Sitting of 29 April 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London United Tramways Bill (by Order).—Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill.—"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Boroughs of Burslem, Hanley, Longton, and Stoke-upon-Trent, and the Urban Districts of Fenton and Tunstall," presented by Mr. Masterman; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.—"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bromley, Crewe, Milford Haven, Rhyl, Sawbridgeworth, and York, presented by Mr. Masterman; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.—"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bispham-with-Norbreck, Caldy Manor, Carmarthen, Fleetwood, Halesowen, Heswall, Lowestoft (Amendment), Lymington (Extension), Portsmouth (Amendment), Southampton (Amendment), and Woking (Extension)," presented by Mr. Kearley; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.—"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882, and 1888, The Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1890, and The Electric
1226
Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1902, relating to Barrhead, Clydebank (Amendment), Dundee (Extension), and Rutherglen (Amendment)," presented by Mr. Kearley; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]
London County Council (Money)Bill.—"To regulate the expenditure of money by the London County Council on capital account during the current financial period and the raising of money to meet such expenditure; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Brigg; Glasgow; Kidderminster; Inverness; and Islington; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Aberdeen; Horwich; and North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce; to lie upon the Table.

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Aberaman Colliery; Aberbeeg; Aberewmboi Colliery; Allhallows Pit; Alsager's Bank; Ammanford (No. 1); Arrail Griffin; Ashton Field; Audley; Bargoed; Batley (No. 1) Branch; Batley West End; Bedwellty Pits (No. 1); Bestwood; Birlog; Birley Collieries (No. 2); Bishop Sutton; Blackbreas; Black Heath (No. 1); Blackhill; Blackwood (two); Blaennant Colliery; Boglea; Bowlings; Brithdir; British-Rhondda Colliery; Bromley; Broxtowe; Brown Edge; Brynhenllys; Bucknall Lodge; Bunkers Hill (three); Burslem Lodge; Buttlane Lodge; Bwllfa Colliery; Cædder; Caeren; Callendar; Carluke; Carranhall; Cheadle; Cheadle Park; Cinder Hill; Coalburn; Crown Lodge; Tredegar Valley; Cwm; Cwmaman Colliery; Cwmtillery; Denaby Main; Dinnington; Douglas Water; Dowlais; Dulais;

  1227
  East Ardsley; Easton; Ebbw Vale; Empire Colliery; Farrington; Fenton; Fforchaman; Forth; Foxfield; Gedling; Gerrards; Glasshoughton; Golden Hill; Goldthorpe, Thurncoe, and Bolton; Gorllwyn; Grange Colliery; Gray Lodge (Monmouth); Halmer End; Hanford; Hanley (five); Hodroyd; Howden Clough; Howley Bark; Hultons; Kidsgrove (three); Knutton; Llay Hall; Lletty Shinkin Colliery; Longton (two); Low Laithes; Lower Conygre; Maddeston; Madeley; Mansfield; Moresley; Milton Lodge; Morley Main; Moston; Mortlyr; Mossband Colliery; Mow Cop; New Haden Colliery; Norton Green (two); Norton Hill; Oatlands Pit; Old Mills; Oliver Ward; Ossett Roundwood; Padell-y-Bwlch Colliery; Partan; Pewchapel Colliery; Pochin; Radford; Rhymney; Robin Hood; Rockingham; Rookery; Squborwen Colliery (two); Silverdale (two); Sneyd Colliery; Springfield; Stafford; Sugdale; Swinhill; Talke (three); Tankersley; Tegswood; Thornhill; Thrushbush; Tillery; Tingley; Tredegar; Trowell Moor; Tunstall; Ty Trist (No. 2); Victoria Colliery; Waterloo Main Branch; Watermills; Wath Main; Werfa Colliery; Wharncliffe (No. 3); Wharncliffe Silkstone; Wharton Hall; Wheat Sheaf Colliery (two); Whitehaven; White Rose; Whitworth (No. 1); Whitworth (No. 2); Wimblebury; Wollaton; and Wythemoor; to lie upon the Table.

  DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Renfrewshire, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Blaenau Festiniog; Bromsgrove; Corwen; Hebden Bridge; Leighton Buzzard; Llanbadarnfawr; Mytholmroyd; Towyn; and Twyford; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Aldershot (two); Armley (three); Banbury; Bath (two); Batley; Bedworth; Birmingham, South; Bridgetown; Bridport, etc.; Catcliffe; Chester le Street; Chipping Norton; Durham, North-West; Farnham; Fishlake; Gravesend; Grays;
  1228
  Great Grimsby; Hallamshire (two); Handsworth (three); Harley (two); Highworth; Holmes; Hook Norton; Horsforth (two); Hoyland; Hull (three); Ickles; Incorporated Society of Licensed Victuallers; Keighley; Kilnhurst; Kingswinford; Leeds (ten); Licensed Victuallers' Asylum (two); Masborough; Millom; Middlesbrough (fiftynine); Mirfield; Monmouth (two); Morley (three); Mortomley; Newhill; Newton Bromswold; New Wortley; Ossett; Oxford; Pangbourne; Park-gate (two); Rawmarsh (three); Reading (two); Redditch; Rodley; Rotherham (eight); Scarborough; Sheffield (Central Division); Sheffield (Ecclesall); Sheffield (Hallam) (three); South Elms-all; South Suffolk; Stourbridge; Sudbury (two); Sunderland; Thornhill; Todmorden; Vale of Leven; Waltham-stow; West Dorset; West Hartlepool; Whitby; Whitstable; Willenhall; Wolverhampton; and Woodbridge; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alterations: From Allerton; Babell; Beilidu; Belper; Bradford (Yorks); Brych-goed; Burslem; Buttershaw; Cwmcamlais; Devynock (two); Doncaster; Glasgow; Greenhill; Horton; Islington; Leeds; Nantybran (two); Newcastle; Nottingham; Old Hutton; Peterborough; Ryton-on-Tyne; Senny Bridge (two); Trallwm; and Trecastle; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Abercrave; Aberdeen (three); Aberdovey; Abergavenny (seven); Abertillery; Abertysswg; Aberyscir; Accrington (fifteen); Acocks Green; Airdrie (two); Aldershot (two); Allarnun; Alsagar; Alston Cross; Alton; Alva; Andlem; Ardrishaig; Armley; Armside; Auchindon; Aylsham; Bacup (two); Baddesley Ensor; Baddiley; Barbridge; Bardsley; Bargoed; Barmouth; Barrowford; Bath (seven); Batley (four); Beacon-tree Heath; Beamish; Beaufort (two); Bedlington; Belmont; Bembridge; Betley; Biggar; Blackenhall; Blackley; Blackwood; Blaenan (three); Blaenavon; Blaencown; Blaenffos; Blaina; Bolton (eleven); Borough Market; Boston;

  1229
  Bottwnog; Bournemouth (two); Bradford; Brecon; Bridge of Weir; Bridgeton; Briercliffe; Brierton; Brigham; Brixton (six); Bromsgrove (two); Broomhill; Brynamman; Bryncemmaer; Brynmawr; Bucksburn; Bude; Builth Wells; Bulwell; Burnopfield; Burslem; Burton Latimer; Bury; Butley; Caersalam; Calverley; Camberwell; Carlisle; Carluke; Carnarvon (two); Carradale; Cartsdyke; Catford; Caton; Chadwell Heath; Chadworth; Chester le Street (two); Chopwell; Chorlton; Chorlton cum Hardy; Clack-mannan; Clayton le Moors (two); Cleator Moor; Clevedon; Clynderwen; Coatbridge; Colne; Comhill on Tweed; Corwen; Coulsdon; Cove; Coventry; Cowes; Cowling; Craghead (two); Craithie; Criccieth (three); Cricklewood; Cromer; Crowborough; Crymmych (two); Cults; Cwmtwrch; Dalkeith; Delabole; Denaby; Dewsbury; Dyce; Dinnyloanhead; Distington; Doals; Doncaster (two); Donside; Douglas, N.B.; Douglas Water; Dovenby; Droitwich; Drusycoed; Dufftown; Dulwich; Dumbarton; Dunfermline; Dunoon; Duns (two); Dunston on Tyne; Earlsfield (three); East Gloucestershire; East Ham (two); Eastwood; Ebbw Vale; Edgworth; Edinburgh; Erith; Faddiley; Failsworth (three); Farnworth; Fordingbridge; Forest Gate; Forres; Four Lanes; Frizington; Fulham; Galley Hill; Gateshead on Tyne (three); Garndiffaith; Garn Dolbenmaen; Gateshead; Glascoed; Glasgow (fifteen); Glossop; Gorleston; Gorwydd; Govan (nine); Govanhill; Grange Villa; Grays; Great Harwood; Greenlaw; Greenock (nineteen); Greenwich; Groanhill; Groeglon; Guston; Halifax (two); Hamsterley; Ham Bridge; Hanging Heaton; Hanston; Harley; Hartlepool (six); Hatherton; Haverigg; Haworth; Hay; Hay Mills; Heaton; Hebden Bridge (two); Helston; Hendon (two); Henfield; Hexham; Heywood (two); Hillsbro'; Holbeck (two); Holloway, London (two); Honddu Vale; Honor Oak; Hove; Hoylake; Hoyland; Hull (six); Hulme (two); Ilford (three); Ingle-borough; Inverness (five); Inverurie; Irthlingborough; Islay; Jedburgh;
  1230
  Keighley (three); Kendal (five); Ken-may; Kettering (fifteen); Kidder-minster; Kilbrandin; Kincardine; Kingston on Hull; Kinross (two); Kirkby Lonsdale; Kirkstall; Knowle Park; Lanark (three); Lancaster (ten); Lambeth; Laurencekirk; Leeds; Lee Mount; Leigh (eight); Leighton Buzzard; Lesmahagow; Letterstone; Levenshulme; Lewes; Leyton; Lichfield; Linlithgow; Little Lever; Liverpool (two); Llanaethaiarn; Llanbedr (three); Llandelre; Llandovery; Llanelly; Llanfymach; Llanfyrnach; Llangadock; Llangammarch; Llannon; Llanover; Llansadwrn Llanvapley; Llanvihangel; Llanwrtyd Wells; Llwynyrhwrdd; Lochwinnoch; Long Eaton; Lowca; Lower Chapel; Lower Cwmtwrch; Low Hill; Lower Wincobank; Luddenden Foot (two); Lumb in Rossendale; Lumphanin; Luton (two); Lynturk; Maesteg; Maiden Wells; Maidstone (two); Malvern Mankelow; Manor Park (two); Martin Top; Melton Constable; Mexborough (two); Middlesbrough; Midmar; Millom (two); Moelwyn; Moncrieff (two); Morley (two); Moseley; Mossley; Moss Side; Moston; Mull; Muswell Hill; Mya Sound Unit; Nairn; Nanturch; Nelson; Nettlesworth; Newcastle on Tyne (two); Newhills; New-port (Isle of Wight); New Tredegar (two); New Washington; Nitshill; Northampton (eight); North Kelsey; North Salford; North Walsham; Northwich; Norwich (nine); Nottingham (three); Notting Hill; Nuneaton; Ossett; Oswaldtwistle (two); Ouston; Ovenden; Oxford (four); Paisley; Partick (three); Paynton (three); Pendlebury; Penge; Pentrelygwyn; Pennal; Penrhynden-dreath; Penygroes; Penzance (two) Plymouth; Pontnewyndd; Poole; Portisham; Portmoak; Premnay; Preston (Hull); Prestwich; Princeville Pumpsaint; Pydeltrenthide (two) Radcliffe (two); Ramsbottom; Ram-sough; Rhymney (three); Ripponden (three); Riveton Park; Roberton; Rodley; Romsey (two); Rotherham (two); Rowlands Castle; Royton; Rugby; Rugeley; Rushden; Rutherford; St. Abbs; St. George's in the East; St. Mary Cray; Salisbury; Saundersfoot; Scarborough; Scotstoun;

  1231
  Sedburgh; Sennbyridge; Seren Dyfi; Sheffield (thirteen); Sheringham; Shoreham; Sidcup; Siloh; Skene (two); Skipton (two); Southwick; Sowerby Bridge; Sparkhill; Stafford; Stand; Stirling (two); Stithians; Stockport; Stone; Stonehaven; Stonehouse, N.B. (two); Stranrær; Strathaven (two); Streatham; Street; Stretford; Stromness (three); Styal; Summerstown; Sunniside; Swancombe; Swindon; Talybont (two); Talgarth (three); Tamworth; Temple Cloud; Thorne; Tillicoultry; Todmorden; Tooting; Totton; Trecastle; Tredegar; Trenddyn (three); Trevor; Tunbridge Wells; Upper Tooting; Urmston; Waldridge Fell (two); Walkden; Walsall; Wandsworth (nine); Wanstead (two); Warestow; Washington Station; Waterfoot; Weirdale; Wellingborough; West Dorset; West Dulwich; West Norwood; Westruther (two); Wettenhall; Whitegate; Whiteinch; Willaston; Wilsden (two); Wimbledon; Winlaton; Witheridge; Wood Green; Woore; Wootton Bridge; Worcester; Workington; Worthing; Wroxall (two); and Wybunbury; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHTS ON VEHICLES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Renfrewshire, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Clackmannanshire, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Airdrie; Cunningsburgh; Douglas; Drumlemble; Dunoon (two); Dunrossan; Flotta; Govan; Hillhead and Kelvinside; Insch; Inverness; Lerwick; Lochwinnoch; Mid Lanark; St. Margaret's Hope; and Virkie; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC-HOUSES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Ardrossan; Glasgow; and Hillhead and Kelvinside; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Ayr, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Renfrewshire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Eleven Petitions from Gateshead, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EXPLOSIONS (DINAS MAIN COLLIERY).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by William Atkinson and J. Dyer Lewis, His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, upon the circumstances attending an Explosion of Coal Dust at Dinas Main Colliery on 14th December, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (COUNTY BOROUGH OF CROYDON).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County Borough of Croydon, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for Butchers' Shops within a certain part of the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented, of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Western Division of Scotland for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
  Return ordered, "of the Amounts of British Government Securities held by the several Government Departments and other Public Offices on the 31st

  1233
  day of March, 1908, specifying whether held in England or Ireland (in continua-

  £2½ per Cent. Consols.

  £2¾ per Cents.(1905).

  £2½ per Cents.

  £2¾ per Cent. War Loan.

  Other Securities.

  Annuties for terms of years.

  Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills.

  —(Mr. Hobhouse.)

  NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
  Copy ordered, "of Account of Receipts and Expenditure of the National Physical Laboratory, with Balance Sheet, for the year 1907."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Hackney Unemployed.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a grant, under the provisions of the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905, has been applied for by the Hackney Borough Council; and, if so, whether it has been refused, and on what grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I do not find that I have received any application from the Hackney Borough Council for a payment from the Parliamentary grant in aid of expenditure under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905. I may add that the borough council were not a body to whom payments from the grant could be made. In London, such payments were only made to the Central (Unemployed) Body.

  Re-election of Ministers on Attaining Cabinet Rank.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the propriety, in the public interest, of taking the requisite steps to relieve Ministers of the Crown from the necessity of seeking re-election on attaining Cabinet rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am disposed to think, with my hon. friend, that the necessity for seeking re-election is out of date and not in accordance with
  tion of Parliamentary Paper, No. 159, of Session 1907)—
  public interest or convenience. But its removal would require legislation, for which, in the pressure of more urgent matters, there is not at present room.

  Milk Legislation.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the Bill he proposes to bring forward with regard to milk supply, he can find means to provide that foreign fresh milk shall not be sold in this country unless it is produced under conditions or restrictions as regards sanitation at least equal to those to be imposed on British farmers and cowkeepers.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am afraid I cannot undertake to say beforehand what provisions will be contained in the Bill I propose to introduce with regard to milk supply.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  H.M.S. "Gladiator."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty in view of the fact that sister ships to H.M.S. "Gladiator" which are in full commission carry as many as five lieutenants, or four lieutenants, and a sub-lieutenant, for watch-keeping duties, in addition to the specialist gunnery and navigating lieutenants, and that the Navy List where this information is given shows no lieutenants whatever for watch-keeping duties on board H.M.S. "Gladiator," and only the specialist gunnery and navigating lieutenants who have very arduous duties to perform, whether he can state if any watch-keeping lieutenants were drafted into H.M.S. "Gladiator" for her cruise in very bad weather from Plymouth to Sheerness via Portsmouth.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA): All the lieutenants are available for watch-keeping duties. With regard to the last part of the Question, Lieutenant M. C. Brotherton was lent for service in the "Gladiator," so that there were three lieutenants in the ship available besides the commander.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the full complement of H.M.S. "Gladiator"; and what was the size of the nucleus crew with which she proceeded from Plymouth to Portsmouth en route to Sheerness.
  MR. McKENNA: The full complement is—23 officers, 424 men, total 447. The nucleus crew on board was—13 officers, 244 men, total 257.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Does that include the supernumeraries on passage?
  MR. McKENNA: No, Sir. They are not included in the nucleus crew.

