Sitting of 28 March 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Epsom and Ewell Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
London United Tramways Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Great North of Scotland Railway Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
Mr. Harold Tennant reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had further adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Dean Forest Bill. Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Dean Forest Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. McKenna.)
Crown Lands Bill. Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Crown Lands Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. McKenna.)
Midland Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 3).
Mr. Charles Allen reported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bills; That, for the conveience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday, the 4th April, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Bacup Corporation Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee,
1238
with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Licensed Trade Defence Association, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of law: from Adderbury (two); Ardwick; Axbridge; Badgeworth; Bath; Beaconsfield; Beckingham; Berrick; Bircle (two); Birkenhead; Bolton; Brent Knoll; Brettenham; Bridestowe; Brockley Hill (two); Bulley; Burnham; Burnley; Burrington; Bylaugh (two); Charnock Richard (three); Chorlton on Medlock; Clayton le Woods; Darwen; Disserth (two); Duntisbourne Abbots (two); Easterton; East Walton; Eccleston (two); Esh; Farington (two); Fence (two); Foxcote; Fritton; Gainsborough; Great Cheverell; Great Harwood; Greetham (two); Grimoldby; Harpsden; Hartburn; Harwood (two); Hellifield (two); Heskin Pemberton; Higher Walton (two); Holbrook; Hoole; Horsted Keynes (two); Hulme (three); Hurst Green; King's Langley; Lambley; Leverington; Lewisham; Little Grans-den; London; Longhope; Long Wittenham; Manby; Manchester; Markbeech (two); Mawdesley (three);. Mitford; Monkton Combe (two);Muston; Norton; Oddington; Orston; Oswald-kirk; Ovingham; Ovington; Plympton St. Maurice (two); Ponteland; Preston; Prittlewell (two); Reymerston; Ringley (two); Rockfield; Rushford; Sowerby (two); Standish; Staunton; Stow Longa with Easton; Stretham with Thetford (two); Thorpe; Turton; Twineham; Walmsley; Walton; Walton le Dale (three); West Hoathly; Weston; Weston super Mare; Whalley Mange; Whatley (two); Wheatenhurst; Whittle le Woods (two); Whitwell; Witchford; Woolston and Sholing; and Yockleton; to he upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (NAVY VOTES).
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 28th March, 1906, authorising the temporary application of surpluses on certain Navy Votes for the year 1905–6 to meet excesses on other Navy Votes for the same year [pursuant to Resolution of the House of 4th March, 1879]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 95.]
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (ARMY VOTES).
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 28th March, 1906, authorising the temporary application of surpluses on certain Army Votes for the year 1905–6 to defray excesses on other Army Votes for the same year [pursuant to Resolution of the House of 4th March, 1879]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 96.]
  COLONIES (GENERAL).
  Copy presented, of Statement of Present Contributions to the Imperial Institute made by the Government of India and by the British Colonies and Protectorates [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIONS (NETHER WALLSTEAD).
  Copy presented, of Report by Captain M. B. Lloyd, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred at Nether Wallstead, near Hayward's Heath, Sussex, on the 26th October, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Local Taxation in Ireland for the year 1904–5 [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th March; Mr. Nannetti; to lie upon the Table.

  COLONIES (COLONIAL ACTS, ROYAL ASSENT).
  Order [6th March] for an Address for a Return relative to Colonies (Colonial
  1240
  Acts, Royal Assent, read, and discharged; and, instead thereof:—

  COLONIES (COLONIAL ACTS, ROYAL ASSENT).
  Address for "Return of the names of Bills or Acts passed by both Houses of the Legislature in Colonies possessing responsible Government, since the date of the House of Commons' Return, No. 362, of 1901, which have not come into operation, either because His Majesty's Assent has not been given, or because the Acts have been disallowed."—(Colonel Legge.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Army Statistics.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the number of men in the Regular Army is likely to fall short of the number voted; and, if so, whether he can state approximately the probable deficiency.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. friend any even approximate figures. It is not practicable to forecast the state of recruiting for anything but a very short period ahead, and it is difficult to calculate probable extensions, re-engagements, and wastage for the next twelve months.

  S.S. "Cumbal"—Case of Hugh M'Garvie.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Hugh M'Garvie, an able seaman, was injured on board the s.s. "Cumbal," of London, on 19th April, 1905, whilst this vessel was at anchor in Punta Arenas, in the Straits of Magellan, in consequence of the ladder leading to the ship's hold being what is described as a dangerous ladder; and whether, seeing that on his return to the United Kingdom the sum of £4 18s. was deducted from his wages to defray the cost of his passage home, he will make inquiries into the matter and order the money to be refunded to M'Garvie.

  1241
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As this man was not shipped in the United Kingdom the owners of the vessel are not liable under Section 207 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, for the cost of his conveyance to this country. The expense, therefore, falls upon the man's wages, and I regret that I am unable to order the refund of the money. It is proposed by the Merchant Shipping Bill now before the House to extend the liability of shipowners so as to cover cases of this kind.

  German Bounties on Locomotives.
  MR. HOUSTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table the Report from the British Consul at Rome, wherein is stated the amount of the bounty or bonus paid by the German Government to German locomotive manufacturers on locomotives built in and exported from Germany.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer to a similar Question which I gave on Monday last.†

  Servia.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say whether any negotiations are proceeding with a view to the resumption of diplomatic relations with Servia.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Deck Loads—Negotiations with Maritime Powers.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government has entered into negotiations with the maritime Powers, with a view to the prevention of risks to officers, crews, and shipping from the carriage of deck loads or loose ballast, liable to shift in heavy weather, or to the regulation of such cargoes; and, if not, will such negotiations be initiated without delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Yes, Sir, a circular with regard to deck loads
  † See (4) Debates, cliv., 817.
  1242
  of timber was sent out in April last. Replies have not yet been received from France, Germany, or Sweden. The other Powers have sent replies, but do not appear inclined to act on the suggestions made to them. It has not been thought necessary to open negotiations with foreign Powers with regard to loose ballast, but careful regulations on the subject have been issued to Board of Trade surveyors, and a notice of warning has been sent to shipowners and masters.

  Maidstone Prison—Neglect by Officers
  MR. BARKER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of an inmate of Coxheath Workhouse Infirmary named Smitherman, who died two days after being admitted from Maidstone Prison, where he contracted bed-sores and paralysis, as well as verminous disease; and whether he will take steps to secure an improvement in the methods of treating and discharging sick prisoners.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Prison Commissioners have already made inquiry into this case, and they report to me that there was carelessness on the part of the prison officers in not sooner discovering the presence of vermin in the prisoner's hair, and in not reporting its condition to the medical officer of the infirmary to which the prisoner was removed on discharge from gaol. The Commissioners inform me that they are making further inquiry into this point. Apart from this, all proper care was taken of the man; he was attended day and night, and the medical officer visited him daily.

  Cusack (Longford) Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any decision has yet been come to by the Estates Commissioners as to the report of the inspector on the Cusack (county Longford) Estate; and can he say how much untenanted land the inspector found on his visit.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they

  1243
  hope shortly to make an offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of this estate. There appears to be no untenanted land on the estate, but there are five holdings comprising about 170 acres, which are held by tenants under court lettings. The Commissioners propose to make an offer to purchase these land as untenanted lands.

  Sir John Nugent Humble's Estate.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what date an originating application for the sale of a portion of the estate of Sir John Nugent Humble, in the county of Waterford, was lodged with the Estates Commissioners; whether he is aware that there is a large area of untenanted land on the estate which the owner does not propose to sell; that a clearance of many tenants off this estate was effected about fifty years ago, and that several tenants were also evicted within the past twenty-five years; and whether, seeing that a portion of the lands more recently evicted was sold by Sir John Nugent Humble to his brother some years before the passing of the Act of 1903, and that a legal question arose at the time as to the right of the owner to sell to his brother in consideration of money to be advanced by the State, and that the greater portion of the more recently evicted land is now unavailable for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, the Estates Commissioners will decline to deem the lands, the sale of which to existing tenants is now proposed, to be an estate unless the owner also consents to sell to the Commissioners, with a view to distribution to the evicted tenants, a sufficient portion of the lands from which tenants, whose families have since disappeared, were cleared about fifty years ago.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that the originating application in respect of the sale of a portion of the estate of Sir John Nugent Humble was lodged with them on the 14th September, 1905. The case has not yet been dealt with by the Commissioners, but they inform me that they will consider
  1244
  the matters referred to in the Question when dealing with the estate.

  Loans to Tenant Purchasers.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that difficulties have arisen as to making loans applied for to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, in consequence of tenants having signed agreements to purchase their holdings under the Land Act of 1903, and pending the completion of such purchase, the issue of loans is delayed, inasmuch as the statutes relating to loans to owners of land are not the same as those relating to loans to tenants; and whether, seeing that the Commissioners of Public Works decline, while purchase is pending, to treat applicants for loans as either tenants or owners, and delays in connection with purchase are occurring, he will take steps to introduce legislation, to deal with the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Loans to tenants purchasing under the Act of 1903 are not delayed by the Board of Works pending completion of sale, provided the tenants can produce receipts for rent showing that, in the event of the sale from any cause falling through, they would not be liable for more than twelve months rent, an arrear of a year's rent being a barrier to a tenant's loan. Purchasing tenants cannot be treated as owners until the fee simple of their holdings has been legally transferred to them by the issue of the Land Commission vesting order. I do not think it advisable, in the interests of the security for Government advances, that any further concession should be made.

  Ballydecane Evicted Tenant.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application has been received by the Estates Commissioners from Miss Helena Maye in reference to a farm at Ballydecane, county Waterford, from which her father was evicted; whether he is aware that the evicted farm is now in the possession of two new tenants, one occupying about 250

  1245
  acres and the other about thirty acres, and that besides these two new tenants there is only one other tenant on thet estate, viz., Miss Carroll, except that one of the new tenants is also in occupation of another holding; whether he is aware that, the new tenants having entered into negotiations for purchase with the owner, Miss Carroll declined to have anything to do with the same unless the evicted tenant's claim was satisfied; whether an originating application has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners by the owner; and whether the Estates Commissioners will allow the evicted tenant to be passed over, and declare these two holdings and one other to be an estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that an application for reinstatement has been lodged with them by Miss Helena Maye, who claims as the representative of an evicted tenant on the estate of Miss H. P. Rice and others. The application alleges that the eviction took place in 1881 out of a farm of 315 acres, which is now in the occupation of James Ellis and David Barry, and that the eviction was for nonpayment of £853 rent due. The Commissioners have no knowledge of any negotiations for purchase which may be proceeding. No application in respect of the sale of the estate has been lodged with them.

  Cappawhite Police Transport Car.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police transport car at Cappawhite, county Tipperary, has been used by the local district inspector of constabulary for his own private convenience; that on the 20th and 23rd of November, 1905, and 3rd of January, 1906, one sack of flour, one sack of meal, and one sack of flour, were conveyed by the transport car from Dundrum railway station, a distance of nearly seven miles, where they were purchased for the district inspector from Sutton and Company; whether he is aware that Sutton and Company have agents at the railway stations whose books can
  1246
  verify such purchases; and whether, seeing that this car has also been used by the local head constable for the purpose of conveying his son to and from a technical school at the town of Tipperary, eight miles distant, that it was brought to Cappawhite a few years ago when the people were agitating for the abolition of the grazing system on the Dundrum Estate, which is now being sold to the Estates Commissioners he will give instructions to have the car removed from the locality.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector-General who has inquired into this matter, informs me that the only foundation for the allegation as regards the district inspector consists in the fact that on one or two occasions, when the transport car was at Dundrum on duty, the district inspector had a small quantity of flour brought back in it for his own use. On other occasions bran and meal for the use of the transport horse has been conveyed from Dundrum by the car. It is not the case that the car has been used by the head constable for the purpose named in the Question or any other private purpose. The Inspector-General considers that the transport car is still required at Cappawhite. The Dundrum Estate has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners, but they have not yet decided whether they will make an offer to purchase it.

  Irish Government Dredger—Ballyness Harbour
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how the dredger, purchased with part of the Irish Development Grant, has been employed; and whether it will soon be available for use at Ballyness Harbour, county Donegal.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Board of Works that the dredger "Sisyphus" made her trial trip at Fenit on 4th March, 1905, and was then employed at Fenit Harbour from 6th March to 5th September. In pursuance of contract with the builders the dredger then went to Limerick for opening up and examination. On 2nd

  1247
  October she proceeded to Galway, and her engagement there will terminate on 20th April, 1906. After an inspection at Limerick the dredger will proceed to Dingle on a three months engagement; and it is proposed that she shall work at harbours on the south coast for the remainder of the present working season. No application has been made to the Board of Works for the use of the dredger at Ballyness Harbour, and the Board are not at present aware whether the place or the work to be done would be suitable for the "Sisyphus."

  Dunfanaghy Lunacy Certificate Fee.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say why the Lord Chancellor has refused to refund to the guardians of the Dunfanaghy union the fee paid by them to the medical officer who certified on the occasion of the committal of Mrs. Grace Ronayne to Letterkenny Asylum on the 30th November, 1904, although he has promised to pay for her maintenance in the asylum.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Registrar in Lunacy in Ireland that, as the fee of the medical officer in this case is not recoverable by law, the Lord Chancellor has no power to authorise payment.

  Native Reservations in Natal.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what lands are reserved for natives in Natal; whether these lands are under the control of the Crown; whether any portion of these reservations has been confiscated recently, and, if so, from what tribes; and what action he intends taking to protect the natives against encroachments upon the lands reserved for them.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has received the following information by telegram from the Governor of Natal:—"Gobizembe has been fined 1,200 cattle and 3,500 sheep and goats. Land on which Gobizembe's tribe resides belongs to and is administered by Natal Native Trust. Portion of this, with the natives residing thereon, has been placed under author-
  1248
  ity of two adjoining chiefs. Gobizembe is to be deposed and the remainder of location will for the time being be administered by magistrate. Gobizembe has no legal title to the land in question, and is merely allowed by the Natal Native Trust to locate his tribe thereon during good behaviour. The fine was inflicted by the officer commanding Militia, under authority of martial law and with approval of civil authorities. The punishment which has been inflicted on this chief was in consequence serious acts of defiance towards the magistrate on the part of large section of his tribe and the failure of Gobizembe to comply with orders of supreme chief, as communicated to him by the officer commanding Militia, to deliver up offenders to the authorities." The hon. Member will observe that this answers, in anticipation, a Question which he has put down on the Paper for to-morrow. I should add, in answer to the hon. Member's first Question, that the total area set apart for natives in Natal is over 2,000,000 acres, distributed among forty-two locations, and is vested in the Natal Native Trust, of which the Governor and Executive Council of the Colony are the trustees. It would appear that the measures taken by the Natal Government are entirely within its competence, but the Secretary of State awaits more ample information by mail.

  Native Rising in Natal.
  COLONEL LEGGE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information regarding the native rising in Natal; and what precautions have been taken for the safety of the white population in that colony.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has received the
  † MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has official information showing that the Native chief Gobizembe, head of one of the Natalian tribes, has been fined 1,200 head of cattle and 3,500 sheep, and a portion of his land confiscated; and, if so, whether this action was taken by the military or civil authorities of Natal; and whether a Report of the proceedings has been sent to the Colonial Office; and if so, what justification is offered for such, proceedings.

  1249
  following telegram from the Governor of Natal, dated yesterday:—"Although certain tribes are still giving trouble and general situation far from satisfactory, Government hope to be able to demobilise Mackenzie's column by the end of week, and to deal with outstanding recalcitrants by Police Field Force only. General Officer Commanding in South Africa agrees to leave 2nd Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders in Pieter-maritzburg for the present." The Natal Government are evidently satisfied that the precautions which they are able to take by means of their Police Field Force will now be sufficient.

  Pembroke Dockyard Discharges.
  MR. PHILIPPS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he can state whether the 200 men, who are to be discharged at Pembroke Dockyard during April and May, will complete the number of men to be discharged from Pembroke Dockyard during the financial year ending 31st March, 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is anticipated that no further reduction, other than that due to natural wastage, will be necessary during the ensuing financial year.

  Sheers in Royal Dockyards.
  LIEUTENANT - COLONEL PHILIPPS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty contemplate erecting a new set of sheers at one of the Royal dockyards; and, if so, whether the contract for the same will be submitted for public tender.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is not in contemplation to erect new sheers at any of the Home dockyards. A new set of 100-ton sheers has been ordered for Gibraltar Yard, and will shortly be erected there. It is proposed to erect a set of 100-ton sheers at the Hong - Kong Yard extension, and to invite tenders for the supply and erection of these sheers from firms on the Admiralty list, i.e., from those who are fully competent to carry out such a contract.

  Case of James McCann.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conviction and sentence to three years penal servitude of James McCann at the recent spring assizes for county Long-ford; whether he is aware that McCann's conviction was secured on the uncorroborated testimony of the injured man, although it was proved that McCann was at his own house at the time of the occurrence; and whether he will call for a report of the whole case with a view to a revision of the sentence.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Attorney-General for Ireland has no power to revise sentences passed by Judges of Assize after conviction of prisoners by jurors; nor can he in any way rescind or alter the verdicts given. In the case referred to, I am informed that a memorial has been presented to the Lord-Lieutenant, on behalf of the prisoner, praying for a remission of the sentence, and His Excellency will, the hon. Member may be assured, give it his careful attention.

  Imprisonment for Contempt of Court in Ireland
  MR. DELANY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will grant a Return of the number of cases within the last twenty years in which persons were imprisoned or fined in Ireland for contempt of court.
  (Answered by Mr. Cnerry.) Successive Returns have been laid before Parliament giving full particulars of cases in which persons have been committed to prison for contempt of court in Ireland during the past twenty years. The last of these Returns, which brought the proceedings down to 31st December, 1904, bears the number 138 of last session. My right hon. friend will have no objection to grant a Return in continuation down to 31st December, 1905, if the hon. Member should move for it.

  Longford Post Office.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is yet

  1251
  in a position to discontinue the experiment of closing Longford Post Office at 8 instead of 9 o'clock p.m.; and, seeing that this order practically reduces the county town of Longford to the postal level of a country village, and in view of the indignation locally aroused over the matter, will he direct the removal of this order.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As I pointed out to the hon. Member, in reply to his Question of the 21st of February†, the usual hour of closing post offices in towns of about the size of Longford is 8 p.m. The experiment of closing the Longford office at that hour has not yet been in force sufficiently long to enable me to come to a decision as to whether or not the arrangement should be made permanent.

  Tristan da Cunha Mails
  MR. ASHLEY; To ask the Postmaster-General whether in future, when it is decided to forward mails to Tristan da Cunha by a ship which does not call at Cape Town, he will acquaint the postal authorities of the Cape Colony by telegraph of the fact, and thus enable letters posted in that colony to reach this country before the ship sails.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Inquiry should be made of the Cape post office whether such communication is desirable supposing that time permits.

  Fruit Industry—Consolidation of Acts.
  MR. NAPIER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Government is prepared to give effect to the recommendations of the recent Departmental Committee on the fruit industry to the effect that the various Agricultural Holdings Acts should be consolidated into one Act, and that the Market Gardeners' Compensation Acts be amended by making Section 4 retrospective.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) There can be no doubt as to the desirability of consolidating the Agricultural
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 358.
  1252
  Holdings Acts, and I should be glad if an opportunity could be found for doing so in connection with the Land Tenure Bill now before the House. The suggestion of the hon. Member will certainly be kept in view. A Bill for amending the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act is now before the House, and I am afraid that, under existing circumstances, I cannot undertake that the Government will introduce legislation of their own on the subject.

  Horticultural Instruction in Elementary Schools.
  MR. NAPIER: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the recent recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the fruit industry that horticulture should be taught in elementary schools in country districts, and that such schools should have school gardens attached thereto wherever possible, and also the further recommendation of the same Committee that the attention of the local education committees should be called to the above recommendation, and also to the desirability of encouraging the study of practical horticulture in training colleges; and if he is prepared to take action on either of such recommendations.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Board give special grants for cottage gardening. These grants are taken considerable and increasing advantage of, in spite of the difficulties in the way of obtaining suitable teachers and gardens. Some county councils are providing excellent classes for the instruction of the existing teaching staffs of rural elementary schools in these subjects. The subject may be taken as part of a training college course, and is, in fact, so taken in one or two colleges, where the surroundings and conditions are favourable.

  Publication of Railway Companies' Running Powers.
  MR. STRAUS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to prevail upon the railway companies to publish their running powers in the same way as they were formerly published by Mr. Airey in his book of junction diagrams, so that the public may know

  1253
  the exact running powers of the various railway companies.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Trade have no authority which would enable them to require the railway companies to give the information desired, but I will bring my hon. friend's suggestion to their attention.

  Hallmarking of Foreign Silver.
  MR. GIBB: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the generally recognised mark of the lion, as denoting silver of a certain standard, he will consider the advisability of restoring the right of foreign manufactured plate of the standard quality to be stamped with the lion, together with a distinctive word, such as imported or foreign, to denote that the article is of foreign manufacture, and so get rid of the protection afforded by the Order in Council, made the 24th October, 1904, to the home-made acticle, by the exclusive right to the use of the lion mark.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Under the Hallmarking of Foreign Plate Act,

  Year ended 31st March.

  In Local Prisons.

  In Convict Prisons.

  Deaths per 1,000 of the average prison population.

  Deaths per 1,000 of the average prison population.

  1896

  6·3

  8·0

  1897

  7·4

  9·7

  1898

  5·6

  6·7

  1899

  5·9

  9·1

  1900

  8·2

  11·8

  1901

  6·0

  10·7

  1902

  6·8

  7·0

  1903

  5·4

  8·9

  1904

  5·3

  3·9

  1905

  5·3

  7·2

  1904, foreign plate brought to an assay office in the United Kingdom has to be so marked as to readily distinguish such plate from plate wrought or made within the Kingdom. In fixing the marks to be adopted by the different assay offices, regard was had to the fact that it is impracticable to stamp such words as those suggested by my hon. friend on small wares. The standard value of silver plate is indicated by numerals stamped thereon, and is easily recognisable.

  Mortality in Prisons.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the rate of mortality in local prisons and in convict prisons in England and Wales during each of the past ten years, and the number of floggings inflicted as gaol punishment in England and Wales during each of the past ten years
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The death rate from natural causes in local and convict prisons during the ten years ended the 31st March, 1905, was as follows:—
  The number of corporal punishments in local and convict prisons for prison offences during each of the ten years ended the 31st March, 1905, was as follows:—

  Year ended 31st March.

  In Local Prisons.

  In Convict Prisons.

  1896

  95

  14

  1897

  112

  19

  1898

  50

  7

  1899

  44

  3

  1900

  17

  12

  1901

  23

  19

  1902

  25

  21

  1903

  27

  20

  1904

  25

  15

  1905

  15

  8

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
  MR. HERBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that upon an application by a parent, under the Vaccination Act, 1898, for a certificate of exemption from vaccination for his child, it is the practice of clerks to justices to require production of a full copy of the certificate of birth of the child, for which under the Registration Act, 1874, a fee of 2s. 6d. has to be paid, and not to accept the certificate of registration prescribed by Section 30 of the Registration Act, 1874, for which a sum not exceeding 3d. is to be paid; and whether, having regard to the fact that the latter certificate equally proves the essential fact of the date of birth, it is within his powers to give instructions that the certificate under Section 30 of the Act shall be accepted as sufficient evidence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have no power to prescribe the evidence which is to be received by a court of justice, but it appears to have been held by the High Court that justices are
  1256
  entitled to require a certificate of birth, unless some reason is shown why it cannot be given.

  Saturday Half-Holidays for Government Officials.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will take the necessary steps to have the Order in Council, dated 15th August, 1890, which provided that officers employed in Government offices should be allowed a half-holiday on alternate Saturdays, so varied as to extend the privilege of the half-holiday to every Saturday on condition that the time is made up by increasing the working hours on other days of the week.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am not sure that the change would be acceptable to the public departments generally, or that their arrangements would permit of its introduction, but I will give further consideration to the subject.

  New Government Offices in Parliament Street.
  COLONEL LEGGE: To ask the First Commissioner of Works how many workmen are at present employed on the new Government offices at the corner of Great George Street and Parliament Street, and when the buildings will be completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The number of the men employed on the building is 255; at the masons' yard ninety-six, and forty-two joiners at the builders' workshops. There are also a number of carvers. It is anticipated that the buildings will be completed towards the end of 1907.

  Extension of the National Gallery.
  MR. NAPIER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government is able to hold out the hope that the extension of the National Gallery asked for by the trustees of that gallery, and long promised, will be provided for in the Estimates for the coming financial year, and will be forthwith commenced.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) His Majesty's Government regrets that there is no prospect of this extension being carried out in the approaching financial year, as it has not been possible to make

  1257
  provision for it in the Estimates. The question will be further considered in the course of the ensuing financial year.

  Mortality in Indian Prisons.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the rate

  Rate of Mortality per mille of Average Strength.

  Total Number of Corporal Punishments in Gaols.

  1895

  26·59

  1,580

  1896

  27·79

  1,753

  1897

  39·64

  1,634

  1898

  25·3

  1,691

  1899

  21·86

  1,686

  1900

  33·46

  1,511

  1901

  25·28

  1,364

  1902

  22·46

  1,315

  1903

  19·52

  1,100

  1904

  17·75

  1,076

  South African War Fund—Claim of John Norris.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will recommend to the favourable consideration of the Commander-in-Chief's Fund (South African War) the claim of John Norris, of Crosshea, county Longford, for a small grant, seeing that his only support was his son, who was killed in South Africa.
  (Answered, by Mr. Buchanan.) A sum of £2 has been granted to this man from the South African War Fund.

  Volunteer Medical Service.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if it is proposed to take any steps to give an effective organisation to the Volunteer Medical Service, with the view of rendering it efficient as a department of the Volunteers, and of bringing it as a whole in close connection with the Army Medical
  of mortality in prisons in India during each of the past ten years, and the number of floggings inflicted as gaol punishment in India during each of the past ten years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The following are the figures asked for:—
  Service; and whether it is intended to give any public recognition for the services of regimental Volunteer medical officers as recommended by the War Office Departmental Committee in 1886.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The whole question is under consideration, and the opinions of individual medical officers and associations are being collected on the subject.

  Officers' Lodging Allowances.
  LORD J. JOICEY-CECIL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers residing in their private houses and not drawing lodging allowances are obliged to pay for the hire of furniture in the hutment quarters at Crown Hill, Plymouth, until another unit takes over these quarters.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Officers who, with the consent of their commanding officers, reside in private

  1259
  houses when quarters are available for them in barracks, and thus forego their lodging money, would have to pay the usual rent deduction of 1d. a day, if they are allotted, and make use of a furnished quarter in barracks; but if they do not require to use such quarter, there is nothing to prevent their handing it over to the officer in charge of the barrack concerned. There is no information at the War Office in regard to the special case mentioned.
  LORD J. JOICEY-CECIL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers to whom quarters have been allotted are compelled to pay for furniture hire, whether they occupy them or not, until they are taken over by some other officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Officers, so long as they have a furnished quarter on their charge, have to pay a continuous rental of 1d. a day.

  Volunteer Colonels.
  MR. HILLS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to appoint Volunteer colonels to command Volunteer infantry brigades; and, if so, how many such appointments will be made, and what the War Office will require of the officers so appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am not at present able to give the full information required by the Question, except that it is intended in some cases to appoint Volunteer colonels.

  Judge Advocate General.
  MR. PAUL: To ask the Secretary of State for War by what legal authority Mr. Milvain holds a permanent salaried office as Judge Advocate General.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Judge Advocate General was appointed by the Secretary of State for War, to whom he is empowered to give advice on all legal questions referred to him.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Railways in Northern Nigeria.
    MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have taken into consideration the repeated recommendations of the High Commissioner for Northern Nigeria, that a railway should be constructed without delay from a port on the Niger to Zaria and Kano; whether they have considered the Report forwarded by the Crown agents, in which the confident expectation is held out that such a railway would be financially self-supporting; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any action in the matter.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The Secretary of State is fully alive to the importance of developing the means of transport in Northern Nigeria, but many important questions have to be considered before a decision can be arrived at, and he is not in a position to say whether any action will be taken in regard to the particular schemes referred to by the hon. Member.

    Ceylon Duty on Indian Tea.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can hold out any prospect of the abolition of the import duty levied in Ceylon upon Indian tea.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Question of abolishing this duty was considered by the Ceylon Government last year, but they decided to make no change in view of the opposition on the part of the local Planters' Association and Chamber of Commerce to its removal. The Colonial Government will, however, be invited to give the matter further consideration.

    Threat to close Johannesburg Mines.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a resolution has been received at the Colonial Office from the

    1261
    trades council of Johannesburg, in reference to the alleged threat of some mineowners to close down the mines and suspend construction work, with a view to accentuating the existing distress in that locality; whether this resolution states that such action is attributable to a desire on the part of the mineowners to force the hand of the Imperial Government on the question of Chinese labour; and, if so, what action the Colonial office intend to take.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has not yet received any such resolution. From information which has reached him he understands that the principal mining houses do not contemplate any policy so ill-advised as to close down mines with a view to accentuating distress; but that on the contrary it has been decided to continue the development work now going on until a dearth of un skilled labour makes itself actually felt.
    MR. FLYNN: If the Colonial Office receives any representation or resolution of this nature will it be communicated to the House?
    MR. CHURCHILL: If they receive any communication of that character it will be for the Government to consider it, but I am not aware that there is any call to communicate it to the House unless some specific request is made.

