Sitting of 7 August 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three o'clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Glasgow Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Leeds (South Parade Chapel) Charity Bill; Kingswood (Whitfield Tabernacle, School room, &c.) Charity Bill; Longton (Caroline Street Chapel) Charity Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to, Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [Lords]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [Lords]; Merthyr Tydfil Stipendiary Justice Bill [Lords]; Selsey Water Bill [Lords]; Midland Railway Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS.
  Petitions from Southwark, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Aberdeen; Kincardine; and, Banff; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Report of Proceedings by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, under the Diseases of Animals Acts, for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to the 31st March, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Vol. III. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Reports on the Manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue, esquire, preserved at Dropmore, Vol. VI. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the the County Council of Durham altering certain polling districts in the Bishop Auckland Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POSTAL AGREEMENT (PERU).
  Copy presented, of Postal Agreement for the exchange of Postal Parcels between the Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of Peru, dated 23rd February, and 3rd May, 1907, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table,

  GOVERNMENT LANDS IN BRITISH EAST AFRICA AND UGANDA.
  Address for "Return showing, with respect to the Government Lands in British East Africa and Uganda, (1) area
  56
  sold; (2) sum realised for the same; (3) area leased and average period of lease; (4) rent of the same during each of the five years last passed, distinguishing land sold or leased in the railway strip and at Nairobi from the other Lands leased or sold."—(Mr. Wedgwood.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Increase of Lough Erne Drainage Rate.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Lough Erne drainage rate has been increased this year by 30 per cent.; and if he can say what is the cause of the increase.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Drainage maintenance rates are struck and levied, under the powers given by The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863, by the local drainage boards which are elected by the proprietors of lands within the several districts. The rate which may be struck in a particular district does not come within the cognizance or control of the Government. It has, however, been ascertained from the secretary to the Lough and River Erne Drainage and Navigation Board that the rate of the present year amounts to £1,500, which represents a large increase on the rate for last year. This increase was due to the fact that the Board was involved in certain legal proceedings in connection with their rules. If the hon. Member or any ratepayer concerned desires fuller information on the subject, I would suggest that inquiry be made direct from the drainage boards.

Playing of Military Bands at Dublin Exhibition on Sundays.
MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state under what circumstances and by whose orders are military bands permitted to play on Sundays in the Irish International Exhibition at Dublin.
(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As the hon. Member was informed, in reply to a similar Question put on 28th June of last year, military bands are permitted to play on Sundays between the hours of 2 p.m. and 9.30 p.m., subject to certain special conditions.

Functions and Constitution of the Board of Trade.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade is by statute the Lords of the Committee for the time being of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations; whether any such Committee has been appointed since 1786; whether, if so, the last Committee so appointed expired at or within six months of the death of His Majesty King George III.; and, if the Board of Trade as defined by statute has ceased to exist, what is the present position of the President of the Board of Trade.
(Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Trade is, by the Interpretation Act, 1889, and earlier statutes, the Lords of the Committee for the time being of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations. The Order in Council of 23rd August, 1786, has not been revoked, and the Committee is treated, in a very learned work known as "Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution," as still existing.

Sheep Dipping Regulations.
MR. LUTTRELL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether be is aware that great inconvenience is caused to farmers by the regulations affecting sheep-dipping, in that they may have to dip their sheep during harvest time, and especially to those farmers who have their sheep on the moor and who, under the present regulations, may have to bring their sheep from a considerable distance in to be dipped and then turned out again, necessitating a second gathering; and whether he can see his way to extending the time during which sheep may be dipped from the end of August to the end of September.
(Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The period during which the dipping must be carried out was selected, after full consideration, as the one which would entail the least possible inconvenience to all concerned, and we could not extend it without having also to im-
58
pose restrictions on the movement of sheep, which would cause much greater inconvenience than the present arrangements. If, however, my hon. friend will give me any specific instances of special difficulty I shall be glad to see if it is possible to meet them.

Delay in Erection of Class Room at Waterville.
MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what progress has been made with the erection by the Congested District Boards of an industrial class at Waterville, county Kerry; and whether it will be completed before the coming autumn.
(Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The erection of a class room at Waterville has been delayed by the necessity of obtaining the Lord Chancellor's approval to the lease of the premises. The Congested Districts Board anticipate that the building will be completed before the coming winter.

Sale of the Blacker-Douglas Estate.
MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the arrangements, signed by tenants to purchase their holdings on the Blacker-Douglas estate, were lodged by the land lord with the Estates Commissioners; whether the sale has been sanctioned or completed; and, if not, whether he can state when it will be finished.
(Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The purchase agreements relating to this estate were lodged with the Estates Commissioners on the 3rd January, 1906. The case will be dealt with in order of priority, but the Commissioners cannot at present say when the proceedings will be completed.

Removal of Irish Police Station Badges.
MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the emblem of the Crown, always displayed above the doors of police barracks, has been removed from Cullingtree, Brickfield, and Springfield Roads barracks and if he can say on whose authority they have been removed.

59
(Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The station badges at the barracks mentioned were simply removed to receive their customary annual coat of paint.

The Exchequer and Audit Department Staff.
MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that in the recent reorganisation of the Exchequer and Audit Department the staff of Second Division clerks (comprising at the time about one-half of the whole Department, with twenty subsequent additions as retained Second Division clerks reached eight years service), whose approved service extended between eight and twenty-eight years, were, under special Treasury sanction, promoted to be examiners with Higher Division certificates in the newly-reconstituted Department, and that their attention was particularly directed by their Departmental heads to the circumstance that this reorganisation was designed to increase the efficiency of the Department by removing the hitherto artificial barriers to promotion, he will explain whether it was with the authority of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that recently the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor, and certain of his subordinate chiefs, assured certain probationers who entered under the new scheme of examination that they would be preferred for advancement before their senior and experienced ex-Second Division colleagues; and, if so, seeing the effect of such administration on the public service, will he say why seniority and equality of efficiency are ignored in making promotions in this Department.
(Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The hon. Member has been misinformed. No such assurance was ever given.

Supposed Transfer of Local Auditor from Cyprus to London.
MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it has been decided to transfer a chief examiner of thirty-two years service from the Colonial Audit Branch in London to the local auditorship of Cyprus, in order to bring back to London the present local auditor in Cyprus at his Colonial rate of about £500 per annum; and, if so, seeing that this local auditor has only ten years
60
service and has never passed a Civil Service examination for his position, and that his transfer back to London would mean his passing over the heads of men with three times his service, who obtained their positions through passing Civil Service examinations, will he explain why this step is to be taken.
(Answered by Mr Runciman.) I understand that no such step is in contemplation, but that, if it were, the consequences would not be as indicated in the Question.

Audit of Irish Public Accounts.
MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the dockyard accounts, the Admiralty accounts, the War Office accounts, the English and Scottish education accounts, the Post Office and other accounts are all audited by permanent local staffs at each of the various offices, while the Irish public accounts, with the exception of some slight local tests by a few men extending over only a very short period in Ireland, are all audited in London; and, if so, seeing that this audit of all the Irish public accounts in London means much duplication of work, will he explain why all such audit is not done in Dublin by adopting the same system of permanent local audit and supervision as obtains in the case of Devonport Dockyard and other accounts.
(Answered by Mr. Runciman.) This matter has been frequently raised, and I have nothing to add to the Answers previously given.

Inspection of Castings for Battleships.
MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the defective casting of the rudder of H.M.S. "Edward VII." was inspected in the rough or after it had been dressed; and whether the Admiralty will give instructions that in future all castings and mouldings must be inspected in the rough.
(Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) This, and the four following Questions by the hon. Member relate to proceedings that took place under the preceding Board of Admiralty. I am informed that the rudder was partly inspected in the rough, but before complete inspection

61
was practicable the electric welding was performed. As regards the second Question, such instructions have been given with respect to all similar work.
MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the defective casting of the rudder of H.M.S "Edward VII." had, before inspection, been smudged with sal ammoniac, or some other preparation designed to produce a thick coating of rust or otherwise to obliterate the marks of tools or electric carbons; whether the practice of smudging castings before inspection is general; and whether the Admiralty will issue instructions to their inspectors not to pass any casting that has been smudged.
(Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am informed that the treatment to which the rudder was subjected before inspection was secret, and no information regarding it reached the Admiralty of the day. There was no smudging. The Answer to the second Question is "no." In Answer to the third Question, instructions have been issued which it is believed will make any such improper treatment of a casting impossible.
MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the sound test was applied to the defective casting of the rudder of H.M.S. "Edward VII."; if so, whether the fore hammer used in the test was wielded by the inspector or by an employee of the Ayrshire Foundry Company; and whether the Admiralty will issue instructions that in future the sound test shall invariably be applied and that the fore hammer shall be wielded by the inspector himself.
(Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am informed that the sound test was applied in this case, as it is in all others, according to the standing practice of the Admiralty. The fore hammer was wielded by an employee of the Ayrshire Foundry Company in the presence and hearing of an Admiralty inspector and according to his directions. It is not considered necessary to interfere with the discretion of the inspector as to the use of the fore hammer.
MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether other castings supplied by the Ayrshire Foundry Company to any of His Majesty's ships now in commission have
62
been recently examined; and whether the Admiralty are satisfied that no defects exist in such castings similar to those discovered in the rudder of H.M.S. "Edward VII."
(Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson): I am informed that all practicable examination of the castings supplied by the Ayrshire Foundry Company was made by order of the late Board of the Admiralty as soon as they received information about the defect in the rudder head of the "King Edward VII." All such castings have stood the test of actual service, and the Admiralty have no reason to suppose that defects similar to those reported in the case of the "King Edward VII." exist.
MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what firms supplied the rudder and other castings for H.M.S. "Argyll"; and whether the Admiralty will institute a thorough examination of the castings built into this vessel.
(Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson): I am informed that the particulars asked for in the first part of the Question could not be supplied without a long investigation of old accounts; and, as to the second, it is impossible without incurring very considerable expense in opening up completed work. All these castings have satisfactorily withstood the stress of actual service.

Loss of British Vessels through Floating Mines.
MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many British vessels are known to have been lost through floating mines since the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War; what was the latest date at which a loss of a Britsh vessel from this cause is believed to have taken place; and whether there is reason to believe that other neutral and British vessels have been lost through this mode of warfare.
(Answered by Mr Lloyd-George): Two British vessels have been reported to the Board of Trade as having been lost-through floating mines since the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War, viz., the barque "Lucia," of Shanghai, which was blown up with fifteen of her crew about ten miles south-east of Lantishan Point, China Sea, on the 10th September, 1904,

63
and the steamer "Sobralense," of Hong Kong, which was sunk with eleven crew and ten passengers, eight miles off Port Arthur, on the 12th May, 1905. Two London steamers also were damaged by floating mines, viz. "Kashing," on 25th October, 1904, and "Ningpo," on 6th July, 1906. Nine neutral vessels, of which three were British, have been reported as missing on voyages in the East, but the causes of their loss are of course purely matters of conjecture.

Pay and Conditions of Irish Lighthouse Keepers.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Royal Commission on Light house Administration will visit the light houses on the Irish coast; and if so, would he recommend that they inquire into the pay and conditions of the light house keepers, and see that women and children are not kept on isolated stations, but have such stations made relieving, so that these families could be educated.
(Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George): The Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the existing system of management of the lights, buoys, and beacons of the United Kingdom by the general lighthouse authorities, and as to the constitution and working of those authorities. I have no control over the proceedings of the Commission, but I understand from them that they have completed the taking of evidence and are engaged on their Report.

Publication of Return on Condition of the People.
MR. ESSEX: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will be able to issue the Return upon the Condition of the People, etc.
(Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Return will be issued in the course of a few days.

Decrease of Indian Opium Exports—Loss of Revenue.
MR. REESTo ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the recent communication made by His Majesty's Government to the Chinese Government accepting the proposal to decrease the export
64
of Indian opium to China year by year till it altogether ceases, any indication can be given of the sources from which revenue will be raised in the United Kingdom to recoup Indian revenues for the loss which will be occasioned by the transfer of the opium trade to other hands.
(Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) It would be premature at the present preliminary stage of the negotiations, which import reciprocal conditions to be observed in China and in India, and have still to take the form of a precise agreement, to forecast their effect on the future revenues of India or the manner of dealing with the question of loss.

Rights of the Jain Community to Parasanath Hill.
MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Jain community has any right to the whole Parasanath Hill extending to twenty-five miles in length and several miles in breadth, or whether their rights are confined to their temples and temple precincts; and whether he will consider the advisability of limiting such claims within such limits in the interests of other and more numerous religious communions.
(Answered by Mr Secretary Morley): I answered a Question on this subject on the 16th July, and at present I have nothing further to add.

Liability of Militiaman when training to support his Wife and Family.
MR. IDRIS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of an inhabitant of Flintshire, who was called on the 17th June to attend the annual training of the Militia at Beaumaris, where he must remain until the 1st August, whose wife and three children have become chargeable to the common fund of the Holywell Union; whether he is aware that before leaving home the man was in regular work and able to maintain his family, and that representations have been received from the guardians to the effect that it should not be the duty of the ratepayers to make provision for the families of such persons during the time they are called upon to do service for the country; and whether

65
the Government propose to provide maintenance where necessary for the families of those who are rendering compulsory service.
(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A letter to the effect stated in the Question has been received from the clerk of Holywell Union, who has been informed in reply that the pay of a Militiaman can be stopped for the support of his wife and children to the extent and under the conditions laid down in Paragraph 145 of the Army Act, the provisions of

Regimental Strength of the Regular Army compared with the Numbers provided for in Army Estimates (exclusive of Officers).

Date.

Establishment.

Strength.

Plus.

Minus.

Recruits.

Year.

Number enlisted.

1st January, 1890

206,836

202,680

—

4,156

1899

29,401

1st January 1891

207,826

202,939

—

4,887

1890

31,407

1st January 1892

208,164

203,994

—

4,170

1891

36,003

1st January 1893

208,577

210,141

1,564

—

1892

41,659

1st January 1894

209,277

211,723

2,446

—

1893

35,195

1st January 1895

210,985

214,457

3,472

—

1894

33,698

1st January 1896

211,077

214,438

3,361

—

1895

29,583

1st January 1897

211,915

213,148

1,233

—

1896

28,532

1st January 1898

214,257

213,314

—

943

1897

35,015

1st January 1899

235,928

223,595

—

12,333

1898

40,729

1st January 1903

268,864

304,847

35,983

—

1899

42,700

1st January 1904

267,651

272,357

4,706

—

1903

41,011

1st January 1905

263,147

268,889

5,742

—

1904

40,956

1st January 1906

268,692

255,256

—

13,436

1905

36,339

1st January 1907

250,855

244,455

—

6,400

1906

36,151

The numbers given include British troops and Colonial corps serving at home, in India, and the Colonies, but do not include the Indian Army. The period
which apply to Militiamen when out for training.

Deficiency in Establishment of the Regular Army.
MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the deficiency in establishment of the Regular Army on 1st January for the last fifteen years: and how many men enlisted in each of those years.
(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)
of the South African War has been excluded, as the numbers were then abnormal. Re-enlisted men have not been included with the recruits.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Second Class Royal Naval Reserve.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that second-class Royal Naval Reserve men enlisted on the understanding that they would be retained in the service until the age of forty-five, will he consider the expediency of relaxing the regulation of 1st April, 1906, under which men of this class are now dismissed on attaining the age of thirty-five.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire,): No Royal Naval Reserve man has ever been enlisted with the right to be retained till the age of forty-five. The Regulation quoted did not provide for the dismissal of Royal Naval Reserve men second-class at the age of thirty-five, but laid down that men who were thirty-five or over on the 1st April, 1906, should complete their current period of enrolment, but not be allowed to re-enrol. Those under thirty-five on that date have been given the opportunity of qualifying for the new Seaman Class by training afloat, and so remaining in the Reserve until they obtain the gratuity given on discharge.

West India Docks Naval Stores—Wages of Storehouse Assistants.
MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that men employed at Deptford, in the West India Docks Naval Stores, and who have given every satisfaction by doing skilled work, viz., that of painting, for which they have received 26s. per week, have been informed that those of them who are under thirty-five years of age are to be appointed as storehouse assistants (permanently), and that their wages will be 23s. per week, with 6d. per week increase at the end of two years service; and can he say why this reduction should take place, especially when for the quality and quantity of work done the men are entitled to a substantial increase.
MR. LAMBERT: No order of the kind mentioned has been issued. Two men in receipt of 24s. per week have been selected for service as storehouse
68
assistants, a position in which their prospects will be much improved.

Devonport Dockyard Refuse.
MR. MILDMAY (Devonshire,): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received recent further complaints with regard to the discharge of refuse from Devonport Dockyard in infringement of the by-law of the Devon Sea Fishery Committee; and whether he can say what steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of what is being complained of.
MR. LAMBERT: One letter has recently been received alleging that the Devon Sea Fishery by-laws have been infringed. As regards the second part of the Question, the Admiralty are in communication with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with reference to a proposal to change the depositing ground.
MR. MILDMAY: What are the limits outside which the discharge must take place?
MR. LAMBERT: I am afraid I am not acquainted with the regulations.

Loss of Destroyer at Malta.
MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is in a position to give the reason for not replacing the destroyer recently lost at Malta; what is the amount of damage sustained by the destroyer recently towed to Malta; and how long the necessary repairs will occupy.
MR. LAMBERT: As regards the first Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member's previous Question on the 24th July.† The "Mallard" sustained damage to the port shaft bracket, shaft, stern tubes and propellers, and to frames and plating in the after part of the vessel. I have already stated that these and other repairs will take three months.

Rosyth.
MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make a statement before the recess as to the intentions of the Government with regard to
† See (4) Debates, clxxviii., 1570.
Rosyth and the provisioning of a dockyard on the East Coast capable of accommodating the deep-draught battleships now built and building.
MR. LAMBERT: I have nothing to add to the statements which have already been made on this subject, except that detailed plans and estimates are being prepared for consideration.
MR. FELL: Will there not be any Report as to the work done by the seven men who have been working at Rosyth during the last six months?
MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs): Will there be any addition to the seven or eight men now employed?
MR. LAMBERT: I have said I have nothing to add to the replies previously given, except that detailed plans and estimates are being prepared for consideration.

The Home Fleet.
MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the Home Fleet will carry out night manœuvres now the review is over.
MR. LAMBERT: The Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet has full authority to exercise that Fleet by day and night as he may consider necessary.
MR. BELLAIRS: Will the Home Fleet take part in the Naval manœuvres to be held in the autumn?
MR. LAMBERT: I must ask for notice of that.

Indian Administration.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House when he expects to be able to announce the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Indian Decentralisation.
I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement before the prorogation as to the institution of the proposed council of notables, and as to the progress made
70
in the correspondence with Calcutta on reform of the legislative councils.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): I hope to announce the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Indian Decentralisation in a few days; and to lay Papers regarding the council of notables and kindred subjects before prorogation.

Australian Tariffs on British Imports.
SIR MAURICE LEVY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any further communication from the Australian Customs authorities with reference to the alleged unfair treatment of certain British imports, whether the Order complained of, by which duties were levied on certain articles of British manufacture at rates greatly in excess of their value, has now been cancelled; whether under these circumstances the excess duty already paid will be refunded by the Australian Government; and whether any assurance has been given that British manufacturers shall not be subjected to prejudicial treatment in future.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): No further communication has yet been received from the Commonwealth Government on this subject, but their attention will again be called to it.
SIR MAURICE LEVY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a copy of the note in which the Controller-General of Customs promised that the rebates shall now be made?
MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
SIR MAURICELEVY: Well, I have a copy in my possession which I will hand you.

Panama Canal Labour.
MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if labourers drafted to the Panama Canal from Jamaica, Barbados, and other West Indian islands have been recruited on the same terms as those from Trinidad; and

71
what assurances as to repatriation were received by the Government of those islands.
MR. CHURCHILL: The recruiting of labourers in Jamaica for service in Panama is governed by the Emigrants' Protection Laws of the Colony, which provide inter alia for the payment of a deposit by the recruiter to remove all risk of an emigrant having to be repatriated at the cost of the Colony, and make the form of contract subject to the approval of the Governor in Privy Council. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, the canal authorities have not yet come to an agreement with the Colonial Government as to the terms of a contract. In Barbados the Governor has no statutory power to control the general terms of a contract for service in Panama, but the laws of the country provide that every such contract shall contain provision for the repatriation of the labourer at the end of his period of service. The Secretary of State is not aware that any special form of contract for service in Panama has been approved by the Government of any other West Indian Colony except Trinidad; and it must be borne in mind that large numbers of labourers have gone to the isthmus voluntarily and not under contract.
SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether the Government would not insist that under any contract made these labourers should be repatriated, especially when it was remembered that Panama was not a proper country for settlement either for white or coloured men.
MR. CHURCHILL: I think the Colonial Government may be relied on to take every step in their power to protect labourers who leave their shores under contract. If they leave voluntarily, of course that is a different matter.
MR. FELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiry into the rate of mortality among the labourers, and whether it was not the fact that those who went from Jamaica practically all died.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL said he had not refreshed his memory on the matter, but
72
he should think that now the construction of the canal was under the direction of the United States Government there-must be a great reduction in the rate of mortality.
LORD BALCARRESasked what would be done in regard to those labourers in whose case the contract could not be enforced.
MR. CHURCHILL: In that respect we have made a communication through, the Foreign Office as to the statutory conditions imposed by the United States. The communication was only made about three weeks ago and no answer has yet come to hand. I should think we should, have the answer before Parliament rises.

Russia and Great Britain.
MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can see his way clear to inform the Russian authorities that, unless better treatment is meted out to the Russian, people, this country may deem it necessary to refuse to form any alliance with Russia whatsoever.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,; for Sir EDWARD GREY): The Answer is in the negative. The internal affairs of Russia, as has been previously explained, cannot be made relevant to negotiations between the two Governments, and the question of an alliance has not been raised.

Liverpool Licences.
MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to two cases heard at the last Liverpool transfer sessions in which the Liverpool justices by a majority decided to sanction the enlargement of two public houses belonging to Messrs. Peter Walker and Co., Limited, on condition that the owners forewent the £1,600 compensation awarded to them on the same justices' award in respect of an extinguished beerhouse licence in another part of the city and in addition paid the tenant of the same £250; and whether he will consider the case of such bargaining in connection with next year's Licensing; Bill.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I have no information of these particular cases other than that contained in the Question, but I am aware of the difficulties in which licensing justices find themselves in the matter of the conditions under which they may consent to the alteration of licensed premises, and the point is already under consideration in connection with the proposed legislation.

Brooklands Motor Track—Accommodation for Navvies.
MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the want of suitable house accommodation for the navvies lately employed upon the new motor track at Brooklands; whether he is aware that hundreds of these workmen were obliged to find shelter at night in the open fields and hedges of the locality during the whole of the work, causing great hardship to themselves and inconvenience to the residents of the district; whether he can give the name of the contractors for this work; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to deal with this and similar conditions on the different public works of the country.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): My attention has been called to this subject, and I directed one of the medical inspectors of the Board to make inquiry with regard to it. He has now sent in his Report, which will very shortly be published. It appears from it that he was satisfied that, at the date of his visit, many (probably 300 or more) of the men employed were without any proper lodging. I understand that the main contractors for the work were Messrs. Price & Reeves. I have instructed the inspector to make a further inquiry as to the housing accommodation generally of navvies employed on works under construction, so that I may be able to determine what action, if any, should be taken in the matter.
MR. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply Members of the House
74
with the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the conveniences at Brooklands? Is it intended that the inquiry shall cover most of the public works in England and Wales?
MR. JOHN BURNS: The doctor's Report is an eight-page document on this particular public work. It will be laid shortly. Having taken the whole facts into consideration I have come to the conclusion that as there are 100,000 men, women, and children dependent on public works of this character I will issue a Report with regard to the moral and sanitary conditions under which they work and live in the same way as has been done with regard to hop and fruit pickers in Kent and other parts.

Sub-Post Office Administration.
MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience frequently caused to the public by the small stock of postal orders kept at sub-offices in country districts; whether he is aware that a purchaser is frequently obliged to make up the amount that he requires by taking two postal orders instead of one, thus paying double commission; and whether he can see his way to allow a larger stock of postal orders to be kept in such sub-offices in the future.
CAPTAIN NORTON (, for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): My right hon. friend's attention has not been specially called to this matter, but complaints are occasionally received of the inconvenience occasioned by the stock of postal orders kept at a small office being insufficient to meet the requirements of the public in the neighbourhood, and arrangements are always made to increase the stock, if necessary. In such circumstances, when a purchaser is obliged to take two postal orders instead of one to make up the amount that is required, it is the rule that commission shall be charged not on two orders, but as though the order actually required had been issued. If the hon. Member will furnish my right hon. friend with the particulars of any case in which this practice has not been followed he will have inquiry made in the matter.

Kendal Telephone Charges.
MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has approved of the scheme of charges now being enforced by the National Telephone Company in Kendal, whereby all new subscribers are compelled to go on the measured rate; whether this measured rate entails a special charge of 1d. for all calls between local exchanges over junction wires, which have hitherto been free; whether this scale of charges is within the schedule fixed by the agreement of 2nd February, 1905; whether such agreement and schedule are accessible to the public and where a copy can be obtained; if he has approved of this scheme, when was this approval given; and whether he has taken any steps to gauge the opinion of commercial and public bodies other than the National Telephone Company.
CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): The rates now being charged to new subscribers by the National Telephone Company are, so far as my right hon. friend is aware, within the limits prescribed by the agreement of 2nd February, 1905, and his consent was, therefore, not necessary for their introduction. They do include charges of 1d. for the use of junction lines between exchanges in different parts of exchange areas. The agreement of 2nd February, 1905, was printed as a Parliamentary Paper in that month, and again with the Report of the Select Committee which considered it.

Oldbury National School Mistress.
MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has received a petition from the parents and parishioners of Oldbury against the dismissal of Mrs. Hewitt, head mistress of the local national school whether he can give the grounds for the termination of her engagement; and whether his Department is satisfied that the reasons given justify the action of the managers.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): Yes, Sir, I have received the petition referred to. The teacher's engagement was terminated in accordance with a regulation made by the local education authority, requiring
76
female teachers to resign their appointments on marriage. The Board's jurisdiction is confined to determining whether the marriage of a female teacher does or does not constitute an educational ground for dismissal, and I am bound to hold that it is an educational ground.

Mortomley Catholic School Teachers Salaries.
MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the local education authority still persists in with holding payment of the salaries of the Mortomley Catholic school teachers; and whether the decision as to the correct interpretation of the inspector's report rests with Mr. Brown, the secretary of the West Riding Education Department, or with the Board of Education.
MR. McKENNA: I hope this matter will be settfed in the course of a few-days. I am now in communication with the local education authority. The Answer to the last paragraph is "with the Board of Education."

Bibles for Non-Provided Schools.
MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state on what grounds the West Riding education authority have ignored the request of the managers of non-provided schools that their schools should be supplied with Bibles, while making no-such refusal to similar requests from provided schools.
MR. MCKENNA: I have no information as to this, and it is not a matter in which the Board have any authority to intervene unless a specific case, in which a dispute has arisen between the managers and the local authority, is submitted to them for determination under Section 7 (3) of the Act of 1902.
MR. LANE-FOX: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will inquire whether such a case has arisen, and whether the ground of refusal was that the Bible was a merely denominational book, or whether it is considered a book unnecessary for the education of children?
MR. MCKENNA: I cannot undertake to do anything of the sort. This is a

77
question which may come before me to determine in my judicial capacity under Section 7, Subsection 3, and I must wait till the case is brought before me.
MR. CLOUGH: Do not these schools belong to the reputed richest Church in Christendom, and is that Church too poor to provide Bibles for their day schools and Sunday schools?
[No Answer was returned.]

East Hardwick School.
MR. LANE FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the West Riding education authority has decided to build a new council school in place of the existing Church school at East Hardwick, on the ground that the requirements of the Board of Education have not been carried out; that plans obtained by the managers, embodying the required improvements, have been in the possession of the local education authority since 1905; and that the delay in carrying them out has been due to the refusal of the local education authority to express any opinion upon these plans; and whether, under the circumstances, the Board will favourably reconsider the unanimous appeal of the adult inhabitants of East Hardwick against the provision of such new school.
MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir, the managers submitted plans for the improvement of the school, which the local education authority refused to approve. The plans were submitted to the Board of Education, and I was advised that, even if they were carried out, the premises would still be unsatisfactory. I therefore decided that the school which the local authority proposed to provide was necessary and that the recognition of the existing voluntary school shall be terminated as soon as the new council school is opened.
MR. LANE-FOX: Is it not the fact that the plans have been deliberately withheld? In view of the fact that this is an extremely small village, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?
MR. MCKENNA: The plans have, as a matter of fact, been submitted to the
78
Board, which has decided that even if the buildings were executed they would remain unsatisfactory, and I have no option, therefore, but to recognise that the new schools are necessary.

The United Arts Club.
MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if his attention has been directed to the case of Challoner v. Robinson, decided on 30th July last, in which the plaintiffs were the United Arts Club, an association of painters, who were sub-lesseos of certain premises, on which they held an exhibition of pictures, from lessees, to whom the Arts Club had regularly paid all rent due; whether in consequence of the lessees having failed to pay the rent due to the head landlord, Messrs. Robinson and Fisher, of Willis' Auction Rooms, the head landlord, claiming the right to distrain on the property of strangers I found on the premises, has distrained upon and proposes to sell all the pictures; whether Mr. Justice Neville, in delivering judgment, said that this constituted an I extraordinary state of things, which, monstrous though he held it to be, had hitherto escaped the zeal of the legal reformer; and whether the Attorney General will bring in a Bill next session to stop this kind of action in future.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): This question involves the consideration of the policy of maintaining the law of distress in its present form. The facts stated in the Question afford an illustration of one of its worst features. I cannot defend all the provisions of the law as it now stands. I am unable, however, to promise to introduce a measure upon the subject next session.
MR. LEIF JONES: Can nothing be done for these unfortunate painters who, through no fault of their own, had their pictures seized and sold?
SIR JOHN WALTON: All the remedies the law affords are open to them.
MR. J. D. WHITE (Dumbartonshire): Does the law afford them any remedy?
[No Answer was returned.]

House of Commons Kitchen Accounts.
MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Mid-Derbyshire whether he will present to this House a complete account of the receipts and expenditure of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms for the Session.
SIR J. A. JACOBY: The recent Report of the Kitchen Committee was presented in the same form as in previous years. It was a correct account of purchases, sales, and prices, and meals supplied up to date.
MR. MORTON: Will the hon. Member answer my Question? Will he present a complete balance-sheet of receipts and expenditure for the session? I want to know what has become of the balance of £872 12s. 3d. of the subsidy unaccounted for.
SIR J. A. JACOBY: If the hon. Member will do me the honour of taking tea with me in my private room, I shall be pleased to supply the information.
MR. LEA (St. Pancras, E.): The hon. Member for Sutherland is not the only Member interested in this question. Are all the Members to have tea with the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee?
MR. MORTON: May I ask, if I am to meet my hon. friend, whether he will provide something more substantial than tea?
SIR J. A. JACOBY: I may remind my hon. friend that this is a temperance House. I think the hon. Member for St. Pancras is a member of the Kitchen Committee and should himself be in possession of the information asked for.

Loch Shieldaig Fishery Prosecution.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that two men were recently prosecuted at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal for being in a boat on the sea at Loch Shieldaig, Rossshire, on the 14th and 21st May, with intent illegally to take or kill salmon, and that, although no fish were found in their possession, each man was fined 30s.; and, seeing that the Honourable
80
Mr. Murray, of Lochcarron, the proprietor of the land ex adverso the sea at Loch Shieldaig was the only person interested, will he take such steps as may be necessary to prevent a Crown officer instituting proceedings of this character out of public funds in the sole interest of a private individual.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I understand the facts are substantially as stated by my hon. friend. It is in accordance with practice that the Procurator Fiscal should prosecute in cases of this nature, provided the expenses of the prosecution are defrayed by the parties interested. The expenses of the prosecution in question were defrayed by the District Fishery Board.

Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to allow small landholders in burghs to have the benefit of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill in the same way that crofters are allowed the benefit of The Crofters Act, 1886.
MR. SINCLAIR: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this. As my hon. friend is aware, the Bill does not interfere with the existing rights to which he refers: the Government do not propose to alter it as he suggests.

Sligo County Council.
MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an unqualified person named Peter Cawley has on many occasions sat and voted as a member of the Sligo County Council; and whether the Local Government Board have taken, or intend to take, any action to prevent this person from repeating such irregular proceedings.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,; for Mr. BIRRELL): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The Local Government Board have been advised that the matter is not one in which they should take action. The Sligo County Council have full power to exclude Mr. Cawley from

81
participation in their proceedings, and if they should fail to do so it is open to any ratepayer to take action in the matter.

United Irish League—Boycotting of Mrs. Villiers.
MR. LONSDALE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the New Inn branch of the United Irish League in Galway addressed a demand to Mrs. Villiers, a lady resident in the neighbourhood, that she should dismiss certain of her servants, including a certain ex-policeman named M'Dermot; that on refusing to do so she was rigorously boycotted; and that as a consequence of this boycott the horse of a man named Riley, which had been lent to her, was smeared with tar and paint on the night of the 25th instant; and, seeing that she is unable to obtain help to work her farm, whether the time has come to put the Crimes Act in force to put an end to the lawlessness which exists in certain parts of the West of Ireland.
MR. CHERRY: I am informed that the local police have no evidence to the effect slated in the first part of the Question. It is the fact that Mrs. Villiers has suffered some inconvenience, but she has not been rigorously boycotted as stated. She has been unable to procure extra labourers for the harvest; but her permanent employees have remained in her service, and she is not boycotted as regards supplies. It is the case that Mr. Riley's horse was daubed with paint on 25th July. As regards the concluding part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the Answer which my right hon. friend has repeatedly given to similar questions.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by rigorously boycotted."
MR. CHERRY: Well, she has not been refused supplies, and her servants have not left her.

Cattle Driving at Loughrea.
MR. LONSDALE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
82
Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the morning of the 29th July a band of persons, numbering upwards of 200, armed with sticks, entered upon the lands of Mr. H. Persse, at Woodville, Loughrea, and, in defiance of the seven police stationed on the lands, drove off Mr. Persse's cattle; whether he is aware that Mr. Persse has asserted that one of the policemen in question informed him that they had instructions not to use arms in attempting to prevent these cattle drives; have the police any such instructions; and have any persons been made amenable to the law in connection with this outrage.
MR. CHERRY: At one o'clock on the morning of 29th July a crowd of about 200 persons attempted to drive the cattle off Mr. Persse's farm. The six policemen who were on duty at once dispersed the crowd, using what force was necessary. Less than one-fourth of the cattle were driven off the farm, and these were at once replaced by the police. The head constable immediately reported the matter to Mr. Persse at his residence, and this gentleman instead of recognising the fact that the police had protected and secured his cattle suggested that the police were no use at all, and asked what good their revolvers were if they did not use them. The head constable replied that the circumstances did not justify the use of firearms, but said nothing about instructions on the subject. The police have not been instructed, either to use or not to use firearms in these particular cases. They have full general instructions, however, as to circumstances in which the use of firearms is justifiable. The question of taking proceedings in this case is under consideration.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that people placed in the position of Mr. Persse should use arms themselves in accordance with the suggestion of the Chief Secretary?
MR. CHERRY: I made no suggestion whatsoever.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked if the police in Belfast used firearms.
MR. CHERRY: I do not think they have.

Belfast Policeman's Pension.
MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a few days ago Constable Biggins, of Springfield road barracks, Belfast, was invalided out of the force as the result of an injury sustained on duty, and that he was only granted a pension of £19 a year; and whether, in view of the fact that Biggins had thirteen years' service, that he had an unblemished record, with good educational equipments, but has now been turned adrift practically a cripple and utterly unfit for work involving physical exertion, and in view of his circumstances, he will open this case for re-consideration.
MR. CHERRY: The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. Constable Biggins was accidentally injured when practising physical drill nearly a year ago, and has since been under almost continuous medical treatment. He has now been retired from the force as being partially incapacitated, and has been awarded the highest pension which the Statute permits, having regard to his length of service, and to the extent of his injuries. I regret that the Government have no power to re-open the case.
MR. SLOANasked whether special consideration could not be given to this case, as the man and his wife and family had been practically put out into the streets?
MR. CHERRY: The highest pension possible under the circumstances has been given him.

Labourers (Ireland) Acts Order, 1906.
MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts Order, 1906, Rule 6, which directs every rural district council in Ireland to advertise in two or more local papers and post placards throughout their districts within one month from the 1st November, 1906, notifying that representations for the purposes of the Acts may be lodged with their clerk up to the 1st February,
84
1907; will this course be adopted annually; will he say in how many cases this requirement has been complied with, and give the names of the defaulting councils, if any, and the names of the councils which have not yet considered these representations; and is it intended to publish new rules annually, or is there only to be one scheme under the 6 Edw. 7, c. 37.
MR. CHERRY: Rule 6 of the Labourers Order is in the terms set forth in the Question. If the hon. Member will refer to Rule 14 he will find it provided that the several representations which may be received during each year ending 30th September shall, if not taken into consideration during such year, be considered by the rural district council at their second meeting after the termination of such year. So far as the Local Government Board are aware, Rule 6 has been complied with in all cases. The replies to the last part of the Question are in the negative. It is, however, open to the Board at any time to revise the rules in such manner as may be deemed necessary. Further schemes can, of course, be made in pursuance of additional representations as contemplated in Rule 14.

Ballingah Medical Officer.
MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why the Local Government Board refuse to sanction the appointment of Dr. Clarke as temporary medical officer for the Ballinagh dispensary district; how near to this district does Dr. Clarke reside; has Dr. Clarke at present any dispensary; who has been in charge of this district for the past three months, and what appointments does he hold, distinguishing those which are temporary from the permanent appointments; and will this matter have his special attention in the interest of the sick poor of the district.
MR. CHERRY: The appointment of Dr. Clarke as temporary medical officer for the Ballinagh dispensary district was objected to on the ground that his residence was outside the dispensary district, and was inconvenient for the sick poor. The nearest point of the dispensary district is about three miles, and the most remote nine miles, from Cavan, where

85
Dr. Clarke lives. The Local Government Board have not sanctioned the appointment of Dr. Clarke as the medical officer for any dispensary district. Dr. Clarke has been acting as temporary medical officer for the Ballinagh dispensary district since the 18th June last, but without the sanction of the Board. He has also been appointed as temporary medical officer of the Kilnaleck and Stradone dispensary districts, but the Board have had to object to those appointments upon the same grounds. The guardians, by their action in continuing to employ Dr. Clarke, may render themselves liable to surcharge for any payments they may make for his salary. Dr. Clarke has further been appointed as temporary medical officer of Cavan Workhouse from 7th instant to 4th proximo, and to this appointment the Board have given their sanction.

