Sitting of 4 May 1906

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Cathcart District Railway (Superfluous Lands) Order Confirmation Bill; North Berwick Corporation Order Confimation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Arlecdon and Frizington, Liverpool, and Marsden," presented by Mr. Runciman; supported by Mr. John Burns; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Smethwick," presented by Mr. Runciman; supported by Mr. John Burns; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]
Mid-Oxfordshire Gas Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.
St. Pancras Electricity Bill. Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bethnal Green Borough Council (Superannuation Bill [Lords]. Reported without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.
Manchester and Milford Railway Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  ALLOTMENTS (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from West Norwich, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Chidswell and Shawcross; Harrington Pits; St. Helen's; South Derbyshire; Topcliffe; and Wollescote Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Balderstone; Barnsley; Belton; Biddisham; Birmingham (two); Bishops Sutton; Brighton (three); Brindle; Bush Hill; Bush Hill Park; Carnforth; Cheadle; Chequerbent; Clay Hill; Disley; Durley (two); Eaton; Edmonton; Enfield (four); Enfield Highway; Eton Wick; Farnham (two); Farnworth (three); Foots Cray and Chislehurst (two); Forty Hill (two); Friern Barriet; Handforth; Hastings (five); Haverford-west (two); Hawkley (two); Heptonstall and Hepden Bridge; Higher Sutton; Hinton Ampner; Holmfirth (three); Huhne Watfield; Hulton; Hunwick (two); Kelloe; Kilmeston with Bean-worth (two); Kirkdale; Lambeth; Lane End (two); Lanteglos-by-Fowey; Lland-dewi Rhydderch; Macclesfield (three); Manchester; Mathry (two); Medstead; Minwear and Newton Norton; Moreton-cum-Alcumlow; Newbold Astbury (two); Peniston (three); Pilton; Preston (Sussex) (two); Privett (two); Reddish (two); Ripponden; Rowledge; St. Nicholas; Silver Hill; Slebech (two); Sowerby; Stoneygate (two); Sunderland; Sutton; The Lickey; Toxteth Park; Tretower (two); Waltham Cross (two); Wield; Wilmslow (three); Winch; Winchmore Hill; and Wythal; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Westgate and Sleaford, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  WAGES BOARDS BILL.
  Petition of the Personal Rights Association, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREES (IRELAND).
  Return [presented May 3rd] to be printed. [No. 157.)
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Urban District Council of Rhondda, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for Barbers' Shops within the District [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY RETURNS (PRELIMINARY STATEMENT).
  Copy presented, of Return relating to the Railways of the United Kingdom for the year 1905 (Preliminary Statement) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising a deviation in the parish of Swadlincote, in the urban district of Swadlincote District, in the county of Derby, of a part of Railway No. 1 authorised by the Burton and Ashby Light Railway Order, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Somerset from Blagdon to Pensford [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Lincoln from Blyton to Frodingham [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and

  841
  modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the urban district of Cheshunt, in the county of Hertford [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the urban districts of Enfield and Edmonton, in the county of Middlesex [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the working of Branch Lines of the North Staffordshire Railway as Light Railways under The Light Railways Act, 1896 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

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

    Purchase of the Estate of Charles D. O'Rorke, near Tuam, County Galway.
    MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of the estate of Charles D. O'Rorke, near Tuam, county Galway, for twenty-five years in the Land Court, he is aware that the tenants made an offer to purchase twelve months ago, and that they increased their offer by one year's purchase at the request of the receiver; and, if so, can he state the reason why the tenants have had no further information on the subject of the sale for the past year.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have no information as to any negotiations between the tenants and the receiver. The Estates Commissioners, however, inform me that they are negotiating for the purchase of the estate, which comprises some 1,200 acres in the occupation of 61 tenants and about 700 acres of untenanted land, and is for sale in the Land Judge's Court. On the 21st February last a conditional offer was made to the Land Judge, but on the
    842
    22nd March last the Commissioners were informed by the Land Judge's Registrar that their offer for the untenanted portion of the estate was considered below its value, and the Commissioners were asked to reconsider their Estimate. The matter will be duly reconsidered by the Commissioners.

  Grazing Land on the Golding Estate
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what the Estates Commissioners propose to do with the 300 acres of grazing land on the Golding Estate, near Headford, county Galway, which has been purchased by them; whether they will enlarge uneconomic holdings in the district and allot portions of the land in question to local residents with capital enough to stock portions allotted to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that negotiations for the sale to them of the estate in question have been instituted by the owner, but that they have not yet acquired the same. If they should purchase the estate they will, when distributing the untenanted land, have due regard to the wants and circumstances of persons resident in the neighbourhood.

  Malarial Fever.
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask the under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can grant a Return showing the measures taken in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates to eradicate malarial fever, and the results as shown by the health satistics of the inhabitants.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The hon. Member's wish has been noted, and the Secretary of State is instructing the Advisory Board for the Tropical Disease Research Fund to consider how it can best be met.

  Discipline of the Navy.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board are willing to try the experiment in one fleet or squadron of dispensing altogether with ship's police, and rely for the maintenance of

  843
  discipline for one year on the petty officers and non-commissioned officer ratings, the results being then compared with those obtained in other fleets, with the view to the total abolition of the police force afloat.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Board have under consideration certain proposals concerning the duties of petty officers which will affect the present regulations as to the employment of ship's police, and in the meanwhile it is not proposed to act on the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  Duties of the Lord President of the Council.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can specify the official duties of the Lord President of the Council.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Lord President is responsible for the whole business of the Privy Council Office which, besides affairs connected with the holding of Councils, the issue of Proclamations and Orders in Council, and a variety of other matters, includes questions arising out of the administration and Amendment of the Medical Acts, the Pharmacy Acts, the Midwives Act, and other Acts of Parliament, the grant of Charters and consideration of Schemes under the Municipal Corporations Acts, the grant of all Royal Charters and the approval of by-laws made thereunder, and the review of University Statutes under the Oxford and Cambridge Act, the Scottish Universities Act, and the Charters to modern Universities. The Lord President has also to deal with a number of questions touching the legislation of the Channel Islands and the appointment of sheriffs, and it is his duty to preside at all hearings before the Privy Council whether in connection with its ordinary functions or under Special Statutes such as The London Government Act, 1899, whereby the Privy Council was charged with the supervision of the Commissioners and the final settlement of some 200 Orders and Schemes intimately affecting the local life and administration of London. On certain occasions he has important duties of a ceremonial
  844
  character in connection with State functions.

  Appointment and Promotion of Custons Officer.
  MR. C. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the departures by the Board of Customs from the terms of the Treasury Minute of the 24th March 1891, relating to an inquiry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary into the administration of the Customs Department, have been sanctioned by the House of Commons; and whether, in view of the effect of these departures affecting the appointment of officers to collectorships, acting, and import gauging, on the promotion of the officers concerned, he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Customs in their interpretation and application of the Minute have acted with the concurrence of the Treasury. It is not usual, nor would it be practicable, to require such matters of administration to be decided by the House of Commons.
  MR. C. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what was the average service of Customs second class examining officers, as such, on promotion to the first class at the time of the Goschen Inquiry, in 1890 and in 1897 respectively; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure that Mr. Goschen's promise of more rapid promotion shall be fulfilled.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The average service of Customs second class examining officers, as such, on promotion to the first class was, for the years stated, as follows:—;

  1890

  13 years l⅓ months.

  1897

  15 years 4 months.

  It should, however, be added that the number of officers so promoted in these years was—;

  1890

  16

  1897

  32

  For last year, 1905, the promotions numbered thirty-five, with an average service of thirteen years two and a quarter months. Since the date when the Goschen Minute was brought into

  845
  full effect the prospects of second class examining officers have been improved

  Year.

  Number of examining officers, second class, on establishment.

  Superior posts in direct line of promotion.

  per cent.

  1892–3

  872

  346

  39·6

  Present time.

  834

  380

  45·5

  The cases of certain officers whose promotion was delayed in a manner that was not foreseen at the time of the inquiry have been met by granting special allowances of £7 10s. and £15 a year, and a higher maximum salary of £250 instead of £220 has been granted to the whole class.
  MR. C. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Goschen Minute of 1891 recommended the appointment of Customs officers from the outdoor department to collectorships; will he say how many such appointments were made during the first seven years of the administration of this Minute; how many

  Period.

  Total Number of Appointments to Collectorships.

  Number who were appointed to Collectorships direct from the
  Outdoor Department.

  Number who entered as Outdoor Officers and were appointed to
  Collectorships after passing through one or more other grades.

  Entered originally as Clerk.

  Entered originally as outdoor officer.

  March 1891 to March 1898

  28

  1

  1

  5

  March 1898 to date

  46

  6

  3

  12

  Total

  74

  7

  4

  17

  11

  Since 1890 at least twelve members of the outdoor department have refused collectorships. This subject was fully discussed in an Answer given by the Financial Secretary of the day to a
  as regards superior appointments to the following extent: —;
  collectors have been appointed since 1891 to the present time; and how many of these were selected from the outdoor department.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Treasury Minute of March 24th, 1891, recommended that promotion should be made from the class of surveyors to collectorships when the public interest allowed. Of course this recommendation did not mean that collectors should be drawn exclusively from the class of surveyors, but only that that class should enjoy prospects from which they had previously been debarred. The numbers asked for in the latter part of the Question are as follows:—;
  Question in this House on March 24th, 1896,† and I have nothing further to add to his remarks.
  † See (4) Debates, xxxix., 48.
  MR. C. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Goschen Minute condemned acting, i.e., the employment of officers of an inferior grade on duties appertaining to a superior one, in the Customs Department; and whether he will furnish a Return showing the number of days on which assistants of Customs were employed on examining officers' duties during the past twelve months in the ports of Leith, Glasgow, and Bristol.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Treasury Minute recognised that "in all public departments the duties of superior officers temporarily absent must be discharged by subordinates who act for them, and thereby receive a valuable training in the work of the higher appointments to which they may eventually succeed," and the principle thus enunciated has, in regard to the extent of "acting" in the Customs Department, been carefully adhered to since the date of the Minute quoted. In the following tabular statement are given the par-

  Port.

  Number of assistants at ports.

  Number of days of "acting" performed by assistants.

  Average number of days of "acting" for each assistant during year.

  Leith

  10

  350

  35‡

  Glasgow

  25

  418

  16

  Bristol

  13

  226

  17

  Postal Servants and Notice of Alteration of Duty.
  MR. E. EDWARDS: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that on the occasion of a mass meeting of Catholics at Hanley on April 23rd, clerks in the Hanley office were not notified of alterations in their time of attendance until the afternoon of the same day, one officer who had already performed 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. being informed at his residence only a few minutes before leaving home for the original second portion of his duty; and, seeing that this action is a contravention of official rulings
  848
  ticulars requested in the second part of the Question:—;

  Port.

  Number of days during the 12 months ended 31st March 1906 on which assistants of Customs were employed on examining officers' duties

  Leith

  224

  Glasgow

  206

  Bristol

  72†

  At these ports the employment of assistants on superior duties was mainly due to an abnormal amount of sick leave and special absence constituting a time of exceptional pressure or emergency, as referred to on page ten of the Goschen Minute. It may be added that on certain days more than one assistant was employed on superior duty, the aggregate number of days, calculated at eight hours per day, being as follows:—;
  regarding due notice being given whenever possible of alterations of duty, whether he will say what action he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will make inquiry into the matter.
  † In addition, one assistant performs for three hours each day duties which are usually undertaken by an examining officer, second class.
  ‡The Board's attention having been called to the position at Leith, aid was sent some weeks ago.

  Education Expenditure
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the basis of the figures given in columns three and six of the statement of the moneys expended on education recently presented to Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The figures given in column three of the Return merely states the nominal rate which would be needed on the assessable value to produce the sum named in column two, and similarly in the other rate columns. The actual rate that would have to be levied to produce that sum would usually be higher, because the actual product of a given rate is always less than the nominal, owing to such causes as irrecoverable arrears, reduction on compounding, empty houses, etc. This difference varies greatly, amounting in many places to considerably more than 10 per cent. This will account, in the majority of instances, for any difference between the rate given in the Return and the rate actually levied in any place. But it must further be noted that in the case of counties the county rate basis has been taken, as being the only secure basis for a general comparative Return such as this, though the rates in counties are actually levied under the Education Act on the poor rate basis. Moreover, though the figures in columns two and five are the figures sent in by the various authorities, the sums named may in several cases not have actually been expended during the year, and to that extent the rate actually needed may not have been so high as the figure given in columns three or six after correction as above. The figures in columns four to six are specially liable to differ from the true amounts, since they depend almost wholly on estimates made by the authorities early in 1905. All the foregoing remarks hold true, mutatis mutandis, of the figures given in the Return in respect of education other than elementary. I may add that in reckoning assessable value throughout the Return agricultural land has been taken at half its rateable value; at the same time the Exchequer grants under the Agricultural Rates Act have been included in columns one four.

  Irish School Building Plans
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that inconvenience and expense are caused by the delay on the part of the Treasury in issuing the new building plans for national schools in Ireland; and if he can state when these plans will be available.
  (Answered by Mr. M'Kenna.) I replied to a similar Question yesterday. I have nothing to add to the Answer which I then gave.†

  Re-instatement of Evicted Tenants—; Case of Mr. George Ward.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Mr. John H. Deazley is in process of sale to the tenants; and, if so, whether the Estates Commissioners will endeavour to procure the re-instatement of Mr. George Ward in the holding from which his family was evicted.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings in respect of the sale of this estate have been instituted before them, and they have no knowledge of any negotiations between the landlord and tenants which may be proceeding. The Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from George and Teague Ward, whose former holding is in the occupation of a new tenant. The Commissioners have no power to interfere with the present occupant of the holding, but they will in due course inquire into the claims of the evicted tenants, with the view of considering whether they may be otherwise provided for.

  Irish Salmon Fisheries—;Use of Drift Nets.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Conservators of Fisheries of the Letter kenny district propose to prohibit the use of drift nets for the capture of salmon of a greater length than 400 yards, and also the use of such nets within three miles of the shores; whether he is aware that at least 1,600 fishermen, with
  † See col. 740.

  851
  nets of the estimated value of £8,000, are engaged in this fishery; and whether, in view of the injury which these by-laws, and especially the first mentioned, would cause to this industry, he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction have received applications that they should make by-laws limiting the use of drift nets for salmon off the North-west Coast of Ireland. The Department, however, will not make the by-laws in question without full and exhaustive public inquiry. The Conservators have no power to make bye-laws.