    Tabah.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Turkish troops are still in occupation of Tabah; and if he can give any information as to the progress of the negotiations with the Sublime Porte on this matter.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,) (for Sir EDWARD GREY): The Turkish troops are still in occupation of Tabah. Negotiations on the subject are still proceeding with the Sublime Porte, but I am unable at present to give any further information.

    Baghdad Railway.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information regarding the progress
    1262
    of the Baghdad railway project which may be communicated to the House.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The first section of the railway from Konia to Eregli was open to traffic in October, 1904; we have no further information as to progress made with it.

    Great Northern Railway—Superannuation Society.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the-President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the Great Northern Railway Company in reducing the superannuation allowance to their employees; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of all the compulsory societies attached to railway employment.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): My attention has not been previously called to this matter as regards the particular railway company mentioned by my hon. friend, but if he will furnish me with any particulars I will consider them. As I informed the hon. Member for Stockport on Thursday last,† I propose to discuss with the authorities of the House, whether any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Committee as suggested.

    Roumanian Tariff.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will explain why, in the official communication to the effect that reductions on the new general tariff of Roumania had been obtained by the United Kingdom in respect to various articles, no information was given to British traders of the fact that the new conventional duties on those articles are in nearly every case higher than the old conventional duties; and whether he will take steps to acquaint British traders with the actual changes in the new as compared with the old conventional duties which have taken place.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The object of the notice referred to by the hon. Member was to state what concessions had been obtained by negotiations with Roumania
    † See (4) Debates, cliv., 626.

    1263
    as compared with the new general tariff rates. A comparison of the new general Roumanian tariff with the old tariff rates was circulated to Chambers of Commerce by the Board of Trade some time previously. When the new conventional tariff assumes its final shape by the completion of the new series of Roumanian treaties, it is proposed to publish a comparative return on the lines of Cd. 2414 of 1905 relating to the German tariff.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the return will be ready—by Easter?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot say at present.

    London and North Western Railway Night Clerical Staff.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the hours worked by the night clerical staff on all parts of the London and North Western Railway; if he will call for a Return for the months of November and December, 1905, and of March, 1906; and if he proposes to give clerks the opportunity for complaint under the Hours Act, 1893.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board of Trade have no power which would enable them to call for a Return, such as that suggested, and persons employed in clerical work are explicitly excluded from the operation of the Railway Regulation Act, 1893.

    Work for the London Unemployed.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board to what number of unemployed work is now being provided by Government Departments in the metropolis; and if he will state the number of men thus employed by different departments, respectively.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The number of men who are employed by the Central Unemployed Body for London on work provided by the Government is 187. The work is provided by His Majesty's Office of Works.

    Grove Park Workhouse.
    MR. BARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Greenwich Board of Guardians held an inquiry into alleged irregularities in the consumption of stores by outside officers at the Grove Park Workhouse, on the statements of the assistant cook, and that such charges were held to be true; if he is aware that the assistant cook was dismissed by being called upon to resign in consequence and that the two engineers implicated had their wages subsequently raised, and that the Local Government Board refused to sanction the increases; that, despite this refusal, the guardians are paying the increases out of the local rates, and that these two officers are related to members of the Greenwich Board of Guardians; and will he state what steps the Local Government Board propose taking in order to ensure their decision being adopted.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: It is the fact that the Local Government Board have recently declined to sanction an increase in the salaries of the engineer and assistant engineer at the Grove Park Workhouse; but I have no information on the other matters referred to in the Question. I will make inquiry on the subject.

    Foreign Money Orders.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the rate for money orders to be sent abroad is at the entire discretion of the British postal authorities; and, if so, whether he can put the United Kingdom on the same scale for sending post office orders abroad as other countries charge for remitting to the United Kingdom.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The uniform rates of commission for all money orders sent abroad are fixed by Treasury regulations, and correspond to the estimated cost of the service. They are generally more favourable to the remitter in this country than the rates which most foreign post offices charge for orders issued on this country.

    Statute Law Revision.
    MR. RADFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury

    1265
    whether he is aware that, since the publication of the last volume of the revised edition of the statutes in 1900, statutes and parts of statutes covering more than 1,000 pages in such edition have been repealed, and that more than 1,200 short titles have been given to existing statutes; and whether it is intended forthwith to publish a new edition, omitting the repealed enactments, adding the short titles to the existing statutes, and otherwise revised up to the present date.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion under the consideration of the Statute Law Revision Committee, within whose province the matter rests. I understand that a new volume, bringing the present edition of the revised statutes up to 1900, is now in hand, and that the Committee do not consider that the time has quite arrived for the commencement of a fresh revision.

    Bradford Education Dispute.
    MR. NUSSEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Morley Division of Yorks, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Bradford City Council, acting in the capacity of education authority, has repeatedly refused to pay the advance in salary due to the officials in the education office according to the scale under which they were engaged by the late School Board; and whether he proposes to take any action under the Defaulting Authorities Act or otherwise.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): I am aware of the facts stated in the Question. The total increase amounts to about £250 yearly. As this is a question between the Bradford Education Authority and its staff, the matter may safely be left to the decision of the City Council and its legal advisers. I do not for one moment believe the City Council will fail to fulfil any agreement entered into by themselves or to meet any obligation inherited by them from their predecessors.

    Education Bill.
    SIR HENRY CRAIK: To ask the
    1266
    President of the Board of Education, if the Education Bill will be introduced before the Easter recess.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am not without some hope of introducing the Bill before Easter.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman fix the date approximately?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think I can fix the day, but the hon. Member will see that if at all it must be just before Easter.

    St. Mark's Infant School, Horsham.
    MR. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the dismissal of Miss Gardner, the head mistress of St. Mark's Infant School at Horsham, a school recently under the education authority, on the ground of her being a Nonconformist; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, steps will be taken to provide the dismissed teacher at the earliest opportunity with another appointment of similar value.
    MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been drawn to a newspaper cutting which purports to give the facts of this case. The actual situation appears to be as follows. This school was originally a Church of England School, but was leased to the local authority in 1889. The trustees of the school have now given notice to terminate the lease on June 13th next, and have given the statutory notice of their desire to re-establish it as a voluntary school. The local authority raise no objection to the proposal which cannot, at the earliest, be considered by the Board until after the expiration of the statutory notice on June 1st. I gather that the trustees have been approached as to their willingness to take over the existing staff of the school. The trustees have not apparently, as yet, come to any decision, but they seem to have a difficulty in employing as head mistress of a Church of England school the present head mistress, Miss Gardner, who is a Nonconformist. I have no power to force the trustees to appoint Miss Gardner in the event of the school becoming a Church of England school, or

    1267
    to provide her with a fresh appointment elsewhere.

    Scottish Education Code.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland under what statutory or other authorities the Scotch Education Department issued the code of regulations for day schools in 1905, and the draft regulations for the preliminary education, training and certification of teachers for various grades of schools in 1906, the names of titles and dates of such statutes or other authorities.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The authorities desired by the hon. Member are:—An Order in Council of April 10th, 1839, and the following statutes:—19 and 20 Vict., cap. 116; 35 and 36 Vict., cap. 62; 48 and 49 Vict. cap. 61.

    Scottish Fishery Board.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the scientific member of the Scottish Fishery Board is paid a salary; and, if so, how much.
    MR. SINCLAIR: He is paid no salary as scientific member of the Fishery Board.

    Cork Registrar of Titles.
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will consider the propriety of testing the validity of the appointment of Mr. Wright as registrar of titles in the County of Cork, by proceedings in the High Court of Justice, before moving the Second Reading of the Local Registration of Titles (Ireland) Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): It is extremely undesirable in the public interest to delay the passing of the Bill now before the House by any proceedings such as are suggested in the Question, inasmuch as the Government are advised that Mr. Wright was not clerk of the Crown and Peace for the county of Cork so as to be capable of being appointed registrar of titles for the county of Cork under Section 4 of the Act of 1891 (Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act).
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Wright has been advised by very eminent counsel in Ireland that he is properly appointed?
    MR. CHERRY: I am not aware of it.
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: In view of it will you reconsider your decision?
    MR. CHERRY: I am afraid it is impossible for me to do that.
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will place upon the Table of the House the terms of appointment of Mr. Wright as registrar of titles, and any correspondence which has passed between him and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or the Chief Secretary's Department with reference to such appointment.
    MR. CHERRY: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a Bill has been introduced dealing with the local registration of title in the county of Cork, and I propose on the Second Reading of the Bill to state the terms of Mr. Wright's appointment, which the Government have been advised is invalid under the existing law. I propose also to refer to the correspondence which has passed on the subject. I shall be very glad to show these documents to the right hon. Gentleman at any time he wishes, but I do not think it necessary to place them upon the Table of the House.
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: How are Members of the House who are not acquainted with this document to form an opinion as to the legality of this gentleman's appointment unless they see the document?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it the same as the Dudley correspondence?
    [MR. CHERRY'S Answer was inaudible.]

    Irish Land Act Administration—Crown Protection for the Sheriff.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when a landlord proposes to sell his interest to his tenants and they, deeming the price too

    1269
    high, offer to buy at such price as the Estates Commissioners find the respective holdings on inspection to be worth, and the landlord declines this offer and proceeds for the recovery of the rents, upon which his proposed prices were based, will the forces of the Crown be at his service in this enterprise.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): It is not competent to the Executive Government to refuse the assistance of the forces of the Crown for the protection of the Sheriff when engaged in the execution of the King's writ.

    Landlords and Embarrassed Tenants
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the recent dicta of the Land Judge in Ireland that he, the Land Judge, had always found Irish tenants most reasonable, and that embarrassed tenants were not free agents when signing purchase agreements; and if he will have a record kept of landlords who have demanded high prices from embarrassed tenants and afterwards proceeded against those tenants for the recovery of the rents upon which those prices were calculated.
    MR. BRYCE: My attention has been drawn to newspaper reports of the Land Judge's remarks to the effect mentioned in the Question. I am not aware that any good purpose would be served by keeping such a record as is referred to in the latter part of the Question, and in any event, apart from the difficulty of deciding what are high prices, I have no means of obtaining the necessary information.

    Refusals and Advances.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in cases in which landlords submit to the Estates Commissioners purchase agreements purporting to have been signed by tenants, and the Commissioners hold that the prices are excessive, and on that ground refuse to advance the sum asked, do they communicate their decision with the grounds of it to the tenants who are principal parties in the matter; and, if not, will he take steps to have every such decision, with the grounds of it, communicated directly to every tenant whom it affects.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in cases in which they may refuse to sanction the advances applied for, whether on the grounds of security or otherwise, it has been their practice to notify to the solicitor having carriage of the sales that such advances have been refused. The Commissioners assume that such notification is communicated by the solicitor to the tenant concerned, but they inform me that they will consider the desirability of directly notifying the tenant of their decision in such cases.

    Police in County Clare.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of extra police in the county of Clare, and the parishes in which they are stationed, and why they are stationed there; will he say whether the ratepayers are paying for these extra police; and, if so, will he remove them, in view of the statement of the Lord Chief Justice for Ireland, at the last assizes for the county of Clare, held at Ennis, that the county was in a peaceful state.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that no extra police force is stationed in the county of Clare.

    Maynooth College-
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the amount of endowment received under the Irish Church Act, out of the confiscated church funds, in connection with Maynooth College, the amounts due for building to the Board of Works, which was cancelled by the same Act, the allocation of the annual income, the names of all persons paid and their amounts; and what amount, if any, was expended on pensions, the number of students, and the amount of total fees paid by them, together with the amounts of bursaries payable to students.
    MR. BRYCE: The annual endowment received by the Maynooth College out of the Consolidated Fund was extinguished under Section 40 of the Irish Church Act, 1869, by the payment of a capital sum of £372,331 out of the Church Fund. This capital sum consisted of fourteen times the amount of the annual sum paid to the

    1271
    Trustees of the College in the year ending March 31st, 1869. The amount of the outstanding loan for building due to the Board of Works, which was remitted under the same Act, was £15,857 9s. 2d. I have no information which would enable me to answer the remainder of the Question.

    Contempt of Court—Case of Mr. Thomas Smith, Justice of the Peace.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor will be called to the fact that an attachment has been issued against Mr. Thomas Smith, Justice of the Peace, for contempt of Court in having taken part in an act of intimidation, with a view to the removal of this person's name from a Commission of the Peace.
    MR. BRYCE: It is not the practice of the Government to call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to cases in which his jurisdiction as to magistrates is involved. If his jurisdiction is invoked, I have no doubt he will institute any such inquiries as he may think necessary, and exercise his discretion after he is satisfied as to the facts.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I presume the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this gentleman has been committed without having been heard in his own defence.
    MR. BRYCE: I understand it is a committal for contempt of Court.

    Dublin Corporation Auditor.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of Mr. Drury, one of the auditors of the Local Government Board, on his audit of the accounts of the Corporation of Dublin for the year ended March, 1905; whether the auditor has surcharged the members of the corporation who voted an increase of £2,000 in the salary of the Lord Mayor; whether the borough fund is overdrawn to the extent of £10,000; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board have received Mr. Drury's report
    1272
    on his audit of the accounts of the Corporation of Dublin for the year ended March 31st, 1905. The answer to the second inquiry is in the negative. I am, however, informed that in consequence of a recent decision of the Court of King's Bench on the subject of the salaries of the Lord Mayor and his Secretary, the auditor felt constrained to make a surcharge amounting to £3,507 16s. 6d. against the treasurer of the City of Dublin in respect of the salaries paid during the year ended March 31st, 1905. The resolutions of the Council appointing these salaries, and of the Committee who authorised the payments in respect of them, were legal so far as they went, but the action of the Treasury in issuing the Paying Orders was technically wrong, having regard to the decision of the Court. In these circumstances the Local Government Board do not propose to enforce the surcharge. I am informed that the overdraft on the borough fund amounts at present to less than £3,000.
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: Who will have to bear the cost?
    MR. BRYCE: I must ask for notice of that.

    Irish Land Commission Staff.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he proposes to increase the staff of the Irish Land Commission, now officially announced to be seriously understaffed.
    MR. BRYCE: I am not aware of the official announcement to which the hon. Member refers. The Question, however, of increasing the staff of the Estates Commissioners is under consideration.

    Annesley and Downshire Estates.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many second-term rents have been fixed during the past twelve months by Sub-Commissioner M'Connell on the county Down estates of the Earl of Annesley and the Marquis of Downshire respectively, and the average per cent. reduction on each estate; whether he can

    1273
    state if the withdrawal by these landlords of the scale of voluntary reductions is traceable to the decisions of the lay Sub-Commissioner; and, if not, whether any other reason is assigned by the Chief Land Commission.
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that the assistant Commissioner named in the Question has himself judicially fixed rents. He is but one member of a Sub-Commission Court which fixes rents. I am informed by the Land Commission that they do not think it desirable to discuss the merits of the judicial decisions of Sub-Commission Courts. If any party to a case is dissatisfied with the decision, he has a remedy in the right of appeal conferred by statute.
    MR. MACVEAGH: The right hon. Gentleman has not said if landlords have withdrawn their scales of voluntary reductions in this district in consequence of the decisions of this Sub-Commissioner.
    MR. BRYCE: I am not informed on that point.
    MR. MACVEAGH:: I have put that Question twice. I will put it again.

    High Courts of Ireland—Appointments.
    MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of appointments made by nomination and the number by competition in the High Courts in Ireland during the past five years; and what the number of vacancies now are, when they are to be filled, and how.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Secretary to the Lord Chancellor that the regulations as to the filling of vacancies in the offices of the Supreme Court by open competition apply only to the junior clerkships. During the last five years eleven junior clerks have been appointed. Of these, five were appointed by open competition, two were promoted to be junior clerks in their respective offices under statutory provisions applying to themselves, four were appointed by Judges whose rights of patronage personal to themselves) still subsist, and one clerk who had passed a qualifying examination
    1274
    on entering the service was transferred from another department to the Chancery Registrar's Office. There is one vacancy for a junior clerkship in the High Court to be filled up by open competition in the usual course, and the date for the examination will be shortly fixed. There is also a vacant clerkship in the Central Office under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, but the status of the clerkships and requirements of that office are under consideration.

    Disloyalty of Royal University Students.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in connection with any Papers he may lay upon the Table with reference to the exhibition of disloyalty by students of the Royal University and the powers of the Senate in reference thereto, he will include the cases submitted to the late Law Officers by the Senate and by the Chancellor and the replies; also the advice given to the present Government to the effect that the Senate possesses ample powers to frame a statute for the repression and punishment of disorder.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question of Wednesday last.† Until the matter there referred to has come before the Senate of the Royal University, it will be premature to consider the Question now raised. The hon. Member, however, is no doubt aware that it is not the practice to lay the opinions of Law Officers on the Table of the House.

    Police Protection in Cork County.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the charge of Mr. Justice Johnson to the grand jury at the recent assizes for Cork, in which he dwelt upon the fact that there was a considerable addition to the number of persons in the county to whom it had been found necessary to afford constant protection by police patrols; and whether he proposes to take special measures to deal with this state of affairs.
    MR. BRYCE: I have seen a newspaper report of the learned Judge's address to the Grand Jury in which he
    † See (4) Debates, cliv.,396.

    1275
    quoted, from the county report on the East Biding of Cork, a statement to the effect mentioned in the Question. I observe, however, that the Question makes no reference to the further fact quoted from that report by the learned Judge, namely, that the Riding, generally speaking, is in a satisfactory condition. I am not aware that any special measures are necessary other than those which are at present being taken.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask whether the practice of head constables and county inspectors reporting privately on the state of the district to the Judge of Assize has any analogy in England, and whether there is any objection to laying these reports on the Table for publication?
    MR. BRYCE.As to the last Question, I must ask for notice. With regard to the first, I am not aware what the practice is in England, but as a newspaper reader I do not see that it exists.

    Holocaust of Magazines.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a scene which took place in Sligo on the 21st instant, when a number of magazines, including the Sunday Companion, London Magazine, Answers, and a number of others, were burned in Sligo Roman Catholic cathedral yard, and if he can state what were the special circumstances under which these periodicals were destroyed.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that on the evening of the 21st instant the police found a pile of magazines and journals burning on a triangular patch of waste ground where three roads meet near the Sligo Roman Catholic cathedral. About sixty boys and girls were round the fire. The motive for burning these periodicals is a matter for surmise.

    Trinity College Commission.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposed Commission to be appointed to make inquiries into Trinity College will also make inquiries into Maynooth College, or will he appoint a special Commission to deal with
    1276
    the Returns from Maynooth and enable both Reports to appear simultaneously.
    MR. BRYCE: negative. The Answer is in the negative

    Irish Agriculture.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the subject of Irish agriculture; and, if so, who will constitute the Commission, and what are the terms of reference.
    MR. BRYCE: The Government have expressed no such intention. Possibly, however, the hon. Member may refer to the Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction which is being appointed. I have already announced the names of the members of that Committee, and the terms of reference to it.

    Belleek School Teacher.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland the reasons, if any, alleged for the impending dismissal of Mr. Patrick Duffy, principal teacher of Rosscor West national school, Belleek, county Fermanagh; whether he is aware that the proposed dismissal of Mr. Duffy is contrary to the wishes of the people of the district, who have sent in an influentially signed petition against it; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to having the dismissal withdrawn.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that on October 10th, 1905, they ordered the dismissal of the teacher in question because of his long continued inefficiency. Two petitions praying for Mr. Duffy's retention as teacher have been received by the Commissioners; but, in view of the reports on the school, they are unable to depart from their decision. The matter is entirely one for the Commissioners to deal with.

    Marquis of Ely's Estate.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is

    1277
    aware that agreements for the sale of the estates of the Marquis of Ely in county Fermanagh were perfected so long ago as November or December, 1903; whether the proceedings for sale to the tenants are still pending; if so, what is the cause of the delay in completion; and whether he will direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to this property with a view to purchase by them, if direct sale to the tenants be not possible.
    MR. BRYCE: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this Question for a few days. The estate referred to is in the Land Judge's Court, but the Registrar of the Court informs me that, having regard to the short notice given, he has been unable to furnish a report in the matter. The estate has not come before the Estates Commissioners. May I say that out of more than fifty Questions which appeared on the Paper to-day more than twenty only appeared in yesterday morning's papers, and it is really quite impossible for me to get answers from Ireland in time. I must therefore ask hon. Members to give me more notice unless it is a matter of urgency.

    Mr. Fallon's Salary.,
    MR. CHARLES MCVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what are the qualifications and what is the salary of Mr. Fallon, inspector of the parish committee scheme of improvement under the Congested Districts Board, Ireland; whether the salary of the private secretary of this inspector is paid by the Board; and if the Board will consider whether the inspection of the scheme can be more efficiently and more economically carried out by the assistant county surveyors of the various county councils in Ireland than under the present system.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that Mr. Fallon is a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers. His salary is £200 per annum. He has no private secretary or clerical assistant. He is an assistant land inspector under the Congested Districts Board, and his principal duties are connected with the Board's estates. He has recently been directed to report on the manner in which the parish committee scheme in county Donegal has been carried
    1278
    out. The duties in question could not be transferred by the Board to county surveyors.

    Evicted Tenants in Cork County.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that a promise has been given to send immediately inspectors to South Cork and other constituencies, arrangements have been made by the Estates Commissioners to institute full and exhaustive inquiries into the circumstances of all the evicted tenants in those constituencies; whether it is the intention of the Estates Commissioners to instruct their inspectors, when visiting those districts, to invite the assistance of the local Member and other representative men when interviewing and negotiating between present occupiers, if any, evicted tenants, and the landlords of the estates from which they were evicted; and, if | not, will stops be taken to issue Instructions to do so with a view of eliciting such information as would lead to and facilitate the reinstatement of the tenants on their former holdings.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to my reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 26th February. No promise to send inspectors to South Cork immediately has been given, but the Estates Commissioners will prosecute inquiries into the cases of all evicted tenants who have made application to them, as rapidly as possible. The nature of the inquiries which the Commissioners propose to make is indicated in Part IV. of the Instructions to Inspectors which were recently laid on the Table.

    Oughterard Workhouse Dining Hall.
    MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the action of the Local Government Board in withholding their sanction to the holding of a concert, under the auspices of the Gaelic League, in the dining hall of the Oughterard workhouse, although the proceeds of the concert are partly for the benefit of the workhouse children; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    † See (4) Debates, clii, 797.
    MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board have informed the Board of Guardians of Oughterard Union that, having regard to the legal decision in the case of the Attorney-General v. Middleton Guardians, they considered that they had no power to sanction the use of the workhouse premises for any person which is unconnected with the administration of the poor laws.
    MR. O'MALLEY: The Local Government Board actually sanctioned a concert there a little while ago.

    Lough Corrib.
    MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a memorial was lodged with the Department of Agriculture in the summer of 1904, asking that a ferry should be established between Kilbeg and Knoch Ferry on Lough Corrib; can he say whether any and, if so, what Report has been made on the subject, and what decision has been arrived at.
    MR. BRYCE: The memorial in question was received by the Department of Agriculture on July 29th, 1904. The Department, in conjunction with the Congested Districts Board, have since had the site of the proposed pontoon ferry surveyed, but the site has been found to be unsuitable for the purpose in view; and in the opinion of the departments concerned it could not be made suitable without a much larger expenditure than the circumstances would warrant.

    Galway Technical Institute.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a meeting held on February 22nd the Galway Technical Institute Committee passed a resolution approving of the appointment and payment of an examination secretary; that their action in this matter was prompted by reason of the growing work and heavy correspondence attending examinations; that the resolution was duly forwarded to Dublin to be dealt with by the Board of the Department of Technical Instruction at their meeting on March 15th; that, whereas two other subjects dealing with the case of an art pupil teacher and the appointment of an assistant teacher
    1280
    forwarded at the same time by the Galway Committee for consideration by the Board were reserved for the meeting on the 15th of March, the resolution dealing with the appointment of a paid secretary was not so reserved, but was. previously dealt with and disallowed by officials; will he say who were the officials who considered this matter; upon what ground they based their action; and is he aware that paid examination secretaries are appointed in England.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the-Department of Agriculture that the: matters referred to in the Question as having been submitted to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction by the Galway Technical Instruction Committee were not matters for submission to the Board of Technical Instruction, and consequently none of them were brought before that Board. The Department have been in communication with the Committee with reference to the duties of their principal executive officer, but are unable to approve of the proposal to appoint an examination secretary to assist that officer. The Department are satisfied that the duties of that officer are not excessive, and under the terms of his appointment the duties of examination secretary are imposed upon him, and could not well be delegated to any other person. The Department do not know if paid secretaries are appointed in England.

    Uneconomic Holdings in County Galway.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at Benmore, Galway, there-are a number of tenants living upon uneconomic holdings of three, four, and five acres, while in the immediate vicinity there is a large area of untenanted grass lands, and that the tenants have enjoyed in no way the benefits of the Land Purchase Act of 1903, or received consideration from the Congested Districts Board; and whether he will ask the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board to investigate the case of these tenants.
    MR. BRYCE: The Congested Districts Board have purchased the Benmore Estate, but the property has not yet been vested in the Board, and in the

    1281
    meantime they have no power to dispose of it to the tenants referred to in the Question. The Board will lose no time in disposing of the lands as soon as they are in a position to do so.

    Irish Agricultural Department Inquiry.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consent to have two representatives of the agricultural, industrial, and trading interest in Ireland, to be nominated by the County Councils General Council, placed upon the Commission of Inquiry into the working of the Department.
    MR. BRYCE: In my opinion the Committee is already sufficiently large, and I am not prepared to make any addition to it. The inquiry is not one into the agricultural and industrial conditions of Ireland generally, but into the working of a particular Act.

    Crookenden and Casey Estate, County Caven.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have refused to sanction the sale of the Crookenden and Casey Estate, county Cavan; will he state what the Commissioners' reasons were, what were the terms of sale proposed, who was responsible for the same, and whether these tenants may hope for another opportunity of purchasing.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that proceedings were instituted before them for the sale of the property, referred to as five separate estates. The total purchase-money agreed upon was £41,982. The Commissioners had three of the estates inspected, the proposed purchase price of which averaged 21·8 years' purchase of the nominal rents. The Commissioners, in the exercise of the discretion vested in them by statute, declined to declare the land fit to be regarded as separate estates for the purposes of the Act of 1903. They will, however, be prepared to consider any application which may be made to them to purchase the estate under Section 6 of the Act.

    Imprisonment for Contempt of Court—Treatment of Prisoners.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Thomas J. Smith, J.P., Joseph Mulligan, and Terence Fitzpatrick, at present lodged in Dundalk Prison, under. an order of the Land Judge for contempt of Court, are confined in their cells for twenty-two hours each day; whether, when the friends of these men visited the prison, they were only allowed to communicate through an iron grating in the presence and hearing of a warder, who stood prepared with note book and pencil to report the interview; and will he say whether the police have reported that the account given by John Brady, on whose affidavit the attachment was had, was exaggerated.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of releasing these men, as they are well known members of the Nationalist Party?
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. In accordance with the prison rules, these prisoners have two hours' daily exercise and are confined in their cells for the rest of the day. It is the fact that when these prisoners received visits from their friends they were separated from them by a wire netting. There is no regulation requiring such separation in the case of first-class misdemeanants, and the General Prisons Board have instructed the governor of the prison to discontinue the arrangement in this case. It is necessary under the rules that an officer should be present at such visits, but it is not the fact that the officer has a notebook and pencil in order to report the interview. I cannot give any information in reply to the last inquiry. Reports furnished by the police to their superior officers are privileged documents and their contents cannot be disclosed.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman institute an inquiry into the circumstances of this case?
    MR. BRYCEsuggested that the Question could be discussed on the Motion which had been put down in

    1283
    reference to contempt of Court. He was not prepared to order a special inquiry.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: The Motion for next week is a general one; this is a particular case, and in view of the fact that these gentlemen have been committed to prison without having been heard in their own defence I ask for an inquiry.
    MR. BRYCE: I am afraid I can give no undertaking.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Gladstone's speech in 1882, in which he said the law as to contempt needed amelioration, and that he would bring in a Bill next year limiting it?
    MR. BRYCE: I have referred to the speech. I cannot argue the point now, but at the proper time I shall be prepared to deal with it.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Thomas J. Smith, J.P., Terence Fitzpatrick, and Joseph Mulligan, who were removed to Dundalk Gaol on Friday last under an attachment order for contempt of court, were arrested by Arthur Forbes, who is the receiver on the estate affected by the proceedings; is he also aware that Mr. Forbes initiated the proceedings and attended specially in Dublin on the hearing of the Motion; and can he say if Mr. Forbes will charge the estate for attendance as receiver in Dublin, and also in his capacity as sheriff for subsequently executing the order, or will these amounts, if not personally paid, be a public charge.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that he has no official knowlege that Mr. Arthur Forbes, who, as sub-sheriff for County Cavan, executed the writs of attachment in this case, is the same person as the receiver of that name who instituted the proceedings for contempt of court; but, having made inquiries, the registrar is satisfied that the receiver and sub-sheriff are one and the same person. The registrar adds that under the usual practice of the Court, all proper costs and expenses in such cases are paid by the
    1284
    persons attached, and failing payment by such persons the matter rests in the discretion of the Court.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Then the person who initiated the proceedings and obtained the order of attachment afterwards as sheriff executed it?
    MR. BRYCE: I gather that is the result of the Answer.
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: Could the Judge of the High Court have directed any one else to execute the order?
    [No Answer was audible.]

