and, with the exception of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was bound to defend it, no one had put forward a single argument in its favour. However disappointed the opponents of the tax might be at the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the fact that the impost had not found a single supporter on either side the House would give them great encouragement for the future, and he would be much surprised of any Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the maintenance of the duty twelve months hence. He ventured to intertene in the debate as one who had cot the qualifications possessed in so high a degree by most other Members who had spoken. He was not connected with any one of the four classes pre-eminently affected by the tax. He was not a coalowner—he wished he were—a shipowner, a coal exporter, or a miner; but he represented a place closely identified with the prosperity of all those classes. During his experience of Parliament he had never attended a debate in which the interest was more sustained than that day. The House had not been full, but every speech had been worth listening to, and none more so than that of the hon. Member for Morpeth, whom all welcomed back, and were glad to see so largely restored to health. He joined in the appeal, which he trusted might reach the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that before another year he might see his way to drop this tax.
    Last year the right hon. Gentleman said, and said truly, that he was waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission, remarking that until the Report was issued he was prepared to keep an open mind on the subject. That afternoon the open mind had been changed to the watchful eye—the Chancellor stating that this was a tax which required watching. They meant to watch both the tax and the Chancellor for some little time to come. The situation had been changed, and changed entirely, since last year, owing to the Report of the Royal Commission. If an explanation was to be found for the very significant fact that not a single hon. Member had spoken on either side in favour of the tax it
    144
    was due to the circumstance that the Royal Commission had spoken so strongly and unanimously. Up to that time they might have considered that there were arguments in favour of the tax, but since the issue of the Report the whole position had been altered. The Commission had reported that the coal export trade was of "supreme importance to the country." No words could be stronger; no adjective could be used with greater emphasis. The Commission also reported that there was no necessity to restrict this export trade, and that the export duty did restrict the trade. An hon. Member had quoted somewhat extensively the figures the Commission had considered as to the extent of the coalfields of the country, and if he remembered rightly the hon. Member said that if the trade went on as it was doing, and as he hoped it would do for many years to come, there would be sufficient coal in the bowels of the earth to last for 400 or 500 years. If that was the case he ventured to think, in view of the discoveries of science and in view of the development of electricity, that we need not husband our resources, which was one of the chief arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol when he imposed the tax.
    It was perfectly true that the Chancellor could point, as he had pointed, to the gross totals of our export trade and say with a certain amount of satisfaction that the trade was vigorous and imply that it was better than ever. But he did not think those two arguments went together. They might have a trade which was bigger but not better. [Hear, hear!] He was glad to hear that cheer from the opposite benches, because one of the arguments which he was trying to use was that the prosperity of a country, or the prosperity of a particular trade, was not necessarily measured by the volume of that trade, and though he believed that the Chancellor, pointing to the gross totals, could argue that the trade was bigger than ever, he ventured to say that when the trade was analysed, and when they took the extent of the bunker trade and the small coal trade, they would find that although they had a bigger trade in the gross, it was not better or more prosperous. If it were

    145
    so, prices would be higher and miners' wages would be going up instead of coming down.
    There had been some confusion in the mind of the Chancellor, if not in the minds of certain Members who advocated the tax, between the ordinary increase in the trade and the increase upon the increase which was going on before the tax was established, and which they had a right to expect to continue in future. It was because they were not getting the natural increase upon the increase that they had an argument against the tax. He did not wish to repeat all the arguments which had been used in previous years with regard to the tax. He had not any confession or conversion to plead. He had always been against the tax, and tried to oppose it. What he would like to hear from the Government bench was a clearer recognition of the importance of the Report of the Royal Commission than they had had from the lips of the Chancellor that day. Would the right hon. Gentleman say, or would somebody say on his behalf, that he recognised to the full the importance of the Report which had been unanimously arrived at by a most able and influential Royal Commission on the coal supplies of the country? Would he say that he recognised that a Report of that character demanded his attention, and that the recommendations would be carried out on the first opportunity consistent with the financial affairs of the nation? He added his voice to the many that had been, heard in favour of the abolition of the tax.
    SIR WILLIAM HOLLANDsaid he wished to say word or two against this tax. He had the honour to represent a mining constituency, and if he did not speak against a tax of this character his constituents would be justified in hauling him over the coals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he could not initiate such a tax as this under the present circumstances. Why could he not initiate this tax now? Was it not because it could not be justified? Why did the Government cling to a tax which could not be justified? The Chancellor of the Exchequer must
    146
    see very clearly that the coal tax had not got a friend in the House, and after the recommendations of the Royal Commission it would not have many friends in the country. The, right hon. Gentleman had sought to minimise the effect of the tax, but surely he could not seriously argue that the tax had not had a very injurious effect upon the industry concerned. If he did advance such an argument he would be making far too large a demand upon the common-sense of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mast, from his own experience, have observed the loss of a very large number of contracts for coal by reason of this tax, and that must have pro tanto diminished employment of labour in this country. In effect it was very much as though this country was being discriminated against by every other country in the world, not merely every foreign country, but also our own Colonies as well, to the extent of 1s. per ton. This country, in effect, was being discriminated against to that extent, but the hand that inflicted the wrong was the hand of our own Government. That being the position of things he thought there was every reason why they should be up in arms against such an obvious injustice.
    It had been urged again and again in regard to the coal duty that in the long run it would be paid by the consumer. He thought, with all respect, that the reason why this tax could not be thrown on the foreign consumer was that our foreign competitors were not competing with us on equal terms. If we were competing with them on equal terms there would be a chance of levying the tax on the foreign consumer, but our foreign competitors were not subject to this disability, and that was a bar to throwing the tax on the foreign consumer. Earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil asked when the Government were going to introduce the Unemployed Bill. The position of labour in this country had been very greatly aggravated by the imposition of this tax, and there would be very much less need for Bills dealing with the question of the unemployed if the Government would show more sympathy than unfortunately they at present did

    147
    Towards industrial questions when they came before the House. He very cordially supported the Amendment.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid the representatives of coal-mining districts took this opportunity of protesting against the iniquitous coal tax. He had a good deal of sympathy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in proposing the reimposition of the tax, was performing a duty his heart was not in. The right hon. Gentleman had to support this tax which was placed on the coal industry by those who preceded him. He had been obliged to tell the Committee to-day that although his father punished them with whips he must punish them with scorpions. Last year they asked for bread and got nothing but a stone. They expected something better this time, but still they were disappointed.
    He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who said that it was not good enough to say that they should take no notice of particular cases. This question was made up of particular cases. In South Wales nearly half of the coal produced was exported, and on every ton sold at over 6s. the tax meant a loss to the community of 1s. There had been two periods in the coal trade since the tax was imposed. In the time of prosperity they were told that the tax did not affect trade. They were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol when the tax was first imposed that it would not affect wages in any way. That could not be said that night. During the thirty years he had been connected with conciliation or other boards the employers had always stated that they got the last penny possible from the buyers of coal. If that was so, it followed that the 1s. duty now imposed was lost to the coalowner and the miner. When it was remembered that nearly half the coal produced in South Wales was exported, and that the 1s. tax was equal to about 10 per cent. on the value, it would be seen that the wages of the workers during the past four years must have been affected to the tune of 5 per cent. per annum. That meant that a man earning £52 a year lost £2 12s. out of his wages, and that
    148
    others who were earning higher wages, lost in like proportion, yet they were told that this tax did not affect the wages of the worker. No one could go to South Wales and tell such a tale as that. Members of this House who represented communities of workers, whatever their political views might be, had no hope of being returned again if they voted for the reimposition of this tax. Hon. Gentlemen, whether on his or on the other side of the House, if they desired to come back there after the next general election, unless they pledged, themselves to vote for the abolition of this iniquitous tax, would receive the vote of no miner in the country. It was evident that unless this iniquitous imposition was removed the coalowners, the coal-traders, and the shipowners would lose a portion of their profits, while the collier would continue to lose 5 per cent. of his wages. This question ought to be settled once and for ever. No more argument was needed. All that was wanted was the opportunity; and he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was losing that opportunity now.
    MR. CHARLES WILSONsaid this tax was a very bad one for the shipowners. He remembered the Merchandise Marks Act, which took away a great deal of our transhipment trade with the Continent. Now it was proposed who should assist coal made in Germany to take away our coal trade, this being the effect of the shilling duty opening out the Westphalian coal-fields in competition. He knew that a shipping firm on the East Coast with some twenty weekly sailings to the Continental ports entirely depended on the export of coal to complete the cargoes of these trading steamers. They had chairmen and directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company and the Great Central Railway Company in the House. The prosperity of these two great undertakings was practically dependent on the export of coal. They could not defend this tax. He could sympathise with the colliery proprietors and the colliers who worked in the mines, but he wanted a little sympathy also for the shipowners. He desired to make one recommendation to the

    149
    Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely that he should do away with this tax and have one battleship less. That would help to cover it. It would probably be found, as a result of the war now going on in the Far East, that less reliance must be placed on these expensive and unreliable engines of warfare. He thought it his duty as a shipowner to protest and endeavour to abolish the coal tax. As an instance of the great reduction in freights consequent on the tax a contract had been entered into from the East Coast to Antwerp to carry coal at 2s. 3d. per ton over the whole season; and, if the tax remained, the carrying
    trade over the North Sea from, the East Coast of England would be seriously injured and in some cases destroyed. He was afraid what they said, could not have much effect on this Government, which wished to interfere with trade in so many ways; and he would only say that he considered this tax one of the most serious disabilities that a great industry could suffer from, and one which was entirely unnecessary.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 167: Noes, 200. (Division List No. 183.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Field, William

    M'Crae, George

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    M'Kean, John

    Asher, Alexander

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Mooney, John J.

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Murphy, John

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Austin, Sir John

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

    Banner, John S. Harmood

    Gilhooly, James

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir. E. (Berwick

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

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)

    Boland, John

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.,

    Brigg, John

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.,

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Hammond, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Harcourt, Lewis

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. V

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hardie, J Keir (Mcrthyr Tydvil)

    O'Malley, William

    Burns, John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Burt, Thomas

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Parrott, William

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Partirigton, Oswald

    Caldwell, James

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Paulton, James Mellor.

    Cameron, Robert

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

    Campbell Bannerman, Sir H.

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Plummer, Sir Walter R

    Channing Francis Allston

    Johnson, John

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Joicey, Sir James

    Rea, Russell

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea

    Reddy, M.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crombie, John William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfrics)

    Crooks, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Richards, Thomas (W Mon'mth)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Delany, William

    Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Labouchere, Henry

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Lambert, George

    Roche, John

    Dunn, Sir William

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Edwards, Frank

    Lamont, Norman

    Runciman, Walter

    Elibank, Master of

    Langley, Batty

    Russell, T. W.

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

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Shackleton, David James

    Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Levy, Maurice

    Shipman, Dr. John G

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Lundon, W.

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Toulmin, George

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

    Spencer, Rt Hn. C R (Northants

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Ure, Alexander

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

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

    Sullivan, Donal

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Young, Samuel

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Thomas. J A (Glamorgan, Gower

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

    Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

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

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

    William M' Arthur.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

    Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

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

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Lowe, Francis William

    Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn Hugh O.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Finlay, Sir R B. (Inv'rn's B'ghs

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Bailey, James (Walworth.)

    Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Malcolm, Ian

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

    Gibbs Hon. A. G. H.

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

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Hartley, Sir George C. T.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Milner. Rt. Hon Sir Frederick G.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mitchell, William (Burnley)

    Bigwood, James

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Bill, Charles

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Montagu, Hon. J Scott (Hants.)

    Bond, Edward

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Morrell, George Herbert

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

    Gretton, John

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Brassey, Albert

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Mount, William Arthur

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gunter, Sir Robert

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Bull, William James

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Butcher, John George

    Hambro, Charles Erie

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Percy, Earl

    Carson, Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Chapman, Edward

    Helder Augustus

    Purvis, Robert

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

    Pym, C. Guy

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

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Coddington, Sir William

    Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hope J. F. (Sheffield, Bright side

    Ritchie. Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hoult, Joseph

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Cross, Alexander(Glasgow)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hon. Col. W

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Keswick, William

    Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Davenport, William Bromley

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

    Lawson. Hn H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Legge, Col Hon. Heneage

    Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    152

    153

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Stock, James Henry

    Tuff, Charles

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxtetu)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

    Thornton, Percy M.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Alexander Acland-Hood

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

    and Viscount Valentia.

    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.

    SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS] (By ORDER).
    [SECOND READING].
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he desired to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill for the purpose of drawing attention to the bad and even dangerous state of Ludgate Hill Station, the property of these lines, and a station greatly used in the evening and the morning by a great number of those he had the honour to represent in this House. Most of the platforms were what was known as island platforms, and when they were crowded at certain hours of the evening and the morning there was considerable danger to passengers, especially in the darker months of the year. Moreover, the approaches to the station were very bad. The condition of the station was not denied by the company, nor had it been questioned in any way. Since 1898 this state of things had repeatedly been brought to the notice of the company and yet nothing had been done, and in the present Bill, which was an omnibus Bill, no steps were being taken to provide a remedy. He fully realised that these great railway companies, although they were monopolies, had as much right to consideration and
    154
    fair treatment, and that the shareholders who had invested their money in these undertakings had as much right to fair treatment, as the public whom they served.
    The Corporation of London, for whom in some measure he was speaking, contended that the condition of things at the station could be considerably ameliorated at a very small expense by the utilisation of the land which was already in the hands of the company in the near neighbourhood. They further contended that statutory powers were not necessary for this purpose; if they Were the corporation, asked how was it they were not included in the powers taken by the Bills of 1900, 1901, 1903, and the present Bill? The corporation as the public authority had applied to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade were unable to act and the Railway Commissioners had no power to interfere, as this matter was beyond their powers. The company contended they could not act without powers, for which, however, they did not apply, and the station remained a great inconvenience and danger to the passengers of this line, many of whom were his constituents. Then the company came to the House seeking powers to carry out works on other parts of their system. It was under these circumstances that he and those he represented felt that the only way they could endeavour to obtain redress was by appealing to-this House in this way. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    DR. SHIPMANsaid he took this opportunity of opposing the Bill on altogether different grounds to those stated by his hon. friend, a ground which concerned the conveyance of passengers' luggage from train to the boat. The company had a primitive method of placing all the luggage

    155
    together in a heap, and fastening it up with, a rope, and so hoisting it from the train to the boat. Inasmuch as a great deal of the luggage consisted of light baskets covered with canvas or leather, considerable damage resulted from the pressure of the rope. The remedy was a simple one. It was, instead of using these ropes, to have crates or barrows or some other contrivance by which the luggage could be safely and easily moved from train to boat. He supported his hon. friend in his opposition.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Captain Norton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR W. HART DYKEsaid with regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton who seconded the rejection of the Bill, he might say that there was nothing in the Bill which dealt with the matter to which the hon. Member had referred, but nevertheless he would give that matter his consideration and not be so churlish as to ignore it. He assured the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that the overcrowding at Ludgate Hill Station was not nearly so great now as it had been in the past. He was not prepared say that it was a perfect railway terminus, but it was not without interest to point out that there had not been a single accident to a passenger there since this question was last raised in the House several years ago. This Bill had passed in another place, and before either House no petition had been presented against it. He submitted that what the House now had to consider was what was the real scope and object of the Bill before it, and the real test upon which the vote of hon. Members should be taken should be whether the measure, as it stood, carried out the object of the Bill to the convenience of the public. It was an omnibus Bill of a very small character taking powers to widen Ashford Station and other places on the line, and also to acquire small pieces of land here and there for that
    156
    purpose. That was all the Bill proposed to do. With regard to the question of Ludgate Hill Station, some years ago the London and Chatham Company built two considerable stations near Ludgate Hill in order to relieve the congestion of that station. He might also say a very great change was taking place in regard to suburban traffic. The tramways had already considerably reduced the traffic to and from Ludgate Hill Station, and if the project of carrying those lines across Blackfriars Bridge were given effect to the traffic would be depleted to a still greater extent. In these circumstances the company could not at present contemplate the enormous expenditure which would be incurred by the rebuilding of the station. He appealed to the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill, which was absolutely necessary for the improvement of the traffic over various portions of the undertaking, but which was not concerned at all with Ludgate Hill Station.
    MR. DALZIELsaid he believed the company had on more than one occasion admitted that the condition of Ludgate Hill Station was dangerous.
    SIR W. HART DYKE: I do not admit that.
    MR. DALZIELsaid he believed that the general manager admitted that its condition was one that could not be defended by the company.
    SIR W. HART DYKE: I refuse to admit that.
    MR. DALZIELsaid he could assure the hon. Baronet that that was the case.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid it was not in the correspondence which he had in his hands.
    MR. DALZIELsaid that was quite possible, but his hon and gallant friend had assured him that that was the case, and he was quite prepared to take his hon and gallant friend's assurance. On October 30th, 1899, it was admitted that the station was unsatisfactory and the

    157
    general manager then stated that plans would be prepared for the improvement of the station, especially with regard to the access to the platforms. That was at once an admission on the part of the company that there was a case for improvement. This was the only occasion on which they could attempt to obtain any consideration, and the only opportunity they had was by opposing the Bill. While he agreed entirely with the case put forward by his hon. friend, he himself would give his vote against the Bill chiefly as a protest gainst this company having any increased powers whatsoever. They were informed when these two companies amalgamated that the public were going to have reasonable facilities, but as a fact the amalgamation killed all competition and the state of these railways was now a public scandal and a disgrace. The management of the expresses was abominable, the Continental boat express sometimes took an hour longer than scheduled time, and the management of the company so far as its passengers were concerned was as bad as it could well be. The House ought to bear this in mind before they gave the company increased powers. So ar as he was concerned he should support the rejection of the Bill.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid, so far as he was concerned, it was not necessary to enter into the question as to whether the Continental express service was good or bad; all he need point out was that this Bill had nothing to do with it, and he protested against hon. Gentlemen opposing a Bill against which they had not advanced a single argument. The only people who would lose by the rejection of this Bill were the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite whose cause they were championing at the present moment. If there was anything wrong with the Continental expresses this was not the time to raise the question. The rejection of this measure would have the effect of stopping works being carried out. They heard a good deal of sympathy expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite for the unemployed, but they were now opposing a Bill which would provide work for the unemployed. The directors were endeavouring to remove certain causes of complaint by improving portions of their line, and he hoped the Bill would be read a second time.
    Question put.
    The House divided;—Ayes, 105; Noes, 92. (Division List No. 184.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

    Gardner, Ernest

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Banner, John S Harmood-

    Garfit, William

    Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S)

    Bigwood, James

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Brassey, Albert

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford.W.)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow

    Huoson, George Bickersteth

    Percy, Earl

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn Sir Joseph C.