  Naval War Training.
  MR. MENZIES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question of which I have given him some notice, i.e., whether it is necessary in his opinion for the efficiency of our Navy that ships should patrol the seas in mimic warfare during the night without lights, breaking all ordinary maritime law and becoming a constant danger to merchant ships with their crews and passengers, as well as to the lives of His Majesty's sailors.
  MR. McKENNA: I thank the hon. Member for having given me notice. If the Fleet is to maintain its high efficiency some amount of risk must always be taken. The Board of Admiralty may be relied upon to prevent unnecessary risk being run in the war training of the Fleet and to issue any such fresh instructions as may be necessary from time to time to minimise this. These exercises are undertaken hundreds of times, and the number of accidents that occur are remarkably few.

  Mobilisation of the Gibraltar Garrison— Gunners' Hours of Duty.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  1236
  War if he will state during what number of hours out of each twenty-four the gunners were on duty at Gibraltar during the recent mobilisation of the garrison; and whether the number of gunners in the garrison is sufficient to keep the batteries continuously manned in the event of a siege.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,): No report of the mobilisation mentioned has yet reached the War Office. I am not therefore in a position to deal with the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. ASHLEY: When will the report be received?
  MR. ACLAND: I will let the hon. Member know when we receive it.

  Territorial Artillery Guns.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when shields for the guns of the Territorial Artillery will be issued; and what will be the weight of the gun and shield as compared with the gun and shield of the regular Field Artillery.
  MR. ACLAND: The pattern of shield has not yet been settled, and I am not therefore able to say when the shields are likely to be issued. The weight of the gun and shield of the converted 15-pr. will be 25 cwt. 2 qrs. 24 1bs. as against 24 cwt. 3 qrs. 21 1bs. for the 18-pr. Q. F. gun.
  MR. COURTHOPE: When will the accessories necessary to enable these guns to be used for practice be supplied?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that Question.

  Army Horses.
  MR. NEWNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a scheme has been put forward for the purpose of encouraging the breeding of horses for the use of the Army; if so, whether he can give the details of this scheme; and whether he can state what he proposes to do in this matter.
  MR. ACLAND: I am not yet able to give my hon. friend any information beyond that which has already been given to the House to the effect that the negotiations with the Board of Agriculture are proceeding satisfactorily.
  EARL WINTERTON: Was the account of the proposed scheme which appeared in the Press official or was it a leakage?
  MR. ACLAND: I am afraid I must ask for notice.

  Army Estimates.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the figure quoted by him on the first page of his Memorandum accompanying the Army Estimates for the total of the Army Estimates for the year 1905–6, namely, £29,813,000, represents the Estimates as now arranged; and, if so, what is the meaning of the statement made on page 3 of the Army Estimates that this figure represents the Estimates as arranged in former years; and whether he wishes the Members of this House to take this figure or the figure £28,478,863 given in the Army Estimates as the true basis of comparison with his Estimates for the current year.
  MR. ACLAND: The figures £29,813,000 represent the total Estimates for the year 1905–6, and these total figures are not affected by the rearrangement of Army Votes. The figures £28,478,863 represent the total sum actually expended for the year 1905–6.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Which figures compare with the Estimates for the present year?
  MR. ACLAND: You must take the first figure; the second represents the expenditure and not an Estimate at all.

  The Amir of Afghanistan and the Anglo-Russian Agreement.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Amir of Afghanistan has yet signified his assent to the Afghan articles of the Anglo-Russian Agreement.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. CHARLES HOB-HOUSE,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question in the absence of the Under-Secretary. The Answer is in the negative.

  Mohmand Rising.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Amir of Afghanistan has made any effort to prevent the influential Mulla Hazrat Sahib, supported by bodies of Afghan subjects, from joining in the Mohmand rising.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: My hon. friend is informed that the Amir has taken action to prevent his subjects from joining in the rising and that it is producing the desired result.

  Railway Surveys and Indian Frontier Troubles.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether one important cause of the rising of the Mohmands is the projected railway across the old frontier up to the Afghan border; whether, in spite of the opposition of the tribes, and also of the Amir, to this railway, it is intended still to continue making the line; and whether, seeing that the Amir clearly indicated to the late Viceroy his dislike of so-called peaceful penetration by railway, he will consider the advisability of abandoning this project, which can at the best be of little use and must always be a cause of irritation.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: There is no reason to suppose that the railway surveys recently carried out in British territory on the right bank of the Kabul River, outside the limits of the country inhabited by the Mohmands, have been a cause of the tribal rising. As regards the present position of the railway project and the attitude of the tribes and the Amir towards it, I would refer my hon. friend to the full statement on the subject made on 6th February last in reply to a Question from my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is it not the case that in that reply it was admitted that the

  1239
  survey was carried on under fire from the Mohmands?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I cannot admit that. The Answer was that some firing took place.
  MR. REES: Is it not the case that there is almost always some firing taking place in these regions?
  MR. LUPTON: Is it advisable thus to continue irritating these mountain tribes?
  MR. SMEATON: Has not the Amir protested more than once against the approach of the railway to his frontier?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Not so far as I am aware.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: We are in rather a difficult position, because my hon. friend is not now officially connected with India, although he has been, and indeed has just returned from that country. Is it not the case that it has already been decided not to make this railway, the survey for which seems to have caused the firing?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The circumstance to which the right hon. Baronet has alluded seems to point to the desirability of giving notice of the Question.

  Dinizulu.
  MR. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what law of Natal empowers the Government of that Colony to arrest a British subject and detain him month after month in prison, as has been done in the case of Dinizulu, without formulating and informing the prisoner of the definite charge against him.
  I beg further to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Dinizulu is still confined to prison, and in that case have his legal advisers full access to him and to any papers that they may deem necessary, especially such as were taken from Dinizulu when arrested; whether any definite charges against Dinizulu have been formulated and communicated to him;
  1240
  and whether the date of his trial has been fixed.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): Perhaps I may take my right hon. friend's two Questions together. Dinuzulu is still confined to prison. The utmost access to the prisoner has, I am assured, all along been given to his counsel. The proceedings against Dinuzulu are being taken under the Ordinance of 1845 for regulating the manner of proceeding in criminal cases in Natal, and the indictment which will specify the exact charges on which the prisoner will be tried unless discharged by the magistrate, cannot as I understand be framed until he has been committed for trial. The long delay is regrettable, and the Secretary of State has been in communication with the Governor of Natal on the subject, who has telegraphed the following reply from Ministers:—"Dinuzulu's preliminary examination is proceeding as already stated and until it is completed no date can be fixed for trial. No papers were taken from him. He had between the date he was told to surrender and the date of his surrender some five days in which to arrange for the disposal of any correspondence. What this Government has is a mass of papers evidently abandoned and thrown about on the floor and elsewhere." The Secretary of State is again pressing for an answer as to the conclusion of the preliminary examination, even if only an approximate date can be given at the moment. I may add that Dinuzulu's advisers have full access to all statements and depositions used by or before the magistrate, with liberty to cross examine witnesses on them, and the Government of Natal has promised to give the usual opportunities to the defence to collect evidence before the trial comes on. I would remind my right hon. friend that, as my predecessor stated in reply to a question which he put on the 31st of March, if any grievance as to the course of the proceedings is felt to exist by Dinizulu's advisers, application can be made on his behalf to the higher Courts.
  MR. ELLISasked if under this Ordinance there was any limit to this preliminary examination; could a man be indefinitely detained before trial?
  COLONEL SEELYsaid no; so far as the Ordinance was concerned, there was no limit of time, but he thought it was reasonable to assume that the delay would not be inordinate. The Secretary of State was pressing to be informed as to the approximate length of the proceedings.
  MR. BYLESasked if there was any reason to suppose that the prolongation of the proceedings was with the idea of finding evidence to support charges which it was not yet possible to formulate—whether, in fact, it was a fishing inquiry.
  COLONEL SEELYsaid there was nothing at the Colonial Office that would give colour to such a suggestion. Though regrettable in many ways, so far as he had information the delay was not objected to by Dinizulu's counsel.

  Law relating to Coroners.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in connection with the proposed reforms in the law relating to coroners, he will have regard to the representations made to the Lord Chancellor on this subject in March, 1907, by the Medico-Legal Society and by the London County Council.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): My hon. friend will be aware that the subject of death certification was fully dealt with by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which reported in 1893, and that the proposals to which he refers are substantially covered by that Committee's recommendations. The Secretary of State has under consideration, as I announced on the Second Reading of the Coroners' Inquests Bill, the question of appointing a Departmental Committee to inquire into certain points relating to coroners' inquests, and so far as the proposed reforms affect coroners, they would come within its scope, and form part of its investigation.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Report of the Select Committee to which he refers has
  1242
  not achieved any legislative result up to the present time?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware of that, and I think it very desirable that the Departmental Committee, so far as the terms of reference allow, should review the question.

  Children Bill and Crêches.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will be prepared to consider the introduction of a new clause into the Children Bill to enable local authorities to establish and maintain crêches, or day nurseries, where children of parents engaged on work away from home may be received and cared for during the daytime at reasonable charges.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The subject comes within the purview of the Local Government Board rather than of the Home Office, and the Secretary of State cannot undertake to deal with it in the Children Bill.

  Intemperance on Election Days.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of persons arrested for drunkenness in Hastings, Dewsbury, and North-West Manchester on the polling days at the recent by-elections.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. friend has not got the information, but he is making inquiries.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to send him the information?

  Lunacy through Religious Excitement.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of persons at present confined in public lunatic asylums whose insanity is classified as due to religious excitement.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Secretary of State is unable to say how many persons are at present confined in public lunatic asylums whose insanity is classified as due to religions excitement, but the yearly average number of patients admitted into county and borough

  1243
  asylums, registered hospitals, naval and military hospitals, state asylums, and licensed houses in England and Wales during the five years 1902 to 1906 whose insanity was stated to be due to this cause was 137 males and 197 females, making a total of 334.

  Metropolitan Police Commission.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Report of the Metropolitan Police Commission may be expected.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Commission inform the Secretary of State that their Report will probably be ready for submission to the King in about a month's time.

  Minimum Punishments.
  MR. HORNIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered, or will consider, the question of fixing a minimum, as well as a maximum, penalty for indecent assault and kindred offences committed against children and young persons, in view of the fact that at the present time prisoners can be, and sometimes are, awarded no punishment, but simply bound over in relatively small sums to come up for judgment if called upon.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To fix a minimum penalty for an offence would be contrary to the general policy of the law, and is in the opinion of the Home Secretary in most cases undesirable. I do not think offences of the kind referred to by my hon. friend could be made exceptions to the general rule. It is only in very rare cases and in exceptional circumstances that they are dealt with by merely binding over the defendant.

  Coast Erosion in East Yorkshire.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: In the unfortunate absence of the President of the Board of Trade I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the state of affairs at Easington and Kilnsea, East Yorks, has become so serious that the question of defending this narrow neck of land from
  1244
  the inroads of the sea is no longer one for the local landowner; whether he is aware that at the present time at spring tides, the high road is flooded to a considerable depth, and that the village of Kilnsea and the Government lighthouse at the Spurn are isolated, and that if the sea makes a breach through the Humber bank these places will be completely isolated and probably eventually destroyed: and whether, under these circumstances, he can now see his way to defending the navigable channel of the Humber and the Spurn from these dangers.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): As I have already informed the hon. Member, the protection of the lowlands at Easington and Kilnsea is a duty primarily devolving upon the owners of the lands liable to be flooded, and the local Commissioners of Sewers, and the Board of Trade will be prepared to give careful consideration to any proposals they may make. I understand that by reason of the sea banks not having been repaired the sea flows over these low lying lands at spring tides, and the road to Kilnsea and the Spurn is at such times subject to flooding, but I am advised that the formation of a channel through the neck of land in question is somewhat improbable. It is proposed, however, to obtain a further report as to whether any additional steps are necessary for the protection of the Spurn. The Royal Commission on Coast Erosion, of which the hon. Member is a member, have, I understand, visited the locality and investigated the question, but have made no interim report or recommendation.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House a copy of the report laid before the Board of Trade by Sir William Matthew and Captain Fredericks?
  MR. KEARLEY: I think it has already been before the Royal Commission. I will consider the point.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: When is this further inquiry to take place?
  MR. KEARLEY: Immediately.

  Shrewsbury Railway Accident.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the Report by Colonel Yorke on the cause of the fatal accident at Shrewsbury on the 14th October last, to the effect that Martin, the engine-driver, must have been overcome by sleep while the train was passing Crewe bank at a high speed, and therefore failed to see the signal and apply the brake in time, that Martin had been out of bed the whole of the previous night and most of the preceding four nights, with the exception of the 12th, he intends to take steps to prevent such overworking of engine-drivers, and what these steps are.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: At the same time may I ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the official Report upon the recent Shrewsbury railway disaster attributes the accident to the deceased driver falling asleep on the footplate through overwork and lack of proper and regular rest; if he can state what representations have been made to the railway company concerned; and what steps the Board of Trade purpose to take in order to protect the travelling public from similar disasters.
  MR. KEARLEY: The point to which Colonel Yorke drew attention was the frequency with which Driver Martin had been put on night duty, and he suggested that it would seem to be a wise precaution to prevent the driver of an express train being out of bed for two nights in succession, or, at any rate, to limit the number of such nights in any one week. The Board of Trade are in communication with the London and North-Western Railway Company regarding this and the other recommendations contained in the Report, and I need hardly say that the matter will receive careful and persistent attention.
  MR. SMEATON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men of experience have declared it is not uncommon for engine-drivers, owing to strain of working at nights, to dose and even fall asleep on their engines?
  MR. KEARLEY: That is what Colonel Yorke reports.
  MR. TOMKINSON: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to a large meeting of engine-drivers and firemen at Crewe the week before last at which the idea of an engine-driver going to sleep on an engine, and particularly one travelling fifty or sixty miles an hour, was condemned as absolutely impossible, and at the same time was it not the decision of the men that the failure of the brakes was most probably the cause of the accident?
  MR. KEARLEY: I have seen a report of the meeting.
  MR. SMEATON: Was it not discovered that the brakes were in perfect order?
  MR. KEARLEY: I think the whole ground is covered by the Report.

  Imports of Dairy Produce from Holland.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state, looking at the prevalence of foot and mouth disease in Holland, what steps, if any, are taken to prevent the produce of the infected farms of that country from being imported into England in the form of milk, butter, or cheese.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am advised that the available information does not show that there is any material risk of foot and mouth disease from the importation of dairy produce from Holland. Hence it does not seem to me necessary to take any special action in the matter at the present time, but I will not lose sight of it.

  Imported Milk.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he has seen the statement made at the meeting of the council of the British Dairy Farmers' Association to the effect that 578 cwts. (6,473 gallons) of fresh milk were imported into the United Kingdom during the nine weeks ending 1st February, compared with only 15 cwts. (168 gallons), during the corresponding period of last year; and, if the statement is correct, will he say what steps are being taken to examine the

  1247
  quality and condition of this imported milk?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: According to figures which I have obtained from the Commissioners of Customs the quantity of fresh milk imported into the United Kingdom during the nine weeks ended 1st February, 1908, and during those ended 2nd February, 1907, was 499 cwts. and 94 cwts. respectively. Samples of imported milk, at of any other milk, may be taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts with a view to their being analysed and dealt with under those Acts. Moreover, samples of imported milk are from time to time taken by the officers of Customs and sent to the Government Laboratory under the same Acts. If adulteration is discovered, the cases are reported to the Commissioners, who institute legal proceedings where this seems to them desirable. Further, I am arranging to have some samples of imported milk examined as to bacterial contamination and the presence of dirt.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: When will the result of the examination be made public?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: As soon as it is completed.

  Mortality among Manufacturers of Temperance Drinks.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return showing the relative mortality of persons engaged in the manufacture of ginger beer, lemonade, soda water, and other aërated drinks, as compared with those engaged in breweries and public-houses?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. I am afraid I could not assent to the proposed Return. I have communicated with the Registrar-General with regard to it, and I find that his records do not show separately the mortality of persons engaged in the manufacture of aërated drinks. Consequently great labour and expense would be involved in getting the particulars necessary for arriving at this mortality. I may add that the number of persons engaged in the manufacture of aërated drinks is too small to afford a basis for trustworthy statistics. The
  1248
  total number of males between the ages of 25 and 65 who were so employed in England and Wales, according to the census of 1901, was only 5,587.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has gone to the trouble and expense of giving the comparative mortality of people engaged in the brewery trade, and would it be more costly a proceeding to do the same in regard to people employed in the aërated water trade?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: That is a perfectly natural and proper question to put, hut the whole of the information to which the hon. Member refers has been for some time in the hands of the Registrar-General. It costs no money to secure, and very little trouble to compile.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: Is it not possible to supplement the Annual Report of the Registrar-General with information on this question of mortality?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I shall be pleased to communicate with the Registrar-General on the subject.
  MR. CROOKSasked whether a Return could be got out giving the number of lunatics in proportion to the two trades.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a Return of the number of women engaged in the manufacture of aërated waters?
  MR, JOHN BURNS: I will look into the matter. I shall be very pleased to satisfy hon. Members' curiosity.