The Drainage of the Lower Bann.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the local body charged with the duty is not regularly dredging the precipitation basin of the Lower Bann below the weir at Toomebridge in county Antrim, with the result that the watercourse is partially obstructed and that the floods are higher and last longer than they otherwise would; and whether pressure will be brought, to bear on the local body to discharge its duties in this respect.
MR. CHERRY: So far as the information in possession of the Irish Government goes, the weir basin in question is regularly dredged by the trustees of the Lough Neagh drainage district. It was stated last year that during the preceding ten years an average of over £300 per annum had been expended in dredging and the maintenance of the plant. If, however, any person interested is not satisfied that the works of the drainage district are properly maintained, he should address the trustees in the matter, and if still not satisfied, he should apply to the Commissioners of Public Works.

William George Molloy Estate, County Roscommon.
MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the estate of William George Molloy at
86
Ballyfermoyle, county Roscommon, has been sold to the tenants; whether an inspection has been made of lands owned by John Molloy; and whether it is intended to provide land for the three evicted tenants from the William George Molloy estate on the lands owned by John Molloy.
MR. CHERRY: NO proceedings for the sale of this estate have yet been, instituted before the Estates Commissioners. When their inspector was making local inquiries as regards the evicted tenants on the estate he visited the holding which John Molloy occupies as tenant, but the question of acquiring that holding has not been considered by the Commissioners, seeing that the estate-is not pending for sale before them.

Slander Action against Greencastle Constable.
MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention, has been called to the result of a recent action for slander against a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed at Greencastle; whether the usual course-in such cases is to transfer the constable or constables concerned; whether this has been done in this case; and, if not, whether it is proposed to transfer those involved to another district.
MR. CHERRY: In this case a decree or £2 and costs was given against the constable. The Inspector-General informs me that in such a case it is the usual practice to remove the constable concerned to another district; but in this particular case the question of transferring the constable has been held over pending the return to duty of the Commissioner of Police, who has been ill for some time. The Inspector-General's attention has only now been called to the matter, and he is making further inquiries with the object of considering what action may be necessary.
MR. MOONEY: Are we to understand from this reply that the Inspector-General's attention is not directed to these cases unless questions are first asked in this House?
MR. CHERRY: I believe in this case the matter was under the consideration

87
of the authorities before the Question was put, but I would remind the hon. Member that with the present position of affairs in Belfast the time of the Inspector-General is fully occupied. This matter was so trifling that the County Court Judge only awarded £2 damages.

Mayo Scholarship Dispute.
MR. BARBIE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings of a meeting of the Mayo technical instruction committee of the Mayo County Council, held on the 23rd July, 1907, at which it was decided not to give a scholarship, won in open competition by a boy named Dowling, on the ground that the candidate was the son of a district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary; is it open to the committee to invite competition and then exclude the successful candidate on such a ground; is part of the money that the committee administers provided out of Imperial funds; and has the Local 'Government Board any control in the matter.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the proceedings in question The boy Dowling who was refused the scholarship is the son of District Inspector Dowling, of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The money for these scholarships is partly provided by the 'Department and partly by county funds. The Local Government Board has no authority to intervene. In all cases of dispute the rules provide that the matter shall be referred to the Department, whose decision shall be final. It was undoubtedly the intention of the Department to confine the scholarships to the children of the poorer classes in the community, and competition was therefore confined to those attending the primary schools. Dowling, being the son of an officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary, belongs to a different class, but was within the rules as attending a national school. These rules may be altered and revised, but until this has been done he was clearly eligible, and ought not to be denied renewal of the
88
scholarship won in open competition. The Department will do what is possible to close an unfortunate dispute.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will the boy be granted the scholarship?
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to be content with what I said. The Department will do its best to close this unfortunate dispute.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by closing the dispute? We have a right to know whether a boy eligible for a competition is going to receive the reward.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Well, I think that if the question had not been asked it would have been settled before now.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: I will repeat the Question in a few days time.
MR. MURPHY: Have not the Mayo Technical Committee made a rule that the holder of a scholarship should be resident in the county?
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No. The Committee have recommonded an alteration in the rule for next year.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Will the Department in arranging the rules prevent such an occurrence in the future?
MR. T. W. RUSSELLagreed that the scholarships intended for particular localities should be confined to the residents in the county. That was a matter for the future. They must proceed now according to present rules.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Who makes the rules?
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department.

Removal of a Galway Magistrate from the Commission of the Peace.
MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the evidence given at the last Galway assizes in reference to the charge against Peter J. Kelly of unlawfully encouraging certain persons unknown to kill and murder the Right

89
Hon. Frederick, Baron Ashtown, has been laid before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and whether any decision has been come to with reference to the retention of the name of Peter J. Kelly on the commission of the peace.
MR. CHERRY: The evidence given at the trial referred to was not submitted to the Lord Chancellor in view of the result of that trial. The Lord Chancellor, however, informs me that his attention has been directed to a speech delivered by Mr. Kelly on 21st July, having regard to which the Lord Chancellor has felt it to be his duty to supersede Mr. Kelly in the commission of the peace.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked whether it was a fact that the Lord Chancellor punished Kelly for a charge on which he was acquitted.
MR. CHERRY: It was in reference to another speech on another occasion that the Lord Chancellor removed him from the commission of the peace.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is Mr. Kelly to be proceeded against for that other speech?
MR. CHERRY: That is a matter which is under the consideration of the Government.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the Lord Chancellor to stay his hand until it is decided whether or not the man shall be tried?.
MR. CHERRY: No, Sir; the Lord Chancellor has already acted in the matter. He exercises his discretion as to whom he should leave on the commission of the peace and whom he should remove.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: What evidence had the Lord Chancellor that this man made the speech or that it was correctly reported?
MR. CHERRY: An official report of the speech was furnished to the Lord Chancellor.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Was Mr. Kelly asked for an explanation?
MR. CHERRY: I cannot say.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?.
MR. CHERRY: Yes, Sir.

Adulteration of Calves Food.
MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask, the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his Department is aware that feeding stuffs for calves are so heavily adulterated that hundreds of these young animals die before they are a month old; whether he will inquire of the Secretary of his Department if he has had crushed linseed, which had been sent to him from Clare on or about the Kith April, analysed; will he state the percentage of organic and mineral matter; what the latter was that was found in the crushed linseed; and will he give instructions to his Department to appoint inspectors in the cities and large towns to take samples of feeding stuff's and forward them to the Department to be analysed.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department are aware that there are some meals sold in Ireland for calf rearing purposes which are seriously adulterated, and that it has been stated that in many instances calves died from being fed with this deleterious matter. Moreover, some of these adulterated calf meals are sold at many times their actual value. In three test eases, those of the Union Feeding Company of Liverpool selling "Linko" at Enniscorthy, the same company selling "Linko" at Enniskillen, and the National Feeding Company of Cork selling "calf meal" at Caherciveen, the purchasers, on receiving the Department's analysis and estimate of value, refused payment of price charged, and when prosecuted by vendors were entirely successful and obtained costs. In the "Linko" case, tried at Enniskillen, the vendors obtained a decree in the Lower Court for the full amount claimed. This decision, however, was modified on appeal thus—a decree was given for 7s., the maximum value placed by the Department on the meal for which the company charged 28s., and costs were given against the company; in the third case the company concerned appealed against the adverse judgment of the Lower Court, but when the appeal came on for hearing they withdrew, and costs were awarded to the defendants. In the

91
case mentioned in the Question, a sample of material sold as "crushed flaxseed" for calf rearing purposes was forwarded to the Department from county Clare on 6th April last. This was analysed and found to contain an undue proportion of sand and mineral matter, viz., 5·22 per cent. When this meal was prepared for the calves a sediment was deposited containing 70 per cent. of mineral matter, whereas from pure crashed flaxseed there should be no deposit whatever. In this ease the same course of action as in the above cases was open to the buyer. The Department's action in this particular instance was limited under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuns Act, 1906, to sending report and leaving purchaser to use his discretion as to obtaining redress under Common Law. The Department, under Section 12 of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, have appointed samplers for the whole of Ireland. They undertake analyses of materials for instructors working under county schemes, and for farmers in certain cases in which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the materials are of inferior quality. Further, they give technical advice in prosecution cases.

Lisburn Union Registrar of Deaths.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Registrar-General for Ireland has been called to the fact that since the establishment of the City Fever Hospital in Lisburn Union the duty of registering the deaths in that institution falls to the registrar in Lisburn; whether he has received a resolution passed by the Lisburn Board of Guardians suggesting the appointment of a second assistant-registrar for the Ballylesson district; and whether, under Sections 16 and 23 of the Act for the Registration of Births and Deaths in Ireland, the Registrar-General will constitute the hospital, a special district in order to relieve the ratepayers of Lisburn Union from payment for the registration of deaths in an outside institution, or, alternatively, to give effect to the resolution of the guardians.
MR. CHERRY: The Registrar-General's attention has been called to the fact stated in the first part of the Question. The Registrar-General has received the
92
resolution of the Lisburn Board of Guardians, but is unable to comply with their request, seeing that the statute empowers the employment of one assistant registrar only in each district. The Registrar-General regrets that he cannot accede to the proposal that the hospital should be made a separate registrar's district. It would, he informs me, be entirely without precedent to constitute a public institution, situate in a certain union, into a separate district, to form part of another union.

Winter Dairying in Ireland.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been specially called to the evidence of Messrs. P. Vaughan, J. P., William McDonnell, J. P., chairman of the Limerick Chamber of Commerce, and other witnesses, given before the Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Act of 1899, strongly favouring the establishment of a system of winter dairying in Ireland; is he aware that Sir Horace Plunkett also advocated the adoption of this system as likely to improve the Irish butter trade and to lead to a large increase of tillage; and what steps, if any, the Department propose to take towards the adoption of an agricultural reform in Ireland which has already produced most beneficial results in Denmark.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department have noticed the evidence in question, but neither in the majority nor in the minority Report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry is there any definite suggestion made as to how winter dairying may be increased in Ireland. There is no difference of opinion as to the desirability of encouraging the industry and the authorities in drafting schemes suitable to particular districts. Last year the Department themselves initiated a small experiment of this nature at their Agricultural Station, Clonakilty, and when the experiment has been twelve months in progress—which will be in this autumn—a report will be published of the results. When this report is issued and when the results of the experimental tillage scheme which the. Cork County Committee of Agriculture put into operation for the first

93
time this year are available, the Department, in conjunction with the Agricultural Board, will consider the matter further. In the meantime, I have arranged to receive a deputation from the South of Ireland on Monday next, and the whole subject, which the Department recognise to be of the greatest importance, will be considered at a special meeting of the Agricultural Board.

Churchtown (Wexford) Mails.
MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the frequent complaints made about the delay in delivering letters at Churchtown, county Wexford; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters addressed to Churchtown, county Wexford, from England via Rosslare, are first taken to Waterford, then to Wexford, and thence to Churchtown; and can he arrange to have them delivered direct from Rosslare.
CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): I understand that letters for Churchtown, Wexford, have occasionally been delayed owing to their having been sent in error to a place of the same name in the delivery of Waterford. Suitable notice is always taken of errors of this nature when they are due to carelessness. Letters from England for Churchtown, Wexford, forwarded via Rosslare are sent not to Waterford, but to Wexford. It appears that the night mail via Rosslare at present arrives at Wexford too late to connect with the mail cart to Churchtown; but my right hon. friend is inquiring whether it is possible to improve the arrangements in this respect.

London Parliamentary Registers.
MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are some 200,000 men in London who are kept off the register of Parliamentary electors by changing their residences; and whether he will consider the advisability of remedying this state of affairs by bringing in next session a Bill to place Londoners in the same position as residents in other large towns by enabling them to claim for successive
94
occupation from any one division of London to any other.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I am aware of the special electoral disabilities which attach to the London voter, and my hon. friend may be assured that they will be considered by the Government when the reform of electoral anomalies and defects is undertaken. When that may be, however, I am not, at present, in a position to say.

Closure Return.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: On behalf of the senior Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return giving the number of occasions since 1887 on which closure by compartments has been carried, the names of the Bills to which it has been applied, the number of days (if any) devoted to each on the Committee stage before closure by compartments was put into operation, the total number of days (if any) devoted to each in Committee of the Whole House, and the number of days allocated to each on the Report stage?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There will be no objection to giving this Return.

Carrying Bills Over.
SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government, in view of the number of incomplete Bills which have to be dropped at the close of each session, will consider the propriety of carrying forward to the succeeding session of the same Parliament such as have reached an advanced stage?
MR. SMEATONasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the number of incomplete stages of Bills which the Government meant to pass, and the pressure brought to bear upon Members not to discuss Bills, he would consider the expediency of passing a general guillotine Resolution to the effect that on 12th August next all Government Bills which had passed

95
Second Reading should be passed through their various stages—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice of that.
SIR H CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I do not think that the number of such Bills is great this session, and therefore the question hardly arises at the moment.

The Belfast Dispute.
MR. CURRANasked Mr. Speaker whether he would be in order in putting a Question of which he had given the Secretary for War private notice concerning the Belfast strike, in the absence of the Minister to whom the Question was addressed.
MR. SPEAKERreplied that the hon. Member could put his Question if he wished, but he was afraid he would not get any answer if there was no Minister responsible present who could answer it.
MR. CURRAN, suggesting that perhaps the Prime Minister would answer, asked whether the Secretary of State for War was aware that a large number of military troops had been turned to parade the streets of Belfast that morning and that the men had each been supplied with twenty rounds of ball cartridge; whether he would use his influence to have these soldiers withdrawn, as they only irritated the strikers and tended to render abortive all efforts to end the dispute.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN said he had not received any communication with regard to the information the hon. Member had just given the House, and apparently it had not been received by his right hon. friend the War Minister, or he would no doubt have been in his place to reply. In the right hon. Gentleman's absence he knew of no Minister who could answer the Question.
MR. CURRAN: Am I then to understand from the Prime Minister that there is no responsible Minister present prepared to deal with this Question? It is a most serious matter.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As I understand it, the circumstances only occurred this morning; and I have had no knowledge of it at all, therefore I
96
can hardly be expected to give an answer to the hon. Member's Question. Personally, I have no knowledge of it whatever.
MR. T. F. RICHARDS: If the Prime Minister cannot see his way to induce the Government to withdraw the troops, will he use his influence with the Secretary for War to get him to withdraw the ball cartridges?
[No Answer was returned.]

A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
MR. BELLAIRSasked the indulgence of the House while he made a personal explanation with reference to an incident which occurred at Question time on 29th July.† On that date he asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it was the established practice of the Navy to hold a public court-martial on every officer who lost or surrendered his ship; and, if so, why this rule had not been enforced in the case of his Majesty's ship "Ariel," which was lost on Malta Breakwater on 19th April. His motive in asking the Question had absolutely nothing to do with the officer in command of the "Ariel"; the Question was based on broad grounds of administrative policy. It was, he submitted, a perfectly legitimate Question, and one asked in the highest interests of the Navy, with no sort of arrière pensée. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, in a supplementary Question, described the Question as ungenerous, and proceeded) to insinuate that at one time five years ago he (Mr. Bellairs) had been in a similar position and liable to court-martial. To that statement he gave an unqualified denial. The Secretary of the Admiralty asked for notice of the Question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, and having waited twenty-four hours for such a Question to be put down, he wrote to the hon. Member the following letter setting out the incident as reported in Hansard, which was word for word identical with The Times report, and asking for the name of the hon. Member's informant—
"30th July, 1907.
"Dear SIR,
"On Monday, 29th July, I asked a question in the House as to whether it was the
† See (4) Debates, cIxxix., 461.
established practice of the Navy to hold a public court-martial on every officer who lost or surrendered his ship; and if so, I proceeded to ask why the rule had not been enforced in the case of H.M.S. "Ariel," lost on Malta Breakwater, on 19th April. It was a perfectly legitimate Question and one asked in the highest interests of the Navy, with no sort of arrière pensée. I believe that public trial is better than a secret court of inquiry, but the foundation of my question lay in a deep-rooted love for the traditions of a service which Gladstone once described as 'the noblest profession in the world.' It is one of the glories of the Navy that under any circumstances in which an officer loses the ship confided to his charge, be the odds even or a thousand to one against him, he faces a trial by court-martial. The fact of the rule being invariable, as I believe it to have been, prevents any suspicion of disgrace attaching to being brought to trial, and it absolutely shuts the door on favouritism. Had you given me the slightest notice of your intended supplementary Question I might have explained these matters to you, and so prevented the House being troubled with the following unedifying personal wrangle.
'"Mr. DALZIEL asked whether the procedure differed from that which was followed five years ago in the case of the hon. Member who put this somewhat ungenerous Question.
"' Mr. BELLAIRS asked whether it was ungenerous to ask such a Question when, where a court-martial was held, the sword of an officer was returned to him with honour where there was no fault on his part. That was the reason why he put the Question.
"'Mr. DALZIEL: May I ask for an Answer to my Question?
"' Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON requested the hon. Member to put down notice of his Question.
'"Mr. BELLAIRS asked what was the insinuation which the hon. Member desired to make against him.
"' Mr. DALZIEL: The only explanation I desire to make—
"MR. SPEAKER stopped further remark by [ruling that these interventions were irregular.
"As no notice of a Question has been placed on the Order Paper, you appear to be content to let the matter rest there, having succeeded in insinuating that some incident in my career rendered me liable to a court-martial five years ago for the loss of my ship. I now ask for particulars, and when I have shown you that the story is untrue, I feel sure that you will see that the proper course to be followed is to give me the name of your informant who appears for his own reasons to have selected this date of five years ago as being the one which coincided with my retirement from the Navy. I am sure you would not have made this charge unless you believed yourself to be in full possession of the facts, and you will
98
therefore have no difficulty in complying with my natural desire for an immediate reply.
"Yours faithfully,
"CARLYON BELLAIRS.
"James H. Dalziel, Esq., M. P."
On the preceding day he (Mr. Bellairs) received the following letter:—
"The Reform Club,
"3rd August, 1907.
"Dear SIR,
"I am in receipt of your favour of the 30th, which unfortunately—through no fault of yours—was forwarded to ray country address, and consequently reached me later than would otherwise have been the case.
"I have some difficulty in ascertaining from your letter what you really wish me to reply to. I thought the Question you put in the House—to which you allude—an exceedingly ungenerous one, more especially having been addressed by one who at one time held a commission in His Majesty's Navy. I still think so.
"The supplementary Question I asked sought to obtain information as to whether the procedure of which you' complained had not been similar to that followed in reference to an incident—the full particulars of which you are, of course, fully cognisant—in which your own conduct was the subject of inquiry.
"The Secretary to the Admiralty was unable without notice being given to provide me with the information. Perhaps you will do so.
"Awaiting the favour of a reply.
"I am,
"Yours faithfully,
(Signed) J. H. DALZIEL.
"Carlyon Bellairs, Esq., M. P."
To this he replied:—
"August 6th, 1907.
"Dear SIR,
"I received your letter this morning. You repeat, but do not explain why, it is 'exceedingly ungenerous' to ask a question as to the reasons for the Admiralty departing from the accepted practice of holding a public court-martial when a ship is lost. The fact that I have been a naval officer is the very reason why I should ask the Question, and I am not disposed to defer to you on a matter of taste. In answer to my request for particulars about the untrue statement you made that I was in a similar position and liable to a court-martial five years ago, or in 1902, when I retired from the Navy, you have the assurance to ask me for information about an event which never occurred. The suggestion that I was under a cloud in 1902 is unworthy. So far from having anything to be ashamed of in leaving the Navy, your course compels me now to state that I received letters from the Admiralty in 1902 expressing great regret that I should feel that the state of my eyesight necessitated leaving the Navy. Lord Selborne personally sent for me and expressed his

99
regret, and the Board spontaneously wrote stating that their desire was to give me special promotion on retirement, but that the age regulations precluded them from doing so until I reached a certain age.
"Finally, let me state that I have never rendered myself liable to a court-martial; I have never on any occasion lost a ship or been in a ship which was lost, and my 'conduct' has never been the subject of an inquiry.
"Yours faithfully,
"CARLYON BELLAIRS.
"J. H Dalziel, Esq., M. P."
The final letter which passed was as follows—
"August 7th, 1907.
"Carlyon Bellairs, Esq., M. P."
"House of Commons.
"Dear SIR,
"I have received your letter of the 6th, and also an accompanying letter in which you state your intention of making a personal explanation on the subject in the House of Commons.
"Had you awaited my reply to yours of yesterday's date, you probably would not have considered it necessary to trouble the House in the matter, but as you have thought fit to decide on this course without awaiting my further reply, it only remains for me to state that I shall be in my place in the House at the time you mention.
"Yours faithfully,
"J. H. DALZIEL."
He had informed the House that he asked the Question on broad grounds of administrative policy. Article 91 of the Naval Discipline Act, under which the Admiralty acted, laid down that if a vessel is lost she shall be deemed to remain in commission until a court-martial shall have been held, pursuant to the custom of the service. That Article was conclusive that he was right I in asking his Question, because it amounted to this, that the Admiralty were not complying with the Articles of War. He thought the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs was wrong in importing prejudice into the case by insinuating that he (Mr. Bellairs) was personally interested, and had rendered himself liable to court-martial in a precisely similar way.
MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs) said he would only take up the time of the House a few minutes in explaining the circumstances in which he asked the supplementary Question. Between the time the hon. Member's Question ap-
100
peared on the Paper and the time when it was asked it had been represented to him by friends who knew all the circumstances of the case that it was an exceedingly ungenerous and exceedingly cruel action on the part of the hon. Member, having been a naval officer himself, to reopen an incident which had been closed some months back, and to suggest that some more severe punishment should be inflicted on the offender.
MR. BELLAIRS: May I contradict that statement? The contrary is the case. The court-martial might have given a less punishment, and it was, besides, a public and not a secret body.
MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL said he would, of course, accept the interruption of the hon. Member. But in any case the incident had been closed, and the person affected, having accepted the decision, had a right to believe that the whole matter was at an end. To the lay mind, however, the fact that the hon. Member suggested that a court-martial should have been held was in his view equivalent to the suggestion that the punishment was not so severe as it might have been. While an officer against whom a charge was made had a right to demand a court-martial he entirely demurred to the suggestion that this was the invariable course adopted with regard to a lost ship, and he could give instances in which no court-martial had been held. As to the supplementary Question he was not responsible for the interpretations put by the hon. Member. He entered the House at the moment that the hon. Member was putting his Question, and he had in his mind the representations which had been made to him. His supplementary Question was whether the procedure followed in this case was not the same as that followed in the case in which the hon. Member was concerned some years ago. Two newspapers said "five years," which was not correct; and if the hon. Member construed his suggestion as meaning that there was a cloud over him and that he retired from the Navy on that account, he willingly withdrew such a suggestion. Such a thought never entered his mind, for he did not know how long it was since the hon. Member retired from the Navy. He maintained, however, that he was justified in asking the Question, and he demurred to the statement of the hon.

101
Member denying his justification. He accepted the responsibility of stating now as a Member of the House that the hon. Member was himself concerned in a case in which the procedure was exactly the same as that followed in the case under discussion, and that the hon. Member was liable to a court-martial if the commander had ordered it. He asserted that the conduct of the hon. Member had been the subject of inquiry. On August 9th, 1895, torpedo boat No. 80, of which the hon. Member was in charge, came into collision with torpedo boat No. 72. A court of inquiry was held, and it found that the organisation of the torpedo boat was inefficient in respect of navigation, and Rear-Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson said that the collision was due to the faulty arrangements of Lieutenant and Commander Bellairs for the command of his boat. The Admiralty officials concurred in the view here expressed. He maintained that this finding amounted to censure on the hon. Member, and as such he still thought that it stood against him to-day.
MR. BELLAIRSobserved that the incident referred to occurred twelve years ago, but the inquiry held was not into his conduct. Such inquiries as these were held almost from day to day, and there was scarcely an officer in the service who had not undergone the ordeal of such an inquiry. The order that led to the collision had not been given by him, and he was not present when it was given. The order was given by a sub-lieutenant through the voice tube, and he took the responsibility of it in order to prevent the promotion of the sub-lieutenant from being interfered with. He had given strict injunctions that the voice tube was never to be used to communicate with the helmsman, owing to the fact that it might lead to an accident, but the sub-lieutenant on that occasion neglected his order. At the time he thought it right to take the whole of the blame upon himself, and he willingly did so. There was no inquiry into his conduct, but, only into the cause of the collision. This accident in no way resembled in the slightest degree the subject of the Question he had put on the Paper.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Albert Stanley, esquire, for the county of Stafford (North-Western Division).
POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 290.]

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
MR. LAMBTON MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S. E.) moved to substitute the Agricultural Commissioners for the Land Court as the authority to which applications should be made for registration as a new holder by agreement with the landlord. He said the object of the Amendment was to provide that when the landlord had agreed with any other person in respect to any land to be constituted a new holding, such person might apply to the Agricultural Commissioners to be registered as the new holder. The constitution of the Land Court and the constitution of the Agricultural Commissioners had never been discussed by the House at all. When one of the financial clauses was under discussion the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill moved that the salary of the members of the Land Court should be increased from £1,000 to £1,200. That increase might be necessary, but the fact that these large sums were to be voted out of the Imperial Exchequer showed that the English members of the Standing Committee were justified in taking great interest in the Bill. It was generally acknowledged that the Land Court was the most arbitrary and autocratic body ever established in any civilised country, and that it was one to which there was no parallel outside of Russia or Morocco. It consisted of five members who were to have control of the Scottish land question, and he believed they were to have control of the Agricultural Commissioners. He was not sure what the constitution of the Agricultural Commissioners was to be. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin pointed out yesterday that they were going to perform in

103
Scotland the duties which were performed by the Board of Agriculture in England. Very wide powers had been entrusted to the Board of Agriculture in England for the coercion of county councils, whereas the Agricultural Commissioners, who would take the place of that body in Scotland, would be entirely under the Land Court. They might even be under the control of one member of the Court, for there was a provision in the Bill which enabled the members of the Land Court to delegate their powers to one of their number. This procedure to which the Amendment referred was utterly inconsistent with the other provisions in the Bill. The application referred to in Clause 7 as to registration was to be made to the Land Court, but he held that it ought to be made to the Agricultural Commissioners as in the case of other applications referred to in other parts of the Bill. It might be argued that in this case there had to be agreement between the landlord and the small holder before the application for registration could be made. Clause 7 contained eighteen subsections, and it was, therefore, extremely difficult to understand it. The Bill was one of the worst examples of legislation by reference, and so numerous were the references to the Crofters Acts and other Statutes that it was almost unintelligible to ordinary members. The "Agricultural Commissioners" were referred to in subsection (13) of this clause, and in Clauses 15, 16, and 17 as the body to whom applications were to be made in regard to the matters dealt with by those clauses. He wished to know why in the instance to which the Amendment referred the applications were to be made direct to the Land Court. Perhaps the Bill had been hastily drafted, but he thought they could hardly expect it to be a very good Bill when it was remembered that it was one of four land Bills which the Government had brought forward in one session of Parliament. That was a most difficult team for anybody to drive, and he was not at all surprised that there were some discrepancies and many unintelligible portions of the Bill. It appeared to him to be absolutely necessary that the words "Land Court" should be left out of the first subsection of Clause 7 and that the words "Agricultural Commissioners" should be substituted. He begged to move.
MR. ABEL SMITHsaid that in seconding the Amendment he would like to call the attention of hon. Members who had not the advantage of being members of the Scottish Committee, to the extraordinary character of this clause of which they were about to undertake the discussion. It contained eighteen subsections, and when one came to wade through them all, one must get into a fog.
MR. McCRAE: No.
MR. ABEL SMITH MR. ABEL SMITH said that the hon. and gallant Member had more than average intelligence; but it would take from two to three months for any man of ordinary intelligence to understand the Bill. The eighth subsection, which dealt with the functions of the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners, was rather confusing; and he ventured to think that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Durham would go one step towards elucidating the mystery. If there was to be a Land Court at all and also a new body of Agricultural Commissioners, the establishment and constitution of which had been passed the previous night in silence, their respective functions should be clearly defined and clearly separated the one from the other. The duty laid on the Land Court by the first subsection ought to be explained in the most lucid way to the House, and so also should the duty to be laid on the Agricultural Commissioners. Fair rents were to be fixed by the Land Court. No doubt that was a judicial function, but the function described in the subsection was an administrative function, and the words "Agricultural Commissioners" ought to be substituted for the words "Land Courts."
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 6, line 35, to leave out the words, 'Land Court,' and insert the words 'Agricultural Commissioners.'"—(Mr. Lambton.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'Land Court' stand part of the Bill."
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said that one would imagine that there was some hidden result or purpose in the clause which he had not hitherto perceived

105
or appreciated. He was sorry that he could not accept the substitution of "Land Commissioners" for "Land Court." The Land Court was the authority to whom was committed the keeping of the register of the new holders, and the machinery for that was based on previous Acts. That was a natural arrangement, and the Land Court should therefore be responsible for the register. He did not think that hon. Members opposite quite appreciated that the application to be registered was only to be made, in the first place, after an agreement had been arrived at between the landlord and the new land holder. The Agricultural Commissioners were the practical executive authority which was to supervise and contribute to the creation of the new holdings. The first subsection had nothing whatever to do with that or with the operations of the Agricultural Commissioners. The first subsection said that if the landlord and any other person agreed in respect of any land "such person may apply to the Land Court to be registered as a new holder under this Act, and such person may thereupon apply accordingly, and subject to the provisions of this Act may be so registered." The register was to be kept in the Land Court's keeping.
MR. LAMBTON: What about the words in Subsection (13), "otherwise than by agreement"?
MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR said that that did not apply in this case. If the hon. Member looked back at Sub-section (10) he would see that the Land Court determined in respect of what land holdings for new holders might be constituted, and up to what date the power to constitute them otherwise than by agreement might be exercised. That was a perfectly simple proposition.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the Secretary for Scotland had told them that this subsection referred only to cases of voluntary agreement, and that the Land Court had no functions to perform except to keep a record of the individuals who applied for new holdings. But at the end of the subsection occurred the phrase "may be so registered." With whom was that discretion left?
MR. SINCLAIR: With the Land Court.
MR. WALTER LONG: Exactly. If any person agreed with the landlord in respect to certain land such person might apply to the Land Court to be registered a new holder, and subject to the provisions of the Act might be so registered. The discretion rested with the Land Court. He agreed with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire that it was no exaggeration to say that however carefully one might examine this Bill it was impossible, unless one were endowed with supernatural powers, and every virtue and the superior intelligence of the hon. and gallant Member for East Edinburgh, to separate the functions of those two august bodies—the Land Court and the Agricultural Commission. His hon. friend had counted the number of times that those two bodies were mentioned in the clause, and found that it was over twenty. He supposed that the Land Court was to keep the register of small holders, but why should not the Agricultural Commission also keep such a book? He was sure that he and his friends would vote for the cost of the supply of another book. The Secretary for Scotland seemed to think that nobody was to be considered in this matter except the landlord and the tenant, and that was the reason why the right hon. Gentleman got so confused on the points raised by the Opposition. But the general taxpayers of the country, who must meet the expense of the experiments to be made under this measure ought also to be considered. The Land Court was charged with the duty of seeing whether the applicants for registration had fulfilled the necessary conditions. They knew that the entry on the register was only the first step in the transaction.
MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR said that a new holder would not be duly qualified for registration otherwise than by agreement who did not satisfy the Agricultural Commissioners as to his ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent upon him.
MR. WALTER LONGasked if he was to understand that a man would not be eligible to avail himself of the pro visions of the Act until his name was registered.
MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR said that supposing a landlord created a small holding on his estate there was no obligation on him to call upon the tenant to register his name. But if at any moment the landlord and tenant agreed that it would be to their mutual interest that the holding should in future be a holding under this Act, then there would be power to agree that the holding should be registered. The small holders of another character must first be registered. If the right hon. Gentleman's quarrel was with the Land Court the Government could not agree with him. If his quarrel was with the power of registration which was given to the Agricultural Commissioners it was a different matter.
MR. WALTER LONG MR. WALTER LONG said he could, not allow the right hon. Gentleman to deal with his argument by way of reply before he had completed it.
MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR said he was simply explaining that if the right hon. Gentleman's quarrel was with the Land Court and if he wished to get that out of the Bill they could not agree with him, but if he wished that the registration should go to the Agricultural Commissioners that was a different matter.
MR. WALTER LONGwas obliged for the interruption, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was throwing any new light on the question before the House. The duties cast upon the Land Court were not of the mere perfunctory character which was represented. The application of this Bill would be in regard to the privileges conferred on the new holders under this measure, and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman had said had shaken his argument. They must I be thankful for small mercies when they were told, under a Radical Government, that the landlord was to be enabled to set up small holdings. He did not know how long that privilege would last; he supposed until the next Land Bill was brought in. Meanwhile it was thought that this Bill would produce such a glamour over the land that these two people who had hitherto got on very well together would suddenly discover that they wanted to go into this Court. That he did not think was likely. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the landlord and tenant had only to agree and the Land
108
Court would do the rest; but that was not the case at all. Let them take the ease of a man who had been indebted to his landlord for his improvements, he would come in under the Bill. It was quite obvious, unless they were absolutely mistaken in the view which they took of the effect of the preceding clause, that this was not a mere trivial matter. The argument of his hon. friend was that the Land Court ought not to be called in, and he could not conceive anything more reasonable than his proposal that this task should fall upon the Agricultural Commissioners. But the right hon. Gentleman said it must be the Land Court. He could not accept that proposition. If it were merely a matter of entering a man's name in a book there would be no justification for pressing the Amendment. But that was not the case and the right hon. Gentleman had not shown that it was so. They, on the contrary, said that this power of setting up the new holder ought to be exercised by the Agricultural Commissioners and not by the Land Court. The Government were making a large experiment which could only be successful at the cost of a large sum of money, a considerable portion of which would come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of England. For these reasons he supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONthought that the Agricultural Commissioners were likely to be more capable persons to deal with this matter than the Land Court. Under last year's Bill questions of this sort would have gone before the Agricultural Commissioners, but the Government were now setting up a Land Court to deal with such matters. The Land Court was an importation into the Bill, and an innovation. It was indeed the chief evil in the measure, and he supported the proposal to substitute the Agricultural Commissioners. He was afraid that the greater number of the new holdings would not be registered under this clause, because the proprietor would lose his control over the money which he had paid for equipment under the Crofters Act of 1886. Registration was either a serious matter or it was not. If it was a mere matter of form it would not be largely indulged in, but if it was a condition precedent to the granting of loans by the State it was a different

109
matter. The question, as he understood, had to come before the Agricultural Commissioners in the first place, and then before the Land Court. This would mean double work between the two authorities. It was somewhat like a Chinese puzzle, and if one bit was taken out of it it failed. These details were not necessary last year, and were not necessary now. They had not been told either in Committee upstairs or in the House why they were necessary. They had never heard the reason why the Land Court was pitchforked into the Bill.
MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER said the hon. Member must only discuss the clause and not the general merits of the Bill.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONargued that it, was not necessary to have a fresh organisation but supposed they would be told that the mind of Scotland was behind this Bill. He had, however, not heard a single expression of opinion in its favour.
SIR F. BANBURYthought that the discussion showed that the Opposition did not intend to destroy the Bill, but rather wished to facilitate its progress. If the landlord and tenant met together at the registrars and a book was produced in which the transaction was entered there would be an end of the matter. What would take place would be that both the landowner and the landholder would make application to the Land Court to be registered. A form would then be sent to each of them to fill up. It would be filled up and returned, and the Land Court would then have to refer the matter to the Agricultural Commissioners, who would have to send down and investgate the claim of both the landowner and the landholder to be registered. The Agricultural Commissioners would then report back to the Land Court and recommend registration. If the Amendment were accepted all that process would be avoided. They would apply at once to the Agricultural Commissioners who would at once investigate the circumstances of the case and report to the Land Court that an application had been made to register as a small holding a certain holding, and that after investigation they
110
recommended its registration. The Land Court would then write to the landowner and the landholder and notify them that the holding had been registered in their book as a small holding on such a day. Was not the proposal of his hon. friend more calculated to encourage the formation of small holdings by agreement than the round-about method favoured by the right hon. Gentleman? He did not think many people would avail themselves of the provisions of this clause, but he was quite sure that the simpler the clause was made the more would people avail themselves of the privilege. For these reasons he supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had had occasion before to explain to the House that one of the objections that attached to the discussion of a Bill under closure by compartments was that the Government felt themselves absolved from giving any answer to the arguments adduced or even from taking the trouble to give a correct account of the Bill nominally in their charge. Everybody, even its authors, must approach Clause 7 with singular misgiving. Never in his experience had he seen a clause extending over two and a half pages of a Bill which brought into action so many different bodies. Most Governments in the past had endeavoured to bring in every separate Department in a separate clause, but when they read this bewildering piece of legislation they found the Land Court figuring in the first section, the Commissioner for small holdings in the third, and the Agricultural Commissioners in the sixth. And these three parties pursued their mazy dance through the remaining of the eighteen sub-sections of the clause in such a manner that even the strongest head might be made to feel confused by their evolutions. What was the defence of the Secretary for Scotland for putting in these Agricultural Commissioners—a new body which they had never been allowed to discuss either in the House or the Committee, though it figured so largely in this measure? The right hon. Gentleman had given two reasons, and both were founded on a misconception of fact with regard to his own measure. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House in the first place that Sub-section (1) dealt solely with existing holdings.
MR. SINCLAIR: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR said his right hon. friend beside him had reminded him that the words used by the right hon. Gentleman were "holdings already in existence." The sub-section dealt with nothing of the sort.
MR. SINCLAIRpointed out that this subsection dealt with new holdings. But new holdings were of two classes. There might be holdings brought into existence after the passing of this Act, which had existed as fully equipped holdings previously and been afterwards brought under the operation of the Act. The other class of new holdings would be holdings actually created under the provisions of this Act.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR said he wished the right hon. Gentleman would remember that this was a Scottish and not an Irish Bill, and that when in connection with it they were speaking of new holdings they did not mean old holdings. Everybody but the draughtsman of the right hon. Gentleman would call a holding already in existence an old holding. The Government were not content with new legislation, but had to have a new terminology. If the House would look at the marginal note of this clause they would see that it said, "powers to facilitate the constitution of new holdings," and how a clause so described could be said by the authors of the Bill to be a clause for dealing with existing holdings passed his comprehension. So much for the right hon. Gentleman's first argument. His second argument was almost more unfortunate. It was that the persons to register the holdings, because the people in charge of the new holdings, were the Land Court, and the book was kept by the Land Court. He would venture to point out that if that were so access could be had to the book, but he did not believe it was in the possession of the Land Court. The 27th Section of the Crofters Holdings Act was an unrepealed section and by that section the record was to be kept in the Sheriff Court. It seemed to him, reading the two Acts together, that the book was not kept by the Land Court.
MR. SINCLAIR: The right Hon. Gentleman is perfectly right.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked what were they to think when the right hon. Gentleman addressed two arguments in favour of the Bill each of which was founded on misconception? He did not know whether that was the way in which the Bill was dealt with in Committee, but with all respect he must say the right hon. Gentleman ought to have made himself acquainted with the contents of the Bill after it came down stairs. The arguments in favour of the Bill having been dismissed—they had been abandoned by the right hon. Gentleman himself—what were the merits? The real point was whether the Land Court was to be the body to register these new holdings, or whether it was to be the Agricultural Commissioners. Clearly every sound argument tended in the direction of making those responsible for the holdings who created new ones. If they looked at Sub-sections (6) and (18), it must be clear to the House that it was the body responsible for the expenditure of public money, for the using of the taxpayers' money for the purposes of these new holdings, who should determine whether they should be registered or not. Was not that common sense? If anything further were required to justify the argument they found it in the next section relating to assistance given; and if assistance was to be granted by the Land Commission, ought it not to be registered by the Land Commission, and if it was to be registered by the Land Commission, where else could it be registered except where the right hon. Gentleman desired it to be registered, namely, in the book which for the moment he thought was in the custody of the Land Court, but was, in fact, in the custody of the Sheriff? If the administrative body had first to settle the propriety of the loan, surely they were the people who ought to register the holding. It was a most obvious and simple Amendment which his hon. friend had moved, and he should have thought that it would have been jumped at by the Government. If, however, they still adhered to the form of the Bill, he thought the Secretary for Scotland would agree that as the only two arguments which he had used had been abandoned by himself, he or one of

113
his colleagues should get up and give them a new version of the defence they proposed to urge against the suggestion which they had made from that side of the House. Any argument which had been advanced so far had been abandoned, and he ventured to think the time had come when they should have some more solid basis than had yet been found for maintaining the Bill in its present shape.
MR. LAMBTONwas understood to say that the Secretary for Scotland apparently did not quite understand the point. What he had submitted was that the Agricultural Commissioners had to satisfy themselves that the applicants were suitable persons for holdings, and, if under Section 6 the Agricultural Commissioners might make an advance of money, then it seemed to him absolutely impossible to maintain the Land Court in the position given it by Subsection (1), and at the same time protect the taxpayers and the Agricultural Commissioners against loss. The Agricultural Commissioners were responsible for the money advanced under the Bill, and they ought to be responsible for rejecting the holding.
MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR said there were perfectly clear and definite functions for the Agricultural Commissioners and for the Land Court. A number of holdings were registered in the Landholders' Holding Book which were not new holdings, but which came within the operation of the Act, for instance under Clause 2. A number of holdings within the limits of the Act would be entitled to the facilities given by it entirely irrespective of the action
and without the knowledge or help a all of the Agricultural Commissioners They had adopted as the procedure under this Bill the procedure of the Crofters Act of 1886, and just as under that Act responsibility for registration lay with the Crofters' Commissioners, so would responsibility for registrator lie with the Land Court under this Bill The right hon. Gentleman had made the perfectly fair point that he had stated that the Landholders' Register must be kept by the Land Commission. He was of course, in error, but he thought Members who were in Committee upstairs would do him the justice to say that it was a slip. They all knew from the discussions in Committee that the Land holders' Book was kept by the Sheriff's clerk, and, just as responsibility for entries lay with the Crofters' Commission under the Act of 1886, following that procedure responsibility for registration lay with the Land Court under this Bill. Entries were made in the Landholders' Holding Book of orders and applications which had been decided by the Crofters' Commission, and similarly entries would be made in the book kept by the Sheriff's clerk in each county of orders and applications decided by the Land Court, who were the only authority under the Bill entitled to send orders and applications for registration. The Land Court was the only body which would have cognisance of orders and applications, and it was to the Land Court, therefore, that they committed this duty of registration.
Question put.
The House divided—Ayes, 222; Noes, 64. (Division List No. 384.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

Clough, William

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Black, Arthur W.