    Irish Elementary School Teachers.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what scheme he proposes in order to increase the salaries of teachers in Irish elementary schools.
    MR. BRYCE: I explained fully to the House last week that this matter rests primarily with the Commissioners of National Education;† and of course it rests also with the Treasury. They and the Irish Government will consider it in conjunction. I think the salaries of the teachers ought in many cases to be increased, but I can make no statement on the subject at present.

    Grants to Irish Secondary Schools.
    MR. A. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the rate of payment of grants awarded to secondary schools by the Intermediate Board for Ireland has been reduced by one-third; that this reduction was made suddenly; that consequently many schools, on account of loss of income, are scarcely able to meet their requirements and to maintain the necessary staff; that the amount of money expended by the Board in prizes and exhibitions has also been largely reduced during the past few years; and that while reductions are being made in school grants, and in rewards to deserving pupils, the expenditure on administration and examinations has been largely increased; will he explain why these reductions of grants have been made in
    † See (4) Debates, cliv., 711.

    1285
    spite of the fact that the Board has built up a reserve fund of more than £100,000; and will- he say if secondary schools in Ireland are rewarded in proportion to the increase of expenditure in alcoholic drinks, and fined in proportion to the increase of sobriety in the country.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education that although the rate of payment for school grant has been reduced by approximately one-third in comparison with the rate of 1904, the total amount distributed in 1905 among managers of schools was £49,922 in school grant, and £2,974 in bonuses for choirs and orchestras, as against £57,982 in school grant and £1,187 in bonuses in 1904. It was generally known that there had been a considerable increase in the number of students examined in 1905, and, in the opinion of the Board, the school authorities might therefore have anticipated a reduction in the rate. The amount of money expended on exhibitions and prizes has been diminished, but the amount saved in that way has gone towards the school grant. The expenditure on administration has not been increased, but the expenditure on examinations has necessarily increased with the numbers of students to be dealt with. Under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, the Board receive the residue of the Irish share of the Customs and Excise?duties, after payment of £78,000 to the Commissioners of National Education, and?consequently the amount of this principal source of the Board's income must vary with the amount of those duties.

    Macroom District Council and the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a Resolution has been received by the Estates Commissioners from the Macroom Rural District requesting them, in the event of their purchasing any estate in that district in which there is untenanted land, to allocate and divide up the same among evicted tenants, tenants of uneconomic holdings, and labourers skilled and unskilled, pursuant to the provisions of the Land Act of 1903, and further suggesting that the powers vested in the Commissioners for stocking and improving the portions of
    1286
    untenanted land so divided, and for helping the new occupiers to till the same, should be exercised as far as possible, and expressing the willingness of the district council to appoint trustees to carry out the provisions regarding labourers contained in the Act; and will he state what instructions have been given regarding this Resolution.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received a copy of the Resolution referred to in the Question, and that, in the event of their acquiring untenanted land in the district, they will duly consider the views expressed in the Resolution.

    Royal Irish Constabulary Salaries.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many assistant inspector generals of the Royal Irish Constabulary now hold office; when was the number increased; what are the amounts of their salaries and allowances, respectively, and of those of the inspector general; what was the number of and the total amount of the pay and allowances of the county inpectors in Ireland for the last financial year; what was the number of and the total amount of the pay and allowances of district inspectors for the same year; and what reduction in the numbers and annual cost of county inspectors and district inspectors has been made within the past three years.
    MR. BRYCE: The number of assistant inspectors-general now holding office is three, of whom one is commandant of the Royal Irish Constabulary depot. This number was fixed by statute in 1859. The salaries and allowances of these officers, as well as those of the inspector-general, deputy inspector-general, and the other officers referred to in the Question, are fully stated in the Annual Estimates, to which I beg to refer the hon. Member. The Estimates for the coming financial year make provision for 206 district inspectors, as compared with 213 three years ago, the saving thus effected being £1,771. No reduction in the number of county inspectors has been made.

    Pauper Lunatic Charges in Ireland.
    MR. CHARLES MCVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

    1287
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a Resolution of the Ballinasloe Asylum Committee, and afterwards adopted by the Donegal District Asylum Committee, asking for legislation in favour of the relief of local taxation for the upkeep of pauper lunatics in Irish asylums by making it a charge on Imperial funds; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to the reply which I gave to the similar Question of the hon. Member for North Longford on Monday last.†

    Letterkenny and Stranorlar District Councils.
    MR. CHARLES MCVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a Resolution passed by the Urban District Council at Letterkenny, East Donegal, on December 4th, 1905; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in view of its effect upon the whole of the county Donegal.
    MR. CHARLES MCVEIGH: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed by the Stranorlar District Council, East Donegal, on the 19th instant; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in this matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I have received the Resolutions referred to in these two Questions. I understand that in the | last session of Parliament a Bill was introduced by the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland and the; Midland Railway Company, under which these companies proposed to purchase the undertaking of the Donegal Railway Company. The Bill was opposed by both the Corporation and the Harbour Commissioners of Londonderry, at whose | instance a clause was inserted securing a preferential rate for goods carried on the Donegal railway from and to the Port of Londonderry. The Bill of last session was dropped by its promoters, but has now been re-introduced without any clause for preferential rates in favour of Londonderry. The Resolutions to which
    † See (4) Debates, cliv., 845.
    1288
    the Questions refer protest against the insertion in the Bill of any such clause. The matter will be one for Parliament to deal with in due course.

    Stamp Duty on Purchase Agreements.
    MR.O'SHEE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that on the sale of a farm, purchased under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts by the tenant purchaser, the stamp duty impressed on the conveyance or transfer is assessed, not only on the purchase price given to the tenant purchaser of the farm, but also on the entire amount outstanding of the advance which had been made by the Land Commission to the landlord at the time of the sale by him to his tenants whether he is aware that during the Committee stage of the Land Act of 1903, when passing through Parliament, the late Attorney-General for Ireland undertook to consider an Amendment moved on this matter before the Report stage of the Bill, but that no decision was announced at that stage;. and whether, in view of the burden which: this assessment will inflict in connection with the sale and transfer of land in Ireland, the stamp duty on such sales and transfers will be limited to the amount payable in respect of the actual consideration.
    MR. MCKENNA: Stamp duty is. properly charged, by reference to Section 57 of the Stamp Act, 1891, not only on the money consideration paid by the transferee but also on the outstanding portion of any advance made to the purchasing tenant. This provision of the law is not peculiar to Ireland, but is of general application and affects any property conveyed to any person subject to the payment of any money. There is no ground for changing either the law or the settled practice in such cases.
    MR. O'SHEE: Is not this a burden, which was never contemplated when the Act was passed?
    MR. MCKENNA: I will look into the matter.

    Signatures in Irish for the Post Office Savings Bank
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is

    1289
    aware that, on the 12th instant, three gentlemen called at the post office, Curragh Camp, to open a joint account in the savings banks, but the clerks refused to accept the forms tendered on the ground that the were signed in Irish; can he say why this exception is made in the case of a savings bank account, seeing that postal orders are cashed although signed in Irish.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The chief safeguard against fraudulent withdrawals from savings bank accounts is afforded by the comparison of signatures; and as an account may be operated upon at any of 14,600 post offices in the United Kingdom, it is essential, if this safeguard is to possess any value, that the signatures should be written in characters understood by the post office staff generally.

    Enniskillen Post Office—Fees on Callers' Letters.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if it was by his authority, and, if so, for what reason, that a special charge of 3d. was made to all persons applying for their letters at the Enniskillen post office on Saturday the 17th March; if not by his authority, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter, and prevent such a charge being made in the future.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The 17th of March was a Bank Holiday in Ireland, and a charge of 3d. is the authorised charge to persons calling for letters at any Post Office on Bank Holidays, unless they are private box renters or persons entitled to use the Poste Restante.

    Scottish Supply
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Scottish Supply will be taken before Easter.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): No, Sir. I do not think that there is any probability of Scottish Supply being taken before Easter.

    Time Limit on Speeches.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
    1290
    whether, in view of the complaint of length of speeches in this House and consequent delay in the transaction of business, he will suggest to the Select Committee on Procedure that they should consider the question and report proposals for a time limit on speeches.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I shall be very glad if the Select Committee find it within their reference to make a proposal on this subject, but this is a matter entirely within' their discretion.

    South African Committee of Inquiry.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the public will be allowed to attend the ordinary sittings of the South African Commission except in such special cases when the Commissioners, think it desirable to take evidence in private
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The members of the Committee—not Commission—will be left to take such steps as they think fit to attain the objects, for which they have been appointed, and we have perfect confidence in their discretion.

    Transvaal Voters' Roll.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to: ask the First Lord of the Treasury what is the estimated number of young farmers in the Transvaal whose admissions to the voters' roll is desirable according to the instructions given to the South African Committee, and if this instruction applies, equally in the Orange River Colony.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is one of the questions which the Committee are being sent out to South. Africa to investigate. It is part of the instruction to the Committee to report the probable number of voters added to the roll by a system of manhood suffrage —and no estimate such as that described by the hon. Member can be given pending their report. The Committee:are also instructed to make some estimate of the results of applying analogous processes to the Orange River Colony.

    Chinese Coolies in South Africa.
    MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, in view of the order to Sir West Ridgeway

    1291
    to inquire into the social conditions of the population, the South African Committee will be allowed to report on the status and social condition of the Chinese coolies.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:No, Sir, this will be no part of their duty.

    New South African Constitutions.
    MR. BECKETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if Parliament will be allowed to express its opinion on the scheme to be submitted by the South African Committee, or if the constitution of the new Colonies is to be solely determined by His Majesty's Government.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: No scheme will be submitted by the South African Committee. The Constitution of the new Colonies will, of course, be decided upon by the Government; and Parliament will have ample opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it at the proper time.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the Committee inquire into the question of automatic redistribution?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Automatic redistribution! Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that Question.

    RULES OF PROCEDURE.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDasked when the Government proposed to ask the House to consider the Report of the Procedure Committee and if their proposals would be laid on the Table at once so that hon. Members could consider them.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot promise that the Government will adopt exactly the recommendations of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure. The amendments proposed to the rules by the Government will be placed on the Paper to-morrow and the subject will be put down for Monday.

    SUNDAY TRADING.
    Lords Message [27th March] relating to the time and place of meeting of the Joint
    1292
    Committee on Sunday Trading, considered.
    Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords' Committee as proposed by Their Lordships.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) [EXPENSES].
    Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses and allowances incurred under any Act of the present session to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1901 (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—(Mr. Joseph Pease).

    NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c., with Amendments.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 97.]
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 97.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

    VACCINATION BILL.
    "To amend the Law in respect to the procedure of officers and justices of the peace administering the several Vaccination Acts," presented by Mr. Arthur Black; supported by Mr. Channing, Mr. Levy, Sir Charles M'Laren, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. George White, and Sir William Collins; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on

1293
Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Land Tenure Bill:—Mr. Pike Pease; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Abel H. Smith.
Report to lie upon the Table.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (No. 2) BILL.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,): I have to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to justices of the peace. The principal provision, and, indeed, the only specially important provision, in the Bill, is one for abolishing the existing property qualification, known as the qualification by estate, for county magistrates. That qualification was imposed in 1744 under a statute which made it imperative for any one appointed justice of the peace in a county to have land, freehold, or copyhold, or long leasehold, to the value of at least £100 a year. There was another qualification in the Act very much to the same effect, with which I need not trouble the House. The severity of that somewhat high qualification was mitigated by the Act of 1875, under which it became possible to appoint persons in a county if they occupied a dwelling rated for the poor at £100 a year. I need not point out that these qualifications very materially restricted the area of choice in the appointment of gentlemen living in the county to this important judicial office; indeed, there are some industrial districts in mining and manufacturing counties where it has been not only difficult, but almost impossible, to procure gentlemen in any way competent to fulfil magisterial duties, who at the same time possess this qualification as resident landowner or occupier. But there is a wider reason than that for the alteration in the law which we propose by the Bill. When the qualification by estate was originally devised and enacted there was some reason for it in the fact that education, especially that higher education which is derived from the responsible conduct of public affairs, was almost a monopoly of the propertied classes. You might say it was the privilege of property. That state of things exists no longer. Not only is education of the scholastic variety more widely spread, but public life has been thrown
1294
open to all classes, with the happy result that in every district of England are found men of position and authority well qualified to hold office, quite irrespective of the wealth they may possess, especially landed wealth. It may be that in relation to local government or other forms of leadership they have done good work which has a more educating effect for the discharge of magisterial duties than even the possession of a landed estate to the value of £100 a year. There is this difference in the forms of the existing qualifications. Where a magistrate is qualified by occupation he holds office only by virtue of continuous occupation, but where he is qualified for appointment by estate he may part with his qualification and still retain his office. I think the House will agree that it is somewhat incongruous, and I may say unfair, that persons of the class I have described, men who have secured the esteem and regard of their fellow-citizens, should be unable to assume office because the law requires that they shall have a certain amount of a particular kind of wealth. I will not argue upon the qualification one way or another; the House is competent to judge of it, and I desire to be brief in my introduction of the Bill because I have no doubt the House is desirous of proceeding to the more important Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Bill. There are other parts of the Bill to which I may make brief reference. Alterations of the law are proposed in minor particulars. For instance, it is proposed that a man may be appointed justice of the peace for the county though he does not actually live in the county, but within a distance of seven miles. This is the qualification in boroughs, and is found convenient, and it would be convenient in counties where a petty sessions division is near the border of the county. It is also proposed to remove the disqualification of solicitors living in a county, but it is suggested that it would be well to provide that they must not practise, directly or indirectly, before a justice of the peace in the county or in a borough within the county. There is just one provision more. I hope the House will not discover in it or suspect it has any malign motive; it is, I think, purely formal. A great many ex officio magistrates have been created by recent legislation, and it is thought desirable that

1295
they should be removable on the same terms as other magistrates. These are all the provisions of the Bill, and I think I may claim credit for having kept well within the limits of my allotted time.
Bill to amend the law relating to Justices of the Peace, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Solicitor - General, Mr. Secretary Gladstone, and Mr. Herbert Samuel.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (No 2) BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to Justices of the Peace," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

TRADE UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): I have to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill for amending the law in relation to trade unions and trade disputes. I think it will be acknowledged that the law connected with this subject is in need 'of revision, and should be placed on a more assured and satisfactory basis. Recent legal decisions have seriously disturbed preconceived notions. A construction has been given to the legislation of 1871 and 1875 which, while it manifests a great desire to check abuse -of power on the part of these organisations, has also seriously curtailed their useful-ness and efficiency. A scope has been given to the law of conspiracy so loose and so wide, that it is impossible to indicate beforehand what may be the I legal character of the conduct of these organisations, and which is determined by the ex post facto decision of a legal tribunal. The undoubted right of peaceful persuasion has been I cut down to the point of extinction. Funds which have been contributed largely for the purpose of provision against sickness or misfortune, or want of employment, have been hold liable to meet claims which have rested upon repudiated acts of unauthorised officials. The result of this state of things has been to create a feeling of insecurity and a sense of injustice. Parliament has more than once declared that the subject is ripe for legislative treatment, and we cannot doubt that this opinion has been emphatically endorsed
1296
by the country during the recent elections. The Government feel that they have a mandate on this question, and after anxious consideration they are wishful to submit to the judgment of the House — to all parties in the House—the conclusions that seem to them to meet in the best practical way the many difficulties of this somewhat difficult problem. I wish at the outset to acknowledge the obligation Parliament is under to the labours of the Commission appointed to consider the law in regard to the subject. Whatever may have been the opinion, and opinions differed, as to the desirability of appointing the Commission to report on the state of the law, there can be but one opinion in regard to the labours of the gentlemen who were appointed. We have an able, enlightened survey of the law in regard to this somewhat obscure subject; and, while the Government have adopted their own views and taken their own course, they wish to acknowledge their obligation to those gentlemen whose labours have lightened their task.
I may, perhaps, be allowed to show briefly how the situation has arisen. In their early days trade unions had to struggle against the ban of common law and repressive statutes. They were organisations which interfered with the perfect freedom of relationship between employers and employed and the free course of trade, and until a very recent period of our history this difficulty prevented any large extension of this industrial movement. In 1824 and 1825 repressive legislation disappeared; and in 1859 a declaration was made giving to these societies the right to exercise the faculty of persuasion, provided they did so in a reasonable and peaceable manner. In 1867 the pulse of the democracy was quickened by the Borough Franchise Act of that year, with the result that we had a Royal Commission followed by and the charter of trade unionism of 1871, afterwards amplified and expanded by the supplementary Act of 1875. It is true that the legislation of 1871 and 1875 was limited in its scope. Its main aim was to remove the ban of the common law and the stigma of illegality from the operations of these bodies. It enabled them to register themselves, to frame rules, to amass property, to appoint agents, and to defend themselves and their funds from attack. It also created

1297
an important declaration limiting their I criminal liability to those Acts only which are criminal if committed by individuals. But in regard to their responsibility to the civil law legislation is absolutely silent. That silence has led to serious controversy in determining the aim of Parliament in connection with that legislation. The House of Lords, which is the authoritative exponent of our law, and binds the High Court of Parliament as it binds every other Court in the realm, has pointed out that that silence does not disturb the liability under which these unions rested under the common law of the country, that the fact of registration made them suable in respect of wrongful conduct in the name of the organisation which was placed on the register, and that since the year 1883 the amalgamation of our systems of judicature as they existed under the common law and in Courts of equity made that liability enforceable by a form of action which up to that moment was only known in the Courts of Chancery. The period of thirty years between 1871 I and 1901 was a period of great material prosperity in regard to these unions. Their numbers increased, their branches spread, their wealth grew. The funds which were available to meet claims that might be made upon them induced actions to be brought in numerous quarters for the purpose of satisfying claims for redress for injuries attributed to conduct of which members of the community complained, and from 1892 onward a series of actions were successfully tried which at first took the form of actions for injunctions and afterwards of actions for damages. It is impossible to say that the result of this litigation did not create a serious situation. Trade unions are institutions which consist of the working classes. Their funds represent the hard-earned savings of a large and most worthy section of the community, and they have been contributed in no small degree for the purpose of making provision against misfortune. This liability and its consequences have created a problem with which it is necessary that Parliament should deal, and which the Government have done their best to solve. In our opinion the law needs most careful examination, redefinition, and modification, and some of the general principles of the law require regulation in their application to these bodies.
1298
In the first place, let me call attention to the law of conspiracy. The expression "conspiracy" is a little apt to shake timid nerves, and to suggest periods of our history when our Constitution was unstable and when sinister designs against the Crown and society were incidents of our public life. But conspiracy in law simply means combination to violate the rights of another. Combination is a conspiracy or agreement, and the fact that its object is to violate a right, constitutes it a criminal act and makes it subject to a claim for damages on the part of the person whose right has been violated by the act so committed. This is a part of our law which I may describe as one of the blank spaces upon the juridical map. There are a few rough tracks across it emanating from different sources, and generally leading to different results. The wary and prudent litigant gives it as wide a berth as possible because it is the region of judge-made law; and when he is once lost in that area it is not easy for him always to know exactly where he is or by what means he will escape from it. We propose that this region shall be carefully plotted out, that its frontiers shall be limited, and that there shall be carried through it a statutory highway which, so far, at any rate, as these organisations are concerned, may be safely travelled by the most unwary traveller. The legislation of 1875, while it defined the law of conspiracy in its criminal aspect, left that law, in so far as it is a department of civil jurisprudence, entirely untouched; and the result has been that this area has been the field of fierce struggles between disputants of legal eminence. I doubt whether in our time the serene judicial atmosphere has ever been so much disturbed as it has been by different theories with regard to the law of conspiracy. One party I may describe as the party of the late Lord Herschell. Their view has been that an act of I a combination is lawful or unlawful I according to the standard which you would apply in order to determine the legal quality of an act of an individual, and that if an act committed by an individual would be lawful, this same act would be none the less lawful although committed by a combination. In giving judgment in the case of "Allen v. Flood" Lord Herschell said—
"It is not for your Lordships to express any opinion on the policy of trade unions. They

1299
are now recognised by law. They act in the interests of their class. If they resort to unlawful acts, they may be indicted or sued. If they do not resort to unlawful acts they are entitled to further their interests in the manner which seems to them best and most effective."
That view has not been adopted by the same tribunal in considering later cases which have come before them. In the 'case of "Quinn v. Leathem" you will find an entirely different version of the law of conspiracy. There it is stated that, although an act of one man may be lawful, if it be the act of a combination of two men it may become unlawful. The great disadvantage of this theory is that no combination can know beforehand whether the act they propose to commit or authorise will be regarded as lawful or unlawful by the tribunal which may afterwards be called upon to consider it. There is nothing more perplexing for the council of a trade union than to feel that, although an act they propose to commit would be lawful if done by an individual, if it was part of the policy of their union it might be subject to review and animadversion by an unfriendly tribunal. Let me give one or two cogent illustrations. One is a favourite illustration of Lord Herschell's. A cook gives notice because she objects to the butler. She is quite entitled to give notice, and the act is perfectly innocent. But if the cook, the housemaid, and the kitchenmaid combine to give notice because they object to the butler, the act becomes unlawful. The reason is that the act, being the act of a combination, tends to disturb the security of the employment of the butler, and, inasmuch as it tends to affect the interests of the butler in the exercise of his calling, the act, although innocent on the part of one individual, becomes unlawful, because it is the result of a combination of three. Let me take another case. A union man objects to work on the same job with a non-union man. A single union man may object to work with another man for any reason. But if you get a combination of men who object to work with those who will not join their union, that becomes unlawful, because it is the act of a combination which disturbs the security of labour of the non - union men. Or, in another case, the boilermakers refuse to work on an iron ship with the shipwrights. Acting singly, they have a perfect right to select the men with whom they will carry on their operations.
1300
Acting collectively, their conduct becomes unlawful, because it tends to interfere with the freedom of the members of another union to carry on their calling. In all these cases, you have a violation of the principle which Lord Herschell clearly defined and which I submit to the House is the only principle capable of practical application in regard to this department of the law. You have an interference with the policy of these unions carried out by themselves with a view to advancing their own interests, because judicial opinion considered that the advancement of those interests is unfavourable to the interests of the community.
Then you have the doubtful cases which remain at this moment unsolved, and unless the law be altered it will be difficult to get a solution. Suppose you have an objection on the part of trade union men to men being employed on piece-work. Is that to be lawful or unlawful—because it may be said that you disturb the security of employment of the men who will only work piece-work. Supposing there is an objection on the part of skilled men to the employment of labourers in connection with machinery. Is that to be lawful or unlawful, because it may be said that you will disturb the opportunities of employment which would otherwise be open to unskilled men? Or suppose you have a combination to limit output. All these are matters in regard to which, as the law now stands, there is no indication, no rule, no principle. The solution of the problem to which they give rise must be left to be dealt with judicially after the question has arisen in consequence of an act committed.
What is the remedy for this state of things? We propose to call in aid the principle which was established by the Act of 1875. It was there declared that the character of an act committed by a trade union within the purview of the criminal law should depend on the consideration of whether it was criminal or not, assuming it to be the act of an individual. And so we say in regard to the applications of the civil law, that that act shall be right or wrong, shall be lawful or unlawful, according as it would be lawful or unlawful, judged on the assumption that it has been committed by an individual and not by a combination; and I submit to the House that

1301
there is no other solution than that which I have suggested.
The next subject upon which I propose to say a few words is that of peaceful picketing, which I prefer to call the right of peaceful persuasion. What is the right of peaceful persuasion? It is an essential part of the right to strike. How is it possible to strike unless you can persuade your fellows to join you? How is it possible successfully to conduct a strike unless you may persuade men who are introduced from a distance not to interfere between the strikers and their employer? The right to persuade those who would naturally join and swell your ranks, and the right to dissuade those who are brought in with a view to prevent the success of a strike, is absolutely essential for the effective conduct of an operation of that kind. The law at present is in a condition that I think I may fairly describe as impracticable, if not absurd. How does it stand? It is held to be perfectly lawful to point out to the men what are the points of difference You may either ask for information with regard to the strike, or yon may give them information with regard to the nature of the conflict between the workmen and the employer. But, if you go one step further and so present the information you give them as to make your appeal in the nature of persuasion, you are then violating the law. The distinction is one which a legal mind may grasp; but it is impossible to suppose that the distinction can be grasped by any advocate of a trade union who endeavours within the limits of the law as it now stands to give information to persons who are introduced from a distance and who are sought to be employed to take the places which the strikers have vacated. There are many illustrations in the decided cases which show that unless this part of the law is altered it is impossible to conduct a strike successfully. Further, in enacting, as we propose to enact in express terms, the right peaceably to persuade, we are not calling upon the House to make a new law. We are only reviving a law which is as old as the year 1859, because in that year there was a provision put into the statute upon this subject which was then passed, which attached an interpretation to a restrictive provision in an earlier
1302
Act. The statute used this language It is provided that no person should, by reason merely of his endeavouring peaceably, and in a reasonable manner, and without threats and intimidation, direct or indirect, to persuade, be deemed guilty of molestation or obstruction within the meaning of the Act of 1825, or should, therefore, be subject to prosecution or indictment for conspiracy. It may be said that the Act of 1875 repealed the Act of 1859. There is certainly no indication of repeal in that Act, and the history of the debates of that period show that it was thought that the earlier provision held good. Therefore, in regard to this matter, we are only proposing to ask the House to take a step which occurs to us as eminently reasonable, as representing practical justice, and one which has the advantage of statutory precedent.
I have next to ask the House to consider what is the most difficult department of this question. I refer to the law of agency. The Bill of the hon. Member for Newcastle, and the hon. Member for Clitheroe, and other Bills on this subject, have not touched upon the law of agency. They propose to accomplish a result which would relieve these unions from unjust action by another method, and it will be for the House to determine which is the best way to accomplish the object. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion as to the nature of the mischief. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion as to the desirability of obviating the operation of the mischief as it affects these unions. There may be a difference of opinion with regard to the best mode of dealing with the evil, and therefore, I wish to explain to the House the scheme of the Government and submit it to the careful consideration of hon. Members who have hitherto thought this problem could best be solved in another fashion. First of all, let me say there is no doubt that trade unions have been the victims of a rigorous administration of the law of agency, totally inapplicable to organisations of this kind, and that the result has been to work considerable practical injustice The grievance which has been occasioned was indicated in 1894 by the Report of the Labour Members constituting the minority of the Labour Commission which had

1303
been appointed in the previous year. In that Report I find this passage—
"To expose the large amalgamated societies of the country, with their accumulated funds, sometimes reaching-a quarter of a million sterling, to be sued for damages by any employer in any part of the country, or by any discontented member or non-unionist for the action of some branch secretary or delegate would be a great injustice."
I doubt whether there is anyone in this House who will not endorse that view. A union which has hundreds of branches in different parts of the country, which has funds representing contributions from every quarter of the kingdom, owing to the hasty and rash act of some official connected with some branch, or owing to the imprudent, and, it may be, defiant action of the committee of some branch, may be involved in liability for immense sums. Those who have no concern with the conduct of the official or committee, conduct disapproved of, it may be, the moment it came to their notice, have still been held liable and their funds liable for damages. The cause of the present state of things is not far to seek. You have bodies of an exceedingly loose organisation. Their ramifications are manifold, the employ a large number of officials whoso authority is often difficult to define, and there are a great number of persons who claim to act on behalf of the union, and whoso conduct is very often liable to involve them in difficulties. In point of fact, they have been the victims of the application of a legal doctrine by which agency is implied from conduct, and is not attributable to any express authorisation. Take the history of various cases. You get the votes of a committee, you get the speeches and actions of individuals, you get letters which pass between one official and another, and this mass of material is left to the tribunal, who are invited to extract from it some measure of authorisation for the conduct of some agent by the body responsible for the operations of the union as a whole. We have as a result the cases of which the trade unions complain and which could not be defended in this House. I will take two illustrations. The colliers connected with a colliery in Yorkshire, to which I will not refer by name, because I believe the matter is to some extent sub judice, left their employment without giving in their notices. The colliery
1304
was thrown into confusion, the works were stopped, and considerable loss and inconvenience resulted. Mr. Pickard, then a Member of this Rouse, immediately went down to Yorkshire, saw the men who were connected with this branch, ordered them to go back to their work, and took every step to induce, if not to compel, them to go back. But men are sometimes obstinate; they are like all of us; their amour-propre was involved; and they set this counsel at defiance. Notwithstanding Mr. Pickard's conduct it was held by the tribunal, which consisted of a Judge and jury, that the strike was an authorised act for which the union was responsible. Similarly, there was the case with which my hon. friend the Member for Derby could acquaint the House, where there was a railway strike. The men left without giving their notices, the whole influence of the organisation was used with a view to inducing them to return to their work, but in vain, and the responsibility for that act was held to lie with the union.
We intend to make that state of things for the future impossible, and I think we can do it. We propose so to define the law of agency in its application to these unions that no act can be made the foundation of a claim for redress from union funds unless it is perfectly clear that that act was authorised by the governing body of the union. That is the first step we propose to take. We propose that the union shall appoint an executive committee, which shall have the right of conducting all operations which may bring them into collision either with their employers or with the outside public; and we propose to provide that the unions shall not be bound, and their property shall not be bound, by any act unless it be the act of the executive itself—which, I take it, would mean the act of that body by resolution formally passed—or unless it be the act of some person whom they have authorised to bind them by the conduct which is impugned. That is not enough, because it may be said that the principal is liable for the acts of an agent, and that the agent is acting within the sphere of his authority, even although he may violate