  Political Organisations in the Post Office.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the public demonstration of the Civil Servants Socialist Society at Lambeth Baths, on Friday, 27th March, was held with his approval; whether he is aware that a postal servant took the chair, and whether he is aware that the objects of this society are to preach Socialism amongst Civil servants.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I have made inquiry about the

  1249
  meeting to which the hon. Member draws my attention. It was apparently a meeting which the public, and not merely members of the Service were invited to attend. I have pointed out to the chairman of the meeting, who was a Post Office servant, and to the secretary of the society in question, that when such societies hold or organise public meetings with the object of advancing certain political views among the public in general and not merely among members of the Service, there is an infringement of the Regulations on the part of the members of the Service responsible for such action.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask whether in view of the privileges which are allowed to Socialists in the Post Office, the right hon. Gentleman will now alter his decision, and either allow equal rights to all political organisations or do away with then, entirely?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am sorry that I have been so singularly unsuccessful in convincing the hon. Member on more than one occasion that I have dealt in exactly the same way and on identically the same lines with all these various Post Office associations.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Committee of this House to go into the whole question?
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: A Committee of one hundred.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Premium Bonds and the Lottery Acts.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office authorities have recently intimated to various newspaper publishers that copies of their publications will not be permitted to be sent through the post if containing advertisements offering premium bonds for sale; and, if so, what is the ground for this new regulation.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have been advised that the premium bonds in question, the distinctive feature of which is the distribution of large prizes by ballot, are in the nature of a lottery, and that the transmission through the post
  1250
  of advertisements relating to such lotteries is contrary to the law. In accordance with this advice, I have communicated with the publishers of various newspapers with the object of preventing the publication of such advertisements.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYin aired whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called by a responsible firm of solicitors to the fact that under a recent decision of the Courts it had been distinctly held that premium bonds did not come within the Lottery Acts.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was advised that they did. He was determined to prohibit their being sent through the post so far as he could, and if anyone desired to bring an action against him, he would be glad to defend it.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: But has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to this letter?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, Sir, but I do not think it would alter my decision.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: In view of the fact that many responsible newspapers relying on the decision of the Courts have entered into long contracts for such advertisements, what indemnity does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give the owners of these newspapers?
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Give them a fourteen-years limit.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Newspapers must take the responsibility. I am glad to say that in regard to some newspaper publishers, at all events, whose attention has been called to this matter they have at once fallen in with the view I have formed and put before them, and are not continuing the publication of these advertisements.

  Postal Transmission of Lottery Circulars.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is the practice of his Department to permit the transmission through the post of circulars relating to lotteries when such lotteries are connected with religious objects.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As I explained to the hon. Member on 10th March, the general practice of the Post Office is to stop packets observed to contain lottery circulars, but an exception is made in cases where the authorities responsible for the execution of the law do not regard the drawings as unpermissible.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYasked if the law allowed any distinction between religious and other objects.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I cannot say that it does, but I am not able to move in the matter except under advice of the responsible authorities.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYasked who were the authorities responsible for the advice.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsuggested that the hon. Member should give notice of any further Question.

  Voice Training and Production.
  SIR W.J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the desirability of initiating an inquiry, by Departmental Committee or otherwise, into the question of voice production and the various methods of voice training.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): This question will receive my consideration, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
  MR. CROOKS: Will it apply to this House as well?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  British Coinage.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that silvered card-board imitations of British coins are being used in Metropolitan council schools for the purpose of teaching the children their respective monetary values, and that on one side of such cardboard coins, and immediately under the head of the Sovereign, are the words German make; and whether the teachers have been instructed to explain to the scholars the exact meaning and significance of what
  1252
  might otherwise appear to them a perplexing inscription upon British coinage.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member has been good enough to send me specimens of the cardboard coins to which his Question relates. I do not think any child who is aware of the Merchandise Marks Acts is likely to be perplexed by the inscription referred to.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: Is it part of the Code that children should be acquainted with the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Barnsley Catholic School.
  MR. O'MALLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Kerry, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that an application has been made for the recognition of the Catholic school, Low Valley, Barnsley, as a public elementary school entitled to receive Government grants; whether he is aware that no opposition is made to this application by the lesser education authorities of Wombwell and of Darfield, in whose district Low Valley lies; and can he say whether this application has been granted.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Board have been informed that it is proposed to provide in this district a new public elementary school for 120 Catholic children, and instructions for the publication of the notices required by Section 8 of the Education Act, 1902, have been sent to the promoters. I have not received any intimation as to whether the notices have been issued; or as to the views of the minor local authorities. No decision can be given until the expiration of the statutory period of notice.

  West Riding Council Schools.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether between the appointed day, 1st April, 1904, and the 31st March, 1907, the West Riding local education authority gave notice, under Section 8 (1) of the Education Act, 1902, of their intention to build

  1253
  seventy-six new council schools to provide accommodation for 22,520 children; and, if so, in how many cases, during 1904, 1905, and 1906, the Board of Education decided that the proposals were unreasonable, and that new schools were unnecessary.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: According to the Board's records, the West Riding County Council, between the dates named, issued eighty-six notices under Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1902, ten of which were subsequently for various reasons withdrawn or hold in abeyance. The remaining seventy-six related to the provision of accommodation for 22,546 children. No decisions to the effect that the proposals were unreasonable or that the schools were unnecessary were given during the years specified.

  Selby Schools.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the accommodation of school places in the Wesleyan, Abbey Church, and St. Mary's Roman Catholic Schools, Selby, are 582, 1,023, and 234 respectively, or a total of 1,839, and that the average attendance during 1907 was 439, 673, and 200 respectively, or a total of 1,312; whether this excess of 527 school places is the outcome of denominational proselytising zeal or caused by decaying industries; whether the local education authority is in any way responsible for this excess of accommodation; and whether the Board can suggest any means by which this unnecessary accommodation may be dispensed with, in view of the extra burden thus thrown upon the ratepayers.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I have no information as to the second. The local education authority is not in any way responsible for this excess of accommodation. The obligation of the local education authority to maintain existing schools which are not necessary for the school supply of the district can only be removed by legislation.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the buildings provided for the Wesleyan, Abbey Church, and St. Mary's Roman Catholic Schools,
  1254
  Selby, are of an unsatisfactory character; and whether he will instruct one of His Majesty's Inspectors of schools to report fully on these premises.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: There has been some criticism of the premises of the Wesleyan School, but I am not aware of any objections to the buildings of the two other schools referred to. His Majesty's Inspector will be asked to report on the premises when next he visits the school.
  MR. CLOUGH: Do I understand that the Inspector will confine his attention to the Wesleyan School?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. So far as his ordinary duties are concerned he will, of course, inspect the other schools as well. But objections have only been received in respect of the Wesleyan School.

  Adwick-le-Street, Doncaster, Schools.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Brodsworth Colliery Company have sunk a pit at Woodlands, Adwick-le-Street, Doncaster, where school places are non-existent; whether the West Riding local education authority have given notice to provide a school for 960 children; and, if so, whether the board have given consent to this proposal; and whether the Board can suggest a cheap method by which the 527 excess school places can be transported from Selby to Woodlands in order to relieve the burden that is about to be thrown upon the ratepayers.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The local education authority gave public notice of their intention to provide a new school for 600, which was subsequently increased to 960, children. The provision of 600 places has been sanctioned by the Board, the statutory period of notice in respect of the remaining 360 has not yet expired and no decision has therefore been given. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

  Heighington Fen School Attendance Prosecution.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that William

  1255
  Mitchell, farmer, of Heighington Fen, near Lincoln, has been repeatedly prosecuted on account of the non-attendance of two of his sons at the council school, over two miles distant, and that in eighteen months the fines have aggregated over £20; if it is permissible to force a parent, by repeated penalties, to send his boy to a school which he considers unsuitable; and if he will take steps to prevent the continuance of this kind of treatment.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The law requires that parents shall cause their children to attend school unless there be reasonable excuse for their non-attendance. It rests with the magistrates to determine what is a reasonable excuse. I am not prepared to initiate legislation conferring on the parent the right of deciding whether the education provided at a particular school is or is not suitable to his children. This would be, in practice, equivalent to the abolition of compulsory school attendance.
  Mr. LUPTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the magistrates in deciding this case expressed sympathy with the defendant and were of opinion that his children were being well educated at home, but by reason of the peculiar by-laws which differ from the general Act they felt it necessary, against their own judgment, to inflict a fine.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: That has not been brought to my attention. Of course no local magistrate can be allowed to abrogate the general law.

  Medical Inspection in Elementary Schools.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will lay upon the Table an authorised copy of his recent statement as to the cost of medical inspection in elementary schools.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I think the only point of public interest in the statement to which the hon. Member refers was to the effect that, at a time when the amalgamation of the existing grants is to be undertaken, the Government could not propose a special grant for medical inspection or any increase in Exchequer aid towards the expenses of Local Education Authorities under the Elementary Education Acts in anticipation of the additional sum to be provided in connec-
  1256
  tion with the Education Bill now before Parliament.

  Walsall School Dispute.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, whether his attention has been called to the case of a young man named Jellyman, nineteen years of age, and attending Queen Mary's Grammar School, Walsall, and who it is alleged has been guilty of smoking a cigarette in the precincts of the Walsall Railway station; whether he is aware that the head master offered as a punishment for the affair either a flogging before the whole school or his immediate resignation; and whether he can take such action as will modify such punishment under the circumstances.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: From unofficial information which I have received I gather that the Governors of the School investigated the case referred to and decided unanimously to confirm the action of the head master. I further understand that the matter has been placed by the friends of the young man in the hands of lawyers, and I do not therefore propose to initiate any official inquiry into the circumstances of the case.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDS: It is not the case that the friends have placed the matter in the hands of solicitors; therefore I ask for an Answer to my Question.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that the information I have clashes with that of my hon. friend.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: My informant is the father, and therefore the statement cannot be denied.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member cares to send further information I will consider it.
  MR. LUPTON: Is it a common practice in this school publicly to flog young men of eighteen?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Kirkburton Grammar School.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the endowment of the foundation

  1257
  known as the Kirkburton Grammar School was undenominational in origin; whether, since the Act of 1902 came into operation, the funds have accumulated by £93 per annum; whether there is now a balance of £400 in the bank; whether these endowments can be used in furtherance of education higher than elementary; and whether he will order an inquiry into the origin and present administration of the educational endowments at Kirkburton.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Instructions have been given for the holding of a local public inquiry, the scope of which will include the application of the endowment as well as questions arising in connection with Section 8 of the Education Act, 1902. Pending the report of the inquiry, it would be premature to express any opinion as to the future application of the funds or as to the character of the endowment. The Board have no information as to whether the income is accumulating or as to the balance in hand.

  University of London.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the inadequate accommodation at present provided by Government for the University of London at South Kensington; and whether additional accommodation can be placed at the disposal of the University proportionate to the increased duties which have been entrusted to the University by statute.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. In view of the liberal provision made for the University in the years 1899–1901, I cannot hold out any hope that an extension of the existing accommodation can be provided at the public expense.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive from the University further representations on the subject?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Certainly.
  *SIR PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the University was at present housed in only part of
  1258
  the building known as the Imperial Institute, and whether he would consider the advisability of placing the whole of it at the disposal of the University.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that he could hardly be expected to answer that Question off-hand, but he might state that the accommodation now provided was very much larger than that which the University had in Burlington-gardens.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the University was reconstituted by Act of Parliament which abrogated its charter, and that since then its work has greatly extended?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Yes, Sir; I am aware of that, but I am also aware of the fact that a considerably increased money provision was made for it when it was transferred from Burlington-gardens to the present site.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS: Before the reconstitution.

  The Public Trustee.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what amount was expended in printing and advertising in connection with the establishment of the Department of the Public Trustee; what is the estimated total annual expense of such department; and what fees were received during the three months ending 30th March last.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I am informed that £110 has been spent on printing (including paper) in connection with the establishment of the Department of the Public Trustee. No expenditure on account of advertising has been incurred. The total annual estimated expenditure as shown in the published estimates, Class III., Vote 5, for salaries, wages, and incidental expenses, is £6,500, and in addition sums of £810 and £500 respectively are estimated to fall on other Votes in respect of office accommodation and stationery. The estimated receipts in respect of fees are for the first year to 31st March, 1909, £4,000. The fees estimated to be received up to 30th March, 1908, were £400; the fees actually received amounted to £532.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: In view of the heavy loss on the working of the Department, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of whether he ought to keep the Department open?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Certainly not.

  Irish Intermediate Education Board Rules.
  MR. O'MALLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Kerry. I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any opportunity will be afforded of discussing any objectionable points which may be contained in the new rules of the Irish Intermediate Board; and whether the Board will supply the Joint Committee of the Heads of Secondary Schools with copies of the new rules as soon as they are ready to be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): Perhaps in the absence of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary through indisposition I may answer the Questions addressed to him. The Intermediate Education Act provides the method by which the rules made by the Board and approved by the Lord Lieutenant may be reviewed, that is to say, the rules are not to become operative until they have lain before Parliament for forty days without being disallowed. The suggestion that draft rules should be promulgated for discussion by heads of schools before being adopted is, my right hon. friend is advised, quite impracticable. Upon a former occasion when the Board distributed rules which were afterwards disallowed by this House, much inconvenience arose by reason of the fact that it was found impossible to recall all the copies issued, with the result that some of the schools prepared their students upon the disallowed rules. It is understood that the Board are always ready to receive and consider suggestions which may be made to them by any body or person interested, before submitting rules for the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant.
  MR. O'MALLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can
  1260
  state if the Intermediate Board intend to make the rules stereotyped for ten years; and when the new rules will be published.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am informed that the Intermediate Board have not yet come to a conclusion upon the subject of the Question, and consequently cannot say when new rules will be published.

  Irish Secondary School Rules.
  MR. O'MALLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Joint Committee of the Heads of the Irish Secondary Schools has on more than one occasion requested the Intermediate Board to appoint a Committee of the Board with a view to the holding of a conference concerning the amending of various rules; whether he is aware that this request has been refused; and can he state the reason for this refusal.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Intermediate Board do not consider that a conference such as is suggested in the Question would be a satisfactory method of dealing with the matter. The Board have informed the Joint Committee that it would be more satisfactory that their views should be submitted in the form of a memorial, as on previous occasions, so that the various points may be fully and accurately stated for consideration by the Board.

  Kenmare Fair Rent Applications.
  MR. O'MALLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of applications to fix fair rents received by the Irish Land Commission from the rural district of Kenmare, county Kerry, during the nine months ended 31st December, 1907, and the three months ended 31st March, 1908, respectively; and, having regard to the fact that the latest sitting of the Sub-Land Commission at Kenmare was on the 3rd October, 1907, at which only applications lodged before the 1st April, 1907, were dealt with, can he state the earliest date of the holding of a further sitting of the Sub-Land Commission at Kenmare.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The number of applications received from the Kenmare district during the nine months ending 31st December, 1907, was twenty-seven, and the number received during the three months ending 31st March, 1908, was twenty-eight. The Land Commission will appoint a further sitting as soon as possible having regard to the claims of other districts, but cannot at present fix a date.

  Irish Royal College of Surgeons.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered a memorial from the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland praying that that body may become a constituent college in the new University to be established in Dublin; and whether he will be prepared to advise the inclusion of that college within the University.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is not intended to make the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland a constituent college of the proposed new University in Dublin.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: Will the Chief Secretary be prepared to consider any further representations that may be made by the Royal College of Surgeons?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes, Sir; I am quite sure my right hon. friend will be.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the authorised strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the 1st December, 1905, and 1st March, 1908, respectively.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The authorised strength of the force on 1st December, 1905, was 9,436, but on the following day authority was given to increase the force by fifty men. Since then, the number has been further increased by 414 men, making the total 9,900, at which figure it stood on 1st March, 1908.

  Irish Resident Magistrates.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the
  1262
  number of vacancies in the office of resident magistrate in Ireland since 1st January, 1906; and whether the vacancies have all been filled.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Since 1st January, 1906, four vacancies have occurred in the office of resident magistrate. Three new appointments have been made in respect of these vacancies, and one resident magistrate's station has been abolished.