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Joicey, Sir James

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Purvis, Robert

    Finlay, Sir R. B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

    Kitson, Sir James

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

    Robinson, Brooke

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

    Tuff, Charles

    Frederick Banbury and Mr.

    Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Galloway.

    Stanley, Rt Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    O'Dowd, John

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Parrott, William

    Brigg, John

    Johnson, John

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Bright, Allan Heywood-

    Jones, D. Brymnor (Swansea

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Burns, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Russell

    Burt, Thomas

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Caldwell, James

    Kilbride, Dems

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Campbell, John-Armagh, S.)

    Langley, Batty

    Roche, John

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Crooks, William

    Levy, Maurice

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

    Delany, William

    Lundon, W.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sullivan, Donal

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    M'Crae, George

    Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Ure, Alexander

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Kean, John

    Wallace, Robert

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Gilhooly, James

    Mooney, John J.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Murphy, John

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Hammond, John

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Captain Norton and Dr.

    Hunt, Rowland

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Shipman.

    Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed.

    FINANCE BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
    MR. ROBSONmoved to add the following clause:—"On and after July 1st, 1906, the duty on stripped tobacco imposed by Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1904, and the rebates allowed under this section shall cease and determine." He did not propose on the present occasion to go over the ground which was traversed last year
    160
    when this duty was imposed, but since that time they had had a year's experience of the working of the tax, and the subject was of vital importance not only to the revenue and the tobacco trade but also upon, the wider grounds of fiscal policy. He considered that it was important to examine the results of this tax, because they afforded a striking example of the fiscal measures which were now approved by the Ministry. They showed that the interests of the revenue, of a great trade, and of the consumers had been deliberately sacrificed, with no other result than to put large sums of unearned profit into the pockets of fortunate individuals. They had in this tax the first fruits of this great negative principle upon which he understood that both the main wings of the Tory Party were now united,

    161
    namely, that taxation was no longer to be imposed solely for the purposes of revenue, and this was certainly a tax of which it could not be said that it had been imposed for revenue purposes.
    How far had the predictions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer been justified? That question particularly concerned the Gentlemen on the other side who supported free-trade opinions. If the grounds on which they voted for this tax had been falsified, it was now their duty to vote against it. Before the imposition of the tax, 77 per cent. of the tobacco imported was in the form of stripped leaf; and only 23 per cent. was in the whole leaf. The additional tax imposed on the stripped leaf was 3d. a pound, or very nearly 50 per cent. of its value. This was an enormous tax, especially as a differential impost. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the House that it was having no effect at all upon prices.
    Before the debate on the Budget was finished last year they had an opportunity of testing many of the arguments which had been used in favour of this tax. They had an opportunity of seeing how far the mere suggestion of this tax paralysed the import trade in stripped tobacco. And notwithstanding all these facts, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that a tax of 50 per cent. on this article had made no difference in the price. He thought that was an astounding statement to make. He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to defend that statement, but he urged the Committee to consider the significance of such a statement from a Minister who had charge of the finances of the country, In effect, the tax operated as one on the process of stripping done abroad. The cost of conducting that process at home, they had been told by one of the hon. Members for Bristol who was largely concerned in this trade, was something like one halfpenny per pound, but when they added all the other small charges, like interest on capital and the coat of various technical matters connected with the process the cost was at the most 1d. per pound; so that the tax was three times the amount of the cost of the process. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    162
    believed that the tax would continue to yield revenue, and that manufacturers would go on importing stripped leaf and paying three times as much for the stripping as they would if it were done in this country.
    He wished to point out that this tax related to a far wider question. What was the fiscal state of mind of a Minister or a Chancellor of the Exchequer who believed that manufacturers would go on buying the raw material which had been taxed over 50 per cent. more than its substitutes, and moreover believed that those manufacturers would go on performing a process like stripping when in order to do it they must pay three times the cost of performing that process at home? That was the general ground of the principle upon which this tax was imposed and by which it had been defended. And now let the Committee look at the results. The Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the tax in the perfect and happy confidence that he would get at least one year's revenue. Of course the Chancellor, owing to the conditions of the trade, was sure of getting one year's revenue, and perhaps two.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have, and you told me that I should not get it.
    MR. ROBSONsaid that, on the contrary, he had pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the hardship on the holders of stripped leaf in bond, and the certainty that the holders of whole leaf would make large fortunes. He felt sure that the Committee had not forgotten the personal incident which occurred last year on this point when he ventured to cast some doubt upon the standard of fiscal morals adopted by the Government, and which were then vigorously defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On that occasion he showed to the right hon. Gentleman how twenty firms in the stripped tobacco trade stood to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds. How could all that sum be lost unless the tobacco was taken out of bond and the tax paid upon it? When the right hon. Gentleman desired to show that any

    163
    prediction of his had been falsified he hopped in the future he would be a little more accurate in his facts. No doubt a certain amount of stripped tobacco would continue to be imported, because the contracts for the importation of stripped tobacco were not confined to a single year. It was, however, to the imports that they had to look in order to test the efficiency of the tax.
    How had the imports been affected by this tax? There were two ways of testing it—one by comparing the imports for a series of years, and the other by comparing the imports for the first four months of each of the last three years. The latter was the better method, and taking the first four months of the last three years, the imports of stripped tobacco were:—In 1903, 14,951 casks; in 1904,15,323 casks; and in 1905 only 2,341 casks. More than that, he had been informed that the bulk of the 2,341 casks was imported to be worked in bond for export, so that it escaped the tax altogether. Did not that show that the tax had been virtually prohibitive, using the word in its practical commercial sense? It was a striking circumstance for those concerned for the maintenance of free-trade principles, but it would bring joy to the heart of those trade-killers who called themselves protectionists. The party of "Little Traders"—that organised body for the contraction and destruction of our foreign trade—would regard with intense satisfaction the fact that the free imports to which they so much objected had in the case of this particular commodity been reduced to such an extent. But how did it compare with the promises and statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, when he introduced the tax, said he was not departing from the old lines of fiscal policy?
    The importation had virtually ceased, but there was one branch of the tobacco trade in which dealers could not do without the stripped tobacco, the trade in the 3d. an ounce tobacco. This was a commodity so firmly established that it was extremely difficult for traders to alter the price; the trader was almost compelled to lower the quality rather than raise the price when the cost
    164
    was increased. The manufacturer of this tobacco was obliged to work very close to the 32 per cent. limit of moisture, and importing the dry stripped he could easily calculate the amount of moisture it contained, and he knew exactly how much he might safely add. But under the regime of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would import the whole leaf and strip it here, and he was unable to tell exactly in stripping the stalk from the leaf how much moisture he had brought with it. The stripped leaf also was not uniform in moisture, consequently there was great difficulty in testing it, and it was by no means easy to impregnate it with exactly the right quantity of moisture. His dilemma was in knowing how much to add. If he added too little he made a loss; if he added too much he became liable to penalties. The larger manufacturers had means and appliances to meet the difficulty, but the smaller manufacturers were being squeezed out of the trade by the operation of the tax. There had been many failures recently. No one could tell exactly to what they were to be attributed, but all agreed that the difficulties put in the way of their business by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had a substantial share in bringing about their losses and bankruptcy. He had been told that the small manufacturers when squeezed out would probably become agents for great trusts. He had always understood, however, that one of the services to be rendered by the new fiscal theories was to be the very reverse—namely, to counteract trusts. This, then, was not a very happy result for the first essay in protectionist legislation.
    The right hon. Gentleman, in order to convince the House that it was not a protectionist tax, stated that it would, give no advantage to the foreign stripper, but that it would simply put the stripper at home and the stripper abroad on a footing of equality. That was not altogether consistent with another part of his argument in which he stated that the tax would result in more employment at home, because it could result in more employment at home only if the foreign stripper was placed at a disadvantage. But in all protectionist arguments it was necessary in stating one half of the case

    165
    to keep the other half out of one's mind. Thus the right hon. Gentleman stated—
    "I am not attempting to place home stemming in any privileged position, but to place it in a position of equality in competition with the imported article,"
    While later on he stated:—
    "The differentiation made between whole leaf and strips by the duty of 3d. on strips is only enough to put the whole leaf and strips on an equal footing, and it is entirely the convenience of the manufacturer whether he will work with whole leaf or with strips."
    Before the tax "the convenience of the manufacturer" had been to import 77 per cent. of his raw material in the form of strips, but now he imported none for home consumption. That was the result of the right hon. Gentleman's honest and conscientious, though unfortunately protectionist, effort to put the two on a footing of absolute equality! What had happened to the foreign stripper? In America they were closing down that branch of their business to a large extent, and the stalk was being brought over here. To that extent the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument had been borne out by the result, and he was entitled to the credit.
    The right hon. Gentleman had promised more employment under the new arrangements. But what sort of employment was it? Stalk constituted from 20 to 25 per cent. of the total weight of the leaf. That meant that one-fourth or one-fifth of the raw material which we brought over from America was discarded. Thus 20 per cent. additional weight had to be packed in America and placed on the railways; then 20 per cent. additional tonnage was put on board ship and carried 3,000 miles across the Atlantic. When at last it reached the manufacturer here he had to strip it, and then demand his drawback on the stalks. Before the drawback was paid, however, the rubbish had to be subjected to an elaborate process; it was necessary for the stalks to be dried, ground, analysed, and tested, before the manufacturer received back the duty he had paid plus something for the trouble to which he had been put. Thus the revenue lost by the stalks. He believed that some ingenious person had discovered that the stalks could be used as a kind of insect powder in conservatories, so that the
    166
    right hon. Gentleman had gone to all this trouble, and caused 20 or 25 per cent. of the material to be brought 3,000 miles at endless cost, simply to kill some bugs. This was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's first little infant step in scientific taxation. No excuses could blind the House and the country to the fact that one branch of our free import trade was gone, and yet they were being told continually, that in the course of this Parliament nothing would be done to touch or prejudice our system of free imports, troglodyte though it was said to be.
    To convince his supporters that the tax was not excessive—notwithstanding the fact that it was 50 per cent. on the value of the commodity, and 300 par cent. on the cost of the process—the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recourse to percentages, and in the whole history of the fallacy of percentages there never was a more delightful example. He stated that whole leaf tobacco cost 5d. a pound, on which there was a tax of 3s., or at the rate of 720 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong even there, because he failed to take into account the fact that one-fifth of the weight consisted of stalk on which a rebate was paid. He then went on to say that the cost of stripped leaf was 6½d. a pound, so that the tax of 3s. 3d. which he proposed to impose represented only 600 per cent. as against 720 per cent. in the case of whole leaf. But the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the simple and easy canon of taxation, that whether or not a tax was excessive depended upon the intensity or strength of the desire for the article. The desire for tobacco was with some people an insatiable craving, and even though the tax were 1,000 per cent. they would still pay it. Those who, like himself, had given up the habit of smoking knew that often they would have given £5 or £10 for a cigar if it had been merely a matter of money. There was scarcely any limit except that of the consumer's means to the amount he would pay for the thing he desired. But that was a very different thing from a tax on a process. The tax which differentiated against stripped tobacco was a tax on a process. Nobody "craved" for stripping abroad rather than stripping at home, so

    167
    that in considering the excessiveness or otherwise of the tax one had to take into account not the force of the appetite but simply how much more the stripping process would cost in one place than in another. That being so it was conceivable that a tax of even 5 per cent. might kill a particular process, while a tax of 300 per cent. was almost certain to do so. That had been the case in this instance. There was no comparison between the percentage of a tax on a process and its percentage on an appetite. The two things were absolutely distinct, and their connection involved an elementary fallacy which should have been self-evident.
    The truth was that the country had now got men controlling its finances who knew nothing of economic science, and who apparently boasted that they knew nothing about it. They applied every epithet of abuse to the great masters of that science, Cobden and Mill, who brought greater intellects to the service of mankind than the protectionist Party Was ever likely to possess, and he suggested that that Party, instead of abusing the great masters of political economy, should read their works.
    The question then arose—Who gained by this tax? It was not the revenue, nor the consumer, nor the trade, generally. But somebody was gaining by the tax, and in order to find out who it was it was necessary to ask who had advised the tax. He thought the Committee was entitled to know that. Under the old free-trade system the country was not afraid to allow its Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet and collogue with the representatives of different trades, because, after all, taxation was on a basis so narrow that few advantages could be given to any particular trade by public burdens. But now a different system prevailed. Public burdens were held out to different trades as sources of private profit at the public expense. Under these circumstances the Committee ought to be informed who advised the tax, and then they might continue their inquiry a step further and find out who gained by it. It would probably be found that the two classes were coterminous and identical. The tobacco section of the Liverpool
    168
    Chamber of Commerce had challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say who the manufacturers were who advised him, and he ignored the challenge, and he took it that he would do the same that night. Those Liverpool tobacco manufacturers had asked the right hon. Gentleman to put them into communication with those who had made representations to him in favour of this tax, because they declared that it was inconceivable how any manufacturer could make such representations. These manufacturers were not political opponents of the Government, but they were Conservatives and protectionists until this tax was imposed. They were finding salvation now, and it was like a revival amongst them in the tobacco trade. The right hon. Gentleman had taken no notice of that challenge. He would not complain of that, but let them know where they stood with regard to the fiscal morals of the future. What was the standard of fiscal propriety approved by the Government? Did they think it right, defensible, meritorious, that certain men engaged in a trade should be at liberty to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer's advisers—he did not suppose they approached him personally—
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think if the right hon. Gentleman means to suggest dishonesty he had better make the charge directly against me. [OPPOSITION cries of "Order" and "Who said dishonesty?"] The charge should be made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than against his advisers, for whose action he is responsible and desires to take absolute responsibility.
    MR. ROBSONsaid anything more unworthy, anything more discreditable on the part of a Minister of the Crown than the interruption to which he had just listened he thought he had never heard. Was he to understand that the right hon. Gentleman—a protectionist—considered it dishonest on the part of members of a trade to go and recommend to his advisers a tax that would benefit that trade? That was what he suggested had been done, and he suggested that on the best authority. Last year he read the view