Clynes, J. R.

Alden, Percy

Bowerman, C. W.

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

Ambrose, Robert

Brace, William

Cooper, G. J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Branch, James

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

Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

Brigg, John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Astbury, John Meir

Bright, J. A.

Cory, Clifford John

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

Cowan, W. H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cox, Harold

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Byles, William Pollard

Crooks, William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Curran, Peter Francis

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dalziel, James Henry

Beale, W. P.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Bell, Richard

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cheetham, John Frederick

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

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

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Laidlaw, Robert

Richardson, A.

Duckworth, James

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Rickett, J. Compton

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lambert, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lamont, Norman

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Elibank, Master of

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Robinson, S.

Erskine, David C.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Essex, R. W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Runciman, Walter

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lewis, John Herbert

Russell, T. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lough, Thomas

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Fenwick, Charles

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Sears, J. E.

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seddon, J.

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Shackleton, David James

Findlay, Alexander

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macpherson, J. T.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

MaeVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Callum, John M.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Crae, George

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Snowden, P.

Gill, A. H.

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

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Glover, Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mallet, Charles E.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Gooch, George Peabody

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Grant, Corrie

Marnham, F. J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Gulland, John W.

Massie, J.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Masterman, C. F. G.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Montagu, E. S.

Thorne, William

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Mooney, J. J.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Hazleton, Richard

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Ure, Alexander

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morrell, Philip

Verney, F. W.

Henry, Charles S.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Vivian, Henry

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Murray, James

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Hodge, John

Myer, Horatio

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholls, George

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Holt, Richard Durning

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

Waring, Walter

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nolan, Joseph

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Waterlow, D. S.

Hudson, Walter

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Weir, James Galloway

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Grady, J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Partington, Oswald

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jardine, Sir J.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Whitely, John Henry (Halifax)

Jenkins, J.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Wilson, W. T. (Weshoughton)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Radford, G. H.

Jowett, F. W.

Raphael, Herbert H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Kekewich, Sir George

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Kelley, George D.

Rees, J. D.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Craik, Sir Henry

Ashley, W. W.

Bull, Sir William James

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Balcarres, Lord

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Baldwin, Alfred

Castlereagh, Viscount

Du Cros, Harvey

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Cave, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fell, Arthur

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Bowles, G. Stewart

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

116

117

Forster, Henry William

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Gordon, J.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Hunt, Rowland

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Kimber, Sir Henry

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Younger, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir. Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Starkey, John R.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR moved to insert words in Clause 7 requiring the Commissioner to ascertain "after due inquiry what demand for small holdings exists in any district, and after consultation (where practicable) with the landlord or landlords what land (if any) is available to meet that demand, under what conditions such land is cultivated, and what employment it affords." He said that when the Committee discussed this question it was suggested that it would not be proper when the Commissioner of Small Holdings went into a district to make his inquiry as to whether land was available for new holdings and whether there was any demand for them, to do so behind the back of the owner of that land. Such a course would, in practice, never be taken. It was not intended that the Commissioner should go down and make secret observations for himself, but that he should go rather in a friendly spirit to endeavour, in the first place, to carry out these schemes with the agreement of all concerned. He had promised to reconstruct the second subsection, and as amended it would read—
"It shall be the duty of the Commissioner for Small Holdings to report from time to time to the Agricultural Commissioners, after due inquiry, what demand for small holdings exists in any district, and after consultation (where practicable) with the landlord or landlords what land (if any) is available to meet that demand, under what conditions such land is cultivated, and what employment it affords."
These words had been designed to meet the considerations he had mentioned, and they directed the attention of the Commissioner to the fact that he should have regard to the present conditions of cultivation of the land as being pertinent to his inquiry. His attention was also directed to the consideration of what employment the land at present afforded. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 7, line 1, to leave out, from the words 'Commissioners,' to end of line 3, and to insert the words 'after due inquiry what demands for small holdings exists in any district, and after consultation (where practicable) with the landlord or landlords what land (if any) is available to meet that demand, under what conditions such land is cultivated, and what employment it affords.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. WALTER LONG MR. WALTER LONG said he quite recognised that the Amendment was intended to meet the points which were raised upstairs, and he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for this concession. The Amendment, however, did not strike him as being a good specimen of artistic draughtsmanship. As for the consultation with the landlord, that could not, of course, take place if the landlord was away, and he might be residing in Australia. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was intended that the Commissioners should go down to these districts rather in a friendly spirit than otherwise. What was meant by that? He should have assumed that the Commissioner would have gone down in an entirely friendly spirit.
MR. SINCLAIR: Hear, hear.
MR. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman cheered that statement, but his language did not imply that. The clause threw upon the Commissioner for Small Holdings an extremely invidious duty, because it laid upon them the obligation to inspect other people's property and there were a great many landowners who would resent it as an intrusion, because they would not believe that the

119
Commissioner was any better judge than they were of the needs of the locality. The words suggested that there should be consulation with the landlord, and that there should be an inquiry as to the demand for small holdings. Those provisions would ensure a certain amount of caution and care which would not have followed from the words in the original clause. The grave blot on the Amendment was that it took no note of the displacement of labour. That point, however, would be met by an Amendment which he intended to move.
Question put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Mr. WALTER LONG Mr. WALTER LONG moved to add after the word "demand" the words "without causing undue displacement of agricultural labourers, or others, presently employed on or about such land. "Reference had been made to Irish land legislation as the only precedent to be found for the general plan of the Government. In one part of Ireland they had had this system of small holdings in much larger and more general existence than in any other part of the United Kingdom. In some parts of North and Mid. Antrim small holdings of about twenty acres were the rule and not the exception, and in those parts of Ireland they had none of the social difficulties which were to be found in the South and West which had led men away from the development of industries. There they had a thrifty and industrious population, the land was suitable and fertile, and the holdings averaged about twenty acres. What had been the result? In both those divisions of Armagh there had been a steady decrease in the population. Hon. Members opposite would be living in a fool's paradise if they imagined that by any legislation of this kind for the extension of small holdings they were going to solve those social evils of depopulation which were affecting the rural districts. If they decided to establish small holdings in so singular and favourable a way to the new small holders, in the name of common justice they ought to have regard to those who were now living on the soil. If the experiment was a success, and if a
120
large number of small holdings were established, agricultural labourers must be displaced. The Amendment was intended to do two things. One was in connection with this section, and the other was to do something more at a later stage of the Bill. He submitted that they had no right to create small holdings in the general interest of the community, however excellent that object might be, if, in so doing, they deprived a section of the community in the locality of the living which they were getting and on which they were dependent. It was all very well to say that they would find employment on the small holdings, but that would not be so. If a man was to make a living on a small holding, he must have very little paid labour; he must depend on the exertions of himself and his family. If a farm of 200 acres of mixed cultivation was broken up into holdings of fifty acres each, what would become of the poor labourers? While the large farm would give employment all the year round to ten or twelve able-bodied men, the smaller holdings would not provide work for the same number. The labourers on a large farm not only got regular work, but they were provided with houses, and they had gardens which they could cultivate. He submitted that, unless the Commissioners were satisfied that small holdings could be established without unreasonable displacement of present labour, they ought not to take any steps for the setting up of the holdings. To set up small holdings and to prevent labourers from making their living would be a curse rather than a blessing, and it would do the very thing which ought not to be done in the way of driving people away from the rural districts. The Amendment should as a matter of justice be accepted. He hoped that on further reflection the Government would do now what they refused to do in Committee. If this legislation were to be the means of disturbing the opportunities of employment in the country districts, there would be hostility raised against the movement for small holdings before the ink of this measure was dry in the Statute Book. If the Bill was not to be thrown out, he wished it to pass with as few defects as possible. He was not pressing this in the interest of a

121
particular class, for, although the proposal he made was primarily in the interest of the labourers who would otherwise be displaced, it was equally in the interest of all other classes of the community that those men should not be unfairly dealt with. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
"In line 4, after the word 'demand,' to insert the words 'without causing undue displacement of agricultural labourers, or others, presently employed on or about such land.'"—(Mr. Long.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR said the right hon. Gentleman knew well that the conditions of farm labour in Scotland differed from those prevalent in England. Farm servants in Scotland were migratory, and there was great scarcity of labour in many rural districts. Many of the larger farmers complained of the increasing difficulty in getting sufficient labour for their farms. This consideration had been pressed on the Government in the Standing Committee, and the Government agreed with the critics of the Bill in desiring that this consideration should be present to the mind of the Commissioner of small holdings. He had more confidence than the right hon. Gentleman in the likelihood of an increase in the population in the rural districts from the creation of small holdings in Scotland. He suggested that the phrase "or others" was indefinite and too wide in its meaning, and the words should be omitted. Subject to that modification the Government would accept the Amendment.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he saw no harm in including the words "or others." He thought, however, the words "farm servants" more descriptive of the conditions in Scotland than the words in the Amendment.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the words "farm servants," which was a Scottish term, he would accept the Amendment.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that would cover the case. After all, the
122
object of the Agricultural Commissioners was to make small holdings; it was not their business to consider the agricultural labourers or anybody else. It was, therefore, desirable that it should be present to their minds that in creating small holdings there might be considerable displacement of labour. He had never thought that by the creation of small farms they would add at all to the land ward population. He believed that the greatest amount of labour was given by the large farms in the highest state of cultivation, because the small agricultural farm was not so highly farmed as a rule, though there were a great many exceptions. If anything, there would be a decrease rather than an increase in the state of cultivation by the substitution of small farms for large ones. There were, however, other advantages in the change, and it was on the ground of these he wished small holdings to be created wherever practicable.
MR. MURRAYsaid he was so deeply interested in this Bill that he felt it was his duty to state to the House his own experience. Many years of his childhood were spent on a small holding of twenty-five acres, for which his father paid a rent of £50 a year. His father afterwards took a small farm of 500 acres, and while living there he himself gathered some experience of the conditions of agriculture in Scotland. He had the greatest admiration for the right hon. Member for South Dublin, who had a knowledge of agriculture in England, but whose knowledge of agriculture in Scotland was not so complete. He could not agree with him that the creation of small holdings would lead to the displacement of farm servants. He attended a meeting of farm servants recently at Ellon, and he was assured by the men who were present that with a 35-acre holding a farm servant would not be very much better off financially as a holder than as a servant, but that socially he would be much better. A farm of 500 acres could be so divided as to leave room still for the labourers, and there would be no danger of displacement at all. The statements made in Committee by hon. Members opposite were taken from the Scottish newspapers, which were almost without exception dead

123
against this measure. There were two sides to every question, and unless both sides were heard a sound judgment could not be formed. On the previous day he had attended a meeting in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and had the privilege of speaking to 1,000 farm labourers. A ploughman was in the chair, and moved a resolution which was seconded by a ploughman and carried with the greatest enthusiasm. He might be allowed to read that resolution—
"I beg to move that this meeting of ploughmen and farm servants support the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill. That we consider it the most genuine scheme of Land Reform that has ever been proposed for Scotland. That it will help to stop rural depopulation and relieve the overcrowding of our towns and cities, and give ploughmen a chance to become their own masters on fair and reasonable conditions. That we consider that all opposers of the Bill are not friends of the ploughmen. That we give the Liberal Government our most enthusiastic support, and hope it will carry the Bill into law this session."
No one looking at the faces of those earnest men, who gave him the most attentive hearing in spite of the noises of the fair all round, could realise anything else than that they were in earnest in this matter of small holdings. It was also his privilege to attend a meeting at Perth at which delegates from every part of Scotland except Orkney and Shetland were present, and their demeanour showed how deep was the undercurrent in favour of this Bill.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was opening a very wide door of invitation to hon. Members to make Second Reading speeches. He would point out that the Amendment was a very narrow one—an Amendment on an Amendment—and the hon. Member should confine himself to that.
MR. MURRAYsaid he begged Mr. Speaker's pardon for not being better acquainted with the rules of the House. As a business man he had not yet got acclimatised to the forms of the House. He had come there to do things, but he was beginning to find out how not to do things. He regretted that he could not agree with the Amendment of the right hon. Member for South Dublin. In Aberdeenshire, where the farmers mostly
124
depended on stock and grass, it was as easy to attend to stock on a smaller holding as on a large farm; and he felt it his duty to plead the cause of the farm labourers from whom he sprang.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if the hon. Member had strayed into a very wide field, he had spoken with an earnestness and from a large personal experience which could not fail to impress hon. Members and enlist sympathy from all quarters of the House. As to the resolution passed by the farm labourers who attended the meeting the previous day in Fifeshire, he would say that whatever those farm servants thought of the criticisms which hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had made on the Bill, those criticisms were made in real friendship and in their interests. The Amendment proposed by his right hon. friend was obviously necessary. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire seemed to think that large and highly cultivated farms could be cut up into small holdings without diminishing the amount of labour on the same area of land. As a general proposition he thought the hon. Gentleman was wrong. There might be exceptions here and there where the hon. Gentleman might be right, where small holdings were occupied by a similar number of heads of families; but he was convinced that that was not the universal rule. It should be remembered that the great advantage of small holdings as exhibited in Prance and elsewhere was that the same person was owner and cultivator, and that the wife and family gave an amount of work to the farm that was never asked for here, and if asked for, would never be given. They worked hard for long hours. It followed that if it was wished to keep a large number of heads of families on the land in this country the way to do it was not to cut up large farms into small holdings unless they went in for intensive cultivation. His hope for Scotland was in intensive cultivation, but that could not be done so well on small holdings of thirty or forty acres as on large farms where labour could be highly organised. He admitted that there were places in Scotland where intensive cultivation could be carried on on small holdings,

125
but these were not very many, especially in the county which the hon. Gentleman represented and in other districts. This was partly due to climatic conditions and the time of the year at which vegetables and the like came to maturity. Intensive cultivation could not be carried on there with profit and success compared with the South of England and the Channel Islands. He did not think the hon. Gentleman, those authority he admitted, would deny any of the propositions which he had ventured to lay down. Therefore small holdings were created where intensive cultivation was impossible. The number of heads of families on the land would be reduced and the evil of rural depopulation, which they all deplored, increased. He thought that the right hon., Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland was wrong in opposing the Amendment of his right hon. friend. He did not see that it could do any harm.
MR. McCRAEsaid he did not think there was any great difference between the two sides of the House as to the merits of the question: the right hon. Gentleman had been engaged for the most part in painting the lily. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin would strike out the words "or about" from his Amendment it would probably meet the views of the Secretary for Scotland. It must be remembered that the Scottish were a practical people and no Agricultural Commission or Land Court would propose to set up a small holding which would cause rural depopulation. He thought the best test of the matter was that the agricultural labourers were all enthusiastically in favour of the Bill. They had no fear of rural depopulation being caused by small I holdings. All that the Leader of the Opposition had said in regard to intensive cultivation was true. There were, however, various parts of Scotland where that argument did not apply and where large holdings could be cut up in order to create small holdings and increase the number of people on the land. He would suggest that the right hon. Member for South Dublin should now accept the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland and
126
allow the discussion on this point to come to an end.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the discussion had been carried on by practical people and he had been enjoying a feast which those practical people had provided for him. This was not a personal matter between the Secretary for Scotland, and himself. He did not want any do words, and they clearly ought to be ejusdem generis, and if the right hon. Gentleman thought that "farm servants" would meet what was requisite he would be prepared to accept the Amendment in the amended form.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,)assured the right hon. Gentleman that the expression would form a complete category of farm employees.
SIR J. DEWARsaid he was in sympathy with the object of the right hon. Gentleman, but he feared that under the words suggested shepherds would be left out.
MR. SINCLAIRdid not think his hon. friend need have any concern in this matter, because it had been mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners on Small Holdings and the Report of the Agricultural Commissioners, and the question had been fully considered.
Amendment to the Amendment (as amended by the substitution of the words "farm servants" for "agricultural labourers or others") agreed to.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 7, line 5, to leave out the word 'new' and to insert the word 'small.'"
Amendment agreed to.
MR. J. F. MASONwho had given notice of his intention to move to leave out Subsection 5 of Clause 7, which was in the following terms—
"Where a new holding is constituted by agreement, the rent agreed between the landlord and the new holder shall not be altered by the Land

127
Court for a period of seven years from the term at which it first becomes payable,"
said he thought his object would be better attained if he moved an Amendment standing in the name of his noble friend the Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire "to insert after the word 'not' the words 'if the same shall have been agreed upon for a specified period,' and after the word 'Court,' to insert the words during such period and shall not in any case be altered by the Land Court.'" The subsection dealt with the fixing of the rent of the land in case no such agreement as was contemplated had been come to between landlord and tenant. There was nothing more objectionable in the whole of the Rill than to have these rents fixed in this way. The tenant not knowing whether he was to have his rent lowered or raised, might deal unfairly with his small holding with a view to getting his rent lowered. The idle tenant might neglect the holding, and even the industrious small holder would be looking forward to the effect on his rent if he improved his plot of land. He saw no reason why where two people had had the good sense to see that it was in the interest of both to have a fixed rent for a specified time such an agreement should not be put beyond the power of revision by the Land Court during that period. Therefore he saw no reason why the Government should not accept this Amendment which he did not think contained an unreasonable suggestion.
MR. WYNDHAMseconded, and said he made no apology for intervening in the debate because he spoke from some experience of land legislation in Ireland. He pointed out that the first advantage of recent Irish land legislation was the acquisition by the tenant of ownership, and another was that when a landlord and tenant had made a bargain, that bargain laid down for a number of years the fixed annual sum which the purchaser was to pay year in and year out. It was not denied that the fact that a tenant had a knowledge that his rent would be reviewed at intervals had led to tenants "running out" their land. It was not in human nature to expect that the result would be otherwise. It was asking too much from the moral
128
point of view to suppose that tenants would put their backs into the work of their farms if they knew that through being industrious they might have the rent increased or that through being idle they might get it diminished. Of course a tenant might be industrious and ingenious, but an idle man as the time came on for the rent fixing would have no inducement to work. Why should it be said that men were incapable of arriving at a bargain in a matter of this kind? He had always understood that in Scotland the cultivators of the soil had done better than the cultivators of the soil in England. Would it be said that these small cultivators of the soil would be unable to come to a bargain with their landlords as to the amount of money which they were prepared to pay? He hoped the Government would not take that view and inflict upon Scotland a system which had borne evil fruit in Ireland in regard to rent fixing, but that the tenants would be put upon conditions that would give them every inducement to cultivate the land. Unless it was said that those who were to benefit by this Bill were incapable of arriving at a reasonable bargain he saw no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 7, line 14, after the word 'not' to insert the words 'if the same shall have been agreed upon for a specified period.'"—(Mr. J. F. Mason.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had opened rather a wide field by the observations which he had addressed to the House. This Bill had nothing to do with purchase nor had it any real similarity to the Irish system of fair rent fixing. There was a wide difference between the two cases which ran right through the Bill and was founded on Scottish experience. He thought that the instances which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted of Irish tenants "running out" their land with a view to getting a reduction of rent were very rare. At all events they were in a large minority.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that it was generally recognised during the debates of 1903 that the fact that new rents were going to be fixed at a given date had a depreciating effect upon the energy and enterprise of the tenant during the last two or three years of his tenancy.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid that that might be so, but he must point out that there were other influences at work, because there was a purchase system running alongside the fair rent system and that had a great influence on the tenants. There was no free sale in this Bill, but the Government had provided compensation for the tenant for his own improvements. The object of this clause was to give some security to the land-lord that the agreement he had come to with the landholder should not be disturbed for a period of seven years. The hon. Member for Windsor wished to extend that period. On the previous day it was made a matter of censure upon the administration of the Crofters Act that only in regard to 6,000 out of some 24,000 holdings had fair rents been fixed. In his opinion that fact bore an entirely different complexion. It was to the credit of the Crofters Act that in a great number of cases the landowners and their crofters had been able to come to a satisfactory agreement for the cultivation of the land under the conditions of the Crofters Act. It had never been the intention of that Act to exclude such agreements, and following the policy of that Act the Government under this Bill would do all that was possible to encourage such agreements, and it was not necessary for the landholder to have his rent fixed by the Land Court. What they hoped was that it would be possible under this Bill for a large number of these people to make agreements satisfactory to both parties for a term of years. He had put in the limit of seven years because the tendency in Scotland of late years was to shorten leases. Formerly leases were made for fifteen, nineteen, or twenty-one years, but they were not now common and where they existed there was always a break. In some cases it was at the end of every five years, in others there was a break
130
at seven and fourteen years. Bearing that in mind the period for revision of rents which would actually come before the Land Commission was fixed by the Bill at seven years. The Government did not object to a longer term. It was a question for the landowner and the landholder, and while he questioned whether the landholder would be found willing to agree to the longer term suggested he had no objection to accepting the Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURY, in the absence of his hon. friend the Member for Hertford, moved to add words which provided that if the landholder made use of his holding for subsidiary or auxiliary occupations the landowner could apply to the Land Court to readjust the rent. When the Bill was in Committee it was stated that in many parts of Scotland people could not live on a small holding without a subsidiary occupation, and it was thought very hard that fish curing which was carried on on some of these holdings should have to be stopped. Although it might be true that in some cases small holdings could not be carried on successfully unless the occupier had some other occupation, at the same time they did not want to make it possible for a prosperous tradesman in the town to come out into the country and take up a small holding and borrow money to put up buildings upon it merely for the purpose of a pleasure resort. It was difficult to draw the line as to where auxiliary occupation should cease, and nothing was done to meet that difficulty in the Committee, But this Amendment did meet that difficulty to some extent, because if it was found that a prosperous tradesman had acquired a small holding not for the purpose of its being used for the purposes of agriculture, but merely as a pleasure resort, the landlord could apply to the Land Court and claim for an increased rent on the ground that the holding was not used for the purpose intended, and if the Land Court considered that the application was reasonable they could increase the rent. This was a good Amendment because the kind of cases to which he referred were

131
bound to occur. He did not believe even the hon. Member for Dumfries-shire wanted the property of the landlord taken away for the purpose of making it a pleasure-ground for the prosperous tradesmen.
MR. ABEL SMITHapologised for being absent when his Amendment came on for discussion. He might, however, be allowed to second it. It had been so ably moved by his hon. friend and so well explained that he had very little left to say. The words of the Amendment he had taken from Clause 9 of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that when the clause was under discussion in the Committee it was desired to prevent these holdings being used for a subsidiary occupation. It was desirable that a man whose principal occupation was the cultivation of his holding should have some auxiliary occupation to occupy his spare time in the winter months, but if the cultivation of his holding was subsidiary to his general occupation then it was only fair that the rent of the holding should be reviewed by the Land Court. The object of the Bill was to encourage the increase of a real agricultural population living on the land, and it was because that was considered by everybody in the House to be an object of national importance that this exceptional legislation was proposed. Therefore, it ought not to be used by those who got their living by some other occupation to obtain what was termed in England accommodation land. It would not be fair if a small tradesman, or some other person in a similar position, was treated in this exceptional way and have land which he would cultivate at odd times. It was generally agreed that those who were to be helped by the Bill ought at any rate to obtain the chief part of their living from the cultivation of their holdings. It had been suggested, and it was quite possible, that a man in possession of one of these holdings could be registered as a landholder under the Bill, and then might set up business upon the holding as a fish curer. If that occurred, an entirely new consideration would be set up, and it would be perfectly right, if the holder did anything
132
of that sort—setting up a business foreign to his occupation—that the terms and the rent under which he had the holding should be brought again under review. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 7, line 16, at the end, to insert the words, Provided that, if the landholder makes use of the holding for subsidiary or auxiliary occupations not agreed upon at the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord may apply to the Land Court for a readjustment of the rent of the holding, and the Land Court shall, in considering such readjustment of rent, take into account the use to which the holding is put.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,)said he was sorry the Government could not accept the Amendment. The theory of the Crofters Act was as follows: In the first place, the small holder, as a condition of his tenancy, must not injure the holding. The landlord was entitled by law to require that the holding should be kept in fair cultivation, and under the Act of 1886 a forfeiture arose in two cases—First, where there was dilapidation of buildings, against which the landlord was entitled to protect himself; and, secondly, where there was deterioration of the holding to which he himself called attention. For the past twenty years that had acted in the best of ways. Seldom—he did not think ever—had this clause been called in question. The effect of cultivation under conditions of fixity of tenure and fair rent had been that the holdings had been let, they had been kept in a fair state of cultivation, the buildings had not dilapidated, and cases of forfeiture had not arisen. The proposal of the Amendment was that if a new holder was set up the landlord was to be entitled at the next fixing of the rent to take into account any subsidiary or auxiliary occupation in which the holder had engaged, although it had not injured the holding, the cultivation having gone on as before, and although it had not caused dilapidation of buildings. Perhaps the small holder might open a little shop in a part of his cottage, doing no harm to the

133
holding, and perhaps rather improving the cottage than otherwise. On a readjustment of rents, it was proposed by the Amendment that the landlord should be entitled to say that his tenant at the start was not a grocer and that he was entitled to have a larger rent in respect of that. He did not think that would be fair between the parties. Or suppose the small holder had children, and that one of his girls was fond of flowers, was perhaps connected with a University and of a scientific turn, and suppose he put up a small greenhouse in which she might sell flowers, would it be said, in such a case, that that was a subsidiary occupation? Or suppose a holder, finding that his neighbours had to go several miles to get their horses shod, put up a shed where his son, who had served his apprenticeship as a smith, could shoe horses, would that be a subsidiary occupation? Would his hon. friend really say that the Land Court should take such cases into account as a means of giving the landlord more rent? [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] The case they would all have in their minds was that in which recently a Post Office was started by a small holder for the convenience of the neighbourhood. It was found that the Post Office was a source of revenue to the small holder. Was it also to be made a source of revenue to the landlord? Such cases would arise under the Amendment, but he was sure the hon. Member who moved it could not have it in his mind that the landlord was to obtain the benefit of that which did no harm to the holding and left the cultivation practically as before.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that under the Act of 1886 the penalty for dilapidation of buildings or deterioration of holding was forfeiture, and in Clause 9 there was a definition of the kind of auxiliary pursuits which might be carried on if the landlords found them reasonable. But what would be the result if the landlord found them unreasonable?
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that the clause applied to the specific case of a new holding. The right hon. Gentleman knew that there were provisions in the
134
Bill with regard to the carrying out of new holdings, and the clause particularly applied to the case of a new holding in which it was quite manifest that the man had got the land for some purpose altogether other than that of cultivation, in which case the Land Court could put its veto upon the transaction. But the cases which were covered by the Amendment might include some small addition to the occupation which would not interfere with the cultivation, nor dilapidate the buildings or deteriorate the holding.
MR. WYNDHAMasked whether he was correct in understanding that a holding, not carved out for the first time, came under the provisions of the Bill, and that a man could do anything else on that land provided it did not dilapidate the buildings or deteriorite it as an agricultural holding. If a man had sufficient effort and thought to run it as a small holding at the same time that he conducted some other business, was he enabled to do that?
MR. THOMAS SHAW: Precisely. He did not mean that the man had to go to the Land Court for sanction, but if he did come before the Land Court, and the Land Court found the additional occupation not to be reasonable, they would disallow it, and the man would incur forfeiture under the Statute.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He felt he could not support the Amendment, for if he did so he would be going against the spirit of the observations he had made a few minutes ago. For his own part he believed that the less element of change they had, once they gave fixity of tenure, the better it would be.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he agreed almost entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman had said; at the same time he thought the Lord Advocate had misunderstood a great deal of the purport of the Amendment. He had shown his skill in setting up a man of straw, only to proceed to lay him in

135
fragments on the floor. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the object of the Amendment was to enable the landlords, at the period for re-adjusting the rent, to come to the Land Court and ask that more rent should be given in respect of a subsidiary pursuit which the holder might follow. If the right hon. Gentleman read the Amendment, he would see that it applied in the first place to holdings in connection with which there was an agreement. His hon. friend had mentioned, as an illustration, fish-curing. If a landlord had said that he could not let the man have the holding for fish-curing or anything of that kind, all the Amendment provided was that if a man wilfully broke the agreement with the landlord into which he had entered not to start such a business, then that should be a ground for the landlord going to the Land Court, saying the bargain had been broken, and asking for a readjustment of rent at once. Under the clause, he could have a readjustment of rent at the normal period, at the end of seven years, but it might happen that an agreement was broken just at the beginning of the seven years, and for six years the landlord would have to go on without getting a readjustment of rent, whereas if this Amendment were adopted, he would be enabled to get a readjustment immediately. If he appeared before the Land Court unfairly, he would have to pay the expenses; that was the protection against an unfair appeal. He thought the reply of the right hon. Gentleman did not cover all the points raised by the Amendment, and he hoped the Government would reconsider it.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE,)said it was quite obvious that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not read the Amendment. To follow a subsidiary pursuit forbidden by agreement would be a breach of contract, but the Amendment did not apply merely to forbidden occupations, as the mover and seconder knew perfectly well. They would go to the Land Court to consider whether it was reasonable. If the man obeyed the order of the Land Court which said that the
136
occupation was unreasonable then the occupation ceased. The Amendment related exclusively to a subsidiary occupation.
SIR P. BANBURYsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in his definition, but that was not what was in his mind when he moved the Amendment. Having got his small holding and misrepresented himself in regard to his occupation, it seemed only fair that if the tenant started an industry the landlord should have an opportunity of going into the Court, because that industry ought to be subjected to an increased rent. There was nothing compulsory in the proposal. The Secretary for Scotland had told them over and over again that nothing could be better than the commonsense of the Commissioners in these matters, but in this case they desired to leave it to the commonsense of the landlord. He hoped the House would look at the question in a practical business-like way. In order to show their confidence in the Land Court he hoped his hon. friends would proceed to a division.
MR. J. D. WHITE (Dumbartonshire)said that if they accepted this Amendment they would be going on the principle that if a small holder were to erect a hot-house or a smithy which had not been anticipated his rent would be raised in consequence. It was a fundamental principle of the Crofters Act which this Bill extended that the crofter's rent was not to be raised against him in consequence of his improvements, and in fixing his rent nothing that his predecessors had done was to be taken into account. The Amendment would be cutting at the very root of that principle.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid that nobody desired to prevent a man putting up such a thing as a smithy. In any case the landlord would have to apply to the Land Court. When they proposed to put a little trust in the Land Court they were told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they could not be trusted at all.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 240. (Division List No. 385.)

AYES.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Balcarres, Lord

Du Cros, Harvey

Moore, William

Baldwin, Alfred

Faber, George Denison (York)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond)

Fell, Arthur

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Fletcher, J. S.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Starkey, John R.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Valentia, Viscount

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Lowe, Sir Fran is William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir. Frederick Banbury and Mr. Abel Smith

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Craik, Sir Henry

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

Gulland, John W.

Alden, Percy

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

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cory, Clifford John

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Cox, Harold

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Astbury, John Meir

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Crooks, William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crosfield, A. H.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Curran, Peter Francis

Hedges, A. Paget

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Helme, Norval Watson

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Barnes, G. N.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Henry, Charles S.

Beale, W. P.

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Beauchamp, E.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Beck, A. Cecil

Duckworth, James

Hodge, John

Bell, Richard

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Holland, Sir William Henry

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

Dunne, Major Martin (Walsall)

Holt, Richard Durning

Berridge, T. H. D.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Horniman, Emslie John

Bethell T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Elibank, Master of

Hudson, Walter

Black, Arthur W.

Erskine, David C.

Idris, T. H. W.

Bowerman, C. W.

Essex, R. W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Brace, William

Esslemont, George Birnie

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Bramsdon, T. A.

Everett, R. Lacey

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Branch, James

Fenwick, Charles

Jenkins, J.

Brigg, John

Ffrench, Peter

Johnson John (Gateshead)

Bright, J. A.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

Findlay, Alexander

Jones, Sir D. (Brynmor Swansea)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fuller, John Michael F.

Jowett, F. W.

Byles, William Pollard

Fullerton, Hugh

Kearley, Hudson E

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gill, A. H.

Kekewich, Sir George

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Kelley, George D.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Glover, Thomas

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Laidlaw, Robert

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gooch, George Peabody

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Clough, William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lamont, Norman

Clynes, J. R.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Lardner, James Carrigo Rushe

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Levy, Sir Maurice

Lewis, John Herbert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Sutherland, J. E.

Lough, Thomas

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkBg'hs)

Radford, G. H.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somers't, E.

Macpherson, J. T.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Tillett, Louis John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Ure, Alexander

M'Callum, John M.

Rees, J. D.

Verney, F. W.

M'Crae, George

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

Vivian, Henry

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Richardson, A.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

Ridsdale, E. A.

Walters, John Tudor

M'Micking, Major G.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Maddison, Frederick

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Mallet, Charles E.

Robinson, S.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Waring, Walter

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Rose, Charles Day

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Rowlands, J.

Waterlow, D. S.

Marnham, F. J.

Runciman, Walter

Watt, Henry A.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Russell, T. W.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Samuel, Herbert F. (Cleveland)

Weir, James Galloway

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

White, George (Norfolk)

Montagu, E. S.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Mooney, J. J.

Sears, J. E.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Morrell, Philip

Seddon, J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Shackleton, David James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

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

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Murray, James

Sherwell, Arthur James

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Myer, Horatio

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Napier, T. B.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Nicholls, George

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Nolan, Joseph

Snowden, P.

Yoxall, James Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stanger, H. Y.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

O'Grady, J.