LIGHT DUES (ABOLITION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid he rose to move the Second Reading of the Light Dues (Abolition) Bill. Had it not been for the fact that this was a new House he should have moved the Second Reading of this Bill without saying anything of its provisions, but under the circumstances he felt constrained to say a few words. There had been several similar Bills before the House on former occasions, and last year a Resolution was carried in favour of the principles of the measure. The last Bill was rather encumbered with other clauses. It provided, or at any rate pointed out a way in which the light dues in future could be reduced and economy effected in both expenditure and collection. It also pointed out that larger amounts were being collected than were actually required, and that consequently the shipping industry was more handicapped than it ought to have been. In this Bill they asked for the abolition of the light dues and that the cost of lighting our coasts should hereafter be borne by the nation. Under these circumstances the Board of Trade would no doubt see that no more money was collected than was required and that it was economically expended. The object of the Bill was to put the cost on the nation instead of on a particular class. The present position arose in this way. Many years ago when there were no lights on our shores some religious com-
852
munity lit up a portion of the coast to show how dangerous it was. There was no charge then. The lighting of the coast was then taken up as a speculation by some private individuals who, to recoup themselves, levied dues on those ships that frequented the different harbours on that part of the coast. In that way it came about that the shipowners were mulcted in a charge which should have been a national one. This system having been initiated it continued after the private individuals had ceased to light the coast. The matter was then taken up by the Admiralty, who continued the custom. Under the Act of 1854 the supervision of the lights was put into the hands of the Board of Trade. They did not look after the lighting of the coast, however, but entrusted that duty to three different bodies, the Trinity House of London, a lighting board in Scotland, and another in Ireland called the Irish Lights Board. There was a strong feeling among shipowners that the composition of those bodies was not what it ought to be, though he would not now enter into that question. But seeing that the dues were charged upon the ships frequenting our ports one would have supposed that all ships coming to the ports would have contributed to the charge. The Royal Navy, however, did not contribute at all in any way towards the lighting of the coasts It was an unquestionable fact that the Navy did derive benefit from the lights, and that they were as much protected by them as the mercantile navy; and the shipowners thought that if light dues were to be charged on vessels frequenting our ports they should be charged on all, including those of the Royal Navy. He was aware that previous Chancellors of Exchequer had said that the shipowners derived special benefits from the Navy, but he could never understand that argument, because the ships did not exist for pleasure but to carry on the commerce of the nation, and it was the commerce that the Navy protected, and the fact that it was the commerce of the country and not of a particular class should make the lighting of the coast the business of the nation and not of that particular class. Lighthouses were to protect not only the vessels frequenting our shores but all vessels passing our coasts, and that was another reason why this should be a national charge. Supposing these islands

853
were self contained and we had no mercantile navy, then for the sake of the ships of other nations passing our coasts the coasts would have to be lit. The charge was paid by every large nation of Europe except Turkey, to whom we certainly should not look for an example in matters of this kind. They were frequently told that it did not matter to the shipowner, because he could take these dues out of his customers by making a special charge, but that was not so. There was no special shipping of any particular freight to this country. The freights were made generally on charters which applied not only to England but to all continental countries. The owner of the cargo had the right to send a vessel to any port, and if a vessel was ordered by the owner of the cargo to France or Germany or Holland or Sweden it escaped the light dues, but when it came to England the shipowner was mulcted in light dues. That showed that the shipowner could not recover the amount by a special charge on the cargo. He had to take his chance. All the Committees which had sat on this question had agreed in the matter. Everybody to whom the subject was mentioned for the first time supposed that the cost should be borne by the nation, and most of the persons who had sat upon Committees before which this matter had come had recommended that the charge should be a national one. The fact that such a charge was made upon vessels coming to this country interfered with shipping in this way. It acted as a disadvantage abroad. Abroad no charges were made, and in America no light dues were charged; but owing to our charging light dues on American vessels coming to this country we were made to pay what was called a tonnage rate in America, with the result that while this country derived in the shape of light dues from America £5,000, the shipowners of this country paid America something like £70,000 a year in tonnage dues. There was another danger, which was that the people of the United States, in order to add to the income of the country, were advocating the imposition of light dues on all vessels calling at their ports. So that by making this charge we were inducing other countries to make a similar one, and it was to the interest of this country that no such charge should be made against us. It was said that the proposal would entail a loss on the Ex-
854
chequer. The cost was about £500,000 a year; out of that foreign vessels paid about £70,000; but because we were deriving a profit in that way should we make that an excuse for making the charge on our own vessels if it was not an equitable charge? Under the new Shipping Bill we were going to make foreign vessels subject to the same treatment in the matter of the load line and other matters as was meted out to English vessels in our ports. And if we treated the foreigner fairly with regard to the light dues he would be more likely to accept the tax and rest satisfied with it than he was now. There was no doubt we did treat the foreigner unfairly in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not lost anything by the mercantile navy. A few years ago a purchase was made of Suez Canal shares. £4,000,000 was spent in that way. Those shares were now worth £33,000,000. At the time those shares were bought it was arranged that the dues of the canal should be not more than 25 per cent, of the outlay, but even now they were 3 per cent, above that, which was a great deal more than the shipowners were led to expect they would be, and the shipowners in that way had contributed to the Exchequer. He did not wish to press that point, but to urge that the shipowners did suffer in many ways, and that some attempt should be made to take off their shoulders this charge which they claimed they ought not to pay. On former occasions the Second Reading of similar Bills had been carried by the House, and a Resolution affirming the principle, which was also carried, was supported by the present Attorney-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman then said that the lighting of our coasts should be a national obligation. It was also supported by the Solicitor-General, who considered it was putting John Bull in a rather ignominious light to suggest that he should collect pence from those who came to see him for the purpose of lighting them into his own house. In addition to those Gentlemen many others supported the Resolution, and he trusted that those Gentlemen, apart from any who might be in office, would support the present Bill. He appealed to those who had Motions down for the rejection of the Bill fully to consider what they were doing. He should have thought that hon

855
Members would have been glad to relieve of this burden a class who were always anxious to do as much as they could for those they employed, when by its removal they would be able to pay more wages than they could at present. He hoped, therefore, that opposition would be removed and that there would be no one from the Opposition side of the House who would not vote for the Second Reading. If the Bill was read a second time it could not have any effect this year, because it was a financial matter and therefore must be introduced by a responsible Secretary of State. He hoped, however, that that would not prevent hon. Members voting for the Bill. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be influenced by today's proceedings and would, he hoped, make provision in his Budget next year to provide for the loss which the Exchequer would sustain if the charge for lighting in future had to be borne by the nation and not by the shipowners. He begged to move.
MR. W. R. REAsaid that in rising to second the Motion of his hon. friend, he had to ask the House not only for indulgence to a new Member, but to bear for a very short time a recital of what perhaps was not a very popular cause, particularly among Members who had not altogether understood it. He should like at once to meet the principal opposition that had been brought against the Bill. The statement was made last session that this was an attempt on the part of a wealthy and powerful class to shift upon the Exchequer a burden which they could very well afford to sustain. If that were so, he did not believe the House would have listened for a moment to any such proposal as this Bill contained. As the hon. mover had said, the principle involved in the measure had been approved by Royal Commission, by Committees of the House, and by the House itself. He believed the shipping industry were willing to bear whatever charges might be shown to be fair, and they had given proof of their desire to do so, particularly in this session, by the way in which they had accepted a number of clauses in the Merchant Shipping Bill. The objection of shipowners to this impost of light dues was on the ground that it was an unjust charge, and that it led to extravagant administration. He believed that these dues gave
856
a distinct preference to foreign ports. It was an unfair charge because the lights were for the benefit of vessels passing along our coasts irrespective of whether they used our ports or not; and yet the dues were payable, not by those who used the lights, but only by those vessels which berthed in a British port, and upon which it was possible to collect the dues. He believed that the proportion of ships on which this country collected dues amounted only to about 50 per cent, of the vessels using the lights. Incidentally it placed the British ports at a great disadvantage as compared with foreign ports. He would give an example. Supposing a British shipowner was offered, as was frequently the case, the choice of about the same freight to either London or Antwerp. If he sent his ship to London he had to pay light dues, but if he sent it to Antwerp he saved the light dues which might amount to anything up to £100 on the voyage. The shipowner would be more than human if he did not give a preference to the foreign port where he would not incur these dues. Therefore, to that extent the British ports lost a lot of trade, British commerce was taxed, and British labour suffered. He could quite believe that this burden was not entirely one on the shipowners, but bore also on the consumers, because if the shipowner did send his ship to London he naturally would want an extra freight, which would have to be put upon the consumer. But the burden went further than this. These dues hit the British shipping heavily, particularly in the North Atlantic trade, for the United States had, he believed, a law that their own dues should be remitted to the extent by which American dues exceeded the dues levied upon American ships. There were perhaps half-a-dozen American ships which traded with this country from which we collected £4,000 a year in light dues, while English vessels were charged to the extent of £80,000 a year by the United States. We were precluded from asking for the remission of even a part of that charge because of the paltry £4,000 we collected from American ships. He thought that would be sufficient condemnation of these dues, but the strongest objection to them was that the money was unfairly raised and was subject to no efficient supervision, and that it was therefore to a very large extent

857
extravagantly spent. There were three authorities who revised these dues. He was unable to find out how one of the authorities, the Commissioners of Northern Lights, were appointed, though he understood that they consisted principally of lawyers. With all due respect to his right hon. friend he submitted that lawyers were perhaps not the gentlemen who were most expert in the administration of the duties appertaining to lighthouses. The fact was that nearly the whole of these bodies were composed of co-opted members, which was to say, that they were practically self-appointed. It was interesting to compare what had occurred during the last six years under the Light Dues Act, by which the money raised had to be devoted entirely to lighting purposes, with the practice of many years previously, when the Board of Trade had some supervision over these Boards. For sixteen years during which the Board of Trade had some control, the expenditure on new works under these Boards averaged £63,000 a year. Now that the Board of Trade had what practically amounted to no control over this expenditure on new works, the expenditure had increased to very nearly £96,000 per annum. It would take a considerable amount of eloquence to persuade shipowners at any rate that that increase in expenditure was represented by an equivalent in increased efficiency. That was not the whole story. The Commissioners each year collected a sum not only sufficient to pay the dues, but to leave a profit which had averaged for the past six years £22,000, and he believed the accumulated surplus now lying to the credit of these funds amounted to £400,000.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): No, £300,000.
MR. W. R. REAsaid he accepted the figures of the right hon. Gentleman. The sum was quite sufficient for his purpose. Although this Bill could not perhaps become law this session, because it would involve a charge upon the Exchequer, yet it would be possible to remit these dues, and the charge need not fall upon the Exchequer until the £300,000 in reserve had been expended, and expended under the criticism and watchfulness of the Board of Trade. He was aware that
858
the crux of the whole matter was the expense, and it was very difficult to ask the Exchequer to find £500,000 and more at the present moment. But something could be done out of the Suez Canal shares which were held by the Government, and on which they had received their capital with interest twice over, and still received a return of 28 per cent, per annum, or over £1,000,000 sterling, £600,000 of which came out of British ships. He believed this case had been presented to the Treasury, and they had expressed their willingness to meet the shipowners to the extent of reducing these dues somewhat, but the difficulty arose when the proposition was put before foreign nations, who refused to bear their fair share in the reduction, and therefore it was impossible to carry it out. He ventured to submit that the Treasury would be carrying out the desire that they had expressed, if, instead of remitting these dues on the Suez Canal, they were to ear-mark a certain part of the dues for payment of the expense of lighting our coasts. It was of considerable importance not only to the shipping industry of this country, but to the nation as a whole. He believed that these dues placed British ships, British ports, and also British labour at an unfair disadvantage in competition with other countries, and he asked the House to reaffirm the view it had so often expressed before. He therefore begged to second the Motion.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—;(Sir Robert Ropner.)
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he was in favour of this as of any other proposal for removing restrictions on British trade which were not imposed on the foreigner, and he was very glad indeed to find that those of them who took that view found recruits on the Ministerial side of the House upon whom the light was gradually dawning, and he believed that in time they would come to see entirely eye to eye with them. He believed that England claimed the proud distinction of being the only absolutely free-trade country, except Turkey, and yet England put this tax upon her trade, upon her shipowners, which no other country was prepared to impose. He for one was only too glad to join

859
with hon. Members, on whatever side of the House they might sit, in removing these restrictions upon our own trade, and putting British shipowners in fair competition with the foreigner. But he wished that the mover of this Bill had enlarged the scope of the measure or had introduced the same Bill that was brought in in the last House of Commons, because he did not think the present went far enough in dealing, as the last Bill did, with the lighting authorities in England, Ireland, and Scotland. In Ireland, unfortunately, the Lights Commissioners, as he had said on a previous occasion, were simply a lot of fossilised old fogeys with the single brilliant exception who had since joined the Board—;the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Belfast. With that exception the Lights Commissioners, he was afraid, were absolutely dead to all appeals, whatever those appeals might be, for dealing more efficiently with the duties which they ought to perform. He would give one illustration. He recently obtained from the President of the Board of Trade a Return of the wrecks upon the coast of his own constituency, and it showed that no fewer than 179 wrecks had occurred in ten years. He had appealed again and again for a lighthouse upon a very dangerous part of the coast, for the lighthouse which was built many years ago there had never been lighted. The Press of the North of Ireland had been unanimous in appealing upon this matter, and the county council had passed Resolutions, but the Lights Commissioners were dead to all appeals. He had hoped that something would have been introduced into the Bill making the Lights Commissioners more responsible to a Department represented in Parliament, and he still hoped the Bill might be extended to deal with the subject. The late Lord Ritchie, when at the Board of Trade, gave a promise that he would deal on an early occasion with the whole subject of the Lights Commissioners of the three countries, and he could not help appealing to the new President of the Board of Trade, who had brought fresh energy and enthusiasm to his work, to consider whether these gentlemen could not be placed directly under the control of some Department responsible to Parliament.
MR. J. WARD: I rise for the purpose of withdrawing the
860
Motion standing in my name, and to say that we do not intend to oppose the present stage of this Bill.
SIR. D. DIXONsaid there certainly were no old fossils on the Irish Lights Commissioners Board. The hon. Member who seconded this Bill had said that the Lights Commissioners were mostly lawyers. His impression was that there were no lawyers on the Board at all. He should certainly support the Second Reading.
MR. T. L. CORBETTreminded the hon. Baronet that he stated that he was the bright exception that proved the rule.
MR. HAROLD COXin moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months said that here they had a body of men belonging to the most flourishing industry in the country, asking the nation to give them £500,000 of money. ["No, no."] They were asking taxpayers for the maintenance of lights which their ships used. They might just as well ask them to pay for the coal which was burned in their ships. Surely a light house was as necessary to shipping as coal or stokers. Nobody used lighthouses except ships, just as railway signals were useful to railways. If this Bill passed they might find railway companies coming to this House, asking them to pay the cost of railway signals. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] The argument used was that the lighting of the coast ought to be a national charge, and he was afraid many hon. Members had been led away by that seductive delusion. A national charge would have to be met out of the taxes. He would like to know which tax the shipowners desired them to raise in order to pay for the light dues. Was it the duty on tea, or tobacco?
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Land values.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid that was a very good suggestion, but he did not see why poor widows and orphans should pay an increased tax, in order to relieve shipowners. He wished to point out that the shipowners did not provide the whole of the £500,000. They collected the money from their customers