  Staff of the Estates Commission.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what additional appointments were made to the staff of the Estates Commission consequent on the passing of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907, and what is the cost of such additional establishment.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No additional appointments to the staff of the Estates Commissioners have been made consequent upon the passing of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, but the services have been retained of the fourteen temporary inspectors who were appointed in April, 1907, as part of the general staff engaged on the purchase and re-sale of land, and in connection with the restoration of evicted tenants. These temporary inspectors are paid £800 per annum each, inclusive of subsistence allowance. A temporary clerical staff of ten persons engaged upon evicted tenants inquiry work has also been retained as part of the general indoor staff, at a total approximate cost of £600 per annum. The Estates Commissioners inform me that it is impossible to say what portion of the staff is engaged exclusively on the restoration of evicted tenants. They think it probable that if the Evicted Tenants Act had not been passed the whole of the present staff would have been required in connection with their purchase proceedings and with the restoration of evicted tenants under the voluntary provisions of the Act of 1903. It is, in fact, under these voluntary provisions that the reinstatement of evicted tenants is for the most part being effected.

  Inspectorship of Irish Reformatories.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware

  1263
  that it was proposed by the late Government, so soon as the opportunity presented itself, to amalgamate the In spectorship of Reformatory and Industrial Schools with one of the Commissioner-ships of the Prisons Board; whether the opportunity has yet arisen; if so, what steps have been taken for carrying out the proposed arrangement; and what is the resultant saving to the Exchequer.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Thee is no official record of any proposal by the late Government to amalgamate the offices named in the Question. But when the Medical Commissionership of the Prisons Board became vacant on 1st September, 1906, His Majesty's present Government decided to fill the vacancy by appointing thereto the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, the two offices to be held jointly. The saving to the Exchequer as the result of this arrangement amounts to £550 per annum.

  Mr. Keaneny, J.P.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks reported to have been made by Mr. J. Keaneny, a county councillor and justice of the peace, at a public meeting on Sunday, 19th April, at Tulsk, county Roscommon, advising the people, wherever there was a grazier or rancher, to make the place a little hell for him; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: This matter has been referred to the Lord Chancellor, and is under his consideration.

  Cattle-Drives in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of cattle-drives reported to the police, or within their cognisance, during the months of January, February, March, and April, respectively.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The number of cattle-drives reported in January was 35; in February, 31; in March, 57; and in April, to date, 47.

  Tanderagee Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will give further consideration to the case of Samuel Rainey, an evicted tenant, of Ballymore, Tanderagee, county Armagh, with a view to placing him in possession of a holding in lieu of that from which he was evicted.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners have fully considered this case, and see no reason to alter the decision of which my right hon. friend informed the hon. Member on 17th July last.
  MR. LONSDALE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two inspectors have reported that this is a case for reinstatement?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have no knowledge as to that.

  Land Purchase Annuities.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, of Ireland whether be will state the number of cases in which legal proceedings have had to be instituted by the Land Commission during the last six months to recover from tenant purchasers annuities due under the Irish Land Act of 1903.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The number of cases in which the Land Commission directed proceedings to be taken last month for the recovery of land purchase annuities due on 1st December last was 1,074. Payment has since been made in 549 of these cases, leaving only 525 now in arrear out of a total of 38,963 payers of annuities.

  Charlestown Petty Sessions—Charge of Unlawful Assembly.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the magistrates, sitting at Charlestown Petty Sessions on the 10th April, by a majority refused informations in the case of six men charged with unlawful assembly on the 18th March, when it was alleged that they formed part of a crowd who took letters containing processes of ejectment

  1265
  for rent from the rural postman; whether two resident magistrates dissented from the decision of the majority, and one of them stated that he had never heard a dearer primâ facie case put forward by the prosecution; and whether he proposes to take further steps to place these men upon trial for the offences alleged against them.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Member. The question of taking further proceedings has been fully considered by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, who has decided that having regard to the decision of the majority of the bench, the case is not one in which he would be justified in sending up a Bill to the grand jury.

  Forestry in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to take any action to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Forestry in Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Report of the Departmental Committee on Irish Forestry, which has only recently been issued, is under consideration, but there has not yet been time to arrive at a decision upon the recommendations of the Committee. The importance of dealing with the matter is fully recognised, and the Government will come to a decision upon it as soon as may be possible, having regard to the financial and other considerations involved.

  Irish Department of Agriculture—Salary of Secretary.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether it was upon his recommendation that the salary of the secretary of the Department has been increased from £1,300 to £1,500 per annum, and what are the reasons for the increase.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The salary was increased by the sum stated in order to make it more nearly commensurate with the exceedingly onerous responsibilities of the office, which are not less than those of the
  1266
  permanent heads of other great Departments of State on which the official constitution of the Department has been modelled and in which a higher scale of salary obtains.

  Orders in Council.
  *Mr. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the Answer of the Prime Minister on 14th March, 1907, stating that he proposed to confer with the Lord President of the Council with reference to the enforcement of the rule that all Orders in Council should be published in the London Gazette, whether he can now state what action has been taken, and if the rule will be invariably enforced in the future; and whether he is aware that the Secretary of the Privy Council states that Members of Parliament are not entitled to copies of Orders in Council, when applying on a matter in which they are interested.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): All Orders in Council, where required by Statute, are published in the London Gazette. Some misconception must, I think, exist as regards the statement attributed to the Clerk of the Privy Council, as that officer states that he has not expressed such an opinion.
  *Mr. BELLAIRS: As the statement was made by letter in answer to an application by me for a copy of an Order in Council, will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Clerk to the Council on the matter?
  Mr. ASQUITH: Yes.

  Trade Combinations in Great Britain.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the existence in Great Britain of trusts, rings, cartels, and other combinations having for their object the monopolisation of trades and markets, by regulating the output or by keeping up prices and stifling competition; and, seeing that such combinations are in restraint of trade, and are, therefore, inconsistent with the present free-trade policy of this country, whether lie will take steps to restrain the increasing monopolistic operations of foreign trusts

  1267
  in the United Kingdom; and whether the Government will grant a Royal Commission or a Select Committee to inquire into the existence of railway conferences, shipping rings, coal rings, industrial combinations of the iron and steel trades, such as the Railmakers Syndicate and other organisations like the Imperial Tobacco Trust, the Meat Trust, and the German Electrical Manufacturers Trust.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I am aware of the existence of trade combinations of the kind referred to in the United Kingdom, and I agree that in some cases the effects of these may be prejudicial to the public interest. But the operations of such trusts are necessarily more circumscribed and less mischievous here than in other countries in which they are fostered by a general customs tariff, and I doubt whether there would at the present time be any advantage in such an inquiry as the hon. Member suggests.

  The Budget.
  MR. McCRAEasked the Prime Minister if, having regard to the near approach of the Whitsunday Term, and in view of the inconvenience caused in Scotland by delay, the right hon. Gentleman could now say when the Budget would be introduced.
  MR. ASQUITH: I hope on Thursday, 7th May.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
William Joynson-Hicks, esquire, for Borough of Manchester (North-West Division).
Captain the hon. Arthur Cecil Murray, County of Kincardine.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Second Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
NEW BILL.

  WHALING STATIONS.
  MR. CATHCART WASON, in asking leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the closing of existing whaling stations during the
  1268
  summer herring fishing and to prohibit whaling stations being established in the future on any part of the shores of Great Britain and Ireland, said the case which he had the honour to present to the consideration of the Government was of the utmost, importance to the great herring fishing of Scotland, of which Shetland, at certain seasons, was the principal ground. In 1903 things were going well with them. Good fishings and consequent increased commercial prosperity had put life into the people. In the summer of that year two foreign whaling companies, without leave or licence from any public authority, invaded the most beautiful Voe in Shetland and in a short time rendered its waters unfit for life. Herring stations had to be abandoned, and fishermen he afterwards met at Pittenweem assured him that cuts on their hands would not heal, trifling sores became ulcers, owing to the polluted waters. He visited the Voe as soon as possible, and the scene could only be described by a Zola or an Upton Sinclair. Not only that, but for miles down the Voe the mussel bed, were destroyed. At a public meeting he denounced the beastly business, but landlordism, capital, mid cunning were too strong, and no public feeling was aroused. The following year Mr. Graham Murray appointed a Commission to visit Shetland, and the result was presented to the House in the form of a Bill, but outside influence being brought to bear on the Government, no serious attempt was made to pass it, and on the west coast of Shetland the herring fishing had gone from bad to worse, and the industry was in despair. Naturally enough, when people saw ruin staring them in the face they must find someone on whom they might ventilate their indignation, and although he had done everything he possibly could to impress both the present Government and the late Government with the gravity of the situation, he was bitterly blamed by the local Tory Press for not having successfully compelled either of the Governments to adopt his views. His hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland also came in for a considerable share of abuse, and with equal justice he was denounced most vigorously for the carelessness and apathy of his predecessors, who, knowing and admitting the gravity of the situation, did nothing. His hon. friend the Member for South

  1269
  Tyrone told the House the other day that he proposed introducing a Bill to legalise whaling stations in Ireland, and in view of the disastrous results that had followed in the west coast of Shetland, he wanted to be told what they knew. They knew as facts that since this inhuman work started, the herring fishing on the west coast of Shetland had gone from bad to worse. They knew that the Norwegian fishermen drove the whale killers from their shores, and that the Norwegian fishing had not yet recovered. They knew that the operations polluted the waters for miles round, and destroyed the mussel beds. A petition had been presented to the Secretary for Scotland from the Shetland Herring and White Fishing Association, praying that the Government would, without delay, appoint a Commission of Inquiry to examine and report on the subject. He and other Members representing the fishing industry strongly supported that petition, and he could not imagine any reasonable ground on which it could be refused, and they were presenting a memorial to the Secretary for Scotland praying that he would accede to the request. Many hon. Members from Ireland, departing from their usual custom of not associating themselves with them, had supported the principle of this Bill, and he was grateful for the support. And until the Commission which it was hoped the Secretary for Scotland would at once appoint made its report, he trusted that the Irish Government would stay its hand and refrain from granting any permits for the establishment of these stations. All the circumstances of the case justified the Government in accepting the principle of this Bill, that meantime no further stations would be permitted on the British or Irish coasts, and that the Secretary for Scotland should take power to prohibit the working of such stations as were now erected, during certain seasons of the year.
  Question—"That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for the closing of existing whaling stations during the summer herring fishing, and to prohibit whaling stations being established in the future on any part of the shores of Great Britain and Ireland,"—put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Gwynn, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Dr. Ambrose,
  1270
  Mr. Weir, Mr. O'Malley, Mr. Morton, Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. John Sutherland, and Mr. Ainsworth.

  WHALING STATIONS BILL
  "To provide for the closing of existing whaling stations during the summer herring fishing and to prohibit whaling stations being established in the future on any part of the shores of Great Britain and Ireland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 13th May, and to be printed. [Bill 205].

LICENSING BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [28th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was,
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'this House declines to proceed further with a measure which, while failing to promote the cause of temperance, violates the principles of equity'"—(Mr. Cave)—instead thereof.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. WALTER LONG: Before I approach the question which we have under discussion a pleasanter and an easier duty falls to my lot owing to the fact that yesterday during the course of our proceedings no Member sitting on this Bench had the opportunity to offer to the Prime Minister, on his first appearance in what I may call perhaps our practical, ordinary, everyday life here, our warm congratulations upon his accession to the most distinguished office in the State, and our conviction that he will fill it with credit to himself and with honour to the great country over whose destinies he is now called upon to preside. I am also glad and ready to bear testimony to the very admirable speech, if my hon. and learned friend will permit me to praise him and his words, delivered yesterday by the Member for the Kingston Division. I do not hesitate to say that as far as I am entitled to voice any of the opinions of the Opposition, and as far as I desire to see the case for the Opposition

1271
put before the House, everything that I could desire or ask for was done yesterday by my hon. and learned friend, and I believe, however strongly Members opposite may have differed from him either in his arguments or in his conclusions, nobody will deny that he put his case in very strong and clear terms, and put it to the House in a manner which made even his strongest opponents unable to differ from him with any feeling of bitterness. For my part, I wish with all my heart that the debate could end there, especially because it would relieve me of the duty which devolves on me of taking part in it, but also because it is very difficult for anybody who does not possess my hon. and learned friend's acute intellect and long training in judicial work to speak upon this question without running the risk of possibly spoiling the excellence of some of the points which he put so clearly. But I suppose it would be regarded as contrary to our Party system if we were to introduce so simple a procedure as a speech on each side and then a division, and I have no doubt that, while the Government of the day would accept such an innovation with delight, whenever that Government became an Opposition their views would be diametrically changed as to the advantages of the proposition. The Prime Minister, in his speech yesterday at the opening of our proceedings, called upon us on this side to formulate our case. He referred to the Act of 1904 for which we were responsible, and references were also made to it by succeeding speakers, including the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, and it was more than once asked "How can you justify the ground you have taken up having regard to the fact that you were responsible for and passed the Act of 1904?" I venture to say that there is to be found in the Act of 1904 no precedent whatever for the legislation which we are now called upon to consider. Further, I venture to say that this Bill proceeds upon lines exactly opposite to those which were pursued by the promoters of the Act of 1904. What was the main object of that measure? It was to provide an easy, and above all, an equitable machinery by which unnecessary and superfluous licences could be got rid of. That Bill when it was introduced brought about with a section of the licence-holders a distinct bargain, value
1272
being given for value. The Under-Secretary claimed as evidence of the force of the law that previous to the passing of the Act of 1904, and quite recently, there had been 700 or 800 licences suppressed without compensation. Nobody denies that fact; nobody on this side of the House denies that right to the exercise of their powers in what we regard as an arbitrary way by certain limited benches, which brought this question to the fore. And why was it that the use of these powers was limited to certain benches? It was because, in the case of the great majority of the magistrates of the country, their sense of justice revolted against the idea of exercising a power which, however long it might have existed, had certainly lain dormant for a long time, in order to take away without compensation the living of respectable people who had regarded their property as one which would be continuous if they took proper care of it and behaved themselves properly. That bargain was made, and what did those ante-1869 licence-holders surrender? They surrendered a right which nobody now disputed. It was not disputed that the ante-1869 licence-holders had a right different from those who followed. They surrendered it, and in return for what? In return for the right to full compensation for the business and property they were surrendering, that compensation to be provided out of a levy to which they were themselves to contribute. To claim the Act of 1904 as a precedent for this legislation is, I venture to say, a claim which cannot be sustained by anybody who remembers what took place when that Bill was in Parliament, or who realise what was the effect of that Act upon our licensing laws. It was claimed by the Under-Secretary last night that one of the great reforms the Government were effecting was one dealing with the new, licences. That was one of the reforms contained in the Act of 1904, for which we were responsible. The fact that that Act was claimed as a measure of temperance reform is undoubtedly true, but it was only based upon this ground, that where it is proved that unnecessary licences exist, there it is desirable to enable their removal to be effected without arousing bitter controversy and without doing a great injustice, and these results were arrived at by the passing of that Bill. Those results were effected by the Act of

1273
1904. Can anybody say that similar results will follow from the Bill we are now considering? We heard last night a speech from the Under-Secretary for the Home Office which did not want in ability. He certainly had official sources of information at his command, but there was not one statement controverting the case advanced by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston, who showed that if this Bill passed in its present form or practically in any form and if its operation were to extend to the the country generally the gravest injustice would be inflicted upon a large number of innocent people. The only way in which the Government and their supporters have met that case is by falling back upon the fact, which was known to everybody and has no relation to this question of injustice, that at one period in the history of the licensing trade advantage was taken of what was believed to be a time of great prosperity and that some businesses were sold at greatly inflated prices. Nobody denies that at all. But the great brewers and the owners of these businesses are not the only people who have suffered by what has happened, and they are not the only people who ought to be considered. And what is more; surely it is bad enough that people should have suffered by bad finance and operations of that nature. In some cases these businesses have recovered. But there are many cases, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster stated last night, where the publichouses belong to small local brewers. There are no harder cases to be found than those. In a part of Wiltshire there are a large number of public-houses which are attached to small breweries and arc conducted by the men who own both. How are you going to deal with those cases? The only answer which has been given to that question is that they are trading on the results of the folly and bad finance of these people, or that they are making calculations in regard to the future upon some false basis. Of course, it is quite natural for those who are responsible for this measure, and who I hope believe in it, to wish to make the best case they can, but there has not been one statement made on the Government side which disposes of the facts and figures brought before the House by my hon. and learned friend. Those facts and figures are the results not of fancy calculations of laymen,