Steadman, W. C.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Partington, Oswald

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

SIR HENRY CRAIK SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities) moved the insertion of words to empower the Agricultural Commissioners to provide assistance "by way of loans either to the landlord or the landholder, and in the case of loan to the landlord the Commissioners shall be satisfied that the conditions of tenancy are reasonable as to the amount of rent and the estate regulations, and that they provide for a period of occupancy sufficient to give reasonable security of tenure." It seemed to him that the Government would be very unwise if they did not, in attempting to get the co-operation of the landlords in the formation of small holdings, give them the advantage of powers similar to those which had been given in other land improvement Acts, and especially the Drainage Act. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that if loans could be given in the way proposed, the cordial co-operation of the landlords was much more likely to be
140
obtained. He thought it was only fair that the advantages in the way of loans which were to be given to the small holders should be open to the landlord also. It would be in the interest of the Bill itself, and in accordance with precedent. The strict conditions laid down in the Amendment with regard to the terms on which the advances were to be made were reasonable, wise, and expedient. The landlords in many cases were only too anxious to extend small holdings, but they were unable to do so because they had not the necessary capital. He begged to move.
MR. LANE-FOX,in seconding the Amendment, said that if small holdings were to be established on an absolutely economic basis the method proposed by his hon. friend was the easiest and most satisfactory. It was perfectly clear that the man who was in the best position to establish small holdings was the landlord. The main reason why small

141
holdings had not been more largely established was that the landlords had not the money, their estates being in many cases heavily mortgaged. He did not support the Amendment because it would throw an additional burden on the national Exchequer, but because he believed that the method proposed was the best way to secure the establishment of small holdings.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 7, line 29, after the word 'prescribe,' to insert the words' such assistance shall be provided by way of loans either to the landlord or to the landholder, and in the ease of loan to the landlord the Commissioners shall be satisfied that the conditions of tenancy are reasonable as to the amount of rent and the estate regulations and that they provide for a period of occupancy sufficient to give reasonable security of tenure.'"—(Sir Henry Craik.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. SINCLAIRsaid that the last three lines of the Amendment dealt with considerations which were already provided for in the Bill, and therefore the words were superfluous. In regard to the proposal that the Agricultural Commissioners should be empowered to give loans to landlords the criticism he had to make was that there was already discretion given to the Commissioners to make loans for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Bill. There was no specific provision for loans to landlords because loans to them did not appear to be necessary to carry out the provisions of the subclause now under consideration. The clause empowered the Agricultural Commissioners to provide assistance "for the purpose of dividing, fencing, or otherwise preparing or adapting the land, making occupation roads, or executing other works, such as works for the provision of drainage or water supply." All those works would be carried out by gift or loan as the Agricultural Commissioners might consider necessary. The "dwelling houses or other buildings" to be erected by the landholders were not to be provided by gift under any circumstances. For that purpose the landholder received a loan and came under an obligation to
142
pay it off. Therefore the first part of the Amendment contradicted the provisioin in the clause to which he had referred. It was competent for the Agricultural Commissioners to give loans to landlords, but they were not bound to do so. It had been recognised that the difficulty in the creation of small holdings had been the finding of money for the equipment of the land and the erection of buildings. The Bill proceeded on the plan which had been in operation in the congested districts in Scotland for the last ten years. That plan was that where suitable land was found and was to be applied for the purposes of small holdings it was equipped at the public expense in so far as fencing and the other purposes enumerated in the sub-clause were concerned. The justification for that was to be found in two considerations, namely, that it was not fair to lay upon the landlord, as the owner of the laud, the obligation of going to that expense, and that the work was to be carried out in the public interest. Possibly the landlord could not afford the expense. When in the public interest slum dwellings were pulled down in towns and new buildings erected money was frequently dropped by the transaction. While it was not right to lay this obligation on the land lord, it was on the other hand not possible or practicable to lay it on the tenant, because, if that were done, the gross rent which he would have to pay for the small holding would not be an economic rent. The loan to be granted was to facilitate the erection of dwelling houses and buildings. They had had experience of that for the past ten years. The Congested Districts Board had provided money for specific purposes to enable the land to be best used in the public interest while in occupation of the several tenants. That procedure was to be followed by the Agricultural Commissioners under this Bill. The money was not a gift either to the landlord or the tenant; it was money to be expended alike for the benefit of the landlord, the tenant, and the public. It really was a gift to the land. The Government did not wish to tie down the Agricultural Commissioners to carry out the work of providing loans in any particular way. The Government had provided sufficiently for the money

143
to be given by gift and loan, and the Commissioners, as trustees for the public, had the duty of seeing that those proceedings were carried out as efficiently and economically as possible. He could not accept the Amendment.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the complaint could not be made that the right hon. Gentleman had been too brief in his statement. Whether he had succeeded in making his position clear-to the House he left it to those who had listened to him to say. He confessed that he had not the faintest idea why the right hon. Gentleman had declined to accept one portion of the Amendment or why it was believed to conflict with the proposals in the Bill. The proposals in the Bill were quite simple. They were that the State should lend money for the creation of small holdings, and also for the provision of free gifts. At present they were entirely confined under the Amendment to the question of loans, and his hon. friend the Member for Barkston Ash had made it perfectly clear what were the grounds on which that Amendment had been moved. His argument was that the loans could be granted with greater advantage to the landowner than to the landholder. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was superfluous, and that it conflicted with the rest of the sub section. He did not see that. The sub-clause provided that loans were to be made for specific purposes to land holders, and his hon. friend wished by his Amendment some reference to be made to the landlord. The Secretary for Scotland said that there was power given to the Agricultural Commissioners to exercise discretion, and the Government did not want to tie their hands. The Government might not mean to tie their hands, but he contended they were doing so. Although it might be the case that the landowner could do the work more efficiently and economically than the landholder, no power was given in the sub-section by which the Agricultural Commissioners would be entitled to employ the landlord as an agent to do their work. He shared the view that the landowner would in many cases be able to do the work more efficiently and economically than the landholder, but
144
he had some natural apprehension of money being lent to the landlord to improve his own property, not because he was afraid of the way in which the money would be expended, but because the proposition was, to his mind, an unsound one, and the powers contained in the Bill might lead to the development of such a policy as might be adopted as the foundation for exercising greater control over the owner of the land in the administration of his estate. On that ground he did not think he would be able to vote for the Amendment, and he hoped that his hon. friend would be willing after the discussion that had taken place to withdraw it.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he had always opposed the principle of loans being granted for the purposes contemplated, and in Committee he had pointed out the danger of embarking on this policy except for well defined specific purposes, such as to provide for experiments being made and object lessons being given to small holders. He had never agreed to lending money by the State promiscuously for the development of the land, nor to the State running the risk of taking upon itself the liabilities of landowners. This was the first step on a very long journey, and he could only express the greatest distrust of the whole policy involved in the granting of these loans. They were turning their backs upon the principle of economic success and starting on the basis of inevitable loss in the creation of small holdings. The right hon. Gentleman argued from the work of the Congested Districts Board as a precedent, but that was absolutely valueless in regard to the work they had now to consider. If they were to grant loans he would be inclined to do so on the best possible security so that no risk to the public Exchequer should be involved. The best possible way to secure that was by advancing money to the landlord who gave security to the State. Sometimes it was safe to advance money to the tenants, but more often it was safer to advance the money to the landlords. There was no reason why money should not be obtained to compensate a tenant quitting a holding without any loss to the State through the

145
landowners giving security. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not tying the hands of the Commissioners, but he was tying their hands in this very respect, because they could not give a loan to a landowner, and in nine cases out of ten they would not be able to give the loan without risk to the State. The whole scheme at present was based upon loss to the State, and, although he had always been opposed to giving State money to landowners, still he thought in this case it was the choice of the lesser evil, because if it was not justifiable to give loans to landowners for the equipment of the land it was still less justifiable to lend money under the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. As he had already argued, they could not take the congested districts as forming any precedent in regard to the difficulties which would fall upon this Commission, because their difficulties would be novel and of an exactly opposite character.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the Amendment he had moved might be right or wrong, but at all events it raised a clear issue and deserved a distinct answer. At the end of the long and rambling speech made in reply to it he was utterly confused as to the intention which was expressed in the Bill. It only obscured the argument which he put forward rightly or wrongly. The right hon. Gentleman said that the concluding words of the Amendment were unnecessary because the Bill already provided reasonable security of tenure for all tenants. He was not endeavouring to provide reasonable security for all tenants; he was seeking to provide that if they gave landlords assistance they should see that they treated their tenants properly. There were two kinds of assistance, that given by loan and that by gift, and he thought it should be open to them to give assistance to the landlords by loan as well as help the tenants by way of gift. If they were going to give assistance why not; give it to both of them?
MR. YOUNGERdoubted the policy of making advances to land lords in Scotland from State funds for the purposes specified in his hon. friend's
146
Amendment, but that proposition was really quite a useless one so long as compensation for failure was restricted to the cases of holdings formed under compulsion. No landlord was likely voluntarily to incur expenditure in the formation of such holdings so long as that provision stood, and he therefore would vote against the Amendment as he did not consider it of any practical use.
MR. J. F. MASONsaid it was admitted that the small holdings to be constituted under the Bill would not be economic holdings, and that if the cost of fences, roads, etc., was thrown upon the tenants it would be beyond his means. The point was that the money spent on small holdings would be spent at the public expense. It would be public money spent for a public purpose, viz., that of keeping the people on the land. The question of extending the policy to giving loans to Scottish landowners out of English money was, he thought, a doubtful one.
MR. WYNDHAMwas understood to say that he gathered from the remarks of the Secretary for Scotland that unless some Amendment of this kind was introduced the landlords would be bound by these transactions. The Bill, however, recognised that a sum of money was going to be invested under a system that would produce a less amount than that which was given. The Government could proceed by either of the alternatives of gift or loan, but if they adopted the system of gift they might be asking a man to pay a higher rent in consequence of that gift of money quite apart from the economic value of the land. As to the system of loan he thought that this plan of buying the landlord out was a worse plan that that of keeping him there in order that he might make those improvements which were necessary and economical, because the loan involved repayment during a period of years, and therefore a charge was put upon the tenant side by side with the rent. That kind of thing had happened in Ireland where they had created new holdings and placed upon them new buildings and done the work of fencing and road making de novo. On the one hand they had the payment of the rent,

147
and on the other they had another set of circumstances under which the man was paying for his buildings, his roads, and the fencing of his farm. In Ireland they endeavoured to get out of the difficulty by pooling the two operations and having only one annual repayment. Under this Bill they bad no such opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman bowed the landlord out and subjected the man who was to conduct this experiment to a really more onerous obligation. He had to pay a fair rent fixed upon the agricultural value of the holding and to repay the sums which he had borrowed for the purposes of putting up his house and otherwise equipping the holding. If these transactions were to succeed over a large area of Scotland it would be found impossible to spread the repayment of the loans for the equipment over a long period. One final argument against this practice of buying the landlord out was that he would have to be brought in again under the guise of the State. They would have to arm the State with every power a landlord had over held. They would have to alter the size and shape of the holdings they had bought and strike new bargains, and yet under this Bill the value of the holdings had to be settled by one body and the method of the repayment of the loan by another. An experiment conducted on these lines could only fail.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. WALTER LONG,on behalf of Mr. COCHRANE, moved to add the following proviso to the clause—"Provided that when the Agricultural Commissioners are of opinion that, with a view to or as incidental to the registration of a new holder or holders, assistance should be provided by way of gift, such assistance shall be provided by the Agricultural Commissioners otherwise than by a grant of money to such new holder or holders; and provided, further, that a new holder to whom such assistance is provided shall not be entitled, on renunciation of his tenancy or removal from his holding, to compensation in respect of such assistance. He said that the Amendment raised a question of very great importance which had only been touched
148
upon in the previous discussion. It dealt with the proposal of the Government to grant a certain amount of money to new holders in the form of gifts. He found it very difficult to understand the Government's view in the matter. They had decided, however, that the money grants must take the form of gifts, and what the Amendment desired to urge was that if there was to be a gift it should be not in the form of money, but in money's worth. That had been found by owners of property in this country to be the only sound way to deal with a matter of this kind. It sometimes happened that owing to bad seasons and pressure of circumstances it was necessary for an owner to help his tenant over a time of difficulty by a grant; but where that was done it was invariably found wisest to arrange with the tenant in such a way that he got the value, but not the cash in hand. That was not because the man was dishonest, but, first, because the temptation to make other use of the money than that for which it was intended, and, secondly, because the landholder was not always the best judge of the best way in which the money should be spent upon the holding. It must be remembered that the men to whom these gifts were to be made were not strong men with experience of their own to go back upon. One of the difficulties under which they would labour would be that in all the work they did involving financial bargains they would deal in a small way, and without the assistance of co-operative societies they would never obtain the advantages obtained by the bigger men who were able to buy in larger quantities and deal generally in a bigger way. The second part of the Amendment was designed to clear up a difficulty which arose during the debates in Committee, and upon which the Government had not been able to express an opinion. The words were—
"And provided, further, that a new holder to whom such assistance is provided shall not be entitled, on renunciation of his tenancy or removal from his holding, to compensation in respect of such assistance."
That was a proposition so obvious that it only had to be stated to meet with the general acceptance of the House. He

149
begged the Government to consider the first part of the Amendment. This was an experiment being made in Scotland for the first time in this extended manner. It had been made in Ireland with regard to the evicted tenants, and the results in many cases where money had been found for restoring those tenants had not been so satisfactory as one would like to see, and the precedents on which the Government had to rely were not-such, as to justify them in spending the public money in this way. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the B 11—
"In page 7, line 29, after the word 'prescribed' to insert the words provided that when the Agricultural Commissioners are of opinion that, with a view to or as incidental to the registration of a new holder or holders, assistance should be provided by way of gift, such assistance shall be provided by the Agricultural Commissioners otherwise than by a grant of money to such new holder or holders; and provided further that a new holder to whom such assistance is provided shall not be entitled, on renunciation of his tenancy or removal from his holding, to compensation in respect of such assistance.'"—(Mr. Long.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. J. D. WHITEsaid that in considering the particular working of this Bill they ought to assume that in the majority of cases the Agricultural Commissioners would be reasonable men, and on that assumption he thought this matter might be fairly left to their discretion. The amount of money placed at their disposal was extremely limited, and the cases would be very few in which they would give a sum of money. They would most certainly prefer to spend it on the equipment of the holdings. In no case, however, should they lay down a hard and fast rule, because he could conceive exceptional cases where a money advance would be of more value than if that money was spent upon equipment. He was not impressed with the arguments against making these gifts, and the Government bad no idea of imitating at any rate that policy of doles which was such a characteristic feature of the late Government. If anything was to be given, whether in money or money's
150
worth, the idea was not to give it to a few favoured individuals. It was to be given to these men because a certain margin must be allowed for experiment. But the fundamental idea was that it should be a loan.
MR. YOUNGERsaid he did not know that it was necessary that the Bill should contain the last portion of the Amendment, because a gift was a gift, and no man on leaving his holding could expect compensation for a gift But there was no doubt a great deal of force in the first part of the Amendment. It was a reasonable proposal, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept it.
MR. SINCLAIRsaid it was absolutely foreign to their purpose or intention to give money where money was not wanted, or to do anything which would check the best energies and efforts of the small holders. They had in this provision followed the Act of 1897, establishing Congested Districts Commissioners, in which there was no limitation of the Commissioners' discretion in the sense suggested by the Amendment. They had exercised a wise discretion in carrying out the functions entrusted to their charge, and he thought there was some ground for adhering to the former practise in this respect. What he had said applied to the earlier part of the Amendment. In regard to the second portion, it was of course the case that no compensation was permitted in respect of subsidies. The words of the Crofters Act were perfectly definite, and they had never led to any confusion or mistake. The tenant was only entitled to compensation for improvements carried out by himself. He was advised that the words of the Amendment were really not necessary. He would ask the House to leave to the Agricultural Commissioners the discretion which they or their predecessors had hitherto possessed, and which had been exercised by them entirely in the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and so far without any detriment to the public.
MR. STARKEYsaid a great amount of care should be exercised in safeguarding

151
the position in regard to how the money advanced was expended. The gifts were intended for the purposes of fencing, draining, and other matters under the Bill. If the landholder had a gift of money made to him and he spent a portion of it on draining, how was it possible afterwards to apportion that and see how much had been spent in other directions? The Secretary for Scotland had spoken just now of these presents of money as being gifts to the land; but if they put golden sovereigns into the land somebody would pick them up. Who was to be that somebody? That was what he would like to know. If the golden sovereigns were so put into the land it must follow that either the next landlord or the next landholder would be called upon, unwillingly upon the part of the Government perhaps, to pay for some of the improvements that had been made with the money advanced as a gift. It seemed to him an altogether unworkable proposition. If the money was given it ought to be given for a specific object; it ought to be clearly laid down for what object the money was given, and a record should be kept, so that when the tenant left at the end of his term there might be no doubt or difficulty as to what had been spent and how the gifts had been apportioned out.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid that it was true that the Commissioners might give money to the landholder, but under the Bill there was absolutely no guarantee that the money would be applied to the purpose for which it was given; and he would defy all their Land Courts and all their agricultural Commissioners to utilise their power and authority in order to insist that the money, if it once reached the hands of the landholder, should be used in the manner that that House wished or supposed that it would be used. He was surprised that the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment, which was reasonable, and gave the Commissioners power to equip the land; and after all, what was the money given for if it was not for the purpose of equipping the land and turning it into a successful small holding? He maintained that any offer of money without any guarantee how it
152
was to be expended was economically unsound, and if they were to speak of doles, as did the hon. Member opposite just now, this was the worst form of dole that could possibly be conceived.
MR. BEALEsaid that he was one of those who looked with very great suspicion upon a proposal to provide money for this purpose by way of gift at all. The reflection which always occurred to him was that when they lent money to persons who had not the wherewithal to provide for their necessities, they were not likely to be very flush for some time to come, and in the circumstances the gift and the loan became very nearly identical. He thought that in many of these cases it was better to call the money advanced a gift at once rather than to trust to any charge on a man's future prosperity for getting repayment. If it was to be a gift, he did not share the apprehension that the Commissioners would be so foolish as to put the cash into the hands of a man without providing all necessary safeguards. It would be absolutely impracticable for the Commissioners to stand by to see how every sovereign was spent. They must make the tenant, whom they believed to be a responsible man, to some extent the person who was to look after the expenditure of their money. He was very much inclined to agree with the observation of the right hon. Gentleman that the tenant who was removed from his tenancy should not pay the claim of the landlord for compensation for the equipment that had been put in for him. The sole question was whether it was a gift to the tenant or to the land lord. It took the form of an improvement of the holding, by which the landlord's rent would in future be measured; and therefore if they said that the landlord was not to pay compensation for it, they undoubtedly made him a present of it. If they said that the tenant might claim it, they were simply abrogating the gift from the landlord. Of the two, he thought that the more consistent course to adopt was that of letting the equipment be on the same footing as any other equipment so that the landlord would have to pay compensation for it, and then it

153
would be part of his holding of which he himself would get the benefit in dealing with the new tenant.
MR. ABEL SMITHsaid he noticed that the Secretary for Scotland, in replying to his right hon. friend, had cited the procedure under the Congested Districts Acts in Ireland, and had said that as far as he was concerned there was no reason why the system should not be extended to the operations of this Bill when it became an Act of Parliament. But the circumstances of the West of Ireland and of the Western Highlands were such as to make gifts of money suitable. The people in those districts were not on a sound economic basis, and that was the sole reason why Parliament assented to make gifts in those cases. But how different were the conditions which prevailed in the Low lands of Scotland where this Bill was to come into operation. If the Bill was to be put into operation in the way proposed it would be a failure from the first. Its object was to encourage the farming of small holdings in the Lowlands of Scotland, which were not under the Crofters Act, so that a large number of people might be able to make a living on the land and that the population of the rural districts might be increased. He submitted in the first place that these gifts were altogether inappropriate to conditions such as those which obtained in the Lowlands, and if any advances were to be made they ought to be by way of loan either to the landowner or to the landholder, and the person who got the benefit of the loan ought to enter into a contract to repay it in a certain period. That was the only businesslike footing on which a matter such as this could be placed. Every single matter they were discussing under this long clause arose from the complicated arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman had gone out of his way to make. He would take the case of a man who was the legal owner of land upon which they desired to create a small holding. It was quite obvious that the equipment of that small holding would cost a lot of money. The holder might be perfectly willing to equip it if he had the necessary capital, and they desired that
154
the Commissioners should be allowed to step in and provide the money. As they refused to make the loan to the owner, the next most sensible course was to buy the owner out either through the local authority or through some central authority; then the Commissioner could spend what public money had been placed in their hands for this purpose in equipping the holdings, and none of these complications and muddles would arise. If the Bill remained in its present form complications were bound to arise. Another way was to make the advance to the man they were going to place in occupation of the holding. That would be a sensible thing to do if the small holder could give the necessary security. Under this Bill they were giving fixity of tenure and the holders would be able to pass on their holdings to their successors. The system proposed was sure to lead to a great deal of confusion and litigation. Supposing this money was spent upon improving the condition of the land: the increased value derived from the expenditure of that money must belong to some one. It very often happened that in improving land the money spent by the present holder and his predecessors was worth more than the fee simple of the land itself. There would be the real practical value which had arisen from the money advanced by the State, and no one would know to whom it belonged. This proposal was only on a par with a great many other provisions in the Bill which must lead to endless confusion.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he could not understand the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. An hour ago he refused to accept an Amendment on the ground that the Land Court could not be trusted to do certain things. Either the Government must be of opinion that the Commissioners did not need any direction at all or else they must put proper directions in the Bill. It was necessary that in a new Act like this some guidance should be given to the Commissioners. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire had said that money might be given by way, of gift to persons who were not flush of it. The object of the Amendment of his hon. friend was to

155
provide for that. If they gave money to people who were not flush what was likely to occur? The money would not return interest immediately, because in these cases that meant a lot of hard work first. He wished to point out that if they put £50 into the pocket of a man who had not had any money for a long time he might possibly spend it, not in a whiskey factory, but in whiskey pure and simple. It would be much safer to make the gift in stock. The Secretary for Scotland had said that the Government were not going to make gifts where money was not required. He would remind the Lord Advocate that he could not act for the Commissioners, and unless they inserted this Amendment the matter would be entirely in their hands. Surely Scotland was part of England, where money was required more than in any other part, and once they gave money to a Scotsman they knew how difficult it was to get it back again.
MR. YOUNGERasked if the hon. Baronet was entitled to state that Scotland was part of England.
SIR F. BANBURYapologised for the mistake, and said he meant Great Britain. Instead of gifts of money what was wanted was stock and implements which were necessary for the cultivation of the soil. It was not the money they required; they could not dig with a sovereign. They had been told that the second part of the Amendment was unnecessary because the intention of the words suggested was covered by the Crofters Act, and would be carried out. If that were so, why should not the words be inserted? If the Amendment was not inserted the Commissioners might be led into an error because they might not know that the Crofters Act applied. He thought he had shown that there were very good reasons for accepting the Amendment.
MR. COCHRANEsaid he quite agreed that if they set up these small holdings they must provide the equipment. But they must take care that the equipment was provided. The Bill provided that assistance might be provided by way of
156
gift; was the gift to be made to the landlord or to the tenant? The Secretary for Scotland had said that money was only to be given where it was wanted. Who was going to decide at what point of solvency a small holder was in need of money? If he was insolvent, he would be a very unsuitable person to put into a holding at all. If the Commissioners were to decide, at what stage of solvency would they consider the small holder was a proper person to receive a gift of money? To give gifts of money was an easy way to please one's friends, but he held that more damage was done, more individuality ruined, and more self-effort prevented by making gifts of money than in any other way. Besides, a gift of money was not required in the present case. If the right hon. Gentleman would consult those engaged in the administration of the Congested Districts Board, he would find that a great deal of harm was done by indiscriminate gifts of money. A gift of money was not necessary under this Bill, because the Commissioners could give a man a loan to build houses, and they had power to make a gift of the necessary equipment in the way of fencing, draining, and otherwise. He asked the Secretary for Scotland to define the person to whom a gift was to be made. The gift must be to somebody. Was it to be to the landlord or the small holder? If it was to be to the landlord, let him say so. If it was to be to the tenant, was he to be entitled to borrow on the security of the improvements made by the expenditure of the money in the expectation that he would receive compensation at the end of his tenure? He thought that was a fair question.
MR. SINCLAIR: It does not arise here.
MR. COCHRANEsaid it arose very distinctly. If the gift was to be to the tenant to make improvements, was he at the end of the lease to be entitled to compensation from the landlord for the improvements made? It was obvious that, if improvements were made with money given as a gift to the tenant and if no compensation was to be paid at the end of the lease, it was a gift to the landlord to whom the land belonged.

157
This was a point that should be cleared up. There was no need for concealment of any kind. If the landlord was to compensate the tenant for the improvements, then what was proposed in the clause was a way of extracting a gift from the landlord. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire said he would not give a gift of money under any circumstances.
MR. BEALEsaid that what he suggested as the most practical way was to expend the money, probably under the supervision of the small holder.
MR. COCHRANEsaid his hon. friend showed his wisdom in making that suggestion. He wanted the small holdings to be properly equipped, and that the money given as a gift should be expended under the supervision of the small holder.
MR. BEALE: You make him paymaster.
MR. COCHRANEsaid he did not see why the small holder should be made
paymaster. No one who had the interests of the tenants at heart could say that the provision in the Bill was a wise one. The right hon. Gentleman in Committee stated that the money was not to be a gift to the tenant, because it was to be laid out in the public interest. If it was to be laid out in the public interest, they should endeavour to have the holdings equipped in a proper manner, and they should call into their councils the landlords who knew something about the question. He hoped that by suitable provision, such as the Agricultural Commissioners would be able to make, the equipment would be proper and suitable to the holding, and that the character of the tenant would be such as to give their scheme some probability of success. He objected entirely to the pauperising effect of a scheme for giving people money out of the public Exchequer.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 41; Noes, 209. (Division List No. 386.)

AYES.

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fletcher, J. S.

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gordon, J.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Helmsley, Viscount

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Bull, Sir William James

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Abel Smith and Mr. Younger.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Clynes, J. R.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Black, Arthur W.

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

Astbury, John Meir

Brace, William

Cory, Clifford John

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cox, Harold

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Branch, James

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brigg, John

Crooks, William

Barnes, G. N.

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

Crosfield, A. H.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Curran, Peter Francis

Beale, W. P.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Beauchamp, E.

Byles, William Pollard

Daviess, Timothy (Fulham)

Beek, A. Cecil

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Bell, Richard

Cheetham, John Frederick

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Invirness-sh.)

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

Clough, William

Duncan C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shackleton, David James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

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

Elibank, Master of

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Erskire, David C.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Essex, R. W.

M'Callum, John M.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Esslemont, George Birrie

M'Crae, George

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Fenwick, Charles

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

Snowden, P.

Ferens, T. R.

Maddison, Frederick

Stanger, H. Y.

Findlay, Alexander

Mallet, Charles E.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Steadman, W. C.

Fullerton, Hugh

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Gill, A. H.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Glover, Thomas

Marnham, F. J.

Sutherland, J. E.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Massie, J.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Gooch, George Peabody

Masterman, C. F. G.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Tillett, Louis John

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Murray, James

Tomkinson, James

Hazleton, Richard

Myer, Horatio

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Hedges, A. Paget

Napier, T. B.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Helme, Norval Watson

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Ure, Alexander

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholls, George

Verney, F. W.

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

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Vivian, Henry

Henry, Charles S.

Nolan, Joseph

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wardle, George J.

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Waring, Walter

Holden, E. Hopkinson

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Horniman, Emslie John

Partington, Oswald

Waterlow, D. S.

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Watt, Henry A.

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Idris, T. H. W.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Weir, James Galloway

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

White, George (Norfolk)

Jardine, Sir J.

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

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Jenkins, J.

Radford, G. H.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Rees, J. D.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

Wills, Arthur Walters

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Richardson, A.

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

Jowett, F. W.

Rickett, J. Compton

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Kekewich, Sir George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Kelley, George D.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford

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

Laidlaw, Robert

Robinson, S.

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

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lamont, Norman

Rowlands, J.

Winfrey, R.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Russell, T. W.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Yoxall, James Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Lough, Thomas

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Lupton, Arnold

Sears, J. E.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Seddon, J.

SIR F. BANBURY SIR F. BANBURY moved an Amendment to the provision that where a tenant's land is taken for new holdings compensation shall be paid for injury "in respect of the land forming part or the whole of his tenancy." The Amendment provided that the clause should read "in respect of the land to be occupied by a new holder, or new holders, or of any farm, including the farm buildings, of which such land forms part or the whole." He said he was always willing to learn, and in the
160
Committee he noticed that this Amendment was down in the name of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, but unfortunately that hon. Gentleman was unable to move it because the Secretary for Scotland had applied the closure. The Amendment seemed so good to him that he had put it down on the Paper in his own name in the hope that it would not be treated in the same way as it had been upstairs. It was an extremely important Amendment, and its object was very clear. Under the Bill as it stood the

161
land in the occupation of a tenant, or a part of it, might be taken from him and divided into small holdings. It might be that it was necessary to dispossess an existing tenant in order to secure a public benefit, but it was an entirely new procedure in the history of the country that anything of the sort should be done unless compensation were given to the existing tenant for any loss that he sustained. Supposing that a tenant had 300 acres of land, and 100 of those acres were taken from him to create small holdings, it was not likely that the worst land would be taken. In all probability it would be the best land, leaving to the existing tenant 200 acres of the worst land. Then the buildings necessary for a 300 acre farm would be too large, and would involve proportionately increased expense for repairs. The Bill provided that compensation should be paid for damage or injury done to any tenant in respect of the land forming part or the whole of his tenancy, but nothing was said as to compensation being paid for damage being done to the farm buildings. He presumed that his Amendment would meet with some sympathy from the Solicitor-General for Scotland. He did not believe himself that it went further than the intention of the Secretary for Scotland, but it made the matter more clear. If that were so, he was sure he would have the support of everyone who desired that the Bill should be a success. He did not think that the Solicitor-General for Scotland believed that the Amendment was in any way intended to injure or kill the Bill.
MR. URE: No.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say "No." His object was to prevent soreness arising between people. The Bill provided that the landlord should be compensated, but not the sitting tenant, and nothing could be worse than that. It was desirable that people who in the future were to live on these small holdings should be friends. Everybody knew that much could be done by them to help each other in the way of lending a horse or an implement for a particular job; but that would not be the case unless there was a friendly feeling
162
between neighbouring farmers. If the sitting tenant found that he was left out of compensation for damage done to his tenancy he would not look with favour on the new holder, but would regard him as an interloper. In his Amendment he had taken a simple and practical view of the question, and he repeated that it would not interfere with the principle of the Bill; and under these circumstances he sincerely hoped that the Solicitor-General would accept the Amendment, or give very clear reasons—and no one was better capable of doing that—for not doing so.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYseconded the Amendment and said he hoped the Government would accept it. They had no means of knowing what the opinion of the Government on this matter was, because the clause was not discussed in Committee. It was one of the many clauses of the Bill that were carried through, without any discussion, by means of the closure. He did not think it would be denied by those who were acquainted with agriculture that if any compensation was to be paid it should be paid to the tenant, because if land was taken away from his farm he had left on his hands buildings which were too large for the remaining acreage. Therefore to take away some of his land and leave him with buildings which were not required without giving the tenant compensation was a great injustice. It might be said that the compensation should be paid to the landlord, but his hon. friend did not take up that view, and neither did he, because it must be remembered that during the time for which his lease ran the tenant kept the farm on and would have to incur the cost of maintaining the buildings. Therefore the injury in the first instance would be done to the tenant and not to the landlord, and the compensation should be given to the tenant. Farm buildings were provided to meet the requirements of the acreage of the farm, and if the acreage of a farm was diminished by carving small holdings out of it, buildings which were practically useless to him would be left on the hands of the tenant. Therefore, if the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment

163
there would be a considerable gap in the scheme of compensation they contemplated. He could hardly believe that the Government could wish to bring into existence this class of small holder under such circumstances that an antagonism would exist between him and his neighbour. His hon. friend had pointed out how necessary it was that farmers in the same neighbourhood should be on friendly terms, and undoubtedly he was correct in what he had stated. There were many cases in which large farmers had to ask their neighbours who were small farmers to help them with their work, and he had known cases in which, a small farmer having sustained the loss of a cow or a horse through accident, a book was sent round and the friends and neighbours put their hands into their pockets to assist the small farmer who had sustained the loss. If the small holder was going to be started under circumstances which left a rankling feeling in the mind of the larger farmer he did not think that it would be to the advantage of the former. If the tenant did not receive the fullest compensation a great injustice would be committed which would certainly not conduce to the success of the Bill.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 7, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'to any tenant in respect of the land forming part or the whole of his tenancy,' and to insert the words 'in respect of the land to be occupied by a new holder, or new holders, or of any farm, including the farm buildings, of which such land forms part or the whole.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'to any tenant in respect of' stand part of the Bill."
MR. UREsaid that although the Government did not propose to accept the Amendment he agreed it was not destructive of the Bill, and they had every desire to give effect to the views put forward by the mover and seconder. It was the desire of the Government that the tenant farmer should have compensation for injury done to him by carving a small holding out of his farm. The terms of the Amendment, however, would confine the Agricultural Commissioners' award
164
to damages for land and buildings. Accordingly the Government had placed on the Paper an Amendment providing that compensation should be paid to the tenant farmer for all injury done to his tenancy by the taking of land. This would give the Commissioners a freer hand.
MR. COURTHOPEthought the Solicitor-General for Scotland had shown some reason which should induce his hon. friend to consider the desirability of pressing this Amendment. At the same time he said he did not quite understand the expression "in respect of the land forming part."
MR. UREsaid that the words "in respect of the land forming part" were well-known words in Scottish law, and the Government proposal would really cover every kind of damage.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid it might be that he was ignorant, but the words "in respect of the land forming part" hardly seemed to him to be English; but according to the right hon. Gentleman it appeared to be Scottish, but if the Amendment of the Government really carried out the meaning of his Amendment he would be willing to accept it. He would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 7, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'of the land forming,' and insert the words 'that the land forms.'"—(Mr. Ure.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON moved the addition of words providing that "when new holdings are constituted otherwise than by agreement, the landlord shall be entitled to receive from the Agricultural Commissioners the rent due in respect of the land so taken in the event of the landholder becoming bankrupt or being otherwise unable to pay such rent." He said that he put this Amendment on the Paper because the point with which it dealt had only been partially covered by the new clause which the Government accepted on the previous day. That

165
new clause safeguarded the landlord where the value of the improvements and the out-growing crop was sufficient compensation for the rent due to him, but it was possible that there might be cases where the value of the improvements and of the out-growing crops was not sufficient to safeguard the landlord, and he thought it would be necessary for the Government to accept these words, or some such form of words, to meet that contingency. He begged to move.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he was glad to second this Amendment. It was only carrying out more completely the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to accept from him on the previous day. In that case the landlord was entitled to set off against the payments he was bound to make under the Bill for improvements the rent due to him, but supposing no rent was due it was obviously unjust and hard that the landlord should lose all right of compensation in case of the landholder becoming bankrupt.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 7, line 36, after the word 'agreed,' to insert the words 'and when new holdings are constituted otherwise than by agreement the landlord shall be entitled to receive from the Agricultural Commissioners the rent due in respect of the land so taken in the event of the landholder or landholders becoming bankrupt or being otherwise unable to pay such rent.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. UREsaid the hon. Member was quite right, the new clause accepted yesterday did not entirely cover the position: there might be cases where the compensation was less than the rent due. But the Government could not accept the Amendment, because it would make the Agricultural Commissioners guarantors of the landlord's rent. Under the Prime Minister's clause the landlord got full compensation in respect that the holding became vacant on account of the bankruptcy of the tenant, but the Government declined to make themselves guarantors for the landlord's rent indefinitely.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be under a misapprehension. There was no question of the Agricultural Commissioners becoming guarantors of rent indefinitely. All the Amendment said was that "in the event of the tenant becoming bankrupt or being otherwise unable to pay such rent." He did not know whether the latter words were those to which the hon. and learned Gentleman objected. If they were he suggested that his hon. friend should leave the Amendment at the word "bankrupt." He maintained that the Amendment would do exactly what Clause 16 would do as interpreted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that it was a better form of words, because under the clause litigation would be necessary, while under the Amendment there could be no litigation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to make the Bill a success it was necessary to diminish as much as possible the chances of litigation. The great difficulty in this case was that there were complications which arose which necessitated a man's either going to the Land Court or consulting a solicitor. He could do nothing for himself and his self-reliance was destroyed. The backbone of Scotsmen in the past had been their self reliance, and that was now being destroyed, because the Bill would not allow them to make their own terms, but insisted on every occasion on sending them to the Land Court or some other tribunal. He hoped that in the interests of simplicity the hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider his decision and accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYpointed out that Clause 16 provided that compensation should be paid by the Agricultural Commissioners to the landlord in respect of any loss arising out of the termination of a tenancy under certain circumstances. But where the loss arose not out of the termination of the tenancy, but out of the bankruptcy of the tenant, it seemed to him to present a very different state of affairs. The clause further said that any damage or injury done to the landlord by the constitution or enlargement of a holding through depreciation of the letting value

167
of the land was to be the subject of compensation. That was known as the Prime Minister's clause, and he submitted that the case contemplated by his hon. friend was not in the least met by it. He did not think that anybody, not even a lawyer, would maintain that the clause would wholly cover all cases where the tenant had gone bankrupt. After all, the Solicitor-General seemed to look upon it as a fearful thing that the Agricultural Commissioners should be called upon to guarantee the financial stability of their own tenant. They foisted the tenant upon the landlord irrespective of whether he wanted him or not, and regardless of whether or not the land was suitable to the purposes of a small holding in the opinion of the landowner; and he submitted, therefore, if the Commissioners in their wisdom were so sure that the tenant would be successful, why should they not give this guarantee as to his financial stability? It seemed to him monstrous to foist on the landlord a tenant who might have nothing behind him, or who might not have sufficient intelligence to farm successfully, and then, if the tenant went bankrupt, to allow the loss to fall entirely on the landlord, who had had nothing to do with the matter. Another reason why the Commissioners should give this guarantee was that, if landlords knew that they were safe, they would be encouraged to be more liberal than they otherwise would be in giving credit during bad seasons. Everyone knew that it was a matter of great utility to the tenant if the landlord gave liberal credit, especially where the crops were bad and where the tenant had difficulty in making both ends meet; and the landlord would be prepared to give this credit if he had some guarantee that he would not be subject to loss if the tenant became bankrupt. Therefore, it would be a very good thing to accept the Amendment, and he thought that if the Government were anxious to carry out the pledge given by the Prime Minister in the spirit in which it was given—which after all, he thought was a good deal more liberal than the words by which it was proposed to carry it out—they could not do otherwise than reconsider the attitude which they had adopted on this subject.
MR. UREsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had stated that he had used the word "indefinitely" when he addressed the House. He would explain what he meant. The tenant was often in arrear with his rent one or two years, but the landlord did not seek to press the technical condition and make the tenancy forfeit. The landlord might, if he chose, continue with the tenant in arrears for an indefinite series of years without pressing him for payment of his rent. Supposing that the landlord did take that course, that the rent went on accumulating from year to year for a period of five, six, or seven years or more, that then the landlord came to the conclusion that he had gone far enough and he then removed the tenant and there was forfeiture, in such circumstances, if this Amendment were carried, the Commissioners would have to pay five, six, seven, or eight years arrears of rent, though practically they had not had any part in allowing the tenant to remain in arrear for so long a period. They had never been consulted about it, though it must have appeared quite obvious to the landlord that the man could never pay his rent. That would be landing the Commissioners into what he called an indefinite obligation. It might be reasonable to say that the Commissioners should pay one year or two years arrears, but that was provided for under Clause 16, on which he would suggest it would be proper to consider an Amendment. But the phrase used in the Amendment would be most inappropriate to be inserted at this part of the Bill, because they were dealing with the injury done to the tenant. In Clause 16 they dealt with eventualities, but in this clause they were dealing exclusively with what happened at the time the new holding was made.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he fully appreciated the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and it was interesting to observe as they went further into these debates not only how closely they got into analogy with Irish land legislation, but with what extraordinary accuracy incident after incident occurred, which showed that in the trail of the unfortunate policy of the