861
and he thought that was the best way of raising it, and under that system everybody concerned paid a fair quota. Certain detailed arguments had been used in favour of this proposal. The hon. Member for Scarborough had said that the British shipowners had to pay for the lights used by foreign ships passing up and down the Channel. Did British ships not have the benefit of the lights in the Mediterranean? It should also be remembered that there were more British than foreign ships. The hon. Member for Scarborough had said there were no light dues going to Antwerp, but there were coming from Antwerp to London, and therefore the British shipowner was tempted to send his ship to Antwerp. What was the answer to that? The light dues were not the only charges, because there were harbour dues to be paid. Was it suggested that the State should pay the cost of maintaining the harbours? He could not see the difference between the use of harbours and the use of lights. In France the harbours were built out of the national exchequer, and instead of building a few big harbours in the most convenient places where they were wanted they had built a number of small harbours. Why? Because they were built for political purposes, and each constituency wanted its own little harbour. The result was that an enormous amount of French money had been spent in building little harbours most of which were practically useless. He agreed that the shipowners had a grievance in the fact that these lights were built and managed for them and they had no voice in the control; but that grievance could easily be met. The proper course to adopt was to allow the shipowners to have full representation on those boards and let them do exactly what they liked—;blow them all out if they liked. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] They knew they would not blow them out. The whole system of lighting should be put into the hands of a board mainly controlled by shipowners. He was aware that the Admiralty used the lights without paying for them and perhaps there was a small point in that, but that would be met if the Admiralty paid the same tonnage rate as private ships. It should not, however, be forgotten that the Navy was maintained very largely for the protection of our shipping. The only way in which they could secure economy was by insisting that the people who
862
used a particular thing should pay for it themselves, and he challenged the shipowners to say what particular tax it was by means of which they proposed to raise this money.
MR. WARDLEformally seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—;
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—;(Mr. Harold Cox.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that for perverse wrongheadedness commend him to that comparatively small part of our fiscal system which was involved in the collection of light dues from shipping. Every other country in the world provided lighthouses and beacons, and undertook the duty of warning shipping from coast dangers at the national expense; but the British plan was to put the cost of doing this upon the trade of the particular district where the lighthouse happened to be required. We were in the position of protecting foreign ports in their competition with British ports; and we handicapped our own ports to the extent of the light dues. The vessel trading with the Continental ports of Northern Europe used our Channel lights, passed on, and paid nothing; but if she came to England she was made to pay. The result of this was that the Continent was sometimes preferred. The British system had a further and a graver disadvantage. Every now and again we had some terrible shipping disaster, accompanied it might be by loss of life, of which a contributing cause—;or, perhaps, the sole cause—;was the absence of a lighthouse where, in the interests of safe navigation, there ought to be one. The probabilities were that there was no lighthouse because there was nobody to pay for it. Whose business, for instance, should it be to put a lighthouse on the Brayes rocks, off the coast of Guernsey? Those were, and had been, responsible for disasters to some ten or a dozen steamers within his recollection, and were un-lighted; but who was to pay for the light? Was it fair to expect Guernsey

863
to do so? Our Guernsey friends had no special interest in making the channel between the islands safe for passers-by to France, where no light dues could be collected. The Guernsey case was a typical instance which came under his notice in consequence of a disaster to a steamer in which he was interested. But there was another instance nearer home. The estuary of the Dee was much used as a harbour of refuge, and ought to be properly lighted. As a matter of fact, vessels were afraid to run for it in the dark; and when the Dee Conservancy Board, of which he was a member, approached the Trinity Corporation, they were met with the reply that the trade of the district did not warrant the expense. There were no means of collecting the light dues, as vessels merely running for shelter were not reported at any Custom House. But the collection of light dues was not altogether indefensible. The one redeeming feature, in his eyes was that the foreigner now paid a large and rapidly increasing part of them. The reason was not very gratifying to our national vanity; but, as one might see from the advertisement columns of our London papers, we had so completely lost our shipping supremacy on the great trade route that the costly lights of the English Channel were now mainly supported by the magnificent German steamers of large tonnage, created not under a system of free trade, but under a system of Protection, which called at our southern ports almost daily, and took away business which ought to be ours.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid his hon. friend the Member for Preston had opposed the Bill by introducing arguments which were not in accordance with the views of Cobden or his followers. He wished to point out some of the fallacies in his hon friend's line of argument. He had compared the lighting of our coasts to the lighting of their own lines by railway companies. That was obviously a false analogy. A railway company owned its own line and allowed no one else to participate in the control, and therefore to use that argument was surely to obscure the issue. That line of argument would involve the reimposition of tolls upon all our roads. The hon. Member said that was the only economic way of dealing with coast lights.
MR. HAROLD COX: It is a question of convenience.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid he did not think his hon. friend could run away from his own argument by using a phrase about convenience. He said the only economic way was to force the people who used institutions to pay directly for those institutions.
MR. HAROLD COX: So far as. practicable.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid tolls were practicable, and even today this medieval institution still existed in full force in some places in the country. On the hon. Member's principle any citizen would be entitled to object to pay for the ordinary lighting of streets by stating that he never went out at night, and that the lighting should be paid for solely by those who used the streets after dark. The line of argument of his hon. friend would lead him to those practical absurdities at every turn. But worse than that, he had emphatically contradicted himself. He had used the argument that the nation actually did pay these light dues, that they did not fall upon the shipowners, and that every person who bought goods which were sea carried paid a share of the cost of lighting the coasts. From the point of view of Cobdenism that was an extremely vicious position to take up, for his hon. friend laid the burden of the cost at the source, and, therefore, the consumer would have to pay more than the amount imposed for the light dues. It was thus an uneconomical tax from the point of view of his hon friend as a free trader. But after laying down that every user of goods paid the dues, his hon. friend, when met with the innocent suggestion that the extra burden required for the maintenance of lights might be met by a tax on land values, said that that would be taxing poor widows and orphans for the benefit of shipowners. On his own showing it would not be to benefit shipowners but to benefit every section of the community, including widows and orphans. He thought that widows and orphans figured to a larger extent among the consumers of tea than in the class who were interested in land values. His hon. friend's position in this matter was untenable. Another

865
matter of extreme importance was that in virtue of the present system, which was an extraordinary combination of anomalies, lights were lacking on the coasts where they were wanted. If the hon. Member for Preston had been perfectly consistent he would have said that the shipowners who paid the dues ought to have control of the lights.
MR. HAROLD COX: I did make that proposal.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid he was sure the House would regard that as an impracticable suggestion. He did not know whether shipowners would manage the lights as well as Trinity House, or any of the other boards of control in other parts of the United Kingdom, but the fact remained that through lack of lights where they were needed we were face to face with a system which was a real scandal to our civilisation. This matter was discussed as if only shipowners' profits were concerned, but hon. Members surely did not forget that these lights meant lives, and the lack of them an enormous annual death roll. There was no species of national expenditure they ought to make with less hesitation than this. If it was true that by reason of the lack of lighthouses disasters to ships occurred, it was deplorable that anyone should haggle over the question whether the service should form a national charge. It should be a national charge, and a national charge, he was sure, it would become. He would say to hon. Members who might be disposed to regard this measure as a relief to capital that in his opinion it was a relief to commerce, trade, and industry. Most Members of the House were in favour of the clause in the Workmen's Compensation Bill by which shipowners were to be made responsible for the lives of their seamen. That responsibility would, he believed, add something to the charges on the shipping trade. He thought Liberalism would be in a singular position if it were to proceed to lay fresh burdens on the shipping trade, and at the same time to refuse to take off a burden for the maintenance of which there was not a single argument in equity or consistency.
MR. SEDDONsaid he had a Motion on the Paper for
866
the rejection of the Bill, but he would withdraw it for two reasons; first because of the sweet reasonableness of the shipowners on another question, and, secondly, because of the speech made by the hon. Member for Preston, who had been very well answered by the hon. Member for the Tyneside division. When the hon. Member for Preston said that shipowners ought to have the control of the lights he was forcibly reminded of some lines which were popular in Liverpool some years ago in reference to shipowners, although he did not say they deserved the description:—;
"I go to church on Sunday,
But see me on Monday,
Plotting and planning to take men's lives,
What care I for the men or their wives?"
The inference of the hon. Member for Preston was that the shipowners, in protecting their property, could use the lights with a total disregard for the lives of the men who were on the ships.
MR. HAROLD COX: I must protest against that. I do not think the hon. Member can be serious in making the statement, for I never inferred anything of the kind.
MR SEDDONthought the hon. Member ought to be more careful in what he said. He took it that the hon. Member was not here as a jester or joker, but to deal with serious matters. The present proposal was to take a charge off shipowners. He hoped shipowners would recognise that he himself was chiefly concerned with the interests of labour, and not with those of shipowners in particular. He agreed that this ought to be a national charge for two reasons. One was the risk of life being lost through lack of lights. The hon. Member for the Kirk-dale division of Liverpool had referred to a place near Guernsey where life was lost through the lack of a light. In this House they recognised more and more the sacredness of human life. They recognised that property should have all the safeguards which could be given, but they recognised also that anything that could be done to protect human life should be done irrespective of cost. They did not want to single out and make victims of shipowners. This was a national question, and the nation ought to bear the cost of lighting the coasts. There ought also to be uniformity and

867
efficiency, and on behalf of the Labour Party he heartily supported the principle of the Bill.
MR. J. D. WHITEsaid he agreed with what had been urged in regard to the lack of lights meaning the loss of men's lives. The proper lighting of the coasts was a matter which affected not only commerce, butalsosafe navigation. The whole charge for the lighting of the coasts should fall upon the public revenue. It was a service provided for the general benefit. It was for the benefit not only of the British people but of foreigners as well. This question ought to be dealt with in the same way as the lighting of the streets, especially as the cost of putting it upon the Exchequer would be a small one. The hon. Member for Preston who opposed the Bill said that this was a case in which the shipowners were coming to the Exchequer for £500,000 of money, but it seemed to him that that was a serious misdescription of what was taking place. Indeed, that hon. Member himself admitted that the light dues ultimately increased the cost of carriage. As one who had no financial interest in shipping he was glad to support this proposal. The hon. Member for Preston had said that if they charged vessels harbour dues they should also charge them light dues. That was a false analogy. Harbour dues were paid only by ships that frequented the harbours, and the harbours benefited these ships alone; but light dues had to be paid by ships frequenting our harbours, while they were not paid by ships which did not frequent our harbours, though they still utilised our lights. Ships from North German ports and from the Baltic for the Atlantic used the lights on the British coasts just as much as our own ships did, but for practical purposes we said to them, "So long as you keep clear of British ports, so long you will not have to pay the light dues." That was an unfair differentiation against British shipping. In consequence of the continuance of these light dues the United States, by way of retaliation, imposed certain charges upon British shipping which they did not impose upon the shipping of any other nation, and these charges amounted to something over £50,000 a year. All these considerations seemed to suggest that we
868
should do away with these exceptional charges. With the possible exception of Turkey, we were the only nation in the world to impose duties of this sort. In one other respect we were like Turkey, for we imposed an export duty upon one article, but he was glad to say that was to be abandoned, and he hoped we should soon part company with Turkey in this as well. It was the more important to consider this matter in view of the fact that prospective legislation with which he was in general sympathy would increase the charges in various ways upon British shipping. If proper steps were taken in this matter it would be of considerable importance to our shipping industry and would help us to maintain that enormous lead in shipping which we had at present and which he hoped we might long continue to possess.
MR. BYLESsaid the answer to the argument used about the railways was that it was based upon a false idea. It was said that the railway had only to light its own line and nobody had a light to come upon it, but a railway company was bound to carry anybody who wished to go upon their line, and therefore a railway was quite as public as the high seas. For that reason the argument of his hon. friend the Member for Preston remained untouched, because it was just as beneficial to everybody that a railway should be lighted as that our coasts should be lighted. He regretted to find himself differing from his colleagues with whom he was usually associated because of his opposition to this Bill, but what had impressed him, not only in this but in previous debates, was that the demand for relief came from wealthy and prosperous companies. One after another shipowners rose to ask relief from this tax, but it could not be argued that they represented a ruined industry. He had just been looking at some figures which showed that Liverpool shipping had grown five times over in thirty years. Shipping was an extremely profitable industry, and perfectly well able to bear this charge of £500,000. The whole contention appeared to be, however, that the State should relieve it of a charge which it was well able to bear, and the money to pay for which it got from the public. It was probable that the moment this concession was agreed to the shipowners would come