1274
not of persons interested in making out the best possible case, but of the best experts in the land, men who are intimately acquainted with all the pitfalls and difficulties of such estimates. I repeat that neither in its composition nor in its operation can the Act of 1904 be cited as a precedent for the Bill we are now considering. The Prime Minister has asked us two questions, and I will endeavour plainly and briefly to answer them. The right hon. Gentleman must realise what is sometimes not realised by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway—I do not blame them for it—that we are in a difficult position in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, who was himself responsible for the Act of 1904, and who is the only man entitled to speak with a single voice on behalf of his Party. But I believe I shall not be misstating the position of my right hon. friend, although I cannot hope to express it in his terms, in answering those two questions. The first question was, Do you admit and approve of a time-limit? I confess I was rather surprised that the Prime Minister asked that question, and for this reason. That question was frequently raised by hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House during the debates on the Act of 1904, but it was raised in different circumstances and in a different form. My right hon. friend who was then Prime Minister stated distinctly, and I believe it is his opinion now, that a time limit is absolutely incompatible with a concurrent levy for insurance. That is our view now. The Act of 1904 involved a serious compact between Parliament and those with whom we were then dealing, and it gave most clearly power to dispose of licences on condition that fair and reasonable compensation was paid. The hon. Member for Appleby, who dealt with many of these questions in a very light-hearted fashion, talked about this insurance as a thing which could be easily done. I wonder on what authority he spoke! I heard him afterwards talking about the way in which beer was brewed, and when challenged with making an absurd statement he immediately confessed he knew nothing about it. I do not know whether he made the statement about insurance on the same foundation; but this I do know, that no one has yet produced a practical scheme of insurance which

1275
would enable the owners of a property like this to provide against the time limit if concurrently they had to provide the money necessary for their own insurance. That is a complete answer to the question of a time-limit. Now the second question which the Prime Minister asked us was: Are you in favour of the recovery of the monopoly value by the State? The Prime Minister said he he was entitled to an answer, and I think he is. I regard it very much from the point of view of the injury you would do to the owner of a particular class of property. I deny altogether that this question has any connection, however remote, with the question of temperance, and I believe that those who have studied this question longest hold the same view. If you take the grave step of transferring these licences from the individual to the State, a diminished consumption of alcoholic liquor is not likely to be the result. I am not sure that the Under-Secretary, in the inner recesses of his mind, does not hold the same view. He himself hardly became enthusiastic last night until he reached that part of his speech in which he told the House that a vast revenue would come to the State from this change. Therefore I deny that this question of the recovery of the monopoly to the State is a temperance question. It is not a temperance measure, but a fiscal measure pure and simple. The Under-Secretary seemed to say that we had confused what is meant by the monopoly value. We are grateful to him for that, and for attempting to give us fuller information; but I can assure him that we quite understand that all the State desires to become possessed of is the licence value. But before the Government come forward with a proposal of that kind—if the State decides that it is right in the interests of public morality and of the general community that that should be done—they must be prepared to accompany it with an undertaking that a fair and reasonable price will be paid for that which is to be taken away. The Prime Minister has said that he thought owners of property were ill-advised to fight this Bill, and that they were incurring risks to themselves. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that these statements as to the effect of this Bill upon the rights of property come not from us or from property owners, but from the leaders of the Socialist Party.
1276
The Prime Minister went on to say that he bad settled all these points to his own and his Government's satisfaction, and that now all that was necessary was to give the trade time to turn round and make provision for themselves. The trade must turn round uncommonly quickly if they are to make provision for themselves in the time allowed by this Bill. The Prime Minister told us that all the owners of this vast property had long been aware of the fact that the ownership was attended by risks, and that the fact that they bad made no provision showed them to be most imprudent in matters of finance. The hon. Member for Appleby whose language was not well chosen, talked of it as rotten finance.
*MR. LEIF JONES: What I said was that if they had nut made provision it was rotten finance.
MR. WALTER LONG: That is exactly what I said. I was only referring to the elegant language of the hon. Member. The hon. Member is not responsible for this Bill. The Government are. I am informed that not an inconsiderable number of licensed houses have been owned by Government Departments. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether anyone of those Departments, whether under a Unionist or a Radical Administration, has ever made provision for the case that has arisen. We know that in most recent times they have not only not made provision by that prudent finance which the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Appleby warmly extol, but that they have sold public-houses at the highest market price, and left it to somebody else to indulge in prudent finance to protect the new owners of the property which has been depreciated by this proposed legislation I think that the owners of brewery property, large and small, may regard with complacency the charges of rotten finance when they find that the Government as owners of public-houses have made no provision of a similar kind themselves. The Prime Minister told us that he would welcome suggestions with regard to clubs. That is all very well, but the Prime Minister knows that this club question touches the people more closely than any other. To parade

1277
this Bill as an efficient measure of temperance reform because it deals with public-houses and not with clubs, and then to say to the Opposition, "We ask you what we are to do with clubs," is to act as a parent of this Bill in a very indifferent manner. The hon. Member for the Appleby Division made two statements which I venture directly to challenge. He made a statement about the personal honesty of all those who are opposing this Bill. That reminds me that I ought not, I suppose, to address the House, and shall come under his ban because I own £2,000 or £3,000 worth of shares in a brewery, and I suppose my position is vitiated by that fact.
*MR. LEIF JONES: My statement was that those from whom I have received protests were interested in the trade.
MR. WALTER LONG: If the hon. Member denies the accuracy of my recollection I at once withdraw the statement. But his statement was that he had been unable to meet anybody except those who are interested in the trade who were not in favour of the Bill.
*MR. LEIF JONES: What I intended to say and what I think I said was that the protests I had received were from persons interested, and I went on to mention letters which I had received.
MR. WALTER LONG: Of course I will accept his explanation at once. If I have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, I at once withdraw. But he will not forget that in one of his perorations—I forget which—he made a magnificent statement. He said—
"Mr. Speaker, this is a case of good or evil."
When he made that statement I ceased to wonder why the temperance party made such little progress. I was at a loss to know which to wonder at most—the arrogance of the claim which he advanced for himself as the representative of good, or the insolence in describing us as the representatives of evil. I beg to say that the cause of temperance reform will not be advanced by charges of that kind flung across the floor of the House. We are entitled to claim that we are actuated by motives as honest, and convictions as strong, as are those of Gentle-

1278
men opposite. [Cheers.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to cheer those sentiments, but to allow your colleagues to describe us as evil against your good is a different thing. I bring no accusation of motives against hon. Gentlemen opposite. I believe that the strongest advocates of the temperance movement are the men who are the real authors of this Bill, because their action in the country has led to its introduction, and they have never concealed their view that they look upon the drink traffic as an immoral traffic. Their object is to get rid of the traffic altogether. I do not blame Gentlemen who hold those views if they wish to destroy it altogether; but, holding those views, I object when they say that they are pleading here only for a moderate Bill. They believe that they have no cause to be ashamed of those views, and, holding them, they ought to demand that all those connected with the traffic should be suppressed, and the scantiest justice meted out to them. I complain that some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite come here, assume for themselves all the virtues in the world, and attribute to us all the evils, and say that all the opposition to this Bill is confined to those interested in the trade. How any man who goes about, who travels by train or 'bus, or walks, can make that statement, amazes me. He must go about with his eyes shut. I am not going to talk about by-elections, because I do not think one thing alone affects by-elections; but anybody who reads the reports of these by-elections knows how this Licensing Bill has aroused a great feeling amongst men. It is not a fair charge to say that those only who are interested in the trade are opposed to it. We have wondered why the Government think it necessary to bring in this Bill. The Under-Secretary said last night—
"You will not deny that intemperance is a great evil."
No one on this side of the House denies that, and much is being done to make this nation sober. I agree that there is still room for amendment, but the Bill is far more likely to set back the hands of the clock. An hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he had never listened to a temperance debate in which Members did not say they agreed with temperance reform, but—there are always "buts." Is there not the biggest

1279
"but" to be found in this Bill? What is the "but"? You are seeking to advance temperance at the cost of fair dealing and justice. Is not that a fair justification for our opposition? We know that the Act of 1904 was working smoothly and well, and with increased rapidity. Though it might be necessary to make some amendment in it, I do not believe any radical alteration was necessary. It is claimed by the Government that the present Bill is better than the Act of 1904. Looking at the clauses, I cannot find that there is any certainty that any man who owns a public-house will get a penny more than under the Act of 1904, and I do not think his prospects are so sound as they were under the previous Act. If that falls to the ground, what becomes of the rest of the arguments which rest on the connection between the number of licensed houses in the country and temperance itself. It has been conceded by the Prime Minister that it is not held or claimed by the Government that this reduction of public-houses is in itself likely to result largely in temperance, but that it only contributes to that result. I think that is a fact that will be generally accepted. But I think you can carry it farther. The figures quoted by my hon. friend yesterday dealing with the number of licences in various counties and the number of convictions for drunkenness are very startling. But anyone who studies them carefully as I have done cannot but see that the relation between the number of houses and the number of convictions for drunkenness form very unreliable evidence in support of reduction as a means towards sobriety. I was amazed at the argument of the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs, based upon Home Office information, that these figures are not reliable because of the different methods among the police, who were more active in some places than in others. We are told that the Government lay down what the minimum reduction shall be, and they say that in proportion to the population per acre there shall be only a certain number of houses, and that this will contribute to temperance. I take the case of two villages I know myself, in one of which I live. The other is seven miles away. Both are under the same police force, and both are well policed by active and admirable men, who are changed from time to time, so that there
1280
may be no risk of collusion. These are the results. In one village you have a population of 459, you have two licensed houses, and there has been one conviction in five years for drunkenness. The reports from the police, who are very active, are thoroughly satisfactory. In the other village, where the class of people and the employment and general conditions are the same, the population is about 760. There are four licensed houses and one off-licence. There have been two convictions in ten years, and one in five years, and one of these persons did not belong to the place. What is going to be the operation of this Bill in such a case? How are you going to differentiate between the two villages? The number of convictions is the same; the sobriety of the villagers is the same; their general conduct is the same, and the police are the same. Are you going to reduce these licensed houses, and if so, what evidence is there that by their reduction you will do anything except to close a public-house which at present is well conducted, and which, from all we can tell, is desired by the people themselves? What advantage would there be in closing that public-house? It would be closed simply because hon. Members opposite said that whether it was necessary in the interests of the people or not it was to go, because it was a public-house. I come now to what I think is the most remarkable change under this Bill. This Government, this great strong Liberal Government, talking as they have done of trusting the people—what have they done to local government by this Bill? They have made the most startling change that has been made in our local government system for many a year. Ever since they came into office they have been doing their utmost to interfere with local government, first with regard to land, and now in a still more drastic and startling way with the local authorities in the counties. When we, in our 1904 Bill, gave an appeal against the local authority to the quarter sessions they denounced us for doing so, because they said the local authority would know the wants of the people better than quarter sessions. How have they followed their preaching by practice? They do not go to the quarter sessions. They appoint a Commission to sit in London, which, if the

1281
local authority say there is no change required, and that everything is satisfactory, come down and say, "You are to frame a scheme, whether you like it or not, which will result in so many houses being reduced. You can select the people who are to suffer under the scheme, but we order you to do this against your better opinion." Is that a democratic reform of local government? When this Government have done, if they live another year or two, I wonder what will be the result on our local governing bodies They will have practically no power left. Two or three Commissions in London will do all the work of local government. A more extraordinary change than this has never been made, I think, in local government, nor one that is more improper. We have heard a great deal about clubs, and some of the Government's own supporters have plaintively implored the Government to do something more in regard to this matter. On this question I desire only to speak for myself. I admit that in the club papers that have reached me quite a startling list of clubs is given in which the performances seem to be of rather a peculiar character. I do not know why, but they are all put down as Radical democratic clubs. I daresay there may be others. I have not selected them, but the fact remains that in these papers they are so described.
SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: The papers are circulated in Radical clubs, and therefore give information about the Radical clubs.
MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously. They would not advertise Conservative clubs as that would spoil their takings. I have some knowledge of working men's clubs myself, and I do not think this House ought to jump to the conclusion that the majority of such clubs are conducted on the lines we have heard described. The majority, I believe, are conducted by men as honourable, as fond of sobriety and good conduct as any man in this House or out of it. But the Government say, "We must reduce the number of licences by a fixed and wholesale quantity." Why? "Because," as the hon Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs said yesterday, "we do not want to offer this extra
1282
temptation to drinking." Now whether a club is well or badly conducted has nothing to do with the argument of the Government, whose ground is the reduction of places where drink can be obtained I hold that to bring in this Bill is to destroy a large portion of this trade, which proceeding, not only the trade, but thousands of other people regard as grossly unjust, and it will bring about the almost inevitable result of opening clubs which, however well-conducted, are not subject to any of the limitations imposed on public-houses. To introduce as a measure of temperance reform such a Bill is a sham and a farce. It is idle to ask us to frame clauses in regard to clubs. The Government are responsible for their own Bill, and they have no right to pretend that by police regulations they are really dealing with the temperance question. It has been said that we who are supposed to be for some reason the special defenders of the rights of property are unwise in allowing this class of property to be in any way associated with property such as freehold estates. We do not ourselves select the methods by which we are attacked. We have only to defend, and when we observe the easy steps by which Gentlemen opposite pass from the old paths of Liberalism into the paths of modern up-to-date Radicalism we are naturally apprehensive of suggestions of this kind, especially when we find how they are being used by some of the most thoughtful and capable of those who call themselves Socialists. Mr. Hyndman said—
"One part of this Bill he did like, and that was the fourteen years time-limit, for the expropriation of brewers and publicans. If the expropriation of public-houses and breweries could be done in fourteen years, why not cotton mills, coal mines, etc.? He thought it was an excellent proposal, and was much obliged to Mr. Asquith for telling him that fourteen years was the limit for the expropriation of property."
Then there was the Member for Blackburn who said—
"The Labour group in Parliament do not think that the Government produced this Bill under the belief that it is a Socialist Bill, but we do believe that in principle it is a Socialist Bill, tending to leave in the hands of the people and restore to the people that which they ought never to have parted with."
That is cheered. Then where does the blame arise for the part we took? We

1283
have heard exactly that language in this House—and not from Socialists—addressed to those who nave been possessors of agricultural land. The very language used here has been used by every speaker who has taken part in any of the land debates in this House; therefore, are we unwise in expressing our profound regret that the Government have introduced in this Bill a principle which we believe to be the thin end of the wedge which others will drive in for them as time goes on? It is quite unnecessary for me to add to the list of cases which have been produced in this House. A most remarkable list of figures was given by Mr. Peat, a recognised authority and expert, who is perfectly impartial in this matter, He gave a selection of breweries which he said were stable concerns, and not of the class described by those who talk about "bad finance," and he showed what would be the loss on those undertakings if this Bill passed. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston gave a series of individual cases, and, if I had the time, I could give others of women who have been left money on sound mortgages of property of this kind, which provides them now with their only means of livelihood. These investments were the results of savings left them by their husbands. The greater part if not the whole, of that will go; and I say, if this money is to be sacrificed, those people are not the people who took advantage of the inflated prices; they did not take advantage of the boom bait; they lent their money on the sound security of individual houses in different places. Without compensation at the end of the time-limit—fourteen years—it is impossible for them to provide against what they will lose. The Government say under this Bill that the property is to be taken from them, and then they criticise us because we say that legislation of this kind is pure confiscation. It takes away the property of people who rightly own it, property which has been recognised by the State, which has been taxed by the State, which has been owned and sold by the State, and which has paid death duties to the State; and on what ground? From the beginning
1284
to the end upon the ground of the firm belief that it was a continuous and abiding possession. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] Most unquestionably. Does anybody really seriously believe that where a man buys an extensive property, where, on the demand of the justices, he spends a large sum in improving it and making it suitable for his trade requirements, he does that without the conviction in his mind that there is practically a continuous security so long as he behaves himself and so long as he conducts his business properly? I say it is against commonsense that these people who invested their money had any other idea in view. I say that if that money is taken and you give them nothing, or even a small fraction, in return you will be doing a gross wrong, which possibly will not be exaggerated if people describe it as pure robbery—robbery as pure and simple as it can be, if you take the possessions of these people which they have held on those terms and give them no compensation other than you give them in this Bill. But what about the people whom you hope will conduct this great business in the future? It has been suggested that these houses have been badly conducted. If you want the best, kind of men to occupy them, are you taking steps by this Bill which are likely to lead the best men either to buy or to occupy these premises? Are you giving any inducement to the class of men I have described to go into this business? I believe that this measure will not conduce to temperance, while it will do a gross injustice to a large number of people in this country. It will deteriorate those who have hitherto conducted the business, and it will lead a vast number of people in this country to think that injustice is being clone by the Government; they will be as shocked as we are about a proposal which we believe to be wrong, and which we believe will do nothing for the cause of temperance.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir SAMUEL EVANS,): I think a great many Members of the House will agree with me that the latter portion of speech of the light hon. Gentleman was not the most forcible so far as argument is concerned. I am