    169
    communicated to a newspaper of one eminent manufacturer, who said he had been for some time advocating the principle on which this tax had been founded. Was that dishonest? If so, what was the honesty of the Tariff Commission? According to the construction the Chancellor of the Exchequer put upon the facts the Tariff Commission must be a gang of predatory scoundrels. ["Order!"]
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not introduce the Tariff Commission. [Cries of "Why not?"] It has no connection with the Amendment.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Really.
    MR. ROBSONsaid he had no desire to introduce the Tariff Commission or anything like the Tariff Commission to the House, but he was bound to answer the interruption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and as he had raised the question and endeavoured to give it a personal application, he would say that the same interruption last year enabled apparently those representing the Treasury to ignore all explanations of the remarkable increase in imports of the whole leaf just before the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman would not succeed in drawing the discussion on to improper lines by any such interruption. He should have thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have been so ready to suppose that any hon. Member knowing him would have dreamt of charging dishonesty against him. He must know that no one would dream, either, of charging the officials of the Custom-house with dishonesty. There was no man who entertained a higher opinion than he did of the honour and probity of the Departmental officials. Nothing would induce him to suggest a word that might seem to cast the slightest slur on a body of officials of whom the country might well be proud. But when he was dealing with secret and unnamed persons who tried to get public burdens imposed for the sake of private and individual profit, then he should ask, "Is that the standard of fiscal morals which is to reign henceforth in this country?" Obviously it was. He asked hon. Gentlemen who voted for this tax last
    170
    year, upon what had turned out to be a set of wholly mistaken ideas, to reverse that vote now. He made no charges of misrepresentation—charges which were freely and falsely levied against hon. Gentlemen on that side—he only said that mistakes were then made which were natural to the protectionist state of mind; but if those mistakes were persisted in, in spite of knowledge, they became misrepresentations and something worse.
    He thought the Committee were now in a position to judge of the working of this tax. The tobacco trade demanded that it should be free from this meddling and muddling, not for the purposes of revenue, but in order to attempt to create additional employment in this country. When hon. Members thought of this kind of policy being applied to every trade in the country they would realise what it meant to have a Ministry in power which had systematically defended the policy of muddling through. It would not, however, do to allow any Ministry to apply the policy of muddling through to the trade of this country, and Ministers had better keep their hands off trade altogether if they could not deal with it better than they had done in the case of the tobacco tax. In this case they had had an illustration of fatuous fiscal folly.
    New clause (Repeal of duty on stripped tobacco)—(Mr. Robson) brought up and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
    MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid that although he had an Amendment in his own name lower down on the Order Paper, many of the arguments that he could adduce in favour of that Amendment—which he still hoped to move—might be more effectually put forward on the Motion now before the Committee. He admitted that, although the tobacco trade were prepared to accept a compromise in the matter, the most logical way to deal with it would be to adopt the Motion at present before the Committee. He regretted that the hon. and learned Member

    171
    for South Shields had connected the subject so much with the fiscal question, and he regretted still more the innuendoes which the hon. Gentleman opposite had made, reflecting on some person or persons unnamed. He believed these suspicions were altogether unfounded, and they were disowned by the tobacco trade He was familiar with all the arguments put forward by the tobacco trade against this differentiation, but he had never heard a syllable of suspicion uttered against any individual. On the contrary, he was confident that the trade believed that, this tax was prompted by the best and purest motives.
    He recalled the circumstances under which the tax originated last year. He had upon the Paper a new clause proposing that 1½d. should be substituted for 3d. as the increase in the duty on stripped tobacco, but he thought it would be better to discuss the question on the present Motion. The duty on stripped tobacco had put a stop to the trade in stripped tobacco, and the revenue derived from it had been the result, not of an import tax, but of an embargo, because stripped tobacco could not come into the country in the face of the duty. It was quite possible for the Government to lay their hands upon an article and say they would not part with it until a certain amount of money had been paid upon it, but that was not a tax. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields had explained that without this tax of 3d. stripped and leaf tobacco would be upon an equality, but this tax penalised strips to the extent of something like 300 per cent. An uneconomic industry in stemming had been created in this country, but it was of trifling value, entailing large incidental expense, and the game was not worth the candle. Another disadvantage was the possibility of the deterioration of the article by the grinding up of the stems in the tobacco. Figures had been given showing that, whereas a very large amount of tobacco leaf had been imported, a very small amount of stem had been returned for drawback. What had become of that stem? The probability was that the great bulk of it had been ground up with the tobacco, so that people were smoking
    172
    not only tobacco but a good deal of wood as well.
    He could not help feeling himself that this was a tax which was contrary to the promise that no change would be made in the fiscal policy of the country during the present Parliament. It was not a revenue tax, could only be protective, and was deprecated by the trade. The tobacco manufacturers of Liverpool asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his decision in regard to this tax. They asked that it should be equalised, and if the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to do that they desired that it should be reduced to such an extent that strips would be admitted. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not be too rigid in this matter. During the time he had been in Parliament he had seen Chancellors of the Exchequer make a great many proposals affecting trade and commerce, but they had generally been made in an experimental way, and when it had been shown that such taxes were acting injuriously they had been withdrawn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not profess to have the same intimate knowledge of the conditions of a trade as those engaged in it. This tax had been imposed in good faith by the Chancellor of the Exchequer after he had taken the best advice he could obtain, but it had been found by the trade to be unworkable, and they respectfully asked that it should not be retained any longer. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that these representations had not been altogether without effect. If the right hon. Gentleman would intimate that he was going to make some reasonable concession he would certainly not support the Amendment, but if such an announcement was not made he would be obliged to support it.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the hon. Member opposite, when this tax was under consideration last year, thought it proper to suggest that it had been suggested to him through the Customs authorities by a gentleman who, concealing his own interest in the imposition of the tax. had recommended it for the adoption of the Exchequer.
    MR. ROBSON: I made no such allegation. [Cries of "Quote."]
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the hon. Member introduced in the the debates of last year the name of a manufacturer who, he alleged, had indirectly suggested this tax when he stood to profit by the imposition of the tax.
    MR. ROBSON: What I did was to read what that manufacturer himself had said.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that what the hon. Member did was to attach his own insinuations. [Cries of "Quote."] He had told the Committee then that he had no communication from that gentleman before the tax was imposed and that he had only one communication afterwards, and that was through the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue to whom this gentleman had written, stating that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a great mistake in proposing this tax and that it had better be withdrawn. In spite of that fact the hon. Member, while asserting that he made no charges against anyone, sought once again, to create an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust without a word of apology to the gentleman whom he had wronged. He certainly did not think that in this method of conducting a public controversy it was necessary for him to make a further reply. He desired, however, to say a few words on the merits of the tax itself.
    The first allegation made against it, last year, and repeated to-night by his hon. friend, was that it would produce no revenue. He might say, in passing, that the hon. Member for South Shields declared upon that assumption that this was the first instance in our fiscal system of a tax which was not imposed purely for revenue. The hon. Member forgot the spirit duty. A Chancellor of the Exchequer on his own side of the House had said that the rule with regard to the spirit duty should be to make it as high as they could without actually destroying the revenue. It was evident that in laying down that rule he had in
    174
    view other considerations than those of a purely fiscal nature. He himself disputed altogether the allegation that this tax on stripped tobacco was not a revenue tax. His primary reason for the action he had taken was to obtain revenue; and in the twelve months, in spite of the concession which he made last year in the duty, the Exchequer had received £400,000 from this tax. It was also alleged that the tax had stopped altogether the sale of strips. [An HON. MEMBER: No, the importation.] He would treat of the importation presently. He thought some hon. Gentlemen knew more now about the trade and the tax than hey did last year, and that they should be more careful in making assertions. Let them see whether the consumption of strips had stopped altogether, as was alleged to be the case.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid he did not say that the sale of strips was stopped. What he said was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's income from this source had been entirely, or almost entirely, derived from strips imported before the Budget of last year was brought forward.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid they were all agreed that at any rate the sale of strips was not stopped. There had, however, been a very considerable falling off in the importation of strips, as was proved by the fact that in 1903–4 there were 53,000,000 lbs. imported, and in 1904–5 only 22,000,000 lbs., a falling off of 31,000,000 lbs. There was an even more extraordinary falling off the year before, when this tax had not been thought of, for the quantity of strips imported fell off from 100,000,000 lbs. in 1902–3 to 53,000,000 lbs. in 1903–4. a falling off of 47,000,000 lbs. But that was not all. He must recall to the Committee that it had always been part of his argument for the tax that the old basis of taxation unfairly favoured strips to the detriment of the whole leaf, that was to say, that the proportion in which strips and whole leaf were imported before his alteration was not natural, and that whether his alteration was justifiable or not, which was a distinct question, it could be proved to demonstration that

    175
    the old system was not fair and that was practically conceded by his hon. friend, who did not ask them to go back, as hon. Gentlemen opposite did, to the old system, but asked that the differentiation between the two should be confined to the smaller amount which attached to strips in bond before the new tax was imposed. If, then, the argument on which he based the tax was sound at all and if he had done no more than remedy that injustice which caused strips to be imported out of due proportion to the natural course of trade, owing to existing fiscal arrangements, it was obvious that to put the tax on a fair level as between, the two would cause a larger import of whole leaf and a smaller import of strips. There were in bond at the time when the new tax was imposed 142,000,000 lbs. of strips in this country, while in the course of the passage of the Finance Bill last year, in deference to representations made to him, he put those strips then in bond or which were actually on the sea a the date when the Resolution was passed in a privileged position—they came in half-way between the duty on the whole leaf and the duty on any new strips that might be imported. Any strips imported after that date had to compete not merely with the whole leaf, but they had to compete with the strips which were privileged, because they were already in bond to the extent of 1½d. He ventured to say to the Committee that they could not fairly state the working of this tax until they had a fresh import of strips face to face with a fresh import of whole leaf.
    Before he proposed this tax neither directly nor indirectly did he consult or did he receive any advice from any member of the trade. That in itself had been made a cause of complaint by some members of the trade. A Chancellor of the Exchequer could not consult the trade in an article upon which he thought of imposing a duty without giving rise to suspicions of his intentions, which might be embarrassing to the gentleman whose advice he sought and place both in a most invidious position with regard to the rest of the trade. He was, therefore, obliged to make his proposal on such knowledge as he could
    176
    command from the long experience which was naturally at his disposal. He did not claim that experience himself, but he was dealing with an article which had always been dutiable and formed the subject of revenue inspection, and to a certain extent of revenue control.
    After he proposed the tax a great number of representations reached him, and more than one member of the trade told him that under the scheme of differentiation he proposed he would fail to obtain what they thought was his principal object—namely, the establishment of stripping in this country. That was certainly not his primary object in making the proposal. He did think that he should enable to be carried on in this country a process which on account, of the previous unfair distribution of the tax it had been almost impossible to carry on here. He could not see that he had done any injury to the country or to the trade by the imposition of such a tax. The fact of the matter was that there was a great difference of opinion last year, and there was now, among members of the trade as to what exactly would be a fair differentiation between whole leaf and strip. That some differentiation was reasonable and just he thought any hon. Member would see. It was clear that a person carrying on a process of manufacture in this country with a duty-paid article was at a disadvantage as compared with the person carrying on the same manufacture elsewhere who was able to work on a non-duty-paying article. The system existed in regard to the tobacco duties at every stage except this one, and in regard to other Custom duties, and that some differentiation was right was, he thought, undeniable by any hon. Gentleman who would take the trouble to look fairly into the question. The differentiation he proposed was not the exact measure of extra cost caused by manufacture in this country; that he did not think he had ever pretended, because necessarily the cost varied in different cases according to the nature of the tobacco used, but that it was a fair average percentage was his view at the time he proposed it, and he did not think they had yet been in a position to test fairly or completely whether he was right or not. And he

    177
    did not think they could test it until they had got rid of the privileged strips which existed in this country before the new duty was imposed.
    The hon. Gentleman opposite proposed the total abolition of the whole differentiated duty of last year; that was a suggestion for which he thought there was nothing to be said, and certainly he was not prepared to accept the proposal in any shape or form. His hon. friend behind him suggested a reduction in the amount of the differentiation, and spoke on behalf of the tobacco section of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, who had been taking an active interest in this matter. That body were the first representatives of the trade outside the House to wait upon him after the announcement of the change in the duty last year; they were an important body, but although they were entitled to say that they represented the importers and brokers, at the same time they by no means represented, he thought, the whole of the trade or of the interests concerned in the trade. They stated that they had circularised 175 firms, but he would point out that there were 380 licensed manufacturers in the country, and also that in the tobacco section of the chamber itself the memorial was adopted by a very small majority—he thought the majority was two votes—showing that there was some difference of opinion even there as to the wisdom of the exact form in which their proposals were to be put forward. When the deputation from this body waited upon him, so far from objecting to the principle of differentiation, they approved of it; their object was that the strips of which they and others were already the holders in bond should not be the subject of the tax, but provided
    178
    those strips were fairly dealt with they did not object to the principle of the differentiation. If he accepted the clause before the Committee he should obviously destroy the principle with which these gentlemen were in sympathy; if he accepted the alternative proposal of his hon. friend, he should deprive the strips which had been imported beforehand, without the knowledge of his intention to propose this tax, of the privileged position they now occupied, an action which would be met, he thought, with considerable outcry from those who suffered in consequence.
    He ventured to say it was not a good thing for the trade that a change of this, kind should be introduced last year only to be expunged this year. There was evidence that at any rate some members of the trade took that view, while in the journals which dealt with this subject he found that the mere suggestion that this memorial was to be presented, and that accordingly the whole question would come under review and possibly be subject to change again at the present time, caused a disturbance in the trade, and business suffered considerably in consequence. It was objected when he imposed the tax last year that by imposing it and leaving it uncertain what were to be the relations between the two tobaccos in the future, he was rendering the business more speculative and making it more difficult for importers and traders to conduct their affairs. He said then that he was conscious how serious would be the effect on the trade of uncertainty of this kind, and it was for that reason he asked the Committee to embody the tax as part of the permanent scale of tobacco duty. It would be almost a breach of faith on his part if now, when the matter first

    179
    came under review, he were to forget the declarations publicly made in that House and were to propose such an alteration as his hon. friend suggested. He would say, however, that while he thought the new scale of duties had not received, and could not receive, a fair test at the present time, it must be open to any Chancellor of the Exchequer to revise that scale when such a fair test had been taken, and when they saw how the balance was held between strips and whole leaf, when what he had called the stock of privileged strips had been exhausted. That the fair differentiation between the two was greater than was alleged by some of his critics was, he thought, conclusively proved by what had since transpired. That he might have over-estimated the amount that that differentiation should attain was possible, but was not proved. He hoped, however, he should have the courage to admit an error if he thought an error were proved, or to modify a proposal, even though it had sprung from his own brain, if he thought the facts proved that it required modification. He did not think that was the case at present, but he did not exclude the reconsideration of the exact measure of the differentiation, when they were in possession of full experience of what occurred in the competition between strips and whole leaf when the new duty was working on its merits and without any restriction or interference caused by a large body of strips being in this country on privileged terms.
    MR. HELMEsaid that the result of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be that in his opinion the case that the tax was not justified was not proven; but if
    180
    the right hon. Gentleman would continue his studies and give effect to the information which would be supplied to him before this Bill became law, he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the reduction of the duty to a penny. He ventured to put in a plea on behalf of the small manufacturers who made what was known as "twist" tobacco. It was impossible for small manufacturers to develop the twist tobacco trade in competition with such large firms as what was known as the "Combine," because the Combine could take the whole leaf, strip it, and use the stalks for certain purposes which were not available for small manufacturers. The tax was ruinous to the small manufacturers in the small towns, and really struck at one of our home industries. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he came to look at the very small amount of revenue which the country derived from this increased tax, would reduce the duty to a differential charge of a penny per lb., and thus save from extinction a large number of small manufacturers in the country.
    MR. RITCHIE) said the task set to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year was a very difficult one. He was quite satisfied that if in the working of this tax it was found that the allegations that had been made on the other side were justified his right hon, friend would reconsider his position. He wished to ask his right hon. friend whether he would consider the propriety of appointing a small Departmental Committee to inquire into the operation of the tax, and, if the allegations against it were found to be justified, whether he would be prepared to make proposals

    181
    which would remedy what was considered to be unfair in the incidence of the tax.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid that everything that had been fore told last year as to the effect of this tax had come to pass; and it was too late now to offer a small Departmental Committee. The only revenue which had been derived from strips had been obtained from persons who held large stocks in bond or which were held on order in America before the imposition of the tax. He contended that the difference in duty on whole leaf and strips could not possibly be more than three-eighths of a penny; whereas the right hon. Gentleman had put a duty of three pence on strips, which was out of all proportion to the real value. Last year he had pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, owing to the anticipation that a tax on strips would be introduced, the importation of strips had fallen very heavily and the importation of whole leaf had increased equally heavily; and the right hon. Gentleman would find that when the existing stocks of strips were exhausted, he would get no revenue from this increased tax on strips. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the very reasonable proposal made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, and after that let him appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the whole subject. He himself was satisfied that the Report of such a Committee would be against differentiation altogether.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not think the time had yet come for such an inquiry as his right hon. friend the Member for Croydon suggested. When the time did come, when we were
    182
    nearer the point of the exhaustion of the stock of privileged strips, he would consider the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman had made. He saw no insuperable objection to acting upon such a proposal.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he accepted without any hesitation the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that in imposing this duty he had no idea of diverging from the free-trade system of this country which he supported in the House, but which outside the House of Commons the right hon. Gentleman denounced as an antiquated system. He thought that the result of this experiment of differentiating between whole leaf and stripped tobacco proved that the incidence of the tax was of a purely protective character. Taking the right hon. Gentleman to be sincere in his original intention, he would be well advised at the earliest possible moment to purge himself of the virus of protection. He was very much struck with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that hasty changes were undesirable. That was a valid argument last year when this duty was imposed, but it was not a valid argument now. If a mistake had been made, now was the time to rectify it before the trade had become habituated to the new arrangement when a change would be more difficult. The right hon. Gentleman had attacked the memorial from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and said it was not of a sufficiently representative character, but he would point out that memorial was sent to all the known manufacturers in Great Britain, although there might be some small manufacturers not known to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce who did not get a copy. The overwhelming