169
Government followed the same difficulties that had been experienced in Ireland. He agreed with the Solicitor-General that they could not in justice call upon the 'Commissioners to pay out of public money large sums for arrears, but he wished to say what a comment that was on the policy of the Government; for they must remember what were the circumstances to which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself had referred. They had the case of a landlord who, believing in his tenant as a man who would struggle through in time, but who might be submerged by the acts of others who were creditors, brought forward his claim for arrears of rent, and so stood between the man and his creditors; he saved the tenant from ruin by coming between him and the ordinary creditors, by thus making his claim for arrears.
MR. URE: The tenant under this Bill cannot borrow.
MR. WALTER LONG: No, the tenant could not borrow, but he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to refer to cases where the landlord had allowed the tenant to get into arrears with his rent, and which arrears would be in existence when the new system was put in force by this Bill; I that was to say, that when this Bill was put into operation the Commissioners would become responsible for what the tenant owed to the landlord.
MR. UREsaid that under this Bill the Land Court was not bound to consider arrears accumulated prior to the Act.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had not quite appreciated the fact that they agreed with him that they could not put on the Commissioners the liability for accumulated arrears; but at the same time the result, undesirable in itself, was the inevitable consequence of the policy of the Government in stepping in between the tenant and his landlord and assuming responsibility which had hitherto belonged to the landlord. He would suggest, at all events, that the Government might impose a limitation of a year or two; he thought it would be a fair
170
compromise if the Commissioners were liable for two years arrears of rent. But what was the second objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman? It was that the Amendment was proposed to be inserted in the wrong part of the Bill. He was very glad that the Solicitor-General had made that objection when they were favoured with the presence of the Prime Minister. He entirely admitted that this was an objection which could be urged against not only the present Amendment but against many others. But what other course could they adopt? The Solicitor-General told them that the proper place for the Amendment was Clause 16. He admitted that in all probability from the artistic point of view, and probably from the business point of view, the Solicitor-General was right. But if the Amendment were not moved now it might not be possible to move it at all, because, under the guillotine, the proper place in the Bill might not be reached. If the Government would accept two years liability, that would be a reasonable compromise. Was it fair to disregard the debt which a generous landlord had allowed an embarrassed tenant to incur? Surely that was not what was ordinarily meant by the word "justice."
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,)said that the Solicitor-General had pointed out that this question ought to be discussed on Clause 16. The right hon. Gentleman replied that Clause 16 might never be reached, and cited him as the sort of arch-fiend in this dispensation. It so happened that Clause 16 was the first clause to be taken at to-morrow's sitting. So that the right hon. Gentleman's instance of the evil effects of the guillotine was not altogether happy. Nor could he carry his complaint very far. Yesterday the House was told that Clause 3 was the most important clause in the whole Bill, and that fearful results would ensue if it were not discussed. Yet the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, with some difficulty, kept up a discussion on comparatively immaterial Amendments to the first clause and so prevented the discussion of Clause 3. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."]
MR. COURTHOPEurged the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it was wise to deprive the landlord of the prerogative of mercy. Everybody who had been connected with the land knew what an enormous number of tenants had been saved from temporary embarrassment by the credit allowed them by the landlord. Not only was direct credit allowed the tenants by the landlord in the matter of arrears of rent, but the local tradesmen—the manure merchants and the seedsmen—would almost invariably allow the tenant credit too. It would be a very great hindrance to the operation of the Bill if that prerogative of mercy were entirely done away with. Some limited guarantee of rent should be given by the Commissioners, and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider this suggestion. When it was said that the Commissioners had no voice in this prerogative of mercy shown by the landlord to the tenant he would like to remind the House that the landlord had no voice in the selection of the tenants, and was not able to make any inquiries about them. He thought this was a matter upon which some compromise might very well be arrived at.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he was in a difficulty as to what he ought to do under the circumstances, because the Solicitor-General had argued this Amendment on its merits and the Prime Minister had suggested that it should come in upon another clause in a different portion of the Bill. He pressed the acceptance of the Amendment upon its merits. If he could be assured that the Amendment would receive some consideration he would be perfectly prepared to move it to-morrow. Upon that understanding he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WALTER LONG MR. WALTER LONG moved to amend the clause by providing for the "compulsory purchase" of such land as the Agricultural Commissioners required for the constitution of new holdings in cases where the landlord refused to negotiate or to come to an agreement. He did not think that he had ever
172
before moved anything containing the words "compulsory purchase." The explanation, however, was quite simple, because in this case it was a choice of evils. The policy of the Government was one of perpetual tenancy and hiring, and he thought that was a mistake. The only way a man could be made to take a real interest in his holding was by making him its actual owner. They had heard a great many speeches, not only on the English but on the Scottish Bill, in which this view had been put forward. The suggestion of the Government was that this should now be done' by security of tenure, to achieve which they were giving some of the conditions of ownership without the responsibilities. He did not believe in that, and there were many people on both sides of the House who did not believe in it. It was because he believed that compulsory purchase was better than compulsory hiring that this extraordinary Amendment appeared in his name. It recognised that there must be some compulsion, and he did not think it could be denied that it was in accordance with the general principle of the Bill. He admitted that the Government were entitled to their own view, and that they might not be able to accept this particular Amendment, but he would suggest that they should introduce some words to meet the point he had raised. The Government said that they were giving security of tenure to the tenant, but he believed they were going further than that. He believed they were shutting the door on purchase in future, and that was the greatest mistake they could possibly make. The House had been told repeatedly that the Government had the experience of the Crofters Act, but he would remind them that in legislation of this kind the experience of one generation was absolutely unreliable. Before real experience of land tenure could be obtained in this country, they must get into the second generation, to the time when land had passed from the first tenant under the Act to his successor. It was well known that in the early days of the Irish land legislation there was every reason to believe that it would be entirely successful, but it developed defects of its own. They knew now that

173
there was in Ireland a system of land purchase which was to cost £120,000,000, besides all the money which had been voted under preceding Acts. Now the Government were going to add to these financial risks in future, because they were making purchase difficult. He believed the only solution of the question was to make men the absolute owners of their holdings for the time being, so that they could devise to whom they thought right as their successors. He believed that was the only system by which to make the land system of this country successful. He did not expect the Government to accept the Amendment, but he hoped they would be willing to say something even at the eleventh hour in regard to the policy of purchase which, as expressed in the Amendment, would vastly improve the prospects of the Bill.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 8, line 6, after the word 'for' to insert the words 'the compulsory purchase of such land or part thereof as is necessary for.'"—(Mr. Walter Long.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. UREsaid the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that more than a quarter of a century had passed since Parliament decreed that every owner of land in this country, when the public interest demanded it, was compelled to part with that portion of his land which perhaps he most desired to keep to a person whom he possibly loathed, subject to conditions laid down by Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly did not expect the Government to accept this Amendment. The Government had, rightly or wrongly, chosen their path. They had, rightly or wrongly, rightly as they thought, deliberately rejected the policy of purchase and adopted the policy of hiring. They believed it was the better. The right hon. Gentleman had said they had no precedent for compulsory hiring. He thought there was in a region of which I the right hon. Gentleman had not thought—the region of patents and invention. If a patentee chose to refuse to give a licence for the use of his patent, he could be compelled to give a licence—that was
174
to say, to hire out his patent, He could be compelled not only to hire, but to hire on terms which were fixed for him by an outside authority. The Government believed their Bill would effect an economic and social revolution in Scotland, and whenever they had a great social revolution the less change they made in the habits and customs of the people, and in the existing system, the better security they would have for stability of tenure and the safety of the change. The Government had also had in view the amount of money required. Everybody knew that purchase required three times the amount of money that was required for hiring. Having all these considerations in view, and having before them the example of the Crofters Act, which they believed to be an unqualified success, they felt assured that the course they had chosen was the safe course, and the one best calculated to promote agricultural prosperity in Scotland.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had listened with interest, as he always did, to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but also with some surprise to the reason which he had given why the Government had adopted a system of compulsory hiring instead of compulsory purchase, and why they regarded it as a Conservative measure. It embodied a smaller change, said the learned Gentleman, in the existing system; the Government desired to pose as moderate revolutionists, and they thought it would be more moderate to have compulsory hiring than compulsory purchase. He did not deny that the Government were revolutionists, but he was inclined to deny that the particular kind of amateur revolution they proposed to carry out would be placed on a more stable foundation by that means. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said "we are assured," "we have come to the conclusion," "we have shown," "we have considered the case," "we are confident," and so forth. Who were "we"? Not the occupants of the Treasury Bench, but the Scottish Office. From other Members of the Government, among them the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the House had heard the strongest doctrines in favour of purchase as against hiring. The hon.

175
and learned Gentleman was not in the House when the Chief Secretary for Ireland made the speech to which he referred. The Chief Secretary was always expressing an earnest and anxious hope that land purchase in Ireland could be made to work more quickly and successfully than now. What was the difference between the conditions of Ireland and Scotland in this matter? It might be the opinion of the Scottish Office that all the advantages to be got from ownership could be got one-third more cheaply from hiring, but it was not the opinion of the Irish Office, nor of any Government in Europe, and it was preposterous to lay it down as a canon of policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman had ignored some of the fundamental instincts of human nature. If they were to presuppose this affectionate interest in a particular plot of land, they could depend upon it that that interest carried with it a desire to see that the land should go to successors. There were certain advantages to be derived from ownership and certain advantages to be derived from tenancy and labour wholly divorced from ownership, but the plan of the Government was so contrived as to get the full advantage from neither. In England, while a farm servant might be born, and live, and die in the same village, in Scotland he moved about under his yearly agreement from one farm to another. This migration had its advantages. But the Government were going to bind people to the holding without giving them the inducement to cultivate the holding to the best advantage, which could only be got by ownership. Under this ambiguous tenure, which was the tenure neither of freeholder nor of occupier, they would lose the advantages of either system. That was the advantage of ownership, but when it came to a question of hiring they did not get it nor the advantage of the more flexible system which at present prevailed in Scotland. The Government were not going to encourage the people to cultivate a holding with that loving care which they could only get through a system of ownership, but they were going to bind them to the holding without giving them the inducement to cultivate it to the best advantage. The Government never
176
answered any argument nor brought the smallest analogy from any other country in favour of their system. They always based themselves upon the Crofters Act, with its 30,000 holders separated from the rest of the country by climatic conditions, and, in contradiction to their own experience in Ireland, in contradiction to what took place in Prussia when the land system was transformed, or in Denmark, and in defiance of all that had happened in France, they insisted that this petty experiment, carried on in a small corner of these islands, should be applied to a great area wholly different from it in every condition. No other country, old or new, had been idiotic enough to apply this foolish system which it had occurred to the Scottish Office to adopt. These considerations should give pause to every serious man who considered the magnitude of the problem with which these gentlemen were dabbling and playing, and give them ground to think that the universal experience of mankind was not to be put aside because the Secretary for Scotland happened to be pleased with a system of land legislation which had been applied to 30,000 holders of land in the extreme north and west of Scotland. For these reasons he pressed the House to adopt the Amendment.
MR. MOLTENOsaid the right hon. Gentleman had observed that there was no state in Europe which had ever attempted anything of this character, but he had named one where the success of it had been conspicuous throughout the world, and that was Denmark. Had he studied the latest Report of the Board of Trade made by Major Craigie on the land tenure system of Denmark? What did that Report say about Denmark? It said—
"An investigation into this subject makes it clear that while there has been a transfer of a large proportion of the agricultural land in Denmark from the hands of the larger landlords to those of the occupying tenants or yeomen, the movement is not a recent feature coincident with the later agricultural development, but one which had its origin in a series of enactments in the latter half of the eighteenth century. The great bulk of the country at that time was held under the old form of estate known as 'Soedegaard,' divided by law into two distinct categories, (1) the 'Hovedgaard,' or demesne and (2) the 'Bondergaarde,' or farms let to tenants. The

177
law differentiated between those two species of property, and the proprietary rights of the landlord over the tenanted lands were so arranged as to give the occupiers a claim to continue on the soil so long as they complied with certain conditions of tenure fixed, not by the landlord, but by the State."
It was on that system the principle of this Bill was based.
MR. A. J. BALFOURadmitted that he had not the Report in his mind, but he understood that most people attributed the prosperity of Denmark to the multitude of small owners which it contained.
MR. MOLTENOsaid that they were preparing for that small ownership by this enactment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked if they were to understand that this Bill was merely a preparation for small ownership.
MR. MOLTENOsaid his object was to show that the system in Denmark was not suddenly carried out by a system of ownership, but that it had sprung up gradually under a system of that kind now proposed. As to the question of ownership it did not concern the Government to make one person rather than another the absolute owner of the land, but to secure that those who occupied the land had full security for their energy, enterprise and capital.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 269. (Division List No. 387.)

AYES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ashley, W. W.

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Moore, William

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick Georg)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N)

Fletcher, J. S.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gordon, J.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bull, Sir William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker, Col W. H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

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

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Younger, George

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Craik, Sir Henry

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Doughty, Sir George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Beale, W. P.

Brigg, John

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Beauchamp, E.

Bright, J. A.

Alden, Percy

Beck, A. Cecil

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

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bell, Richard

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bellairs, Carlyon

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Astbury, John Meir

Berridge, T. H. D.

Byles, William Pollard

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex Romf'rd

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Black, Arthur W.

Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bowerman, C. W.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Barnes, G. N.

Brace, William

Cheetham, John Frederick

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Branch, James

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Clough, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Clynes, J. R.

Hudson, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hyde, Clarendon

Pollard, Dr.

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Cooper, G. J.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

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

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Radford, G. H.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jardine, Sir J.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cory, Clifford John

Jenkins, J.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cowan, W. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Cox, Harold

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rees, J. D.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

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

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Richardson, A.

Crooks, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rickett, J. Compton

Crosfield, A. H.

Jowett, F. W.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Curran, Peter Francis

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dalziel, James Henry

Kekewich, Sir George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kelley, George D.

Robinson, S.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Rose, Charles Day

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Rowlands, J.

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Russell, T. W.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lough, Thomas

Sears, J. E.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Lupton, Arnold

Seddon, J.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Shackleton, David James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Elibank, Master of

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Erskine, David C.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Essex, R. W.

Macpherson, J. T.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Esslemont, George Birnie

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Everett, R. Lacey

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Fenwick, Charles

M'C'allum, John M.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Ferens, T. R.

M'Crae, George

Snowden, P.

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stanger, H. Y.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Findlay, Alexander

M'Micking, Major G.

Steadman, W. C.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Maddison, Frederick

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Mallet, Charles E.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fuller, John Michael F.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Fullerton, Hugh

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Sutherland, J. E.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Markham, Arthur Basil

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gill, A. H.

Marnham, F. J.

Taylor, Theodore G (Radcliffe)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Massie, J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Glover, Thomas

Micklem, Nathaniel

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Molteno, Percy Alport

Tomkinson, James

Gooch, George Peabody

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Grant, Corrie

Montagu, E. S.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Montgomery, H. G.

Ure, Alexander

Gulland, John W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Verney, F. W.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Vivian, Henry

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morrell, Philip

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Walters, John Tudor

Harmsworth Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Murray, James

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Myer, Horatio

Wardle, George J.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Napier, T. B.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harwood, George

Newnes, F. (Notts, Basetlaw)

Waterlow, D. S.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Watt, Henry A.

Hazleton, Richard

Nicholls, George

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hedges, A. Paget

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Weir, James Galloway

Helme, Norval Watson

Nolan, Joseph

White, George (Norfolk)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Henry, Charles S.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

O'Grady, J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn

Hodge, John

Partington, Oswald

Wills, Arthur Walters

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

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

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

180

181

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Winfrey, R.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Bill read a second time.

And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER, proceeded pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th August, successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 8, line 17, at end, to insert the words 'one or more.'"
"In page 8, line 24, at end, to insert the words 'making the scheme effective and of.'"
"In page 8, line 31, to leave out the words 'of the land forming,' and to insert the words 'that the land forms.'"
"In page 8, line 39, to leave out from the word 'order,' to the word 'the,' in line 40, and to insert the words 'under section eleven of.'"
"In page 9, line 4, at end, to insert the words 'one or more.'"
"In page 9, line 7, after the word 'required,' to insert the words 'due compensation to such amount as may be agreed or, as in case of dispute, may be determined by the Land Court being made for surface damage.'"
"In page 10, line 29, to leave out the words 'as if he were the lawful assignee.'"
"In page 11, line 2, after the word 'to,' to insert the words 'or in modification of.'"
"In page 11, line 4, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'by himself or his family.'"
"In page 11, line 8, at end, to insert the words 'and not inconsistent with cultivation of the holding.'"
"In page 11, line 40, after the word 'nuisance," to insert the words 'or the provision of a water supply.'"
"In page 12, line 31, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'resumption by a landlord, or in the case of an existing yearly tenant or.'"
"In page 12, line 33, to leave out the words 'termination of the lease,' and to insert the words 'date of resumption or date when such tenant or leaseholder becomes a landholder, as the case may be.'"
"In page 12, line 36, to leave out the words 'the landlord or the leaseholder,' and to insert the words 'any party interested.'"
"In page 12, line 37, at beginning, to insert the words The procedure in connection with.
"In page 12 line 38, to leave out the words 'dealt with as shall,' and to insert "regulated as may.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
Amendments agreed to.
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be further considered to-morrow.

LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. F. LEVERTON HARRISsaid he wanted to explain why the promoters of this Bill desired to withdraw it. It was not because the promoters felt that there was in it any inherent defects or that the provisions would not go far to solve the difficulty which was at present hanging over London in connection with the electric lighting supply. But they felt that at this time of the session it would be absolutely impossible to hope to pass their Bill, it being contentious, as this Bill undoubtedly was, through all its stages. The delay which had occurred in bringing the Second Reading before the House had not been in consequence of any action on the part of the promoters. He thought that the President of the Board of Trade would admit that those who were responsible for the Bill had done all they could to meet the desires of the Department with regard to it. They had agreed, at the request of the Board of Trade, that the Bill should be deferred until the London County Council Bill had been considered in Committee; and that Bill was not discharged from Committee until 26th June; and, in spite of the constantly expressed desire of the promoters, this Bill had not been on the Order Paper for consideration until that evening. What was the origin of the Bill? It originated in the Report of a Committee which was appointed to consider last year the Bill promoted by the London County Council to deal with the bulk supply of electricity to London. The Report of that Committee recommended that in the present session various alternative schemes should be put before a Committee of that House for consideration so that they might pronounce some definite opinion on the merits of those schemes and decide which of them was to be accepted. The London Electric Company, he thought very properly, considered that this was a direct invitation that they should formulate some scheme

183
for dealing with the electric lighting industry of London. And they were in the hope that if they presented a Bill it would be permitted to go to Committee on its own merits, so that evidence might be adduced and arguments put forward in order that this highly debatable question which was hanging over London at the present time, and the solution of which was most important to all the citizens of London, to the consumer, the ratepayer, and the electric light undertaker, might once and for all be decided. This consideration before the Committee had been frustrated, he regretted to say, largely in consequence of the action of the Board of Trade, who had consistently opposed the principle of the Bill. It was quite true that they put on the Notice Paper a reference to the Committee that the Bill should be taken in conjunction with the London County Council Bill, but that measure, as the House was aware, was rejected by the Committee, and the promoters of this Bill had been in the position that they were unable to obtain a hearing of the arguments they had to put forward until that evening. Any one who had studied the question of electric lighting in London must be convinced that the electric enterprise of this great city was in a position which was intolerable not only to those who were undertakers for the supply of electricity, but to those who were the great consumers of electrical energy, and the problem which overhung them at the present time was one of immeasurable importance, and one which every section of the community believed should be settled in some definite way, so that the restrictions which at present obtained could be removed. It was too late in the night to go into the history of electric lighting in London, but he might perhaps remind the House that they stood at the present time in this position: By the Electric Lighting Acts of 1882 and 1899 certain principles had been laid down. The first principle was that those who supplied electricity to the consumers of London were under the obligation at the end of forty-two years to sell their undertakings to the authorities of the districts in which their works were situated, and to which they
184
applied electricity. The second consideration was that when those forty-two years had expired the arrangements which had been made for the purchase of those undertakings were founded upon a compromise which had produced a feeling of uncertainty, crippled industry, and was most prejudicial to the consumer of electrical energy. Under the Bill of 1889 certain principles were laid down and afterwards confirmed by the Provisional Orders issued under the sanction of the Board of Trade after consultation with such local authorities as the London County Council. Those Orders laid down the principle that each area should be supplied by two or more competing generators of electrical current. The result of that had been that they had instituted in London not only a system of duplication of machinery and management, but a system entailing an enormous expenditure of capital upon which had to be paid interest and dividends which had ultimately to come out of the consumer's pocket. There existed in the metropolis twenty-nine different electrical undertakings, sixteen of them managed by borough councils, and thirteen by private companies. Those undertakings had involved the expenditure of some £20,000,000 of capital, and if a better arrangement had been provided in the initial stages of electric lighting in London at least one-third of the capital which had been spent in the metropolis might have been saved as well as the interest upon it. The principle of dividing London into small areas for the purposes of electrical supply had been a very disastrous one for the consumer, and this had only been remedied by enormous expenditure and bringing before the House many separate Bills in order to enable those companies to establish outside the area of the metropolis itself great generating stations to supply the different areas with current and power. The purchase clause inserted in previous legislation dealing with the electrical supply of London told against the consumer of electricity in the metropolis. At the end of forty-two years the present electrical undertakings would pass into the hands of the local authorities, but no definite principle had been laid down

185
as to the exact price at which the undertakings were to pass under the control of the local authorities. This uncertainty affected the raising of capital in the future, the question of dividends, and the reduction of the charge to the consumer. The present position was the exact opposite to what a reasonable system ought to be. Small stations were working instead of large stations able to supply power in large quantities. There was duplication in almost every area where mains had been laid down and generating machinery erected, and the management expenses overlapped, so that the cost of the generation to the amount of capital had been enormously increased, to the detriment of the consumer. The present Bill sought to remedy this state of things and proposed that the various stations should be linked up so as to be able to help each other in case any station belonging to the companies happened to break down. The Bill proposed to form a joint committee so that the most economically worked stations should be those worked in summer when there was the least load. It also proposed to organise a scheme for the supply of electricity in bulk to London at a lower price than that which had been proposed by any other authority which was seeking powers to supply electricity to London. He respectfully suggested to the President of the Board of Trade that this was a matter which really deserved more attention than it was receiving that night. What was wanted was a scheme which would once for all definitely lay down some principles which could be adopted, and satisfy not only the consumer and the ratepayer, but also such authorities as the London County Council and the various local authorities, and the electric light companies. He ventured to believe that if the right hon. Gentleman would only constitute some authoritative Committee to go into the matter of the electrical supply of London, he would obtain from the companies interested in the present Bill every desire to meet him with regard to any proposals he had to make, so as to place this very important industry on a more permanent basis, to the benefit of the consumer and the ratepayer, and ultimately of the local authorities. Under these circum-
186
stances he moved that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be read and discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn."—(Mr. Leverton Harris.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs)said the hon. Gentleman had taken the only possible course under the present circumstances. He did not propose to follow the exhaustive and rather contentious statement of the hon. Member, though he agreed with him that the subject was very urgent and deserved immediate attention. Nobody, however, knew better than himself the character of the controversy that raged round the question. The municipalities of London took one view, the companies another, and the majority of the London Members another. His own opinion was that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a solution until the parties came to some common understanding upon general principles. It should not be impossible to do this, for it was a business matter, but the time for that had not yet arrived, not because the matter was not urgent, but because the temper of the parties at present did not conduce to a settlement, though he did not despair of something being done in that direction in the next few mouths.
MR. J. WARDsaid the hon. Member for Stepney had stated that this Bill met the requirements of the Committee which was appointed to investigate the subject last year. The Committee made three recommendations, and in each ease the County Council was to be supreme. There was not a single recommendation of the Committee which this Bill did not contravene and contradict, and the statement of the hon. Member was a peculiar one to make to those who knew something about the business. As a matter of fact the whole contention of the Bill was contained in Clause 24. At present these companies which proposed to amalgamate could be purchased, under Section 2 of

187
the Act of 1888, by the local authorities at what the companies called "scrap iron prices." Now the companies proposed to amalgamate and to escape from this purchase clause so that they could only be bought out after an agreement had been made with the local authorities. The whole question of electric light supply might then get into greater confusion than it was in at the present time. He asked the House to witness what had happened in Marylebone as an example of what might occur. He was of opinion that the House should decide on the Bill. He did not think that the companies should be allowed to scuttle out of it by withdrawing the Bill. Why was it that the companies always insisted on repealing Section 2 of the Act of 1888? It was very easily understood. An expert who was examined before the Committee was asked: "You give it as your experience in these undertakings that the position of finance largely depends on how far ultimately the promoters are able to exploit the general public?" and he replied "To a very considerable extent it depends upon that." That was the answer of the experts before the Committee. The maximum charges and the financial success of the undertaking did not depend on that at all. The hon. Gentleman knew that if they only could manage to pass this Bill with such terms of purchase at the expiration of the period granted by Parliament, they would get the whole of their outlays out of the pockets of the ratepayers in addition to large profits. As the Bill involved a very great principle indeed as to the method of ultimately acquiring these properties, and as the companies were suggesting practically the repeal of the Act of 1888, he would have preferred that the Board of Trade had refused to allow the Bill to be withdrawn. The Board of Trade should have informed the company that any clause like Clause 24 could never be accepted by the House of Commons, whose business it was to protect the interest of the public.
LORD R. CECILsaid he could not allow to pass the speech of the hon. Member who sat for no constituency interested in or covered by the Bill.
MR. J. WARDsaid he had lived in London for twenty-five years, he had been a ratepayer in the locality where he lived for fifteen years, he had served on a London local authority, and he considered that he was perfectly entitled to speak on the Bill.
LORD R. CECILsaid he would be the last person in the world to question the right of the hon. Gentleman to express an opinion about any Bill which might come before the House. He only mean that it would be unfortunate if no reply were attempted to be given to the re marks of the hon. Member. He would not go into the question as to what terms should be imposed on any company for the supply of electrical power over the whole of London. He would remind the House of one single fact, and that was that certain terms of purchase imposed in the Act of 1882 had thrown this country back for years in electrical enterprise. He would not discuss the position of affairs in the borough which he represented; it was enough for him to point out that as a matter of fact the electrical enterprise in Marylebone was now in a fair way to success. He desired to impress on the House and the Government the enormous importance of this question to London, and to express the anxious hope that the President of the Board of Trade would endeavour to bring about a consultation between the parties concerned, which he said was eminently desirable, and make it a success. It was really a scandal to our system of government that a cheap supply of electrical power in London should have become the battle-ground of municipal parties, and was threatened with delay and the possibility of defeat, because the matter was not now considered, as it ought to be considered, as the President of the Board of Trade had said, as a business proposition, but as a political question. He hoped that before many months were passed they would have in London the cheap supply of electrical power they ought to have had long ago, and that the matter would be removed from all political considerations.
Order discharged, and Bill withdrawn.

CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (BY ORDER).
Order for consideration read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
MR. WARDLE*MR. WARDLE (Stockport) moved that this Bill be considered three months hence. The Bill was an omnibus Bill, containing a large number of provisions relating to different subjects. Amongst them was one which had reference to the superannuation fund belonging to the clerks and officers of the Caledonian Railway Company. The Bill provided that the company should withdraw its annual contribution to the pension fund which applied to the 3,200 members of the staff of the railway company. This was not the first time that that fund had been mentioned in a Bill promoted by the company; but it was said that it was to meet a question which had been raised in the House last year that an inquiry should be instituted by the Board of Trade in regard to the pension funds of railway companies that the present provisions were inserted. Up to the present time they had not succeeded in obtaining that inquiry, although negotiations had been entered into between the Board of Trade and the railway companies for the purpose of finding out how those funds stood. One of the propositions was that all these funds should be guaranteed. Representations were made to the Caledonian Railway Company that a guarantee should be made in connection with their pension fund, but it was not anticipated that that would be followed up by a provision being inserted in the Bill now before the House that the railway company should be relieved of the contributions which they had hitherto made to the funds. The London and North Western Railway Company had passed a Bill in which they had given a guarantee which was quite different from that of the Caledonian Railway Company, inasmuch as they were not, like the Caledonian Railway, seeking to withdraw their contribution. One of the reasons why he objected to these provisions was that the men had not had the opportunity of considering them before they were inserted in the Bill. This being a Provisional Order
190
Bill under the Scottish procedure it was different from the English procedure. Notice was given in the Scotsman in Edinburgh and also in a paper in Glasgow in November last, but the men were not given any opportunity of knowing what changes in the scheme were intended, as they should have been. They did not know what the provisions were until the Order was passed. For these reasons he wished to have these provisions exorcised from this Bill, but he was really more concerned about the superannuation funds generally than this particular point. There were sixteen in existence applying to 85,000 people. Different benefits were conferred, and in his opinion, Parliament should see that a man obtained' the same benefits for the same contribution and should ascertain, that these funds were in a solvent condition, and were not varied from time to time. He did not desire by his opposition merely to obstruct the Bill; what he desired was a Board of Trade inquiry into the whole question of railway superannuation finance. He did not desire to press this question to a division, and he would not do so if he received a satisfactory reply.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question add the words 'this day three mouths.'"—(Mr. Wardle.)
Question proposed "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,)said that last year the President of the Board of Trade had a question addressed to him on this subject and his right hon. friend gave a definite promise to put himself in communication with the railway companies in regard to these various funds, and he issued a circular to the railway companies asking them for the information required. The companies willingly supplied him with the information in their possession and the Board now possessed a large amount of information as to the facts. They found that, as the hon. Member had said, there were sixteen railway companies having these funds, and they were all compulsory in regard to the contributions of the men, which

191
varied from 2½ to 3 per cent. of their wages, while the railway companies made a corresponding contribution. Having considered all the facts, the Board had thought it right to represent to the railway companies that, inasmuch as the contributions of the men to these funds were compulsory, the funds should be guaranteed by the railway companies. On representations being made to the railway companies, the companies agreed that the men should have the same number of representatives upon the committee as the companies themselves had. Amongst the grievances which the men had was that there was lack of uniformity in the benefits derived—the employees of one railway were not so well treated as those employed on another. He thought the employees on one railway should be as well treated as the employees on others. On the London and North Western Railway Company, although the contribution was the same the benefits derived by the men were greater than on any other railway. In this regard the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company were greatly in arrear, and he thought there was great necessity for uniformity. Some of the funds were insolvent upon actuarial examination, and the result had been that the benefits had been reduced and certain men had a grievance. The benefits also differed widely, in some cases being taken on the last seven years of service and in other cases upon the whole service. Taking into account all these differences, the Board thought that it was a matter for further investigation, and, if the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied, the Board and, he thought he might say, the railway companies, would not object to such investigation. If the hon. Member would withdraw his opposition to the Bill, the Government would appoint a Committee at the commencement of next session to go into the whole question of these funds.
MR. SMEATONsaid he opposed this Bill because after a series of protests by public meeting, by letters and by personal interviews extending over several years the Caledonian Railway Company had done nothing to improve the condition of the station at Denny, which remained in the same
192
filthy and insanitary condition in which it was fifty years ago. He had visited railway stations in Europe, Asia, and Africa, but he had never seen any station either East or West of Suez which would compare ith this station for filth, insanitation, and absence of safety. The platform was only half the length of many of the trains which came into the station. Frequent excursion trains came in in the summer and more than half the passengers had to alight on the metals, very often at night, and cross over a series of rails to the opposite platform; and as shunting was always going on the danger to life and limb of the women and children crossing the metals was obvious. In spite of continued protests the Caledonian Company had resisted every attempt to make the station safer. He would not offend the ears of the House by reading a description of the insanitary state of the station that appeared in the Report of the sanitary officer. It was sufficient to say that the ladies waiting rooms and lavatories were in a most filthy and disgusting condition, and that the only drinking-water tap was situated in the urinal. The station was antiquated in character, the platforms much too short, the waiting rooms and other places infested with rats and in the opinion of the sanitary officer the station should be replaced at once by a building more decent, healthy, and sanitary. The people of the town had no means of redress. They had done all they could and now pressed him to come to this House and endeavour to obtain for them that redress which they had been unable to obtain from the railway company. Although he felt it would probably be of little use to go to a division, he hoped the House would support him in his claim on behalf of the people of Denny to have a decent, safe, and sanitary station. Denny was a manufacturing town with a population of between 7,000 and 8,000, six paper mills, several iron foundries and a large coal and brick industry; an immense amount of traffic passed over the lines and, the only reason why the company had resisted the attempt of the people to get redress was that there was no competition. Had there been a competing line they would long ago have put up a healthy and comfortable station at this place. He asked for a guarantee that

193
within a reasonable time something should be done to make this station decent and habitable even if it was not completely rebuilt. He was credibly informed that £90,000 of the money to be raised under this Bill was to be spent on various stations on the line, and surely if it was worth while to spend £90,000 on other stations it was essential that at least a few hundreds should be spent on the Denny Station to make it sanitary, decent, and safe. If he did not receive some assurance he should feel it his duty to go to a division.
MR. MORTONsaid he supported his hon. friend in the demand which he had made for better station accommodation at Denny, and that the platforms should be put in a safe condition for the use of the public. Though he did not know as much about the sanitary condition of this station as his hon. friend, yet he could bear testimony that it was not in a fit condition. It was not the only station of the sort in Scotland, and he thought it was only fair and right that the company should provide sufficient accommodation, especially on the platforms. They had no desire to deal harshly at all with this company, but he trusted that they would very speedily put this station in order, as his hon. friend desired. But there was another question which he wished to refer to. In regard to the provision of third-class sleeping carriages he would like at once to say that he had not a single offensive word to say against this company. It was a very respectable company, probably better than a good many English companies. It was doing a good work. Personally he had no desire to throw out this Bill or in any way injure the company in getting money to carry out such improvements as might be required. But this was one of the companies that he was more concerned in than almost any other with regard to the provision of third-class sleeping carriages, because when he visited his constituents he went by this railway, and therefore he was speaking from his own knowledge when he said that they ought to have third-class "sleepers" just as were provided for first-class passengers. He was sorry that the Board of Trade had not taken the matter up
194
properly, because a company which had got its charter and monopolies from Parliament had no right to show a preference for a particular class of passengers. He was told that third "sleepers" could not be made to pay. However that might be, he did know this, that it was the third-class passenger traffic which paid the companies, speaking generally, and that if there was a loss it had to be made up out of the third-class traffic. It was very unfair to third-class passengers to make them pay for the loss on the first class and yet deprive them of the sleeping accommodation which they gave to the first-class passengers that were the cause of the loss. He had been told that he should bring a Bill before Parliament to carry out his proposal, but it was impossible for anybody but the Government to get such a Bill through; therefore to suggest that he should bring in a Bill was hardly fair to him or to the travelling public. It was an important matter to those who travelled 500, 600, or 700 miles from London that they should have this third-class sleeping accommodation. He believed that this company was almost converted on the question, and it only required a little more consideration from them to see the justice of his (Mr Morton's) demands, and to carry out this improvement. They knew as well as he did that the third-class sleeping carriages would pay better rather than worse than the first-class sleeping traffic. The difficulty which they experienced at present was that the railway companies spent their money on the first-class passengers, wholly forgetting that it was from the third-class passenger traffic that they made their profit. He trusted that these remarks would have some effect on the railway companies. Unless this and other companies took warning from the fact that the attention of the House had been called to the subject, next session, or at some future time, they would punish them in the only way open to the House, by throwing out any Bill which they might bring forward, a course which otherwise they would not wish to adopt. He also trusted that the Board of Trade, instead of looking after the companies' interests first would bear in mind that their first duty was to the people, and if they only had the full

195
support of the Board of Trade they would get what they wanted, namely, fair play and no preference.
MR. C. E. PRICEsaid he understood that the Caledonian Railway Company were willing to give a guarantee as to the accumulated funds. [An HON. MEMBER: No; that is not so.] He understood that had been said by the Secretary to the Board of Trade; he might be wrong. The point was that the company in 1866 had entered into an obligation to contribute an equal proportion to the provident fund instead of making an annual contribution. It was a very serious point that the railway company should be asking to be relieved from an obligation which they had entered into. It was absolutely necessary to those concerned that the full obligations of the Caledonian Railway Company to their employes should be carried out. But they did not fulfil the conditions. The Examiner of Orders reported that General Order No. 65 had not been complied with. That was a very serious omission, and he hoped the House would not allow the company to come there seeking relief when those interested had not had a full opportunity of making their views known. There was a large number of members of the superannuation fund, who contributed last year nearly £7,000, and the Caledonian Railway contributed another £7,000. Clause 42 did not meet the case at all. Last year the interest on the accumulated funds more than met the claims, and if this Bill were passed the railway company would not be called upon to contribute this money. It was grossly unfair to deceive the House in a matter of this kind. The people who were affected by the Bill had not had a full opportunity of stating their case. They ought to pay full regard in the House of Commons to those who had been contributing to the fund and see that their consent had been properly obtained to the proposed change. He contended that those who were affected had not had a full opportunity of making their views known. He wished to say a word or two about the provision of third-class sleeping accommodation. Between England and Scotland there
196
was a great deal of night travelling, and when granting these monopolies to railway companies be thought they had some right to insist that some change in the direction of providing third-class sleeping accommodation should be made. On the Continental railways it was easy to accommodate four persons sleeping in one railway carriage by lifting the back of the seat up, which permitted a passenger to be accommodated on the upper storey. He thought third-class passengers should receive better accommodation than they now got.
MR. KEARLEYsaid that this particular question had been brought under the notice of the Board of Trade. He had looked into the matter raised by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire and he agreed that the railway company ought to pay heed to the representations of the local authorities to keep their stations and platforms in a proper state of repair. One of the directors of the company had authorised him to state that the station referred to was recognised as being unsatisfactory, and it would shortly undergo re-equipment to meet modern needs. He was assured by the company that there was no desire on their part to delay the carrying out of their obligations. He was authorised to state that the work would be taken in hand and completed at the earliest opportunity, but what the company could not accede to was that that work should take priority over other matters of this character. The company had undertaken that within the next two years the work would be put in hand. He hoped his hon. friend would consider that was a fair and straightforward statement on behalf of the railway company. It had been said that the Board of Trade had not taken up this matter properly. They had pressed the questions which had been raised upon the attention of the railway companies by correspondence, and he had made more than one speech expressing sympathy with the movement with which his hon. friend was connected. It should not be forgotten that the Board of Trade had no mandatory powers over the railway companies. They found that they got on better with railway companies when they tried moderate persuasion, and he thought

197
now that inasmuch as 83 per cent. of the passenger revenue of the railway companies of this country was derived from third-class traffic there was undoubtedly a good case for consideration at the hands of the companies. He did not see in his place the right hon. and gallant Member who represented the London and North Western Railway on these matters, but he did see the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who might wish to explain. He believed the right hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division expressed his sympathy with the idea on a previous occasion. He was not going further than to repeat what he said the other night, namely, that he had a feeling himself that in due course the hon. Member who pressed this question would get his reward, and that he would succeed as he succeeded with the tramway companies in taking away from them the power to increase fares on Bank and other public holidays. 'The hon. Member was very persistent in that direction and he was very persistent now, and he could only wish him well.
MR. MORTONasked if he might be allowed to make a personal explanation, and to say that he had not threatened anybody. He had only given them a warning.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill considered; to be read the third time to-morrow (Thursday).