1305
his instructions. We do not propose that that principle of law should apply to these cases. In the second place, we propose to provide that the executive, in appointing an agent, may prescribe the acts which that agent is not permitted to do—may indicate exactly what is the sphere and scope of his duties, and may restrict him to that sphere in such a way that, if the conduct impugned is a violation of those instructions, then the union shall not be bound by it. There is still a third consideration. You may have a self-constituted agent who takes some action on behalf of and in the interests of the union; he may say he has the authority of the union, and it may be that neither of the safeguards I have indicated would apply. We have, therefore, put a provision in the Bill that, if the executive when knowledge of that conduct is brought to them, repudiate the act and indicate their disapproval of it, they shall not be bound by it. You thus have a code of safety. First the constitution of the committee which shall conduct these operations, and by whom alone the acts may be committed for which the union is responsible. In the second place, they hive the power of limiting the authority of the agents whom they may appoint; and, in the third place, they have the right of repudiation in regard to acts of which they disapprove. I think that this is wise, and constitutes a pretty effective defence of these unions against attack. As I have said, these provisions involve some alteration of the general law. There is the rule by which a principal is made liable for acts which involve the violation of the instructions given to his agent, provided those acts are done on his behalf and in his interests. It is difficult, perhaps, to say conclusively what is the true foundation of that doctrine. The best reason I can give is that, inasmuch as profit often attends acts not in themselves authorised, and which involve a violation of instructions, a corelative liability should attach to them. That law is certainly a part of the law of the land, yet in our view it is a principle which ought not to apply in relation to trade unions. I am glad to find that in this matter we have a useful precedent. I do not want to
1306
claim credit for the scheme which we are submitting to the House, ignoring the meritorious claim which can certainly be urged on behalf of other persons who have discussed this subject. The scheme which I submit to the House is very largely that suggested by the Commission, and, further, it is a part of a scheme which was submitted to the Parliament of New South Wales in 1903. I find that the clause which was introduced by the Attorney-General of the Colony, was as follows—
"No trade union or industrial union or association of employers shall be liable to any suit or action, nor shall the funds of such union or association be in any way chargeable in respect of any act or word, done, spoken, or written, during or in connection with an industrial dispute by any agent, if it be proved that such agent acted:—(1) contrary to instructions bona fide given by or (2) without the knowledge of the governing body of such union or association, and that the union or association his bona fide, and by all reasonable means repudiated the acts or words complained of at the earliest opportunity and with reasonable publicity."
We think our clause is much more artistic than the clause in the New-South Wales Act, but they both proceed on the same lines. What is the alternative? The alternative method is the royal road out of the difficulty. The argument one hears is, "Why trouble very carefully to define liability, why trouble to reconcile the law of agency with the administration of bodies of this kind: why not say no action whatever shall be brought?" But just let me ask the House to face that proposition. The proposition, I understand, is that, however great and ruinous the loss that may be suffered by an individual, however unjustifiable the conduct of the union which may occasion that loss, even in the case of that conduct having been carried out by means of the use of the funds which are controlled by the union, yet those funds, the property of the union, are not to be made liable to redress the claim consequent on that loss. You must fairly face that proposition. I invite the House, before they put a proposition of that kind into legislative shape, seriously to consider its effect. It would be impossible to confine it to these combinations. If you place them in this position you will have to deal with claims on the part of other

1307
bodies also entitled to the consideration of Parliament, who may ask that the same privilege should be extended to them. Well, Sir, I ask the House is there not this danger attending the alternative policy to which I have referred, namely, that in your anxiety to check one injustice you may create another? In your wish to prevent injustice being inflicted upon trades unions, you may create injustice against individual members of the community. And there is another argument which I have seen used. We are a democratic country, we are a democratic Party, we are a democratic Parliament, and probably the Members below the gangway opposite are the most democratic element in it. But are you not proposing class privileges? In the old days of our law these immunities of class existed. They were the privileges of the aristocracy, and they have been abolished. Do not let us create a privilege for the proletariat, and give a sort of benefit of clergy to trade unions analogous to the benefit of clergy which was formerly enjoyed and which created an immunity against actions in favour of certain sections of the population. Then there is another consideration which has influenced the Government in trying to settle this question. Are we sure that it is wise to remove from these unions and particularly from the agents employed, a sense of responsibility? They are often swayed by passion, by excitement, and by natural feeling. Is it right that their agents should move about with the consciousness that whatever they do, the property of the union will not have to bear any loss? Is that feeling likely to produce caution, prudence, self-restraint, and regard for the rights and feelings of others? Is it not likely to have rather the opposite effect and to check that sense of discipline which it is so desirable the head office of a great organisation should use over the squadrons under them? But I am glad to say that this claim for immunity has not been until quite lately, and I do not know whether it is now, the demand of the Labour Party as a body. I have before me expressions of opinion of one or two of their most eminent and trusted leaders in which they point out that they make no such claim. My hon. friend the Member for Derby at the Trades Union Congress
1308
in September, 1903, according to The Times said—
"He failed to see how the Labour Members could meet their opponents in the House with an argument for being placed in a position different and apart from all others under the civil law. Having argued that all employers should be responsible for all accidents to workmen, no matter by whom or how they were caused, they were now, on the other hand, asking that, whatever act might be committed intentionally or deliberately, under the rules of an organisation, by its executive government or by an official organisation, they should not be responsible for any action thus committed. He thought that illogical. In the Taff Vale case the rules were defied; the rules were violated; and if the executive had adhered to the rules, there would have been no Taff Vale judgment."
The right hon. Member for Morpeth expressed the same view. He said—
"The unions should, in my opinion, frankly accept responsibility for the action of their agents, when their agents are acting by the authority of executive councils. The law as to conspiracy and picketing should he amended, and clearly defined. Trade unionists are for the most part democratic, avowedly opposed to privilege, and yet they are to ask to be treated differently from everybody else. The unions, I am glad to say, have in recent years increased enormously in membership, in funds, and in power. It will be difficult to argue that this increase of power should not he accompanied by sane responsibility, and that the agents of the unions, when acting under the authority of their executive, should not be amenable to law."
These opinions had naturally great weight with the Government. It might be said that there was a prescriptive right and that for thirty years trade unions had enjoyed these privileges, and that therefore they ought to continue. But historically there was no foundation for that argument. In 1892 an action was successfully brought against a trades union, and we have declarations of the House of Lords to the effect that from 1883 onwards an action might have taken one of two forms—in both of which you would have given the claimant the right of redress from the funds of the union. And are we to found an Act of Parliament upon the hypothesis that an expression of opinion from the highest legal Court in the Realm is inaccurate and without authority? No, we are bound to recognise that there is some foundation for it.
But the real difficulty which some hon. Members feel, I fancy, is that under the state of the law as now administered, and as it must be administered even after

1309
this Bill is passed, if passed in its present form, trade union cases must come under the consideration of a Judge and jury. It is said that that is an unfriendly tribunal. I quite agree it is an unfriendly tribunal. But it is very difficult to say that because a claim, when it is enforced, comes under the consideration of a jury which is unfriendly, you are to enact that no suit shall be brought to obtain redress for conduct which violates a legal right or inflicts a wrong. In my experience at the bar, railway companies have complained that they never could get a verdict. I have heard landlords complain that it they never could get a verdict from a jury of tenants. Newspapers used to say that they never could get a verdict of a jury in their favour. If a railway company had come forward and said that, because a jury always found against them, they ought not to be bound to give compensation for any negligence in the conduct of their business, we should have made short work of tbat contention. But opinion changes; it changes in society, and it changes in the jury box, and there is no reason why that regard which is certainly growing in respect of trade unions will in time grow with juries, and they will give just as much justice to trades unions as to every other section of the community. But the real argument is this: under the Bill as framed there will seldom be any question for a jury. I can with difficulty conceive a case in which the matter will not be determined as a matter of law. I can scarcely imagine a claim in which a question of fact for a jury will be raised. The real question for the House is—What is to be our future policy? Are we as a matter of legislation to-day to put all unions into a position of immunity, or are we to endeavour to prevent them from being the victims of injustice by so defining the law of agency that no unjust claim that can be lodged against them can succeed? The Government have tried to solve this question upon those lines. Whether they have succeeded it is for the House to determine. We are not dogmatists or pedants, and we do not claim exclusive knowledge or wisdom with regard to these questions. A more thorny
1310
problem for a Government to deal with has never arisen. We have done our best to solve it, and the House are entitled to consider whether our solution is worth their acceptance, or whether they prefer the method of which some hon. Members are in favour.
Let me summarise in a word or two what we contend is the result of this legislation. In the first place we remove the fetter which is placed upon the operations of these unions by the action of conspiracy. We give them permission, so long as they observe the law as it affects individuals, to carry out their own policy upon lines which commend themselves to their favourable consideration, and we allow them to know beforehand whether the conduct which they propose to pursue will or will not be in conformity with the law. In the second place, we restore and give legislative sanction to the exercise of the right of peaceful persuasion; and, in the third place, we so define and regulate the application of the law of agency as to obviate the injustice which I have indicated and given illustrations of. We do that first of all by giving to each of these unions an authoritative and articulate organ. We allow them to speak through some defined agent. We allow them to delegate their authority subject to certain restrictions. We give them the right to disapprove of or repudiate acts which have been done in their name but without their approval or sanction. I think that when this Bill is considered by the House, and dispassionately considered by every section of this House, it may be regarded as a satisfactory solution of a very complicated question. At all events it is an honest attempt to solve the question. We have sought, as far as we can, to do what we consider is justice to these organisations without inflicting injustice upon the community at large. It may be that the Bill will not commend itself to all sections of opinion in this House. It is very seldom that Acts of Parliament do, but it is undoubtedly the fact that some of the statutes which have been most successful have on their introduction offended Members on both sides. Compromise, however, is the genuis of politics, although it is a very unpleasant lesson to learn.

1311
Well, whether or not this Bill is attacked by hon. Members immediately opposite to me on the ground that it goes too far, or whether it is attacked by hon. Members below the gangway on the ground that it does not realise their full expectations, at all events we feel that in bringing it in we have done our best, we have fulfilled our mandate. [Cries of "No."] We have, I say, discharged our duty, and if, on refection, there are modifications which it is thought may be introduced, and if the House approve of them, in regard to the one branch of the measure about which there is difficulty, hon. Members may be assured that their views will receive the most careful consideration of the Government and will be treated with the respect to which they are entitled. Ultimately, however, the decision of the question must rest with the House. I am obliged to the House for having listened to me for so long in my endeavour to deal with a question which is intricate and complicated and not an easy one to present. I trust, however, that whatever shape this Bill may ultimately take, it will be regarded as an earnest attempt to place the control of these organisations on a more satisfactory legal basis.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the regulation of Trade Unions and Trade Disputes.
MR. SHACKLETONadmitted that the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to deal fairly and honestly with the question treated by the Bill. Whether hon. Members agreed with him or not they had to give him credit for attempting to face the position in a way which might commend itself to all the sections of opinion held by Members who constituted the Cabinet. So far as the third clause was concerned, it did not commend itself to him. This was not the first occasion upon which the House had discussed this matter. The question had been up twice previously. On the first occasion the Bill was carried by a majority of thirty-nine, and last session it was carried by a majority of 122. On the last occasion the Second Reading was carried by the united support of hon. Gentlemen who sat
1312
opposite. The Liberal Party and many gentlemen representing the Conservative Party voted for it, and the Labour representatives had hoped that a measure on the lines of their own Bill would have found a place in the Cabinet policy. Something had been said with regard to individual opinion, and no doubt two hon. Members in this House had stated their view of this matter in public. But when they took the opinion of the workmen they must take their opinions as being expressed by their votes, and they must not take the opinion of one man who might in his time have done his level best to persuade them to take a different course from that which had been pursued. Quite apart from the question of whether the majority of the Liberal representatives and those behind them had taken a different course, the Trade Union Congress was unanimous in dealing with this Bill. He would admit that they had not been idle at the last general election and there could hardly, he thought, be a Member of this House who had not had this subject brought before him. Trade unionists did not ask the candidates whether they were in favour of a Bill to deal with this subject, but they asked whether they were in favour of the Bill introduced by himself and others. So far as they could ascertain, an overwhelming majority had supported them at the general election. The hon. and learned Gentleman and others had supported them at the general election, and the hon. and learned Gentleman himself made a very definite pronouncement upon this question. He held in his hand a report of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said at Leeds, as published in the Leeds Mercury. The hon. and learned Gentleman went through the list of test questions framed by the Trades Union Congress, and in reply to each and all he gave an emphatic reply in the affirmative.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he most carefully guarded himself from committing himself to any scheme, but explained that he had great sympathy with the suggestions which had been made. He had always said so, and he said so now.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid the speech to which he was alluding was made upon

1313
rather an interesting occasion, because the hon. Gentleman was engaged in a three-cornered fight, and one of his opponents was a friend of his (Mr. Shackleton's) own. The fight being a three-cornered one, it was very important that the hon. Gentleman should be definite on this point. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he could fairly toe the trade unionist line, and that was sufficient to show that he expressed his approval of the Bill put forward by himself and his friends. As to the historical part of the matter, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentlemen whether, if this Bill were referred to five or twenty years hence, they would be in order in quoting him as to what the Bill or Act intended. The effect of the Bill had been laid down by the hon. and learned Member, but they could not say what the judges might lay down twenty or thirty years hence, but they could quote the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill thirty years ago, and it was decidedly in their favour. He said it was wrong, however good the intentions of hon. Members were, to put these disabilities upon trade unions. He thought that the course proposed by the Labour Members was a far more honest one than that adopted by His Majesty's Government. When they were told that it was their intention to remove from the trade unions all the liability, he thought it was a precipitate step. This Bill had been before the Trade Union Congress and they preferred to take the honest course of not seeking to obtain immunity by false pretences. Under this Bill the officals of the trade unions could do the very act about which complaint was made. As long as the Executive Committee said, "We did not authorise these acts and we are not prepared to take responsibility for them," they were released from liability. But what about the employers? If they could be put into the dock as the representatives of labour could be put into the dock, they would consider the question of responsibility. Did the House believe that no offences under these Acts had been committed by the employers in the last thirty years? Every act which the workmen had done had also in that period been done by the employers, and they had no
1314
remedy against them. It was a common thing, when the employees refused to withdraw their notice, for the employer to go to some person who had authority over them. In the weaving trade, with which he was connected, there were often in the same employment the father, the mother, and several of the children of a family. In many instances the father might be an overlooker, or be in some other position of authority, and it was the commonest thing in their trade disputes for the employer to go to such a person and say, "You have got to bring these people back to work, or you go now." What was their remedy? It was simply the individual remedy. The workman himself could claim damages to the extent of a fortnight's notice or a week's notice. Then he had done. The serious damage was not against the workman individually, but against the union to which he belonged. The Government must prove most conclusively that the employer could be made responsible for injuring the success of the workmen just as he could make the union responsible for injuring his success in a trade dispute. Unless the Government could put the employer and the workpeople on equal terms, they as Labour representatives would not be satisfied, because they held that it was a most dangerous principle to leave the workers absolutely at the employer's mercy in the questions of damages which arose. The trade unions could not prove damages, but nevertheless they existed, and, if not of a monetary kind, were serious inasmuch as they were connected with the position of the union in the district. The employer ought to be prepared to go into these labour wars when they occurred, and take the same risk as the trade unionists did. The trade union loss might not be a financial one, but all the same it was a serious loss to the individual workman and to the organisation to which he belonged. It was putting the trade unions in a serious position to say that they could be made liable for that kind of damages. As far as the portion of the Bill which dealt with conspiracy was concerned, they were perfectly satisfied with the broad principle that what it was legal for one man to do was equally legal if done by two or more persons. So far

1315
as regarded the remarks of the learned Attorney-General concerning peaceful picketing, he thought they would accept that part of the Bill, but before saying anything definitely on that point he and his colleagues would like to see the actual words in the Bill. They were told that if they accepted the course proposed by the Government, they were going to be free from a lot of law costs. He doubted it. He was not going to agree with one of his hon. friends who said it was a lawyers' Bill; they (the lawyers) were entitled to exercise their judgment in the matter as citizens. The three points suggested were all questions which would have to be fought out at law, which would have to decide whether they as trade unionists were guilty of this, that, or the other. If this Bill ever became law, there was a splendid field for some years to come for spending their money at a rapid rate. They were prepared as trade unionists to take up an honest stand, namely, that they were not in a fair position. Reference had been made to the Bill introduced in New South Wales by Mr. Wise. It was perfectly true the clause was read correctly, but it was only fair to point out that it was part of a whole set of legislation and before they thought of applying this particular New South Wales Act to workers here they must also consider the other Acts which were in force there. There was practically compulsory trade unionism in New South Wales, and it was not fair, therefore, to quote this particular Act when all the other considerations had to he taken into account. He wanted to put one question quite clearly to the Government. Did they propose to leave this an open question with the House? He thought it was a fair question to put. There was a considerable amount of feeling on this matter, and it had been carefully considered throughout the country. The Labour Party believed that the mandate which the Attorney-General referred to was a mandate for their Bill and not for the Bill now under discussion. He thought it was only fair to ask whether the House would have the power of deciding this matter without reference to Party connections in any shape or form, so that the
1316
question might be dealt with on its merits. But in any case the Labour Members would take the sense of the House on Friday on their Bill, and if the House decided in their favour, as it had done on previous occasions, then the Government would do well to leave the matter, complicated as it was, to the general feeling of the House. They would at all events be perfectly satisfied to stand or fall on that particular issue. Reference had been made to the Royal Commission. Let him at once say that they had repudiated that Commission from the first. They challenged its composition, which they considered was most unfair, and they took no notice of its recommendations. It had had opportunities of taking evidence from one side only, because the trade unionists had absolutely refused to recognise it or to give evidence at all. He trusted that whatever the decision of the Government might be as to what they thought was the reasonable and proper solution of this subject, at least they would recognise that in this matter it was a more serious question than simply a question of Party politics, inasmuch as it was a question which affected the great mass of the workers of the country.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he made no apology for intervening in the debate, because, as his hon. friends opposite were aware, he had had a large professional experience in connection with trade unions. He might also say that he yielded to no one in his anxiety to see a measure passed which would fully serve the interests of the trade unionists of the country. He thought that the Government Bill, so far as the question of picketing, was concerned, must have afforded satisfaction to hon. Members connected with the Labour Party. But he would remind hon. Members that a recent decision of the Court had laid it down in the clearest terms that peaceful picketing, even if going to the length of persuasion, was lawful, and therefore the Bill of his hon. friend was nothing more than declaratory of the law. In regard to the law of conspiracy, he thought also that his hon. friend's proposal, restated by him, met all the reasonable necessities of the case.

1317
It showed that no action could he in respect of conspiracy unless the thing which was said to have been done would le capable of being prosecuted as a criminal offence. That was a great step in the right direction, but he would remind his hon. friend that even though he might modify the law as to conspiracy in the direction of which he had spoken, at the same time it was quite competent for an employer of labour to bring his action directly for molestation, for interference with him in carrying on his work. Therefore he advised his hon. friends opposite not to anticipate too much from the change in the law which the Attorney-General had adumbrated on the subject. He could not help thinking that the speech of the hon. Member for Clitheroe represented a strong feeling of resentment against the Bill so far as it dealt with liability in respect of funds of the trade union for the acts of the union or its officials. His own view was a perfectly honest view, which he had declared to his constituents. He had said emphatically to his constituents that he did not agree with the Bill which was called the Trade Union Bill, but that he believed the Bill he brought in two years ago, and which was supported by almost every Labour Member in the House, was the best solution of the problem. That Bill declared that a trade union should be liable only for what was expressly authorised by its governing body. He appealed to his hon. friend opposite not to be too hasty in the opposition to the measure of the Government, although it might require Amendment. The limitations with regard to agency required amendment. He thought they must sweep away the doctrine of agency altogether in order to do justice, otherwise the Courts of Justice would manage to get round the corners and still find the funds of the unions liable. He believed his hon. friend opposite would agree with him in this proposition, that if the responsible governing body of a trade union deliberately decided that a wrong should be committed, it was only right and fair that the union should be responsible. [An HON. MEMBER: [The individuals.] It was idle to say that the individuals should be punished. The real point was that the damage which was done should be brought
1318
home to the persons who had caused the damage to be done, and whenever they used their resources for doing wrong they should be amenable to civil action. That was an elementary proposition, he might say, of civilisation. It would be inconsistent with a state of civilisation that an organisation should have control of large resources and should solemnly invite certain instruments to commit a wrong and that these wretched instruments might be punished, but that the organisation which was the means of doing the wrong should go scatheless. That was a preposterous proposition, What was the grievance? It was not what the trade union itself did. If they looked back over the history of trade unions in this country for the past thirty years they could find hardly a single instance where a trade union had deliberately set itself to commit a wrong. That was a remarkable fact, and still more remarkable in the face of the further fact that they believed that they were not by law amenable if they did wrong. On the other hand, it should be remembered that there had been one or two cases where undoubtedly the union itself authorised the commission of acts which were only reasonably made the subject of an action for damages. He assured his hon. friends opposite that if he agreed with their views that absolute immunity were necessary to protect trade unions he would associate himself with them in this case. The real grievance was that the agents of branches and lodges should lose their heads, however rarely, sometimes, and trade union funds should be responsible. All men were liable to do it, and how much more likely it was that men who had not had a legal training should occasionally lose their heads in the conduct of a strike. Almost all those cases had been where an agent had committed a wrong and the funds of the union had been rendered liable for the wrong. If they said that a union should not be responsible for the acts of agents unless by its supreme council it had deliberately authorised those acts, they would get rid of what he conceived to be the real grievance of trade unions. He did not believe his hon. friends opposite or those on the Government side of the House desired that there should

1319
be inequality before the law as between trade unions and other classes of society. He appealed to them, as one with large experience in trade union cases and as one who was entirely in sympathy with them in endeavouring to protect unions, not precipitately to condemn the measure of the Government, because he believed that they—and it was creditable to their honesty—were promoting a Bill which was capable of being passed here, and which was not incapable of being passed in another place. He asked the House, with all sincerity, not too hastily to reject this Bill. Of course it was very easy to say, "Make the trade unions immune." It sounded very well on public platforms to say "I am in favour of making trade unions absolutely immune from responsibility." He tested that question at one of the largest meetings of miners held in his constituency. He took the trouble to explain the position to them. Hon. Members knew that the miners of the North of England were as intelligent and as capable of grasping a proposition as even a lawyer, and probably with as great honesty and natural common sense. He found that the opinion of that meeting was entirely in favour of a measure on the lines of the Bill which he brought forward two years ago. H is Bill provided that if a trade union by its general council deliberately authorised a wrongful or criminal act it should be responsible. If trade unions were rendered immune in the way suggested by some hon. Members, there would be nothing to prevent any other organisation coming forward and saying, "You have granted this concession to trade unions; we demand equality before the law, and if you are not going to apply the ordinary doctrine of responsibility to trade unions you cannot to other organisations." He sympathised with the feeling of his hon. friends opposite, but he believed that the working-classes of this country were so instilled with the sense of justice that they did not want to evade their just responsibility, but they wished to be relieved from liability for rash or possibly wicked acts of men who did things which their unions did not authorise. The union fund was a fighting fund. [Cries of "No."] Really he did
1320
not think any responsible trade unionist would deny that. It was a fighting fund. [An HON. MEMBER: We do deny it.] It was a fund which was also used frequently for purposes other than fighting, according to the exigencies of the position, but the hon. Member who interrupted him knew that it was a fighting fund.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: I do not think anybody can deny that it is absolutely necessary for the Government to bring in some Bill dealing with trade union disputes. The matter has now been before the House for several years and, as we were reminded by the hon. Gentleman who spoke below the gangway, Bills somewhat on the lines of the Bill adumbrated by my hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General passed on more than one occasion the Second Reading in the last Parliament where there was a large Unionist majority. Therefore I think that no one can in the least find fault with the Government, whatever their views may be as to the ultimate settlement of the question, for introducing this measure. I go further, and I say that it is important that if a Bill of this kind is to be passed at all it should be passed by the Government on their own responsibility and not upon the introduction of a private Member. I do not think I am using the language of exaggeration when I say that I doubt if any Bill, in its bearing on the question of the relations of capital and labour, of employers and workmen, and on the general commerce and business of our country, in this or any other session, will be of equal or of greater importance. On the one hand, the manner in which you settle those questions which have arisen, and which are ripe for some settlement, may have a great deal to do in future with the extension of industrial enterprise by the necessary forthcoming of such capital as may be required. On the other hand, any settlement which may be come to must, in order to be satisfactory, be on fair grounds —because no other settlement would of course be final—not only to workmen connected with trade unions but to workmen generally. It is only by its being satisfactory that you can expect to avoid the conflicts in future between capital

1321
and labour which operate equally to the detriment of both. I am not going to be foolish enough upon this occasion, without seeing the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to commit myself to any very detailed criticism of the observations which he has made. A great man once said that if he were asked a question on common law, and was unable to answer it, he would be ashamed of himself; but if he were asked a question on statute law he would consider himself a fool to answer it unless he had the words of the statute before him. If I were to express entire condemnation or entire approbation—which I certainly could not do—of the Bill adumbrated by the Attorney-General, I think I would be playing the part of the fool in the tale I have just told. But I gathered three matters from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I gathered, in the first place, that, although he protested in one part of his speech that it was the last thing he would like to do, in reality all through this Bill he was going to set up class privileges. I am not going to argue whether it is right or wrong in relation to trade unions for their particular constitution and the peculiar circumstances in which they stand either to claim or to have set up upon their behalf class privileges. But I think the House will agree with me when I say that if we are prepared to set up such class privileges, we ought to be careful for what reason we do it, and how far we may in doing so give reason to other bodies of equal importance, and very often under equal hardships by reason of the administration of the law, to claim similar privileges from this House. In addition to that, I gathered from the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman that this Bill will admittedly infringe upon he rights of many persons who are not members of or connected with trade unions at all. That is a very serious principle, which would certainly have to be watched, and we must see that it is surrounded by such restrictions as would mitigate as far as possible the infringement of the actual rights as they exist of those who are not connected with trade unions. And I gathered further that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes by this Bill to give great powers to certain persons to injure others while they remain free from liability for doing such injuries.
1322
[MINISTERIAL and LABOUR cries of "No."] I shall show in a few minutes that that is so. If I am wrong, then my criticism will not be pertinent to the Bill. Well, if these are the principles to be deduced from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think it renders it all the wiser if I should only cursorily glance at the proposals he has submitted to the House. For, after all, in the carrying out of the principle, everything may depend upon the safeguards and limitations which, of course, it would be impossible for the hon. and learned Gentleman fully to explain to the House in bringing in a Bill of this kind. I did not quite follow the hon. and learned Member as to what it was he proposed in the case of an action for conspiracy. I do not understand whether he proposes to alter the law of conspiracy generally, or whether he proposes to alter the law of conspiracy merely as it relates to trade unions in trade disputes.
SIR JOHN WALTON: We propose in effect though not in farm to strike out the word "indictable" in the Act of 1875 and substitute the word "suable."
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Then I understand that, at all events, I was right in what I surmised, that as regards the law of conspiracy relating to civil matters — I am not referring to criminal matters — trade unions are to be put into a privileged position. The law is to be no longer applicable to them while it remains applicable to other sections of the community. What was the hon. and learned Gentlemen's definition of conspiracy? He said it was a combination to violate the rights of another, and I may take it that by his Bill the Attorney-General is going to lay down that a trade union may have the right as a combination to violate the rights of others.
SIR JOHN WALTON: Only if the act, if done by an individual, might violate that right.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: Of course that comes within the definition given by the hon. and learned Member himself. If it is an injury to another that is done by a combination, although

1323
an illegal injury and although an injury causing damage, I understand that the trade union is to go scot free. I think hon. Members below the gangway who are very ready to criticise the Attorney-General on this Bill may, at all events, congratulate themselves that they have been put upon a high pinnacle of privilege —[Cries of "No, no!" from the LABOUR benches] — if they are the only people in this community who are to be allowed to combine to violate the rights of others. Surely it is some advance at all events upon the privileges that they already have. As far as I followed the argument of the Attorney-General, his only reason for doing that is that it has already been done in the cases of criminal indictment. I see a great distinction. As regards criminal matters the crime is complete when there is a conspiracy. As regards the civil action the conspiracy gives no rise to and no cause of action unless you have done damage in pursuance of the conspiracy to some individuals, and it is for the damage that the action is brought. Surely it is a strong proposition to lay down, even if the damage is done in pursuance of that conspiracy, that, of all the universe, trade unions alone are to be allowed to go scot free. We are allowing them to be free from the conspiracy and we are allowing them to go scot free for the damage that they have inflicted in pursuance of it. It does strike me, and I think it will strike anybody who has had practically to deal with these matters, that where the gist of the action is that damage has been done we ought to be very slow to say that the man to whom the damage had been done is to have no remedy. My hon. and learned friend gave some interesting illustrations of the butler, the cook, and the housemaid as to the conspiracy of persons against the employer. Yes, but no one in the House knows better than the Attorney-General the case of Leathern v. Quinn. If this alteration of the law is passed such a case as Leathern v. Quinn is without remedy. Leathern v. Quinn was founded upon conspiracy, and if it had not been for the consipracy there would not have been any case of action, and it would
1324
have followed exactly upon the lines of Allen v. Flood. I never yet heard any man in any section of the House defend what was done in the case of Leathern v. Quinn, where an employer was approached to turn men who were non-union men out of his employment and he said, "No, but I will tell you what I will do. I will pay their fines to the union. I will let them become trade unionists so that my men may be working exactly within the new rules." And the men for the trade union said, "No, that is not enough for us. They must be punished. They must walk the streets with their families and children for twelve months before they are allowed to be employed anywhere, and if necessary they must starve." That was an act of conspiracy. It was a conspiracy of those men going and insisting upon non-union men being driven out of employment. And I would like to know what will be the remedy after this Bill becomes law for a case which I call not merely a case of tyranny, but a case which is a disgrace to any Christian community, even in pursuit of those disputes which unfortunately raise at times most bitter feelings. I can only say for myself after the consideration that I have given to that question, that I look upon the abolition of that cause of action for conspiracy, having regard to the law that has been laid down in Allen v. Flood by the House of Lords, as in many cases depriving those who have been seriously injured of any remedy whatsoever in cases of trade disputes. We shall, however, see what the Bill says about the matter. But I understand the statement of the hon. and learned Member to have the results which I have suggested to the House, and they seem to me to be results which the House ought very carefully to consider when they came to the further stages of the Bill.
The next point upon which the Attorney-General spoke was the question of picketing. I do not quite understand what he intends to do with regard to that matter. So far as I know it has never yet been held that peaceful persuasion is illegal. I believe the law was perfectly properly