    183
    majority of the trade endorsed the memorial presented to the right hon. Gentleman.
    He did not wish to dwell on the argument of his hon. friend that the existing stock of strips being in a privileged position prevented the introduction of strips from America. He was told that the contrary was the case. He contended that the statistics proved that instead of the stemming industry being a transplanted industry, the manufacturers of this country were using the stems with the leaf in making a deleterious mixture which was sold for smoking in pipes in this country. That might seem a small matter to those who did not smoke a pipe, but he could assure the Committee that it was a very serious matter to thousands of smokers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was no doubt innocent as to this deleterious custom, but the Committee were entitled to some information as to what became of the stems unaccounted for. [The hon. Member here produced a large tobacco leaf and illustrated the operation of stripping.] The leaf which he had just stripped was not moist as it would be if he were stripping it in America, and he was not so expert at the process as the negro ladies who did it in the United States.
    Some question had been raised as to the actual cost of the process of stripping. He had demonstrated to the Committee that nothing could be more simple, and that anyone, with practice, could become an expert in the profession. The hon. Member for North Bristol said last year that tobacco could be stripped in England at a cost of one Halfpenny per pound,
    184
    and that a girl at that rate could earn a good wage. He believed that that figure was well within the mark. Threepence per pound, therefore, was and must be a protective duty. He believed the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake in imposing this differential duty, because it was protective, and because he would not derive any addition to the revenue from it except from the stocks already in existence. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, who was a conditional free-trader, during the lifetime of the present Parliament, at all events, would purge himself of the slight stain that had fallen upon his free-trade reputation owing to the imposition of this tax.
    MR. DALZIELsaid that before the debate closed he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposed to go further with the Bill that night.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not propose to proceed further after this subject was disposed of, but the proceedings of the Committee would be resumed as the first order on Tuesday. It would be remembered that his right hon. friend the Patronage Secretary, in announcing the alterations in business arrangements owing to the unfortunate indisposition of the Prime Minister, stated that if the Budget was not finished at that sitting it would be taken as the first order at the next. If the Committee stage were finished, as he hoped it would be, by half-past seven, the Report of the Navy Vote would be taken at the evening sitting.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 137. (Division List No. 185)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pease, J. A (Saffron Walden)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Rea, Russell

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Reddy, M.

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B

    Johnson, John

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Brigg, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Roche, John

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Joyce, Michael

    Runciman, Walter

    Brown, George. M. (Edinburgh)

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Kilbride, Denis

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Lamont, Norman

    Shackleton, David James

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Caldwell, James

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Spencer, Rt.Hn C. R. (Northants

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Levy, Maurice

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lundon, W.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Crombie, John William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Dalziel, James Henry

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

    Delany, William

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Toulmin, George

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Doogan, P. C.

    MCrae, George

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Edwards, Frank

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Mooney, John J.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Murphy, John

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

    Field, William

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Wills. Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark NE

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Woodhouse, Sir. J. T (Huddersf'd

    Gladstone, Rt.Hn Herbert John

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Young, Samuel

    Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

    O'Dowd, John

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hammond, John

    O'Mara, James

    Mr. Robson and Mr.

    Hardie,J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    M'Kenna.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Partington, Oswald

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Fitaroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

    Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Chapman, Edward

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H' mlete

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

    Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christeh.

    Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gretton, John

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Hambro, Charles Erie

    Bill, Charles

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

    Bingham, Lord

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Douglas; Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Bond, Edward

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords NW

    Brassey, Albert

    Dyke, Rt. Hon.Sir William Hart

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edward

    Hoult, Joseph

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

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Hozier, Hon.James HenryCecil

    Carlile, William Walter

    Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

    Hunt, Rowland

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col W.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Keswick, William

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Stock, James Henry

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Thomas

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Percy, Earl

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Tuff, Charles

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col, Edward

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Purvis, Robert

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Rankin, Sir James

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

    Reid, James (Greenock)

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Malcolm, Ian

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Sir Alexander Acland-

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Hood and Mr. Henry

    Milvain, Thomas

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Forster.

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Smith, HC. (North'mb Tyneside

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Smith, Rt. Hn. J. Parker (Lanarks

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Welling ton), in moving that the House d now adjourn, said that he hoped to be fortunate enough to get through the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to-morrow and to take the Agriculture Rates Bill on Wednesday.
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
    MR. FLAVINasked when the Report of the Commission on Trinity College, Dublin, would be issued.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)188
    said he expected it would be issued; shortly.
    MR. FLAVINsaid they had heard that for the last ten or twelve days.

    THE WAR IN THE FAR EAST.
    MR. MALCOLM) asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he had any news about the great naval engagement in the Far East.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.): His Majesty's Government understand, of course, that there has been a naval engagement near the Straits of Tsu Shima in which the Russian fleet has suffered a reverse, but we are not in a position to make any statement.
    Adjourned at twenty-five minute before One 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 Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3); Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company [H.L.].
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
2
Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway. (No 1).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Tramways Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Dublin Corporation (Superannuation) Bill; South Oxfordshire Water and Gas Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill; Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill; Otley Improvement Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Liverpool Corporation Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Clyde Navigation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Gammons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Great Eastern Railway Bill; Lough-borough Corporation Bill; Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Gamble's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House; together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the Cases. Ordered to be communicated, with a request that they may be returned.
Dundee Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill. Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
  Petition for amendment of; of St. Marylebone Corporation; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (HOURS OF CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of Ark of Safety Lodge of Good Templars; Never Die Lodge of Good Templars; Bristol Band of Hope Union; Bristol Temperance Federation; Barnsley Christian Endeavour Union; Folkestone Women's Temperance Society (2); United Kingdom Alliance; Victoria Bar Methodist Church (2); London Sons of Temperance; London Cadets of Temperance; Aldershot Women's Total Abstinence Association; Leicestershire Temperance Union; Emmanuel Tent of Rechabites; Greenland Street Sunday School; Wesleyan Methodist Conference; Wesleyan Methodist Church Synod; George Bird Lodge of Good Templars; Nil Desperandum Lodge of Good Templars; Islington Wesleyan Bible Class; Ashton-under-Lyne Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Society; Oxford Diocesan Church of England Temperance Society; Camberwell Girls' Friendly Society; National United Temperance Council; London United Temperance Council; Erdington Pleasant Sunday Services Association; Yardley Congregational Chapel; British Temperance League; National British Women's Temperance Association; Evesham Wesleyan Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Society; Gwyther Lodge of Good Templars; Kent Band of Hope Union; Educational and Mission Sections of Church of England Temperance Society; Wesleyan Reform Temperance League; Pembroke Sunday Guild; Hope of New Trindon Lodge Good Templars; Crescent Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Meeting; Howard Street Band of Hope and Temperance Society; Sunderland United Temperance Society; Crossfield Tent of Rechabites; Lancashire and Northern Counties Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Societies; Star Tent of Rechabites; Rescue Tent of Rechabites; Shrewsbury Circuit Sunday School Union; Shrewsbury District Sunday School Union; Friend Lodge of Good Templars; Daventry Wesleyan Society; Berkshire Lodge of Good Templars; Penrith Branch of Church of England Temperance Society; Silvery Streamlet Lodge of Good Templars; James Rewcastle Lodge of Good Templars; St. Matthews' Christian Endeavour Society; Nelson Welcome Lodge

  5
  of Good Templars; Public Meetings at Sheerness-on-Sea, Liverpool (3), Ledbury, Walworth, St. Leonards, Wigan, Charlesworth, Manchester, Royal Victoria Theatre; and persons signing (8). Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3383. France (Nice).
  No. 3384. Venezuela (Caracas).

  ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
  Return for the year ended March 31st, 1905, of pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1173A, and 1207 of the Army Pay Warrant.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Report of Messrs. F. H. Dale and A. Stephens, His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, Board of Education, on intermediate education in Ireland.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered lie on the Table.

  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Report by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consents of the South Hayling Parish Council and the North Hayling Parish Meeting in the case of the Hayling Island Gas Provisional Order. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (HOURS OF CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I shall not find it necessary, I am sure, to trouble you with any lengthy speech, partly because the matter is in itself so simple, and partly because the subject with which I am dealing is
  6
  already familiar to most of your Lordships. Those especially of your Lordships who are accustomed to take your place in the county business on the licensing bench are familiar already with practically everything that this Bill contains, and know he arguments that may be used on either side. The proposals that I now make are entirely consonant with the discussions which took place in this House last year, and which are clearly within the remembrance of your Lordships. There is one point upon which I desire first to say a word. I find, from remarks which have come to me from outside, that it has been supposed that what took place last week in the other House was by some kind of conjunction or arrangement to synchronise with what your Lordships are asked to do to-night. There is no foundation whatever for that idea. The date for the Second Reading of this Bill was fixed long ago, and I had no idea that a similar subject was going to be ventilated within two days in the House of Commons. But it is impossible to deny that the reception which proposals very much more drastic than anything I suggest met with in another place, and in the country, ought to be an encouragement to those of us who desire to see this very modest Bill passed into law.
  Quite briefly, this Bill proposes to give power to the licensing bench to regulate the hours of week-day closing according to the popular demand, but within certain very clearly-defined limits, so as to avoid any thing that can reasonably be called hardship either to the drinking public or to the sellers of liquor. Under the existing law public-houses in London are open, not by the will of the magistrates but by statutory provision, from five in the morning till half an hour after midnight. They are open in towns and populous places from six in the morning till midnight, and in the country from 6 a.m. till 10 p.m., speaking roughly. By this Bill magistrates may control the hour of closing, but, however enthusiastically inclined they may be to proceed in this direction, they must not direct a public-house to be closed before nine o'clock in the evening on any day other than Saturday or Sunday, or before eight o'clock upon Saturday at the very

  7
  earliest; and I myself have no anticipation that magistrates would be very apt to use the extremest power so given to them. In the next place, this Bill would give power to magistrates to limit the hours of Sunday opening to one hour at mid-day and one hour during the evening, and, if they think it desirable, to order that the drinking then should take place only off the premises. Do not let any of your Lordships suppose that the Bill provides that this is what shall be done; it merely provides that the magistrates shall have the power to do this if after consulting public opinion they find it desirable. The third main provision of the Bill is that in every case the magistrates shall take steps to satisfy themselves as to public opinion in the locality. The object, then, is perfectly clear, and I need not dwell further upon it.
  What is the demand for this Bill? If your Lordships pay any attention at all to petitions presented to the House, you will have found that that demand is pretty far-reaching and widely spread. I myself have presented sixty petitions to-night, and very many more on previous occasions, and a large number of your Lordships have, I know, presented other petitions on the same subject. I have no doubt that many noble Lords—I think I see it in the face of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Wemyss—will say that these petitions all come from temperance folk, and that they do not really represent the popular demand; but we can go a great deal further than the mere petitions from temperance societies, though I should be the very last to discount their importance in the way it is sometimes discounted outside this House. The petitions that come from temperance societies largely come from men who have devoted quite an exceptional amount of attention to this subject in all its branches, and, as the petitions which I have presented show, they emanate by no means from fanatical and extreme partisans alone, but from those who avoid those characteristics altogether. But, quite apart from that, I can show a very large amount of support for what is here proposed from other sources than what is ordinarily called the temperance party. The Majority Report of the Royal Commission, signed by representatives of the
  8
  trade as well as other people, spoke quite strongly on the subject. With regard to the hours of closing, they say—
  "We should welcome some further curtailment, but we do not think that public opinion will sanction any earlier hours of closing in the evening on week-days at present."
  I call your Lordships' attention to the careful reserves that are there. They do not think that public opinion will support it "at present." Well, since then there has been a very large voice of public opinion which has made itself felt on this subject; and, in the event of public opinion being hostile to what is here proposed, the magistrates under the provisions of the Bill would not interfere. The Minority Report of the Royal Commission, signed by nearly half of the whole Commission, speaks on this subject in a strong and clear way. It says—
  "Less attention than the question deserves and leas than is given to it in Ireland has been paid in England to the important subject of evening closing hours. It is generally acknowledged that drunkenness is greatest in the last hour or two of the day, the "fierce drinking," as one witness characterises it, occurring between ten and eleven o'clock, and this is especially the case on Saturdays, days of leisure and of money, without the restraining influence of the prospect of early work next morning. … Conditions and habits are so various that it is not prudent to lay down an absolute limit without exceptions, and here, again, we would recommend that the licensing authority should be invested with the discretion to close two hours earlier than the present hour."
  The Act which was passed through Parliament last year gives to the licensing magistrates power to do this in all cases, of new licences. Therefore, the new licences which will be issued henceforth may contain such a restriction as is here proposed, and that seems to show that there is nothing wrong in the principle of the licensing magistrates having this discretion. Public opinion has in very many of the large cities and large districts been directed to this subject, and I will read to your Lordships two of the many resolutions connected with this subject which have been passed by various public bodies. In July of last year the London County Council passed the following resolution, nemine contradicente—
  "That this Council, being of opinion thas licensed houses for the sale of intoxicating liquor are kept open till too late an hour, urges

  9
  His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department to promote legislation to confer powers on the licensing justices, enabling them to make regulations with respect to the time of opening and closing such premises in the County of London."
  To take an example from a distance, I quote from the city of Liverpool, where the following resolution was passed by the corporation and signed by the Mayor—
  "That this council being of opinion that houses licensed for the sale of intoxicants are allowed to open at too early an hour, and are kept open till too late an hour on week-days, and believing that these arrangements are detrimental to the best interests of the community, a petition be presented to His Majesty's Government praying that power may be conferred on licensing justices to close at their discretion all or any of such licensed premises in any portion of the whole of the city of Liverpool at an earlier hour than 11 p.m. on week-days and 10 p.m. on Sundays, and also to keep the same, or any other licensed premises, closed on week-days beyond the present hour of opening at 6 a.m., and that the Lord Mayor be requested to affix the Corporate seal to the petition."
  I have quoted a great city in the North as well as the London County Council in the South. Again I repeat that the general point of this Bill is to leave discretion with the licensing magistrates.
  And this is to be noted, because people talk as though, if the Bill became law, all public-houses would be closed early, whatever the popular inconvenience.
  It is said, for example, that it would be simply intolerable if places of refreshment in the neighbourhood of theatres were to be closed at the time the performances conclude. Of course it would be; and no magistrates in their senses would think of bringing about a condition of things which would be a legitimate grievance to a very large number of English citizens; but the power to close at an earlier hour in places where such closing would not be detrimental ought not to be withheld merely because there are other places in which no bench of magistrates in their senses would think of exercising their power in a direction which would inflict so much hardship.
  I would ask your Lordships' attention for a moment to the object-lesson set by Scotland. Your Lordships will remember that in Scotland up to the year 1887 the hours of opening and closing were regulated by statute, but in that year the
  10
  discretion was given to the licensing magistrates to curtail, within certain clearly-defined limits, the hour of closing in the evening. The House of Commons passed a measure making that provision applicable to the whole of Scotland, but in your Lordships' House an Amendment was carried providing that the large burghs, those over 50,000 inhabitants, should be exempt from this measure. Sixteen years passed, and in the year 1903 it was moved and carried through Parliament that the power of exemption in the case of these large cities should be taken away. It had been found that the provision worked so well in other places that it was felt it would work well in the large cities also, and from that time the magistrates in those cities have taken advantage of this provision. It is impossible to find a better object-lesson of the way in which this kind of thing works. I rest strongly upon the example which has been set in Scotland, and the way in which it has been found to correspond with the public taste and public inclination that the evening hour of closing should be an earlier one.
  So much for the week-day part of this question. I now come to the portion of the Bill which deals with Sunday. Under the existing law public-houses in London open from on to three o'clock and from six to eleven o'clock. Elsewhere they are open from 12.30 to 2.30 and from six to ten o'clock. This Bill would give the magistrates power to restrict the hours of opening to one hour in the middle of the day, if they thought such a restriction necessary, and to one hour in the evening, if they thought that restriction necessary. It would further give them the power, if they thought it to be right, to say that the Sunday drinking should be done off the premises and not in the public-house. The Majority Report of the Royal Commission was in favour of some curtailment of the hours of opening or Sunday, partly in the interests of the public, and partly in the interests of the employees in those licensed houses. The Minority Report was in favour of almost exactly what I am asking your Lordships to accept to-night. It is not, I say again, suggested for a moment that the rule should be made applicable all over the country,