869
to the House and ask for fresh lights here and there, and further cost would be incurred. The ground upon which he opposed the Bill was that the cost was now borne by those who were well able to bear it, and it was proposed now to put it upon a fund which was not able to do so. They had been taunted time after time from the Treasury and front Opposition Bench with being too ready to spend money. They were twitted with the fact that while the House complained of high taxation and expenditure it was always ready to vote money to add to that taxation and expenditure. He on this occasion wished to defend the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the assaults which were being made upon him by this wealthy industry. He said that if the Exchequer could afford it, it ought to give them money for many other objects which were very much more pressing than this. He was sorry that the Labour Party had withdrawn their Amendments, and that the arguments they had been listening to in the Lobby had had some influence upon them [Cries of "Oh."] He said arguments, and there was no taunt in that. He did not know what arguments they might have been listening to. He did not know why they had withdrawn their suggestion, but perhaps it was because this proposal was in accordance with their Socialist idea, that all services which were national services should fall upon the national Exchequer. He had some sympathy with that, and in that respect he was a Socialist himself. He would like to see the nation undertake those services, but he said that if they were going to undertake this service, they should not devote to it the first £500,000 they had to spare, as there were many other subjects which ought to be dealt with before it.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid it was not often that he found himself in agreement with the great shipowners of this country. Many years ago he was a Member of the Ships' Subsidies Committee, and he found himself on that occasion in opposition to many shipowners, On that Committee a great deal of evidence was taken on this matter of light dues, and he thought an unanswerable case was made out in support of the object which the promoters of this Bill had in view. This was not a
870
matter which concerned merely the shipowners, about whom he would not bother himself, because they were rich enough and influential enough to look after their own interests, but as an hon. Member representing the Labour Party had well said a few minutes ago it was a matter which touched the safety of a large portion of the community which very badly needed protection. He did not know any class in the United Kingdom, or indeed in the whole Empire who stood more in need of having their interests guarded in this House than the great seafaring populations of the country. They had no direct representation in Parliament; shipowners galore there were but the seaman had nobody to speak on their behalf ["Oh."] What he meant was that they had really no one except his hon. friend the Member for Middlesbrough, who for many years had represented the interests of the seafaring population as a seafaring man. But even if the hon. Member represented them directly the proportion was altogether out of keeping with the magnitude of the interests at stake and the representation on the other side. He intended to support the Bill because he thought it was really in the interest of the seafaring class. In regard to the protection of the coasts of the country no question of economy should be considered in view of the wrecks and loss of life which occurred daily. This was not a question of benefiting shipowners whose pockets he hoped would be touched by the Merchant Shipping Bill, but he believed that this Bill was in the interest of the seagoing population and it was their interest that he was considering. He ventured to say, as one who had been apprenticed to the sea, that he knew something about the feelings of these people. He thought they ought to be better represented in Parliament and he appealed to hon. Members not to be led away into opposing the Bill by any appeals to the wealth and greediness of the shipowners, but simply to bear in mind that this was a matter which affected some of the poorest and least represented of the people. He hoped the Bill would be carried by an enormous majority.
MR. R. BALFOURsaid that, as one engaged in the export of commodities and the importation of produce, he would like to add a few

871
words to those that had been said on this Bill. He altogether dissented from the views expressed by the hon. Member for Preston, whose analogy was not a good one. In comparing the lighting of the coasts with the lighting of a railroad the hon. Gentleman had forgotten the important facts that the lighting of the railroad was controlled by the railroad and used for the purposes of the railroad; that if the railroad did not pay its managers had the opportunity of advancing their rates; that they had no competition in the sense that competition was understood amongst shipowners, and that therefore they could obtain better results. Shipowners had to compete internationally; they had to compete with the shipping of other countries and accept rates which the shipowners of those countries, who had not this additional burden to bear, would accept. So far as loss of life was concerned, there was no man who felt more sympathy than the owner of the ship in regard to which the loss of life occurred. He had seen shipowners absolutely broken down when any loss of life had occurred, and to the shipowner there was no more unhappy or distressing task than having to write letters, breaking the news, to the relatives of those who had been lost. In his opinion the lighting of our coasts was a national duty and ought to be carried out at the national charge. He did not suggest that there was anything to find fault with in the present system of management, but surely if the shipowners had to pay for the lighting they ought to have some control and representation on the question of management. He did not think the management should be in the hands of such bodies as those who now controlled the lighting of the coast. It ought to be controlled by a Government Department as in the United States. In the United States of America there was a lighthouse board which controlled the lighting of the coasts of the country, and the control of that department was in the hands of the United States engineers, a branch of the military service of that country. It would be well, he thought, if we adopted the same practice and placed the lighting of our coasts in the hands of a Government Department. He admitted that there were certain charges for lighting which were of a
872
local character. As he understood, shipowners had no objection to paying those local charges, as they came within a different category from the charges for lighting the coasts at large. It had to be borne in mind that other countries used our lighthouses when, for instance, passing down the Channel, and that we from our geographical position did not use the lights of other countries to anything like a corresponding extent. As he understood also, if we waived in our own ports this charge, which was partially paid by ships sailing under foreign flags, they in their turn would waive certain charges now made by them against ships flying the British flag. The charge directly and indirectly burdened the trade and commerce of this country, and from that point of view also the shipowners in his opinion ought to be relieved of it. His broad ground for supporting the Bill was that the lighting of our coasts was a national function, and that therefore it should be maintained out of national funds. That was the main principle he wished to put forward, and he hoped the Bill would get a Second Reading and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might ere long be able to make such arrangements as would enable this charge, so far as shipowners were concerned, to be finally removed.
MR. WILKIEsaid that this was no Party question nor was it a fiscal question. Had it been so he would have been against any artificial barrier being placed against the trade and commerce of the country. He looked upon the question from the point of view of those who had had the experience of a seagoing life. If some hon. Members had had the experience which others had had, and knew what it was on a wild winter night to stand on board ship watching for the shore lights in uncertainty whether or not they would be able to locate the right one, they would certainly vote for a Bill which would provide that the lights along our coast should be brighter and more efficient. That was not a mere capitalist question, it was a question of the safety of lives. He considered that the shipowners had made out a fair case that the payment

873
of our coast lights was a national charge. The argument of lighting a railroad had no analogy to the lighting of the coast, for the simple reason that the railway and the property surrounding the railway was private property whilst the high seas belonged to all. Other nations made this a national charge, and he pleaded that we should not lag behind in the matter. It had been asked, "Where was the money to come from?" During the life of the present Parliament many Resolutions had been placed upon the records of the House, involving the expenditure of large sums, and he failed to see, if it were an equitable one, why the Motion now before the House should not also be placed on record and have the same opportunity in turn with the rest of becoming law.
MR. RIDSDALEsaid that the subject before the House was one upon which he had no special knowledge, although it was true that he represented a constituency which was probably the best lighted part of all our sea coast. He was afraid, however, if this Bill were passed it would not provide funds for the lighting of that part of the coast which he had the honour to represent. If it did he should not now be speaking against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the guardian of the public purse, and if any sum of money had to be extracted from the public purse he ought first to consider whether the cause for which it was to be extracted had the best claim. He did not think the hon. Gentlemen opposite who pressed for old age pensions, the payment of election expenses, and the payment of Members of Parliament, could claim that the shipping industry was withering away from the effect of these light dues. It was one of the most flourishing of all our industries, and was also the industry upon which the basis of our Empire rested. He would be loth to do anything which might injure that industry, but its great prosperity had been built up in spite of having to pay these shipping dues. There was another matter he wished to bring before the attention of the House. They were told that this taxation, which fell to a certain extent upon the shipping
874
industry of this country, also fell slightly upon the foreign shipping industry. It was hard enough, amid all the ramifications of the fiscal arguments, to find anything which would enable us to extract taxation from the foreigner. This, however, was one of those cases in which we got money out of the foreigner. He did not deny, on general broad principles, that the lighting of our coasts was a national interest to be taken over by the State. Possibly, in the dim future, when we had reduced the great burden of taxation under which the country lay, this question might be taken up, but with the pressing claims which were being made by hon. Gentlemen opposite upon the purse of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not think it could be urged that this money should be taken out of the funds of the nation and given to those who really did not need it, viz., the shipowners of this country.
MR. JOYCEsaid he supported this measure, not because he had any interest in the shipowners of the country, but upon the broad lines that it was to the interests of the seafaring population, of whom he was one, and of which he had some knowledge. He knew what it was to come on a coast badly lit and what a difference it was to come on a coast well lit. One of his principal reasons for supporting the Bill was that by it the lighting of the coast would be thrown upon the Government of the day, and they would thus get rid of the governing boards which now controlled the lighting. A great deal had been said by hon. Members who were opposed to this Bill with regard to the £500,000 that it would cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer to light the coasts, and as to where the money was to come from. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would care to consult him at any time, he would show the right hon. Gentleman how to provide for this charge without interfering in the least with any other matters that had been put forward. The right hon. Gentleman had only to cut off a second class cruiser every year from our programme of construction and he would gain more than sufficient to light our coasts. The Government were building

875
at enormous cost every year fleets of ships which in ten or twelve years became obsolete, with the result that new fleets had to be built. It would be much better for the community at large if this money was devoted to schemes devised for the purposes of saving, rather than upon means for destroying, life. It was true the shipowners might gain a certain sum of money per annum if these charges were taken off. He had not great sympathy with the shipowners, not being a shipowner himself, but he did think that, if they could get the burden of these dues taken off, they should do so and then try to get something in return from the shipowners. The main reason why he supported the Bill was that he considered it most important that the Board of Trade, or some Government board, should have the control of coast lights, instead of the private boards which now controlled them.
MR. CAIRNSsaid that though the opinion of the House appeared to be unanimous upon this Bill they could not deprive themselves of the luxury of a debate upon it. As a shipowner he had the greatest possible hesitation in taking part in a debate upon a matter affecting an industry in which he had a pecuniary interest, and he should not have risen but for the very unfair remark of the hon. Member for North Salford in characterising the Bill as an appeal by wealthy shipowners for some advantage from the State. Those who had shares in shipping knew that during the last five years the average profits earned had not been enough to cover actual depreciation; still, they hoped for better times. It was not a question of wealthy or impoverished shipowners: it was a question of equity; and viewed from that point of view the principles of the Bill were reasonable. Instead of the lighting of our coasts falling upon a particular trade, they should be an Imperial charge. He would not follow the analogies and parallels which had been drawn during this debate. Argument by analogy was sometimes misleading, and resulted in false conclusions. He just wanted to point out that the shipping industry was not only one of the most important trades in this country, but one which affected nearly every other
876
trade. It carried all our commodities at the lowest possible cost, which was a matter of the greatest importance to us. He wished to bring before the House the astonishing fact that the average rates of freight in the Atlantic and other trades of similar length of voyage, which have ruled for the past five years, were such that, as far as ocean navigation charges were concerned, a ton of merchandise was transported 100 miles for one penny and a sixth. They would thus see that the shipping industry had practically annihilated distance, and realise what a wonderful and important service it rendered. Further, the prosperity and increase of our mercantile marine intimately affected and stimulated other important industries, such as shipbuilding, and its allied trades. The increase in British coal-mining during the past few years has to a large degree been caused by the increase in our Mercantile Fleet. The increase in British tonnage for the past five years, it has been estimated, makes a present annual demand for British coal of about 6,000,000 tons. We should not put a tax on the mercantile marine which would hinder its proper development. He did not wish to labour the matter at length, but he felt that the trade was of such great importance that the House must look at this from the national point of view, and, further, inasmuch as the light dues which the shipowner paid provided for the safety and protection of the Imperial Navy, they ought to be an Imperial charge.
MR. MADDISONsaid he could not remember a Bill that had been more fortunate than that before the House. All Motions for rejections had disappeared, and for this he was not sorry, as he thought the Bill on its merits deserved a Second Reading. But it was singular to find the hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire, after putting down a Motion to reject it, giving the hill his enthu iastic support. He confessed that when he was in the House seven years ago he voted against a similar measure, but from the very moment that he had voted he felt that he had given a wrong vote. There were two grounds upon which he supported this Bill. He did not regard it as a mere shipowners' Bill; if it had been

877
he would have recorded his vote against it. He did not take the hon. Member for Stockton quite seriously in this matter. The hon. Member in season and out of season told them of the miserable condition of shipowners, but he did not believe that the hon. Member even took himself seriously. The hon. Member for the Tyneside Division gave the reason which had induced him (Mr. Maddison) to vote for this Bill, namely, that it was economically sound to free an industry from taxation at the source whenever possible, because otherwise the consumers were penalised. When a great country like ours depended as much upon its shipping as we did, it was desirable that everything should be made as cheap as possible. The hon. Member for Brighton expressed some regret that we could not differentiate between the foreign and British shipowner. He knew that there was no difference made now, and they wanted every possible ship, whether British or foreign, to come into our ports. No ship could come here without doing some good to the country, and therefore it must be clearly understood that he should support this Bill on the distinct understanding that the abolition of these light dues applied to foreign as well as to British ships. There was also the other point that there was really no chance of the coast being efficiently lighted until it was made a national matter. At present it was inequitable; the capital value of the Navy was tremendous, but it paid nothing towards the lighting of the coast; the shipowners paid that. Yet one of the primary functions of these lights was to protect the Navy. Up to the present the shipowners had tried to get proper representation on the Board of Trinity House and the other boards regulating the lighting of the ocean highways. The analogy of the lighting of the railroad was a false one because a railway was a private monopoly. In his opinion a real case had been made out for putting the cost of the lighting of the coast upon, the nation and making the Government responsible. He did not expect the President of the Board of Trade, who had supported a similar Bill last year, to have that freedom which he had as a private Member of the House, and he did not therefore consider that his
878
voting against this Bill would show any inconsistency. There was £500,000) involved in this question which must be taken from somewhere. A great deal of money was required for social reforms of various kinds, but against that there were the two arguments—;first, that the safety of life was the greatest social reform that could be imagined, and, secondly, that it was economically sound to free the consumer from imposts wherever possible. The question of taxation, however, was a very wide one, and some of them believed that all or at any rate most of the taxes should be paid by the land. If giving a Second Reading to this Bill meant its passing this year, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to find half a million more money, he candidly admitted he would not have been able to support it, because in that case they would have had to take into account the various demands that had already been made, and see whether money could be allocated for this purpose. In this particular case, however, he saw no difficulty in voting for the Second Reading, because by so doing they could affirm its principle, and it could then take its place in that long procession of demands which were seeking relief from the Treasury. On these grounds he should vote for the Second Reading.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon)said he need hardly say that he was in great sympathy with the shipowners of this country, representing, as he did, a constituency in which every other man was interested in shipping. He had been reminded that he supported a Bill of this kind before, and that no doubt was the case, but he had to look not only to the principle of the Bill, but to its practical effect. There was no use giving a Bill a Second Reading unless they were prepared to carry it out. This was not an abstract Resolution affirming a principle upon which to found a Bill in future. If hon. Gentlemen would look at this Bill they would see that it proposed to abolish light dues as from the first day of January, l907. He would like hon. Members who supported the Bill, and with whose views he fully sympathised, to consider