1325
stated by the Commission which, investigated that matter when they said—
"It is sometimes represented that workmen were punished for merely peacefully persuading, but that is not so. No workman has ever been punished under this Act for merely peacefully persuading. What he had been punished for is watching or besetting a louse."
Ironical LABOUR cheers.] Yes, but that is a different thing. [LABOUR Cries of "Legal hair splitting."] But in what cases is he punished? If he watches or besets a house with a view to intimidating a man into doing something that he does not want to do or to keep him from doing something that he does want to do. That is very different from peaceful persuading. In fact the cheers of the Labour Members prove to me what I have always thought, that the question of peaceful persuasion is a matter of absolute hypocrisy. Peaceful persuasion is no use to a trade anion. Certainly, so far as I am concerned, I have not the least objection to its being set up in black and white that a union has the right peacefully to persuade. But what the Attorney-General did not tell us was what is to be the limitation, for instance, to the number of individuals who were to go and peacefully persuade the workmen of an employer. The act itself and the way in which it was done might without a word being spoken be gross intimidation. Do not hon. Members see that if they can go and peacefully persuade and in some cases go and block up the door of the shopowner and collect crowds round they might honestly intend only peacefully to persuade, but at the same time they might be committing a nuisance.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid they had taken from the Act of 1859 the qualification that the peaceful persuasion was to be carried out in a "peaceable and reasonable manner."
SIR EDWARD CARSON: The Committee suggested that so long as the action of the men was not calculated to cause reasonable apprehension of violence it was permissible, but my hon. and learned friend used words which makes
1326
it perfectly clear that "peaceful persuasion" may go further than that. Generally speaking, however, if words are contained in the Bill which make perfectly clear that peaceful persuasion means peaceful persuasion and will not be allowed to be carried further than that, I do not think he will find any opposition to that part of the Bill from the Opposition side of the House. We ought, however, to take care that nothing we do takes away the common law right of preventing a nuisance or allows this so-called peaceful persuasion to be merely a cloak or blind for approaching people and causing them terror, or for causing intimidation to those who may not be connected with trade unions. As regards the Taff Vale decision, the Labour Members have a right to speak no doubt for trade unions in this House, and I understand they claim absolute immunity for the funds of their unions, however bad the offence may be.
MR. BELL: Or good.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: We are not concerned with the good; there are not likely to be actions for benevolent deeds. That claim of the Labour Party is a very wide claim, and I do not think it is a claim which they will find the Government at all likely to admit. Further I do not think it is a claim which the generality of people outside or inside this House will consider the Government ought to admit. I noticed that the Secretary of State for War who always thinks out every question has given a great deal of consideration to this question, and here is his criticism on it—
"For a trades union to claim an exemption which neither a millionaire nor an individual labourer could assert a right to, would be to set up a claim of privilege, and this the trade unions are not likely to do."
The Secretary of State for War is so generally right that one cannot help feeling a kind of mild satisfaction that on this occasion his prophetic utterance is not true, because the trade unions are setting up a claim to this immunity. Setting apart what has been called the benevolent funds, as contra-distinguished from the militant funds of the trade unions concerned, if the law requires any alteration or any strengthening with a

1327
view to facilitating trade unions doing work of that character,' I do not suppose any member of the House will object to it. That will be a highly proper thing to do. It will not be any privilege whatsoever, but it will be merely carrying out what is the ordinary law. Any such facility given to trade unions will be in perfect consonance with the law of the land, and so far as that is concerned I have said that Members of this side of the House will have no objection to it. But I understand that the Bill goes much further than that. I understand it is going to make havoc of the law of agency. The law of agency works in many cases with extreme hardship on individuals, but why are trade unions alone to be singled out to have those hardships remedied? I do not believe it is possible to change the law of agency as regards one set of persons and leave it as it is at present as regards the rest of the community. I have valuable support in that view from another member of the Government, who I regret is not present this Afternoon. I mean the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has taken a great interest in that question. What is the right hon. Gentleman's view of the law of agency? He said that as regards agency he thought everyone would agree with him that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to provide a more restricted operation of the law in trade disputes than in the ordinary affairs of life. I do not know what has happened since the right hon. Gentleman spoke those words in 1903, but it may be that now the right hon. Gentleman sees some way of its being possible to do what he then thought was impossible. I think that when the matter comes to be thrashed out it will be seen that to alter the law of agency in favour of only one section— the trade unionist section—in this country will be a matter that on any logical principle it will be very difficult for the Party opposite to defend. The decision in the Taff Vale case was a decision absolutely in consonance with equity and in consonance with the general law of the land. I do not think the matter can have been better put than in the Report of the Royal Commission, which is one of the ablest documents as regards the attempt to elucidate this complex law ever laid on the Table
1328
of the House. With reference to the restriction of the law of agency which the Attorney-General proposes, the House can only criticise it when it sees his proposals in detail. I hope that when we see the Bill we shall not find it is a measure which, while preserving the semblance of keeping trade unions as regards their funds in exactly the same position as all other associations of people who commit wrong, will at the same time have the effect of putting such a network of difficulty round the reaching of the funds when the unions have done wrong as will render it practically impossible to carry out the ordinary remedies which people have under those circumstances. It is a Bill which may have far reaching results in the country to our trade and our industrial commerce. I can only say that I believe it will be our duty on this side of the House, while raising no unnecessary objections to a Bill of this kind, at the same time, as far as we can, to take care by such Amendments as we cum propose that, while justice is done to those who are concerned with trade unions, there shall be no injury, no compulsion, and no coercion authorised towards individuals who may not be members of those organisations.
MR. BRACEjustified his intervention in this debate by the fact that he was a member of a trade union and a trade union official of the greatest federation of labour in the country, a federation which had suffered more from the law as rendered by the judges than any other. Having listened to the hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University, he could only express his gratification that whatever were the faults of the Government's Bill it was not a Bill introduced by a Government of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was a member. The trade unions of this country were not asking for any special treatment. They wanted no charity. They asked only for equality before the law with the employers. He asked the House to consider the case of peaceful picketing. The necessity for peaceful picketing arose from the action of the employers in scouring the country for men to take the place of those who were idle. Statements which were not true had been made

1329
over and over again by the masters, and as a matter of fact the poor men who were brought from other parts to take the place of those who were out had been as much deceived as anybody else. All that the trade unions asked was that they should have full liberty to explain to the strangers who were brought down the nature of the dispute between the men and the employers, and to ask them not to allow themselves to be made the tools of the employers to starve the workers out in the struggle between capital and labour. And, if they could prevail upon them to return, that the funds of the society should be used to pay their fares back to the place from which they came. Anybody listening to the hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University would think that the employers only had cause for complaint with regard to "conspiracy." What was going on in the country now? In South Wales at the present moment there was a strike in operation: a strike brought about by an alteration which had been made by the employers in the system of working. The trade union had used all its resources to bring about a settlement of that dispute. They had offered to go to arbitration, but for some reason best known to themselves, the employers had not thought it advisable to accept that offer. In the meantime what became of the workpeople? They had terminated their employment by the legal month's notice, but when they sought work elsewhere, they were asked where they came from. When the manager of the mine at which they applied found they came from the colliery at which work had been stopped he would not employ them. Was not that conspiracy? It was a very difficult matter to bring it home to the employers, but the fact remained that by means of the telegraph or the telephone, or by some other means, an understanding was arrived at by the coal owners that not a single man who had been employed by the colliery stopped should be given work in the area of the Coal Owners Association. In the whole of the annals of trade disputes there was no action on the part of the men which could be compared with this case which was within his own knowledge. With regard to
1330
the immunity of trade union funds, what was wrong with the request that the funds of trade unions should be immune? They did not ask that members of the union should be immune. If a member broke the law let him be punished according to the law. To that he quite agreed, but he submitted that neither this House nor the law courts had a right to allow people to put their hands into his pocket and penalise him if he had done no wrong, simply because a man who happened to be a member of the trade union broke the law. The federation of which he was a member had had to pay £80,000, because of the meaning given to the law by the courts of the land. In that case what did the federation do? The middlemen tried to reduce the price of coal. By means of combination the colliery owners were enabled to protect themselves, and the workmen found that their wages were being reduced by reason of the action which the middlemen at Cardiff were taking. The trade union came to the conclusion that it was necessary to make a stand against that. The action they took prevented the wages being reduced. If the men did wrong the employers had the means of redress in their hands. By taking action against the men for breach of contract they would have got just as much out of the workmen as they got out of the society by the action they took against them. At that time a new scheme of working was being initiated, and the employers proceeded against the society in order to break up the union, so that when the time came for discussing the new scheme the workmen should be helpless in the negotiations. The result was that the federation had to pay not only for the men in the federation but for men who were not. He accepted the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney-General that this Bill was an earnest attempt on the part of the Government to meet a very difficult problem, but he was bound to say on behalf of organised labour they could not accept it. They must have more. He appealed to the Government to take their courage in both hands and to carry out in this measure their obligations to the workers of this country. He asserted that hon. Members would not have been returned

1331
to this House if in many constituencies the workmen had not thought that by returning them they were taking some part in setting right the law with regard to trade unions which the courts had made wrong. He appealed to the House not to lend itself to proposals which, if placed on the Statute-book, would enable employers of labour to evade the law, to conspire and to do exactly what they liked, and which would make trade union funds liable for damage for acts not authorised by the trade union. They asked only for equal treatment before the law, and having asked for nothing more than that he took leave to say that this House ought not to expect them to accept anything less. He therefore applied to the Government to remodel this clause before the Bill came up for Second Reading, otherwise he, as a trade unionist representative, and his colleagues would be compelled to go into the lobby against the Government.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was one of those who thought the claim put forward by one section of this House, by the accredited representatives of labour, was not one that should be entertained. After all, every Member came here as the representative of the whole of his constituents, and all had an equal right to their opinion on a measure which affected the working classes like this. He agreed with the Attorney-General that the condition of the law with regard to conspiracy was not in all respects satisfactory. The hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out the uncertainty which existed—he thought necessarily if we were to have any law— but he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had given sufficient weight to the other side of the argument. He dissented from the contention that an act done by 100 men did not differ from an act done by one man. Let them take for instance the case of a public meeting. A man might go to a public meeting and make observations and express dissent and no harm would be done, but if a third of the meeting took the same action it would become impossible to carry the meeting on. Let them take the words of the hon. Member for South Glamorganshire. The hon. Mem-had said there was a conspiracy among
1332
the employers to exercise their rights harshly. If that could be shown to be the fact, then it was a pernicious thing for which a remedy should be found. If one employer dismissed a man from his employment, that was not the same thing as a number of employers agreeing together not to give a man employment.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid the case his hon. friend had referred to affected 1,300 men, not one of whom could find employ ment.
LORD R. CECILsaid that really made his case 1,300 times as strong, because instead of an injury done to one man it was an injury done to 1,300, not one of whom had any remedy. He used that argument simply to show that it was a fallacy to say that an act done by a number of men was no worse than the same act done by an individual. It might be that it was better to have a certain law, though it did not deal with all these questions, to an uncertain law which might or might not remedy all these evils. The matter certainly could not be left where it was. It might be that the learned Attorney-General preferred a statutory high-road to judge-made law, and might be able to devise a form of words which would be free from doubt and would settle the law definitely; but he would suggest that it would be very difficult to have a provision of the kind contemplated unless it was to apply to all classes of the community. If the law was right, and he thought it was on the whole, then no special exemption should be made in favour of trade unions. Nothing could be more harmless than peaceful picketing as described by some hon. Members when they spoke of workmen, attracted by the fraudulent devices of an employer, being rescued by the charity of their fellow-workmen from the evils they had been induced to encounter. But he did not find that the evidence before the Royal Commission put it that way. He put it to the House that it was perfectly well known that the watching and besetting a house was a cause of the disorder that took place during these unhappy industrial disputes.

1333
In practice it led to breaches of the peace and to what he could only describe as tyranny. He therefore looked with some apprehension to the adoption of any measure which would legalise anything in the nature of watching and besetting a house. The Government appeared to be taking certain elaborate precautions to ensure that trade unions should be given a special position under the law of agency and should not be liable to damages unless they expressly authorised the act in respect of which they were claimed. Suppose a trade union took up a strike and provided funds for it, were they to be held liable for the action of their agents or not? The main point was, were the trade unions to be free from any of the ordinary provisions of the law of agency? He had never thought it possible to defend the law of agency logically. On what possible reason was he to be made liable for his coachman's getting drunk and driving into another carriage? Although the man had been warned particularly not to take too much to drink, yet if he did drive into another carriage his master was made liable. Take the case of railway companies: on what possible ground of reason were the shareholders made to pay for the act of a porter at a wayside station? Yet it was done every day.
MR. BRACEsaid a railway company had the right to sue, and that made all the difference.
LORD R. CECILsaid that in point of fact the shareholder was not rationally responsible, but that was the law of agency, and it had been adopted for excellent reasons. Unless the employer was made responsible for his servant, he would always be able to shelter himself behind some more or less colourable instruction to him not to break the law. That was why the law had adopted the principle of respondeat superior. Why should not that principle be applied to trade unions as well as everybody else? We were on the eve of great developments, particularly of an industrial and commercial character, which took the form more and more of substituting for the individual great corporations of enormous wealth and power. On the
1334
other hand they had these gigantic unions of the workmen. He did not in the least complain of the one or the other, but they had these two forces organised, not one against another but in order to arrive at a fair settlement of the conflicting interests. Were they going to say to one of those forces: "We are going to make a special exception and you are not to be liable for the acts of your agents "? The hon. Member for Clitheroe said they were not on the same footing at all. His argument was that practically trade unions existed for one purpose—for carrying on a strike—and if the employers were allowed by union among themselves to fight that strike it might be by illegal means, he believed the hon. Member suggested that the trade unions had no remedy by an action for damages because they would not be able to show any pecuniary damages. Therefore the employers were left with a remedy which was not at the disposal of the trade unions. The question was whether in point of fact damage had been suffered.
MR. SHACKLETON: They have suffered damage.
LORD R. CECILsaid that if they had he knew of no provision in the law which would prevent them recovering whatever damages they had suffered. He would be very glad to consider and support a measure which would remove all taint of illegality from trade unions and make their contracts for all purpose, as enforceable as the contracts of everybody else. If that were done then they would be in the same position as the employer if they suffered damage. They would be a legal association and they would be able to recover for the acts of the agents of the employer in just the same way as the employer could recover for the acts of trade unionists. He earnestly pressed the House not to make an exception, whether in the law of conspiracy or in the law of agency, on behalf of one special class or one special body, however many votes that class might command. Everyone knew that the reason why this Bill was introduced was that the Labour vote had very largely increased at the late election. He asked the House to guard the great principle of justice and equity which should rule all

1335
their legislation. If they gave this privilege one of two things must happen. The privileged body must suffer from the odium which all privileges excited and great injury would be done to the workmen themselves, or else they would have to extend that privilege to other bodies. He begged the House to be careful not to enact anything which they were not certain could be extended to all classes of His Majesty's subjects without great injury to all who were involved.
MR. BELLsaid he joined with those of his colleagues who had congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the effort he had made in reference to this difficult question. He could endorse what had already been said by those who were qualified to speak in the name of organised labour in this country to the effect that the Bill fell short of what they desired. In reference to what the noble Lord had said, he appeared to believe that trade unions desired special legislation, or rather, special privileges. They desired no special privileges, but, recognising that there was nothing in this country to equal trade unions, they held that they should therefore have legislation that was suitable to the only organisation which existed. If trade unions were on the same basis or were constituted like public companies they would have no excuse for asking for legislation for themselves, but when they recognised that trade unions were voluntary institutions just as much as the Carlton Club or the National Liberal Cluband that men might belong to them or not, as they desired, it must be apparent that they could not obtain the control over their agents that organised institutions of other kinds could. Their branch secretaries were simply men who followed their occupations in whatever industry they might be employed, and they gave their time to act as branch or lodge secretaries. It was true that they might get some small fractional part of the contributions for the labours they gave, but to take that as being in the way of payment was an absolute absurdity. The unions did not think of it as such, and therefore they could not recognise that a man who volunteered to act as a branch secretary was one
1336
over whom they could have the control that an employer had over his inspector or foreman. Then, if they came to the other class of officials—and they were not in such large numbers as the Attorney-General thought they were—the great organisations of this country had not a large number of paid officials. If he spoke correctly and conscientiously he would say that they had not sufficient really in proportion to the strength of their organisation. But, however that might be, he was afraid that in this House, as in former Parliaments, there was a large number of Members who had not been able to appreciate, as he had hoped they would do, the fact that trade unions stood apart and distinct from any other kind of institutions, and it was in recognition of that fact that they asked for special legislation. The noble Lord apprehended that something desperate would happen if the Bill, as they desired, became law. It must not be forgotten that the Judges of this country, the employers, and the workmen all believed that this was the law up to 1901, and whether they were right or wrong in believing that, anyhow they never observed that any desperate tragedies occurred during the thirty years when they were under that misapprehension. He could not see any reason, therefore, why anybody should apprehend now that, given this charter which they were asking for, such tragedies would occur in the future. To say that they were asking to be privileged would be putting a wrong interpretation on their demand. They asked that they should be placed on an equality with the employers when they were in the unfortunate position of having to fight them. Everybody would admit that during the thirty-five years existence of trade unionism in this country the conditions of labour had materially improved, and happily that had been effected in many instances without resorting to a fight. But, be that as it might, they must be placed on an equality to fight the strongest employer in the country, if it should be necessary. Trade unions invariably endeavoured to arrange their differences by arbitration, and it was only in extreme cases that they resorted to a fight. He would suggest that trade unions were in a similarly unique

1337
position of life to the Army or the Navy. They had their Army and their Navy simply as institutions, which did nothing in times of peace. The foreign secretaries carried out their negotiations with foreign countries, and if they were unsuccessful in their treaties, the country was obliged to become either the aggressor or the defender. Then the Army or the Navy was brought into use, but when that happened no unnecessary restrictions were placed on those engaged in those forces. During the many disputes which had occurred in this country illegal acts had possibly been committed by individuals, and whether Parliament granted them protection as unions or not these acts would be committed in the future as they had been in the past. But these people had been dealt with by the common law and had had to suffer imprisonment for the offences they had committed. The Taff Vale struggle really was responsible for the manner in which the law was now interpreted. It was true a number of the Taff Vale men had been for a considerable time agitating for reforms, and while that agitation was going on the railway company, in order to injure the agitation, pitched on one of the leading men in their employ who was acting as a representative between the men and the company. Justice Wills in his summing up to the jury called special attention to the fact that the Taff Vale Railway Company in this instance had done the very thing likely to excite a body of men when the agitation was going on. Was there anything more likely to inflame workpeople than action of that kind? That was an act of annoyance and irritation by the employers in the first instance, fitted to inflame the tempers of the workpeople. The men came out without handing in their notices—or rather a number of them came out, because there were several grades concerned. Some required to give a week's notice, others a fortnight's, and when the strike actually took place some of the men were not entitled to give notice, some had only worked a week out of the fortnight, and others had not given notice at all. A certain number had committed a breach of contract, and here was where the union he represented came in. An appeal was made to the committee to come to the
1338
rescue of these men. The committee condemned the action of the men in resorting to the dispute without tendering their legal notices, and recognising also what might happen if men were allowed to go on in their own way without anyone looking after them, the committee resolved by a majority of one out of thirteen that they would take the men under their wing, try to get them under control and settle the dispute. The organisation and his committee did it ostensibly to try to keep the men under control and to settle the dispute in the interests of the men, the employers, and the public. Three days prior to the strike taking place he was asked by the late Lord Ritchie, who was then President of the Board of Trade, to go down to try and settle the dispute. He went down and found that the men were acting in defiance of the organisation and of himself. They practically told him to mind his own business and not to interfere with them. There was nothing more to be done and he returned to London. His committee, looking to the temper of the men and feeling that much greater danger would occur if they were left alone than by having some control exercised over them, decided in the circumstances to take charge of them. That was one of the things which was held to be illegal on the part of a trade union. They were held to be doing wrong when really they were doing a service both to the company and the public. During the progress of the strike the employers, as in all other instances, did not hesitate to use all kinds of machinery to find men to take the places of those with whom they were in conflict. Men were brought from all parts of the United Kingdom. On one particular occasion the agents of the Free Labour Association in London were paid 30s. a head for men secured for the Taff Vale Railway. These agents were not particular where they got their "heads." On one occasion the 9.15 train from Paddington had two saloons attached carrying thirty-eight of these heads. Several of them were obtained from Holloway and Brixton prisons, and the others from street corners, "pubs," and any other places where they could be got. The agents of the association entered into contracts with these men to work for the

1339
Taff Vale Railway Company. The men had their passage paid, they were supplied with drink, and some of them had had a drop or two when they reached Cardiff. He was at Cardiff station when they arrived. The railway company had an army of policemen there. There were two policemen for every "blackleg." He approached these men at the carriage window, and the police were looking on and listening to what he said. The agent of the Free Labour Association was also there, so that there was no intimidation on his part. So far as he was concerned it was perfectly peaceable persuasion. He told them the circumstances and persuaded them with all his power not to work for the Taff Vale Railway Company. Some of the men said they were told that there was an extension of the Taff Vale railway, and that owing to the opening of branch lines a large number of men were required. He could believe that the agents of the employers in the circumstances were not particular what they said in order to persuade the men to make contracts. The men said to him that they had no money to go back, and he stated that if they decided not to work for the Taff Vale Company he would pay their fares back, and see that they were supplied with refreshments until they could get back. This offer was accepted by thirty-two of the men who came out of the saloons. He treated them just as liberally as the Taff Vale Railway Company had done. For doing that it was held that he had committed an illegal act; the men had been persuaded to break their contracts, and he was placed under restraint by injunction from doing such a thing again. He admitted at once that unless they had power peacefully to persuade in that manner, and if they thought it necessary even to pay the fares of men back to the homes whence they came, they could not conduct a strike as it ought to be conducted. It should not be forgotten that men on strike were fighting after they had failed by negotiation and argument, and therefore they must not be hampered any more than the employers. Those who had for a number of years been conducting the affairs of trade unions knew the difficulties with which they had to contend. They knew
1340
the underhanded methods which employers indulged in. He would not deny to employers the rights and liberties which the workmen claimed for themselves. He would not deny an employer the right to go to Holloway gaol tomorrow morning if he wished to take into his employment those who were released from prison. But he claimed on behalf of those engaged in a conflict that they should have the right to persuade the men to go back home, and to treat them as liberally as the employers did when supporting their claim. The question of agency was really most difficult in these circumstances, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would recognise that all the argument about giving a privilege to trade unions overlooked the fact that trade-unions were not analogous to any other institutions. For that reasons it was absolutely impossible to legislate for trade unions and other institutions at the same time. Trade unions must be the subject of special legislation. They were asking no-favour when they asked that a certain power should be conceded to them when they were engaged in a fight with the employers. In his opinion if the trade unions were restored to the position in which everyone believed they were before the Taff Vale decision, that would bring about conciliation boards and other means of settling disputes. Surely there was no hon. Member who believed that the representatives of trade unions would deliberately injure other people. They must not deny that perhaps one of the main results of trade unions engaged in a conflict was to-injure some one. They must injure the employer if they were engaged in a conflict. One of the two parties in the conflict must be injured unless they could come to a sensible arrangement. It was no use for anyone to say that they engaged in a strike without intending or hoping to injure anyone. When engaged in a strike the workmen intended to injure the employer and the employer intended to injure the workmen. He did not mean unfair injury. A strike must injure the employer in his business, his profits, and the progress of the industry for the time being. It was not

1341
denied and they could not escape the fact that they were injuring the employer when they engaged in a conflict. What was the employer doing? He was determined to injure the workmen by preventing him from earning his livelihood to the extent he was entitled to. Trade unions were therefore entitled to special legislation. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to a speech which he had made at the Trade Union Congress in 1903. He believed that that I quotation was substantially correct. But at that time the Congress was discussing the Trade Disputes Bill which was introduced into Parliament in the: succeeding session. He, like other people, in the right place and at the right moment, liked to have all opinions on all questions thoroughly threshed out in order that a correct conclusion might be arrived at. But the Trade Union Congress came to a unanimous decision contrary to the! view he had taken, and therefore the opinion of the Trade Union Congress ought to be taken and not his own personal view. He wished to make that explanation in order that no one should run away with the idea that, although there were two sections of labour in this I House, there were two sections opposed; one to the other on this particular question. He thought it would be wise to allow the First Reading of this Bill to go through, and leave this question for the moment open. The Government would have an opportunity on Friday of hearing the views of the Labour Members on this point in the debate on the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Newcastle; and he hoped that the Government would allow all hon. Members a free hand in voting for or against that Bill. He trusted also that the Government would accept the?decision of the House in regard to that Bill, and that they would be able to?amend the Bill now under discussion in accordance with the decision then arrived at He was sure that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House would not be prepared to allow a jury of trade unionists to try a trade union case. And trade unionists had as little -confidence in allowing a body of men interested in industries and employment to try a case in which they were concerned. What the Labour Members
1342
wanted was to prevent any litigation possibility of litigation against trade unions as trade unions. There might as much litigation as hon. Gentlemen liked against individuals who were so foolish as to commit violations of the law in any respect. During the Taff Vale strike he believed that twelve or fifteen men were imprisoned for offences which hey had committed but they did not complain. The law was vindicated and they bore the brunt. But why should he trade unions pay damages when they lad no control over individuals? There was nothing to prevent a trade unionist striking the Attorney-General that night when he left the House. The law would protect the Attorney - General. But if here happened to be a strike on at the present time, the trade union would have to pay damages for that assault. Trade unionists did not want such a differentia-ion, because it was largely based on prejudice. He thought the Government would be wise to accept the principle of the Bill which had been endorsed by large majorities in two sessions of Parliament if they did so, they would give general satisfaction and afford no cause of complaint to any decent employer of labour.
MR. GUESTsaid that the discussion had so far been confined to representatives of the Labour Party and to members of the legal profession. He wanted, very respectfully, to ask the Government to emphasise the point made by the Attorney-General as to their intention of leaving the decision in regard to Clause 3 to the free and unfettered judgment of the House of Commons. Because, if they did not, many hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House would be put into a very serious difficulty. Certainly a great many of them during the general election positively declared— at least he did— that if returned to Parliament they would do their best to recreate the ante Taff Vale situation. He was quite certain, speaking from experience, that that was what the public expected). The Government had gone a long way—and they all welcomed the steps they had taken—in order to meet the difficulties of the situation and the hopes of the trade unions in that regard; he should have been glad, however, if they had seen their way to go a little further. But if the question

1343
of agency was defined as proposed it would be capable of evasion; and was it not much better to say that trade unions were entirely free from liability to damages than to put them in the position they now occupied? He was quite aware that the Attorney-General had developed a powerful legal argument against the course suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Of course, the legal mind was not symmetrical, but ordinary people were not so much concerned with law as with policy. As to policy, he thought it would be unfortunate if the Government persisted in the line they had taken. Hon. Gentlemen in the course of the debate had frequently alluded to the question whether trade unions should or should not occupy a privileged position. He did not know whether the position which trade unions claimed to occupy was or was not privileged; but whether it was so or not it was no wild experiment on which they wished to embark. They only asked to be put back into the position which they had occupied for the greater part of the last thirty years. During that time trade unions had worked well and had not injured the industries in which the workmen were engaged. A point to be remembered was that the position of the masters was unassailable, it being in practice well known to be almost impossible for the trade unions to prove conspiracy or injury, because the masters came to their decisions in private; whereas the men needed a great amount of publicity to bring about the results which they aimed at. The law of agency was not in itself very satisfactory, and it was only to be defended on the ground that it was an equitable expedient, but if the equity between unions and men did not exist, surely there was no reason for pressing on this occasion the law of agency. What they were concerned with was not so much the small legal points which were raised but the way in which this House was prepared, as a matter of policy, to treat trade unions as a whole. He did not know that the Bill placed trade unions in a privileged position, but if it did he was not prepared to reject it on that ground. He was prepared to place trade unions in a position in which they could bargain with capitalists. He did not think trade unions would injure industry, and if the trade unions
1344
were placed in a position in which they would be able to make their own terms' with employers, the House would be justified in refusing to interfere with questions of wages and the hours of adult labour. They heard a great deal now-a-days about the distribution of wealth. If there was to be a better distribution of wealth, it was at that stage that the distribution should take place. Distribution should take the form of fair wages and not of philanthropic effort. Many members of trade unions had said to him that they would infinitely prefer to be in a position to obtain good wages than have anything in the nature of old age pensions. Surely it was more manly to equip them to obtain what they were entitled to have-and then to leave it to the individual to make some provision for old age. He hoped before the Second Reading was reached the Government would be in a position to make a pronouncement with regard to the third clause, otherwise he felt certain many hon. Members would be in the same difficulty as himself. He' should very much regret if they were unable to support the Government in the' course they intended to pursue.
MR. STUART WORTLEYassured the hon. Member for the-Cardiff District that there was no monopoly on any side, or in any part of the House, of sympathy and good feeling towards that progressive usefulness in the trade unions which had won for them a growing recognition at the hands of Parliament. He also assured the hon. Member for Derby that he did not wish to put a stop to his exercising in all possible ways those arts of persuasion which had won for the hon. Member the excellent position he held in the House of Commons. It was true-that the hon. Member ought to find obstacles in his way when he tried to persuade men to break their contracts, but the discussion of such matters had not been much furthered by the explanation of extreme cases. The Attorney-General had referred the House to a case of which he did not give the name, but which was another of these extreme cases. For his part, he did not want to stop the practice of sending men to meet workmen in order to exercise, by