  11
  but that the licensing magistrates should have power to take local conditions and circumstances into account, and in the extremest case to reach the point I have mentioned. That is the utmost extent to which the Bill goes.
  It will be open to your Lordships in Committee to limit still further the powers of the licensing magistrates. I need not say I shall be perfectly ready to listen to Amendments in that direction, provided the principle of the Bill is carried out and the licensing magistrates are allowed this discretion. Will your Lordships notice how widely different that provision is from the provision which only escaped being carried by six votes in the House of Commons on Friday last? It was there proposed that there should be practically complete Sunday closing. The arguments brought against it came to this, that you must not take the example of Scotland; that in Scotland people drink whisky, in England they drink beer; whisky will keep, beer will not; you cannot draw your beer on Saturday and drink it on Sunday. I quite agree, and my Bill accordingly provides that the public-houses should be open at the time when working men want their beer. I provide for all that. This Bill will not enable the magistrates, even if they desired to do so, to close the public-houses throughout the Sunday, but it does enable them, remembering that the public-house is the poor man's cellar, and that beer will not keep, to allow public-houses to remain open at the hour when the beer is wanted for meals at home.
  This is a moderate measure. I am not one of those who have ever been able to join the advance wing of fanatical temperance reformers; and this Bill is one which enables, in the most moderate, reasonable, and restricted manner, the popular demand to be met by the licensing justices.
  What are the obvious objections to this Bill? We shall at once be told that we legislated only last year upon this subject, and that we cannot reopen the whole question now. Certainly not; but will your Lordships carry your memories back to what passed in Committee last year, when we were
  12
  suggesting careful Amendments? The noble Lord representing the Home Office and others urged us not to overload the Bill with fresh matter, however excellent. We were told that there was no such thing as finality, and that if we wanted other things we must proceed separately later. It was said that the powers of magistrates could always be strengthened if it was found necessary. It is in obedience to that kind of suggestion that I bring forward this independent measure. It is entirely harmonious and consistent with what we did last year, when we were giving increased power to licensing magistrates and trusting them to exercise that for the good of the community as a whole. That it would be good for the community as a whole to diminish the late evening hours at which public-houses are open, I do not believe any one of your Lordships who knows the condition of the country will deny.
  This is one of the cases in which we are dealing, not with the use, but with the abuse of places of public refreshment and entertainment. The spectacle which is presented by the public-houses in the more densely-populated parts of our towns at a late hour on Sunday night or on Sunday afternoon after the midday meal is over, when men and women gather there certainly not for legitimate refreshment, but for something else, is of itself, I believe, quite sufficient to justify us in giving the magistrates power to deal with this illegitimate and unwholesome drinking, should the community so desire it. I appeal without hesitation to those of your Lordships who are most familiar with the sights which our great cities present either late at night, or on Sundays, and I ask you to bear those scenes and sounds in mind in the votes you will give on this Bill. It may be said that the Majority Report of the Royal Commission distinctly thought it would be better that the hours should be definitely fixed by statute than that there should be a permission to magistrates to vary the hours in different districts. That was at the time a plausible argument, but at all events it has gone now, because by recent legislation you have given this power of magisterial variation

  13
  in all cases of new licences. The uniformity which was the sole basis upon which the Majority Report objected to give that power to magistrates has now for ever disappeared.
  In recommending my Bill to the House I have not thought it necessary to base my advocacy of it on moral grounds. Of course, the religious and moral aspect of the question appeals most to me, but I know that your Lordships are all of one mind on that matter, and that it does not require argument. I have endeavoured to argue the question on practical, ordinary grounds in the interest of the community at large, and for the reason that, as the responsibilities of the licensing magistrates have been increased by recent legislation, their discretionary powers ought also to be increased; and it is with confidence that I submit the Bill to your Lordships.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, it is with great reluctance that I rise to oppose the Bill of my right rev. friend and archiepiscopal fellow-countryman; but although it is, as he said, a modest Bill, it would impose further restrictions upon human liberty, especially upon that of those who are cellarless—the great mass of the population. The public-house is an essential element in one present social state, and we have no right to unduly interfere with it. The publican is a public servant, the licensee of the Government. Interference with liberty began with Mr. Gladstone's Irish legislation, and every year legislation in this direction places further restrictions upon liberty. Now it would be well for your Lordships, when you are told the great evil that results from drink and drunkenness, to study the figures. Some years ago I was told that a very distinguished medical man, a countryman of mine, had said that of the total number of deaths more were caused by over-eating, by eating unwholesome food, and too much of it, than by alcohol. I wrote last night to this gentleman—he is a most distinguished professor—and got this wire from him this morning—
  "Am of opinion that over-eating and bad food cause as serious effects as excessive drinking."
  14
  Further, I saw my own medical man to-day, and he endorses this view. Moreover, I hold in my hand official data on the subject which cannot be disputed. It is the Monthly Return of the Births, Deaths, and Marriages registered in eight of the principal towns of Scotland, with the causes of death; and I find from this that during the month of April, 1905, there were registered in the towns of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Paisley, Leith, Greenock, and Perth, 2,446 deaths. "Alcoholism" is one of the many headings under which deaths are here registered and I should like to ask my right rev. friend who has brought in this Bill how many of those deaths he thinks were from alcoholism. Will he give a guess? He prefers not to. Well, I think he would be very far out in his estimate if he did. There were only five deaths from alcoholism out of a total of 2,446, my Lords, in the whole of these towns throughout the month of April.
  Then I have recently read in newspapers that it has been shown by scientific medical inquiry that taking fifty-one as the age to which the pure-water drinker lives, it is found that the unmitigated drunkard lives two years longer. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack doubtless remembers the case of Jane Cakebread, who was convicted hundreds of times for drunkenness; yet people of that type it is shown live longer than water drinkers. And it is further shown that the moderate users of alcohol, such as your Lordships, live twelve years longer than water-drinkers. These are remarkable facts, and should be borne in mind by those who declare that alcoholism is a great injury to the human race. But what I feel very strongly is the way in which the publican, who, after all, is as said a public servant, is spoken of and dealt with. There is no feeling of justice towards him by those who are in favour of suppressing all alcoholic drink. The Government last year brought in a Bill to do justice to the publican, and were, and are still, denounced for it; and the story goes that in the new Newcastle programme of my noble friends on my left they are going to make an assault on that Act. My impression is that they will leave it alone. I believe there will be

  15
  fewer votes to be act by touching it than by leaving it alone. You cannot but deny that justice was not done to the publican before, and that all that the Government did was to put him in the same position that publicans occupy in Ireland, where, if they lose their licences through no fault of their own, they are compensated.
  There is another point with regard to alcohol which should be borne in mind. Nature, more or less, demands alcohol, and it has been found that flowers, if they are inclined to fade, benefit if alcohol is put into the water in which they are placed—it is a pick-me-up to them. Do not imagine, my Lords, that I do not sympathise with those who wish to suppress drunkenness; I think the drunkard is a great nuisance, but he will not be put an end to by this sort of legislation. He will get his drink somehow, while the sober man will be made to suffer by his means of ordinary enjoyment being restricted. There are three reliable remedies for drunkenness. The first and the real remedy for the state of things which the right rev. Primate desires to alter would be found in a Bill to excise surgically the gustatory nerve, so that people could not distinguish between the taste of beer and water, or champagne and porter. The operation might be performed on children at the same time as vaccination. That would be an effective course, but I do not think my noble friends who favour this legislation would be likely to bring in a Bill for the purpose.
  Then it must be admitted that time in this matter shows a great improvement in the habits of the people. I can go a long way back, and can remember the time when there were what were called "four-bottle men"; that is to say, men who would sit down after dinner and soak and get rid of two, three, or four bottles. There is no such thing now. It is difficult to find "four-glass" men now, and perhaps a couple of glasses of claret or a glass of port is all that is drunk after dinner. Depend upon it, all these things go by example; and just as the customs of the upper and middle classes have improved, so gradually will those of the working classes, and that without restrictive legislation. There is another cure,
  16
  and it is, I believe, the only one that we can practically use—that is, the police. I hold that a drunkard is a nuisance. Dr. Wallace, in another place, said that a thorough drunkard, if he was drunk and incapable, was no nuisance. The nuisance is the drunken man who goes "serpentining" in his walk, and butting up against people. I hold that any man who is in that state should be arrested as a nuisance, shut up, and confined, and those who manufacture these nuisances should lose their licencés if it could be shown that they habitually turned out drunken men. That, I believe, is the only practical and sensible way of dealing with the question.
  I have not entered into the details of this Bill. I object to it as a further restriction of human liberty. Those who have watched the legislation of this country must have seen how, since 1870, it has, as I have said, more or less interfered with liberty. We used to boast that we were a free and unbureaucratic people. We are becoming less so every day. There is interference going on in every direction, and if it is continued we shall probably become, instead of a free and unbureaucratic people, one of the most Government-ridden people in the world. I wish, before sitting down, to read a quotation to which I am sure your Lordships will give the weight which the bravery and the eloquence of its author demand. Let me first read the quotation and then say whence it comes—
  "I entertain the strongest dislike to the permissive Bill. I cannot, perhaps, express it in a stronger form than by saying that, if I must take my choice—and such it seems to me is really the alternative offered by the permissive Bill—whether England should be free or sober, I declare, strange as such a declaration may sound, coming from one of my profession, that I should say it would be better that England should be free than that England should be compulsorily sober. I would distinctly prefer freedom to sobriety, because with freedom we might in the end attain sobriety; but in the other alternative we should eventually lose both freedom and sobriety."
  He winds up—
  "If I was compelled to choose between a law which destroyed liberty, and a law which left intemperance, to a certain degree, untouched, I should vote against the law that destroyed liberty. I believe liberty to be the life of a nation; you cannot destroy the liberty of a

  17
  nation without destroying all its noblest qualities, and if you destroy all the noblest qualities of a nation, and turn the people into slaves, in the end you promote intemperance, as you do also almost every vice that belongs to slavery."
  I think my right rev. friend knows whence that passage comes. It comes from one of the ablest, and, as I have said, bravest and most eloquent of men. That statement was made in 1872 from these benches by Bishop Magee, of Peterborough, who subsequently became Archbishop of York; and it is because I agree heart and soul with those eloquent words that I venture to oppose the Bill now before the House on the broad principle here stated, and to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and add at the end of the Motion the words, 'this day three months.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I am entirely with the noble Earl who has just sat down, in the matter of human liberty, but in all civilised countries we must be assured that a man does not exercise his liberty to the detriment of his neighbour. The noble Earl himself allows that he would in certain cases curtail that liberty; he would curtail it in the case of the "serpentine" walker, and in the case also of the man who offends in regard to his licence by manufacturing the "serpentine" walker. It is obviously clear that there must be limits to liberty in certain directions. What are the factory laws but limitations of liberty? Why do you object to one man sleeping on another man's doorstep? That action is an interference with the man's liberty. The whole history of legislation in regard to the drink traffic has been one of restriction and not of extension. The noble Earl spoke of overeating. When we find that the fact of butchers' shops being open up to a late hour at night sends men home to "beat their wives and illtreat their children I think it will be time then to bring in a measure to shut up those butchers' shops at an earlier hour. I have never heard that if a man offends by taking another plate of meat he loses self cont-
  18
  rol and is inclined to go on ordering plate after plate of meat to the detriment of his health and the impoverishment of his family. The noble Earl spoke of the object of those who support this Bill as being really prohibition.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: On the road to it.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I doubt whether we shall ever reach the end of that road. I have no such object. I do not think that if I had the power of shutting up every public-house in England I would exercise that power. I recognise that there must be these public-houses. The only thing that we ask is that they should be conducted under restrictions which seem to be good for those for whom these houses are opened. That really underlies the whole purpose of the Bill. I would point out to the House that the Bill, after all, is only a permissive Bill. What does that mean exactly? It means that those for whom these houses are supposed to be opened shall have the liberty of appealing to the magistrates in order that their wishes may be endorsed by the action of the magistrates themselves.
  I believe from my own knowledge of the working classes that a very large proportion of them would very gladly welcome the passing of such a Bill as this. This is no new idea, as has already been pointed out by the most rev. Primate. Magistrates have already, in the case of new licences, this power, and this Bill only proposes to place old licences on exactly the same footing as new licences. I am not at all sure that I should recommend Glasgow as a place that we should look to in the matter of the regulation of our drink customs, but already the shortening of the hours in Glasgow has done great good. I find from the police reports that the streets are quieter, property is safer, and that the police are able to look after property at an earlier hour, in the night. As we all know, it is during the last hour that the worst kind of drinking and the most unnecessary kind of drinking takes place. My own belief is that if there were one law for

  19
  all, the publicans would heartily welcome the restriction of hours. They are people who like their liberty just as much as anybody else. The shortening of the hours would, in my opinion, very greatly benefit the physical well-being of the nation. We can hardly read the Report of the Committee on Physical Deterioration without very grave misgivings, and in spite of what the noble Earl has said the fact still remains that an undue use of alcohol does tend to a very serious deterioration of the physical well-being of our people. It also affects trade and commerce, because we learn from innumerable employers of labour that the late hours of drinking on Sundays do most seriously affect the recommencement of work on the Mondays. This Bill is exceedingly moderate in its tone; it will allow the working classes themselves to speak through the licensing magistrates, and I hope your Lordships will not turn a deaf ear to the wishes of the people of this country.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, your Lordships will expect that I should make a few remarks on behalf of His Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill. In the first place let me recognise, as I am sure the whole House does, the great moderation with which the most rev. Primate explained the Bill to the House. I have no wish to enter into any contest with regard to the main part of his remarks, but shall address myself mainly to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is to change the law which has prevailed in this country for a long number of years that the hours of closing of public-houses should be fixed by statute, and to transfer that power to local authorities within certain defined limits. We are not entirely without some experience of the working of a Bill founded on those lines. By the Act of 1872 discretionary power was given to justices with regard to the closing of public-houses. That Act, however, did not remain long in force. When the present law was passed in 1874 a good deal of discussion took place in Parliament with regard to the repeal of the Act of 1872, in the course of which it was stated by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that one of the gravest difficulties in the Act of 1872 had arisen from
  20
  the discretion given to magistrates to fix the hours of closing. It was also stated that the Act had not worked well, because in many cases the magistrates, had refused to exercise their power.
  The effect of passing the Bill now before the House would be to give absolute discretion to magistrates not only to fix hours in one district different from the hours in another district, but also to fix hours for one public-house different from the hours of another public-house in the same district; and it would go so far even in country districts as to enable different hours to be fixed in regard to different public-houses in the same village. I do not think Parliament would be well advised if they passed a Bill which would have an effect of that kind. How would that affect the Metropolis? I understand that in London there would be fifteen different authorities for fixing the hours of closing. In a large number of these districts the divisions between the different boroughs are not defined, so that anyone walking about the streets could not tell whether he was in one borough or in another, and in many instances, I believe, the houses on one side of a street are in one borough and the houses on the other side in another. His Majesty's Government hold the view that the greatest inconvenience would arise in the Metropolis if we adopted a system under which the hours would be fixed by different authorities.
  The Majority Report of the Royal Commission recommended on these grounds that the regulations as to the hours of closing should be laid down by statute. I am perfectly aware that the most rev. Primate got over that by saying that we had in Clause 4 of the Licensing Act of last year given a power to local authorities to make conditions in granting new licences, and that amongst I those conditions they had the power to fix an earlier hour for closing. I would only remind the House that we had considerable discussion last year on a proposal to extend these powers to magistrates in the case of existing licences as well as new licences, and that these powers were expressly sanctioned as only to refer to new licences. But I if it is argued that the use of I this power at present causes equal

  21
  confusion, let me point out what is the case with regard to new licences. The strongest possible arguments were used last year to show the enormous number of unnecessary licences that exist, and a great part of the Bill was addressed to doing away with a large number of them. New licences are practically never granted now except in the case of new districts where there are no licences already, but where the public require some opportunity of obtaining alcoholic liquors. I am speaking not only of what I imagine must be the case, but I know that in my own neighbourhood no new licences have been granted except in a new District. If in the case of those new licences the magistrates fix the condition that the hours of closing shall be earlier there is no other house in competition and no injustice is done. I cannot see, therefore, that the provision in the Act of last year with regard to new licences does away with the argument in favour of the hours of closing of public-houses being fixed by statute.
  The conditions in Scotland are so different from the conditions in England that, so far as I can understand, the objection to giving the power to magistrates in England does not exist in Scotland. In Scotland you have one licensing authority for the whole county, and therefore none of the inconveniences I have referred to occur in Scotland. I have been given to understand that in Scotland there is a good deal of consumption of the national drink in private houses, and therefore earlier closing would not affect Scotland in the same way. If the Act passed for Scotland is to be quoted for the success of this proposal, as it has been to-day, we ought to have been given time to learn by experience what the effect of earlier closing has been. The report of the Chief Constable of Glasgow states that although the streets are quieter and property is safer, there has been no substantial decrease of drunkenness as a result of earlier closing.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBUKY: My argument was not that there was less drunkenness. There has not been time to ascertain whether that
  22
  is so or not. My argument was that fourteen years ago the smaller towns obtained the power of closing at an earlier hour, and that after watching that for fourteen years the bigger towns asked leave to follow their example, and have followed it, seeing how well it worked.
  LORD BELPER: I only mentioned that because, as the case of Scotland was being quoted, I thought it would be more satisfactory if the introduction of this Bill had been postponed until we had had some further experience as to the success of the Act in Scotland. I have particulars to show that in many parts of the country there has been a large increase of clubs. A strong feeling prevails that some restriction should be placed upon them. The conditions under which drinking takes place in them are less satisfactory than in public-houses, and there is some fear that if public-houses are closed at an earlier hour you will be driving persons to clubs in order to obtain drink. It is true that requisitions have been received at the Home Office in favour of the granting of earlier hours of closing, but I do not think that any of these requisitions express a wish for any particular mode of giving effect to the principle of early closing, or that the licensing magistrates should have the power conferred upon them as provided in this Bill. Further experience may show that earlier hours are desirable, but I think it would be better in the meantime to wait and see what the effect is of the legislation recently passed before a fresh Bill is agreed to.
  I think the most rev. Primate was conscious of the Government's difficulty in this matter. It is quite clear that no large measure, no measure likely to be contested, could pass through Parliament this session. We have had licensing legislation in two sessions of Parliament, and the Government feel that it would be wise to give time for considering the effect of those measures before passing further Bills. Fully recognising the moderation and the sincerity with which the most rev. Primate brought forward this Bill, I have to inform him that the Government regret that they cannot give their support to the Bill for the reasons I have stated.