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (INSURANCE COMPANIES) BILL.
Order for the Second Reading read.
MR. KEARLEYsaid the object of this Bill was to apply to Employers' Liability Insurance Companies the requirements of the Life Insurance Acts of 1870 and 1872. Those Acts had proved to be thoroughly beneficial in protecting the interests of the public at large. The reason the Government had brought in this Bill was that in consequence of the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act there had been, and would continue to be, a great increase of business by reason of the expansion of workmen's compensation under the
198
Act of 1904, and they had reason to fear that a correspondingly large number of companies would spring up of doubtful financial stability, and therefore it was felt to be necessary to introduce a Bill that would handicap the growth and development of mushroom companies. The Bill in its present form required that all existing as well as future companies, with some exceptions, should make a deposit of £20,000; but since the introduction of the Bill many representations had been made to the Government by Members of this House and others interested. There were in existence a large number of very bona fide companies that would be most seriously hit if they were to make the deposit retrospective. Many of these companies, he had no doubt, were of a quasi-mutual character, but as they were not fully mutual the Bill as it at present stood would subject them to a deposit of £20,000. He thought it might have been possible to introduce some words that would have exempted these companies from the obligation to make the deposit, but they had come to the conclusion that do it as ingeniously as they might the whole of the companies he was speaking of could not be covered. Nobody knew better than Members of the House how necessary and needful it was that there should be a wide competition in respect of employers' liability insurance, and it would be doing more harm than good if by making legislation retrospective they were to sweep out of the field of competition so many useful companies; and, therefore, the Government had decided to introduce at a later stage an Amendment so as to make the Bill apply to future companies as regarded deposit.
MR. H. W. FORSTER: Future companies only?
MR. KEARLEY: Future companies only as regarded the deposit. He would point out that representations had been made to the Government on behalf of Lloyds and also the underwriters, and they had decided to subject them to exceptional conditions which were clearly set forth and explained in the Bill, and which would follow exactly the precedents of the Life Insurance Acts in

199
respect of not making the Bill retrospective. Now that the Government had decided to do that, he thought all opposition to the Bill disappeared. One never knew until a Bill was printed and circulated what the opposition might be, but he was speaking about the particular interests who found themselves assailed by a Bill of this kind. It would be the last intention of that or any other Government to assail the position of those quasi-mutual companies which were doing most excellent work throughout the country. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading, and he could assure hon. Members that in Committee the Government would be happy to give consideration to any case of hardship which might appear to arise out of the Bill. He thought that by such means they would be protecting the future development of mushroom companies and at the same time preserve many companies which were doing most beneficial work at the present time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he certainly did not rise to oppose the Second Reading. On the contrary he warmly welcomed the introduction of the Bill. He pointed out during the discussion on the Workmen's Compensation Bill last year the necessity of some measure of this sort to protect the smaller insurers against bogus companies. It was certainly his desire that in the more remote country districts they should have protection of this sort. Parliament had cast upon small and sometimes somewhat ignorant employers a very heavy onus, and he thought the least they could do was to protect them as far as they could against travellers and others who went round and asked people to insure in bogus Companies. He had, therefore, nothing to say except in favour of a proposal of this sort, and now that the representative of the Board of Trade had told them that Amendments were to be inserted in Committee he would find there was no difficulty in getting the Bill passed.
200
Certainly so far as he and his friends were concerned the Government should have their assistance, though he would press upon the hon. Gentleman not to go too far in concessions, because he was afraid that by the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech he was rather inclined to take away safeguards which existed in the Bill. However, those were matters for the Committee stage, and he would reserve his remarks for the Amendments when reached; but he wanted to be quite certain with regard to the date when the Act was to apply. He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it was not to be retrospective in any respect, with regard either to companies or to underwriters—that was to say, it was only to affect them after the passing of the Bill. He had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman had been carefully into the fact to see whether any mushroom companies had arisen in the last year, because if so, the Bill ought to apply to them.
MR. LUPTON: said he wished to ask the Government whether they could see their way in Committee to make some amendment in this Bill which would have the effect of removing what was going to be a great misfortune. Insurance companies would not insure certain classes of people on account of the unhealthy or dangerous-character of the trade, refused to insure certain individuals on account of their age or state of health, and he understood from the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that men were now out of employment in consequence of the Workmen's Compensation Act Perhaps the Board of Trade could see their way to introduce into this Bill some I clause by which, in view of the sort of monopoly now given by this Bill to existing insurance companies, the insurance of such men as he had referred to would be covered and the onus thrown upon the whole community. An evil would be thereby removed, and the cost to the country would be so trifling that it would not matter. Now that the hon. Gentleman was giving an advantage to existing companies by removing the competition of new unstable offices he was in a position to make the bargain he now suggested.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid this matter should have his consideration.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order for the Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. HAROLD COX*MR. HAROLD COX (Preston) moved that it was undesirable to proceed further with a measure affecting the revenues of the Isle of Man which made no provision for a further contribution from those revenues towards the cost of defending the Empire. The position with regard to the Isle of Man, he said, was that this country collected revenues and handed them over to the Isle of Man for the sum of £10,000 a year, paid into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. This arrangement was made in 1866. The point was that if that arrangement was equitable then, it was obviously inequitable now. In 1866 the Army cost us £14,000,000 and the Navy £10,000,000. Since then the Army had doubled in cost and the Navy had trebled in cost. The Isle of Man still paid the same sum, although it had increased in wealth enormously. The population of the Isle of Man was about 50,000, so that on the basis of population the Isle of Man paid 4s. per head towards the cost of defending the Empire. There was no reason why the Isle of Man should not bear its proper share. Taking similar figures for the United Kingdom, they found that for the upkeep of the Army, the Navy, the Civil List, and the Diplomatic Service, the people of the United Kingdom paid £2 a head, while in the Isle of Man they paid 4s. This was the estimate on the mere population basis, but another comparison was equally interesting. The Isle of Man derived its revenue from the whole of the county of Lancashire. Lancashire poured its wealth into that little island. He asked the House to consider the injustice that was occasioned to every watering-place on the mainland in Lancashire. There was Blackpool. He did not see the Member for Blackpool in the House that night, but the injustice to
202
his constituents was apparent. Blackpool was in the same position to the Empire as the Isle of Man, but the Blackpool people—the lodging-house keepers and others—had to pay towards the cost of defending the Empire at the rate of £2 a head, while the people of the Isle of Man paid 4s. a head. This was a cruel injustice. The Isle of Man escaped the taxes from which this country suffered—even the income-tax. They all knew that an author of some repute lived in the Isle of Man, and the whole Empire would gladly shed its last drop of blood in defence of Greeba Castle. Yet the occupant of that castle paid not a single penny of income-tax. Think of the injustice to the hon. Member for Gravesend who had to pay a cruel income tax on his scanty earnings, while his rival in the Isle of Man escaped scot free.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out all after the word 'that' and insert 'it is undesirable to proceed further with a measure affecting the revenues of the Isle of Man which makes no provision for a further contribution from those revenues towards the cost of defending the Empire '"—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,)said that the amount which the Isle of Man paid was arrived at after long discussion. It was impossible to make any just comparison between the Isle of Man and Blackpool, but if they compared the Isle of Man with Australia they would find the contribution from the people of the Isle of Man was large, in fact, it was considerably larger than it was in any other of our possessions, as the hon. Member for Preston very well knew. The object of this Bill was only to affirm that the Custom duties levied in the Isle of Man should be the same as those in the rest of the United Kingdom, the sole object being to prevent any smuggling between the Isle of Man and this country.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Mr. Runciman.)

STATE REFORMATORIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

CABS AND STAGE CARRIAGES (LONDON) BILL.
Order for the Second Reading read.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he thought that the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind should extract some explanation from a member of the Government. The Bill was introduced last week and it was a measure which, although part of it was agreed, contained clauses of a very controversial character. The Bill was described by the Prime Minister on the day of the "massacre of the innocents" as an important and useful Bill, which unless it was agreed to the Government could not attempt to carry through this session. The Bill gave the Home Secretary authority over the cabs of London and enabled him to settle fares and matters of that sort. He thought that these useful provisions of the Bill would not meet with opposition in this House, but he was sorry to see incorporated in the Bill the question of the abolition of "privilege" cabs, which was a matter of considerable controversy and one that was unlikely to be arranged as if in an agreed Bill. He thought that the arrangement come to under the privilege system was in the interests of the travelling public. If the "privilege" cab system were abolished it would be a great difficulty to obtain cabs at all railway stations at all times and in all weathers. It might be possible to obtain cabs at certain stations at certain times, but those who travelled by special trains and arrived in the early hours of the morning or late at night would find a great difficulty in obtaining conveyances to carry them to their homes. If the railway companies were not allowed to make contracts for the supply of carriages at the stations Continental passengers would arrive perhaps by night or in the evening and experience great inconvenience in having to wait while cabs were being sent for, while those who would arrive in the early hours of the morning, possibly after a disagreeable crossing of the
204
Channel, would not thank the Government if they found that in consequence of the abolition of the privilege cab system, which had hitherto worked well, they had to spend some considerable-time in the morning waiting at the station before they could get to their destinations. He knew that it had been stated that the "privilege" cab system was desired by directors only for the financial advantage of railway companies. He disputed this, and he had had experience of a railway company which had actually tried to do without the "privilege" cab system. The South Eastern Railway Company did away with the "privilege" system between 1883 and 1887, and had to return to it because of the great inconvenience that was caused to passengers. In 1899 a Select Committee sat in the House of Commons for the purpose of considering a Bill for the amalgamation of that line and the Chatham line. In the evidence given at that time the general manager of the South Eastern Company stated that the reason why the company had to give up the open system—the system which the right hon. Gentleman wished to impose for the future—was that they could not get cabs when they were wanted for the morning express which came in at three o'clock. This applied to London Bridge, Charing Cross, and Cannon Street. The company found that cabs went off to theatres and elsewhere and did not return to the railway stations, and after three years trial they had to give up the "open" system and return to the system of contracting with certain cab proprietors to supply their stations. The general manager, on being asked, said the difficulty which the company found was not only to get the cabmen under the "open" system to be at the railway stations at times when they were wanted, but they had to adequate power of controlling the cabmen. Among the clauses of the Bill he was sorry to see that it was proposed that practically the business of the railway company, so far as the station yards were concerned, was to be taken out of the hands of the railway company. If the management of the cabs which plied at the station was taken out of the hands of the company there would be a breakdown and a large

205
number of the people who travelled on the railway would be put to great inconvenience. Subsection 3 of the Bill practically turned the station yard of the railway company into a public street. This clause took out of the hands of the railway company the power of regulating and managing the cabs on their own property.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): No.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he would hear later how the right hon. Gentleman explained this paragraph in the Bill. It seemed to him that if the Bill passed in its present form the Government would take away from the railway companies the power or directing an important branch of their traffic. Another difficulty was that if the power of supplying cabs was taken away from the railway company there would be no means of ensuring that the cabs supplied in the station were of a proper quality. There was a danger, he thought, that they might get cabs which were not in a good condition, and that cabs which had not got decent horses would very largely congregate in the stations, and they would have no power whatever over the class of cabs which were to be admitted. He wanted to point out, also, to the right hon. Gentleman that he must not in any way think that the Bill, including as it did this Clause 2, could be treated as a non-controversial measure. The first part of the Bill he had no objection to; he thought it was necessary that the Home Secretary should have power to deal with the matters included in that part of the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman must not consider that the Bill could be treated as an agreed measure. Whether or not they agreed to take the Second Reading that night the Home Secretary must not be surprised if there were a considerable number of Amendments moved when the Bill reached a later stage. He regretted that the Government had thought it necessary to introduce, at this very late period of the session, when they were working largely in the small hours of the night a Bill of that character, which was certainly contro-
206
versial, and he trusted that even no the Home Secretary might think it desirable to lighten his Bill and to agree to take only those portions of it which were non-contentious and which he could do with the full consent of both sides of the House. But if he insisted on the inclusion of the privileged cab question in the Bill, he could not be surprised if a matter which for many years past had been the subject of great controversy gave him a great deal of trouble
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he did not complain of any of the criticisms of his right hon. friend opposite. But before he dealt with the particular question of privilege, might he remind the House that the other part of the Bill was designed to meet a public want, to allow the cab-drivers to put a taximeter on their cabs if they desired? There was no power in the Bill to force a taximeter, as to time and distance, on the horse-cabs. All that they did was to take power so that cab-owners and drivers could have them if they wanted them. At this late hour he did not know if it was necessary for him to go into the history of this complicated matter. His right hon. friend had, not unfairly, criticised them for putting this privilege question into the Bill, which was expected to be of a non-controversial character. He could assure the House that it was from no desire whatever to provoke conflict or disagreement that the Government put the clause into the Bill. Let him remind the House how the matter stood. There were in London about from 1,600 to 1,700 privileged cabs. There were about from 11,000 to 12,000 licensed drivers who were not privileged. Now the privileged men, by virtue of the privilege, were no doubt in one of the best and most lucrative parts of the business of cab driving in London, and, as the House knew, horse cab-drivers generally were now suffering severely from the competition with motor cabs. He was sure that hon. Members, whatever they' might think of privileged cabs in the abstract or the concrete, would agree that they were ready to do all that reasonable men could be expected to do to lighten the difficulties against, which the general body of drivers were

207
iving. It was with the view, as he maintained, of giving the House an opportunity to do justice to these men, that they had put this clause into the Bill, to provide practically for the abolition, or he would prefer to call it suspension, of the privileged system. This had been a standing grievance for the last fifteen years. They were all agreed—cabmen as well as Members of the House and the public—that the travelling public should be well served at the railway stations. About that they all agreed. If it could be proved that the abolition of the privileged system would put the travelling public to serious inconvenience they would agree that the present system ought to be continued without tampering with it. His right hon. friend had alluded to the Committee of 1889. It was, he believed, a Private Bill Committee. But he would remind the House that subsequent to that two Committees had inquired into this particular question. First, in 1895, there was a Departmental Committee, and the second, last year, was a Select Committee of the House of Commons. These Committees had both found in favour of the Abolition of the privilege system, and the Committee of last year, of which he saw some hon. Members present who were members, found unanimously in favour of its abolition. His right hon. friend complained that suddenly the Government put this clause into this Bill. He would explain how that happened. He had endeavoured to settle this question by agreement; many months ago he approached all the railway companies and negotiated with them. They had negotiations with each separate company, and he was in great hopes that they would arrive at a friendly solution, because, with the exception of one or two companies, he found that there was a general disposition to come to terms on the basis of an experimental abolition of the privilege system. But hon. Members knew that what was essential to a practical and a satisfactory experiment in this direction was that all the companies should be brought into the plan or scheme or whatever it was. His right hon. friend had instanced the case of the South Eastern Railway. That company, he said, made an experiment and came to the conclusion that it was unsatisfac-
208
tory He (Mr. Gladstone) had never heard any member of the general public say he had found that there was any difference in the supply of cabs during that experiment. His right hon. friend was, of course, naturally in a position to know that better than he would be. Speaking as a user of the South Eastern Railway, he never knew that there was any special inconvenience in getting cabs at that spot. But it was an isolated experiment, and even admitting it did not prove satisfactory to the company he maintained that it could not be taken to disprove the success of more extended experiments to which all companies should be parties. What did the Government ask? They asked in this Bill that all companies should admit all licensed cabs to their stations. His right hon. friend said that they proposed to take away the power of the companies—or to abstain from giving to the companies—the power of making regulations for the purpose of controlling the cabs in their stations. They did nothing of the sort. They did not intend to interfere with the power of the companies in their own station yards. All they said was, that the companies must let in all cabs. When the cabs came in, then they were subject to the regulations which the companies might make. They would come in precisely as they did now under the regulations which the companies now made, but with one exception, and that was in regard to the fee which was charged on admission. There was a provision that the fee charged on the cabs for admission had to be approved by the Home Secretary. But, apart from that, the railway companies would continue, under this Bill, to regulate the admission of cabs and the order and discipline of the drivers of the cabs, as now. They would continue to provide water for the horses, and would be able to charge, as the London and South Western Railway now charged at Waterloo, and to recoup themselves for all expenses in that direction. Surely there was no great hardship in asking the companies to make this experiment? All that the men asked for, and all that the Government asked for, was that this experiment should be tried for a period. He had it in black and white from the representatives of the cabmen themselves that all they want is a fair trial of the

209
open system. And they undertook to acquiesce in a reversion to the privilege system if it was found, after reasonable experiment, that the open system produced inconvenience to the travelling public. Could anything be fairer than that? He would also say that, although he agreed that there was no limitation in the Bill, yet they proposed only to apply this system to the terminal stations. At this moment he was not quite sure whether they would apply it to Waterloo and one or two other stations. But, speaking generally, they only proposed to apply it to the terminal stations, not to suburban stations, because the cabmen themselves quite realised that there was a special difficulty with regard to these suburban stations. Cabs naturally were not in the neighbourhood of the stations. They would not be ever put there unless there was some special arrangement with the companies, and it would be necessary in regard to these stations to maintain the present system. His hon. friend the Member for the City of London said quite truly that this was not in the Bill. But, so far as this Bill extended, the Secretary of State had power to suspend the operation of this subsection in respect of any particular station, and it was proposed to exercise that power freely in regard to those stations where, as they all admitted, there was a special difficulty, and where the travelling public would be incommoded if they abolished the privilege system. If that was not clear, they were quite prepared to make it so. They had considered the alternative plan of putting in the schedule of the Hill the stations to be so exempted but they thought it would be convenient and more elastic to reserve power to exempt stations which clearly ought to be exempted. He could assure the House that it was only proposed to extend the Bill to terminal stations in London, though there might be an exception or two such as Waterloo Station. He hoped under those circumstances the House would consent to give this experiment a fair trial There was no wish on the part of the Government to come into conflict with the railway companies, or to interfere with their stations or with their rights in their, stations in any way, but the Government held that, after all, these licensed
210
drivers were the licensed drivers of the Metropolis, and to him it did not seem either right or fitting when railway companies existed to serve the public that they should take advantage of the system of London cabs and cabmen and make their own arbitrary selection. It seemed to him that the companies were taking advantage of a system which did not belong to the companies, but which did belong to the Metropolitan public, and it was a system which, although he agreed it had worked well for the travelling public, yet it imposed a hardship on the drivers, and in view of the heavy competition which they had to face, it was incumbent upon the Government to do what they could to help them to a fairer system. By the provisions of this Bill every security was taken that the public should not be incommoded. If he were wrong in that view and the public were incommoded, then it would be an extremely simple matter to revert to the privilege system which now prevailed.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the railway companies had only one object in view, and that was to ensure a sufficient supply of cabs at all times to meet requirements and that the cabs should be decent and have decent horses. He could claim to speak on this matter because he happened to be one of the few Members of the House who constituted the horse committee of the Great Northern Railway, and it was his duty to go round the stations of that railway to see the sort of cabs that were in attendance. It was a most important question not only from the point of view of the public, but from the view of the railway companies and passengers, who did not wish to be delayed with a bad horse. If this Bill passed, any bad cab or bad horse could go into a station and could not be removed. Under the present system he merely told the traffic manager to intimate to the man with whom he contracted to send a better horse or better cab, as the case might be. Then there was the question of the number of cabs at the different stations. The right hon. Gentleman said that in order to make a success of his scheme probably he would have

211
to apply it to all the stations of London, He ventured to say, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that that showed he had not the remotest knowledge of the question. The conditions of the stations were different. He believed it was possible that if the Bill became law there might be a sufficient supply of cabs in certain stations, such as Charing Cross—although the experiment carried out by the right hon. Gentleman below him did not prove that—possibly Waterloo, and possibly Victoria. He said that for the reason, which everyone knew, that cabs congregated in Piccadilly, Park Lane, and round about the centre of London. When close to a station they would no doubt go into it, but they would not go to St. Pancras, Paddington, or King's Cross, or into the City unless there was a fare to take there. No cabman would go outside the centre if he could avoid it. He had himself experienced great difficulty, and he was sure other Members must have found it so in similar circumstances, to get taken from Belgrave Square into the City, because the cabman could not get a fare back. Over and over again he had been refused, and one did not want to have a row. He happened to be living some years on the route of the Great Western Railway, which admitted cabs of strangers into Paddington Station when necessary, but if he got into a strange cab and told the driver to take him to the City he was almost invariably refused. In the case of a privileged cab, all that one had to do in such a case was to summon the station inspector, who would at once compel the man to drive the fare to the place to which he wanted to go. If it was an outside cab, however, the station inspector had no authority over the driver.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The policeman has.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that meant going to a police court, and who was going to take that trouble? At the present time the inspector at the station merely said, "You must go," and the driver went. He was on the Committee to which his right hon. friend alluded, and this very question came up. A cabman
212
who was in favour of the abolition of the privilege system came before the Committee, and he said to the witness, "Have you ever been in the Great Western Railway station?" The reply was "Yes." He then related to the cabman what he had just related to the House, and asked him whether it was true. The witness replied, "Oh, yes; it is quite true. What I do is to drive out of the station, and when I get out of the station I tell the people to get out of the cab." These were some of the reasons why the railway companies were desirous of keeping a certain amount of control of the cabs in their own hands. The other system had been adopted at Waterloo fifteen or sixteen years ago, and he challenged any hon. Member who was in the habit of going to Waterloo to deny the statement that the worst cabs in London congregated at Waterloo. [Cries of "No."] He did not know whether hon. Members who denied that had been in the habit of going to Waterloo, but he himself had been in the habit of visiting Waterloo to see what sort of cabs were there, and he ventured to assert without fear of contradiction the truth of his statement. He would go with any hon. Member any day this week to Waterloo and to Paddington, and he was quite certain he would convince him of the difference in the quality of the cabs at the two stations. [An HON. MEMBER: The Great Northern is the worst.] He would go to that station if the hon. Member liked. He entirely disagreed with the hon. Member that the Great Northern cabs were the worst. Perhaps the hon. Member saw a bad one, for they admitted outside cabs if they had not sufficient of their own in the station. It was evident that the result of the experiment in this Bill must be a failure to get cabs at those stations which were outside the area of London where cabs mostly congregated. There could be no question about that, and the only argument the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward was that the cabmen who were not privileged desired the system to be abolished. He had nothing to say against cabmen, who were a very worthy class of men, but he did not think the interests of the public ought to be sacrificed in the suppositious interest of one class of men. No doubt what

213
appealed to the cabman was that if he happened to be near a station he would like to go into the station. But the cabman would not go to an outside station of his own accord to get a fare, and for that reason the railway companies held that it would be quite impossible to apply this rule to all stations. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had met them so far as regarded the suburban part of London, but his Bill said the police area, which extended to Clapham and that sort of place. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware, as he was informed was the case, that the hon. Member for Sheffield, who was a director of the Great Central Railway, had an undertaking from the Board of Trade that no Bill of this sort should be brought in unless sent to a Select Committee.
MR. GLADSTONE: The Board of Trade have nothing to do with it.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that was another point. The railway companies were more or less under the control of the Board of Trade, and why should they be put under the control of another Department? Surely it was quite sufficient to put the railway companies under the control of one Department.
MR. GLADSTONE: Why does the hon. Baronet propose to put cabs under the Board of Trade?
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did so for the very good reason that if they were going to regulate one particular business, they had better do so by one set of men. The Board of Trade were conversant with the railway companies and their needs, as well as their methods of business, and I he ventured to say the Home Office knew nothing whatever about them. For that reason, he thought the Board of Trade was the proper body; but supposing he was wrong, it did not alter his contention that a pledge had been given by the Government to the Great Central Railway Company that this Bill should not be introduced unless it was sent to a Select Committee. He did not think the Government could get out of that pledge by merely saying that the Board of Trade gave it.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he did not
214
want to get out of any obligation, but as this Bill came out of a Select Committee, he did not see why it should be sent to a Select Committee.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid his contention was that this pledge was given, and if so, it ought to be adhered to. The only other remark which he had to make was this. It was a little hard that in this matter in which they thought that great inconvenience would be incurred by the railway company and be caused to the public—that in a purely commercial undertaking of this sort, the Home Office should interfere. At a time when railway companies were in a extremely depressed condition, the Home Office was to come in and instruct them how to manage their business. He urged that there must result a great inconvenience to the travelling public and a loss to the railway companies. He had only one other remark to make, and that was with regard to Clause 3. This had nothing to do with the railway companies. It provided that coaches running out of London should have a foot-plate upon them. There used to be a considerable amount of interest taken in coaching; but this provision was a way to kill coaching altogether, by putting a badge on the driver and a plate on the coach at the; rear. It was quite unnecessary. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not kill four-in-hand driving.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid in the speech to which they had first listened the last remark was the only part with which he agreed. The right hon. Member for the City of London had mentioned an instance in which he could not get a cab to go from Paddington to the City at ten o'clock in the morning. The reason was that the cabman unless driving a "privilege" cab, knew that it was extremely unlikely that he would get a "fare" back from the city to Paddington at that hour in the morning, but if he were a "privilege" cabman he knew perfectly well that he could go to Liverpool Street and get a fare back. Another matter which the right hon. Baronet had mentioned was that a promise had been given that a Bill of that sort should be sent to a Select Committee. He would remind him that the clause which

215
dealt, with "privilege" cabs was entirely based on the recommendation of a Select Committee which sat last year. That select committee had several sittings and a very large amount of evidence was taken both from the cabmen and also on behalf of the railway companies; and the Committee unanimously agreed, without any exception, that it was desirable to abolish the "privilege" system. The cabmen who gave evidence fully realised the position in which the railway companies were placed. They acknowledged that the railway companies were bound to supply the public with conveyances at their stations, and they agreed that if it was found that the obligations of the railway companies to the public could not be fulfilled after the privilege system had been abolished, they would not object to the railway companies reverting to the "privilege" system. The Select Committee's recommendation was that the abolition of the "privilege" system should be tried for one year. The right hon. Gentleman had carried out this recommendation in his Bill, and if the railway companies could prove that sufficient cabs were not available after the "privilege" system was abolished, the companies might revert to that system. Another matter which the cabmen most fully realised was that in the event of the "privilege" system being discontinued and sufficient cabs for railways not being available, the railway companies could provide their own cabs for their passengers' convenience which would affect the cab industry to a very large extent—an industry which already was in a somewhat tottering condition. Then the hon. Baronet had alluded to the power which he said the right hon. Gentleman had taken under the Bill—that of entirely taking away from railway companies the control of their yards. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had said that this was not the case. He (Sir Samuel Scott) hoped it was not. This was one of the strong recommendations that the Select Committee had made, that it was extremely desirable that the station yard should be under the control of the railway company. He earnestly hoped that his hon. friends on that side of the House would pass the measure. It was very much required in London.
216
He ventured, with all due deference to the great knowledge of the Member for the City of London, to say that he thought he knew as much about the needs of the people of London as the hon. Baronet.
MR. REESsaid he still believed, in spite of what had been said, that the cabman existed for the public and not the public for the cabman. He thought that the system, which had been in force for nearly seventy years and had worked well, providing cabs at all hours for railway passengers, had a great deal of good in it. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who had in this matter endeavoured to meet the cabmen as well as the public, to consider whether the balance of evidence was not in favour of the public rather than of the cabmen. He did not know why cabmen should be protected in the manner suggested against the public interest, and he urged that travellers who were in the habit of arriving at a station like Euston, at four o'clock or five o'clock in the morning, would be put to the greatest inconvenience if the so called "privilege" system were abolished. The privilege was a privilege of the public, and not of any particular class, trade or interest. Respecting the abolition of the "privilege" system he could only emphasise what had already been said that it would be very hard to retrace their steps and to revert to the "privilege" cab system if once it was given up, though the Home Secretary, with his habitual consideration, had provided for tentative action, and for reversion, if necessary, to the existing conditions in this behalf. It was absurd to argue that the railway companies took up the line they did because of the small sums received on account of the "privilege" cabs which stood in the stations. No one could seriously argue that. For instance, the Great Western Company received something under £2000 a year from the "privilege" cabs at Paddington. This sum was a mere bagatelle to that company. Whether or not a pledge was given with regard to this Bill's going to a Select Committee, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether there was any objection to its going to a Select Committee instead

217
of to a Standing Committee, or to a Committee of the Whole House. He had not had the advantage possessed by several hon. Members who had spoken of sitting on the Select Committee which reported last year, but he felt sure that the abolition of a system, which did no one any harm, and ensured a cab at the station at any hour of any day or night, would be regretted.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORdesired to interpose for a moment for the purpose of welcoming the Bill, first and foremost because it set to rest a very vexed question among the cabmen of London. There had been a difference of opinion among persons of high legal authority with regard to the legality of motor taximeter cabs, which were plying on the streets of London at the present time. He was sure there had been only an apparent difference of opinion, and that the right hon. Gentleman and those who were acting with him had come to the opinion that taximeter cabs needed to have their position in the streets of London regularised. Inasmuch as this Bill regularised their existence on the streets of the metropolis, he welcomed it, because it would go towards settling a vexed question which undoubtedly prevailed among the cabmen. The only matter to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was this. The senior Member for the City of London had referred to Section 3 as interfering with the old practice of coaching. This section did not so much interfere with the old practice of coaching as it would undoubtedly interfere with a new practice which had come into operation. The Secretary of State might, according to this section, by general or special order, apply to stage carriages which should have come from some town or place beyond London, or to any owners of stage carriages, any provision of the Acts referring to stage carriages in London. That might work out to be a very vexatious action in the future. It did not at all apply to the old and dying stage coaches in London. They were not at all inconvenient to the travelling public of London. They were not offensive to the travelling public of London. But it might interfere with the motor omnibus
218
traffic from neighbouring towns into London. They knew that very strict regulations were made in regard to the motor omnibus traffic to London; they knew that the police regulations of Scotland Yard were very severe—and he said, very properly severe. He admitted that to allow the motor omnibus traffic of London to be conducted upon the loose manner in which it had been conducted at the beginning in its experimental stages, would not be at all convenient to the people of London. The noise which they created ought to be checked. The rules, regulations, and instructions of Scotland Yard were right and pro per so far, but if those regulations were to be applied to the motor omnibus traffic that might come from outside towns into London, it might become inconvenient to the travelling public, and it might become impossible for such companies to establish such traffic.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid perhaps he might be allowed to explain that this clause was designed to meet what possibly might happen if any broken-down motor bus might come into London from outside, and run about London without the restrictions and the regulations of the police authority. They had heard of certain plans for buying up derelict motor buses and running them into London from outside. That would not be allowed.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he was glad to have the explanation. If such a thing occurred it would be a very serious thing no doubt, but what he would suggest was that the Committee should guard against any vexatious regulations that would prevent companies in the suburban districts, and beyond the public regulations of London, from establishing such services as would be quite adequate to the needs of the people outside, but which at the same time might be prevented from their operations by any such vexatious conditions. He held no brief for companies of that kind; these evils must be checked, but all regard should be had to the nature of the case for persons plying for hire on the country roads and towns where there was not the necessity for putting severe regulations into operation. He trusted, therefore, that when the rules

219
and regulations came to be made under the Bill no such vexatious provisions would appear in them. The right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that his recent regulations in regard to the taximeter cab were ultra vires, and he thought this Bill fairly admitted in the first clause that those regulations were not quite consistent with the law. He sincerely hoped that when he came to make these regulations there would not be words inserted which would put out of operation any companies which might be started for the purpose of accommodating people outside the City of London.
MR. LAMBTONsaid he acted as Chairman of the Committee which reported on this subject last year. In answer to his hon. friend the Member for the City of London, he might say that the Committee took most careful evidence from several sources, not only from the cabmen, but from all interests, from the railway company and from the police. But the evidence of the cabmen, the railways, and the police all showed them that the universal opinion was that the privilege system should be abolished. He hoped the Bill would go to a Second Reading without a division, as the Report of the Committee was embodied in it.
MR. BOWLESsaid he entirely concurred with his hon. friend in hoping that the Bill would go to a Second Reading without a division. But he would like to make an appeal that it should be sent to a Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman had said it had gone through a Select Committee. That was not, strictly speaking, so. This Bill purported to carry out the recommendations of a Select Committee, but it had never been before a Select Committee, and only part of it had been before a Select Committee at all. It seemed to him, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider it, that it was exactly the kind of Bill which really could only be properly and adequately dealt with, especially at that time of the session, by a Committee upstairs. The Bill gave the right hon. Gentleman very large powers to deal with evils which they all admitted. The evils were great. The whole point was how the right hon. Gentleman was
220
going to deal with them. It seemed to him that it was exactly the kind of Bill which really ought to be considered, in the interests of everybody, otherwise than in the small hours of the morning.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid it was proposed to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he wished to enter a word of protest against the third sub-section of the second clause of the Bill. The speech of the Home Secretary was remarkable for one thing, and that was the Government's adhesion to the scheme to abolish the privileged cab system. The speech was full of apologies, but very little evidence whatever was adduced in pressing this view on the House. He thought that was sufficiently shown by the fact that it was impossible to put this particular clause into operation before a year or two's time. This third sub-section was designed to allow the Home Secretary to repeal the Act which they were asked to pass in the next few days. They asked the House to pass a Bill dealing with taximeters, and in the same Bill the Home Secretary reserved to his Department the right to repeal any part or the whole of the terms of the Statute. No doubt there were certain occasions in which a course of that kind was convenient. It appeared to be one of the rules of the present Secretary of State, and the most recent example was to be found in the Eight Hours' Bill, recently introduced, to take the right to suspend the operation of the Act. It was a sign of the absolute lack of confidence he had in his own measures, and he thought it ought to be a matter of protest in the House that when a Minister of State, occupying the high position of Home Secretary, brought in a Bill, he should make a practice of inserting in that very Bill a condition under which he should have liberty to override it.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of July last, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-six minutes after One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Employment of Women Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2.) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Barry Railway Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

LEITH BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Third Reading, viz., that the Bill be read 3a this day three months.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, after what was said on the previous occasion by my noble friend the Lord Chairman, and in consequence of the great expense which would be entailed on the various parties, and also in view of the Amendment which is down on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Plymouth, I will, with the permission of the House, withdraw my Amendment to the Motion for the Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I now desire to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper—namely, that Clause 4 be struck out. We were urged, in the debate the other day, by Lord Balfour and by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees to look at this question from a broad point of view, and not to discuss on the floor of the House the merits of the Bill. I entirely accept that view. I do not attempt to ask the House to decide

3
exactly what is the right amount of rate that should be charged by the Burgh of Leigh to the Commissioners of the Docks, but I do say that, on the facts before us, this clause has not received sufficient consideration, and that it would be only fair and right on the part of this House, looking at the question broadly, to cut out this clause if some further consideration of it cannot be obtained, because if it is passed I think that some injustice is very likely to be done.
It is impossible, in moving that this clause be struck out, to avoid mentioning what the grounds are for deleting it, and therefore, without any intention of going fully into the merits of the Bill, I must refer to what I consider the probable injustice that would be inflicted if the clause remained in. Clause 4 seeks to put a very serious additional burden on the Commissioners of the Port of Leith. This is not the first time that it has been attempted to upset an agreement which was based upon an agreement made in 1838, in which the Docks Commissioners of Leith obtained statutory exemption from certain borough rates, but, on the other hand, were bound to provide for the watching, lighting, etc., of the public quays and roads within the dock area, and also for maintaining two miles of road outside. This they are doing now, at a charge of £12,000 a year. In addition to this, they already pay rates amounting to £10,000 a year, including the public health rate, and therefore it cannot be said that they do not largely contribute to the rates.
It does seem to me, on the face of it, that it is most unfair, without very strong reason indeed, to break the agreement of 1838 on the one side by imposing rates from which the Docks Commissioners have for all these years been exempt, and on the other affording no relief from the duties that were imposed upon them in this agreement. It seems to me that on that ground alone it is right for this House to inquire how it came about that the Bill passed through the other House and that a reference to a Joint Committee was not agreed to. We have already heard that the Commissioners who inquired into this matter in Scotland were divided, and that the clause was passed by the casting vote of the chairman. I venture to think that when so important an agreement as this
4
is sought to be upset, and when it is sought, as I have explained, to impose rates on the Docks Commissioners from which they got statutory exemption on the understanding that the obligations to which I have referred would be imposed upon them—I venture to think this should not be done by your Lordships' House unless you are fully in possession of the reasons for so doing.
The Commissioners are authorised to borrow money on mortgage. Very large sums have been borrowed and continually have to be borrowed. Every one who knows anything of dock property knows perfectly well that the changes which take place in the building of ships of all kinds necessitate very frequent additions and alterations to docks in regard to their equipment, and very often in the depth and size of the docks in order to make them up-to-date. The Commissioners of the Leith Docks have to borrow money for these purposes, and I think it is a serious thing, when the public has lent money on a certain security and with the knowledge that certain rates of the burgh of Leith are not charged on the Docks Commissioners, that a very large increase in rates should suddenly be imposed upon them. This may be a serious interference, not with their borrowing powers, but with the condition in which the lenders of money will find themselves in the future. It is purely on these broad grounds that I appeal to the House to strike out Clause 4. We have not sufficient information to justify this sweeping and sudden alteration, and, in view of the fact that the retention of the clause was only decided upon by the casting vote of the chairman, I think it would be a wise and just act to strike out the clause.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 4."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, on the last occasion when this Bill was before the House it was generally felt on both sides that it would be well if the two parties specially interested could meet and endeavour to come to some agreement on the one comparatively small point which is raised in this Bill. From the year 1867, when the Leith Dock Commissioners came into existence, up to