1345
lawful means, persuasion; and he said that as part of the general position of many of those on the Opposition side of the House, who were in great sympathy with all legitimate efforts to make clear the law and to remove from trade unions some undoubted grievances that they had. It was right, however, that they should bear in mind that the substantial majorities by which even the late Parliament read a second time the Bill known as the Trade Disputes Bill were secured largely in consideration of the promise made in the course of the debate that there should be fair consideration given to Amendments moved in Committee. There were certain elements in our law which always would vitiate contracts and proceedings, such as force, fear, and fraud. He hoped that no alteration in our laws by the removal of these disabilities and qualifications would ever make it possible for any improper or vicious agencies to be put into operation. Trade unionists held that they had a difficulty in finding how they were to use persuasion without intimidation; but other people met with the same difficulty, and he thought trade unionists ought to submit to the same kind of difficulty that every one of the King's subjects had to meet. As regarded the Bill before the House, he reminded hon. Members that the clause foreshadowed by the Attorney-General as to picketing was not that which was brought to the attention of the country during the resent election. If the contention was sound that at the recent election the country pronounced for the Bill known in the last Parliament as the Trade Disputes Bill, the whole of that Bill and nothing but that Bill ought to be brought before the House. But that was not what the country was getting, with regard to the picketing clause, from the Government on the present occasion. He thought, however, that hon. Members below the gangway were wrong, and that the country pronounced in favour of the removal of some of the difficulties from which trade unionists suffered. As to the action of the Government with regard to the law of conspiracy, he did not complain, considering the finding of the very able Royal Commission. He thought the
1346
Government would have done wisely if they had adopted the qualification recommended by that Royal Commission; but if they were going into the question of conspiracy, it opened up an interesting question. Labour Members complained that they suffered from disadvantages because they suffered in a way that employers did not. They said it was no use for them to sue employers for damage done to their cause, because trade unionists could not prove damage. Well that was true. In such cases, where funds were not actually depleted, it would be difficult for a trade union to say that they suffered pecuniary damage. What he wished to draw attention to was that if they relaxed the law of conspiracy they had also to consider whether in so doing they were not themselves facilitating those very actions on the part of the employer of which they complained. He hoped, therefore, they would not do anything which would make more easy what had been done by employers in this country by their concerted refusal to employ men who had given them offence in former disputes. As to trade unions' funds, it could not be seriously contended that the exempting of trade unions was not a very striking instance of the creation of a privilege. Labour Members might probably hold that in past times trade unions had not enjoyed all the popularity that their legitimate objects entitled them to. The feeling then on the part of the public was that too much intimidation was allowed to creep into their proceedings. In the same way, he was convinced that their popularity with the public would suffer if they permitted to be granted in a Bill from Parliament anything like unjust privileges. Such privileges might have to be repealed by a future Parliament. The Government had done well in limiting the grant of immunity in regard to actions for damages against trade unionists. Even now they were going much nearer to the wishes of the Labour Members than those gentlemen were aware of, because, so far as he could see, they would have nothing but the words "bona fide" as a protection against bogus repudiations and calculated prohibitions. The Government had done a service by attempting a solution of this very difficult question, and he hoped

1347
that ultimately it would be settled upon lines which would tend to the peaceful settlement of disputes, which would preserve and, if necessary, extend the fullest liberty of combination amongst the working classes, and, above all, secure on the part of all the fullest possible equality before the law.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORthought that every Member of this House who was in sympathy with trade unionism would repudiate the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin as to the futility of peaceful persuasion in case of strikes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been on the side of law and order elsewhere, but he would venture to say that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were present that he had been on that side in a turbulent sort of way. He represented a very turbulent constituency, and ought not, to apply to the working men of this country the standard which would properly measure his own turbulent condition in the mind of the constituency he represented. Those who knew the working classes of Great Britain were quite willing to give them the power of peaceful persuasion with every hope and confidence that they would use it in a manner beneficial to I both themselves and the country. This particular class, one would think, was being legislated for in an exceptional manner and for the first time. What he I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman I would also apply to what had been said by the noble Lord the Member for Maryle-bone. They were not enacting an exceptional law for the first time, they were not repealing an exceptional law; they were extending by an act of legislation an exceptional law already in existence. Not only in respect of employers was this law exceptional, but also with regard to the members of the trade unions themselves. He referred the noble Lord to Section 4 of the Act of 1871, where he would find that members of the trade unions had no remedy as between themselves.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: It is precisely that provision which might very fairly be repealed.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid they were not here for the purpose of repealing that exceptional law, but for the purpose of extending it because of exceptional circumstances. This law had been passed to interfere with the common law of the land and it had also interfered with the law of conspiracy. He had risen specially for the purpose of stating that while those with whom he acted in the House intended to support the introduction of this Bill, and probably to vote for its Second Reading, that fact would not prevent them from also supporting the more extensive measure that would be introduced next Friday by the hon. Gentlemen who sat on the benches near him. They would do so because they believed these funds were subscribed for a particular purpose and they ought not to be ear-marked for damages in consequence of any action on the part of others. He desired to address a Question to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the Bill. The Attorney-General had said that there were great areas in the juridical map of Great Britain through which he wished to drive a highway in respect of the law of conspiracy. Did he intend that that alteration in the law should extend generally to the law of conspiracy so as to embrace a certain state of things that prevailed in the country which he (Mr. O'Connor) represented in Parliament? He trusted that at all events the title of the Bill would enable them to move an Amendment that would extend the law of conspiracy generally, because although it had been laid down by many speakers in the debate that the law of conspiracy should be so altered as to apply only to trades unions, there were cases of great hardship in Ireland where, if the law was not generally extended, the present state of things would continue. At present it was quite legal for a man in Ireland to decline to pay his rent to his landlord if he regarded it as an exorbitant rent, but if, say after Mass on Sunday he should meet his neighbours outside the church, and if they should hold a meeting and pass a resolution that instead of this one man declining to pay his unjust rent to the landlord they should all decline to pay such rent, they at once came within the scope of the general law of conspiracy. Quite recently there had been prosecutions, and

1349
men had been sent to prison because they?decided to do collectively what one man could do without any punishment whatever. Would not the Attorney-General take this opportunity of so framing the clause with regard to conspiracy as to comprehend within its scope the kind of case he had mentioned. Surely a body of men who "were federated together with a view to bring about a better state of things were as much entitled to protection as the trade unionists themselves. He hoped that the Members who directly represented labour in the House would help them to have that clause regarding conspiracy so framed as to bring the Irish farmer, and the various classes who were at present open to attack through the unfair operation of the law of conspiracy, within its scope.
MR. NORMANdesired to associate himself with the appeal to the Government made by his hon. friend the Member for Cardiff. No case could possibly have been put before the House with greater ability than had been shown by the Attorney -General, but it must have been as much apparent to the hon. and learned Gentleman himself as it was to everybody else that the House was not with him in his arguments. Therefore, he (Mr. Norman) joined in the appeal to him and the Government to put themselves right at the earliest possible moment with what was obviously the feeling of a very large majority of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Government felt that they had a mandate. It was true they had a mandate, but so far as he had been able to understand the recent political situation, it was not a mandate to bring in a. Bill of the kind introduced this afternoon. The mandate which was given to himself and to others on the Ministerial side of the House was quite different. It was a mandate to act in that particular instance in the true sense of Conservatism—to go back to a' good old law which had unexpectedly been found to be inoperative. It appeared to him that the time for arguments had almost passed, but if one desired to argue it would be easy to comment on several points of the hon. and learned Gentle-
1350
man's speech. He spoke, for instance, of the necessity for checking the abuse of power on the part of trade unions. He (Mr. Norman) ventured to say that the history of trade unionism in the past was not a history of the abuse of power.
SIR JOHN WALTON: I did not say it.
MR. NORMANwas sorry if he had misrepresented his hon. and learned friend, but he understood him to say that one of the objects of the Bill would be to check the abuse of power. He certainly drew rather a terrible picture of what might happen under certain circumstances—a picture which he (Mr. Norman) ventured to say with all respect was hardly historically accurate as regarded trade unionism in this country. The hon. and learned Gentleman further said, if he correctly understood him, that if this Bill became law he could scarcely conceive a case arising to go before a jury. If that were so, it seemed hardly necessary to pass such a very important law, involving so much that was novel and raising so many points which vitally touched a very large part of the community. The framers of the Bill appeared to be under the impression that, supposing a trade union deliberately decided and intended to commit an illegal act, they would thereupon immediately authorise some agent to go and do it. Human nature being what it was, it appeared to him very obvious that in the unlikely event of a trade union contemplating an illegal act it would not hand to some agent formal authority to do it. He felt quite confident that if an illegal act were committed it would be found that it was a wholly unauthorised act. The Bill, therefore, even in what it proposed to bring about, was likely to break down at its most vital point. It was often said that the charge that the organisations of working men were treated unfairly as compared with those of capitalists was not justified. He himself believed it was obviously true, and if further evidence of that were wanted it would be found in the appointment of the late Royal Commission. If that was not an example of unfairness he did not know

1351
where to look for one. The Government claimed that they had a mandate. On the other hand, he and most of the Members of the Liberal Party, had a mandate to act entirely contrary to the spirit which proposed to pass this Bill. He was pledged to the hilt to restore the position which existed before the Taff Vale decision. He had not pledged himself without long and careful consideration. He had declared and defended his attitude a score of times upon the platform; he had voted for it in the House; he had asked for a mandate and had received it. He was morally and inevitably bound to obey that mandate, even though it brought him, with the deepest regret, into direct conflict with the authorities of his own Party.
MR. W. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSsaid that, in common with a good many other Members of the House, he was pledged to support the Bill which went by the name of the "Shackleton Bill." It was put to him distinctly at the general election whether he was prepared to support that Bill and he had pledged himself to support it. Although he was very sorry to come into conflict so early in his political career with his respected leaders, he was there to carry out that pledge. He gathered that a good many other Members who were as loyal to the Government as he was were as deeply pledged to support a measure of that sort and were prepared to do so. He had not given that pledge hastily without inquiring into the circumstances. There could be no doubt that the intention of the Legislature in 1871 was that trade unions were not capable of being sued. The Report of the Minority of the Trade Union Commissioners of 1869, which, according to Lord Macnaghten's judgment in the Taff Vale case, formed the basis of the 1871 Act, recommended that unions should not be capable of being sued as corporate bodies. Mr. George Howell, who was for many years a Member of this House, in the preface to his book on Trade Union Law, said that he could speak with some authority on the intention of the Legislature—
"In my interviews with the then Home Secretary," he said, "the question of empowering
1352
trade unions to sue and be sued was often and often discussed. Some few were in favour of embodying such power in the Trade Union, Bill, but the vast preponderating opinion was averse to it. Any provision of that nature was intentionally left out; the Home Secretary being quite as strong on that point as Messrs. Hughes, Mundella, Hinde Palmer, Serjeant Simon, and, so far as my memory serves me, the late Lord Coleridge."
That intention was supposed to be expressed in the Act of 1871, and practically for thirty years this country had had experience of what would happen if trade union funds were not to be made liable in the way they had been made liable' by the legal decision. What had been the result? So far as he knew no bad results had occurred at all. No injustice had been done, and it was a well-known fact that trade unions and unionists were most anxious to suppress disorder. He could not conceive why bad results; should be expected to occur in the future-after thirty years experience in which no bad results had occurred. He felt morally pledged to his constituency, and he felt also he should be acting in the best interests of all classes of the community by availing himself of the liberty of action which he understood the Government gave them of expressing an opinion in favour of Mr. Shackleton's. Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill to provide for the regulation of Trades Unions and Trade Disputes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Solicitor-General.

TRADE DISPUTES BILL
"To provide for the regulation of Trades Unions and Trade Disputes," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [27th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
SIR H. AUBREY-FLETCHERsaid he did not see the hon.

1353
Baronet the Member for South Somerset in his place. He was very anxious to make some remarks in connection with the Bill, and to put one or two Questions to the hon. Baronet in order to satisfy I himself and his constituency as to the character of the Bill. He should like to ask whether it was a Bill taken up from the remainder of the Bill brought forward in last session of Parliament by the previous Government or an entirely new Bill. There were many classes of people interested in this; not only farmers, but cake merchants and seed merchants, and even chemists were interested in it. Last session he received many letters from these professions and industries calling his attention to the Bill then brought forward, and which, unfortunately perhaps, the time did not permit to be passed into law.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY RILL. [BY ORDER.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BARNARDsaid his objections to this Bill would not take long to express, for the reason that since he put his Motion for its rejection on the Paper the railway company had circulated a document among Members of the House which made it much easier for him to explain his motives. That document said that the Company noticed two notices of Motion for the rejection of the Bill had been put on the Paper, and the Company understood that one was in relation to the objections taken to the boring operations in which the Company were engaged on their own property adjoining Carshalton Station. He desired the House to understand that, while the assurances the Company now gave in that regard were largely satisfactory to him they did not affect, in
  1354
  any degree, the reasons why he ventured to object to this Bill. He contended that if a company possessing a great monopoly came to Parliament for powers with regard to their ordinary business, with which he had no desire to interfere, it was within the province of this House to review the position and contemplate whether that particular company had avoided or evaded the law or had arrogated to itself powers which, in the ordinary understanding of the words, its monopoly did not give it. In that sense he objected to this Bill. When he found a company like the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company indulging in matters which had very little to do with their ordinary business he considered it was quite proper to bring it to the notice of the House. It was well understood by the precedent of the Wolverhampton Bill that it was not permissible for any water undertaking to secure water in one district for the benefit or use of another district if it could be shown that the district from which the water had been obtained was likely to require it. They had within their own knowledge the Report of the Commission, of which Lord Balfour of Burleigh was the President, which laid it down that no water ought to be taken out of the Surrey district. It was specifically stated that it should remain there for the benefit, of the locality. The next point upon which he wanted to lay stress was that in all the recent municipal undertakings of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and other places, it was an accepted condition and Parliament insisted that if water was taken from one district to be used in another district the people along the route should have the right to tap the supply and take what they required from it. There was a third well - accepted conclusion which Parliament had adhered to, that no one district should take water from another if they could get water inside the district in which it was desired that the water should be used. This company absolutely sought by its monopoly rights without coming to Parliament to violate every one of these three conditions, and he ventured to maintain that it was altogether foreign to the work of a railway company to be

  1355
  allowed to use monopoly rights granted to it for one purpose to secure competitive rights with other statutory companies. It was for this reason that he made his objection. Since he had put his Motion on the Paper he had had the opportunity of having a conversation with the representatives of the company. That interview was not at all satisfactory. He then had the advantage of representing his arguments to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade with a much more beneficial result, because the effect of his remarks to that gentleman apparently was that the Brighton Company were ready to acknowledge his contention and to bind themselves down to use this water within the district in which they raised it. He asked the House to bear in mind that although it was apparently a small matter it was a point of far-reaching character. It meant that when a great monopoly and statutory company came to Parliament only mentioning certain of the things which they required, if this principle which he put forward was accepted, it would be in the power of every humble individual to object if the company were not doing their duty in every respect. He was perfectly willing to withdraw his opposition if the assurance given to his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade was carried out, and if it was put into official language that the Brighton Railway Company would not use water which they were raising at Carshalton outside a radius of six miles from the place at which they brought it to the surface.
  MR. WARDLEsaid the objects which led him to put down the Motion on the Paper had now been largely attained, and he did not propose to go into them at any length. He did, however, desire to make one or two observations on the matter. It was said by the promoters of this Bill that its main object was the authorisation of certain widenings and alteration of its main or branch lines. If that had been all he should have raised no objection to its passing in the ordinary course. But it was what was called an Omnibus Bill An Omnibus Bill was a favourite device for getting certain little concessions
  1356
  through Parliament which it would be impossible to get by any other means. These other objects were masked under the statement, "The Bill also contains other powers of a miscellaneous character." By means of these miscellaneous clauses, railways had succeeded in passing through this House many Bills granting powers—and very wide powers too—in regard to pension, provident, and other funds, which had been given to few, if any, other corporations. They had also been permitted to extend the scope of their operations in a manner which had not always been to the public interest. Notably was this the case with regard to canals. The plea put forward of finding employment by the carrying out of new works did not absolve the House from the duty of examining closely every such Omnibus Bill, and especially the new powers sought by great monopolist corporations. It was precisely because of the miscellaneous powers asked for in this Bill that he put down the Motion to oppose the measure. A further statement was made that the Bill was of a very ordinary character and raised no questions of any general importance. What was it the Bill proposed to do? First it asked for very large and comprehensive powers in regard to omnibuses—
  "The company may provide own work and use in connection with or in extension of their railway system or otherwise in any district to which their said system affords access omnibuses coaches cars and other road veheicles to be drawn or moved by animal power or electric or any mechanical power and may therein convey persons luggage parcels and goods whether to and from any of their stations or otherwise and may make and recover charges in respect of such conveyance and may enter into contracts or agreements with any company or person for the supply or working of any such omnibuses coaches cars and other road vehicles and may apply their corporate funds to the purposes aforesaid or any of them."
  This clause as it stood proposed to confer very great powers indeed. It proposed to allow the company to compete within its district with all other road carrying firms whether they carried passengers or goods. Such a proposal might have developed into a great monopoly and acted seriously against the public interest. Since he had put down his Motion, however, he had seen representatives of the company, and he was assured

  1357
  that a new clause had been drafted which would take the place of the clause he had just read. If that were so the new clause would be satisfactory to him, and he would withdraw his opposition with regard to the omnibuses. But it only serves to show with what great care Bills of this kind should be scrutinised by this House. The next point which he objected to was the clauses with reference to the promotion of a guarantee fund, and here again it was not so much to the principle of the fund that he objected to as to the very wide powers which were sought under the Bill. On these, too, the company have now agreed to insert a clause which defines and limits these powers and this clause largely disposed of the objection he raised, which objection had reference to dividing the funds after a certain period of three or five years as the case might be. The company now agreed that the fund should be divided among the men, and with that he was perfectly satisfied. He thought it right, however, to say that in his opinion they should go further and return all contributions to men who left the service with clean and honest records during the intervals between such divisions. There was only one other thing to which he objected, and that was the clause raising the fares between Newhaven and Dieppe. He commended that part of the Bill to the Board of Trade who he thought had a duty to perform to the public in looking into that matter. In 1862 a Bill was passed through this House granting to this company powers to charge for first class accommodation between Newhaven and Dieppe the sum of 13s., for second class, 9s. 6d., and for third class 6s. 6d. They now proposed by this Bill to raise those fares to 16s., 12s. 6d., and 10s. respectively. That seemed to him to be a retrograde policy which he recommended to the attention of the Board of Trade.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDONsaid the point upon which he took exception to this Bill was of great and vital importance to a large industry conducted in some cases by large and important firms, but in which many small men were engaged and had
  1358
  capital invested. He referred to Clause 16 of the Bill which provided that the company might—
  "Provide, work, own and use in connection with any extension of their railway system or otherwise in any district to which their said system affords access, omnibuses, coaches, cars and other road vehicles to be drawn or moved by animal, electric or any mechanical power and may therein convey persons, luggage, parcels and goods whether to or from their stations or otherwise, and to make and recover charges in respect of such conveyance and may enter into agreements with any company or persons for the supply or working of such omnibuses, coaches, cars and other road vehicles and may apply their corporate funds to the purposes aforesaid or any of them."
  If that clause were allowed to stand the business of carting would be most seriously affected. The House would readily understand that a large railway company like the London and Brighton were not dependent on the profit they made out of carting solely. It was only, so to speak, a by-product of their business, and therefore they would be able to make rates and undercut the people engaged in this trade in such a way as seriously to affect or even destroy this most important industry. His primary objection therefore to the Bill was that a railway company should not have-power to carry on the business of common carriers outside their ordinary business. Of course they had to have waggons and so forth for the purpose of conveying goods in certain directions to and from their stations, but he contended that if these powers were granted to them they might at once become competitors in the carrying trade which it was never intended they should. But there was a broader principle involved. He thought that in the interests of the community generally a railway ought not to be granted statutory rights and powers to engage in competition with carmen or any other branch of trade other than that incidental to railway traffic. They should be restricted to such trade as concerned their business as a railway company, and therefore in defence of these private interests he had spoken. The points he had brought before the House were of considerable importance and it was with the object of getting the sense of the House upon them that he moved the Motion standing in his name
  MR. GODFREY BARINGformally seconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Sir William Evans-Gordon.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,)said that in answer to the hon. Member for Kidderminster he might say that what the Company proposed to do was to draw a supply of water from a well near Carshalton and bring it to London. That, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, was an enlargement of the powers of. railway companies. He had conveyed to the Company the opinion of the Board of Trade, which was, that that was rather beyond the powers for which a railway company should press—that, in fact, they would constitute themselves a quasi-water company, and that he did not think the House would view such a thing with great favour. The railway company gave assurances that they had no intention of doing anything of the kind, or rather if they had any such intention they abandoned it, and that all they wished to do was to supply water to the immediate vicinity. He then pointed out that it would be desirable for them to give an undertaking, and they greed to restrict the supply to an area of six miles from the point at which the well was sunk. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Stockport he saw some possible danger in the proposals of the Company to establish a guarantee fund among the employés, but the Company had agreed to meet the hon. Member by accepting a clause upstairs which would still his apprehensions. The question of boat fares was also a question to be dealt with in Committee. The Company were quite prepared to accept a modification with regard to third class fares, and the hon. Member had had an assurance on that point. The hon. Member had raised another point—a point to which the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney
  1360
  also referred. That was a matter the Bill did deal with. It was the question of the power of the Company to provide omnibuses, etc. The hon. and gallant Member for Stepney objected to the Company's enlarging their powers so as to become general carriers. The clause, as framed in the Bill, went rather a long way, but he had succeeded in inducing the London Brighton and South Coast Company to modify that clause, with a result that they were now no longer asking for enlarged powers. He hoped that assurance would satisfy the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney also. He might say, generally, that the Company had shown every willingness to meet all the criticisms brought to bear upon this Bill. Before he sat down he might say one word with regard to the growing tendency of raising objections to private Bills on Second Reading, on points which were essentially Committee points. Some of the points brought! forward to-day were points which ought to have been brought forward in Committee. The point, however, brought forward by the hon. Member for Kidderminster was not of that kind, but a point of principle, and therefore it was that the Board of Trade felt it their duty to convey to the Company their views that it would not be wise for them to insist upon it. All the other points were points that might have been dealt with upstairs. He hoped, having made these observations, the Bill might now be allowed to pass its Second Reading.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid his name appeared on the back of the Bill as the nominal proposer, and although he had no connection with the Company, he had been asked to put their case so far as necessary before the House. After what had been said by the Secretary to the Board of Trade, he need trouble the House very little. He would only say that the Company had done their best to meet the objections and had fully consulted every interest in accepting the proposals of the Board of Trade. Re added his protest to that of the hon. Gentleman opposite against the practice which had grown up of opposing private Bills on Second Reading on points which had nothing to do with the

  1361
  Contents of the bill. In this particular case it was perfectly possible to have obtained an injunction against this Company if they had broken the law; but they had not, and their opponents knew it. In the next place, if the public were injured the proper course would have been to have brought in legislation to have dealt with the injury, and not to make a private company the victim of the want of legislation. He contended that a Second Reading of a private Bill ought not to be lightly stopped, because it often brought needless hardship on individuals. The Company was boring on its own grounds, and had a perfect right to deal with the water; The water was to be used to wash out the carriages. The public had often complained of the condition of some of the carriages of this railway company, and why should difficulties be put in the way of the railway company if they wanted to improve their rolling-stock for the convenience of the public?
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERcongratulated the Secretary to the Board of Trade on having made some arrangement in regard to this particular Bill; but he hoped that the Bill would not be taken as a precedent. Very stringent conditions ought to be laid down in such Bills in regard to public companies taking water. There was no doubt that land had been permanently injured by public companies taking water from deep wells, and the private interests of farmers had suffered very severely therefrom.
  MR. MORTONsaid he wished to protest against the attempt of the Secretary to the Board of Trade to prevent opposition to such Bills Second Reading as this. The right hon. Gentleman must know that people interested in such Bills could not find the money to oppose a wealthy public company in Committee. The Board of Trade officials were paid to look after the interests of the public in an impartial way and not to act or to seem to act on behalf of any company whatever.
  MR. CLOUGHwished to ask, as a point of order, whether it was a rule,
  1362
  Written or unwritten or a point of honour, that no hon. Member who was a shareholder in the london and Brighton Railway should vote upon a bill promoted by the company in which he had a financial interest.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has put to me rather a difficult Question, and as it does not immediately arise on this Bill, I would rather defer the reply to it until the actual occasion arises. It is always open to the House to strike out the name of an hon. Member who happens to have voted in a division when that Member has been directly furthering his pecuniary interests by the vote which he has given. On each question, as it arises, it is for the House to decide.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  THE PORT OF LONDON.
  MR. DICKINSONsaid that the subject to which he wished to draw the attention of the House was that of the port of London. The port was the source of the present prosperity and wealth of the capital of the Empire, and its condition should be made the concern of the Imjjerial Parliament in a very intimate way. No less than one-third of the value of the imports coming to this country passed through the port of London. It was no exaggeration to say that more than one half of the foreign and colonial or transhipment trade of the country was carried on in the port of London. If that port were done away with, no other port in the country could take its place, and the trade would be taken to a port belonging to some continental country. His Motion referred to the urgency of the need for consideration to be given by Parliament to this subject: but he did not intend to paint any lamentable picture of the condition of the trade of London. Fortunately, that trade was very large indeed, and it was increasing year by year. The port of London might be said to rank second to none in the world. It was situated in the midst of a teeming population, and the Thames Channel, from the sea to the City, was better and deeper

  1363
  than the channels of Hamburg, Rotterdam, and Antwerp, while the large rise and fall of the tide gave great facilities to the movement of craft up and down the river. That being so, the question might naturally arise as to why there should be any urgency in the matter. The fact was that Londoners had been too long dependent upon the kind provision which Providence had made for them. Our neighbours the Belgians, the Germans, and the Dutch had recognised the truth of the saying that "God helps those who help themselves." Although it was all very well to trust to Providence, even Providence required some assistance in the shape of labour and capital. The amount of labour and capital devoted to the improvement of the port of London was far less than had been given to many other ports in the world. That was due chiefly to neglect, of which there were three contributive causes. First of all, there was the present complicated system under which the duty of attending to the affairs of the port of London had been divided between several different authorities. In the second place, for a number of years the Thames Conservancy, which had the care of the port, did not show that amount of foresight which they ought; and in the third place, the dock system of the port had been in the hands of private companies which, from no fault of their own, could not provide the necessary capital to develop all the requirements of the port. He did not wish to criticise or animadvert on either of these authorities. Both the Thames Conservancy and the dock companies had had to run the gauntlet before the Royal Commission, and he had no doubt they had done their best during the past few years for the port. It was their misfortune that they had not sufficient powers to deal comprehensively with the great problem of the improvement of the port. In order that the House might understand the urgency of this question, he would give shortly an account of the proceedings which had led up to the present position of affairs. About the year 1890 the London County Council promoted a Bill of its own which contained certain provisions aiming at a stronger representation of the public on the Thames Conservancy Board. The result of that proposal was that four years later the Thames Conservancy promoted a Bill for
  1364
  the entire alteration of their constitution and for other purposes. During these intervening years considerable agitation had sprung up in regard to the condition of the port as it affected shippers, and especially the owners of large ships. In 1894 a Commission was appointed, consisting of three eminent gentlemen—Sir John Wolfe Barry, Admiral Sir George Nares, and Mr. Lyster—whose duty it waste report upon the necessity of deepening the channel of the lower reaches of the river, so as to enable the largest ships to come up to the port at low tide. That Commission reported in 1896 in favour of a thirty foot channel to Gravesend. No practical steps, however, were taken to carry out the recommendation of that Commission, and in 1900 application was made by the London County Council to the late Government to appoint a Royal Commission to consider the whole question of the Port of London. The Royal Commission was appointed, and was presided over by Lord Revelstoke. It sat for eighteen months and heard a large number of witnesses, and had the peculiar satisfaction of being able to report absolutely unanimously on all the points referred to them. Shortly stated, they recommended that a single public authority should be established to whom should be entrusted all the duties connected with the management and improvement of the port of London. They recommended, further, that very considerable sums of money should be expended in carrying out the improvement of the port and the docks, and that the dock companies' undertakings should be purchased by that public authority. Mr. Gerald Balfour, who was then President of the Board of Trade, prepared a Bill based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and introduced it into Parliament in 1903. In introducing the Bill, Mr. Gerald Balfour said—
  "It is absolutely essential that some means should be taken to bring the port of London up to modern requirements."
  And, in winding up the debate on the Bill, Mr. Gerald Balfour used these words—
  "The debate has proved conclusively that the House of Commons is in favour of a new port authority for London."
  The Bill was referred without opposition to a Joint Committee, presided over by Lord Cross. That Committee took