  23
  We do not believe that the particular mode suggested by him in the Bill is one which would form a satisfactory solution of the question, and we feel it would be desirable to allow further time before again passing a measure with regard to licensing reform.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I should not myself have intervened in this debate were it not for the fact that I represent the views, not only of the Church of England temperance bodies in London, but the whole of the Nonconformist bodies as well. I can speak also from the fulness of nine years experience of a London slum district in which the evils of the drink traffic could be seen. Opinion, in London at any rate, among the bodies interested in this question, is united in favour of united action being taken by the magistrates on this question. The noble Lord who represents the Home Office said that it was true that petitions had been presented in favour of the granting of earlier hours of closing, but he did not think that any of those requisitions expressed a wish for any particular mode of giving effect to the principle of early closing, or that the licensing magistrates should have the power conferred upon them as provided in this Bill. I would: call his attention to the petitions from the London County Council and the Liverpool Corporation, in which they pray for the conferring of a power on the justices to close the public-houses at their discretion.
  LORD BELPER: I expressly said that I only spoke of the petitions that had been sent to the Home Office. I do not know the contents of the other petitions.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I contend that the provision of facilities to obtain drink after ten o'clock at night is bad for the people, bad for the publican, and bad for the community at large. The ordinary working man obtains his drink usually before ten o'clock, and when it is obtained after that hour it tends to the demoralisation of those who gather in the public-houses. Your Lord-ships have no conception how strongly the publican feels on this subject. When
  24
  I had charge of a poor parish in Bethnal Green I used to call on publicans to show them that the Church did not look upon them as outcasts, and every publican I spoke to complained that he led a dog's life and had no time wherein he might attend to higher personal matters. If your Lordships could see, moreover, Sunday drinking in a public-house in a slum district between one and three o'clock in the afternoon, I am certain that you would never wish to see the spectacle again. These public-houses are crowded with people, and it is not pleasing to see the condition in which they leave the premises when closed at three o'clock. The Bill allows the working man to have his beer "fresh" on Sunday, but we are anxious to prevent the "soaking" that goes on in the public-houses between the hours of one and three o'clock. On the subject of liberty, is it liberty to bind a traffic on the community which it wishes to get rid of? If the provision of facilities to obtain drink after reasonable hours is bad for the people, bad for the publican, and bad for the community at large, for whose benefit is it kept up? I certainly do not entertain the view that the brewers wish to demoralise the community by having unrestricted liberty to continue the sale of drink in the public-houses; and as the present state of things is against the highest interest of everyone concerned I heartily support the Second Reading of this Bill.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, up to the present moment it has only been from the Episcopal Bench that a defence of this Bill has come. I, therefore, think it right that I should explain the view I take with regard to it. I cannot agree with the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government. I shall not go into that great question which the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, so often brings before the House—namely, the great subject of liberty. I am inclined to share the views of the speakers on the Episcopal Bench, especially in respect of the argument that we are infringing the liberty of the people by such measures. Parliament has not recognised this principle in previous legislation, as may be seen in the case of the Factory Acts. When those Acts were introduced, there

  25
  was just as much opposition to them on the score of infringing liberty as is to be seen in respect of the present Bill. Yet no one will now say that the Factory Acts have not tended to promote health and the moral well-being of the community.
  The noble Lord who represents the Home Office did not argue against the necessity for this reform, but rested his case on the fact that the Bill would infringe what had been hitherto the practice—namely, that the hours of opening and closing public-houses should be uniform and should be fixed by statute. I share the view of the right rev. Prelate that the noble Lord did not urge that, argument with any force in regard to the statute that was passed last year. In the case of new licences the power was given to the licensing magistrates to shorten the hours during which public-houses might remain open. I submit that the Scotch case, as well as the Act of last year, justify the principle now proposed to be extended, while, with regard to clubs, it has not been established that by diminishing the hours during which public-houses are opened, there has been an improper use of clubs, or that drunkenness has increased. I do not wish to go any further into this matter. I leave it to the right rev. bench and others to enforce the great necessity for further legislation in this matter. But I shall be exceedingly sorry if this Bill does not meet with support from a majority of your Lordships.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I recognise the moderation and the wisdom of the remarks of the most rev. Primate, and I suppose no one will question the desire your Lordships all have to do anything in your power for the diminution of drunkenness. My objection to the Bill, however, is that it will do nothing in that direction. Indeed, I think it objectionable on many grounds. It is an annoying thing to any trade to be continually harassed by Parliament as to the conditions under which its members carry on their trade unless something is proved against them. I do not deny that cases of excess occur; on the other hand, there may be cases in which it is a relief to a working man to spend an
  26
  hour, not for "soaking," but to meet with his friends and associates, just as your Lordships may associate with people in your own clubs. A public-house, properly conducted, is the working man's club, and it is a most unfair thing to try to entirely change a man's course of life because he happens to be of a different class from yourselves. I was surprised to hear the example of the Factory Acts cited in support of the present measure, because those Acts were designed to protect women and children against those who improperly interfered with their health and morals. There is one class of the community I really must appeal for in connection with this measure, and that is the magistrates themselves. Let me read Clause 4 of this Bill to your Lordships—
  "In considering the matter of reducing the hours of opening licensed premises under this Act, the licensing justices shall have regard to representations made to them in any licensing meeting by the inhabitants of the locality, or to any resolutions thereon which may be adopted by any local authority within their licensing district."
  In what way are the magistrates to ascertain the opinion of the locality? Are they to take a plebiscite or what? If I were asked to construe this part of the Bill I should be obliged to say that I had not the least idea how the justices were to "have regard to representations made to them." Magistrates have a difficult duty to perform. They discharge those duties most admirably, and, though many people seem to forget it, gratuitously. They do not, however, always give satisfaction as it is. Imagine their difficulty when they are required by statute to have regard to any representations made by the inhabitants of the locality. How is that to be done? Is it to be by a public meeting, or in what way are the magistrates to ascertain the opinion of the locality? I submit that it is a very undesirable thing to be always tinkering with this particular trade. After the attention Parliament has so recently given to it, we ought at least to allow a year or two to elapse before further legislation is proposed. I heartily regret that this subject is so continually before the House, and I shall certainly vote with my noble friend who moved the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I did not intend addressing your Lordships to-night, but after the speech of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack I may perhaps add a little to the evidence that has already been given in favour of this measure. In the first place I do not think that we need have any fear about burdening our magistrates with duties which they cannot perform. After all, charging the magistrate with these duties is not a new thing. On the contrary, it has been already tried in Scotland, and there has been no grumbling on the part of the magistrates there. They have done their duty extremely well, as magistrates always do. The Acts that have been passed have worked very smoothly. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack says he objects to tinkering with this question. It seems to me that it is almost time for this country to do something more than it has done in the past in order to put an end to what we all know to be a national curse. I do not wish to use exaggerated language, but I do not think that anybody can have an idea of what is going on in our midst unless they have done as I have done— visited the public-houses between the hours of eleven and 12.30 at night. I can only wish that the Lord Chancellor would do the same.
  The houses near the theatres and music-halls are very respectable and the people very nice indeed. But if one goes further afield into the small public-houses of the East End and other parts of London one sees a very different state of affairs. There one would see between eleven o'clock and 12.30, not men who had dropped in to see friends, but men who had already been to six or seven public-houses, who were already full, and who take a final glass too much at the latest hour of the night. If the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack would go and even stand outside one of these houses with the policeman on duty there and see the exit of the last man I think he would change his views about early closing. The experience of every individual who knows tends to show that the largest amount of drunkenness takes place late at night and not in the early hours of the evening. The Lord Chancellor stated
  28
  that it was most unfair to what is called "the trade" that we should go on meddling with their business unless we could prove something against them. These measures are not brought forward to punish the trade. On the contrary, if it is question of liberty, I cannot imagine a worse slavery than that to which the employés in the trade are subjected. Public-houses have been compared to our clubs. Do we treat the servants in our clubs as the servants are treated in public-houses, where they often work from five o'clock in the morning till half-past twelve at night? We all know that is not the case, and I think some protest should be offered against the attempt which has been made to prove similarity between our clubs and public-houses. The condition of the people employed in public-houses will be bettered by this Bill.
  Nothing surprises me more than that noble Lords from Scotland should speak against this measure. It may be said that this provision has not met with complete success in Scotland, but we are able to judge of that from the returns. It has been at work for months in Glasgow, and the returns of police offences during three months of this year show a decrease, and if that decrease continues at the same ratio for the remaining nine months of the year there will be a reduction of 3,400 police cases in one year in that town alone.
  LORD BELPER: I quoted the return for the whole year for the City of Glasgow, and in that return it was stated that no deduction could be drawn as to any decrease in drunkenness.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: Then I think the noble Lord ought to tell us why the police cases have suddenly been reduced by this large number.
  LORD BELPER: I do not know what your figures are. I quoted from the official return for the year 1904 for the City of Glasgow, and in that return it was stated that there were no figures from which one could draw any deduction with regard to any diminution in drunkenness.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: I ask the noble Lord whether he denies the fact that there has been a large reduction in police offences in Glasgow.
  LORD BELPER: I have not got those figures.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: I think we have a right to say that the large reduction which has taken place has been owing to the new legislation,,and that the experiment which has been tried is a successful one. Again, employers of labour unanimously tell us that in their own opinion it is doing good in Scotland. The unanimous opinion of those who are interested, not so much perhaps in temperance work as in religious work, who are heartily in support of doing everything they can to minimise the temptations of working men, is that since the original Scottish Act was passed to reduce the number of hours
  public-houses were open a better state of affairs has existed in Scotland, except in the large cities which, unfortunately, for a time were exempted. Then came the legislation for the large cities of Scotland; the magistrates at once adopted the earlier hour, and since then there has been a large decrease in the number of police offences in the large cities where the Act has been enforced. This is nothing more than a permissive Bill; the magistrates have the power to do certain things under the Bill. There may be a few details such as those mentioned by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack which may need amendment in Committee, but the principle of the Bill is a good one, and I hope your Lordships will support it.
  On Question, "Whether the word 'now' shall stand part of the Motion," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 66.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Crofton, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Davey, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Denman, L.

  Fife, D

  London, L. Bp.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard).

  Northampton, M.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Ripon, M.

  St. David's, L Bp.

  Heneage, L.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Inverclyde, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  James, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Addington, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Spencer, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Braye, L.

  Monkswell, L. [Teller.]

  Cobham, V.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  O'Hagan, L.

  Cross, V.

  Burgholere, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)[Teller]

  Reay, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Clinton, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Coleridge, L.

  Stanley of Alderley. L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E, (L. Chancellor.)

  Winchester, M

  Harewood, E.

  Zetland, M.

  Harrowby, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Manvers, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Rosse, E.

  Newcastle, D.

  Waldegrave, E.[Teller.]

  Portland, D.

  Amherst, E.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Carnwath, E.

  ChurChill, V. [Teller.]

  Wellington, D.

  Coventry, E.

  Hampden, V.

  Dartrey, E.

  Hill, V.

  Ailesbury, M

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Hutchinson, V. [E. Donoughmore.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Linlithgow, M.

  Feversham, E.

  Knutsford, V,

  Llandaff, V.

  De Mauley, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Portman, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Ridley, V.

  Glanusk, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Aldenham, L.

  Iveugh, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Barrymore, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Belper, L.

  Monckton, L.(V. Galway.)

  Ventry, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Napier, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Newton, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

  LOTTERIES IN BRISTOL.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the issue of advertisements of large money prizes to be drawn for under cover, or supposed cover, of a sanction by the Board of Trade (Art Union Drawings) at a carnival to be held in Bristol in the month of June in the interest of the funds of the Bristol Royal Infirmary. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, in 1846 an Act had to be passed for legalising Art Unions,, for it was found that they came under the provisions of the Act against lotteries and other illegal games, and under that Act there was given to the members, subscribers, and contributors protection from pains and penalties so long only as their proceedings were carried on in good faith for the encouragement of the Fine Arts. That is the great point—they were only protected from pains and penalties so long as their proceedings were carried on for the encouragement of the Fine Arts. There was no possibility of partnership with any other object.
  The Bristol Royal Infirmary was very seriously in debt, and it was proposed to hold a great carnival for six days in the month of June next, of which I was asked to become a patron, and I gladly consented to do so. When I give my name for such a purpose I always stipulate that there shall be no raffles and that nothing alcoholic shall be sold. Shortly after I accepted the patronage I had a paper placed in my hands in one of our tramway carriages in Bristol, from which I will quote two paragraphs—
  "It has been disclosed that one of the methods will be the holding of a summer carnival at the Clifton Zoological Gardens on a scale never
  32
  before attempted, and the arrangements for this are now afoot. One of its most unique features will be the combination of the Art Union drawing of the Bristol Fine Arts Academy (usually held annually as an independent enterprise) with the proposed Royal Infirmary carnivals The idea emanated from Mr. Samuel White, who is known to have the interests of the Royal Infirmary keenly at heart, and also is a supporter of the Fine Arts Academy. The scheme having heartily commended itself to Sir George White and Sir William Henry Wills, the respective presidents of these two institutions, received also the prompt approval of the Board of Trade, who are the Government Department responsible for the supervision of Art Union drawings."
  Further on there appeared this statement—
  "It is an important part of Mr. White's scheme that any prize-winner who is not perfectly satisfied with his prize will be free to elect to hand the work of art over to Mr. White, who will buy it back from the winner at the cash price for which it had already been purchased from the artist."
  I at once wrote to the infirmary committee to say that that, in my judgment made this Art Union drawing simply a drawing for money prizes, and therefore, in my opinion, illegal. I stated that that being so, I must withdraw from the position of patron. I then wrote a second letter to say that this had become known, and I was receiving communications from Nonconformists and Church people urging me to go further still. Finally, I wrote to tell them that as I could not get the slightest indication of any willingness to reconsider the matter, there was nothing left to me but to put myself at the head of those in Bristol who were anxious to make a very solid protest against this. We agreed upon a letter which we should write to the newspapers. But, first of all, I must read to your Lordships the actual sanction given by the Board of Trade. It was addressed to the hon. secretary of the Fine Art Union, and is as follows—
  "Sir,—In reply to your letter of February 18th, submitting to the consideration of this