879
what the position would be if it was carried into law. If it were carried there would be no light dues after January 1st, 1907. But where was the money for the maintenance of the lights to come from? It was said that the Bill was promoted in the interest of humanity. Surely it was not in the interest of humanity that they should abolish light dues and leave the lighthouses without any light at all. The previous Bill provided where the money was to come from, but this was a Bill simply to abolish light dues.
SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid the promoters were perfectly well aware that if the Bill were read a second time no effect could be given to it by January 1st next. The object of having the Bill read the second time was to show that feeling in the House was in favour of abolishing the dues, and it would remain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year to make arrangements for carrying out the proposal.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was a great difference between an expression of opinion and a definite Bill. After all, the House was a business assembly, or it ought to be, and it should not give the Second Reading to a Bill unless it meant it. Did any one really mean this Bill? The hon. Baronet who introduced it said he did not mean it; that all he meant was that it should be taken as a pious expression of opinion as to what ought to be done. The Board of Trade would be delighted to help the shipping industry, but the question they had to face was that of finding the money. If the Bill were carried they would have to go to the Treasury and convince them. And would any one tell him where the money was to be found? Was the coal tax to be re-imposed? Was the penny still to be left on the tea duty? Was the half a million for the reduction of the National Debt to be diverted to the purpose of the Bill? [An HON. MEMBER: Take it off the Army or the Navy.] That was a question to be dealt with when they were considering the Army or the Navy. He would turn to some of the arguments used in support of this Bill. It was said that there was no great nation in the world that imposed
880
these light dues, but there was not much in that, because those other countries could raise a considerable taxation upon their over-sea trade. That was a burden upon trade, and had the effect of restricting the shipping trade, and, indeed, was probably much more disastrous to shipping than any light dues imposed by us. He was certain that those who supported the Bill did not wish this country to follow the example of other countries in that respect. With regard to the Suez Canal shares argument, he held a strong feeling that the Canal dues were extravagantly high, but that was rather a reason for appealing for a reduction in those dues. He should like to know whether those who represented shipping which passed through the Suez Canal were prepared to say they would not put forward any further claims for reduction of the dues if the light dues on the British coast were abolished. Would any representative of Suez Canal shipping be prepared to say that now? If he would he should be rather surprised. Another argument that had been advanced was that these light dues protected the ships that did not use our ports. That was equally true of France. The French lights protected German ships passing by, but Germany did not contribute anything to the upkeep of those lights. As a matter of fact the argument was absurd, because what happened in our own case? Foreign shipping contributed something like £150,000 or £160,000 to the upkeep of the lights around the Coast, whereas in the case of France the whole burden fell on the French taxpayer. The proposal, therefore, was to impose upon the British taxpayer a burden a considerable proportion of which came in the first instance from the pockets of the foreigner. That was a proposition which came from hon. Members who wanted to tax the foreigner for British industries. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Scarborough, whom he congratulated on his maiden speech, that the burden did not really come out of the pockets of the shipowners, nor even of the shipping industry, but really fell upon the consumer in this country. He further agreed that if they took it off, the relief in the long run would go into the pockets, not

881
of the shipowner, but of the consumer. That was his belief. That was the way competition must inevitably work. The whole question was, Was the House prepared at the present moment to give a kind of mandate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that on January 1st, 1907, he was to find £500,000 for the purpose of abolishing light dues? He did not think it was fair to pass the Bill unless they were prepared to face that question. The Government were not prepared at the present moment to find £500,000 for the purpose asked for. In another direction, however, the Government might be able to do something. There had been a good deal of criticism in the course of the debate of the administration of the lighthouses, and particularly of the system under which £500,000 was expended by a body which was not responsible either to the shipowners or to this House. He listened to the criticism passed by the hon. Member for North Down as to the neglect of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to light up a part of the coast, which he agreed was extremely dangerous, but he was powerless in the matter. Most of the criticisms had been passed upon the Irish lights. He was glad to hear for the sake of his profession that the responsible body was one on which there was no lawyer. He thought there was a great case for consideration as to shipowners having somebody more directly responsible either to public opinion or to the shipowners, and the Government were prepared to set up an inquiry into that matter. It had been said during the debate that one of his predecessors offered to do something, but that was the first time he had heard it. At any rate, he thought something ought to be done, and the Government were prepared to appoint a Commission for the purpose of looking into the whole management of the lighthouses of our coasts. That would cover a good many of the complaints which had been made as to the inadequacy of the lighting of our coasts. That was a matter which ought to be looked into, and that the Government proposed doing at the earliest possible moment, but until they got the Report of the proposed Commission he hoped the House would not pass the present Bill. In connection with a
882
previous Light Dues Act something was done in the way of subsidising a system of apprenticeship for the supply to the Mercantile Marine of a larger number of British sailors. Nothing much came of that scheme, one reason being that the money was insufficient. He hoped something might be done in the next few weeks in regard to that, but he was not prepared to make any express promise. In the meantime he appealed to the shipowners and the House to be satisfied for the present with the investigation he had promised. His hon. friend the Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool was a great champion of economy, and he would ask him for his assistance in this matter. They were all economists until it came to the interest of their own constituents. He would, however, ask for his hon. friend's support that they should wait at any rate until these questions had been thoroughly sifted out. There ought to be a Commission appointed who would have regard to all the interests involved, and not merely those of the shipowners. He trusted the supporters of this Bill would be satisfied with the appointment of a Commission to go into the whole question of the lighting of our coasts, and more especially the management and the constitution of the bodies that performed the work at the present time. More could not really be expected from the Government. Of course, as was pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, his right hon. friend was not even responsible for the estimates of this year, and therefore he could not control expenditure. It would be unfair to his right hon. friend, therefore, in his first year of office, and in the special circumstances of this year, to call upon him to find another £500,000 for the abolition of light dues. He sincerely trusted the House would accede to his reasonable request in this matter.
MR. BARRIE, said he was sure that the House had listened with satisfaction to the promise of the President of the Board of Trade to appoint a Royal Commission. He had for long felt that the lighting of our coasts was a national matter. The hon. Member for North Down had given a concrete illustration of how slowly Lighthouse

883
Boards proceeded, and he hoped that there would be no further delay in granting a lighthouse at the important part of the coast referred to by his hon. friend. As regarded the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners, while he believed they discharged their duties fairly well, the time had come when a more popularly elected body should be substituted, with more rapid and responsive methods of lighthouse work. It was time that the important duty of lighting the coasts was undertaken by the nation, and was discharged by a department directly responsible to this House.
SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid he had been long enough in this House to remember the time when, if any matter affecting shipowners and shipping was introduced, it was as a rule most unfavourably considered. He readily recognised the great change that had taken place in regard to the shipping industry in this country since then. It was almost too late in the day to emphasise the fact that the great shipping industry was practically the only one this country had got of which they were really proud. He was speaking more particularly of the export trade of the country, in which the shipping trade played so important a part. The other day a Bill was introduced in this House affecting shipowners, and they gave evidence of their readiness to support the President of the Board of Trade and the Government in every possible way. They had heard the view expressed by the President of the Board of Trade, and they fully recognised the position in which he was placed in regard to the question. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if the Bill passed, on the 1st of January, 1907 all the lighthouses on our coast would practically be in darkness. He wished to remind the President of the Board of Trade that, although that was a possibility, it was a very remote one. Even if the Bill passed without any alteration of the date, Trinity House had already extracted sufficient money from shipowners not only to cover the cost of lighting the coast for the present year, but also, by utilising the reserve fund, to carry on the work for another year at
884
the present rate of expenditure, reckless, extravagant, and unbusinesslike as it was. This could be done without receiving one penny more from the shipowners. Therefore they could easily alter the date from 1907 to 1908. The Government had promised, if this Bill were withdrawn, a Commission to inquire into the whole question. His opinion was that they had had too many Commissions already upon the matter. There had been four Committees and Commissions already, and all the Commissions they could form could not get away from the fact that it was an injustice upon the shipowning industry that they should pay not only for the lighting of the coast for their own vessels, but also the proportionate cost which ought to be collected from the Navy. Not only was this an injustice, but it had most injurious effects in other ways. They were told that they were going to be granted some relief or encouragement in regard to the question of apprentices, but he was one of those who contended that they were face to face with an injustice strong enough in itself to encourage them to proceed with this Bill, because they felt that the British shipowner should no longer be placed under the injustice which at present existed. With regard to the Suez Canal dues, which had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, he failed to see any connection between the two.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he never raised the question at all; he simply answered a Question raised by an hon. Member opposite.
SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid that having regard to the fact that we were the largest investors in the Canal, the Government ought to set a good example and encourage their co-owners to reduce the charges to a reasonable and legitimate rate. He thought it would be admitted that there had been no real argument used against the Bill. All the speeches they had heard up to the present admitted the reasonableness of the contention of the shipowners, and although he fully recognised the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in finding the money necessary for all the demands made upon him, he thought they had

885
a right to demand from the Government the payment of a fair share of the cost of lighting the coast on account of the Navy. If the Bill were sent to a Grand Committee the shipowners would be ready to agree in a friendly spirit to a date when it should come into operation.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid he would like to say a few words upon this subject, with which he had been connected during a part of his public career. The Bill had one advantage from a purely Party point of view. As a Unionist, he looked forward with some anxiety to the use that might be made of any surplus that might accrue to the Treasury of a Radical Chancellor of the Exchequer. One effect of this Bill would be to reduce that surplus by about £500,000, and so far he felt tempted to vote for the Bill. But he was afraid that course might involve a certain amount of inconsistency, because he had on previous occasions opposed any proposal of this kind. This question was first brought before his notice when he was serving his apprenticeship as President of the Board of Trade. He served that apprenticeship under the late Lord Farrer, who although he was nominally his subordinate, yet was, as the permanent head of the office, one of the ablest men he had ever come into contact with in public life, and no doubt he had a great influence upon his views at that time. Mr. Farrar, as he then was, was a Radical and free-trader—;a very logical and consistent free-frader, of a different school from that with which they were now acquainted. He was not at all afraid of making necessary reforms. He was of opinion that the management of the lighthouse system of this country by the Trinity House was a most admirable example of that kind of service, and might properly be imitated by other Departments of the State. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said something which implied that the Trinity House was a non-representative institution, and was unfitted for work of this kind, and that the work was done expensively and inefficiently. Thirty years ago Lord Farrer held a totally different opinion, and nothing had happened since, in his judgment, which
886
would justify them in taking a different view from Lord Farrer's. The Trinity House management of the lighthouses combined the advantages of the advice and knowledge of experts in these matters and the efficient control of the Government Department, because the finance of the Lighthouse Board was certainly governed by the President of the Board of Trade, and therefore he could influence their policy most effectively. One objection to this Bill was that it would inevitably be followed by a change of that system, and the transfer of this great business to a Government Department. He had spent the greater part of his public life in Government Departments, but he retained sufficient suspicion of them to entertain a certain fear of casting on them duties which they were not well qualified to undertake. At least they would be losing more and more that assistance and advice which could only be given by private individuals, and which was stimulated by private interests. He should think it would be a real misfortune if this change were made, and if the lighting of the coasts, which by the common consent of every impartial person had been admirably performed by the Trinity House, were handed over to a Government Department which, in the first instance, at any rate must be insufficiently equipped with, the necessary information and, he was certain, would not be economical. He did not think it would be found in the long run an advantage to the country that the cost of the lighthouse service should be very considerably raised, as he was certain it would be if the private assistance and advice now given were lost. They had been told that they ought to carry this Bill as a matter of justice. The hon. Member for Hartlepool did not press this claim upon that ground alone, but also upon the universally recognised virtues of the shipping interest. With these extraordinary qualifications it was thought that a small subsidy—;a dole it used to be called in the last Parliament—;of £500,000 a year should be presented to these gentlemen. He had the highest respect for the shipping interest, but he could not admit that they were entitled to any special advantages.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Because they are opposed to your policy.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought, on the contrary, that the great majority of the shipowners were heartily with him. At all events, the great shipping port of Liverpool had returned to this House a majority of its Members, in spite of Chinese labour, entirely favourable to his view., The hon. Member should not insinuate improper motives. He gave the hon. Member credit for absolute sincerity and disinterestedness, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman would give him credit for equal honesty.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Hear, hear.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (continuing)said that with regard to the suggestion that it was unjust to put this tax upon the shipowners, would it be more just to put it on the inland taxpayers and ratepayers? Surely it was desirable as a principle in all taxation that as far as possible the first incidence of any tax should be borne by the people who benefited most from it. As the shipping industry was the chief beneficiary in this particular case, he should have thought it had been better that, in the first instance at any rate, the shipping industry should pay these dues. The shipowners were able to distribute the cost, and sometimes an additional profit, upon the freighters of the ships. There was an analagous case in the removal of the turnpike dues and the imposition of all dues upon local authorities in connection with highways. He believed that that change was adopted with general assent, but he had always had considerable doubt as to whether the change was wise or whether it had operated satisfactorily. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] At any rate he held that old-fashioned opinion. Time had shown that the heavy charge now laid upon the local rates for the repair of the roads was unfair in its incidence. When he saw the change which was coming over them in reference to the improvements of locomotion and more especially the increase of motor cars and motor traffic of all kinds, he did think it was extremely unfair
888
that some country village should be heavily taxed for the pleasure traffic of visitors who might run through the village and who had no interest in local circumstances. He thought no serious injury had been shown to have resulted from the placing of this tax in the first place upon those who chiefly benefited by the service rendered, and it would be a disadvantage to deprive ourselves of the valuable services of the Trinity House authorities. Therefore he he should vote against the Bill. The Government had given them the usual advice—;they were to go as they pleased. The appointment of a Commission was merely an excuse, to which they had become accustomed within the last two months, for indecision on the part of the Government. The Government had a larger majority than any other Government had ever had in our history, a greater majority and consequently greater indecision.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had opposed the Bill, for he believed in taxing the foreigner. The President of the Board of Trade agreed with the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion, and opposed the Bill in order that we might continue to tax the foreigner. He and his friends did net believe in taxing the foreigner in this or in any other matter. The position of the economists who opposed the Bill was hardly reasonable. What he wanted to do when he asked for economy was to stop unproductive expenditure. In the case of this Bill it was not contended that anything of that kind could be done. It was a question whether the burden should be shifted from one shoulder to another. There could be no saving; the money was paid in any case. The question was—;who should pay? If the shipowner paid it was most unfair that the Navy of this country should contribute nothing. The President of the Board of Trade had made no reply on that point. That made out a case for the Bill at the start. If the shipowners paid they also paid for the ships and navies of all other countries which passed along our coasts. That was a most unreasonable state of affairs. His right

889
hon. friend had abandoned that position. He seemed to say that the consumers paid, and that they were in the long run the tax-payers. If that were so this Bill would not make any difference from the economic point of view. The present plan was admitted to be a very bad one from the point of view of international difficulties. Therefore, while we should save no money by continuing the present system, we should continue to have those international difficulties which hampered trade and therefore diminished the prosperity of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham opposed the Bill, that was to him rather an argument for supporting it, for the right hon. Gentleman had undoubtedly used arguments in opposing the Bill with which they were altogether too familiar. The constituency which returned him contained, he supposed, more shipowners than any other, and they were almost unanimous, so far as he had been able to ascertain, in opposing the other proposals of the right hon. Gentleman to which reference had been made, and they were quite unanimous in supporting this Bill for the reasons which he had briefly stated. He thought the Bill would add nothing to the burden of the whole community, but it would undoubtedly free our international trade from obstacles to which it was exposed by our present vicious system.
MR. O'GRADYsaid he was going on this occasion to support the Government, because it had been proved through the whole debate that there was absolute need for inquiry. Subsequently the Government might intervene. He protested against this burden being taken off the shipowners and placed on the State. The Labour representatives had from time to time made representations that measures for social and industrial reforms should be introduced, and they had been met with the argument that the Government were not able to find the money. On both sides of the House there were hon. Gentlemen who wished to relieve
those who could pay from a burden of £500,000 per annum. A little while ago, when he was pleading that aged people who had been working for the greater part of their lives should get pensions, he was met with the answer that the Government had no money. The common people formed the bulk of the nation, and they deserved first consideration in matters of this kind. If this burden was removed from the shipowning community and put on the State, had they any guarantee that there would be any reduction in freights? He was of opinion that when a particular section of the community were relieved of their burdens the consumer never did benefit. Case after case could be quoted in proof of that statement. The burden, after all, was not so great as the shipowners would lead the House to believe. The President of the Board of Trade had stated that no less than £160,000 of the £500,000 was paid by foreign shipowners. He believed the interests that bore the burden at present were well able to pay. The Government ought to consider what they were going to do as to the pledges regarding social reform made during the General Election. He hoped hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches would accept the position outlined by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and that they would vote for an inquiry, but not for this Bill.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he regarded the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade to appoint a Commission as a polite method of hanging up the question. He would be glad if he and his hon. friends who represented shipping communities could accept the proposal as satisfactory, but he hoped they would press the Motion for the Second Reading to a division.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes. 169. (Division List No. 68.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

Ashley, W. W.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Agnew, George William

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Barker, John

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Higham, John Sharp

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Barnes, G. N.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Holland, Sir William Henry

Seddon, J.