1285
not to be deterred from discussing this Bill by these references and general attacks by people like Mr. Hyndman and others upon various classes of property; because we are here dealing with a particular trade, which has been under the control of the State for 500 years and which will continue to be under such control, not only in this country but in other countries as well. Now let us address ourselves to this particular Bill. I have listened with great care to the right hon. Gentleman in order to see whether or not he really agreed with us that there was still a gigantic evil arising out of the drink-traffic with which we ought to deal. He used some words, not very strong, in which he said there was a good deal still to be done. The Act of 1904 has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and he was one of those who were responsible for that measure. He said that we had not followed the precedent of the Act of 1904 in any respect. I want to point out to him two or three matters dealt with by the Act of 1904—which was not an Act for confiscation, but an Act to produce temperance reform—which we have followed closely in the measure now before Parliament. The first principle of the Act of 1904, and the first respect in which we have adopted it as a precedent, is that the reduction of licences is not only a good thing but a necessary thing for the purpose of producing temperance. If there was one principle in the Act of 1904, that was the principle. When the right hon. Gentleman took part in framing that measure did he then think that his answer was enough to the allegation made by us, not only made but accepted by practically everybody, that there is a connection between the number of licences with reference to population and excess in the drink traffic, not necessarily always excess manifesting itself in drunkenness, but excess manifesting itself in the people spending a great deal more money than they ought to spend in justice to themselves and to their families by taking part in this drink traffic——
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How is that ascertained?
SIR SAMUEL EVANS: It is ascertained in this way, that the drink bill of
1286
this country amounts to the enormous sum of over £160,000,000.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to ask how he ascertains that the number of licences in any particular place has a connection with the amount spent in drink, apart from the amount of drunkenness? What are the statistics which he has got in his mind?
SIR SAMUEL EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman did not allow me to continue. I was pointing out what was done under the Act of 1904, and I was assuming that the reduction you intended under the Act of 1904, and of which you now boast as the result of the Act of 1904, had some connection with temperance reform, which was the object that you had in passing the Act. I was going on to say that it wants some better answer than that which was made by the right hon. Gentleman when he referred to two villages with a few hundreds of population, where there was one conviction for drunkenness in five years in one of the villages with four public-houses, and two convictions for drunkenness in ten years in the other village, with two public-houses, or something of that kind. It is idle to take individual instances of that kind as covering a great area of ground. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not expect anybody to accept from that, as a result of the arguments used, that there is no connection between the number of public-houses and the extent of the drink traffic. As I understand, under the Act of 1904, that was the basis of the reduction in the number of public-houses, or why did you reduce the licences to the extent of 600 or 700 per annum? In respect of the reduction of licensed premises we have followed the precedent of the Act of 1904 and extended it. The extension we make is this. If it is a good thing it ought to be spread all over the country. If it is a good thing for one part of the country surely it ought to be a good thing to promote temperance in another part of the country. If it is a good thing for one set of justices who are keen for temperance on their own incentive and in their own discretion, it is a good thing for Parliament and other justices to

1287
follow the example of those justices. Another respect in which we have followed the Act of 1904 is that we grant compensation in respect of all licences which would be extinguished during the fourteen years, from let April, 1909. It is really a period of fifteen years from the present time. I am coming directly to the amount of compensation. Of course the amount of compensation is a very important matter in connection with this Bill. The basis of compensation is different in our Bill from that which it has been determined to be under the Act of 1904. Then another respect in which we have followed the Act of 1904 as a precedent, is that we say that after the reduction period, in respect not only of new licences but of all licences, the State has an interest in and claims the monopoly value. If the reduction is right, I have shown how we have extended the operation of the Act of 1904. Now I want to come to the question of the amount of compensation. We on this side have alleged, I believe with truth, and we have challenged the authors of the Act of 1904 to deny it, that it was the intention of that Act to give compensation not upon the basis of profits to the brewer but upon the basis of the difference in value of the premises with a licence and the value of premises to which no licence is attached. We know what the decision of Mr. Justice Kennedy was, and we know what it is. Of course the trade fastened upon that decision, and they desired to have compensation upon the profits, showing, as has been said, that they can have 125 years purchase of the value of premises as assessed for poor rate purposes. But was that the intention of the Government in the Bill they introduced in 1904? The right hon. Gentleman knows, and if he does not answer I cannot compel him to answer. We are satisfied that the intention of the framers of that Act was the same as that of the Government, namely, to compensate merely upon the basis not of the profits of the brewer but of the difference between the value of the premises licensed and the value of the premises without a licence.
MR. LYTTELTON: Will the hon. Gentle
1288
man quote a single word in support of that argument?
SIR SAMUEL EVANS: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the authors of the Act. Will he deny that that was the intention? I have asked him, and he does not deny it.
SIR E. CARSON: May I say that I had to do with that Bill in its conduct through the House, and I know that that never was the intention. The intention was that the market price should be taken, just as you take the market price for the death duties. What we always had in our mind was that, as the death duties were assessed so ought the compensation to be assessed.
SIR SAMUEL EVANS: That does not answer the question. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet said that it was the intention of the promoters of that Bill to compensate on the basis of profits to the brewer. The right hon. Gentleman referred in terms of praise, in which I join, to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston yesterday, which was admirable in many respects, but it was not accurate in every particular, and it was not accurate upon this question of compensation. He referred to the argument of the Prime Minister and to the judgment of Mr. Justice Kennedy and said—
"The effect of the Kennedy judgment was that if under the present Act a licence was refused the owner was entitled to the market value of the licence. What the learned Judge said was that in order to get the market value you must consider what the licence would fetch by public auction."
So far from that being accurate, the learned Judge based his calculations upon the profits which the brewer made.
MR. YOUNGER: The retail profit too.
SIR SAMUEL EVANS: Mr. Justice Kennedy, in regard to one of the houses called "The Crown," assessed the compensation in the following way. He took the barrelage which was agreed to be 169 barrels and the various figures given by the expert witnesses of the profit on the barrels to the brewer;

1289
then he adopted a middle figure, put ing the profit at 14s. 6d. per barrel, and this annual profit capitalised at ten years purchase made the total figure £1,412 10s. Therefore, the method adopted by the learned Judge was the number of barrels supplied by the brewers for consumption on the premises, and the profit to the brewer in respect of each barrel, and then he took the ten years purchase on that; yet the hon. Member said the learned Judge said they must not have regard to the profit of the brewer. With regard to compensation, I have admitted that it will not be anything like as much under our Bill so far as the brewer is concerned as it is now under the law declared by Mr. Justice Kennedy. So far as the fairness and justice of the case admits, we are giving compensation on a proper basis when we take into consideration the number of years purchase accorded by Mr. Justice Kennedy. Under the Act of 1904, it was never intended that this House should never adhere to the principle of a time-limit. The matter was left entirely open. What is the remedy proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his Party now for the evil which he admits does still exist? He has a right, of course, in this debate to make a speech purely by way of criticism, but I did not hear a single suggestion of any sort of remedy to meet the gigantic evil which still exists in the carrying on of the drink traffic in this country. The 1904 reduction would not go on for a long time for many reasons. The justices when they were weeding out the worst houses would not use their discretion to shut up the larger houses, and there would be this difficulty in the way—that they would not have the means wherewithal to pay compensation for them; therefore, the time must come when the policy of the Act of 1904 would come to an end and must be supplemented by some measure such as the one we are now bringing in. This is a Second Reading debate. Many points have been made which are Committee points, although I admit they are important; points, for instance, as to the fourteen years being a sufficient reduction period, and the terms of the compensation basis,
1290
but there is nothing underlying this Bill except the principle of control of the licences by the nation and the principle of having a reduction period at all. I am prepared personally to adopt as my own the principle of the Bill, as stated by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a speech he made yesterday. That is a clear issue upon which the House can divide upon the Second Reading. The Archbishop says—
"The main principle is that after all such processes as may be required to make it fair and considerate have been carried through the State, shall, and the people of England shall, for that is the same thing, regain and hold due control and power over a trade which stands in some respect apart from all other trades as to its possible effect upon national well-being in the lives of the men and women of England."
That is a simple principle which is really the dividing issue between us apart from these other questions more fitly and properly and conveniently dealt with in Committee upon which the House will be asked to record its views. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the Prime Minister, gave this rather qualified reply to the question as to whether or not he supported and approved the time-limit. He says—
"We do not approve of the time-limit because it is incompatible with the compulsory levy."
That, of course, says that the time-limit in this Bill does not meet with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, and of the Party which he now leads, as applied in this Bill. There still remains the question: Is he in favour of a time-limit for the purpose of being able to deal with this trade or not, because you will never deal effectually with the evil arising out of the drink traffic unless you have at some period or other—and this is not the time to discuss whether fourteen years is the right period—the full right of control by the State, which unfortunately it has lost since 1904, but which up to that time it had in the fullest measure except with regard at the pre-1869 beer-houses. I am not going into the long controversy with regard to that. The House is very familiar with the history of the subject, but I desire to protest—I think I did once before—against the suggestion that any bargain was made by this House with respect to buying the right of the State to control these licences. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the word bargain

1291
to-day. Between whom was the bargain made? Who are the agents on the one side and on the other? Who are the principals represented by those agents? A bargain was never made in this House, and this House, whatever bargain was made outside by other people of which we know nothing, cannot be tied to any such bargain as that. Brewers can tie their houses, but they cannot tie this House. I want to say one or two words with reference to the alleged injustice at the end of the fourteen years period. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not argue the question of the fourteen years. I have referred already to the Kennedy judgment, where the House will have observed in the one case ten years purchase and in the other eleven years was given as the basis of compensation. That in itself might be a short answer to the argument that fourteen years is too short. But, at any rate, now is not the time to discuss that question, or if anyone else wishes to discuss it, I do not. What is to happen at the end of fourteen years? The monopoly value is to be taken by the State, and the State is to have full control over all the licences, because all the licences will be put upon the same basis as a new licence is put upon now. Has the State any right to any monopoly value? Answer: "Yes. The Act of 1904." What is the difference so far as the State is concerned in its claim for a monopoly value in respect of this kind of traffic between a new licence in 1904, and that licence after the reduction period? After the reduction period that monopoly value will be siezed in respect of every licence, but the statements that have been made all over the country, and which have misled many people with regard to what will take place at the end of the reduction period, I think, are not well-founded. What will happen undoubtedly will be that the licences then in existence, 60,000 or 65,000 or whatever the number may be, more or less, will be held by respectable tenants, otherwise they would have been taken away before, and what will happen will be continuity of business in these houses until a further reduction takes place, either by the action of the public or by the action of the justices—a continuity of the business in the hands of the same tenants.
MR. YOUNGER: The Bill does not say so.
SIR SAMUEL EVANS: The Bill does not say what is to take place in every particular at the end of fourteen years, but does anybody suppose that the licensing justices in this country are going to turn out neck and crop the tenants of 60,000 licensed houses? What will happen will be this, that if there is a very profitable house the tenant will come and say: "I want a renewal of my licence." The justices will have a right to say: "Yes, your licence is required apparently in this locality. We will renew it, but the State is entitled to so much out of that licence." Why should it not? Let me give one or two illustrations. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston said yesterday that in the year 1907 three Glamorganshire licences were granted for lump sums, by way of monopoly value, amounting in the three cases to £13,500. The figures are to be seen in the Blue-book. They are £6,000 for one house, £4,500 for the second, and £3,000 for the third. We make it impossible under the provisions of the Bill now before Parliament to have a lump sum at all. It is necessary for the licensing justices to fix the monopoly value year by year, and they cannot go any further. What happens with regard to these houses? For the moment I will take the annual value instead of the lump sum. At £4,500 as the average monopoly value, at 4 percent., you get £180 a year. That is sufficiently accurate for the purpose of my illustration. Supposing the house had been licensed in 1903 no monopoly value is raised at all. Let us assume that that village with its two licensed houses increases in population and a third house is licensed there. The houses are practically of equal value. If these houses have been licensed in 1903 they will have saved during the fourteen years the sum of £3,600, and for twenty years they will enjoy the monopoly value of £180 a year, which the State does not take, and which it would take if the house was licensed in 1905. So that if there is a difference upon this hard line of demarcation of two years in the time the licence was granted, in the one case

1293
the licensee gets £3,000 odd, in the other case the brewers get the £3,000 odd. Under these circumstances is there any injustice in putting all these houses on the same footing? We cannot make the brewer disgorge that £3,000, but we can take from him the £180 monopoly value. It was never thought by the best leaders of the Conservative Party in 1904, that a final step had been taken in connection with temperance reform, for the matter was kept open specially. I will quote from two speeches made on this question. Lord Hugh Cecil, speaking on 6th June, 1904, said—
"The Bill did not say, it did not imply, that they were not to take away licences after a period with notice. The Bill did not deal with that question at all, but it dealt with what was to be the right of magistrates under the existing law as to refusing licences without compensation. It did not interfere in the least with the future right of Parliament to set up whatever time-limit it might think proper under which licences might cease altogether after due notice given."
Speaking on 7th June, 1904, the Leader of the Opposition said—
"I believe that the anxiety about the time-limit due to a fear lest we are shutting the door on any kind of temperance reform in the future other than the present Bill. There is nothing in this Bill which is going to stand in the way of any future reform."
That shows clearly that it was never intended that it should be finally decided in 1904 that no time-limit should be imposed. That is the main principle of this Bill, and the same principle is laid down in the two speeches I have quoted, and also by the Archbishop of Canterbury. That is the principle upon which we depend to carry out temperance reform. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked what connection has the time-limit with temperance reform? It has every connection, because you now tempt people into the trade by huge profits. I am talking about the people who have made such profits as £6,000 in one day. The connection between the time-hunt and temperance reform is that, when the State takes the monopoly value, there will be less temptation for people to embark upon such a trade, fewer beer-houses will exist, and fewer will be built. It is idle for anybody who has any knowledge of temperance reform to say that the consumption of drink
1294
does not depend upon the law of supply, but upon the law of demand. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear."] Have hon. Members opposite never heard of the temptation a man experiences when he sees a public-house? Has anybody ever heard of the provision made by Act of Parliament forbidding the payment of wages in public-houses? What is the meaning of that? The danger is not the demand for beer, but the temptation to a man to drink. You have by law forbidden the holding of election meetings on licensed premises because there would be a temptation to drink. I am afraid that that provision has had a coach and horses driven through it many a time, and practically every public-house and every tied house has been used in the interest of one Party. The Government have been asked: Is there any relationship between the number of public-houses and the temptation to drink? I have known applications made for the erection of a public-house in a convenient place intended to catch the workmen either on their way to their work or on their way from their work. I know this is a legitimate practice from the point of view of the trade, because it is well known that they want to plank their public-houses in the most tempting places. If any hon. Member opposite happened to be sitting as a licensing justice and an application were made for a licence for a gin palace just at the entrance to a colliery yard, so as to tempt workmen on their way to the colliery or from it, would he think that that was a convenient or an inconvenient place and would he grant the licence?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: But this is a question of the reduction of licences.
SIR SAMUEL EVANS: In the case I have mentioned the man sees a public-house in front of him and at once he has a thirst or somebody invites him into that licensed house. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me said he did not like hard words being used by one side of the House against the other, but nevertheless he said that we were robbers and confiscators. That was equivalent to saying that he would not call any hon. Member

1295
of this House a thief; all he means is that we are misguided, and that we are only doing something which is tantamount to robbery or confiscation. But we are not going to be intimidated by threats of that kind any more than the Church of England Temperance Society is going to be intimidated. We are quite willing to rest our claim for supporting this measure upon the justice of the Bill itself, and upon the amount of good which it is likely to do. Let me remind the House what was stated in a letter written by Lord Burton, which was read at a meeting convened by the Licensed Victuallers Central Protection Society of London at the Queen's Hall. He said—
"I trust there will be no talk of compromise—"
He at any rate does not desire any extension of the fourteen years time-limit. He goes on to say—
"—no sign' of weakening in the slightest degree in the general opposition to this attempt to plunder and ruin all who are connected with the trade. The Bill is a political fraud. Temperance is the last thing it is intended to promote. Its real aim is to rob and crush who perforce are its political opponents."