  33
  Department a scheme for the drawing for prizes in the Bristol Art Union during the coming year, I am directed by the Board of Trade to inform you that they are prepared to approve of the necessary alterations in the rules and regulations to enable the drawing to take place in the manner proposed. For this purpose they approve of the subscription being 20 per cent. of the sums received for admission tickets to the carnival, entitling the purchasers to participate in the drawings under the scheme, instead of the subscription of one shilling prescribed by the rules, subject to the guarantee of a minimum prize fund of £1,000. They further approve of a drawing for prizes being held on each day of the carnival at the gardens of the Bristol, Clifton, and West of England Zoological Society, instead of one drawing being held in the year at the Exhibition Rooms."
  The plan was to use the Art Union for the funds of the infirmary, making the two interests into one, and giving one-fifth to art and four-fifths to the infirmary,and I contend that this constitutes an unlawful creation of a partnership. I will now read to your Lordships the letter which we sent to the newspapers—
  "Sir,—We have been hoping that the committee of the Royal Infirmary would withdraw the proposal to give the money value of pictures drawn at the approaching carnival in aid of the funds of that deserving institution. We now feel obliged to give public expression to the dismay which we feel at the prospect of its being carried out. While at the same time we recognise the great generosity of Mr. Samuel White's offer"—
  —may I say that the Messrs. White have been most generous to me in helping me in Church extension matters, and they have rendered much assistance to the poor people of Bristol generally—
  "we cannot but regard the drawing for pictures on so very large a scale as that indicated under the cover of the name of an 'Art Union Drawing' as a misuse of the Act of Parliament; and we are surprised that the Board of Trade has sanctioned it. Under the Act the lottery must be in good faith for the encouragement of the Fine Arts, and, apart from the offer to buy back at cost price pictures drawn, we feel a strong moral objection to the proposed lottery for the funds of the Royal Infirmary. The farther proposal to give the money value of a picture in the place of the picture itself to anyone who professes to be not perfectly satisfied with the prize he has drawn convert the drawing into a money lottery. Considering the terrible curse which betting and gambling and all forms of staking money on chance are known to be, and the breaking down of moral character which they entail in so many cases, we do earnestly protest against this part of the proposal being carried out."
  That letter was signed by myself, by the Dean of Bristol, the two archdeacons,
  34
  and four of the leading Nonconformist ministers. That, so far as we know, had no effect. Then a Question was asked in the House of Commons, and it was clear from the Answer that the Board of Trade had begun to see that this was going much too far, and had communicated to the Art Union that the offer to redeem the prizes for a money prize must be withdrawn, and withdrawn it was.
  I did not propose to do any more. But then came a flood of advertisements announcing money prizes to be given at this drawing. This was clearly the action of a third body not controlled by the Board of Trade and not protected by their sanction. The advertisements did not mention pictures at all, and only announced prizes of £250, £100, and so on. We began to find that Bristol was flooded with these advertisements, and especially the tramcars, of which the Messrs. White are the managers. I have in my hand a green bill on which there are two red lines, the one announcing "Bristol Carnival Week" and the second containing the words "To raise £50,000 for the, Bristol Royal Infirmary," and the bill proceeds to state that the minimum prizes on the Monday will be £400, on the Tuesday £200, on the Wednesday £100, on the Thursday £100, on the Friday £100, and on the Saturday £100. There was also a statement that season-tickets for the six days, for £1,000 in prizes, could be had at the reduced rate of 10s. 6d.; but from first to last the word "picture" is not even remotely alluded to in the Bill. How it can conceivably be legal I do not know. Here is a yellow circular with the same red lines on the front page. Inside there is a list of pictures, and opposite is stated the value of the prizes in money. I have here the season-ticket which is to be sold, and is to convey all these privileges. There is upon it in comparatively small letters "Bristol Art Union," but the heading is "Bristol Royal Infirmary Carnival." There are set forth on the tickets the minimum prizes for the week—£1,000: Monday, £400; Tuesday, £200; Wednesday, £100; Thursday, £100; Friday, £100; and Saturday, £100. It is announced on the ticket that it is a ticket of admission to the carnival once each day, and for one share each day in

  35
  the prize drawings; and the word "drawings" does not mean drawings for pictures, but drawings for prizes. Again the word picture is not mentioned. Then I have the actual card which, I believe, the Art Union has put up—
  "Bristol Art Union Drawings in connection with the Bristol Carnival week, June 26th to July 1st, 1905. Monday, 1st prize, £250,"
  and then there is printed at the bottom the name of the picture. I have here a few of the tickets with which we are supplied by the thousand in the tramway carriages of Bristol. There are some twenty of them, but I have only found one on which the word picture is mentioned at all. The only reference is to money. One ticket states—
  "This ticket will not give you a picture, but a carnival ticket may."
  That is the only case in which I have found any mention of picture on these various tickets. One of these tickets read—
  "Don't argue about methods, but help the infirmary by buying a ticket for the carnival."
  I do think it is time somebody put a stop to people being told that they are not to argue about methods, but are to take part in this gamble to help an infirmary. Here is another ticket—
  "Help the infirmary and buy a chance in £1,000 or more at the same time."
  Another one reads—
  "The prize fund will be £10,000 if £50,000 worth of carnival tickets are sold. Buy now."
  Now I come to exceedingly cruel advertisements. You will laugh at the first—
  "He won't be happy till he gets it! The £250 first prize. Buy his ticket now."
  The next one reads—
  "Mother will be pleased if you win the £250 prize."
  There you have an appeal to the child to give pleasure to its mother by staking its savings in this way.
  Occupying the position I do in Bristol, I am sure your Lordships will readily understand my feeling strongly on this matter. I wrote to the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Trade a fortnight ago; the letter reached the Board of Trade the day after the noble Marquess was taken ill. I feel convinced that the Board of Trade, on seeing this
  36
  notice on your Lordships' Paper, sent some messenger to Bristol, because there appeared in the tramway carriages a second ticket, the red line in this case reading—
  "Sixty picture prizes."
  Up to that time the red line had announced £10,000 in prizes. But, my Lords, the money advertisement was not taken down. The one announcing sixty picture prizes had been put up by the side of it, and the result of the intervention of the Board of Trade has been to make people understand that the carnival has two attractions—£10,000 to be drawn for in money prizes, and sixty picture prizes. As a matter of fact, the Board of Trade can only deal with the Art Union; there is a third body issuing these advertisements by the thousand, over whom, as I understand, the Board of Trade have no control at all; and, if that is so, it is their own doing, because they have let this thing; go out of their hands by the very large and, as I think, unwise concessions which they have made.
  I think I have said enough about these advertisements to show that it is contrary to public morals that this sort of thing should be allowed to go on. If the answer of the Board of Trade is that the Board is powerless to deal with the situation, then the logical answer of this House will be that the Board of Trade ought also to be rendered powerless to create such a situation; and if the answer is that the only remedy is a prosecution, then I hope this House will take the view that not we in Bristol, but those who created the situation, should enter the action. I am perfectly certain that the Board of Trade must have been heartily sick of this whole thing long ago, and wishes it had never been so foolish as to abate by one single jot the stiff restrictions contained in the rules. If nothing is done there certainly will be a rush, unless charity organisations are less wide-awake than I think they are, of applications to the Board of Trade to do the same thing for other towns which have infirmaries in debt. I do at least expect this from the Board of Trade, that they will give to the House this assurance, that this experiment, which, has led to such disastrous results, will, never be made again.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, before the representative of His Majesty's Government answers the Question which has been put to him by my right rev. brother, I desire briefly to supplement what he has said with reference to this case. I venture to do so because for more than forty-two years I have been personally very closely associated with the municipal life of the city of Bristol, and during the whole of that period, both in regard to the management of this great institution and kindred institutions, I have been led to admire the dignity and highmindedness of those who have conducted the municipal affairs of that city. Having still this close connection with the city of Bristol, I feel that the leading citizens do well to be angry at this gambling project. I venture to say that it is a danger to the standard of public morals that this should take place.
  I need hardly say more than what has already been said by the Bishop of Bristol as to the opinion of the most highly-respected citizens of Bristol on this matter. Not only have the representatives of the Church of England taken action, but Nonconformist feeling has also been aroused. I hold in my hand a letter from the leader of the Nonconformist bodies in Bristol, the Rev. Arnold Thomas. I might also quote other persons. The Dean of Bristol has felt himself obliged to withdraw from his connection with the infirmary as vice-president. Again, I find that Sir Edward Fry, formerly a Lord Justice of Appeal, who is universally known and honoured, has also withdrawn his support from the infirmary in consequence of this. I do not venture to say what his view may be on the legal question, but I have here some very strong words of his on the moral aspect of the matter which I will read to the House, because the opinion of Sir Edward Fry on a question of this kind is no ordinary opinion. He says—
  "There are two evils which stare us in the face in our country to-day—gambling, and the association of frivolity and vanity with works of charity, and to license such a project as that of the Bristol Infirmary is to foster both these evils."
  I venture to think that words of that kind from such a quarter deserve to be
  38
  carefully weighed by the Board of Trade. I was not aware that the assent of the Board of Trade had been finally and formally given, but I venture to plead that if it has been it ought not to have been, given. I have no doubt at all that it must have been given in perfect good faith, but I venture to say that it was given on imperfect information. I cannot conceive its having been given except on inadequate and misleading information. Unfortunately, this great institution has fallen into hands different from those that used to manage it, and here we have the first fruits in this immense carnival with bills such as the Lord Bishop has described flaunted all over Bristol—bills such as we have been in the habit of receiving through the post from such places as Hamburg and Middelburg, but such as I have never seen before in any respectable portion of English life.
  I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention a little more closely to the Act of 1846. It is an Act which a mere layman like myself may fairly claim to understand, and, as I understand it, it simply exempts Art Unions under certain conditions from the operation of the Lotteries Act. It is an Act giving privileges and exemptions on certain conditions. Under it drawings for works of art may be allowed amongst bona fide members of the Art Union. The persons who take part must be members of the Art Union, and the exemption is then to continue—
  "only so long as their proceedings are carried on in good faith for the encouragement of the Fine Arts."
  Further, they must have obtained a Charter, and it is provided in the Act—
  "that whenever it shall appear that any such association is perverted from the purposes of this Act"—
  the purposes being the encouragement of the Fine Arts in good faith—
  "the fact is to be certified to His Majesty, and it shall be lawful to revoke or annul the Charter."
  It seems to me—of course, I express my opinion with no little hesitation in the presence of noble and learned Lords—that the Art Union of Bristol has imperilled its Charter by this gambling project. This cannot be described as anything less than a barefaced gambling project,

  39
  and I cannot but feel that the Board of Trade must have acted on improper information. Therefore, before the noble Duke answers for the Government, I venture to appeal to him to give the matter further and fresh consideration under the advice of the highest legal authority. I desire to associate myself with everything that the Lord Bishop of Bristol has said as to the deplorable results of a scheme of this kind flung into the life of a great city, and I do trust that something may be done so that the persons who have obtained the management of this affair shall not snap their fingers at an Act of this kind and go shameless, apparently, and unrepentant in face of the best sentiment of that great city.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, the right rev. Prelates have certainly an advantage over me, inasmuch as they are better acquainted than I am with the local opinion and views on this question. I could not help feeling, in listening to the right rev. Prelate who raised this question, that he regarded the Board of Trade not in a very kindly or friendly light, and he seemed to have in his mind the impression that the Board of Trade had connived with the local authorities at Bristol in carrying out what he considered was an illegal act.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: It was not in my mind. If it was in my expression I am very sorry.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am glad to hear the right rev. Prelate disclaim any idea that the Board of Trade desired to associate themselves with a body of Bristol gentlemen in carrying out any kind of lottery coming under the Lotteries Act. The right rev. Prelate has stated the story pretty amply to your Lordships, and I do not think I need go over the history of the case except to allude to one or two brief points in connection with it. As the right rev. Prelate pointed out, at the beginning of this year the Art Union at Bristol reminded the Board of Trade that there was going to be a carnival in that city,
  40
  the proceeds of which were to be devoted to the Bristol Royal Infirmary, and they asked the permission of the Board of Trade to make an arrangement with the carnival committee, the arrangement being this, that 20 per cent. of the entrance money taken at the carnival should be given to the Art Union. Those people who bought entrance tickets were not only to get admission to the carnival but they were to be entitled also to use those tickets as tickets for the pictures which had to be raffled for. That proposal was made to the Board of Trade, and after due consideration the Board gave their consent to it. I do not know the local opinion on this matter, but I should assume that the Art Union said that the arrangement would be one which would bring very prominently before the notice of the people in that locality the advantages of the Art Union, and that a certain amount, perhaps an increased amount, would go to the Art Union; and in so far as these considerations are worth anything, they must have been of benefit to the Art Union. The public would not in any way suffer; because not only would they, after paying their shilling, get the advantage of admission to the carnival, but they would have the additional privilege of drawing possibly a favourable number in the lottery, it being remembered that the lottery was for prizes in the shape of pictures. I understand that the right rev. Prelate considers that arrangement to be an illegal one.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: Not quite as you put it, but as I put it.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: These prizes which were to to be raffled for were picture prize, the product, I presume, of artists in and around the town of Bristol, and therefore it was perfectly clear that the aim of the Art Union was a bona fide aim, and it was not their desire in any way to associate themselves with the carnival committee in carrying out a proceeding which could in any way be termed illegal. That was the condition of affairs to which the Board of Trade assented. They did so, believing that they were perfectly within the law in doing so, and

  41
  I am informed that they have no reason to alter their view upon that point. The Board of Trade, believed that the arrangement between the carnival committee and the Fine Art committee was in good faith and for the encouragement of the Fine Arts. Then, as the right rev. Prelate reminded your Lordships, this happened. A munificent gentleman, for reasons best known to himself, suggested that if anybody die not like winning a picture he would keep the picture himself and give the money value thereof to the individual who won the prize. Then at once objections were raised. Many persons pointed out that if that course was carried into effect, the proposal to redeem these picture prizes by money would be illegal, and I understand that the right rev. Prelate joined in that protest. This came to the knowledge of the Board of Trade and they at once suggested that the proposal which this munificent gentleman had made should be withdrawn. There was considerable correspondence in the matter. The Fine Art Union replied that the gentleman was not a member of their society, and that therefore they could take no action in the matter, and they denied responsibility. However, as the right rev. Prelate has informed the House, the offer was eventually withdrawn; but he forgot to tell the House that the offer was withdrawn as the direct result of the strong representations made by the Board of Trade itself.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: I did not, forget to mention it. I did not know it.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Matters were in this condition when further complications arose, as we have been reminded to-night, by the fact that many peculiar advertisements were published, presumably by the carnival committee. His Majesty's Government certainly join with the right rev. Prelate in deploring those advertisements. I think they were very silly ones. I cannot believe that they could have been in any way likely to add to the sources of revenue of the carnival committee. The advertisements were brought to the notice of the Board of
  42
  Trade, who saw that people in Bristol were trying to advertise money prizes instead of picture prizes. At once strong representations were made by the Board of Trade, and these people were told that their action was irregular and that they must alter their advertisements and put them in correct form. A reply was received by the Board of Trade stating that new posters had been issued in which full prominence was given to the fact that the prizes were picture prizes and not money prizes. Although I can quite understand the right rev. Prelate disapproving of many of the incidents connected with this affair, I think he ought to look with a favourable view upon the action which the Board of Trade have taken in this matter, unless, of course, he objects to the fact that the Board of Trade allowed the Fine Art Union to make any agreement at all with the carnival committee. But, in doing that, I understand they were acting legally within their powers under the Act.
  The right rev. Prelate will no doubt wish to know exactly the attitude of the Board of Trade at the present, moment on this matter. I understand that they have invited the Art Union to disclaim, the injudicious act of the carnival committee, and as the Board of Trade think that the Art Union has to a certain extent been the victim of the carnival committee, they do not consider that there is enough evidence to warrant their cancelling the authority which they gave them. But, as the right rev. Prelate pointed out, it is open to anyone who desires to get a decision upon this matter to go to the local Courts of Law and ask whether the advertisements which have been issued by the carnival committee do or do not constitute an infringement of the law. The right rev. Prelate suggested that the Board of Trade should do this. The Board of Trade do not consider that their duties, extend thus far, and if local feeling in Bristol is very strong on this matter, I think the Board of Trade will be wise in leaving it to those who are more conversant with these matters, and who feel the more strongly about them, to bring any action they deem necessary.
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, it was not my intention to take part at all in this debate, but there were some observations in the noble Duke's reply which I cannot allow to pass without some comment. I did not understand the right rev. Prelate to have suggested, and I am sure he would disclaim any such idea, that the Board of Trade connived with the unfortunate and ill-advised committee of this carnival in setting up the wholly illegal lottery which they appear to have done. But I must point out to the noble Duke that it was solely in consequence of the regulations issued by the Board of Trade that the committee of the carnival were able to do it. It was the Board of Trade which alone enabled them to do it, because the regulations of the Board of Trade authorised the committee of the Art Union to allow persons who were not members of the Art Union to compete for their prizes.
  THE DUKE OF MARYBOROUGH: The Act runs "members, subscribers, or contributors."
  LORD DAVEY: That is so. The Board of Trade allowed persons who merely paid their gate-money to go into the Zoological Gardens to compete for these prizes. They had no power to do that, in my mind. That a man who pays gate-money to be admitted to a carnival at which a public lottery is advertised to take place should be supposed thereby to be a contributor or subscriber to an Art Union within the meaning of the Act is a supposition which I should not have thought would have entered into the head of any person. I do not in the least degree suggest that the Board of Trade saw the consequences of what they were doing; but still their action in allowing persons who, in my judgment, were in no sense either members, subscribers, or contributors, to compete for prizes has led to what seems to be admitted by the noble Duke himself to be unfortunate and illegal proceedings.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, if I have a right of reply, I should like to say—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): The right rev. Prelate has no right of reply, but he may make an explanation.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: The noble Duke said that in consequence of strong representations by the Board of Trade an answer was received that posters calling special attention to the fact that the prizes were to be pictures were issued. That is quite true, but those posters were put up side by side with those announcing £10,000 prizes in money, so, as I pointed out, there is now a double attraction. The objectionable tickets to which I have called attention are still being circulated, and it appears to me that the Board of Trade have practically done nothing by their last step.
  EARL SPENCER: I would appeal to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House as to whether this matter should not be referred back to the Board of Trade. I think it is clear from the remarks of my noble and learned friend that they seem, no doubt unwittingly, to have done something irregular. A great Department ought to be very careful in a matter of this kind, and I think it would be as well that it should be referred back to them to see whether, after all, they have not connived at what is an illegality.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I think the noble Duke, in the course of his speech, admitted very frankly that these proceedings had been of a most irregular and improper description. With a very worthy object in view the Bristol Art Union appears to have entered into an ill-advised association with another body which, actuated no doubt by philanthropic motives, seems to have, if a layman may express a view, gone perilously near breaking the law. I gather from the noble Duke that the matter has been, to some extent at any rate, corrected, because it has now been decided that the persons who win these prizes are to receive works of art and not money.
  LORD DAVEY: But they are no members of the society.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The right rev. Prelate however suggested to us that the parties concerned were, in spite of the remonstrances which had been addressed to them by the Board of Trade, persisting in their irregular conduct. If that is so, I have no doubt that my noble friend will represent to the Board of Trade what has fallen from noble Lords during the course of this debate, and that the matter will be looked into further as suggested by the noble Earl opposite.