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Seely, Major J. B.

Beale, W. P.

Hunt, Rowland

Shackleton, David James

Beauchamp, E.

Jackson, R. S.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Joyce, Michael

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bertram, Julius

Laidlaw, Robert

Soares, Ernest J.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Spicer, Albert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Stanger, H. Y.

Brace, William

Lever, A.Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Starkey, John R.

Branch, James

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

Liddell, Henry

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire)

Lupton, Arnold

Sullivan, Donal

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Lynch, H. B.

Summerbell, T.

Cairns, Thomas

MacdonaId, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Sutherland, J. E.

Cameron, Robert

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Maclean, Donald

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Torrance, A. M.

Castlereagh, Viscount

M'Callum, John M.

Verney, F. W.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Vivian, Henry

Clancy, John Joseph

Maddison, Frederick

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cleland, J. W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Clynes, J. R.

Molteno, Percy Alfred

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Mond, A.

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Watt, H. Anderson

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Cory, Clifford John

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Nolan, Joseph

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dixon, Sir Daniel

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Dobson, Thomas W.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

O'Doherty, Philip

Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn

Ferens, T. R.

O'Malley, William

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

Findlay, Alexander

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wolff. Gustav Wilhelm

Fletcher, J. S.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

Furness, Sir Christopher

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Young, Samuel

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Younger, George

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Gulland, John W.

Radford, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—;Sir

Haddock, George R.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Robert Ropner and Mr.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Walter Rea.

Hayden, John Patrick

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

Redmond, William (Clare)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

Donelan, Captain A.

Alden, Percy

Burke, E. Haviland-

Doughty, Sir George

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Byles, William Pollard

Duckworth, James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Duffy, William J.

Asquith, Rt. Non. Herbert Henry

Cawley, Frederick

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Balcarres, Lord

Channing, Francis Allston

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Elibank, Master of

Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

Clough, W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Barnard, E. B.

Cogan, Denis J.

Fenwick, Charles

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Crean, Eugene

Forster, Henry William

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cremer, William Randal

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Billson, Alfred

Crossley, William J.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Boland, John

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Gill, A. H.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Delany, William

Ginnell, L.

Brigg, John

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Bright, J. A.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Glover, Thomas

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Grant, Corrie

Brooke, Stopford

Dillon, John

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

892

893

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Hall, Frederick

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rickett, J. Compton

Halpin, J.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Hammond, John

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Hart-Davies, T.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Harwood, George

Marnham, F. J.

Rowlands, J.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Meagher, Michael

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Menzies, Walter

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Hazleton, Richard

Mooney, J. J.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Hedges, A. Paget

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

Helme, Norval Watson

Morpeth, Viscount

Sears, J. E.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Morrell, Philip

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morse, L. L.

Steadman, W. C.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Murnaghan, George

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hooper, A. G.

Murphy, John

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Horniman, Emslie John

Murray, James

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hudson, Walter

Myer, Horatio

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nicholls, George

Thomasson, Franklin

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Norman, Henry

Thornton, Percy M.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Toulmin, George

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Walsh, Stephen

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Weir, James Galloway

Jordan, Jeremiah

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Grady, J.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Hare, Patrick

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Kelley, George D.

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Paul, Herbert

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

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Paulton, James Mellor

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Pirie, Duncan V.

Yoxall, James Henry

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Raphael, Herbert H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—;Mr. Harold Cox and Mr. Wardle.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Reddy, M.

Lough, Thomas

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Lundon, W.

Renton, Major Leslie

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Words added.
Second Reading put off for six months.

RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BRIGHTsaid the Bill, the Second Reading of which he had the honour to move, had been before the House on many occasions, and had passed this stage no fewer than six times. It was rather a reflection on the business powers of the House that under such circumstances it had not found a place on the Statute Book of the realm. The object of the Bill was not greatly to alter the present law or the general custom relating to rating, but to introduce uniformity and certainty
894
into what had become, owing to some legal decisions, a very uncertain matter. The general practice throughout the country in the past had been for engines, boilers, and shafting, such machinery as passed with the freehold, to be rated, but, except on one or two occasions, textile machinery had never been rated On one or two occasions, where authorities had desired to rate machinery, it had been laid down by the Judges that the actual machinery should not be rated, but "taken into account." That was a very indefinite phrase, and no one knew exactly how it was to be "taken into account." He represented a town which was, he supposed the greatest centre of the cotton spinning industry—;a town in which there was a very large number of enormous factories, containing a vast amount of valuable machinery, and the result of rating that machinery would be almost to double the rates of those factories. He

895
was sure the local authorities had no desire to do that—;the Chamber of Commerce and every one with influence was against any such thing and in favour of this Bill. The same applied to all the manufacturing towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and it was the feeling of proprietors of mills and of the directors of mill owning companies, as well as of representative working men, that this Bill should be passed. There was nothing revolutionary in what he proposed, as the Bill was in consonance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation of 1901, which laid it down that in estimating the rental value of hereditaments occupied for trade, business, or manufacturing purposes there should be excluded from the assessment any increased value arising from machinery, tools, and appliances that were removable from the place. The rating of machinery would be very disastrous in its effects on the industry of such towns as he represented, and it might have the effect of driving manufacturers to remove their factories north of the Tweed as in one case had already been done. If the rating of machinery were to become general, a very enormous burden would be thrown on industry, and, if cotton-spinning machinery were to be rated, why not agricultural machinery, printing presses, mineral water machines, and machines for coffee and chocolate grinding—;in fact, everything which was used in premises for the sake of doing trade in the places in which the machinery was used? The Bill was strictly in accordance with the law in Scotland and Ireland. The whole difficulty was really raised in the first place in a small country town where there was but one factory, and the agricultural community naturally wished to obtain as much rate as possible from that factory. It sought to do so by taxing the machinery, but if that course became a recognised system throughout the country there would be no extension of industry in rural districts. Surely
896
it was a great advantage to have the mills in country places with plenty of fresh air rather than in crowded centres in vast dismal smoky towns as at present? But if the authorities were to be allowed to rate them heavily the industries would never extend into country districts. He hoped the House would again read the Bill a second time. Had it not been for the prolixity of the speeches of hon. Members on previous occasions he felt sure the Bill would have become law ere this, and he earnestly hoped that that afternoon they would not suffer from the same affliction.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—;(Mr. Bright.)
MR. J. JOHNSONsaid that, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, he would like to point out that the title was absolutely misleading and that in many instances it had misled hon. Members of the House. It professed to be a Bill for taxation of machinery, but in reality it was a Bill for the exemption of certain machinery from rating. They had been informed by the mover of the Bill that it had been read six times already, and would have passed long since but for the prolixity of hon. Members. But the hon. Gentleman had not added the information that on each occasion there had been a diminishing majority in favour of the Bill, showing that the objection to it was growing. He was bound to say that he thought the arguments advanced in favour of the Bill were very fallacious, and he could not understand why unfixed machinery should be especially exempted from rating. He might refer hon. Members to the Tyne boiler case in the Court of Appeal, in which Lord Esher, the Master of the Rolls, in 1886, dealt with the question of what was fixed machinery. The decision then arrived at had not been since

897
altered. His complaint against the Bill, however, was that it proposed to narrow the basis of taxation rather than enlarge it, and his belief was that the effect of passing the Bill would be to increase the burden on the poorer members of the community. He was perfectly willing to argue the question that the present mode of taxation was fallacious and that taxes should be spread in a different manner. Certainly he would put more on the land, because he believed it was never intended that it should be held as a monopoly by, and for the advantage of, the privileged few. He could not conceive why an employer who by his forethought, patience, industry, and energy had built up a large concern should have his industry per se heavily rated. But they were not dealing with the wider question that afternoon; they were dealing with the narrower view, and he had to point out that the inevitable result of relieving machinery of taxation would be to transfer the burden to the poor householder and small shopkeeper. In the constituency he had the honour to represent, the increased burden which would be created by the Bill would fall upon the poor labouring class. Let them try and understand the effects the exemption of machinery would have in that district. His constituency was largely working-class. Ninety per cent, of the inhabitants belonged to the working classes, and he had been given to understand from inquiries he had made that the effect of the Bill would be to increase the rates by 4d. or 5d. in the £. It was well known that about the present time the rates in Gates-head were very heavy, especially the education rate, and if, in addition to their present burden, exemption of machinery from rating was introduced, their rates would be heavy indeed. He had been given to understand also that in Jarrow, another large industrial centre, the effect of the Bill would be to add another 4d. in the £ to the ratepayers'
898
burdens, and he had also been informed that in Sunderland it would mean a similar increase. Fourpence or fivepence in the £ might seem to be a small matter, but with the already increased burdens of taxation it became a very serious one. There were other instances he could mention, all of which indicated that the passage of the Bill would be a very serious matter indeed especially for northern districts. Before allowing such a Bill to come into operation they should have some general scheme of taxation; it was not fair to exempt the capitalists by the narrow specious process suggested and place their responsibilities upon the shoulders of the workers. The Bill would mean higher rents, and everyone knew that the workman's rent was already sufficiently high—;higher than his means allowed in many cases. Taxation was steadily going up; they could not have any privileges except they were prepared to pay for them. He would be the last man to deprecate an increase in expenditure if they were to get a corresponding amount of advantage from it, but in the present instance they were going to take a burden off the backs of the classes better able to bear it and to place it upon the backs of the working men who were less able to bear it and would not derive any benefit from it. The Bill dealt with a very small portion of a very large question. He knew of no Bill introduced into this House which would call for greater consideration, an expenditure of more time, and keener analysis than that for the re-adjustment of the taxation of the country. The point he wished to make was that, whatever might be their special and peculiar view as to the exact place where the burden of taxation ought to rest, there was no doubt that the discussion of the rating question would take up a great deal of time, and would require keen analysis and careful consideration. Why should they tinker with a small point like this, and why should a matter of this kind be raised in

899
a partial manner and not straight out? He hoped the House was not prepared to pass this Bill. A number of hon. Gentlemen professed to be very anxious for the well being of the community in regard to taxation, but when they came to look into the proposal they found that it was simply one to remove taxation from their own shoulders. This Bill might rightly be called a manufacturers' Bill. Constantly in this House claims were made for certain exemptions in favour of this, that, or the other class, but he did not think that the class who desired this exemption deserved to have their present claim taken into consideration or that they had made out any case. The case which had been brought forward had received diminished support, and as soon as it was understood that the Bill was to reduce the rating of a particular class he thought less support than ever would be given to it. He did not wish the House to pass the Bill under a misapprehension; it must be distinctly understood that it was a Bill by which it was intended to take a burden from the manufacturers and place it upon the small shopkeepers and workers who in a very large number of cases were already overburdened. [Cries of "No."] Hon. Members said "No" and therefore evidently this was a matter of opinion, and he thought his opinion was as good as that of other hon. Members. Why should the capitalists and the machine owner be exempted from this burden, and why should it be placed upon the small shopkeepers and the workers? He entered an emphatic protest against the Bill, and hoped hon. Members would realise its important and far-reaching consequences. Without further wearying the House he had the pleasure of moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYseconded the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, although he confessed that the object
900
of the promoters had his sympathy. He felt obliged, however, to go into the Lobby against the measure. He wsa perfectly prepared to admit that manufacturers had grievances upon the subject, but, like the hon. Member who had moved the rejection, he felt that if machinery were exempted the rates would have to be met out of somebody else's pocket. He did not exactly know, and it was difficult to tell in different parts of the country, upon whose shoulders the burden would fall. The hon. Member for Gateshead seemed to think that the burden would fall upon the small shopkeeper and workers, and he thought that that was likely to be the case. Indeed he did not see how it could be otherwise. On the other hand, he recognised that in the country districts the burden would fall upon the farmers who were cultivating the land. He thought that this debate would bring out a very important point to which the mover had referred in his speech when he quoted cases, within his knowledge, where the manufacturer had had to remove his works and plant, owing to the heavy rates charged upon his machinery in the district in which he carried on business. He had always maintained that the rating of machinery was hard, and therefore the Bill had his sympathy, but he felt that if rates upon machinery were done away with they were bound to fall upon the produce of that machinery. He considered the rating of machinery thoroughly wrong, in the same way as he considered the rating of land thoroughly bad. It was, in his opinion, a question not of who but of what paid the rate. It might be called the rating of machinery, but it did not matter to the manufacturer or to the local authority who paid the rates, or whether the sum was raised by a charge placed upon the article which the manufacturer was producing, or was levied in the way of rates. He held that the rating of machinery was a tax upon the article produced,