Then his Lordship goes on to say—
"They might smile at the crude suggestions of a private Member new to legislation but for this impossible and mischievous Bill the Statesmen who were at this time the advisers of the King in the management of the Empire were responsible. God save the King. The Bill was the first effort at Socialism, which meant the stamping out of individuality and the absolute negation of personal liberty. The Bill must be defeated or withdrawn. If it was not, if they and those whom they represented surrendered, the repetition of the words which declared that Britons would not be slaves, would be but lip service."
Britons have to be slaves to the drink traffic, and in other respects. I will not refer further to the other portions of the speeches made in the Queen's Hall beyond quoting the words of a representative who spoke on behalf of the Liverpool branch of the Protection Society, who asked—
"Every man and woman in that hall during the next few months until the Bill was killed to pay not a farthing to any tradesman—he did not care who he was—who was favourable to the Bill."
Would any hon. Member in this House get up and declare that he would himself, in sending his order to the grocer or the
1296
butcher, say: "I won't give you this order unless you promise to vote against this Bill"? That is the way in which the Bill is being fought by the brewers. The meeting at the Queen's Hall where those speeches were delivered did not consist of publicans in the ordinary sense, but they were the owners of tied houses, and they were not the creation of any Act of Parliament. The intention of Parliament was that the licence should be given to a particular individual, and as a matter of fact they were so held. The holders of those licences have been got hold of by the brewers, and the brewer now seeks to keep this property and requires to be compensated, not upon the value of the licence, but upon the basis of the profits he has been able to squeeze out of the wretched tenant he has pat into his house. Whatever hon. Members opposite may say, I repeat that it is the intention of the Government to add a very large slice to the slices that have already been given by this House in favour of temperance reform. We believe that the only way in which we shall get any real temperance reform in this country is by reducing licences compulsorily, by establishing a time-limit, and by controlling the whole of the licences after fourteen years by the State. You will never get temperance reform unless you can abolish the tied-house system, and you will never get rid of tied houses without a time-limit. You will never be able to accomplish this unless at the end of fourteen years the justices can say to an applicant: "We decline to renew this licence unless the licensee is a free man in a free house." The work which we have set ourselves to do is no easy task. It is a task which demands courage by reason of the combined interests which are marshalled against us, but I am glad to say that it is evoking the enthusiasm of some of the best forces in the country. This particular Bill in itself is not perfect. It is certainly not complete. Other problems connected with the drink traffic will still have to be tackled, but, so far as this measure goes, we say in presenting and proceeding with it that our aims are honest and praiseworthy. We say further that the methods are not unfair, but that, on the contrary, they are fair

1297
and just, and we believe that the ultimate result of the measure will be for the lasting good of our people and our country.
MR. F. E. SMITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made at least one valuable contribution to our debate. Those who have admired at a respectful distance the strategy which has determined the policy of the Government in introducing this particular Bill have been not a little puzzled to determine what motives induced them to bring it forward and to persevere in it with such determination. We have now learned the reason in an illuminating sentence from the hon. and learned Gentleman when he informed us that every public-house is a committee-room for the Tory Party. This is really penetrating to the heart of their determination.
SIR SAMUEL EVANS: I did not say every public-house, I said every tied-house. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."]
MR. F. E. SMITH: I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman states, but even putting it in the limited form that every tied public-house is a Tory committee-room, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that these houses are arrayed against him, it is quite sufficient to explain the zeal with which this Bill is being pressed forward. The motives of the moral reformers would appear to be not entirely unmixed. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked a question which those who speak on that side of the House are never tired of putting, and which they seem to think is in the nature of the case unanswerable. He asked: Are we on this side of the House under any circumstances in favour of the policy of a reduction? And then when we are confronted with some supposed answer which has not yet been forthcoming, when we are confronted with the dilemma that we are not in favour of that policy, we are asked—How do you justify your introduction and support of the 1904 Act? I should have thought that the answer to that is obvious. The answer is that under the 1904 Act you left the local justices who have a knowledge of each particular
1298
locality to judge for themselves and of their own unfettered discretion whether that particular locality did or did not suffer from a redundancy of licensed premises. Do you put forward that discretion as comparable in any degree with a proposal for the automatic reduction of licences by a triumvirate in London? If you do, it shows that you are utterly incapable of appreciating the principles on which the 1904 Act depends. When I spoke on the First Reading of this Bill I said that the country would never draw a distinction between railway investors and investors in licensed property who have bought their stock on the open market. I remember that when I ventured to make that observation on the First Reading it was treated as a most exquisite piece of humour. I do not know whether it appears to the supporters of the Government that the humour was much in evidence during the last few weeks, when opportunities have been given for presenting our views of the Bill to the country. Let me ask—What is the answer to the suggestion that, so far as the purchaser of brewery stock upon the market is concerned, he is entitled to the same protection on the part of the State as the purchaser of railway stock? Only one answer has been attempted in the whole course of the debates, and it is that in the case of the holder of licensed property you have a yearly licence. The moment you say that the annual value is not the measure of what such person possesses, you give away the whole case. One has only to look at the question. If it be true that one year is the measure of the interest, why do you give a fourteen years' time-limit? Why squander thirteen years of the nation's monopoly of which they have been too long deprived? Why postpone, the happy moment when the country will repossess itself of that which it ought never to have lost? [MINISTERIAL cheers.] There are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who think it ought to be done at once at the end of a year. Fortunately, for many reasons, they are not in the majority, and the majority are rather committed to the view that you cannot accept the principle that the interested persons having these interests are limited to a

1299
single year. If they are not limited to a single year, how are you going to determine them? Is it pretended that fourteen years time-limit is based upon any actuarial calculation which can be tested? And here let me point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman who said that there never was a statutory right, and who passed by very rapidly indeed the case of the ante-1869 beer-houses—let me point out that so far as the ante-1869 beer-houses are concerned they had that very statutory right on the absence of which you have again and again insisted as the only justification for any confiscation at all. When the question was asked how it was that these houses ever obtained this privilege the answer was that until the year 1870 these beer-houses were allowed to sell beer without obtaining a licence from the justices, and simply in virtue of the enjoyment of an excise licence. In that circumstance Parliament recognised a vested interest, and thought it expedient to deal with them in the 1870 Act. So far as the ante-1869 beer-houses were concerned, they provided that these licences ought never to be taken away but on one of four causes. I can summarise generally the character of these causes by saying that every one of them had something to do with bad character or bad conduct on the part of the licensee, so that until the 1904 Act was introduced it was the fact that no less than one-third of the licensed premises in the country had an absolute statutory right to renewal. What is really the relation of the Government to them? They say that in 1904 Parliament interfered with that statutory right of renewal. Is the suggestion brought forward that, having taken away in 1904 for good and valuable consideration this absolute statutory right of renewal, we are entitled in 1908 to say that we shall take them away still further on the basis of the illusory compensation which we now substitute? The hon. and learned Gentleman with a great show of indignation says that there never was a bargain made. I agree, but there was an implied undertaking based upon the honour of this House. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] If this is taken away which had statutory sanction at that time, four years ago, the privileges
1300
which were substituted should not also be taken away. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not appreciate this ethical suggestion. Does he seriously suggest that there is any distinction to be drawn between the case of a man who, before 1904, invested his money in a beer-house and the case of a man who invested his money in railway stock? Will anybody on that side of the House tell us how the investor in an 1869 beer-house could possibly suppose that he was investing in a precarious property when one-third of the licensed premises of the country were of that class? Where was the precariousness? Where was the unwisdom of speculating in it? What is your right four years afterwards to say: "We will give you a fourteen years time-limit?" That is the case as far as one-third of the licensed premises are concerned, and I wish to ask hon. Gentlemen to consider the case of the other two-thirds. When once the yearly argument is given up, as it has been for the purposes of this Bill, the only problem which presents itself for solution is—What is the tenure which the State encouraged the investor to accept? Let me remind the House that a very authoritative document exits on that point—very much more authoritative than many of those which are quoted with approval by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In 1890 the Commissioners for Inland Revenue were requested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prepare a memorandum upon the death duties in dealing with licensed premises in order that many doubts might be set at rest. An official report was presented by the Commissioners for Inland Revenue, and I would venture to ask the attention of the House to that report. Dealing, first of all, with the case of the death of a lease-holder publican, they said that it is assumed always that the licence will continue indefinitely to be renewed. Then dealing with the death of a free-holder publican they say that the annual value of the House is treated in the succession duty account as permanently enhanced by the licence. They said that the annual values are capitalized for the whole life of the successor on the presumption that the licence will so long endure. We may have been wrong on

1301
this side of the House, licensed victuallers may have been wrong, and the unfortunate investors in brewery shares may have been wrong, but there can be no other explanation of the principle which the representatives of the State deliberately adopted in 1890 for this purpose, except that in their view these licenses would be indefinitely renewed. Can it be suggested that the ordinary investor was bound to take a sounder view? The only answer is that that doctrine was once and for all disposed of by the decision in the case of Sharpe v. Wakefield. That case has nothing whatever to do with the proposals brought forward by the Government and the provisions in this Bill. The Court in Sharpe v. Wakefield merely decided that the local justices should deal with a licence of a particular house upon particular local grounds and on the sworn evidence of witnesses as to fact. Is it suggested that that is analogous in principle to the wholesale dealing with licences by gentlemen in London who have no knowledge of the locality? You have only to read the judgment of Lord Halsbury to understand the real meaning of the Sharpe v. Wakefield decision. Lord Halsbury said—
"Magistrates must exercise judicial discretion and not by evasion attempt to repeal the law which permits public-houses to exist. Further, the justices would remember that a year before a licence had been granted."
[HON. MEMBERS on the MINISTERIAL Benches: Go on; read the rest.] That is all I have here before me, but nothing which follows qualifies what I have read. I may remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that Lord Bramwell said in the same relation—
"The Legislature has most clearly showed that it contemplated that licences would usually be renewed; that the taking away of a man's livelihood would not be practised cruelly or wantonly."
Is it suggested that on Sharpe v. Wakefield or on the dicta of Lord Halsbury and Lord Bramwell you can base the wholesale reduction of licences which is to take place under this Bill? This Bill may be right or wrong, but the less it is founded on the authority of Sharpe v. Wakefield the more likely it is to be successful among those who are familiar with that judgment. Ac-
1302
cepting that statement of the effect of Sharpe v. Wakefield, and the circumstances are not really disputed, this Bill, whether necessary or not, is a Bill which is going to cause great hardship. I did not gather that the Under-Secretary last night seriously disputes the position that the Bill is going to cause great hardship. The figures which have been given by Mr. Buxton and Mr. Peat show that, speaking generally, in the case of a large number of prudent and successful breweries, no dividends will be paid on either preference or ordinary shares, and in the payment of debenture interest there will be deficiencies ranging from £20,000 to £60,000. The Under-Secretary last night attempted to console brewers and investors by saying that at the conclusion of the fourteen years they would have the sum of £17,000,000 by which they could deal with the losses which are estimated by the hon. Member for Spen Valley at not less than £100,000,000. The Under-Secretary argued that they would be compensated by a sum of £27,000,000, £17,000,000 of which is to come from reserve stock—a large proportion of which is already invested in licensed property. The perfectly astounding suggestion was made that the result of the Government proposal would be that £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 which was to be paid by the Government for compensation would be available at the end of the fourteen years time-limit, as a further contribution to the money necessary to make up the shortage of £100,000,000. The Under-Secretary seems to be totally unaware that the greater part of this £11,000,000 will have been paid during the currency of the fourteen years time-limit.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): I was not using that as a set-off against the 60,000 houses which will remain but against the loss on the whole 95,000.
MR. F. E. SMITH: What the hon. Gentleman says comes to this, that in this sum of £27,000,000 which is to be available to meet the £100,000,000 at the expiration of the time-limit—[Ironical

1303
MINISTERIAL laughter.] We are constantly told that the number of houses which will remain is to be equal in value to the houses existing at the present time and that the brewers lose nothing.
SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: No.
MR. F. E. SMITH: Then the hon. Gentleman should control his enthusiastic supporters in the country who have been saying that there will be no real loss to the brewers, that the increased value of the houses that remain will compensate for the loss of the monopoly value of £100,000,000. Even if it is not £100,000,000 but £80,000,000, what becomes of the prophecy made by the Lord Chancellor when the 1904 Bill was introduced, that the value of the licensed property would be increased by that Bill to £300,000,000? And now that the falsity of that prediction is exposed, hon. Gentleman say that the monopoly value of the licences is £100,000,000 or £80,000,000. And towards that monopoly value the only sum the Government suggest as available for the relief of the shareholders is £17,000,000 which comes from the reserve fund to-day. Why is the prudent trader to be specially mulcted? Who are hon. Gentlemen opposite to lay hands upon the business savings of their political opponents? Why is the prudent virgin to be worse treated than her negligent friends? Now, if it is undisputed that you are going to injure the shareholders to this extent, it is not uninteresting to discover who will be the people likely to suffer if we are going to allow it to be done. Take the case of a brewery which has published a full detailed list of its shareholders. Take the case of Meux's Brewery. [MINISTERIAL ironical laughter.] That is received with laughter, but this artificial merriment does not show much intelligence or discrimination on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If I were founding an argument on the way in which Meux had carried on their business there might have been some point in the laugh; but I am merely pointing out the social and business position of their shareholders. What is the capital of this company? Four per cent. first mortgage debenture
1304
stock, £600,000; 6 per cent. second mortgage debenture stock, £400,000; cumulative preference share capital, £500,000; and ordinary share capital, £500,000. The debenture stock and preference share capital, £1,500,000, were issued to and paid for by the public. I invite the House to consider how that £1,500,000 subscribed for by the public was contributed. [MINISTERIAL cries of "When."] It does not matter to the argument when. Of this £1,500,000 the members of the licensed trade contributed £8,861; business classes, banks, investment companies, £306,951; professional classes, £529,698; trustees under wills, spinsters, married women and widows, £654,490. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Shame."] Is it not more shameful to rob these people? [OPPOSITION cheers, and MINISTERIAL cries of "Who did it?"] They expressed no discontent till hon. Gentlemen appeared on the scene with this Bill. But at any rate I desire to say that hon. Gentlemen will agree that their particular grievance is against the Government and not against anybody else. Is the proposition that if you find an imprudent investor you may rob him. All I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite is, do they believe after all that has happened that the country at large will allow them to inflict this species of pecuniary wrong on these classes of investors? The Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to a public meeting in the Albert Hall, and says—
"If the Government goes down on this issue it win he with flags flying in a moral cause."
The moral cause, I suppose, is that you reduce drunkenness by reducing drinking facilities. If there is any other principle in the Bill, I have failed to discover it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may be right or wrong in their view, but there is no difference of opinion that if they are going to embrace this moral cause and pin their colours to the mast of the Bill, it makes no difference at all whether this drinking which they are going to stop is carried on in licensed premises or in clubs. We all agree with that. It is then ex hypothesi obvious that it is essential to prevent the growth of fresh clubs or to reduce the number of those now existing. If your patent medicine is good it must be applied with impartiality to every

1305
class of patient. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite reconcile their own remedies and not come to us for an explanation of them. What did the hon. Member for Spen Valley say in 1907? He said—
"It is useless to reduce the number of public-houses, restrict the hours of sale, and to facilitate improved methods of management if clubs are allowed to spring up in all directions."
And the hon. Gentleman, and a good many other Members of this House, still think so, but let me tell them that, accepting their principles, this Bill in the treatment of clubs is a fantastic imposture if it pretends to do anything of the sort so long as each coterie of individuals now meeting in a public-house is still at liberty when displaced under the Bill to form a club. I do not say that the increase of clubs is mischievous, nor do I express an opinion that England will tolerate their suppression. This is a problem to be solved not by us but by you. It is your case that it is mischievous, and what are the figures? In 1887 there were 1,982 clubs; in 1896 there were 3,655; in 1903 there were 6,371; in 1904 there were 6,468; in 1905 there were 6,589; in 1906 there were 6,721; in 1907 there were 6,907; and in 1908 the number was 7,110. The hon. Gentleman will see that in the last twenty years clubs in which drink is sold have increased from 1,982 to 7,110. But that does not exhaust the growth of clubs, because as the chairman of the Durham sessions pointed out the other day, there was an increase of 2,000 persons in the membership of the clubs in their area, although there was no increase in the clubs. The clientèle of the clubs is, therefore, gradually growing out of proportion to the total number of clubs, and I challenge any hon. Member who follows me to show one word or one line in the Bill which prevents the indiscriminate multiplication of clubs which are not mere drinking shops. We are not dealing with drinking clubs or public-houses that are mere drinking houses; we are dealing with public-houses many of which have a thirty years' good character, and we point out that your remedy will do nothing that will prevent clubs springing up. We are not talking of mere drinking shops but of the springing up of clubs, doubtless perfectly well-conducted, but in which drink can be
1306
obtained—the sort of club that the Solicitor-General would say the workingman could not pass without having a thirst. Let us hear no more of your provisions for dealing with badly conducted clubs. We must compare like with like. On your theory the provisions of the Bill are farcical. It is so important that this should be exposed and it goes so directly to the heart of the Bill that I make no excuse for asking the House to consider what is the existing law in regard to clubs. Under the Licensing Act of 1902 the clerk of every petty sessional division has to keep a register with details of the club. Under subsection 3, a return has to be made every January, and under subsection 4 the secretary of the new club has to furnish a return. Under Section 26, if drink is sold in an unregistered club, the penalty is a month's imprisonment or a £50 fine. Under Section 28 of that Act a club may be struck off the register on the complaint of any person: (a) That it has ceased to exist, or has less than twenty-five members; (b) that it is not conducted in good faith as a club,. or that it is kept for an unlawful purpose; (c) that there is frequently drunkenness there; (d) that there is illegal sale of intoxicating liquors; (e) that non-members habitually resort to it for the purpose of obtaining drink; and (f) that it occupies premises within twelve months of their being licensed premises. That is the state of the law when the Government introduce this Bill to deal with a great and growing evil and one the solution of which is essential to their moral panacea. What does this Bill do? By Section 36, registration is to be annual instead of a return, and under Section 37, any person may, as to new registration or renewal, lodge objection on the ground that the club is used mainly as a drinking club or on the grounds which I have already read as being included in the Act of 1902. In this Bill, registration has been substituted for the January return and the only new ground upon which objection can be taken to the registration of a new club or the re-registration of an existing club, is that it is a mere drinking shop. Where is the clause which prevents the springing up of new clubs or prevents the opening of a drinking club four doors lower