5
the year 1905, they paid the public health rates; but, in consequence of a decision that was given in regard to a case at Greenock, they have not been paying those rates for the last two years, and in that period they have thus saved £4,800.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Have they not agreed to pay the public health rate now?
LORD SALTOUN: Yes, that has been agreed.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: That point, therefore, does not enter into consideration.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: That point, therefore, does not enter into consideration.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I do not agree. On 31st July the Corporation of Leith were informed that—
"For the sake of peace and to avoid the possibility of one or other of the parties coming to Parliament next session the Dock Commissioners are prepared to accept Clause 4, if its coming into operation is postponed for ten years to 1918."
Yesterday the Leith Corporation proposed to meet the Dock Commissioners in this way—to amend Clause 4, and after the words—
"from and after the 15th day of May, 1908, the Dock Commissioners shall be liable to be assessed."
to insert the words—
"for the year ending the 15th day of May, 1909, on one-tenth, for the year ending the 15th day of May, 1910, on two-tenths, for the year ending the 15th day of May, 1911, on three-tenths, for the year ending the 15th day of May, 1912, on four tenths, and for the year ending the 15th day of May, 1913, and each succeeding year"—
and then the clause will read on as it now now stands—
"on one-half of the annual value of the lands and premises of the Dock Undertaking."
By that means the corporation will get another £6,000 during the live years that the sliding scale will be in force, which, with the £4,800 already saved, comes to £10,800. The proposal to postpone the clause for ten years would involve a sum of £30,000. I think that if a compromise could be arrived at on the lower sum and on the sliding scale it would be to the advantage of both parties, and I hope that such a compromise will be effected.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, when the discussion was adjourned
6
the other day we all hoped that the parties might meet and arrive at some arrangement which might make it un necessary to continue this discussion further. Unfortunately such appears not to have been the case. My noble friend mentioned a proposed agreement just now, but he did not tell us—and I do not think it is the fact—that that agreement has been accepted; and therefore the matter comes before your Lordships in exactly the same position as when we last discussed it.
I am not going to enter into the merits of the question at all. But what is the position of the House in regard to this matter? All we know is that a certain proposal is made which would have the effect of repealing certain sections of an Act of Parliament. That is all we know. The Commission were equally divided on the point, and the matter was decided by the casting vote of the chairman. On the other hand, the Scottish Private Bill Procedure Act provided that there might be an appeal, and it specified that it should be to a Joint Committee of the two Houses in any case in which an appeal was thought desirable. The House of Commons has declined—and, of course, it has every right to decline—to grant its half of the Joint Committee, which makes a Joint Committee impossible. That is the form in which this question returns to the House. I frankly say that had I myself been in the position of chairman, when the Commission was equally divided I certainly should not have opposed a reference to a Joint Committee. That, however, was not the course that was taken, and now your Lordships have to decide what you are going to do with regard to this clause.
If ever there could be a case in which a rehearing was desirable, surely it was a case in which the Commission was equally divided, and, more especially, where the clause in question virtually repealed certain sections of an Act of Parliament. There cannot be an appeal; that is impossible. Well, what are your Lordships to do? There was an Amendment moved by Lord Saltoun to reject the Bill in toto on Third Reading, but my noble friend, very wisely, as I think, withdrew that Amendment; and it now remains for your Lordships to say whether you will pass the clause in the circumstances I have mentioned or adopt the

7
Amendment of Lord Plymouth. Speaking without any reference to the parties—I do not care anything about either of them—it seems to me that, in all the circumstances, the right course for this House to take is to delete the clause, and if the noble Earl takes a division upon his Amendment I shall vote with him.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment, and I do so on the broad grounds which the Chairman of Committees put before us when this matter was under discussion the other day. Unless your Lordships accept the Amendment the consequences will be far-reaching. Attempts at conciliation have been made but have utterly failed, and I therefore trust your Lordships will support the Amendment.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Plymouth, in moving his Amendment, stated that one of his reasons for asking that Clause 4 should be struck out was that additional burdens would by it be placed on the Docks Commissioners, who had been granted exemptions from rating since 1838 on condition that they undertook to carry out certain matters, such as lighting. I am advised that this exemption from rating was granted because the Commissioners were debtors to the Crown to the extent of £390,000, £340,000 of which the Crown wiped off. Reference was also made to those who had lent money to the Docks Commissioners and whose interests it was said would be prejudiced, but I am informed that these loans are only for a period of five years; and, again, it is not I proposed to levy rates on more than one half of the annual value of the lands and premises of the docks. This clause is the most important part of the Bill, and if it is struck out a large sum of money will be involved. I strongly support the view taken by Lord Tweedmouth. The offer made by the Leith Corporation would result in a saving to the Docks Commissioners of £6,000, and I do not think they are entitled to more considerate treatment than that. Moreover, the throwing out of this clause would certainly necessitate Parliamentary action being again taken next year.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I think that the position in which this House has been landed goes far to confirm what the noble Earl below
8
the gangway has just said, that it is most unfortunate that there was not a rehearing granted in this important case. It is too late to say any more about it, and I can only personally express my deep regret that that course was not taken. A week ago we adjourned this discussion in the hope that the parties would to some extent come together. Up to the last moment they have stood apart and no real attempt at negotiation has taken place so far as I can see; but a letter which I received this morning shows that an offer was made yesterday by the Leith Corporation to the Docks Commissioners—the offer which Lord Tweed-mouth read. It seems to me that if that offer had been made a little earlier it might have been a fair start for a compromise; and I deeply regret that the agents for the Leith Burgh, no doubt instructed by their clients, stood out to the last moment without making any otter of the kind. I should hope that, even now, the noble Earl, who has been, I presume, in communication with the Leith Docks Commissioners and is entitled to speak for them, may see his way to accept the offer; but, if he does not, I think those who have delayed so long making an offer will have incurred the responsibility of losing the clause. I appeal to the noble Earl whether he will not at the last moment accept the offer made by Leith Burgh. It is always safer for the House as a whole to put in an Amendment or strike out a clause if the course has been agreed upon by the parties. It is almost impossible for us to see what damage we may do if we act on ex parte statements. My only reason for rising was to make an appeal to the noble Earl to accept the offer, even though it falls short of what he and his friends think ought to be given, rather than run the risk of doing damage to interests on both sides by striking out the clause without knowing the full effect of that action.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): Will your Lordships kindly consider what we are really doing? A large number of your Lordships know nothing at all about this clause or what the effect of its omission would be on the whole Bill. Will your Lordships look at the clause?—
"4. From and after the fifteenth day of May one thousand nine hundred and eight the Dock

9
Commissioners shall be liable to be assessed on one half of the annual value of the lands and premises of the dock undertaking as appearing in the valuation roll for the burgh general assessment and the general improvement rate under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Acts 1892 to 1903 for the burgh sewer rate under section 110 of the Water of Leith Purification and Sewerage Act, 1889 and for the assessments tinder the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 and the town council shall as from that date impose and levy upon and recover from the Dock Commissioners in respect of the said lands and premises the said proportion of the said assessments. So far as necessary to give effect to the foregoing provisions of this section the provisions of section 49 (Assessment to be levied—rate of assessment—description of subjects liable to assessment) of the Act 7 & 8 George IV, cap. 112 section 45 (Assessment to be imposed) of the Leith Municipal and Police Act 1848 section 3 (Exemption in section 45 of 11 & 12 Vict. c. cxxiii to continue in force) of the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Supplemental Act 1862 (Royal Assent 21st July 1863) section 86 (Assessments in burghs how to be levied and recovered) and section 101 (Saving as to Leith Harbour) of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 section 97 (Saving obligations as to streets and exemptions from taxation) of the Leith Harbour and Docks Acts 1875 section 110 (Further provisions as to Leith drainage district) of the Water of Leith Purification and Sewerage Act 1889 subsection (6) of section 15 (Games &c. in parks) of the Leith Burgh Order 1904 and any other provisions of these Acts and Order and of any other Acts or Orders are in so far as such provisions exempt the Dock Commissioners and the dock undertaking from the aforesaid assessments hereby repealed."
I know nothing about the parties or the merits. I have not the least idea which side is right, and I undertake to say that is the position of nearly everyone of your Lordships. You will see that the clause refers to many kinds of assessment, and contains other provisions which it is impossible to understand from merely reading the clause. It is true that the decision was arrived at by the Commissioners in Scotland by the casting
vote of the chairman, but it was done under the Scottish Act, the object of which was that these matters should be finally decided in Scotland. To adopt the Amendment would be a blow to that Act. And how is it possible for us to effect amendment by leaving out a whole clause without any information as to what it means or any knowledge as to how the omission of this clause would affect the other clauses? In all the circumstances, I think, it would be best to choose between two courses—to throw out the Bill altogether, which I hope will not be done, or to leave it as it is.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, the last stage has now been reached, and unless the noble Karl opposite or some Member of your Lordships' House is in a position to say whether the proposal which has been made and which has been read to the House by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty will be accepted, I do not see how your Lordships can further facilitate the coming to terms by the two parties. With reference to what has been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I think anyone who looks at the clause will see that the result of omitting it would simply be to leave matters as they are at present. I knew nothing whatever about the merits, and if your Lordships decide to leave the clause out you will be merely recording your opinion that another opportunity ought to be given to Parliament of considering whether or not the clause ought to be passed.
On Question, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill," their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.]

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Armitstead, L.

Haversham, L.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Balfour, L.

Hemphill, L.

Zetland, M.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Joicey, L.

Beauchamp, D.

Colebrooke, L.

Muskerry, L.

Clarendon, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Pirrie, L.

Craven, E.

Denman, L.

Ranfurly, L, (E. Ranfurly.)

Kimberley, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Ribblesdale, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Eversley, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Fitzmaurice, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Selby, V.

Glantawe, L.

Stanley of Alderley.

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Tweedmouth, L. [Teller.]

Welby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Churchill, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Sutherland, D.

Falkland, V.

Digby, L.

Falmouth, V.

Faber, L.

Bath, M.

Goschen, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Lansdowne, M.

Hill, V.

Kelvin, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Langford, L.

Camperdown, E.

Knutsford, V.

Lawrence, L.

Cathcart, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Lovat, L.

Cawdor, E.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Eldon, E.

Abinger, L.

Redesdale, L.

Haddington, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Hardwicke, E.

Avebury, L.

Sanderson, L.

Mayo, E.

Barrymore, L.

Sinclair, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Braye, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Stanmore, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Clinton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PETITIONS.
  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
  Petition to be heard by counsel for amendment of; of Ashton-under-Lyne and District Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Gravesend and District Grocers' and Kindred Trades Association; Hull and District Provision Dealers' and Grocers' Association; Bath Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; North Cotswold Grocers' Association; and Neath and District Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  1. Report on American manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain. Vol. III.;
  2. Report on the manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue, Esq., preserved at Dropmore. Vol. VI.:
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
Order made by the council of the county of Durham altering certain polling districts in the Bishop Auckland Parliamentary Division: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
BRITISH EAST AFRICA.
Papers relating to British East Africa: Laid before the House (pursuant to Address of the 27th June last), and to be printed. [No. 158.]
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Report of the progress of the Ordnance Survey, to the 31st March, 1907.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT.
Report of proceedings as regards Ireland, for the year 1906.
SHIPPING CASUALTIES.
Shipping casualties which occurred on or near the Coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of the United Kingdom, from 1st July, 1905, to 30th June, 1906; and shipping casualties which occurred to British vessels elsewhere than on the Coasts of the United Kingdom, and to foreign vessels on or near the Coasts, or in rivers and harbours of British Posessions abroad, reported during the same period, &c., &c.,; with charts and appendices.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I believe it would be for the convenience of the House that we should take the Committee Stage of the Evicted Tenants Bill on Friday next, and I therefore beg to give notice that I shall to-morrow, in moving the adjournment of the House, move that we adjourn until Friday instead of Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suppose the House will meet at the usual hour on Friday?
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Yes: I understand that that will be most agreeable to Members of the House.

HOURS OF RAILWAY SERVANTS.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the "Return of Railway Servants who were on duty on the Railways of the United Kingdom for more than twelve hours at a time for the month of April, 1907;" and to ask whether the Board of Trade will not revert to the former practice of publishing on the same page the total time from booking on to booking off, and also the additional figures supplied by the railway companies giving the time engaged upon responsible duty.
I have no doubt your Lordships are all familiar with the Returns to which I desire for a few moments to call your attention. They had their origin some time ago. I think the Act was passed, under which they are called for, at the time when the noble Viscount on the Front Bench was at the Board of Trade and I had the honour of serving there under him. For a considerable number of years Returns were asked for about once a year and were always rendered to the House in the same form. Recently the Board of Trade have asked for those Returns more frequently and have to some extent changed the form in which they are presented. I want, in the first instance, to assure the Government and the representative of the Board of Trade that in calling attention to the alteration which they have recently made in the form of the Return I do so in no spirit hostile to the Return itself. I believe these Returns are useful, and I think it is extremely desirable that the information sought for should be given in the fullest possible way. My case is not against the request for the Returns, but against the form in which they are presented, and I suggest to your Lordships that they are not now given in a form which does justice to the facts they are supposed to reveal to the public.
Down to the year 1902 when the Return was asked for no instructions were given as to the method in which it should be made up. But when asked for in October of the following
14
year the Board of Trade issued instructions that the time to be taken for the purpose of the Return was the full time from start to finish, and that no kind of deductions were to be made. It is very desirable that the fullest information should be given, and it is quite clear that the bare fact of the number of hours on which a railway servant is supposed to be on duty does not reveal the whole of the case. I remember quite well that fifteen or sixteen years ago, when I was at the Board of Trade, a question was asked about one of these Returns, from which it appeared that a certain engine driver had been sixteen hours continuously on duty. That was true. He had served the company for sixteen hours and had received sixteen hours' pay, but what he had done during that period was this. He had run an excursion train from London to Brighton, which took him an hour and a half, and, after an interval of twelve hours, he had driven it back again, the intervening twelve hours having been spent on the beach at Brighton with his family, for whom he had obtained a free pass. It was for him an extremely light day's work, but for the exigencies of the railway company it was necessary that he should be on duty the whole time, and so, technically, he was on duty for the whole sixteen hours.
The point of the whole matter is this, that the first table in this Return gives the total time from the booking on to the booking off—that is, the whole time the man is away from home and on duty; but what you really want to know is the time in between those extreme hours on which the man has been really upon responsible duty. It is quite right that the whole time should be given, but it is not right that it should be given as if that particular table told the whole of the facts. Up till about six or eight months ago the additional figures were given in the same table, printed in italics. That has now been changed, and the additional information is put away in an appendix to the Return. The result of that has been that it seems as if during these recent months the number of times when excess duty has been worked has been largely increased, but that is not so; and the plea I make to the Board of Trade is that they should revert to the original practice if they can, and, if they cannot do that, for reasons of their own, they

15
should in some way or other make it more easy to the public to ascertain the real facts.
I do not think I am making an extravagant request, because, after all, it is in the interest of everybody—the Board of Trade, the railway companies, the public, and the men themselves—that the facts, whatever they are, should be ascertainable from the form of the Return with as little trouble as possible; and when I tell the representative of the Board of Trade, as I do, upon the authority of the railway company whom to some extent I am representing to-night, that the alteration in the form has given rise to misconceptions, that we have received communication after communication commenting on the deterioration in our practice, which is not true in fact, I am sure he will see that we have, I will not say a grievance, because I am certain that in so far as we have suffered it has been unintentional on the part of the Board of Trade, but certainly something of which we may complain; and I hope that, either by the alteration of a heading or in some other way, the misconceptions to which I have referred may be got rid of. I believe it would help the public to obtain better and clearer and more accurate information if the Board of Trade were to revert to their original practice. All we want is that these Returns should be given in such a form as to render it easy for those who are interested in these matters to ascertain the true facts of the case.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I agree with a great deal that has been said by my noble friend as regards this Return. The great object of the Return should be, of course, to give to the public the whole of the facts, and the noble Lord appears to be of opinion that, owing to the new regulation which came into force when the last Return was furnished, the Return is not now given in a form which does justice to the facts it is supposed to reveal to the public. As far as the Board of Trade are concerned we are anxious to give the information as clearly as possible, and we regret that the change has met with the disapproval of the noble Lord. I do not think, however, that the Board of Trade are very anxious to revert to the old system. They are of opinion that the present system is the best, but I
16
can assure my noble friend that before the next Return is issued we will do all in our power to meet his wishes.

FINANCE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, it would not be consistent with my position hero to attempt to make, and certainly I doubt whether I should be capable of making, any sort of Budget statement on this occasion. That has not been the general practice in your Lordships' House. I therefore formally move the Second Reading of the Bill, but I shall be prepared later to answer any observations that may be made by any of your Lordships on the subject to which it relates.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this is a Bill which, I believe, your Lordships cannot amend, and which, I am quite sure, you would not desire to reject. But still it does afford a convenient and, I think, a constitutional opportunity for any observations which your Lordships may desire to make on the important question of the finances of the country; and as I was responsible for a good many years for those finances I hope I may not be deemed to be wasting your Lordships' time if I make some observations this evening both upon the general financial policy, as I under stand it, of His Majesty's Government, and also upon the provisions of this particular Bill.
When His Majesty's present advisers came into office there was, I think, a widespread expectation that their first Budget would show, if not a new departure in finance, at any rate a very large reduction of the expenditure of the country. For many years previously they and their followers had made continued and bitter attacks upon the financial policy of their predecessors. Extravagance was almost the least of the charges they brought against that policy. But when the first Budget of the new Government was produced, that expectation was dispelled

17
Last year the present Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, in the discussions on the Budget, that it had no pretensions to be anything but a commonplace Budget, and said that in the circumstances in which he found himself it could not be otherwise, because he was practically bound by the Estimates of the late Government, for which he could not be responsible. That was a perfectly fair and definite position to take up. I never complained of it, and I think it was generally accepted as practically relieving him from criticism as to his proposals last year.
But at the same time the Chancellor of the Exchequer took occasion to refer, greatly to the disadvantage of his predecessors, to the enormous growth of the Estimates in the ten years preceding 1906, and he said that the amount of £111,000,000, at which the Supply Service stood for 1906–7, was excessive, and made a return to more thrifty and economical administration the first and paramount duty of the Government. He added that he believed that twelve months after that time he would be able to announce, without any weakening of the national services, a substantial saving. The mountain laboured for something like 14 months, but the result has been very small indeed. That £111,000,000 has been reduced in the present year to £110,112,000—a reduction of a good deal less than 1 per cent. I do not complain of that fact. I never expected the great reduction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated in 1906. I knew something of the difficulty of keeping the Estimates down, and the greater difficulty of reducing them. But I do venture to suggest to your Lordships that the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been able to do more scarcely justifies the continued and bitter accusations made by Ministers and their colleagues against their predecessors. There are many supporters of the Government who are not a little disappointed by that result. They consist of those Members of Parliament to whom the Array and Navy Estimates are a form of expenditure which they would desire to abolish altogether. That, of course, is not the view of His Majesty's Government, and I am very glad that that is so. But I it may be said that the small reduction to which I have referred may be, after all, but a beginning. I would suggest that,
18
looking to the general policy of His Majesty's Government, there can be no reason whatever to expect any great reduction in future, and it is far more likely that there will be a considerable increase.
I will first take the Navy Estimates. The Navy Estimates for 1906–7, for which the late Government were responsible, were £31,869,000; this year they are £31,419,000—£450,000 less. There is another matter to be borne in mind, that provision is made to some extent in the Estimates of this year for expenditure on works which in previous years might have been borrowed. I mention that point, in passing, because it has this bearing on the future, that as there are to be no more loans of this kind the Estimates of next year must be charged with further amounts for works, and that applies also to the Estimates of succeeding years. Further, when those Estimates were prepared there was some anticipation, in the mind of the Prime Minister, at any rate, that something would result from The Hague Conference which would allow of a reduction of armaments; but nobody expects that now, and if it does not occur the Admiralty are pledged to build at once another "Dreadnought," and I they will probably have an increase of the shipbuilding vote in other ways, and I am certain that my noble friend opposite, the First Lord of the Admiralty, will not tell the House and the country that he anticipates any reduction in the Navy Estimates in the future.
Then I come to the Army Estimates. The Army Estimates are £27,760,000, or £2,036,000 less than last year. I think it has been clearly shown, in the debates in this House on Mr. Haldane's new scheme, that the normal Army Estimates in future could not be less than 28 millions; and then there are always what are called "automatic increases"—a phrase perfectly odious to the Treasury, but extremely dear to the Admiralty and the War Office. In addition to that, there is usually some abnormal expenditure to be incurred by the War Office. At one time I had to find ten millions for a great reserve of stores and clothing, and since three millions have been required for the rearmament of the Artillery; and I believe the Army Estimates will never be without some abnormal expenditure of that kind.

19
Therefore, again I say, there can be no expectation whatever that the Army Estimates are likely to be reduced in future years. And then the Chancellor of the Exchequer has very properly laid down that it is necessary to improve the national credit by making large provision in future Budgets for the repayment of Debt. I am very glad that he proposes to do so, but that means a great addition in the amount to be levied by taxation.
As to the Civil Services, there seems to be no bounds to the expenditure desired, even by the economists, on matters like education. And then, as if that were not enough, His Majesty's present advisers have undertaken a great policy of social reform, which was eloquently referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, especially in improving the education of our children, and in the establishment of old-age pensions. There was a time when old-age pensions were advocated as a kind of reward in old age to poor hard-working men who had shown some special merit, or contributed in some way towards the pensions which they would receive. That has long gone by. The demand now is for pensions to be given to everybody who arrives at a certain time of life, who has not done any special service to the State, and without regard to any special merit or even any special need. In my opinion, pensions of that sort are worse than a waste of public money; they are the greatest possible incentive to the absence of self-reliance and thrift. I am sorry to see that the principle of pensions of that kind has been, if I understand rightly, accepted by the Prime Minister and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in this Bill now before us the country is asked to provide a sum of a million and a half to be temporarily devoted to the payment of debt and to form a nest-egg towards the, establishment of a Pension Fund. It has been estimated that any scheme of that kind must lead to an annual expenditure of something like 26 millions. I think I have satisfactorily established the fact that so far from its being likely that there will be any diminution of expenditure in the years to come expenditure is likely to be very largely increased.
Then comes the question, On what principles do his Majesty's advisers intend
20
to provide for that expenditure? I hope the noble Marquess will not reply: "Sufficient for the year are the finances thereof," because I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he proposed to lay down the principles that would guide him during the next few years. I have studied this Bill; I have studied the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and I will endeavour to place before your Lordships the result of that study. I am bound to say that it is not to me at all clear what those principles are. They are not, I think, the principles somewhat rashly laid down in a moment of enthusiasm by Mr. McKenna, who informed the House of Commons that he would gladly see indirect taxation altogether done away with, including, I suppose, the taxes on alcohol and tobacco. I do not think Mr. McKenna has given quite the study to financial questions which would have befitted the position of Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I hope his educational studies may make him a more efficient Education Minister. I do not suppose, however, that the sentence I have quoted represents the views of the noble Marquess or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but their policy, nevertheless, so far as I can understand it, is hopelessly drifting in that direction.
What are the principal financial proposals in this Bill? The Bill makes permanent the additional duties on alcohol and tobacco which I imposed for the purposes of the war. But practically, so far as any changes in taxation are concerned, it deals solely with direct taxation. It makes two changes in that respect. It proposes to increase the estate duties by a very considerable percentage on estates over £150,000 in value, and an additional supertax, I think it is called, on estates over one million in value; with this result, that an estate, say, of three millions in value, which before the passing of this Bill would pay £240,000 in estate duty, would in future pay £400,000. I have no personal interest in this matter. My withers are entirely unwrung, and that, I think, is a very general view. But I would say this, that I am afraid the financial expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the revenue resulting from that change will be very much disappointed. You may go a great deal too far, for financial purposes, in attempting to tax wealthy persons. Wealthy persons

21
have discovered already various ways of evading the death duties, and to increase them to the extent proposed on the estates of those who are best able to pay for the cleverest advisers to look after their interests, will not, I think, produce that additional yield of £1,200,000 a year to the revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipates.
The other change is the adoption of differentiation between earned and unearned incomes. That is a very old idea, and until the present year I thought it had been effectually exploded by Mr. Gladstone in his well-known speech of 1853. I really do not believe there was any sufficient reason for that change. As Mr. Gladstone himself urged, there is an important difference between the assessment of incomes under Schedule D and Schedule A. Incomes under Schedule D are self-assessed, with the result, as we know, that the assessment is very seldom accurate, or rather very often utterly inaccurate. The incomes under Schedule A are assessed by other persons than those who receive them. Therefore those assessments not merely accurately represent the real income of the person who receives that income, but, as a rule, very much more than the net income which goes into his pocket. There is another point. Persons whose incomes are precarious are relieved from a tax upon that portion of their incomes used for life assurance, and, lastly, Sir W. Harcourt's Budget in 1894 so largely increased the death duties on realised property that the direct taxation on incomes derived from property and on incomes derived from professions and trades may be considered to be on a level.
I do not however object to the allowance made by this Bill, which is confined to incomes not exceeding £2,000 in all, because everybody must feel that the income-tax presses more hardly on the comparatively smaller incomes. But as Mr. Gladstone urged in 1853, nothing is more dangerous than the attempt to remove an anomaly in the income-tax, for it is almost certain to create or to aggravate others. There is grave cause for complaint that in dealing with the matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer has entirely neglected to consider the position of income-tax payers under Schedule A, individual
22
owners of houses or lands. I will not say that incomes from these sources are earned incomes. Schedule A imposes a property tax rather than an income-tax, but the fact is that there is greater exertion required from the owners of agricultural land or of small tenements in properly looking after their property than is required from many a sleeping partner in a business or professional firm, who have only to receive their incomes, which yet are to be treated as earned. The taxation of incomes under Schedule A is grossly unfair, as compared with incomes of companies. Companies are allowed all kinds of deductions not allowed to house and land owners, for management, for law charges, for insurance, for repairs, to the full extent of their expenditure; but the owners of land and houses are only allowed the 12½ or 16⅔ per cent. granted by Sir W. Harcourt in 1894, as some compensation for heavily increased death duties. Much fairer allowances are made in assessing property of this kind to estate duty, and there can be no reason whatever why it should not be treated equally for both kinds of duty, or why individuals should be more heavily taxed than companies.
These are important points of detail, but they are entirely neglected in the changes made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The points were brought forward in the House of Commons, but the only reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that I, when Chancellor, had not made the allowance, and he would not do so. The answer was not quite fair, for I never felt myself in a position to differentiate between earned and unearned incomes. I only hope the matter will not escape notice in future years. It is not in the interest of anybody except, perhaps, of those who desire to tax landowners out of existence, that such property should be taxed unfairly as compared with other incomes.
I turn from a point of detail to principles. The Chancellor of the Exchequer held out no hope of a graduated income-tax, and he was wise; the attempt would be attended with enormous difficulty, and would lead to many evasions of the law. He held out a promise of a tax on motor-cars, an admirable suggestion; but I think the proceeds would be properly devoted if they went to the maintenance of highways. Further, there

23
was a suggestion of an increase at some, time of the duty on public-house licences. Well, my Lords, I have looked into that matter. I think he might possibly derive some income from an increase of those duties, but the amount would not be large, because it must be principally obtained from the most valuable houses, which are comparatively few, and the great mass of public-houses or beer-houses could not afford in these days of temperance to pay much increase without being taxed out of existence; so that, whatever the results might be, increase of revenue for the Exchequer would not be among them.
I think we may assume that in this Budget the changes in the direction of increasing the burden on the wealthier and lessening it on the poorer classes who pay direct taxation has been settled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so far as his future policy is concerned, and the question is, what will be required to meet the large expenditure of the future? Is there always to be a shilling income tax in time of peace? The answer, of course, will depend on the policy of the Government in regard to indirect taxation. When I had to increase the revenue of the country for war purposes, and for peace purposes, I am sorry to say, as well, what I did in the way of indirect taxation was to raise the duties on tobacco and alcohol, to raise the tea duty, to impose the sugar duty and the corn and coal duties. After the war was over the tea duty and the income-tax were together lowered. The corn duty was abolished by Lord Ritchie, a step which many must now regret, for the abolition, while doing no good to anybody, deprived the Exchequer of two and a half millions of revenue.
Last year the present Chancellor of the Exchequer took a penny off the tea duty, but I do not believe that the benefit reached the consumer. It has been held by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer, and the opinion has been confirmed by business men in the trade, that a reduction of less than 2d. in the tea duty does not reach the consumer. The same opinion led the Chancellor to reject the proposal for a reduction of a penny this year. The shilling export duty on coal was abolished by the present Government, at a loss of £2,000,000 a year to the Exchequer, and that has put some money
24
into the pockets of coal producers and their workmen, but the whole of that duty certainly did not reach their pockets at the time of its abolition. I know, as Chairman of the Coal Conciliation Board for South Wales, that many coalowners maintain strongly that they only benefited by 3d. a ton, the rest having gone to foreigners, middlemen, shippers, and others. However that may be, undoubtedly the repeal of the coal duty had the effect of increasing the foreign demand for coal, and that increase has assisted in enormously raising the price to the British consumers, who after all, are the mass of the people, much more numerous and more important than those engaged in the production of coal. The effect to the British consumer of the abolition of the coal duty has been that he has to pay more for his coal than he paid when the tax was on. That has been the result of repealing the taxes which I imposed on corn and on coal.
Now I come to the tax on sugar. The tax on sugar was strongly attacked in the House of Commons this year. It was attacked, I am sorry to say, not merely by a number of those Members of Parliament, not all of them, who had promised their constituents to vote for the repeal of the duty, but also by members of the political Party to which I myself belong and who had made no such promise, but who, I think, must have forgotten on that occasion that there is a responsibility upon the Opposition to assist the Government of the day in providing the ways and means to meet expenditure of which the Opposition has approved. The tax was bitterly opposed, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not spare the money and resisted the attack. But did he defend the tax on its merits? No, my Lords, what he said was this, that—
"The sugar tax ought not to form a permanent part of our fiscal machinery because it is vicious in principle, burdensome in its incidence, and unequal in its operation between different classes, but to halve it would do no good whatever to the great bulk of the consumers."
What does that mean? It means that the sugar tax will soon go like the other taxes to which I have referred; and yet that duty is not open to any objections on the ground of free trade. No doubt sugar is a raw material in the manufacture of confectionery and mineral waters; but as they are not necessaries of life, I do

25
not see why they should not bear some taxation. This I do know, that the manufacture of mineral waters is a profitable industry even under the sugar duty, and that our export of confectionery, which has to compete against the confectionery of other countries where the sugar duty is higher than here, has actually increased since the sugar duty was imposed. I admit that sugar is a necessary of life. But is it to be an established doctrine nowadays that the people as a whole are to be relieved of all burdens of the State if they do not consume alcohol or tobacco? The tea duty was attacked this year as well as the sugar duty; and yet these are the only taxes by which the great mass of the people are obliged to contribute something towards the necessary expenditure of the country.
Mr. Gladstone made a remarkable observation on this matter in the year 1860, when the tea duty was 1s. 5d. in the £ and the sugar duty was far higher than it is now. He said—
"If we are to have a very large scale of expenditure—
such as we have now, as well as a very high income tax which would have horrified him—
"I cannot think, while the bulk of the burden should fall on the shoulders of those having property, that it is otherwise than desirable that the labouring classes should bear their share of the burden in a form in which it will be palpable and intelligible to them";
and only the other day Mr. Asquith, while referring to his scheme for social reform, supported this view by saying—
"If we are to have social reform we must be willing to pay for it, the working and the consuming classes as well as the wealthier classes of direct taxpayers."
How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to make the working and the consuming classes pay for social reform? I believe it is impossible to devise indirect taxation which will be more productive, of its kind, and less burdensome to the people, trade, and industry of the country than the taxes on tea and sugar. It is impossible to think that Mr. Asquith intends to adopt the proposals of the Tariff Reform League and to institute a duty on manufactured or partly manufactured goods. There is one thing upon which the Government are absolutely pledged, and that is that they will have nothing to do with protection in any form. I am glad
26
to hear noble Lords opposite cheer, because in my belief such duties would not only do serious injury to the trade and industry of the country, but would produce very much less revenue than those who recommend them at present seem to anticipate.
I hope that I shall have some answer to the questions I have ventured to ask the noble Marquess, because if indirect taxation, with the exception of the taxes on alcohol and tobacco, is entirely to disappear in this time of very great expenditure, all I can say is that I see no possible result except the permanent maintenance of the income-tax at 1s. in the pound, and its probable increase considerably beyond that amount. I regard that as grossly unsound finance. I look upon it as not only very unfair to the very small proportion of people who bear the burdens of direct taxation, but as a policy which would, by removing so much of their incomes from the possibility of affording employment to others, do far more in the end to injure trade and industry than could possibly have been done by the continuance of the corn, coal, and sugar duties. But what is even worse is that if ever a time of trial again comes to this country, and come it will some day, an income-tax in time of peace at 1s. in the pound or more will be dangerous to the maintenance of the Empire and even possibly to the existence of our country, because it deprives us of the full use of the most important, most easy, and most convenient weapon of finance in time of war. My apology for detaining the House so long is that I desire to do my best to impress upon the Government and the country the danger of drifting, as they seem to be, in this direction in their financial policy, and of the probable result if they are going to abolish, as I fear they intend to do, further important sources of indirect taxation.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, before the noble Marquess replies I should like to be permitted to say a few words. The noble Viscount, who filled under the late Government the important position of Chancellor of the Exchequor with so much ability, has made a speech of a very interesting, and, in some respects, of a very caustic character. He began by not exactly attacking the Government,

27
but rather by twitting them for not having reduced the expenditure of the country by more than they have done; and he ended his speech mainly by a defence of his own fiscal arrangements during the war.
With regard to the first part of his speech, it seemed to me that the noble Viscount hardly gave the Government credit for what they have clone during the year and a half in which they have been in office, and it is on this point that I desire to make the principal observations that I shall address to the House. It seems to me that during the eighteen months that the Government have been in office they have done a great deal to improve the financial position of the country. In the first place, there is strong evidence, I think, that a spirit of economy has at last been introduced into the Departments, and that the Treasury, which, in my opinion, had lost control to a large extent over the expenditure of the Departments, has regained that control. The best proof of this is to be found in the fact that the expenditure of the country, during the year ended March 31st last, was no less than two millions below the estimated expenditure in the Estimates of the year. I believe that that difference is greater than has ever occurred in any previous year.
Credit is also due to the Government for having reduced the expenditure on the Army and Navy during the year and a half they have been in office by something over four millions. The noble Viscount did not give the figures, and he appeared to think that very little effect had been produced upon the expenditure of the Army and Navy during the time the present Government have been in power; but the figures I have before me show that the expenditure for the Army and Navy together for 1905 was £63, 200,000 and the Votes for this year are £59,100,000—a difference of £4,100,000. I will not say that the reduction is sufficient. On the contrary, I hold the opinion very strongly that further reductions should and may be made, but at the same time this is a long step in advance in the direction we are aiming at, and I think the Government deserve considerable credit for having done so much.
But the most important point in which the Government seem to me to have
28
done well in their finance is one on which the noble Viscount was entirely silent—I refer to the complete stoppage they have put to the vicious and unwise system of borrowing money for new military and naval works all over the Empire. This vicious system was begun, I must admit, by the late Liberal Government in the year 1895, but it was extended to a very much larger extent by the Government who followed, and at last had reached a point which really amounted to a scandal. The waste of expenditure on works of this kind which shortly afterwards proved to be useless has been enormous. I do not know whether your Lordships have read the recent Report of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, in which illustrations are given of the waste of expenditure in this direction. It appears from that Report that works were undertaken at a cost of no less than £1,000,000 at Tidworth in furtherance of the then Secretary of State for War's scheme of six Army Corps. Barracks were erected there at this gigantic cost in order to provide accommodation for eight battalions, but by the time the barracks were completed the scheme of six Army Corps was abandoned and it was found that only four battalions had to be provided for, and therefore half a million of money was wasted. Then at another place, Stobs, wherever that may be, it was proposed to buy training ground for one of these Army Corps at a cost of £750,000, but fortunately it was discovered in time that the site was not wanted, and only £56,000 was wasted on it. Another item of £150,000 is mentioned as having been spent at East Bulford on an establishment for the training of mounted infantry. The scheme of training mounted infantry appears to have been dropped, and that £150,000 has been wasted. There was an expenditure for a similar purpose elsewhere at Fermoy, the amount wasted being £35,000.
I have obtained a Return from the War Office showing what number of works authorised by the late Government have been abandoned during the last year and a half as useless. These works are ten in number, upon which no less than £3,826,000 was intended to have been spent. Fortunately, those works have been abandoned, and that money is