901
and therefore he considered it was bad. The same thing might be said about land, and it did not matter whether the money was levied by way of rate upon land or upon a quarter of corn which was grown upon the land. He had always said that the rating of any property in the country fell upon the industry and the people engaged in it. He considered, however, that there should be legislation with regard to the whole of the question of rating, and he did not think the Report of the Commission appointed by the last Conservative Government had in any way solved the problem. He thought it one of the chief mistakes of the last Conservative Government that they did not deal entirely with this rating question and go to the very root of it. This tax made it all the harder for manufacturers in this country to compete with their foreign rivals. But to call upon the tenants of small houses in towns and upon farmers in the country to bear the burden was unjust. He believed that the whole question ought to be thoroughly gone into and radically altered, and he hoped the Government would take the matter into consideration and see whether they could not devise some better scheme for obtaining rates than from this source.
Amendment proposed—;
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—;(Mr. J. Johnson.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. STUARTsaid he would not have intervened in this debate had it not been for the fact that he was the only Member present who was a Member of the Royal Commission which sat for a number of years upon the subject of local taxation. He recognised that this Bill was founded upon a clause of the Report of the Commission which was unanimously
902
agreed to, or at all events was agreed to by an overwhelming majority. The Commission came to the conclusion that the rating of machinery, as at present carried out, had many disadvantages, and he thought it would be a very great advantage to very many hon. Members if they would look into the historical aspect of the question, which was dealt with in the Report, which threw an immense light upon the whole rating question. One of the reasons which caused them to make the Report they did about the rating of machinery was the difference of practice which prevailed in different parts of the country, and resulted in the hampering of competitive trade. Not only was there a difference of practice throughout the country in regard to rating, but the whole law of rating, and especially that in respect of machinery, was based largely upon decisions given by the courts of law, a piecemeal sort of law, which was in an uncertain and disorganised condition. Another point was that they felt that this rating of machinery was a tax upon trade, and that inasmuch as it fell largely upon some branches of trade and not upon others it was very desirable that the matter should be rectified in the general interests of the manufacturers of the country. But while they took that view and made that Report, the question to which he wished to call the attention of the House was that this particular portion of their Report was to be taken in connection with the other large and important proposals which they made affecting the whole general law of rating. They were put there to consider the law and question of rating as a whole and they did so—;he did not say with all the success that they could have wished. They touched upon the question of how much the Poor Law and the education rates ought to fall upon the local authority or the central authority. Five of them, including Lord Balfour of Burleigh, made

903
a Report in favour of the rating of ground values, and the House would see that when the Commission made their Report they had before them the general reorganisation of the rating conditions of the country. They proposed this change in the rating of machinery as part of the large system of reorganisation which they put forward. Whether it should be taken by itself or not was a very different question, and he thought that the House would do well to deal with the question of local taxation from a general point of view. There was no question in the country which was more important than local taxation except the question of general taxation. Then there was the question in regard to contributions in aid of local rates. These were subjects which were not generally attractive to people, and it was difficult to raise any interest in them, and the ratepayers did not know how the incidence of rating fell. There was, for instance, the compound householder system, which did not relieve rates but cloaked them; but even taking the rates not under the compound system there was a great deal of difficulty on the part of competent authorities in deciding who really paid the rates. He thought he had said enough to show the great vista which was before the House of Commons in regard to these rating questions. If the Government and the House of Commons would wake up and deal with the real essence of the general rating question they would, he thought, be rendering a genuine service to the country. He should be glad to hear from the Government some undertaking that they would deal with his question at no distant date.
MR. R. DUNCANheartily supported the Bill. This country had to keep pace with the march of invention and improvement which was going on in the midst of our rivals in Germany and the United States. The
904
Bill removed an obstruction in the resources of competitive trade. Taxation should depend not on the machinery that made a business profitable, but on the general prosperity of the community as a whole. Let them tax prosperity, but not those things by which prosperity was attained.
MR. FENWICKthought the House was very much indebted to his hon. friend the Member for Sunderland for the explanation he had given the House as to the work of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. Although he had no decided objection to this Bill, there were many Members of the House who had. He certainly, however, had an objection to its proceeding at the present moment and under present conditions. As the hon. Member for Sunderland had justly said, the principle raised by the Bill was part of a very large scheme of local taxation. He reminded supporters of the Government that when the late Government dealt with agricultural rating and clerical tithes the opposition then offered was due to the selection of special features of taxation for treatment tending particularly to favour the friends of the late Government. That was one of the fundamental grounds of their opposition to the proposals of the late Government. No one could deny, however, that in a measure of this kind the responsibility ought to rest upon the Government and not upon an individual Member. In his own district they rated machinery, including that appertaining to collieries. They had not lowered the basis of taxation; they had only narrowed down the area of taxable property. The expenditure went on just the same, and where were they to find the money to meet the necessary expenditure in the locality? They had to impose additional taxation on the other property of that locality, that was to say upon the houses of the working men; men who had struggled to

905
and had become owners of their own houses. By this Bill they would exempt the property of those who were able to pay in order to throw it upon the shoulders of men who were not able to bear it. The fact that the tax on machinery was reduced would also tend to put up the rents of working men in the locality, The rents in the county of Northumberland, and especially in Newcastle, were probably much higher than the rents in any other industrial centre, and the effect of this Bill would be to increase the rent of those properties and increase the rents of the working men in the rural and urban districts of Northumberland. He objected upon that ground, so far as his district at all events was concerned, to the passing of this measure.
MR. CHARLES ROBERTSSaid that all the opponents of the Bill agreed that unfixed machinery was not a fit subject for rating, but they found various grounds why, in spite of agreeing with the principle of the Bill, they considered it was one that must be rejected. He was inclined to think that the substantial argument was that the whole question of rating should be dealt with together. He did not yield to anyone in asking the Government to deal with the question on the lines of the Rating Commission. He thought he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night say that he wanted to adjust the whole question of rating, but he did not see why they should not vote on this Bill today because the Government at some future time proposed to deal with the whole problem of Imperial and local finance Hon. Members would never have urged that the question of the taxation of land values, could not be dealt with separately
906
apart from the general readjustment of rating, and if the House threw out this Bill today, it would be said, when the general settlement came, that the House had changed its mind on the question of the rating of machinery. They should do the just thing, and he thought, for his part, that this Bill was a just one. There was a clear distinction between fixed machinery, which might increase the letting value of the establishment, and the loose machinery lying about which did not. And accepting the main principle of the Bill, he thought it a fair and moderate proposal to exempt that unfixed machinery from taxation. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck division of Northumberland had said that if they exempted this machinery from taxation, the burden would be placed upon the house property in the locality. But if this Bill was just, he did not see that people had a right to perpetuate an injustice by throwing it out One strong argument which induced him to vote in favour of the Bill was that the case decided in the House of Lords last year had increased the anxiety which prevailed in the present state of the law. The whole practice of the law was sufficiently uncertain at the present time with regard to the rating of machinery, and that uncertainty would only be increased by that decision, and while they were waiting for a general readjustment, assessment committees might be doing real injustices in the meantime. That was one ground why he had decided to press for the Bill this afternoon.
MR. MYERsaid the framers of this Bill had thought well, but not sufficiently well, on this subject. How were they going to draw a distinction between fixed and unfixed

907
machinery? What was fixed machinery? It was very difficult to define. He presumed that most hon. Members thought it consisted of boilers and engines. What was happening to boilers and engines today? In some particular town they might possibly have 100 works each with an engine and boiler worth £1,000. Today, with the introduction of electric and hydraulic power, the whole of that machinery might disappear in a year or two. Under those circumstances what was the value of it, and what would become of the power to rate that machinery? Instead of having separate engines and boilers, works would be run from some large distributing centre, and were they going to place the rate upon the central distributing station? The whole idea of differentiating between fixed and unfixed machinery was absurd. With regard to the extra rate falling upon workmen's dwellings, the statement would not hold water, because every landlord today was getting as much rent as he possibly could out of his tenants, and no matter what the rates might be, the landlord could not increase the rent. Therefore the argument that the rate would fall heavily upon the working classes was illusive. A large amount of the rateable value created would disappear in a very short time.
MR. SUMMERBELLsaid that the hon. Member was perfectly accurate in what he said so far as it related to the town which he (Mr. Summerbell) had the honour to represent. The machinery in that town was rated at the present time, and if this Bill was passed into law it would increase the rates of the town 3d. or 4d. in the £. Everybody knew perfectly
908
well that where the rates were increased the rents were also increased. If this Bill was passed today, the rates in his town would go up and the house property in the shape of workmen's rents would go up 6d. a week. He hoped the House would not pass the Bill.
MR. LUPTONsaid that if he thought it was going to raise the rents paid by the working classes he should vote against the Bill, but he did not think it would have any such effect. He thought the landlords had already got all they could out of the workmen, no matter what the rates might be. If they taxed loose working machinery they made it more difficult for the manufacturer to live; they drove him out of the district, lowered wages, and injured the working classes. By taking the tax off machinery they threw the expense on the great owners of property. This was a small step in the right direction. The effect of this Bill was to encourage industry and thereby to raise the condition of the working classes.
MR. J. D. WHITEsaid he supported the Bill because it was a small and practical step in the right direction. It was a moderate measure, the fundamental principle of which was to exempt from rating machinery which was not fixed and machinery which was only temporarily fixed. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill professed to be unable to see the distinction between the machinery which was not fixed and machinery which was. The distinction was an arbitrary distinction, but it was a distinction which had been made by this House, and in the Scottish Rating Act, passed four years

909
ago, that very distinction had been put in. The promoters of the Bill desired to have in England the advantages already possessed in Scotland. It was almost a pity that the Bill did not go further, for he should like to see all the rating and taxing of machinery abolished. Machinery played a more and more important part in modern production, and they should encourage its use in every way, instead of penalising it. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division had argued that if machinery was exempted from rating, rates would be put upon the houses of the working classes. He could not agree with the hon. Member in that. He was opposed not only to the rating of machinery, but also to the rating of factory buildings and industrial buildings of every kind, including crofters' cottages in Scotland and the labourers' cottages in Ireland and even to the hut tax in Natal. He quite agreed with the observation made by the noble Lord the Member for the Horncastle Division that if they did this for certain industrial undertakings they should also do it for all. He would like to apply the same principle to agriculture, and to exempt from rating farm-buildings, hay sheds and all other agricultural improvements. He quite agreed that if they exempted all these things from rating they would have to find other things to rate. He was one of those who for many years past had advocated the fundamental reform of our valuation so as to base the whole taxation of landed property on the market value of the land and to leave all buildings and other improvements of every kind tax-free. Though he would continue to advocate that great reform, he was content to take this instalment now, and he would therefore support the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,)said he regretted that the promoters of this Bill had not circulated it till today—;at least the Bill had not reached the office which he represented until today, and he should have thought that in an important matter like this they would have taken steps to circulate it as early as possible. He was in complete agreement with much that had been said. It was perfectly clear that the rating of machinery as at present carried on throughout the United Kingdom was a bad system and was not a uniform system. If this lack of uniformity was causing any grievance in any part of the country, they must, sooner or later, clear it up, and the sooner the better; but by this Bill, the House was being asked to proceed in the wrong way and to bring about a reform on a wrong system. They were asked to relieve a certain kind of machinery from further burdens. Those burdens would, naturally, have to be borne by somebody, and it was perfectly clear that in most cases they would fall as an increased burden on house property. The burden which was removed from the industry would fall as an increased burden upon the classes engaged in the industry, and he ventured to suggest that this would be merely a case of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Before they transferred the burden from the back of one set of producers on to the back of another set, they should consider how far they could embark on a system of monopoly rating. He thought the House would be well advised in not proceeding to a decision that afternoon, not that he opposed the Bill in principle, but because he thought there was a better way of dealing with the

911
subject. The Government had announced their intention of dealing next year with the rating of land values. It was hoped that they might be able to introduce a Valuation Bill next session, and by that means to approach nearer to a solution of this great problem. He suggested that, if the Government did that, they would do something towards ultimately transferring the burden from the great machinery users on to the shoulders of the great monopoly owners. That, he believed, was the proper way to proceed. Meanwhile, it might be necessary that they should clear up some of the uncertainties which at present existed with regard to the rating of machinery; and if it should be necessary next year after the Government had introduced their measure to again bring this Bill before the House, he thought they might have it in a much amended form. If the House did proceed to a decision on the Bill that afternoon, the Government would have to propose a series of Amendmends which would materially alter its character.
And, it being Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

NEW BILL.

  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS.
  Bill to provide that no Prosecution under the Vaccination Acts shall be commenced without the authority of the Guardians, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Channing, Mr. Goddard,
  912
  Mr. Brigg, Mr. Corrie Grant, and Mr. Bill.

  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS BILL.
  "To provide that no Prosecutions under the Vaccination Acts shall be commenced without the authority of the Guardians," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

  INCOME TAX.
  Select Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the practicability of graduating the Income Tax, and of differentiating, for the purpose of the tax between permanent and precarious incomes.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—;Mr. Beach, Mr. Brace, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Cavendish, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Evans, Mr. George Faber, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Hayden, Sir William Holland, Sir Seymour King, Mr. M'Crae, Mr. McKenna, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Rose, Mr. Trevelyan, and Mr. Whittaker.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—; (Mr. Whitdey.)
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 3, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at six minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next.

Preamble
The Lord Silchester (E. Longford)—;Took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: —; Huddersfield Corporation; Carlisle Corporation; Todmorden Corporation; Great Eastern Railway; Bacup Corporation; Cardiff Gas; North East Lincolnshire Water; Thornton Urban District Gas; New Mills Urban District Council; Uxbridge Gas.
The same were ordered to lie on the is Table.
Shrewsbury Corporation Water Bill; Poole Corporation Water Bill. The order of Tuesday last referring the Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders to the Standing Orders Committee, discharged.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Bury Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Electric Supply) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 12th of March and 3rd of April last, discharged, and Bill committed.
County of Durham Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]. Report from the
826
Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 12th of March and 3rd of April last, discharged, and Bill committed.
Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 19th of March and the 3rd of April last, discharged, and Bill committed.
Watford Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Penllwyn Railway and Road Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Gas Companies (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions) Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1.) Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kesteven, etc.) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order).

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of maintenance of existing religious teaching in Church of England schools of—;
  Parents and guardians of children attending schools at Bolton, Holy Trinity —;Accrington, St. John's.
  Teachers in a school at Accrington, St. John's. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (BUILDING BYE-LAWS) BILL, [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Royal Sanitary Institute. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.)
  Statement showing number of voluntary schools on 1st January, 1906 in urban areas with a population of 5,000 and over in England and Wales respectively, and their average attendance for statistical year ended 31st July, 1904, with approximate percentages to the total number and average attendance of all the voluntary schools in England and Wales for the same period.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade.

  I. Authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Lincoln from Blyton to Frodingham; urban districts of Enfield and Edmonton in the county of Middlesex; urban district of Cheshunt in the county of Hertford; county of Somerset from Blagdon to Pensford.