  1365
  evidence, and ultimately reported the Bill to the House, but it was then too late in the session for it to be possible to pass it that year. The unusual step was, however, taken of suspending the Bill, so that it might be proceeded with in in the following session. Unfortunately, during the interval those private and local interests, which had been the bane of London legislation for many years, were set in motion and succeeded in dissuading the late Government from their purpose. Mr. Gerald Balfour undoubtedly had at heart the interests of the port of London, and he felt certain that the ultimate abandonment of the Bill, without giving the House of Commons another opportunity of discussing it, was not due to Mr. Gerald Balfour. Seeing that the Bill had been dropped, and that there was no other course open to them, the London County Council promoted a Bill of their own. Mr. Bonar Law, who then represented the Board of Trade in the House, opposed the Bill on the ground that it was not a proper subject for private Bill legislation; and accordingly the Bill was thrown out. At the same time a Bill was promoted by the Thames Conservancy which proposed to give that Board very great powers for the improvement of the port, but this Bill was only allowed to proceed in an emasculated form, and merely gave power to borrow £200,000 for the dredging of the channel. In the meantime public opinion had been chafing at this delay. and some of the leading London newspapers took up the question. On October 7th, 1905, an article appeared in the Standard in which, referring to the tendency for Antwerp and Rotterdam to take the transhipment trade from London, it was stated—
  "It is of vital importance to save the oceanic transport of goods consigned to Great Britain for our own historic port, that the control of the river, and all that appertains to its trade requires to be vested in a single supreme authority."
  And in the financial supplement of The Times for February 19th, 1906, reference was made to the abortive Bills of recent sessions and the article went on to say—
  "The uncertain situation which has been created is paralysing all improvements in the port … It will take a long time to make up for the last six years delay."
  1366
  Even Mr. Scott, Chairman of the Lon don and India Docks Company seemed to be impressed with the necessity of something being done. Speaking quite recently at the annual meeting of that company he said—
  "I cannot believe that no attempt will be made to settle this question. If such a scheme for a port authority be brought forward … we ought to try and make such a scheme a business scheme … if we can do it we shall do something to remove from the port of London the uncertainty which has hung over it for some years past, and to hasten the construction of those docks the need for which we foresaw several years ago."
  So that in all quarters there was general agreement that action ought to be taken without delay. Indeed he did not see how anyone could come to any other conclusion after the Report of the Royal Commission. Stated shortly, that Royal Commission made two main proposals. The first was the improvement of the docks, and the second the improvement of the channel. On the first point they found that notwithstanding the fact that statistics showed a constant growth in the trade of the port, they had ascertained that the increase in the volume of trade had been much greater in Southampton, Hamburg, and Antwerp. When they inquired into the reason for this, they found that the general opinion was that the port of London was a slow port and caused much inconvenience to shippers, owing to the fact that the docks were quite inadequate to the needs of modern commerce. They rested that conclusion on a considerable volume of evidence. Mr. J. W. Bennett, of the Home and Foreign Exchange, said—
  "For years we have brought over very large quantities of our goods into the port of London, and we should bring them still if we could get a quicker delivery, and more facilities … We pay a much higher rate of freight into Southampton so as to get quicker delivery than we should with the port of London."
  The Royal Commission commenting on this branch of the evidence said—
  "We may refer to some figures pat in by Mr. Pembroke as to the relative time and cost of discharging ships of the same class at London and in Liverpool. In one case which he quoted, the same ship came from Rangoon with the same kind of cargo, on one voyage to London, and on another to Liverpool. At Liverpool she discharged 500 more tons than at London in two days less time, and the expense were £367 less … Sir Alfred Jones, who has experience of the ports of London,

  1367
  Liverpool, and Bristol, put in figures to support his statement that while London costs about the same as Liverpool and Avonmouth, the despatch is about five times as bad in he case of a large vessel in London."
  It appeared, therefore, that there was general dissatisfaction with the management of the port of London on the part of all concerned, and the conclusion of the Royal Commission was as follows—
  "It has, in our opinion, been proved, that the port of London is in danger of losing part of its existing trade, and certainly part of the trade which might otherwise come to it, by reason of the river channels and docks being inadequate to meet the increased and increasing requirements of modern commerce."
  It was obvious that it was in the interests of the entire nation that some action should be taken to improve the docks and the channel of the river. If the House would allow him he would read a few words from the Report in regard to this matter—
  "It will be observed that in the largest class of modern vessel, ships over 10,000 tons, German competition is very close; it seems to be possible also that the United States are about to attempt to increase their mercantile marine by a subsidising policy. These are amongst the signs which show how seriously the maritime superiority of this country is now-being challenged. It is clear that any incapacity of the greatest British port, which takes about two-fifths of the trade of the United Kingdom, and does so much transhipment and re-export trade, to accommodate the largest modern steamers, may count in deciding the result of the contest."
  The Commission further pointed out that the mercantile superiority of this country was being challenged by Germany and the United States; that large vessels would probably dominate the oversea trade of the future, and that for their accommodation in the Port of London, the improvement of the docks, and the deepening of the channel of the river were essential. They estimated that £7,000,000 must be spent on these works if the Port of London was to be restored to its proper position; and this would be in addition to the money required for the purchase of the dock companies. It was impossible to estimate at present what the price of these undertakings would be, especially as their financial future was by no means assured. The profits of the London and West India Docks were in 1903 £647,000, out of which the company paid a dividend on their ordinary stock of 3⅙ per cent; in 1904, £646,000, the dividend was 3⅛; and in 1905, £585,000, it
  1368
  was only 1¾ The Millwall Company paid no dividend on £1,100,000 of its stock. The Surrey Commercial Dock paid 6 per cent. up to 1899, and had paid 5 per cent since. The Stock Exchange value of these companies amounted to £20,000,000; but there was little doubt that if they could be purchased at a fair value the income of the new port authority would suffice to make good the cost. With regard to the sum of £4,500,000 required for improving the docks, the commission suggested that the port authority should have the power to levy a duty on imported goods. That proposal involved very important considerations, and he was inclined to the opinion that it would be unwise to place an additional duty on goods brought into London, and that as the improvement of the docks would reduce the delay and thereby lessen the charges upon shipping, it would be less objectionable to make the latter pay the additional duty. The question of deepening the channel was a more difficult one still, because the Royal Commission could not see any way in which the money could be raised for the carrying out of this great object except by charging it upon the ratepayer. They reported that it would cost about £2,500,000, and made the suggestion that the money should be raised by the County and City Councils and charged upon the rates of London. The maximum of charge involved would be a three farthing rate all over London. If this scheme was carried out the management should be placed in the hands of a public body, and the Royal Commission recommended the creation of such a body. In doing that they only advocated the course which had been taken all over the world. There were very few examples where harbours and docks were in the hands of private companies, and the result was that London had now to compete with ports that were largely subsidised by State money. For instance, in recent years immense sums had been expended on improving the ports of Hamburg and Antwerp. During the last fifteen years £2,500,000 had been spent on the Port of London, but in the same period £15,000,000 had been spent at Hamburg on enlargement and on new docks. In Antwerp they were making the quays three times as large at a cost of £7,500,000. The result was, that in six years the tonnage of Hamburg had increased 31 per cent. while London had

  1369
  only increased 14 per cent. and Antwerp had increased at double the rate of London. It was the same with Liverpool. In fifteen years £8,500,000 had been spent, and in the last six years the Liverpool tonnage had increased by 29 per cent. It was clear that for harbours the expenditure must be in advance of requirements, and for this reason the money must be found by the State or by the municipality. In regard to Antwerp, the Belgian State Government had contributed a considerable amount of money, and the German Empire had contributed towards the construction of the Port of Hamburg. A deputation sent recently by the Thames Conservancy to examine continental ports had come back convinced of the necessity of adapting the Port of London to the requirements of modern ocean-going ships. In order to maintain the port, therefore, considerable expenditure would have to be incurred, and if the municipal authorities offered to provide or guarantee the money they would be entitled to have sufficient representation on the governing body to protect the ratepayers from unlimited demands. On the other hand, the interests of the port required that there should be a large representation of the trading community on the governing body. Although the question of the constitution of the new authority was one of difficulty, he believed it would not be impossible to arrive at a compromise as between the various parties interested. All that was required was that the matter should be taken up by His Majesty's Government at an early date; and so great was the desire in London to obtain a satisfactory solution of this problem that the Government would not find insuperable difficulties in the way of reconciling conflicting interests. He concluded by moving the Resolution.
  MR. W. BENNsaid, that so far as the terms of the Motion were concerned, he thought that both sides of the House were in general agreement. A Bill had indeed passed the House which embodied the general principle. The demand that something should be done for the Port of London was based, not on any positive decline in the trade which came to the port, but on the belief, which was
  1370
  supported by the figures of the last ten years, that the Port of London was not maintaining the leading and supreme position which it had enjoyed in the, past. We wanted to maintain our unique position. Taking the figures of England and Wales he found that in 1894 London was handling 34·6 per cent. of the imports; 19·3 of the homo exports and 59·8 per cent. of the re-exports which maintained our position as the entrepot of the world. After ten years, in 1904, London handled 31·7 of the imports, 19·2 per cent. of the home exports and 52·9 per cent. of the re-exports. If he took the increase of shipping entered between 1890 and 1903 it showed that London had increased 30 per cent.; Antwerp, 101; Hamburg, 76; Marseilles, 55 and Rotterdam, 138. The tonnage of foreign shipping entered at Liverpool in 1901 was 6,000,000 and in 1904 7,980,000, an increase of 1,980,000. In London the figure in 1900 was 9,580,000 and in 1904 10,780,000, or only an increase of 1,200,000. The interest of Labour in the question of the improvement of the port was very great. It included all those engaged in the carrying trade and there were 60,000 carmen and 37,000 railway workers, there were also the bargemen and the lighterman numbering 5,600 and 19,710 dock and wharf labourers. The manufacturers were also interested as they wanted cheap raw material quickly. The decline in the average number of dock and wharf labourers was a very serious matter. In 1900 they numbered 15,530, in 1901, 16,454 while in 1905 they only numbered 12,507. These figures explained to some extent the unemployment which now existed and showed how serious the present state of things was for workmen. If it were solved it would go some way to settle the vexed question of unemployment in London. There were two causes which had brought about the present situation, the first was that the river was not deep enough and the second that the docks were not adequate. Looking to the fact that the size of the ships was continually increasing it was essential that a proper depth of water should be maintained. Mr., now Sir,. Alfred L. Jones who was the senior partner in the firm of Elder Dempster and Co., President of the Incorporated

  1371
  chamber of Commerce at Liverpool, and Chairman of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association had said—
  "If London is restricted in the depth and size of her ships and Hamburg and Rotterdam, those two ports in particular which are going ahead tremendously, are able to get facilities which we cannot get it is a tremendous drawback to the British shipowners and British commerce altogether. I might go further, because you may look with certainty to the future producing very much larger ships. The economical ship is the large ship, and unless you can provide for the large ship you cannot compete for the carrying trade."
  So far as dock accommodation was concerned, the Royal Commission found that it was inadequate in quays and berths, and that a now dock was required. The Report of the Royal Commission was also very emphatic as to the necessity for the establishment of a public authority, and he believed hon. Members on both sides of the House were of the same opinion. The dock companies themselves admitted that they were unable to do anything unless their financial powers were considerably extended, and what they wanted to do, as he understood, was to levy new dues. It was said that it would allow them to tax their rivals in trade, namely, the wharfingers, in order to restore a lost position. Inasmuch as the Royal Commission did not favour extended powers for the Thames Conservancy, both the existing authorities were ruled out of court.
  As regarded the inevitable public authority, he did not desire to adumbrate the general lines on which it must be formed, but he did desire that the people of London should have an adequate representation upon it. He held no brief for the London County Council He did not happen to be a member of that body, although his hon. friend the Member for Devonport had some interest in it. But he put the claim on quite different grounds from that. He did not say that the people of London should be represented on the new authority, because they were going to raise £2,500,000 for dredging or guarantee the port stock; but he said the people of London should be fully represented because the Port of London was London's most valuable asset. It was the port which had made London what it was. It had been described as the main artery of London. He thought it could be more appropriately described
  1372
  as the heart of London. He hoped that one result of this debate would be to extract from the Government a pledge that they themselves would move in this important matter. They felt extremely proud of the energy, activity, and wealth of the citizens of London which had built up the greatest port in the world. They were very desirous that London should maintain this position, and they asked the Government to help them. In conclusion might he remind the House of the words of Cowper—
  "Where has commerce such a mart,
  So rich, so thronged, so drained, and so supplied,
  As London, opulent, enlarged, and
  Still increasing London?"
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House is of opinion that the condition of the Port and docks of London urgently demands attention, with a view to the management thereof being forthwith placed in the hands of a public authority."
  MR. BOWLESsaid he had listened with very great interest to the speeches delivered in this debate, and he thought that whatever opinions might be held in any section of the House upon the merits of the Resolution which was now before them, there would, at any rate, be common agreement among all sections as to the great interest and importance of the question which it raised. It seemed to him as a London Member that the Port of London was indeed the greatest asset of the greatest city in the world, and he did not think it was too much to say that the prosperity of this country depended in a very large degree, and in the most direct manner, upon the proper and efficient administration of all the great seaports of this country, and in a particular degree upon the efficient administration of the Port of London. If it were the fact that the present administration of the Port of London was inadequate, inefficient, not proportioned to the needs of the times, and not likely to be able to cope with the developments of the future, then he was entirely at one in saying it was high time a change of some sort was made. The first question, however, was whether or not as a matter of fact the present administration of the Port of

  1373
  London was so inadequate or so inefficient as to demand the sweeping change adumbrated by some hon. Gentlemen. In spite of all that had been said by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side he was by no means satisfied, and he did not know that the House could be entirely satisfied, that the management of the Port of London had been so bad as had been suggested, or so bad as to warrant the tremendous changes that had been proposed. He was glad to hear hon. Members say that they did not raise any allegation that the trade of London was declining or that London could be regarded in any sense as a decadent or dying port. It was undoubted that the tonnage which came into London was increasing in a very remarkable degree, and not only was the tonnage increasing, but the value of the goods dealt with was increasing still more, and by every index that would enable one to judge of | the prosperity of the port it was impossible to regard it as a decadent or dying port. What hon. Members said was that it was not progressing so fast as certain other ports which were amongst its most important rivals. He did not think that it was seriously possible to base a proposal of the magnitude of that suggested by the hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side upon such an argument as that. He did not deny that the rate of the progress of the trade of London was lower than that of the trade of Antwerp, Hamburg, Hotter-dam, and many other ports of a like nature, and that was simply because London had started from a much higher figure than any one of those ports. Taking the year 1850, there entered the port of Antwerp in that year 350,000 tons of shipping, whilst in the same year 5,000,000 tons entered the Port of London. If London had increased her trade in the same proportion as Antwerp had, then in the year 1904, instead f having 17,000,000 of tons entering the Port of London, there would have been 134,000,000 tons of shipping, which was very nearly equal to the whole of the shipping entering the great ports of the world in one year. It was hardly possible therefore for hon. Members seriously to found a complaint as to the administration of the Port of London upon an argument which was so essentially fallacious actuarily. Before the London County
  1374
  Council started shipping on its own account in London the amount of tonnage, for instance, of the Old Swan Pier was practically nothing, but at a moderate computation there were now at least 1,000,000 tons per annum there, due entirely to the enterprise of the London County Council, or, in other words, the London County Council's shipping had increased by 1,000,000 per cent., while British shipping had increased by infinitely less. He did not think, however, that hon. Members would contend that the steamships of the London County Council were in a more flourishing condition than the whole of the British mercantile marine. He would appeal to the Report of the Royal Commission to show that the trade was not so bad as was made out by some hon. Members. Reporting on June 16th, 1902, the Commissioners, after a most exhaustive review of the whole circumstances, said—
  "We are unable to conclude, therefore, that the figures show any relative decline compared with the other ports named."
  They went on to give reasons for that view, and they said that Southampton, Hamburg, Rotterdam, and Antwerp had all gained largely in shipping returns in recent years by the establishment of lines of steamers, many of them with subsidies, just as London and other ports gained at an earlier date, but that there was nothing to indicate that the older ports were being superseded or prevented from largely increasing. The mere assertion, which was true, that London was not increasing so fast as other ports, therefore, in the face of that argument itself, and of the considered conclusion of the Royal Commission, was not sufficient to determine this House to accede to a very fundamental change in the administration of the port. It was said that the river was not up-to-date, that the channel was not deep enough, and that the port generally ought to be made available for large ocean-going steamers. Really one would think that London was unavailable for large ocean-going steamers, and that the depth of the channel compared unfavourably with that of the channels of ports in foreign countries. As a matter of fact the channel into the Port of London was not only one of the best, but, he believed, the very best into-any port in the world. Its minimum depth at low water right up to Tilbury

  1375
  Dock was 24 feet, and in 1908 it would be 30 feet, as it was being dredged 6 feet. There was a range of tide of from 18 to 20 feet in the channel, so that what was now 43 feet at high water would be 49 feet two years hence. In other words, there would be a depth at the very worst of 24 feet, which in a few hours, by the operation of the tide, became the tremendous depth of 43 feet. It was said that it must be made available for large ocean-going steamers. He found some difficulty in understanding how hon. Members could suggest that there was a want of capacity for that purpose at the present time. The largest cargo vessels fully laden could not reach the great competing ports which had been referred to—Hamburg, Antwerp, Rotterdam—but the biggest cargo vessel that floated on the seas could go easily, on the turn of the tide, right up to Tilbury Dock, and be dealt with with the greatest ease. The kind of cargo vessel to which they must look forward was such a steamer as the "Celtic," which was 680 feet long, 5 feet beam, and drew 31 feet of water. At Southampton that vessel lay upon the mud, which, as the House knew, was a serious thing for a ship of that size, and in the mind of any owner of a big ship was a reproach to the port. At Antwerp it was utterly impossible to receive a ship of that kind in any of the docks, and if she lay outside, as she was bound to do, she was on the mud at low water. At Hamburg, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Bremen, four of the largest ports in Europe, a ship such as the "Celtic" could not go near; it was utterly impossible to do so if the vessel were fully laden. At Bristol a ship of the size of the "Celtic" could not enter because the widest dock entrance was only 70 feet. At Liverpool, to which as a matter of fact this ship traded, she was only recently able to get into dock at all when the spring tides were very favourable, and at other times she had been forced to discharge in the middle of the Mersey. So that, taking all the ports mentioned in competition with London, the largest cargo boat found serious and real objection to each one. But in the Port of London a boat of the kind could go into Tilbury Dock without even waiting for high water, and could go straight up to the dock at any state of the tide and do her work without being
  1376
  placed in any unseamanlike position. He did not know that there was any better way of judging between any two docks in respect of the service they respectively rendered to steamers than by ascertaining what was the length of quay. Judged by that standard London provided a total of forty-four miles of quay space, Hamburg had not quite half that accommodation, and Antwerp had but eleven miles, much of which was not available for ocean-going ships. Taking the total length of quay space and the amount of tonnage entering the port, London had more liberal accommodation than any other port in the world, in spite of the fact that it had to deal with more tonnage than any other port in the world. Whether they applied the test of quay space, of the depth of the water, of width of dock entrance, or of the provision of adequate graving docks, cranes and other discharging appliances, he said, without fear of contradiction, that London had nothing whatever to fear from a comparison with any port in the world, and it was really not the case that the docks of London were not thoroughly up-to-date for all practical purposes. Undoubtedly there was some truth in the allegation that London was a slow port, but that had nothing to do with good or bad administration. It was due to the fact that there was in London what there was not in most of the other ports of the world, namely, a custom founded on general convenience whereby the charges for dealing with cargoes upon the dock side fell, not upon the consignee, but upon the shipowner, and he had to consider whether it was worth his while to run to the expense of unloading his cargo on the dock side and having it sorted there, or follow the practice of discharging by the slower, but very much cheaper method of lighters or barges. The first was the quicker, the latter the cheaper method, and it was a matter of arrangement between shipowner and merchant which the port authority could not control. He thought he had said enough to show that with all its faults the management and administration of the Port of London was on the whole as good as, and in many respects greatly better than the administration of any other port. The proposed change, therefore, was unnecessary, and certainly if it were necessary it should not be in the direction adumbrated by hon. Members

  1377
  on the Ministerial side. The Resolution said that there should be a public authority. He did not think there could be any real objection to that, but the Resolution was like an official answer —it all depended upon the interpretation; and he confessed that he did not believe that the hon. Member who moved this Resolution did so entirely without reference to the proposal that had been made for the quick or slow municipalising of the control of the Port of London. All he could say was that that was a change which he was firmly convinced would be very injurious to the Port of London. There were only three ports in this country which were managed by the municipal authorities, and each one of them was badly managed and a failure. There was the Port of Bristol, and that city had endured for many years a 6d. rate in respect of its port. That rate he understood was shortly to be increased to 1s. Then there was Preston which had endured a 2s. rate for a very long time; and finally there was Manchester, the story of whose dealings with the port was well known. The example of Manchester was not such as to encourage ratepayers to increase their confidence in the municipal management, of ports. He asked the House to consider, if those ports were badly managed and had suffered by municipal management, how enormously greater and more serious to the whole community were the dangers which would be involved if the gigantic interests of the Port of London were turned over to municipal control. The mere docks of London ran all the way to Tilbury, and the authority which controlled the docks must control the river as well. He would point out that the river as a port ran all the way to Southend, and that was miles outside the area which it was ever suggested should be under the jurisdiction of the London County Council. Even the present dock area was enormously outside the jurisdiction of the County Council, but he was afraid that what this Resolution meant was County Council control of the Port of London. Surely the activity of that body was already great enough. They dealt with the roads of this tremendous collection of cities called London. ["No, no."] They dealt with education, they dealt with lunacy, they dealt with health, they dealt with the administration of building acts, they dealt with the extinction of fire, and
  1378
  they had to deal with the difficulties inherent in trying to recommend to the notice of the ratepayers in running a line of steamboats that were running at great loss. They ran trams, they controlled main drainage, they regulated weights and measures, while their representatives also had a very large interest in the water supply and in the housing of the people. They wanted also to supply the greater part of the bulk electricity provided for the industries of the city, and in addition to that he was afraid they now wanted to get the absolute control of the Port of London. Hon. Members opposite had referred to the Royal Commission. If there was one thing on which that Royal Commission was absolutely definite and strong, it was in the clear recommendation that what ever happened, however the new port authority might be constituted, the London County Council should not have the controlling and dominating interest in it. From the beginning it must be said the London County Council had been equally strong in seeking to secure that control. In the recent Bill to which an hon. Member had referred they desired not the nine members out of the forty suggested, but twenty-four out of the forty members. What was far more important, they desired, as they always would desire in everything they put their hands upon—indeed they claimed—the absolute financial control of the port. He reminded the House that anybody who had financial control had the whole control. What was meant by the financial control of the Port of London? At this moment the dock companies alone paid every year £1,000,000 in weekly wages, and of that £1,000,000 the London County Council would have absolute control. But there was other work than that of the dock companies. There was the work done by shipowners and others, which amounted at a moderate computation to another £1,000,000. Thus there was £2,000,000 paid every year in weekly wages in the docks alone, and they formed only half of the whole port. There was at least another £2,000,000 paid along the wharves on the quays of the river altogether apart from the docks. If the House came to the conclusion that it desired to give the control of the Port of London to the London County Council, it should clearly understand that it was

  1379
  giving to that body the control of at least £4,000,000 a year in weekly wages, and of 60,000 or 70,000 men, every one of whom had a vote. He asked with some confidence whether it was right, whether it was reasonable, that a public body, a body of gentlemen, however respectable, however sound, who relied for their position on popular election should have under their control the wages of 60,000 or 70,000 men, amounting to such a gigantic sum as he had named. He thought there could be only one answer to such a question. Neither the Mover nor the Seconder of the Resolution had suggested any solution for the difficulties which they alleged to exist. He believed that nothing could really be shown to be seriously wrong with the Port of London, but if there was anything wrong he was certain it would not be put right but would be made infinitely worse by turning the control over to the London County Council. If the thing was wrong; in his belief the solution was to be found by forming in London and giving the control of the Port of London to a trust based on the system followed in port after port of the United Kingdom with conspicuous success. He might refer to Glasgow, to Swansea, to the Port of Leith, to the Tyne, but above all to the Port of Liverpool, which was the most striking instance of the success of the system. At Liverpool the port authority was an authority consisting of twenty-eight persons. Of that number twenty-four were elected by the people who paid the dues, that was to say by the shipowners and by the merchants, and the remaining four were nominated by the Mersey Conservancy Board. The effect of that was that practically year in and year out the harbour of Liverpool was admirably administered, that the authority was able to raise money cheaply and well, and above all that the expenses of running the port were kept down consistently with efficiency. That was due to the fact that they had in Liverpool absolutely the only check which in his opinion would ever be effective against extravagance, namely, that the men who had the spending of the money were themselves the men who had to find the money and not men who could foist the expenditure off on the ratepayers of a large community. That was an admirable business arrangement,' and he
  1380
  saw no reason why such an arrangement should not be made in respect of the Port of London. He had no doubt that if the dock companies and other authorities concerned were approached in this matter they would be perfectly ready to co-operate in the formation of such an authority. There was no objection to a public authority, but there was serious objection to a municipal authority. While he believed the Port of London at this moment was in a very admirable state indeed, he did not think it was likely to remain in its present excellent and up-to-date position if the intolerable uncertainty which had hung over it for the last five or six years was allowed to continue. It was a most miserable state of things when the dock companies themselves, who were all men having great interests connected with the river generally, did not know from one day to-another almost what was going to become of them, and whether it was worth their while to spend money on such improvements as became necessary in the best ports from time to time. It was that that was the matter with the Port of London, added to the crushing and terrible burdens which the municipal authorities had already put on the rates. Nothing but private enterprise, nothing but the best possible management, nothing but that courage and endurance which he believed had been conspicuously shown at all times by the port authorities of London during the long period which they had gone through, could have maintained the Port of London without bringing it into infinitely greater disrepute than there was any sign of at the present moment. He hoped that after consideration of this matter a proper solution might be found, but he did not believe it would be on the lines broadly suggested by the Resolution before the House. On the contrary he believed that would inflict on London what he believed to be the greatest danger which now menaced it, namely, the imposition on the greatest asset of the greatest city of the United Kingdom the injustice of municipal control.
  MR. BARNARDremarked that the last speaker ended in a general attack on the London County Council, but he

  1381
  had altogether failed to acquaint himself with the facts on which he asserted that the London County Council sought to control the Port of London. He had referred to the Bill of the London County Council. The last public assertion of that body before any public tribunal was the evidence of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow before the Committee on the Government Bill, and that evidence held good to-day. He there, speaking for the London County Council, claimed only a representation of fifteen members out of a board of forty. He (Mr. Barnard) thought the House would agree that that was a very moderate demand. Might he in a word follow a remark which the last speaker had made? The hon. Member had said that the Council had too much work to do, and referred to their work in maintaining education. Everyone knew that the work of education was imposed on the Council by the late Government against the wishes of the Council, and everyone also knew if the question of money was to be brought into the transaction that the order which was sent to the London County Council to carry out the work of education did not have in the same envelope the Post Office Order necessary to meet the expenditure entailed by the work. He was bound to say for his port that he was sick and tired of hearing of the London County Council from the Opposition benches when any matter of a remedial character dealing with this great city was under discussion. They had heard to-night two good speeches, one from a member of the London County Council and another from a gentleman nearly connected with it. He was pleased to hear the speech of the Member for St. George's, but there was one remark of a practical character which he hoped the House would permit him to make. The hon. Member gave a number of statistics. He compared Liverpool with London, and said that the percentage of Liverpool trade increase was so much more than that of London. All who read the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would remember that if they started from the highest degree and went into percentages they might get into a very mixed comparison from a business point of view. He welcomed most heartily
  1382
  the speech of the Member for St. Pancras, who put the matter in the right key and approached it in a perfectly businesslike attitude. He had insisted most fully that the position of the Port of London at the present moment was undoubtedly one that required great consideration, and the only question was in what way they were going to deal with it. The hon. Member for St. Pancras had mentioned the position of the London County Council regarding the guaranteeing of the money payment. That was where he (Mr. Barnard) ventured to join issue with him. From. his point of view he did not believe there was any necessity whatever that the Port of London should be in any way subsidised from the rates. He thought it was well able to bear its burden from either ships or dues. What did the people who talked about the Port of London complain of? He happened to have been on the governing body of the Port of London for some time, and if they would allow him he would read out the figures. In 1858, the first full year after the Conservancy was formed, the trade in the port was something under 9,000,000 tons. In 1868 it had risen to 10,000,000 tons, in 1878 to 13,000,000 tons, in 1888 it had gone up to 20,000,000 tons, in 1898 to 22,000,000 tons, and last year, 1905, it reached the enormous figure of 25,867,000 tons. If he contrasted the difference between the various ports of the United Kingdom, taking the period 1894 to 1904, he saw that during that time London had increased in its tonnage by 24 per cent., Newcastle had increased by 16 per cent., Glasgow had increased by 30 per cent. the municipal Port of Bristol had increased by 19 per cent., whereas Liverpool had gone up by 30 per cent. If he went over these points one by one he found in the total figures that London had always increased by a larger amount of tons than any other port. As regarded the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, he ventured to say that if London had had the same powers given to it in its Conservancy as was suggested by the Member for St. Pancras, and the capital sum that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board had to deal with, it would have increased with the same rapidity that the Liverpool Docks had done. He would

  1383
  not dwell on the question of the Port of Bristol; he knew that it was a municipal port, but he would remind the House that the hon. Member who had last spoken said that Bristol was charged 6d. in the £ for its port. He had in his hand, however, the evidence of the general manager of the Bristol Docks, given before the Royal Commission, and it was distinctly stated that 4d. was the maximum charge on the rates which they were entitled to make. He did not think any case had been made out to show that the Thames Conservancy, as responsible for the Port of London, had been in any way delinquent. With the funds at their disposal they had done everything in their power to bring the port up to as near a state of perfection as possible. The hon. Member for St. Pancras had mentioned that the Thames Conservancy brought in a Bill two years ago, and dropped most of the provisions of it: but that was because political exigencies made them do so. He would point out that they did not drop that part of the Bill which carried with it an expenditure of £400,000 for the dredging of the Thames. It was a funny thing that the London County Council did not appear on that occasion. Why did not they lodge a petition and indulge in some of that opposition on the Second Reading which the House had heard of to-night, if they thought the Thames Conservancy was not fit to govern the river? They did nothing of the sort, but allowed the Thames Conservancy to carry the Bill, and they were now engaged in prosecuting the work with that sum of money at their disposal. He ventured to think that the proper body for the future management of that great river was a public trust of some description. He personally expressed his opinion that it was highly undesirable; he believed it was unscientific to multiply different forms of local government. He could not help thinking that the Thames Conservancy formed the nucleus of a governing body. Parliament could, and ought to alter the constitution of that body. Everyone knew the constitution of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and they also knew about the Clyde and the Tyne. If this House could use its influence to bring about the establishment of a
  1384
  managing body for the Port of London in which the traders, as the men who required the conveniences and paid the money, had the dominating interest, he had no doubt that with all the natural advantages which London possessed the port would go still further ahead and exceed the pre-eminence it occupied at the present time. Those who had to do with the management of the river had done what they could to learn lessons from other places; they sent twelve of their members to Antwerp, and as the result of their investigations the report which they presented distinctly showed that the Port of London was not very far behind the times at the present moment. Undoubtedly it could be improved, and he believed it would be improved by an aimiable conference between the principal parties concerned. That was how the Thames Conservancy carried their Bill last year when they got permission to spend the £400,000 to which he had referred. He believed it only required the Board of Trade to give a lead to bring about some salutary and advantageous result on the lines largely indicated by the hon. Member for St. Pancras who, he was glad, had brought forward that Resolution.
  MR. RUSSELL REAagreed that those who had had the management of the docks of London in the past had done the best they could with the resources at their command. There could be no doubt, however, in the minds of those who heard the speeches of the mover and seconder and who knew the facts that the progress of the Port of London was arrested, especially as regarded the construction of new works and new docks. The reason of this was that there was no authority which was able to tackle the problem. The dock companies had not the financial power to extend and develop the Port of London as it should be developed. They had come to this House again and again and had demanded those powers, and again and again they had been refused. The power to charge dues on goods entering the port was a necessary power to give to the port authority. It would provide an adequate revenue at very slight cost to the users of the port.