29
saved. I have a list of thirteen other works on which large sums of money have been spent and all of which have since been given up as useless. They include barracks at St. Lucia, £241,000; barracks at Halifax, £59,000; barracks at Wei-Hai-Wei, £52,600; and barracks at St. Helena, £22,000. I have been unable to obtain a similar Return from the Admiralty, but I am assured, on authority which I cannot doubt, that works, involving the expenditure of many millions, authorised by the late Government, have been abandoned by the present Government within the last year and a half as useless and the money saved, and that other works costing millions of money, undertaken and carried out by the late Government are now recognised by the Admiralty as useless. In the aggregate no less a sum than £62,000,000 has been authorised for expenditure out of loan on works of this kind, and £51,000,000 have been actually expended; and it would be interesting to know how much of that has been wasted upon works which are now proved to be useless.
The present Government have determined to bring this system to an end, and, with the consent of all parties in the House of Commons, and urged on by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, they have decided that in future works of this kind shall be voted in the Estimates for the year, according to the old tradition, whereby much saving will be effected. One of the worst features of this loan system has been that, while it lasted, there was practically no reduction of the debt. While with one hand the country was paying off debt by means of the Sinking Fund, with the other it was incurring debt, so that the one transaction balanced the other.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: That was not so. A sum was placed every year on the Estimates for the repayment of capital and interest in connection with these loans.
LORD EVERSLEY: My figures show that in one year at least there was a balance of expenditure over the money paid off by means of the Sinking Fund.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: You are absolutely mistaken.
LORD EVERSLEY: I have not got the exact figures with me, but I will undertake to say that during the three or four years before the present Government came into office the amount of money borrowed for the purpose of works of this kind nearly balanced the money paid under the Sinking Fund in reduction of debt. The abandonment of the loan system by the present Government has resulted almost immediately in a real reduction of debt, and in their first two years of office the present Government will have repaid £23,000,000 of debt, as compared with almost nil during the previous three or four years.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNdissented.
LORD EVERSLEY: I say that is a great achievement on the part of His Majesty's Government, and one for which they deserve every credit. In addition, the Government since they have been in office, have reduced taxation by about £4,000,000, representing almost exactly the amount of reduction effected in military and naval expenditure. I cannot say that I am satisfied with the amount of reduction on the Army and Navy, and I cannot but hope that the reductions will be carried further. Recollecting that the expenditure upon the Army and Navy is still £14,000,000 greater than it was immediately before the South African war, that it is no less than £24,000,000 greater than it was when the last Liberal Government were in office in 1895, and looking to the much more favourable position of international politics, the great changes that have taken place in Europe, the disappearance of the Russian Fleet, and the agreement we have come to with France, I cannot but hope that there will be yet further reductions in military and naval expenditure.
The noble Viscount, towards the end of his speech, referred to the taxes which he imposed in the years 1901 and 1902 for the purpose of the late war. I think his argument was this, that he considered it wise to spread the taxation of the country over a wider area than we now do, and he argued in favour of continuing those taxes rather than maintaining the income tax at a high figure. The noble Viscount was not altogether fortunate in his attempt to impose new taxes. The noble Viscount told us that he imposed three

31
new taxes—the corn tax, the coal tax, and the sugar duty. He has informed your Lordships that he appproved of the corn tax, and that in his opinion it was unwise to repeal it. The noble Viscount declared that it had been no burden to anybody.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I said that its repeal had done no good to anybody.
LORD EVERSLEY: I recollect that when he proposed this tax the noble Viscount expressed the opinion that the burden would not fall on the consumer; he thought the amount of the tax was so small that it would not increase the price of broad, and therefore would not fall on the consumer. But I recollect that later on he made a speech at Manchester in which he admitted that he had made a great mistake on that point.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Not a great mistake.
LORD EVERSLEY: I have his words. I carry this extract with me because I find it a very good vade mecum to meet tariff reformers, who always say that the tax imposed on corn by the noble Viscount did not raise the price to the consumer. This is what the noble Viscount said at Manchester on the subject—
"I thought that my duty last year on corn was so small that it would not increase the price of bread. I made a mistake. I found that in not a few cases it had the effect of giving an excuse to bakers to raise the price of bread, and therefore I confess I believe the doubling of that duty, and also the adding of new duties on meat and dairy produce, must increase the cost of food to the working-classes."
The duty was repealed, I think very wisely, because it was found that the duty cast a burden on the consumers, and increased the price of bread.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Can the noble Lord show that the price of bread or corn was a farthing cheaper after the repeal of the duty?
LORD EVERSLEY: The £2,500,000 must have fallen on somebody. May I ask the noble Viscount on whom it fell?
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: That is a question no one can answer.
LORD EVERSLEY: My opinion is that in the nature of things the tax fell ultimately on the consumers, as all these taxes on articles consumed by the people ultimately fall. The next tax that the noble Viscount imposed at that time was the coal tax, and I think there, again, he said that the tax would fall upon the foreigner and not upon the people of this country. As a matter of fiscal economics I believe it to be impossible for a country to impose a tax within itself so as to fall upon the people of another country, and indirectly this coal tax fell upon the people of this country. No doubt the foreign consumer paid somewhat more for the coal, but in the long run the effect of the tax was to lessen the export of coal from this country and pro tanto to reduce the wages fund of this country. Last year that tax was repealed with the general assent of the House of Commons, though not without protest from the noble Viscount.
The third tax which the noble Viscount raised in 1902 was the sugar tax, estimated to produce six millions, and there, I think, he admitted that it was to fall upon the consumer, because his argument was that it was desirable that the labouring people should contribute their share towards the expenses of the war—an argument with which at the time I quite agreed, for I think it was right that those who voted for the war should contribute to the expenses of it. But the sugar tax is a very bad tax, for it is levied upon an article of consumption second in importance only to corn. It has been, in my belief, a great burden to every working man's family in the country, and it is also a burden on a large number of manufactures; and I think the noble Viscount must have felt very sore a few weeks ago; when the Party to which he belongs in the House of Commons voted unanimously for the repeal of the tax. I was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in debate upon the subject, admitted that it was a bad tax, and I hope that the half-promise he gave that it should be repealed will be redeemed before long; and then the last of the noble Viscount's taxes will have disappeared. My own impression is that I the burden of present taxation upon the labouring people on sugar, tea, beer, tobacco, and spirits is a very heavy one. One proof of that is the want of elasticity in the revenue derived from these

33
articles in the Customs and Excise. Not withstanding the great prosperity of trade during the past year, there has practically been little or no increase in the receipts from these taxes, and I believe the cause to be that the burden is being severely felt. There are other bad symptoms showing the pressure on the people of taxes of this kind. Pauperism and offences against property began to increase from 1901–2 when these taxes were imposed, and have gone on increasing since then. I venture, therefore, to hope that the Government will be able to carry out the promise given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the sugar duty will be repealed at an early date.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the noble Lord who has just sat down in expressing the hope that His Majesty's Government will realise the great importance of reducing our enormous National expenditure. The first thing which will probably strike anyone as regards the Budget is that, though we have had a period of peace and prosperity, we have no substantial and general reduction of taxation. At the same time this is not my main complaint, for I recognise the difficulty of any rapid decrease in expenditure, and appreciate the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a substantial reduction of the National Debt. I cannot, however, but regret that he has not realised the importance of reducing the income-tax generally. Mr. Gladstone, we know, was opposed to the continuance of the tax.
For my own part, I have never advocated the entire abolition of the income-tax. It is, indeed, a tax on thrift, and very objectionable in that respect; though no doubt it has some advantages. In a sudden emergency—in time of war, for instance—it can be raised with perhaps less disturbance of financial arrangement than is possible in other ways. But, in order to be able to raise it in war, you must lower it in peace. To keep it, therefore, at the present excessive rate is impolitic. It is also unjust for several reasons. In the case of "wasting securities" it is a tax, not upon income, but on capital. Take, for instance, a mine, or quarry, with a life of, say 20 years. The annual tax is really five per cent. annually on the capital. Such
34
a tax must, of course, tend to discourage our mining industry, both at home and abroad, and other similar cases might be given.
At first sight, no doubt, there is something plausible to be said for taxing the interest of investments at a higher rate than the income derived from present personal exertion. In the new jargon of the day one is said to be earned, the other unearned income. A man works hard, lives economically, invests his savings, and we are told that the income from his savings is unearned. Could there be a more misleading, a more absurd term, to apply? As Mr. Gladstone said—
"Take the poor widow with £300 a year derived from investments, and bringing up a family; is she to be placed in a worse position and to be taxed at a higher rate than the small business or professional man making £300 a year from his business?"
The Chancellor has made an exemption for pensions, and I am glad of it, but surely it gives away his case. One man has an income of £1,000 a year. He saves £100 and invests it; that income is said to be unearned and is taxed at the higher rate. Another has an income of £900 and a pension; this is taxed at the lower rate. Surely, this is a very illogical and unjust arrangement. The fact is that it is impossible to draw any logical distinction between what are called earned and unearned incomes. The boundary is purely arbitrary. Moreover, I much doubt whether the increased expense will not swallow up the supposed advantage. Again, an income derived from an invention, and that of an author from a successful book, are to be treated as unearned income! Surely that is absurd. Further, the Bill repeals Section 133 of the Act of 1842, which allows an abatement of duty at the end of the year of assessment, where it is found that the profits of that year fall short of the average of the previous three years. Now why was this provision inserted? In commerce it often happens that, though a business is good on the whole, it leaves a loss in some years. For instance, most of our Fire Offices lost heavily last year in the San Francisco catastrophe. The arrangement was, therefore, just and equitable, and I submit ought not to have been disturbed.
Moreover, the mode in which it is proposed to levy the tax seriously aggravates

35
the injustice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I know, does not intend this. He is under the impression that he is reducing an inequality, while, on the contrary, he is creating one. After a reasonable time the incidence of taxes tends to adjust itself. Wages, salaries, hours of work, and conditions of employment, under the beneficent laws of nature, by degrees arrange themselves equitably. Any alteration disturbs this equilibrium for a time, and, unless absolutely necessary, ought, therefore, to be avoided. But avowedly this Budget is arranged, not merely to raise the necessary amount for the service of the year, but to benefit some classes at the expense of others—or, in other words, to deprive some classes of part of their property in order to give it to others. No wonder a feeling of injustice and wrong is created.
The seizure of property is just as arbitrary, whether the few take from the many or the many from the few. That it is done under the form of law, and not by force, disguises the process, and makes it legal, but cannot make it just. It is really confiscation under the disguise of law. The majority, of course, may take away property from the minority if they choose, but I doubt if they will find it in the long run to be to their advantage, even in a pecuniary sense. Of course, I need hardly say that I am making no personal attack on the Chancellor of the Exchequer or upon noble Lords opposite. No doubt he and they are acting in what they believe to be the interests of the country. But is this so? Mr. Gladstone, we know, always objected to graduation. He maintained that you cannot make any reasonable and fair distinctions. The attempt, he said, would destroy the tax, and I see that Mr. Austen Chamberlain has recently expressed the same opinion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks of—
"an income-tax logically graduated from the top to the bottom."
Where does the logic come in? On what principle are you to go? It is not the amount of extra burden which seems to me the real objection. It must in fairness be admitted that men of wealth are liberal and generous for public objects or the claims of poverty and distress. That is not the real objection. The inherent vice of the system is the
36
uncertainty and injustice. This is creating a feeling of general insecurity.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has more than once assured us that the Government has no intention of attacking property; that there are no grounds for apprehension. Unfortunately, however, words and deeds do not agree. The Government is really Socialistic. They profess, no doubt quite sincerely, not to be Socialistic. They do not seem to me to know where they are going. The Fabian Society are more frankly Socialistic; they are more thorough-going, and know their own mind. The Government do not seize property all at once: they take one per cent. one year, and one per cent. another, but the principle is, and the ultimate results will be the same. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he is influenced by the desire to secure equality of sacrifice. This is quite beyond his power. He takes an arbitrary amount of £2,000 a year. Does he suppose that all men of £2,000 a year are equally well off? The idea is absurd. Take two men each with £2,000, the one a bachelor, the other a married man with 10 children. Are they equally well off in a pecuniary sense? Or suppose one has to pay £1,000 a year to his mother, or his brothers and sisters. The fact is that the amount of income is little guide in such matters. One man with £1,000 a year may to all intents and purposes be richer than another with double the income. The Government look to the income, and overlook the responsibilities. They may say that they cannot go beyond the income. That is so, and it is just my argument. It makes their test entirely fallacious and misleading.
Look, again, at the death duties. Sir W. Harcourt imposed very heavy death duties. Who are the real sufferers? Primarily, of course, those who have to pay them. But the duties inflict great suffering on a wide circle. The heir cannot afford to live in the family house. He is compelled to shut it up and go away. Gardeners and others are necessarily dispensed with, they are thrown out of employment; local tradesmen lose their principal and other customers, and the whole village is upset. The poor are really the greatest sufferers. Moreover, Sir W. Harcourt made the

37
death duties graduated. What we felt at the time was that the great evil of this was the uncertainty. Now the Government have increased them again. I believe in the long run the country will be no gainer. I doubt if, without graduation, the duties would not have produced quite as much. This, however, may be contested. It is impossible to prove one way or the other. But the pecuniary advantage, if any, to be gained by graduation, whether of the income-tax, death duties, or in any other form, is dearly bought if we remember the feeling of injustice and insecurity which such provisions necessarily create.
The next objection which I have to the Budget is that it seems to be part of a systematic attack on thrift. Savings are to pay a higher rate of income-tax than earnings; a man who spends all his income is to pay a lower percentage than one who is more prudent and economical. When a man has nearly reached an income of £2,000, he has no inducement to make a little more; indeed, he is discouraged from doing so. He is fined if he does. It is, therefore, a discouragement of thrift. Indeed, this is the tendency of much modern legislation. The hope of old-age pensions which is held out is another step in this direction. It is a proposal to revive the disastrous condition which prevailed in the early years of the last century. It was then called outdoor relief; now it is dignified by the name of a pension. But the change of name will not alter the nature of the payment. It will inevitably raise taxation and lower wages.
The proposal of Government takes us back to the time before 1834, when, as the Charity Organisation Review says—
"almost the whole of the industrial population in many parts of England were in receipt of relief. Practically almost every poor person had an old age pension, and yet the condition of the poor was never so lamentable."
There have been five Commissions and Committees on the subject—three of experts and two of politicians. The three of experts were all against, the two of politicians were in favour of old age pensions. I much doubt if the country has at all realised the cost. In the recent Blue-book the Local Government Board put it at £30,632,000, without counting cost of administration, and express the
38
opinion that it would not materially reduce our poor law expenditure. In fact, old age pensions will cost much more than the interest on the National Debt. In the Blue-book we are told that if half the amount was paid from the rates they would be raised no less than four shillings and eightpence in the £1. This would be ruinous to many, and would practically destroy some industries. Moreover, would the amount stop at 5s.? In New Zealand it did not, but pressure was exercised and the amount has already been doubled. The same might and very likely would be the case here. I have not much faith that candidates would be strong enough to resist the temptation to buy votes by conceding the demand. Sir E. Hamilton's Departmental Committee also reported that—
"there would be an inevitable tendency to reduce wages,"
as was, we know, the case before 1834. Are the recipients of these pensions to be allowed to eke them out by working? And if not how are they to be prevented? Another evil is that they would probably increase pauperism. Mr. Harold Cox in the House of Commons quoted the Superintendent of the Melbourne Benevolent Asylum in Victoria as having said—
"I think that the payment of these pensions has a tendency to increase pauperism."
Again, the honorary treasurer of the Melbourne Ladies' Benevolent Society was asked whether poverty was increasing or decreasing in Victoria, and replied—
"'We do not think that poverty is increasing, but we think the tendency to ask for assistance is increasing."
The tendency must also be to lower wages. Mr. Loch, probably the highest authority in the world on such a subject, tells us that—
"if there is any truth in the teaching of history it is that State relief relaxes effort, prevents accumulation, and conduces to and makes possible the unemployment of labour. A dependent population loses the power of acquisition."
It is sometimes, however, said that these pensions are different from outdoor relief as being free from the "taint of the poor law." But as Lord Rothschild's Commission justly pointed out, any stigma must depend not upon the form in which the relief is given, but upon the cause which leads to

39
it. Whatever discredit may attach to the receipt is just the same whether you call it poor relief or an old age pension. A pension which a man earns for himself stands on a very different footing. This form of pension is happily spreading, and will spread if we do not stop it. Various agencies are increasing substantially the number of aged persons in receipt of pensions. The trade unions, friendly societies, railway and other companies are doing much in this direction. The Local Government Board estimate that already no less than 250,000 persons are in receipt of pensions, and Lord Rothschild's Commission pointed out that
"a large and constantly increasing section of the industrial population of this country do already, by prudence, self-reliance, and self-denial, make their old age independent and respected."
All these healthy and natural tendencies will be checked and choked by the hopes held out by Government. It is another step in the fatal process of making people more dependent and less independent; of making our countrymen lean more and more on the State, less and less on themselves; of breaking up the family and substituting the State. In the Colonies we are told that already children are ceasing to feel the moral obligation of supporting their parents. They begin to think that this is the duty of the State—i.e. of others. But, says the Charity Organisation Review, in an excellent article on the whole subject—
"besides this there are the scarcely less natural obligations of employer to employed, neighbour to neighbour, and friend to friend. All these obligations constitute the repairing force and cement of society, and in displacing them we may be creating a void which the State can never supply. The force of this natural charity is little appreciated by public opinion because it works unseen."
The proposal, moreover, raises a number of questions which have not yet received any satisfactory answer.
Why is sixty-five to be the age? Why not sixty or seventy?
How is the age to be ascertained?
Why are pensions to be confined to old age? Why not for infirmity or illness?
Are pensioners to be allowed to work for wages?
If not, how is it to be prevented? If they do, are they to be punished? And if so, how?
40
Moreover, if they are not allowed to work we know who will find them occupation? Spinoza justly said that—
"if we wish to promote progress in the future we must retain the relation which Providence has instituted between conduct and consequences."
To children it is right that help should be given in the inverse ratio of their strength; to men it should depend on their deserts. These are the conditions of national prosperity, and they cannot be contravened with impunity. They are, moreover, primary principles of justice. It is unjust to deprive a man of the fruits of his industry; but you do him an even greater injury if you take from a man any of the inducements to industry and thrift. Neither course can be adopted without disastrous consequences.
The Budget rests on no principle; it has no finality. The Government are increasing the death duties; where is the process to end? They are taking threepence more from incomes of over £2,000 a year than from those below. Why threepence? And why £2,000 a year? There is no reason, no logic in the proposal. The result is a sense of insecurity which is gradually lowering the value of securities and is most injurious to the prosperity of the country. I submit, then, that the present Budget is unwise—(1) because the income tax is too high; (2) because it will be unjustly levied; (3) because the disposals discourage thrift; (4) because they diminish independence and promote dependence; (5) because they weaken family ties and family responsibility; and (6) because they are creating a feeling of injustice and a general sense of insecurity.
LORD GLANTAWE: My Lords, I shall only detain you for a few moments. I cannot allow one of the statements made by the noble Viscount with regard to the coal tax to pass unchallenged. I disagree with a great many of the statements he made, but I will confine myself to the coal tax. There is no doubt whatever, in the mind of anyone who knows anything about the coal trade, that the effect of the tax was very disastrous in some parts of South Wales and in parts of England, especially where the percentage of "small" is much above the average. Had that tax been continued very many of the collieries in South Wales would have had to close their pits.

41
I was rather surprised to hear the noble Viscount (Viscount St. Aldwyn) state that some of the colliery owners had told him that the advantages to them of the repeal of the coal tax has only been about 3d. or 4d. per ton. As a matter of fact, contracts are being made for next year at something over 4s. per ton higher than could be obtained when the coal tax was in existence. The price of small coal when the tax was in force was 6s. per ton; contracts are now being made for next year at over 10s. per ton. It is true that the colliery owners did not receive the whole of the advantages of the removal of the tax. Its effect when first put on was greatly to reduce the wages of the men. Since the tax has been taken off the men's wages have advanced more than twenty per cent. Consequently the advantage has been very beneficial all round. And since the tax has been removed the quantity of coal exported has largely increased, thus benefiting the shipping trade, the railway companies, and the dock companies. I will not trespass on the patience of your Lordships by referring to other taxes. It has been proved beyond doubt that this tax was most prejudicial to this particular trade, which at that time was the only one taxed on its produce shipped to foreign countries.
LORD FABER: My Lords, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to address you for a few minutes on this Bill. I may say at once that I propose to discuss the question rather from the business than from the political point of view. I cannot say that in my view the Budget is a bad Budget. I think that in many respects it is certainly a good Budget, although, of course, there are things in it with which many of us disagree. I have nothing much to say about indirect taxation except this, that when Mr. Asquith introduced his Budget he made one statement which was received with general acclamation. It was, that as long as there was a war debt remaining, so long should certain war taxes remain in force. I thought that a good and plausible claim. I would point out that the South African war debt now stands at £120,000,000 and the war taxes produce £20,000,000 a year. If those taxes are to remain in force until the war
42
debt is paid off, then that £20,000,000 a year should be applied to the reduction of the war debt instead of being used for the upkeep of the country generally.
The income-tax remains at 1s., and the death duties are still further increased. In consequence capital is getting frightened. Capital is beginning to leave the country, partly because of the high income-tax and the increased death duties, and partly because higher rates of interest are obtained in other countries. In my opinion it is foolish for capitalists to take the risks which they incur by investing their money in foreign countries. But that is, after all, a matter for capitalists. They forget the hidden dangers of investment in foreign countries—the dangers of Government, the dangers of Nature, the dangers of foreign peoples; and are willing to run the risk. Capital is frightened again by the fact that Cabinet Ministers, in addressing meetings in the country, forget that they are Cabinet Ministers, and the effect of their speeches has been to frighten capitalists and to do an immensity of harm. I was glad to see that at the opening of the Hampstead Tube Railway a Cabinet Minister who was present took the right line, and that on that occasion, perhaps for the first time, he was good enough to say that if money was invested in railways the investors should expect to receive an adequate return.
The death duties can be evaded by making gifts in one's life-time. A man hates to give away his money during his life-time, and up to now that has been the salvation of the death duties; but if you make the death duties too high you create a force which is stronger, and he gives away his money in his life-time and so defeats the tax. I begin to ask myself whether it is wrong to amass money, whether it is wrong to inherit money, whether it is wrong that a man should desire that his family should remain strong after his death; because it seems to me that these taxes are aimed against our great families and rich men. I had always thought that our great families and our wealthy men who had made their money by hard work were a source of strength to the country. A rich man walked into one of the insurance offices recently and wanted to insure his life for £150,000. He was sixty-five years of

43
age, and was told that the premium would be £16,000 a year, and he expressed his willingness to pay that sum because he wanted to leave his successor in the position that he was in himself. He went on to say that in the course of nature his son would step into his shoes at about the age of fifty, and would have to pay £10,000 a year every year to leave the property in the same position to his son when he died. These death duties are going to act very prejudicially upon our great families.
An excellent feature in the Bill is the large Sinking Fund, because, after all, the making of a nation's finance consists in a very strong Sinking Fund. The future ascendancy of nations will rest largely on their money-bags, especially in these days when scientific equipment is worth more than even personal bravery and initiative. How should the Sinking Fund be applied? There were rumours at the beginning of the session that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was inclined to lend Sinking Fund moneys to the Irish Land Commissioners. That might have been expedient, but I do not know that it was wise. It was to prevent the Irish Land Commissioners from bringing out another Irish Loan, which would have been inconvenient; but I venture to think the proper policy was after all to support Consols, and for this reason. I have taken the trouble to go carefully through the price of Consols since 1880, taking the yearly yields and reducing to a common denominator the 3 per cents., the 2¾ per cents., and the 2½ per cents. I find that Consols were at their lowest in 1885. You could buy Consols in that year to pay you £3 1s.3d. per cent., from that year the price went up and the yield went down, until we got the highest price of Consols and therefore the lowest yield in 1897, when they paid £2 9s. 0d. percent. Since then the yield of Consols has gone up and they can now be bought to pay about 3 per cent. That seems to me to be one reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should buy Consols for the Sinking Fund, especially as he would thereby have supported the whole of the gilt-edged marked.
The Duke of Wellington said in fighting a defensive action—
"Keep the bulk of your troops ready for counter attack."
44
I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Keep the bulk of your Sinking Fund money ready to repel an attack on Consols whenever the market should seem about to make one." Something has been said about the price of Consols being lowered by the action and policy of the Government of the day; but the price of Consols is ruled rather by the demand for money all over the world. At present the demand for money is very keen in Japan, Germany, and America, and capital is always inclined to find the market which pays best, and I think on the whole that is the reason why Consols are so low. We shall see a rallying of Consols, probably directly trade begins to fall off, but not until then. There is another thing that may hurt us very much and affect our finance. I allude to the position of labour in South Africa. London is the only free gold market in the world, and London has got accustomed to receive from South Africa no less than half-a-million of gold per week. If that should fall off we should see a further and larger fall in our securities. There has been a reduction in Chinese labour and in native labour of about 4,000 out of 100,000, and if that went on it would interfere with the weekly shipments of gold. I end as I began, by saying that on the whole I do not think this Budget is a bad one. But what I am very much afraid of is the next Budget and the next after that.
The Marquess of RIPON and Viscount GOSCHEN both rose to address the House, but the Lord Privy Seal gave way.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I must apologise, in addressing your Lordships for the first time, for venturing to speak upon such a complicated subject as the Budget, and perhaps there are personal reasons which make it more difficult for me to do so; but in the few remarks which I shall make I shall not attempt to deal with any of the technical points which have already been dealt with, but shall confine myself to the general aspect.
It seems to me that three features stand out in this Budget. One is that, as the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, said, we cannot look, in the future, in view of the social programme which has

45
been foreshadowed by the Government, to any chance of remission of taxation. Another is that the Government, a free trade Government, has unintentionally dealt a blow at free trade. My views upon this subject are probably more in agreement with those of noble Lords opposite than with those of my noble friends who sit around me, and therefore I do not think noble Lords opposite will feel that I say this from any desire to make a Party point. Undoubtedly there are people who construed the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as meaning that in the future a shilling would probably be the permanent rate at which the income-tax would stand for those who would not have an abatement under the present Bill. If you refer this to that arbiter who is often appealed to in public life, the man in the street, I think that, even though he be a free trader, he would be inclined to say that if in the future he was going to suffer from a permanent income-tax of a shilling and there was no chance of a remission of taxation—and I think it would be very hazardous to prophesy the possibility of any decrease in that direction—he would rather become a tariff reformer and obtain the money by indirect taxation. Personally I do not think that that is a very statesmanlike view to take, but perhaps it is human; and I am afraid there are more people who are guided by human considerations than by statesmanlike ideals.
The third feature is that the policy of the Government has had a depressing effect upon the finances of the country. Everyone knows that the City has been going through a very bad time, and that gilt-edged securities have fallen extremely low. I agree with the reasons given by Lord Faber for that state of things, but I know there are other reasons. I daresay I am the last person in this House who ought to venture a remark with regard to the low rate of interest on Consols, as it may be thought that an inherent responsibility attaches itself to my name. Whether that be so or not, I think that the Government of the day cannot disclaim all responsibility for the fall that has taken place in gilt-edged securities. Undoubtedly the investor has become alarmed at the effect that the Government's legislation, such as their Land
46
Bills, is going to have on the trade of the country. The Government, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did do something which temporarily relieved the situation. Mr. Asquith's announcement with regard to the Transvaal loan had a temporary effect on Consols, but it was only an opiate which relieved the patient for a very short time. I am convinced that if you wish to restore a patient to a tranquil state of health, neither opiates nor temporary expedients will do it; you must relieve the patient from the anxiety that is affecting his mind. Until the investor is relieved in his mind, until his fears as to how the policy of the Government will affect capital are dispelled, there will still be a contributory cause of the state of depression existing in the commercial world.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I hope neither the House nor the noble Viscount who has just sat down, will think for a moment that I had the slightest intention of standing between him and your Lordships. I believe the noble Viscount addressed this House for the first time. He bears an honoured name, and I am sure your Lordships were glad to hear the speech he has made on this occasion. If I do not reply to the latter part of the noble Viscount's speech, although it involved an attack on the Government policy which I am quite ready to meet, it is because it does not relate to the question of finance. When the Bills which so much alarm the noble Viscount are before the House I shall be quite prepared to defend them.
The noble Viscount who spoke first concluded his most interesting speech with an apology. Nothing, I am sure, could have been more needless. We listened to that speech with the greatest interest; and so far as I am concerned, or the Government which I represent, there was not a word in his speech from beginning to end, of which we have any right to complain. The noble Viscount expressed considerable scepticism upon the probability of further reduction of expenditure in future years. I am too old to indulge in prophecy, and all I can say is that the burden of expenditure which lies on the people is an evil the Government will strive, as they have striven during the short time they have been

47
in office, to reduce so far as may be consistent with the interests of the country. One of the principal results of the financial policy of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been to make a very large reduction in the debt, and especially in the unfunded debt, of the country. That I believe to have been a sound policy. I understood the noble Viscount opposite to say that he agreed in that.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: The state in which my right hon. friend found the unfunded debt was most unsatisfactory, and I think that it is a great public service which he has been able to render in so largely, so steadily, and so determinedly dealing with that question. The noble Viscount passed to a question of great importance, one that lies at the root of social policy, when he referred to old-age pensions. On that question I do not understand that there is any difference of opinion between the Government and the noble Viscount, except as to the time when it should be dealt with. It was not the Liberal Party who first brought the question into the front rank of political controversy, and perhaps I may be allowed to say that it is a dangerous thing to dangle a promise on the subject before the people and make no earnest effort to fulfil that promise. Personally, and as a member of the Government, I rejoice at the determination of my right hon. friend to make such financial arrangements as will enable him next year to do something substantial in this direction.
The noble Viscount had much to say about the sugar duty, a subject upon which his friends in another place differ in their view. I think it will be agreed that my right hon. friend was wise under existing conditions in not making a reduction. A small reduction, though it might benefit the large industrial businesses in which sugar is a raw material, would not benefit the consumer. There was a further reason in the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a source of revenue free to deal with old-age pensions.
A great feature of the Budget is the method of dealing with the income-tax and the attempt to draw a distinction between earned and unearned incomes,
48
and my right hon. friend is to be congratulated upon his attempt to deal with a problem which has in the past presented so many difficulties. I well recollect—I daresay there is no one in this House who recollects it so well as I do, for I was in the House of Commons at the time—the marvellous effect of Mr. Gladstone's speech in the year 1853. If I had been asked the day before he rose to introduce the great Budget what I thought the House would say to a proposal to make no distinction between earned and unearned incomes, I should have undoubtedly said that the House would almost universally have demanded the change. It was by the power of Mr. Gladstone's eloquence, and by his great authority upon fiscal questions, that he converted—and the noble Viscount, I think, will agree with me, that that is not a very easy thing to do—the House of Commons entirely to his own opinion as to the course to be then taken.
But upon what was it that Mr. Gladstone rested his determination not to deal with that question? It was because he looked upon the income-tax as a temporary impost; he declared it was not a permanent impost. He said he sympathised largely with the professional man who earned a large portion of his income, and a large portion of whose income was, consequently, very uncertain; but he regarded the income-tax as a great instrument of taxation to be used for certain large purposes, and he was unwilling to diminish in any way the efficiency of that instrument by introducing changes of this kind. We know the history of the income-tax. We know that there was a time many years ago when this distinction between earned and unearned incomes was tried. It was tried by Lord Henry Petty, the Whig Chancellor of the Exchequer of 1806, but it did not last, and when the income-tax was reverted to afterwards there was no such distinction, and the system which has been in force whenever there has been an income-tax from that time to this was brought into operation.
When Sir Robert Peel, in 1842, reverted to an income-tax he reverted to it in order to make a great operation, one of the greatest financial operations ever undertaken by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country—namely, the

49
sweeping away of that multitude of insignificant duties by which the people and the trade of this country were so grievously oppressed. It was for that particular purpose that Sir Robert Peel resorted to the income-tax. Mr. Gladstone, in 1853, had a similar object in view; he had great financial reforms to introduce, and he determined to keep to the income-tax for that purpose. He never contemplated that the income-tax was to become a permanent part of the taxation of this country. He had a dislike to the income-tax; and your Lordships will recollect that at a certain famous General Election—I think in 1875—the principal contents of Mr. Gladstone's address to the electors was an expression of hope that if returned to power he might be able to abolish the income-tax. But he was not returned to power, and the income-tax was not abolished.
I think we may fairly say that we must now regard the income-tax as one of the mainstays of our financial system, not, of course, the income tax at 1s. in the pound, for that is another question; and if it is admitted, as I think it is generally admitted, that it is hard and unjust not to make the distinction which it is now proposed to make between incomes comparatively certain and incomes that are very uncertain, the time has come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to do what he can to relieve that undoubted grievance if it be possible to do so. Mr. Gladstone, as I understand, never said that it was impossible to do so. What he said was that it would be difficult and that it might impair the certainty of the results of the income-tax, because one of the great advantages of the income-tax is that if a large amount of money is needed for any purpose, it is only necessary to put on an extra penny and you know what you will get. As I have said, the work which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken is a bold one, but I think it was necessary; for when the Minister expresses his belief that the income-tax must remain a permanent part of the financial system of the country, it is his duty to make it as little burdensome as possible.
Then I pass from the income-tax to the proposals for dealing with the death duties. The result of the proposals in regard to the income-tax was to make a reduction
50
in direct taxation. It was contrary to the policy of my right hon. friend and of His Majesty's Government that if you reduce direct taxation, you should not at the same time reduce indirect taxation; and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to look where he could find some addition to the direct taxation of the country, which would balance the reductions he had made in the income-tax, and he found it in the changes which he proposes to make in the death duties. Your Lordships know what those changes are. In the higher values a certain amount is added to the rate per cent., and the new principle of super-tax is introduced on the death duties on amounts which exceed £1,000,000. That, in my view, is a very sound principle. It was said, I think by my noble friend Lord Avebury, and certainly by Lord Faber, that the effect of that; would be to discourage men from saving. For the last fifty years that has been said in regard to the death duties. But what has happened? The accumulated income of the country has grown year by year by leaps and bounds; and I see no reason to believe that this process will be stopped or retarded by the new taxation.
There were various matters on which the noble Viscount touched into which I do not think I need enter. The noble Viscount went slightly into a defence of his own financial policy. I have not the least wish to enter into any hostile criticism of the financial policy of the noble Viscount. I believe him to be a great financier, I believe him to be animated by very sound principles, and I was very glad to hear from him words which implied that on the great question of free trade he adhered firmly to the views which he had previously expressed upon that subject. The noble Viscount said that the policy of His Majesty's present Government was a free trade policy. The noble Viscount never said a truer thing in his life. It is a free trade policy and it will remain a free trade policy, for we have been placed in the position which we now occupy as the result of a general election which turned, as I believe, and as I always shall believe, on the issue between free trade and protection more than on any other question that was placed before the country at the time. I have to thank my noble friend Lord Eversley for what he said in support of

51
the policy and action of His Majesty's Government. I was very glad that my noble friend reminded the House of what had been done by His Majesty's Government in the matter of the reduction of expenditure. I think that in that respect the noble Viscount was not quite fair to us, and I was very glad that my noble friend, a perfectly independent Member of your Lordships' House, reminded you of the course which the Government had taken. We did come into office on the principles of economy, and by those principles we intend to abide. But we have always said, and I repeat it to-night, that while we are in favour of a reduction of expenditure, we hold strongly to the view that there must be no reduction of expenditure which would endanger the safety of the country.
I think the noble Viscount admitted that he was in accord with the step which the Government have taken in abolishing the system of loans for works. No doubt it has thrown and will throw for a certain time, but not more than a certain time, an amount of extra expenditure upon the annual Votes which tells unfavourably when that matter is not considered, but the principle was unsound. It was a principle, as my noble friend at the Table, Lord Eversley, has shown, which had very evil effects in weakening the responsibility felt by those who have to deal with matters of this kind, and its abolition, I am confident, will place those matters on a sounder footing, Lord Avebury made some complaint about pensions being counted as earned income. Surely they are earned incomes. They have been earned in the past and are the result of services which have been rendered.
LORD AVEBURY: I did not complain of that. I thought that reasonable. What I said was that I did not see the logic of drawing a distinction between a pension, which is really deferred pay, and savings which might lead to the same result.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have stated the view which my right hon. friend has taken of that question. There was another point to which my noble friend adverted, upon which I should like to say a word. It is a technical point, and, of course, I am not acquainted with it myself, but I will tell the noble Lord
52
what I am instructed is the view of the Government in respect to it. The noble Lord objected to the clause in the Bill which proposes the repeal of Section 6 of the Revenue Act of 1865. That was a concession made at that time, and I am instructed to say that the concession was found in practice to work very unfairly as between different taxpayers and between individual taxpayers and the Revenue, and its repeal was strongly recommended by a Committee presided over by the late Lord Ritchie. Therefore we have the authority of that Committee for the alteration which we propose to make in that respect. I thank your Lordships for the attention you have been good enough to give me. The subject lies outside my ordinary line of business, and I only hope that I have been able to afford to the noble Viscount at least a portion of the information which he desired.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.

VACCINATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order.)
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH said the only Amendment to this Bill was the one standing in his name, viz., to add the following subsection:—"A registrar shall at any reasonable time allow searches to be made in such record of statutory declarations, and shall upon demand give a copy under his hand of any entry therein on payment of a fee of 6d. for each search and 3d. for each copy." He understood that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was prepared to accept the Amendment with a slight verbal alteration to bring it into conformity with Section 15 of the Act of 1863; and, though the effect of this would be to charge 6d. more for a search and 3d. more for a certificate than he proposed, he would accept the alteration and move his Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 2, after the word 'post,' to insert the following new subsection: (3) A

53
registrar shall at any reasonable time allow searches to be made in such record of statutory declarations, and shall upon demand give a copy under his hand of any entry therein on payment of the fee for a search and a certificate respectively provided by Section 15 of the Vaccination (Scotland) Act, 1863.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLaccepted the Amendment.
Remaining clause agreed to. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of the Amendment to be received to-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 161.]

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendment proposed by the Committee made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of the Amendment to be received to-morrow.
PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 162.]
RELEASED PERSONS (POOR LAW RELIEF) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COUNCIL OF INDIA BILL.
Brought from the Commons. Read 1a, and to be printed. [No. 159.]

SMALL SHOPS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to further extend the principle of class legislation by enabling shop assistants to advance in life at the expense of existing shopkeepers and other ratepayers—was presented by the Lord Wemyss (E. Wemyss); read 1a; and to be printed. [No. 160.]
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.