  II. Authorising a deviation in the parish of Swadlingcote in the urban district of Swadlingcote district in the county of Derby, of a part of Railway (No. 11), authorised by the Burton and Ashby Light Railway Order, 1903.

  III. Authorising the working of branch lines of the North Staffordshire Railway as light railways under the Light Railways Act, 1896.

  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  RATEABLE HEREDITAMENTS.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I need not occupy much time in asking the House to agree to the Return asked for in my Motion because, as your Lordships will naturally suppose, I approached the Local Government Board to find out whether there would be any objection to it. It is really intended to be in supplement and in continuation of a Return which I moved for some five or six years ago, at the time when I was Chairman of the Local Taxation Commission. At first I thought it would be desirable to have that Return brought up to date, but the communications which I received
  828
  from the Local Government Board convinced me that it would be unduly costly—;costly out of proportion to any good that would be gained—;to ask for that; and therefore I have put the Motion on the Paper in an amended form.
  I take this opportunity of acknowledging the courtesy with which my representations were received by the Local Government Board, and I hope to hear, as I believe I shall, that there is no objection to this Return. The Return I asked for five years ago set out, in respect of each union, the value of all kinds of property assessed for the poor rate, dividing them into lands, buildings, railways, and other sub-divisions. I have ascertained that there is a Return presented every year under the Acts of 1862 and 1897 known as the Annual Local Taxation Return, and all that I ask is that there should be a small supplementary Return dividing one of the columns which appears in that Return—;namely, the one which gives the annual value of hereditaments—; and showing the value respectively of railways and other properties separated one from the other.
  I think that perhaps few of your Lordships realise the importance of this in respect of the greatly increasing amount at which railways are being annually assessed for local purposes. Last year railways contributed nearly £5,000,000 to local taxation, and so far as I can gather, the increase has been very rapid in the last two or three years. I believe that in the last three years the increase amounted each year to £250,000 or £300,000. To some extent this must arise from the opening of new railways and the like, but the increase is very alarming to those who are interested in railway property. I think it extremely desirable that the full facts should be made known, and I believe that the preparation and publication of this Return will aid in that object.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return showing for each union in England and Wales (a) the gross estimated rental, and (b) the rateable value in 1899 and in 1906 of (i) All rateable hereditaments, and (ii.) railways

  829
  included in (i.) (the term 'railways' to include stations and depôts)."—;Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I have to say that my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board will be very glad to meet the noble Lord's wishes. The Return which he asks for will be prepared with the least possible delay.
  On Question, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  POPLAR BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH,who had given notice "To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Local Government Board have ordered an inquiry into the administration and expenditure of the Board of Guardians of Poplar Union; and, if so, what is the nature of the inquiry, and what are the instructions under which it is being held; and whether adequate opportunity will be given to any ratepayer to appear at this inquiry, and to give such information germane to the inquiry which he may wish to supply," said: My Lords, the notice which I have placed upon the Paper really consists of three Questions, but, of course, the last Question is by far the most important. I have every reason to believe than an inquiry of some sort has been ordered, but I have been unable to ascertain exactly what inquiry it is, and some friends of mine who are interested locally in the expenditure of Poplar have also been unable to get the information for which I ask.
  I do not wish to bring any general charge of wasteful or extravagant expenditure against the Poplar Board of Guardians, but the facts and figures as published seem to me to show a very strong prima facie case in that direction. I think it obviously desirable that by some means or another, before some impartial tribunal, the precise facts should be made known, as well as all the difficulties with which the guardians of such a union as Poplar must necessarily have to contend. I should be very sorry
  830
  indeed if, in putting this Question, I were supposed to be hostile to the granting of any fair assistance or relief to boards of guardians in the East End of London who have great difficulties to cope with, but I do attach the very greatest possible importance to this, that if relief is to be given, either by equalisation of rates over the Metropolis or in any other way, the greatest care should be taken to see that the soundest possible principles of administration are observed, and that every reasonable premium in favour of economy is put before those responsible for local administration.
  I quite admit that one or several tests taken by themselves may not carry conviction of a charge of wasteful or extravagant administration. For instance, in some unions the proportion of paupers to the population is very much larger than in others. In some cases expenditure rises rapidly, and, taken by themselves, these tests, as I have said, are not conclusive. But, when you find almost every known test which can be applied tending in the same direction, then I must say I think there is a very strong prima facie case made out for extravagance of administration. In the absence of information which can only be got by such an inquiry as I hope will be instituted, one is thrown back upon published figures.
  In Poplar it is the case at the present time that one out of every sixteen of the population is in receipt of Poor Law relief in some form or other; and, if you take the cost of expenditure during the last three or four years, it is shown that since 1901 the actual increase of cost per head per week of the indoor paupers has risen by two shillings—;a very alarming increase. The rates are 12s. in the £ and the actual cost of out-door paupers alone has risen from £16,000 in 1901 to £35,000 in 1905. Now, these facts taken together seem to me to establish a prima facie case that there is something very wrong with the administration. But the case does not stop there, because one can make comparisons with other unions in the immediate neighbourhood of Poplar, which, although it may possibly be said that none of them are individually so poor as Poplar, still

  831
  cannot be very different in degree. If I take the Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Whitechapel, St. George's, Stepney, and Mile End Unions and add together the populations I find that the total is 539,044 individuals. In the whole of those six unions there were, in 1906, only some 3,000 paupers, whereas, turning to Poplar, with a population of 169,000, I find that in the same year there were nearly 7,000 paupers.
  The matter does not even stop there, because the course of events is even more instructive. If it could be said that Poplar had been subject to some sudden emergency of distress perhaps a palliative case could be made out, but Poplar cannot be affected differently from all these other unions, and the course of the history of the other unions has been this. In 1901 there were 2,364 paupers in the six unions I have mentioned. In 1905 they numbered 2,860, or an increase of 500. The increase in Poplar was from 3,481 to 7,384. It seems to me practically certain, on these figures, that there must be something wrong.
  I think myself that the facts as to the various classes of property in Poplar perhaps account for that administration to some extent. We are likely to have, I understand, a discussion on the vexed and difficult question of compounding in this House early next week, and I do not wish to trespass on what will be said then, but those of your Lordships who know anything about local administration will appreciate the gravity of these facts. The total rateable value of Poplar is £830,000. Now £370,000 of that rateable value carries no vote or qualification to stand for the board of guardians; £370,000 is the rateable value of public works in respect of which no one is qualified to sit or to take part in local administration. Of the remaining £460,000 only £170,000 is in subjects above £20 annual value, so that £290,000, being under £20 of annual value, is the subject of the vicious system of compounding, and the dwellers in those houses have no first-hand knowledge whatever of what they pay for local administration. Your Lordships, of course, know that the system of compounding makes a certain amount of allowance to the landlord for the collection of the rates,
  832
  and I think it will show to what extent this vicious system has been carried when I tell you that last year the system of compounding cost the Poplar ratepayers no less than £37,648, or a rate of nearly 1s. in the £ on the whole rateable value of the union. So much for Poor Law matters.
  A correspondent has informed me that in the matter of pauper schools there is very grave reason for thinking that the Poplar Guardians have been guilty of considerable extravagance. They have, as I am informed, taken land for their schools at £100 an acre, while I am told much cheaper land quite as suitable could have been obtained close by. My informant says that the internal fittings of the schools are on a most extravagant scale, and he goes so far as to say that £50,000 might have been saved in the fitting up of that one building alone. I am told that the engineering work, amounting to £25,000, was given out without the slightest attempt to make a contract, and that it was not the subject of a contract at all. The general fitting of the school, building is described as being a long way ahead of any public school such as Eton or Harrow. The staircase is of teak, the swimming bath as good as any in London, and I am told that the roof beam in the boys' dining-room would not disgrace the finest cathedral in England.
  There may be justification for these things, but what I ask your Lordships is this—;With a rate of 12s. in the £, can the unfortunate people of Poplar afford these luxuries? Just think who it is who has to pay for them. I do not know whether the owners of the public works will get much sympathy from your Lordships, but the people I plead for against this form of local extravagance are those unfortunate people who are just able to keep their heads above water and no more. They have to pay. It may be concealed from them in the vicious system of compounding, and they may think that all they pay the landlord goes in rent, but for every pound which is drawn from them they have to find so many shillings a week for local adminstration. It does not tend to sound administration that the system of compounding should be allowed to go to such an extent

  833
  as I have described, because it does not seem to the people who can control it that they are really being made to pay.
  The reason I am anxious about the inquiry is this. I am informed that the board of guardians have not taken the steps they ought to take to make known the periodical audit of their accounts. I know that so far as Scotland is concerned, when there is to be an audit of the accounts of any local body the date is advertised, and I was under the impression that the same salutary rule held good in England. I am quite certain it ought to be so, and that every ratepayer ought to have an opportunity of appearing before the auditor to examine the accounts of those who are administering his affairs. I am told that the notice on the occasion of the last audit of the Poplar board of guardians was posted only in the hall of the board of guardians and in the workhouse, and that there was no other public advertisement of any kind.
  I am glad to be able to say that those who are interested locally in the expenditure of Poplar are moving in the matter. They have formed an association which is strong enough to represent the facts before any impartial inquiry which may be appointed by the Local Government Board. The point which I chiefly want to press upon those responsible for the management of the Local Government Board at the present time is that the facts which I have disclosed do provide at any rate a strong prima facie case for a thorough and impartial inquiry. If there are difficulties so great in Poplar that this expenditure is justifiable, it seems to me very desirable that they should be made known; but if, on the other hand, there has been extravagance, it is at least of equal public importance that the actual facts should be disclosed. That, I believe, can only be done by means of an inquiry under a tribunal as impartial and as strong as I believe the Local Government Board to be.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will, I am sure, readily understand and applaud the reasons which have induced the noble Lord to bring
  834
  this most important matter before the House, but I would very respectfully ask the House not to prejudge the case, because the noble Lord has brought forward some statements from an unknown correspondent, which he calls facts. I respectfully submit that they are, after all, only allegations, and that by going into such details you will prejudge the case. Attention has been drawn in various quarters to the extent of pauperism in the Poplar Union, and the financial position of the union, and other matters affecting the relief of the poor therein, and the President of the Local Government Board thought it desirable to direct Mr. Davy, the chief general inspector of the Board, to inquire and report as regards the general, industrial and financial conditions of the union, its pauperism, and the administration of the guardians and their officers. Mr. Davy is now engaged on these investigations. Representation have, no doubt, been made by the guardians and other bodies that a public inquiry should be held, at which the ratepayers should be heard, and that is what I understand the noble Lord opposite desires. But the President—;and I think the noble Lord will agree with me that he was wise in that decision—;has reserved the decision of this question until Mr. Davis' preliminary inspection is completed, and that will shortly be the case. I shall be happy if I can be of service to the noble Lord in giving him any information he desires.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I thank the noble Lord for the courtesy of his Answer, but I would point out that he has failed to reply to my third Question —;namely, whether Mr. Davy, under his instructions, will be bound to hear and consider any representation which is made to him by those locally interested.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I thought I had answered that Question. The President of the Local Government Board has reserved his decision on that point until Mr. Davy's preliminary inspection is completed, and that will shortly be the case. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no unnecessary delay, and that every publicity will be given which the noble Lord could possibly desire.

  RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, in rising to move for the Return which I have put down on the Paper in fulfilment of the promise I made to the most rev. Primate, there is no need for me to go over again the ground I traversed yesterday, when I attempted to explain the form which the Return, in our opinion, ought to take. There is only one point on which I wish to say a word. Sub-head (4) inquires for any information now in the possession of the local education authority as to the religious instruction, other than that under its own regulations or syllabus, given in individual council schools. The most rev. Primate was anxious that it should be made perfectly clear that that information would include a report as to any schools within their knowledge where no religious instruction of any kind was given. We do not see our way to alter the form of the Return for the reasons which I stated yesterday; but I have arranged that to the circulars to be issued to the local education authorities a note will be added making it quite clear that that information, where they possess it, is to be supplied. It was always the intention of this sub-head that that information should, where possible, be included, but as the most rev. Primate wishes it to be made more clear, he can take it from me that the addition will be made in the form of a note in the circular issued to the local education authorities.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House, a Return showing in respect of each Local Education Authority in England and Wales under Part III. of the Education Act, 1902—;

  1. The Regulations or Syllabus for Religious Instruction put forth for the use of its Council Schools, and the date on which they were issued;

  2. In the absence of such Regulations or Syllabus, any Resolution of the Authority on the subject, and its date;

  3. Whether the Authority leaves Individual Council Schools free to depart from the Regulations or Syllabus;

  4. Any information now in the possession of the Local Education Authority
  836
  as to the Religious Instruction, other than, that under its own Regulations or Syllabus, given in individual Council Schools;

  5. What arrangements the Local Authority makes for the inspection of the Religious Instruction in its Council Schools."—;(The Lord President.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SOLICITORS' BILL, [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships more than a few moments in stating the objects of this Bill. Up till a few years ago it was supposed that there was a discretion as to granting certificates to solicitors under certain circumstances, but owing to a decision of the Court of Appeal in 1901 it was found that there was no discretion at all in the case of bankrupt solicitors, and the result is that there are upwards of seventy undischarged bankrupts now practising as solicitors. Under the Act of 1888 the Master of the Rolls has discretion in cases where a certificate has been suspended or not taken out for a period of twelve months; and this Bill simply provides, not that a solicitor who is an undischarged bankrupt may not practise, but that he shall only do so where the Master of the Rolls thinks fit to give him a certificate. There may be cases where, having regard to the circumstances of his bankruptcy, it is right that the solicitor should be allowed to practise; but there may be other cases where it would not be right that he should do so. This Bill has passed your Lordships' House on two occasions, and last year it was a Government measure in the other House. It has been felt for some time that there ought to be a discretion such as is given in this Bill, and I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —;(Lord Alverstone.)
On Question, Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the object of this Bill is simply to extend the provisions of Section 4 of the Post Office (Money Orders) Act of 1883, which allows an interchange of postal orders between this country and our Colonies and British possessions. The object of this new Bill is to sanction an interchange between any foreign State and Egypt and any other of our British protectorates. The Bill is especially framed with regard to our African protectorates. It has already passed the House of Commons without opposition, and I trust your Lordships will see your way to read it a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —;(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (BUILDING BYE-LAWS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I understand that the Local Government Board are anxious to put down one or two small drafting Amendments which are not quite ready. I beg, therefore, to ask your Lordships to allow me to postpone the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill till Thursday next.
Order for the Third Reading, by leave of the House, postponed.

SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.