  1385
  Supposing the port authority were allowed to levy dues on the imports to London on the same scale as they were charged by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board at Liverpool a revenue would be provided of £900,000 a year. That revenue would be very much greater than would be required by the port authority in addition to the rates now charged on shipping. They had no power—and Parliament would never concede to any private body the power—to charge dues on the goods entering and leaving the Port of London. But such a power was necessary to an efficient port authority; and for the Port of London, therefore, there must be a public trust, either national and independent, or municipal. The Bill of the late Government, which was a good Bill, proposed an independent trust with a municipal element in it, and it gave the right to levy dues on goods. The late Government weakly allowed that Bill to be wrecked on account of municipal jealousy on small and insignificant points. That Bill did give the right to levy dues on goods. The Bill having been allowed to expire, the County Council brought in theirs last year. It was frankly a municipal Bill. The Council gave themselves a membership of twenty-four out of the forty of which the port authority was to be constituted. The new authority was practically to be a committee of the London County Council, designed to rule the Port of London. But then they did not venture to ask this House for the power of levying rates on goods, because they knew that it was extremely improbable that Parliament would grant it. Their scheme was therefore financially unsound, and it would have cast a fresh burden on the ratepayers. He believed that any municipal element was entirely unnecessary; and as a London ratepayer he protested against the idea of any guarantees being given by the County Council to an authority that would be as wealthy as itself. There were as strong objections to municipal control as there were to private control. Municipal control would mean the grant to a municipality of the right to tax the nation on a fourth of the imports that entered the country. Though a friend of municipal enterprise, he submitted that for the municipality to con-
  1386
  trol the Port of London would not be a democratic measure at all; on the contrary, it would be a reactionary and anti-democratic measure. In Liverpool the docks fifty years ago were under the municipality, and they were taken from the municipality by Parliament, very greatly to the advantage of the port. The true democratic principle was that the control should be in the hands of those who found the money. What London wanted was first of all a port trust; next, that this trust should be endowed with adequate power, financial and otherwise, principally the power to levy a very insignificant rate on goods; and, lastly, that those who contributed the whole of the revenue should constitute that port authority. But the authority must be an independent and national authority, and not a municipal or even a semi-municipal authority.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said they had had a most useful debate in which many interesting speeches had been made. He could not pretend that the Government were now in a position to make any pronouncement on the subject, but when the matter was gone into it would be done with the care which its great importance undoubtedly demanded. The question was exceedingly important, not merely to London, but to the whole of the country. If a step had to be taken it should be taken with great care and caution. He had read the evidence and the Report of the Royal Commission, and he thought that the case of the County Council had been put very moderately in the present debate. He did not think the very moderate and statesmanlike speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras justified the criticism passed upon it by the hon. Member for Norwood. The hon. Member did not claim that the control of the Port of London should be handed over entirely to the London County Council. What was the problem before them? There were a good many things on which they were all in actual agreement so far as he could see. There was undoubted dissatisfaction with the present arrangements of the port, in spite of the able defence made by the hon. Member for Norwood. It was not so much

  1387
  an attack upon the management of the Port of London as upon the inadequacy of the present system. He dared say that the port authorities had done their best with the resources at their command. He had no doubt that the Thames Conservancy had its failings, but there was undoubtedly, for one reason or another, considerable dissatisfaction with the management and administration of the port of London on the part of those who used it. On this subject the Royal Commission in their Report stated that there was dissatisfaction with the Port of London on the part of all concerned with it, whether shipowners or merchants. He did not think that was due to mere grumbling. There was some sort of justification on the part of those who used the port for the opinion the)' had expressed. There was another thing upon which there was absolute agreement, and that was as to the urgency of the problem. For one reason or another all Parties in the House agreed that something should be done quickly in the matter. There was some evidence to show that owing to the uncertainty created by the Rival Commission, by Bills brought before the House of Commons, by one scheme after another to alter the authority, the present authority could not embark upon schemes, even within their resources, for improving the present conditions. It was desirable that this uncertainty should be brought to an end, and as soon as possible. But there were other reasons why the problem was an urgent one. The Commission came to a perfectly unanimous decision. They said—
  "It has in our opinion been proved that the Port of London is in danger of losing part of its existing trade, and certainly part of the trade which might otherwise come to it by reason of the river channels and docks being inadequate to meet the increased requirements of modem commerce."
  That was a very serious conclusion to come to by a very impartial Commission, and one which no Government could pass over without going very carefully into the matter.
  MR. MORTON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the deepening of the Channel below Gravesend is now being attended to, and that above Gravesend it is nearly complete.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, but on a very small scale. It was clear that a. very considerable sum would have to be expended in deepening the channel of the river. There was agreement also that a considerable sum would have to be spent, not merely upon dredging and deepening the channel of the river, but upon dock extension. Practically there had been no dock extension for over twenty years, while there had been an increase of over £10,000,000 in the business of the port since the last dock extension. How was the necessary capital to be raised? It was clear that the present dock companies could not raise the capital for the purpose, and, that being so, some other authority must be set up for the purpose in order to carry out these very urgent and necessary reforms. And the third point on which there was general agreement was that there must be one authority, and that. that authority must be a public one. There was no country in Europe, as had been said, that handed over the control of its great docks to private authorities, and he thought the time had come when there ought to be one great public authority for controlling the greatest harbour in the world. The other point was what that authority was going to be. He did not understand that the London County Council put forward a claim to having the controlling voice. On that he expressed no opinion. Then as to the terms of purchase, that was a matter that would have to be gone into very carefully later on. It had been suggested that there should be an amiable conference, and there appeared to be a disposition to have such a friendly conference. There would be nothing done this year, for the reason that the notices had to be given in November. He thought the suggestion should be acted upon, and that a conference should be summoned by the Board of Trade. In his opinion a useful purpose had been served by the discussion, which had shown a general agreement, and he thought there was every prospect of a satisfactory conclusion being arrived at.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That this House is o opinion that the conditions of the Port

  1389
  and docks of London urgently demands attention, with a view to the management there of being forthwith placed in the hands of a public authority."

  CORONERS' BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LUKE WHITEin moving the Second Reading of this Bill said the object of it was to provide that it should not be necessary hereafter for either the coroner or the jury to view a body unless the coroner or a majority of the jury should deem a view necessary. That was a reform in Coroner's Court law which had long been required by the country. He thought it was the general opinion that the Bill should be passed this session.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Debate arising,
  LORD R. CECILsaid this might be a very good Bill, but the hon. Member, in moving it, had given no reason for passing it. In the absence of any reason why it should be passed he was bound to oppose such a proposal. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLseconded the Motion for adjourning the debate.
  Motion made and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned"—(Lord Robert Cecil)— put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that he opposed this Bill. It was very evident that if an inquest was necessary at all somebody must view the body.
  And it being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. PAULsaid he was sorry to detain the House, especially after what had occurred that morning, but he had no choice, since he wished to call attention to the question of the appointment of Mr. Milvain as Judge Advocate-General. That question had assumed a more serious aspect than it appeared to possess when it was firs; raised before the House. It involved the grave constitutional point of the right of the Executive Government by administrative decree to create a new permanent, salaried office without the sanction of this House. His right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War had referred him to the report of the Esher Committee. There was no one for whom he had a greater admiration than Lord Esher, whom he had known for forty years; but Lord Esher was not King, Lords, and Commons, and he could not alter the constitution of the country. If Parliament chose to act on the report of the Esher Committee good and well; but the Report of the Committee could not give the Executive Government any power which it did not possess before. He had put a question to his right hon. friend the Secretary for War, which, by the way, was severely edited at the table, he understood with the sanction of Mr. Speaker. The question he asked was what was the legal authority for the appointment of Mr. Milvain as Judge Advocate-General. The answer was that Mr. Milvain had been appointed Judge Advocate-General, who was empowered to give advice on all legal questions referred to him, by the Secretary for War, and that Mr. Milvain could be dismissed at any time. He might be told that the responsibility for this appointment did not rest with the present Secretary of State for War, but with the right hon. Member for Croydon. He altogether declined to accept that statement. So long as the right hon. Gentleman remained in office he was responsible to this House and the country. If this appointment was, as he maintained, a most nefarious job, his right hon.

  1391
  friend, if he supported it, would make himself particeps criminis. On the last occasion when he drew attention to this subject the hon. Member for Sheffield, with a transient lapse of courtesy, said that he was an ignoramus. He dared say that his legal knowledge corresponded with the ignorance of the hon. Gentleman, but if the hon. Gentleman argued that the Government had power to create a charge of this kind without Parliamentary sanction, then he pleaded guilty to ignorance, but it was an ignorance shared by the highest constitutional authorities, including the right hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University. He had never spoken to Mr. Milvain; he had never seen him; Mr. Milvain was to him merely a name, and he wished only to raise the subject of Mr. Milvain's appointment as a grave constitutional question. He would like to remind his hon. friend behind him that if there was one question besides free trade which was discussed at the general election it was the desire to restore to this House that reputation which the public considered, rightly or wrongly, had been greatly impaired during the last few years. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham had said the previous morning that there were a good many Members on his side of the House who were not responsible for the act of the late Government. He ad- mitted that the appointment of Mr. Milvain was made last year after the House rose, but he remembered reading an article in The Times written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds arguing against that appointment on constitutional grounds. Until recently the office of Judge-Advocate-General had always been held by a Member of this House and responsible to it. The Judge-Advocate-General was the legal security of the private soldier, and should be responsible to this House alone. It was quite true that in 1872 the Secretary of State for War and Mr. Gladstone, eager for economy, induced a Judge to undertake this duty, but he thought on constitutional grounds the appointment of Sir Francis Jeune should have been challenged. The only reason that it was not challenged was that the country was £2,000 a year richer. But the English Judge, unlike the Scottish or Irish Judge, was a busy man, and all
  1392
  these cases were examined into not by Sir F. Jeune but by Mr. O'Dowd. Then last year this arrangement was come to under which Mr. Milvain was appointed. He contended that when Mr. Milvain was appointed under that arrangement he became a member of the Government, and when the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City resigned he ought to have resigned. As to the importance of this office, Sir George Osborne Morgan, who held it for some time, said that he had reversed 600 decisions of courts martial in four years, in favour of the soldier. Ought not the gentleman who held so important an office to be responsible to this House? Was it a great hardship that he should be called upon to resign with his Government? Mr. Mellor, in order to take the post of Judge-Advocate-General, gave up his practice at the Bar, and the Government which he joined lasted only six months, and Mr. Mellor ceased to be Judge Advocate-General without a penny of compensation from public funds, and he was sure he would have scorned to have received any. Sir William Harcourt when he became a Member of the House gave up his practice at the Parliamentary Bar. People made sacrifices in this way every day and did not come upon the public for a pension. He had nothing to do with the patronage of the Lord Chancellor, but if the noble Lord decreed that Mr. Milvain should preside over a county court that might be a happy solution of an embarrassing problem. He had taken up this question upon public grounds. He moved the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLseconded the Motion for the rejection. When the right hon. Gentleman became the Secretary of State for War he did so he said as the representative of the House and the country He did not become a trustee to carry out the plans of another Government. He need not perpetuate an act, which he would do the present Secretary of State for War the justice to say he would rather have cut off his hand than have sanctioned. The change of Government meant nothing if they merely changed the dial of the clock, while the works behind the

  1393
  dial went on. He protested against the appointment of Sir Francis Jeune on public grounds, and he protested against the appointment of Mr. Milvain. He had always been on friendly terms with Mr. Milvain, however, and would not say a word to wound his feelings. The late Secretary of State for War had presumed to convert a political and temporary office into a permanent one, and he did something more. He had imposed an annual charge of £2,000 a year on the public funds for a gentleman who was going out of Parliament, and who deserved some recompense for having trudged through the lobbies so obediently. Mr. Milvain was to have a salary of £2,000 a year as Judge-Advo-cate-General, and was to retain the office until he reached the age of seventy, when he was to get a pension. That extraordinary appointment had come straight from the brain of the late Secretary of State for War, just as Minerva came from the brain of Jupiter. He should not object to Mr. Milvain's obtaining compensation, but that he should continue in that office was a gross public scandal. When the House remembered the hundreds of thousands of men who by this Bill were placed, and rightly and properly so, under exceptional legislation, they should be very chary of relieving Ministers from the responsibility of being answerable for the administration of the law, and of preventing the House from being able to criticise the administration of the law. From the time the Act was established until practically the present time there had always been in this House a Minister of justice and Attorney-General for the Army, who was directly responsible to Parliament. It was essential that that should be so, because he did not know with what conscience hon. Gentlemen could pass, as they did in this Bill, clause after clause in reference to the Army without having their hand on the safety valve which they could move in the event of any maladroit practice or any injustice taking place in the Army. That was the principle of the post of Judge-Advocate-General, and in that office there had been many eminent men. The powers of the office were enormous, and they were sketched by the late Lord St. Helier, who said that the Judge-Advocate-
  1394
  General was a court of appeal in every court-martial. Having regard to that, why should he not be a Member of the House? The right hon. Gentleman said that he was responsible, but any Member with six months experience of the House of Commons knew that the head of a. department, however conscientious he might be, depended on officials. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had no moral right to appoint Mr. Milvain to this post when the late Government were going out of office. The House would forgive him if he spoke rather feelingly on this subject, for he knew of a gross miscarriage of justice because there was no responsible Minister in this House whom they could tackle. Three years ago, when Lord St. Helier was very ill, and the deputy Judge-Advocate-General, who was an extremely able and conscientious official, was also ill, the duties devolved upon a briefless barrister, a gentleman named Boase, at £1,000 a year. The ragging case at Cape Town arose, but the charge was so framed at the War Office in the Judge-Advocate-General's department that the-officers had to be found not guilty, although the evidence was conclusive. He seconded the Motion of his hon. friend.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now, and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Paul.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)said that if the Motion succeeded and this Bill were rejected the result would be that there would be no law for the Army at all. He passed from that, however, because he quite followed the reason for which his hon. friend had raised this question. This Motion offered the proper opportunity. He wished to point out that however bad the appointment in question, he was bound hand and foot in respect of it. He succeeded to a contract of the late Government who appointed Mr. Milvain to occupy the office of Judge-Advocate-General until he was seventy

  1395
  years of age, at a salary of £2,000 a year. They could dismiss him, but they would have to find the money out of public funds to compensate him. There was the contract, and he could not get out of it any more than Parliament could get out of the contract to pay the National Debt. It came within the scope of what Parliament had delegated to them. If Parliament appointed a clerk it must find the salary. It must give some authority to the Government to carry on the business of the country. All he could say was that a result of the appointment of Mr. Milvain was that the work was admirably done. That gentleman's whole time was given to the duties, and the work was far better done than it could be by a Member of the House with other duties, who could only give part of his time to very responsible and delicate business. He knew nothing of the motives that led to the selection of Mr. Milvain, but he knew from experience that a very competent man had been appointed. Commissions had reported on the organisation of the War Office, and Parliament had sanctioned recommendations of the Esher Committee, among which was one that the position of the Judge-Advocate-General should be revised and made separate. It was quite true that by old tradition the Judge Advocate-General was a Member of this House, but the Esher Committee pointed out that the office was not satisfactorily discharged. Mr. Gladstone did not fill up the office. Mr. Gladstone saw that the practice had arisen of giving the office of Judge-Advocate-General to some gentleman who took it for political reasons, and not necessarily for his competencs, and as this work involved the examination of countless details, it took the whole of a man's time. Mr. Gladstone took the course not merely of giving the office to a Judge, but of appointing a deputy Judge Advocate-General who received a salary of £1,500 a year, and did the real work of the office. They all knew that the late Sir Francis Jeune had many other duties to perform. He was President of a great Court; his time was fully occupied; and he could therefore give very little time to the discharge of the duties of Judge Advocate-General, which fell into the hands of a deputy, the law clerk who was under him.
  1396
  The Esher Committee came to the conclusion that the work of this great and responsible office was not being satisfactorily discharged. They accordingly recommended the appointment of some body who should give his whole time to the work, and the gentleman selected for the duty was to be given a salary of £2,000 a year. That would take the place of the £1,500 paid to the deputy, and there was another payment of £500 a year from the office. He had no hesitation in saying that the present system was the better of the two. Sir Francis Jeune was not responsible to Parliament, and he had under him somebody who was responsible only to himself. Under the present system, if there was any miscarriage of justice or failure to look after legal proceedings, he (Mr. Haldane) was himself responsible and must bear the brunt of it. The Judge Advocate-General reported to him and was his official, and it was his duty to see that as an official he discharged the duties attaching to his position. What was the case with Sir Francis Jeune? Sir Francis Jeune was responsible directly to the Crown, but as he was not in Parliament there was no means of criticising his conduct. To-day they had direct responsibility to Parliament, and they had a gentleman in that position who was doing the work in a thoroughly satisfactory fashion. As things stood at the present time it seemed to him that the present arrangement was the more businesslike one, as compared with that under which the office was delegated to a Judge who could not perform the functions himself, but had to leave them to a subordinate Seeing that in the old days it was possible to appoint to the office someone who might have been wholly out of practice, at the Bar, and who was put in because he was a politician of standing for whom it was desired to find some office under the Crown, he was bound to say that he thought that they now had probably a better working arrangement than they had ever had before. He said, as the Minister responsible, that the work was being satisfactorily done and that the office was in efficient hands. Be that as it might, he succeeded to that arrangement, which was made before his time and over which to a certain extent he had no control, seeing that a contract had been entered into with the

  1397
  personal occupant of the office, by which contract the Government of the day was bound.
  MR. PAUL: Is not the money found by Parliament?
  MR. HALDANEsaid that Parliament found the money for all things done by the Government within the scope of the authority which had been delegated to it. Parliament had before it the Report of the Esher Committee and it sanctioned that Report. Under the circumstances he felt that it was a proposition which it was very difficult to controvert that the Minister of the day, succeeding to the obligations of his predecessor as he had done, had to take them as he found them. Speaking for himself he thought it would be very disastrous if such an arrangement, which not only in itself was working well, but which was an arrangement which certainly came within the purview of what Parliament generally sanctioned when it approved of the recommendations of the Esher Committee, should be repealed or set aside by the Government, who had succeeded, after all, to the responsibilities of those who came before.
  MR. FORSTERremarked that no one could complain of the tone of the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who had moved and seconded the Motion before the House. They had raised a question to which undoubtedly great importance was attached by many Members of the House. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had shown that the position in which the House was placed now was really more advantageous than the position in which it stood when the late Judge Advocate-General was in office. As the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, the House at that time had no effective means of criticising the acts of the late Judge Advocate-General. If he might make a suggestion to the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment, it would be that a more fitting occasion on which to press this matter, if he desired to develop it further than would be possible to-night, would be when they discussed the salary of the Judge Advocate-General or the salary of the War Secretary.
  MR. PAUL: I find that we have already voted Mr. Milvain's salary.
  MR. FORSTERpointed out that at all events the hon. Member would have an opportunity of dealing with the question when they came to the salary of the War Secretary. He had only risen to say that those who sat with him were grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the defence he had made of the present occupant of the office, and he could only say, speaking for himself, that he should support the right hon. Gentleman if they went to a division on the Amendment.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEadmitted the inconvenience of discussing at that late hour a grave constitutional question such as that raised by his hon. friend. He had called the attention of the Secretary of State for War to this question on an early date after the session began, and he thought the views the right hon. Gentleman had placed before the House that night were not quite accurate in all particulars. This matter of the position of the Judge Advocate-General raised a very serious question indeed, namely, the question of whether the occupant of that office should be a Minister with direct access to the Sovereign and directly responsible to Parliament. His right hon. friend was in direct conflict with the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. There was a discussion on the subject in the year 1904 when the late Government was in office. Mr. Milvain had not then received the appointment, but a vacancy was occasioned by the death of Sir John Scott, the deputy Judge Advocate-General. His learned friend the Attorney - General at that time drew the attention of the House to the constitutional and legal position of the question. He said—
  "The question was one of considerable constitutional gravity. The general proposition he should invite the House to accept was that the post of Judge Advocate-General ought to be held by someone who was not merely a Minister of the Crown responsible to the Crown, but also directly responsible to Parliament."
  Committees of this House in 1860, 1868, and 1888 all agreed that the Judge Advocate-General ought to he a Member of this House, responsible to the House

  1399
  and with direct access to the Sovereign. That was very strongly held by Sir John Mowbray, one of the most experienced Members of the House, and who himself once filled the office of Judge Advocate-General. The present Attorney-General said—
  "It was now clear that the Judge Advocate-General was a Minister of the Crown, responsible to the Sovereign for the discharge of the duties attaching to his office, and he held the office of Privy Councillor in order that he might give advice personally to the King. He was not responsible to anyone connected with the War Office."
  He (Sir James Woodhouse) asked the House to mark that. The hon. and learned Gentleman whom he was quoting went on to show that the Judge Advocate-General was Minister of Justice of the Army, the vast interests he had under his control, and. the vital importance of his being independent of the Secretary of State for War. That was the real issue before the House to-night. The question was whether' the position of this man was to be that of an official subordinate to, and under the control of, the Secretary of State, or whether he was to be independent of the Secretary of State, and responsible to this House. It was for that reason that he had looked very carefully into the matter, and realised that a great constitutional question was raised which they had had no opportunity of discussing before. To-night the House ought to be careful before it endorsed what had been done in this matter; Did the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State approve of the appointment when it was made? Certainly not. There was not a member of this Ministry who approved of the appointment. In 1904 when they discussed the question the present Prime Minister absolutely disposed of what had been said by the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary of State relied on the fact that in 1892 Mr. Gladstone and the present Prime Minister, who was then Secretary of State for War, appointed
  1400
  the late President of the Probate Court, Sir Francis Jeune. But on the 17th of March, 1904, the present Prime Minister said that the appointment was never intended to be permanent, and that it was intended only for a temporary purpose. The Government went out of office a year or two afterwards, and the appointment had been continued during the whole of the remaining period by the late Government until the death of Sir Francis Jeune, and the death of the deputy Advocate-General. It was not, therefore, correct to say that that was a precedent for this appointment. No one had written more strongly disapproving of the appointment on legal and constitutional grounds than the present Attorney-General. Behind this matter a much greater issue was involved than his right hon. friend would lead the House to believe. There was not always in the position of Secretary of State for War a great legal luminary. Imagine the late Secretary of State for War reviewing as a judicial officer the evidence brought before courts-martial for which the Judge-Advocate-General was responsible. If they could get a direct issue before the House on the question of the expediency of this officer being dependent on, or independent of, the House he was perfectly sure that they would arrive at a conclusion in favour of the view of the present Prime Minister.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsuggested that the hon. Member for Northampton should withdraw his Motion and bring the question up on the salary of the Secretary of State for War. This was a grave matter raising a constitutional question, and an issue of that kind could not possibly be satisfactorily discussed at this hour of the morning. It would be impossible to regard a division on the Second Reading of the Army Annual Bill as in any sense reflecting the opinion of the Members of the House on this question. The Army Estimates would

  1401
  be shortly before the House, and it would be possible for the hon. Gentleman to raise the question then in an effective way, and it would be possible to take a division on a nominal reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State, which possibly would reflect the real opinion of the House
  MR. PAULsaid if he were to raise the question on the salary of the right hon. Gentleman it would not be a direct issue. [An HON. MEMBER: It would.] He did not think he could withdraw the Motion.
  MR. CAVEsaid the office of Judge-Advocate-General was a judicial one. The Judge-Advocate- General might be something else, but he was certainly a judge. It had generally been the policy of this House and the country that judges should not hold Noes political office or sit in the House of Commons. A judge ought not to come in and go out with the Government; he ought to be entirely independent of any political or party considerations.
  Besides that, judicial decisions should not be subject to review in this House. He sincerely hoped that the House would support the decision arrived at by the late and the present Government.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid that all appointments were made subject to the voting of salaries by Parliament, that even judges could be removed by an address, and that he could not believe that the Judge-Advocate-General was absolutely entitled to hold office until he was seventy years of age which was five years beyond the ordinary term of employment of a civil servant.
  MR. W. RUTHERFORDmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
  The House divided Ayes 23; Noes 191. (Division List No. 34.)

  AYES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Pease.Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Starkey, John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Bridgmane, W. Clive

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Watson Rutherford and

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

  Viscount Helmsley

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bennett, E. N.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Alden, Percy

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bertram, Julius

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Billson, Alfred

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Boland, John

  Chance, Frederick William

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Bowerman, C. W

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Barker, John

  Brace, William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Clough, W.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rees, J. D.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richardson, A.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, George

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Levy, Maurice

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Cullinan, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robinson, S.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Lough, Thomas

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Macdonald, J. E. (Leicester)

  Runciman, Walter

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Duffy, William J.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Arthur, William

  Seddon, J.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  M'Crae, George

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Elibank, Master of

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Shackleton, David James

  Erskine, David C.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Meagher, Michael

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Ferens, T. R.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Sheehy, David

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mond, A.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gill, A. H.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ginnell, L.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morse, L. L.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Gulland, John W.

  Murphy, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Murray, James

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Halpin, J.

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ure, Alexander

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Verney, F. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wardle, George J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Dowd, John

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Gradv, J.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Malley, William

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Shee, James John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hodge, John

  Paul, Herbert

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  George Whiteley and Mr.

  Kelley, George D.

  Reddy, M.

  J. A. Pease.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.'
  MR. PAULasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to give the House an early opportunity of discussing this question and taking a division in Committee of Supply.
  MR. HALDANEsaid it would be open to his hon. friend to move a reduction of his salary.
  MR. PAULasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nineteen minute after One o'clock.