  LIFE-SAVING APPARATUS ON BRITISH SHIPS.
  LORD MUSKEREYrose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have been made aware of the decision of the Board of Trade Inquiry which investigated the circumstances of the loss of the trawler "Banffshire;" whether, previous to her leaving Aberdeen she was inspected by a Board of Trade surveyor competent to survey her compasses and life-saving apparatus, and, if not, why not; also to call attention to the general question of the surveying of life-saving apparatus on British merchant ships. He said: My Lords, my Question, also, has reference to the Board of Trade, Up to the present I had thought that, with the exception of the Marine Department, the departments of that Board were nearly immaculate; but I find I was mistaken.
  I think that you will agree with me that any matter which concerns the efficiency or otherwise of life-saving apparatus on board our merchant ships is worthy of our careful attention. We have to feel thankful for the institution of the Acts relating to life-saving appliances, as it is now the duty, not of private individuals, but of the State, to ensure that both our mariners and passengers sailing on the high seas should be provided with adequate and efficient means of escape in time of disaster. I have on previous occasions drawn attention to serious defects which exist in the manner in which the Board of Trade carries out the law in this respect, and,
  46
  consequently, it is not surprising that through want of proper official supervision the life-saving apparatus, consisting of boats, life-buoys, life-belts, and other things, in many merchant ships is often a source of danger to human life instead of being a source of safety.
  To refer to the case mentioned in my Question I find that the Board of Trade Inquiry into the loss of the "Banffshire" attached blame to the manager for the owners of the vessel in not seeing that, before she left Aberdeen, she was provided with good and properly-adjusted compasses and sufficient life-saving appliances. There was only one life-buoy, which was useless, and there were no life-belts on board. I see that the master of the, trawler was fined £10. Now, my Lords, it is all very well to fine an individual or individuals for being privy to or taking a vessel to sea and jeopardising the lives on board in such a scandalous way, but what I want to know is, what have the Marine Department of the Board of Trade to say in their own defence in themselves permitting such a vessel to go to sea? They are supposed to have proper staff of expert surveyors who, under the Merchant Shipping Act, have certain duties and certain powers vested in them to prevent this sort of thing. From what I understand from statements of officials of he Board of Trade, it is not possible, nor, they say, is it found necessary for their surveyors to inspect the life-saving appliances of every vessel which is about to proceed to sea. One can hardly have much confidence in statements of this character when we see this case of the "Banffshire" which was possessed of one useless life-buoy, and no life-belts. Furthermore, I have contended that it is imperative to increase the number of the surveyors at our different sea-ports so that proper inspection of life-saving apparatus can be carried on.
  The Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships stated in their Report in 1874 that some additional nautical assistance was requisite for the due performance of the duties now entrusted to the Board. The Marine Department of the Board, however, has, as it usually does with recommendations of Committees or

  47
  Commissions of the kind, ignored it, and the nautical assistance nowadays is even less than it was then. I would point out to your Lordship's that the nautical surveyors to the Board of Trade are less in number than they were in the year 1876, although the tonnage of British foreign-going vessels entered and cleared with cargoes and in ballast at ports in the United Kingdom has increased by over 20,000,000 tons. Throughout the whole of the United Kingdom there are fifteen nautical surveyors only. Your Lordships will, therefore, see that at many ports there is no nautical assistance at all.
  In addition to these few nautical surveyors I should inform your Lordships that there are also what are termed engineer and shipwright surveyors, and these number 104. In advocating an increase in the staff of nautical surveyors, I do not wish to minimise in the slightest degree the importance of the services carried on by engineers and shipwrights— that is, in their own particular department. What I contend is that the Board of Trade have no right to relegate to these gentlemen duties which do not come within their sphere, and in which they have no practical experience. For instance, it would be ridiculous to ask a British merchant captain to undertake duties relating to the survey of a ship's hull or her engines, and so it is equally ridiculous for the Board of Trade to expect their engineer and shipwright surveyors to supervise in an expert way such technical matters as ship's boats, their tackle, and their masts.
  Under the rules relating to the Life-Saving Appliances Acts these boats must be fitted with a mast or masts, with at least one good sail, and proper gear, and also with an efficient compass. Sea anchors must also be provided. The lowering apparatus of the boats should be carefully overhauled, and the compasses and other navigational appliances of the ship herself should be inspected. All these matters can only be thoroughly and practically attended to by men possessing long nautical experience. I would ask your Lordships, is it not reprehensible, in the interests of the safety of life at sea, that such duties
  48
  should be handed over to engineers and shipwrights? To furnish an illustratration. The Board of Trade inquiry into the loss of the "Banffshire" attached blame to the manager for the owners in not seeing, amongst other things, that, the vessel was provided with good and properly-adjusted compasses. As I have said before, the primary responsibility for this rests with the officials of the Board of Trade, but, in all probability, even had the ship been inspected by a Board of Trade surveyor, it is almost certain that these very compasses would have been inspected, or have been alleged, to have been inspected, by an engineer or shipwright. I understand that there is only one nautical surveyor in the whole of Scotland, and he, I believe, is in Glasgow.
  The Board of Trade, in defence of what is an indefensible system, say that their newly-appointed surveyors are instructed in duties such as the surveying of boats, compasses, etc., by the more experienced surveyors in their service. This is tantamount to saying that the men they appoint do not know how to survey boats and such like. The still more curious part of it is that those who instruct these young surveyors are most probably engineers and shipwrights themselves, and consequently theorists at the work. I hope no word I have said will be taken as against engineers or shipwrights, for I have a sincere admiration for them both as men and as officials. In this matter it is not their fault, but their misfortune, that the Board of Trade should cause them to perform duties in which they have had no practical experience. In these matters, which affect what I may call the safety conditions of our merchant cargo and passenger ships, I always like to obtain, if I can, the views of those serving on board of them. It is ofttimes very difficult to obtain such views, as our mariners are afraid to express themselves individually, and Parliament does not give them the means to have a direct representative voice in the Legislature. I can, however, give your Lordships the collective views of over 12,000 captains and officers of the merchant service who are embodied in the Merchant Service Guild. It is, they say with regret, a fact that the life-saving apparatus on board far

  49
  too many ships is in a woefully bad condition, and they comment very strongly on the deplorable condition of the boats buoys, and belts, and other life-saving and navigational appliances which are provided.
  I understand that since the "Genera Slocum" disaster happened in New York the American marine authorities have issued very strict regulations on this subject of life-saving apparatus, and British ships are required to conform to them equally with their own. I have heard, for instance, on the best authority, that one of our newest and largest liners has been made to carry two additional boats, her fire-hose was required to stand an additional 100 pounds pressure, and her life-belts had to be made more durable and satisfactory. What I am endeavouring to prevent is a "General Slocum" disaster' to one of our own ships, when we would see what public opinion would be and would do. I do not wish to strike a note of alarm, but I have no hesitation in saying that the Life-saving Appliance Acts are not efficiently carried out for the reasons I have adduced. I hope that your Lordships will approve of my action in endeavouring to press this matter and to urge that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade should have due and proper regard to the duties and responsibilities imposed upon them by the sections of the Merchant Shipping Act which deal with life-saving appliances on board ship. Were any of your Lordships in need of medical or surgical assistance, would you trust yourselves to a gentleman whose knowledge of medicine and surgery was derived from reading books and from what he was told by other gentlemen, and who had had practically no experience? I do not think you would. I beg to put the Question standing in my name.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH: I will not follow the noble Lord into the various matters which he has raised during the course of his speech. I am sure he would rather that I confined myself to one or two of the main points upon which he is anxious for information.
  50
  The noble Lord has asked the Board of Trade whether the "Banffshire" was, inspected before she left port, and whether the compasses and life-saving apparatus were examined as well. The reply to that is in the negative. The ship was not examined, for the simple reason that there is no obligation on the part of the authorities to examine a ship of that class.
  LORD MUSKERRY: The "Banffshire" is over 80 tons register.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am coming to that in a moment. If the noble Lord had refreshed his memory on the Merchant Shipping Act he would have discovered that the "Banffshire," to which he rightly attaches importance, could not be described as a vessel—it was only a registered fishing-boat. She was a very small boat indeed, and never carried any passengers on board; consequently there was no need at all that I all this life-saving apparatus to which the noble Lord alluded should be carried. If he will turn to the Merchant Shipping Act he will see that all that was necessary for this particular ship to carry in the way of life-saving apparatus was a single boat. There is no need for craft under a certain size to carry life-belts or any other kind of life-saving apparatus except a boat. It is true that the "Banffshire" only had one life-belt, but she had a boat in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act, and as this fishing-smack had conformed to the law, there was no need to examine her before she left port. If the noble Lord will look into the matter a little more closely he will see that all the rules and regulations with regard to these small fishing-smacks were complied with.
  LORD MUSKERRY: The "Banffshire" was a steam trawler.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I understand that her proper description is not that of a steam trawler but a registered fishing-boat. Then the noble Lord suggested that the compasses of this particular boat ought to have been examined and their correctness certified.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I do not suggest that. I said that the Board of Trade's own inquiry said it should have been done.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The result of the Board of Trade Inquiry was that the manager was blamed for not having adjusted his compasses. It is the duty of the manager to do that. The Board of Trade has not a sufficient number of officials to see that every compass in every little fishing-boat is properly adjusted. That would require an amount of supervision which no Department of the State could possibly be prepared to undertake. The noble Lord may think that this vessel ought to have had some life-saving apparatus upon it; he may say that it ought to have had more life-belts and other machinery for saving life; and if he thinks that advisable I should not quarrel with his suggestion in the least. If he would like the Board of Trade, the next time the regulations are framed, to examine into this matter I dare say they will take a suggestion of that sort seriously into consideration. I hope the noble Lord will see that several of the points he put forward should not be given quite the same amount of importance which he desires your Lordships to attach to them.
  Let me deal for one brief moment with the larger question of surveying all life-saving apparatus on British merchant ships. The noble Lord is aware that provision for life-saving apparatus on British merchant ships is carefully laid down in various sections in the Merchant Shipping Act. It is specifically laid down that the onus of maintaining in proper order all the appliance for life-saving shall rest on the master and owners of the ship. That is a principle which is definitely laid down, and I do not think it is one which the noble Lord will quarrel with. Furthermore, a penalty can be inflicted for non-compliance with these regulations. I rather gathered from the remarks of the noble Lord that he thinks the regulations require revision.
  LORD MUSKERRY: Hear, hear!
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: If the noble Lord is under that impression—and, of course, it is a view which he is perfectly entitled to hold—I would point out to him that under the Merchant Shipping Act all such rules made under the Act have to be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and cannot come into operation until they have been laid for forty days on the Table of both Houses of Parliament during the sittings of Parliament. The noble Lord has been a Member of your Lordships' House for a considerable number of years, and surely if the regulations were in his opinion inadequate, or not good ones, he has had an opportunity in previous years of commenting upon them.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I have done so.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: So much for the rules and regulations and the penalties under them. The noble Lord is equally dissatisfied with the inspection employed to secure that the rules and regulations are carried into effect. I understand that it is quite impracticable for inspectors to make a systematic inspection before the voyage of every ship leaving dock. The system adopted is that the officials of the Board of Trade visit vessels wherever opportunity arises and call attention to any defects they find and to anything not in accordance with the rules and regulations laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act. Moreover, if these defects are not at once rectified and the protests of the Board of Trade paid attention to, they have it in their power to detain the ships until the rules and regulations have been complied with by the owners. I think the noble Lord must admit that there is a considerable amount of supervision employed by those who are responsible for carrying out the rules and regulations made under the Merchant Shipping Act. I will give an instance in support of my contention. During the last four months 674 vessels have been visited and examined by the officers of the Department at the port of Liverpool, and in seventy-eight cases the life-saving appliances were found defective and ordered to be put straight. That is a concrete instance to show that great care is taken to protect

  53
  people who are passengers on board these ships from carelessness or insufficient control on the part of those responsible for seeing that there is an adequate amount of life-saving apparatus on board. With regard to passenger steamships, the noble Lord is aware that the surveyors are bound to inspect the appliances at each annual survey for the renewal of passenger certificates; they will not pass any ship for a renewal of her passenger certificate unless that ship has complied with all regulations laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act. I do not think I can give the noble Lord any further information, but I do think he ought to admit that the Board of Trade has taken every precaution to safeguard the lives of those who travel on British ships.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." —(Lord Davey.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  LORD DAVEYsaid the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was for the object of removing ambiguities in Section 4 of the principal Act which related to sub-contracting. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, pages 3 and 4, to leave out the whole clause and to insert, 'Section 4 of the principal Act (which relates to sub-contracting) shall be repealed, and in lieu thereof the following section shall be substituted:—(1) Where any person, being an undertaker within the meaning of this Act (in this section referred to as the principal) contracts with any person (in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of any work, and the principal would, if such work were executed by workmen immediately employed by him, be liable to pay compensation under this Act to those workmen in respect of any accident arising out of and in the course of their employment, the principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed by the contractor in the execution of the work
  54
  any compensation which he would have been liable to pay it the workman had been immediately employed by him; and where proceedings are taken against the principal, then in the application of this Act references to the principal shall be substituted for references to the employer, except in the provisions relating to the amount of compensation. Provided that the principal shall be entitled to be indemnified by the person by whom the workman was immediately employed and by any intermediate contractor, and any intermediate contractor called on to indemnify the principal shall be entitled to be indemnified by the person by whom the workman was immediately employed, and by any contractor intermediate between him and that person, and so on, and any such indemnity shall, in accordance with rules of Court, be enforceable in a County Court. (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a workman recovering compensation under this Act from the contractor instead of the principal, if the contractor is an undertaker within the meaning of this Act. (3) This section shall not apply to any contract with any person for the execution by or under the contractor of any work which is merely ancillary or incidental to and is no part of or process in the trade or business carried on by the principal, nor shall it apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere than on, or in, or about the premises, work, or building in respect of which the principal is the undertaker within the meaning of this Act.'"— (Lord Davey.)
  LORD BELPER: I admit that the Amendment which has just been proposed by the noble and learned Lord does not alter the sense of the clause in any way. It, no doubt, does away with some of the ambiguity which he complained of in the former stage, and as the Government think it will improve the Bill we are very glad to accept it.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I only wish to say, before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House, that I opposed legislation of this character in 1895 on the ground that it tended to lower wages. About two years ago I met a great supporter of this legislation and pointed out to him that the plain English of it is that 100 or 1,000 men employed in a factory receive less wages on the off-chance that one of them may lose a finger. "That is true," was the reply, "but the men do not know it." I answered that it would be my business to make it known to the men, and, therefore, I hope this

  55
  short observation will be reported in the public Press in the morning.
  Drafting Amending agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Bill do now pass."— (Lord Davey.)
  On Question. Motion agreed to, and Bill sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.