1307
down than the public-house whose licence you have taken away? On this club question my views are entirely independent, because I am proud to say that in Liverpool, the complexion of which has been Conservative for many years, there is no single working men's club where drink can be obtained to-day or has ever been obtained, but I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite who hold strong moral views on this subject what they think of the position of their colleagues who represent London constituencies. I do not hesitate to say that, sitting cheek by jowl with these moral reformers, are men who owe their seats in this House to the exertions of political clubs which, although they are not drinking clubs, are places where drink is supplied with the same facility with which it is supplied in public-houses, and where it can be obtained at hours when public-houses are closed and on Sundays as well. They deserve careful study. Take, for instance, the case of Walthamstow Liberal and Radical Club. I believe the hon. Member who represents Walthamstow is a convinced supporter of this Bill and he is satisfied with Sunday closing. How are his supporters generating their zeal on his behalf and amusing themselves on Sunday mornings at the Walthamstow Liberal and Radical Club, Buxton Road, High Street? Here is the programme of a Sunday morning variety entertainment: Young Smiler; Dora Dalby; The Campeons; Sam Williams; Daisy Reed; Chan C. Roberts. On Sunday evening there is George Elmer's Company in the up-to-date military comedy "The Major." Then what do we find in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who played a conspicuous, though hardly a successful, part in the Peckham election. At the North Camberwell Radical Club we find entertainments are going on in precisely the same way. The Parliamentary Secretary is the President of the Club, and I would suggest to the Government, that the President instead of the Secretary shall pay the fine of £20 for which the Bill provides, if drunkenness is proved on the premises and reasonable care is not shown. There will be much more chance of obtaining the money,
1308
and as a salutary example the effect will be much greater. What do we find in the Camberwell Club? That club advertised: "Sunday morning, lecture upon the Principles of Malthus. Sunday afternoon, musical comedy, "The Hypocrites." How does this champion, this convinced advocate of the cause of effective moral reform at the admitted injury of investors, deal with this matter when assailed in the Press? He wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph in which he said that if the parson could not compete for his patronage with "Iolanthe," so much the worse for the parson. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot afford to deal with the clubs. They dare not. Their political lives are not worth a moment's purchase if they do. The explanation is that in dealing with the English people you are dealing with a strong, virile race. The reason why you cannot compel them to reduce their clubs and why in this Bill you shrink from dealing with them is that you know that the people in a domocratic country will not allow you to do it, and when you admit that in connection with the clubs, you have driven the last nail into the coffin of the present Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about going down with all the ship's flags flying. The ship, I would suggest, is the s.s. "The Whited Sepulchre," and has the "Jolly Roger" flying from the mast. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would rather lose fifty seats than win one by such means as those by which Peckham was won, and hon. Gentlemen shouted their agreement with that statement when a new Member, a teetotaller, entered this House, by shouting out, "The voice of beer." Where is the evidence of the drunkenness which it is said existed at Peckham? Where is the petition that ought to have followed? Are the party funds depleted? There were only two convictions of drunkenness on the day of the election at Peckham, and in one the gentleman charged explained that he was really developing a Free Trade argument, a defence which was unsuccessful; while in the other, the person, a lady, was a stranger to Peek-ham who had been the heroine of similar adventures elsewhere. That was the only drunkenness that took place at Peckham. Was Manchester won by

1309
improper measures? Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that I am not repeating these victories we have won to make in this House a cheap party score. I only refer to these elections in order to press on the right hon. Gentlemen opposite whether the experiences in these constituencies are not certain to be repeated all over the country as long as this Bill is persevered with. It is certain that it will be so, because the country is not convinced of the honesty and integrity of the Bill. You are under a great delusion when you think that you are great moral reformers and that that is the cause of these reverses. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will do well, if the Bill is to be persevered in, to play a losing game with more decency and self-respect, for they will be given an opportunity of exhibiting dignity in adversity in Opposition. The democratic party when successful at the polls praises the people as the supreme repositories of political wisdom. When defeated they point to the crapulous dupes of an odious trade. Hon. Members opposite should turn from this misconceived measure to the music-hall bonhomie and the unrestricted conviviality of those Radical clubs to which they owe their present opportunities for mischief. If they do that, history will not indeed say they were moral reformers, but at least it will not have to record of them that, looking in the clouds, they scorned
"The base degrees
By which they did ascend."
MR. A. E. W. MASON: The Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs yesterday evening devoted a considerable portion of their speeches to the question of the reduction of licences. I cannot hold, and I do not think the majority of the Members of this House can hold, that the present Bill can stand or fall upon the question of the reduction of licences. It must stand or fall on other questions. It must stand or fall upon the question of whether the reduction of licences is accompanied with the reduction of, and an erection of safeguards against, other institutions for the sale of drink already existing with fewer precautions, under fewer safe-
1310
guards, with longer hours, and with less supervision than licensed houses. It must go beyond that. It must stand or fall on the decision of this House as to whether it is just or not as a financial measure. The Prime Minister yesterday, as well as on the First Reading, stated his case with the greatest lucidity. The financial provision of this Bill is to recover for the State the monopoly value with which it has parted and the right hon. Gentleman asked the question yesterday, "Do you agree that the State has a right to resume the value with which it has once parted?" The word "resume" is the word upon which I should like to speak, because it has not yet been proved that the State has parted neglectfully or otherwise with a monopoly value. The State has stood idly by while the monopoly has been bought and sold, while millions have been invested in it on the strength of the indifference of the State to that monopoly, and besides all that it has levied a special taxation upon the licensed trade as a trade specially favoured of the State. Now, having seen that the monopoly value with which they have parted is a good thing, they propose to resume it. The State made a mistake. Most people when they make a mistake have to pay for it. The State made a mistake in parting with this monopoly value. It is not the brewers nor the publican nor those humble investors who have not received too much consideration who are to blame, but the State, first and last. It might have retained its monopoly value, but it parted with it on easy terms. I do not suggest that the State has not a right to resume the monopoly value if it chooses, but it is for the House to consider whether the State shall not do so with fairness to the community over which it rules, and which it is supposed to represent. I listened very carefully to the speech made by the Solicitor-General, and I think he repeated to-day what he certainly said on the First Reading when he discussed the question of the monopoly value, waving aside the question of where the millions of money paid for the monopoly value had gone to. I do not see the relevancy of his suggestion, unless he assumes that the money so paid at once goes back to the pockets of the people who pay it. I do not wish to

1311
refer to a particular public-house to raise a cheap laugh; but I think he could have found where some of the money went to by consulting his colleague the Secretary of State for War. This money has gone out of the licensed trade and the State is now going to compel those who have already paid for the licensed premises once to pay over again. The really relevant question is not who has got the money but who paid the money for these licences. I have not the slightest hesitation in believing that the persons who paid for them once will pay again. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but I do not see how he is going to avoid it unless he proposes to ruin all the existing breweries and put up a new lot in their stead. I intended to ask the Prime Minister whether during these debates he would kindly lay upon the Table the figures that enabled him to arrive at the decision that fourteen years would be an effective limit of time, but it was with some consternation that I gathered there were no figures. The Solicitor-General this afternoon said that others might avoid this question but that he would not.
SIR SAMUEL EVANSinterjected a remark that did not reach the Gallery.
MR. A. E. W. MASON: I quite accept that, but I might point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the whole question is the time-limit. I have some figures which I should like to read to the House. They present a startling summary of what is going to happen to nine brewery companies if this Bill as it stands becomes law. I have, chosen nine breweries, some of which are good and flourishing, and others of which are not in a flourshing condition. I have done so deliberately, because I think the system of selecting a certain number of good breweries and saying: "See how easily they can recoup themselves," or selecting certain languishing concerns and saying: "See how easily they can be ruined," is not a fair one. Of the nine breweries, the total capital at the present time is £28,230,391; the estimated value of the capital invested in freehold and leasehold licensed property where the licences are extinguished would be £5,269,000. The loss of capital to
1312
be provided for in fourteen years is £21,076,640. Therefore it is calculated that if the whole amount was capitalised at the end of fourteen years on the basis of all the profits being invested at 4 per cent. compound interest, with the exception of the payment on the debentures, the actual loss at the end of fourteen years will be £8,729,000—that, of course, is if the State resumes the monopoly value. That is the point of view that any accountant would have to take up. As I understand, the State does intend to resume the monopoly value. I quite admit that one of the dfficulties in this matter is that we have not had a proper definition of what is monopoly value. The Under-Secretary for Home Affairs did begin to tell us something with regard to that. He said it was not to include the profit of the publican or of the brewer, but that it was to include the goodwill. I should be glad if some member of the Government speaking with an authoritative voice, would take some concrete instance of the market value of particular licensed premises and tell us, on the assumption that the value of those premises remains the same at the end of fourteen years, what it is the intention of the Government that the licence - holder should be paid at the end of fourteen years. In discussing the monopoly value we are certainly hampered on that point.
Now, I want to say a few words on another question, the question of compensation, and here I agree with a good deal of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, that we are in a more difficult position, because the Bill is not quite a financial measure or quite a temperance reform measure. It is an unfortunate blend. I believe that if the Government had gone on the question of the reduction of licences alone, they would have got all the reductions they wanted, without much objection from anybody, so long as the monopoly value was retained. It depends very much on what is put first and foremost, the temperance side or the financial side. So long as you are going to resume the monopoly value, it is impossible that any loan could be floated in time to pay off the monopoly value

1313
in the same way as it could be done if the monopoly value remained the same. I am not going to argue the principle of compensation. It is accepted in the Bill, and that being so it should be fair. The Prime Minister referred to the practice of the United States and the Colonies, and told us that in those countries licences were wiped out without compensation. But it might be pointed out that there was a great deal of difference in the stringency of the laws of the United States and the Colonies and the laws of this country. I do not, however, think there is anything in that point, because there is only one precedent for us, and that is the law of this country and the principle which lies below it, which is that in the case of any compulsory expropriation compensation shall be given, and that the compensation shall be generous. Then in regard to compensation, the Government have taken Schedule A. as its basis. But it does not take Schedule A. when it has to make money for itself, because it will go back once more to the principle of the market value. That does not seem to me quite fair. I think that the same basis ought to be applied in each case. I think that where the State is going to provide compensation it ought to be as fair as though it was going to make money for itself. I have heard it put forward many times in this House, and it is universally admitted, that the State should be a model employer. But it is not only in matters of employment that the State should be a model. The State ought also to be a model arbitrator, especially when it is going to arbitrate for its own advantage. It is said that public-houses have been under-assessed. Very likely that is true. But I think that if you want them assessed at their proper value, a very much better way would be to adopt the principle of assessment with regard to death duties; then people will feel that the assessment is on a better scale. The hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool referred to the question of clubs, and I must say that I thoroughly agree with him in the view he expressed that the attitude taken in this Bill in regard to clubs is not satisfactory. I think that the evidence put before the country
1314
with regard to clubs demands more consideration and more stringent legislation. I know perfectly well that when one speaks about clubs one is on rather dangerous ground, and one has to speak very carefully. But none the less, I think that there is a great deal that ought to be said. I am not in the position of the hon. Member for the Walton Division, who can take a perfectly independent line, being a Member of the Conservative Party, which does not believe very strongly, if indeed at all, in the reduction of licences, or that the reduction of facilities will have much effect on drunkenness in the country. I am one of those who stand in a different position. I do believe that the growth of a certain kind of club is becoming a very great menace and danger to the State. I believe it is a perfectly well known fact that since this Bill was introduced nearly every brewing company in a populous city has been approached by people who wish to have clubs financed. It is clear, therefore, that in the estimation of a great many people the safeguards provided in this Bill are not sufficient. We have been told that Amendments will be welcomed. I think it is very regrettable that those extra safeguards were not inserted by the Government on its own authority. Certainly, I do not see clear enough provisions in this Bill to show that the entertainments which are held at clubs are going to be suppressed. Too much, to my mind, is left to the licensing magistrates. There are, of course, very good clubs. We have got some in my own constituency—some of them I know perfectly well—that are very well conducted. They do not have those entertainments which are becoming a subject of scandal. The whole problem of the danger which I wish to point out is connected with affiliation. If you look at the advertisements in the paper called Club Life, it is always the point of affiliation which is mentioned, and for my part, if you are a member of a well-conducted club, I cannot see why you should want to give the run of your rooms to 1,250 other clubs. I think that if the Government were to drop some of these minor precautions which are calculated to vex well-conducted clubs and would deal with

1315
the great problem of affiliation, which is the great danger, they would be doing very much more good in regard to clubs than by the present proposals. You have at some of these clubs what is practically a music hall entertainment; or, if a club is in proximity to the ground where there is a football match, the advertisement which appears in the papers is accompanied by the suggestion that "affiliated members will be welcome." From the frequency of that statement I cannot help feeling that this is an invitation to drink upon unlicensed premises. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department told us last night that every public-house was an advertisement of drink. I want to point out also that every ill-regulated club is a secret opportunity to drink, and if you are going to have drink you might just as well have it as much as possible on licensed premises under proper control. After all, those who live in small towns know that the man who goes too often to the public-house becomes a marked man in his community, but if he goes into a club many more times than into a public-house he is not noticed at all. For these reasons I hope that some more practical steps will be taken—steps which will not at all damage clubs which exist for social intercourse, but which will prevent the creation of unlicensed public-houses. I have spoken with very great plainness this afternoon; I stand in the unusual position that in this matter I do not see eye to eye with the rest of my party, with which I am very ardently in general sympathy. I regret the position which I have to take, but I think that it is best to state the facts. I recognise, we all do, of course, that there are great clauses in this Bill, but I rely upon the Government taking a little more upon its own shoulders and leaving less on the shoulders of the magistrates. I noticed a sign of that last night. The Under-Secretary, in reference to the barmaids, suggested that to prevent hardship there should be devised some form of certificate to be given to ante-1908 barmaids. I would do nothing to disparage a sex which I revere, but I fear that, ten years hence, the ante-1908 barmaids will not be very anxious to show their certificates. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will in-
1316

troduce some clauses into this Bill which will make it more just as a piece of finance, and more adequate as a measure of temperance reform.
MR. JAMES PARKER: I have been surprised by the amount of attention that has been paid to the financial aspect of the measure and by the small amount of attention which has been paid to the question of temperance reform. I give to the Bill in its general character whatever support is possible by my vote and voice both inside of this House and outside. I do not, however, take exactly the same point of view with regard to some of the clauses of the Bill which many Members take. I believe that the restriction of the number of licences does tend to reduce drunkenness, despite the recent statement of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division that there are no statistics to prove that fact. But we know that there are statistics which at least prove that the convictions for drunkenness have been materially reduced since the Act of 1904 was brought into operation. I want however this afternoon to deal with the other portion of the Bill, which I support right through to the end, though I trust that some arrangement will be made whereby it will be possible for those who hold a different position to be able to support the Bill right through the whole of the clauses. What are the facts with respect to the drinking clubs of this country? We have had a very graphic picture drawn of wicked Radical clubs. I know all kinds of working-men's clubs. I know working-men's clubs which are a disgrace to their name, and I know working-men's clubs which have been of real benefit to temperance. I should like briefly to quote from the balance-sheet of the largest working-men's club in England and possibly in the world. The town of which I am one of the representatives is probably one of the largest club towns in the United Kingdom, and I think it will be true to say that the statistics of drunkenness in that town would bear favourable comparison with those of any manufacturing town of similar size. Now in this one club to which I refer there are 10,986 members. It is not an ordinary working-men's club

1317
purely for social purposes—I want to be quite fair—but it is a club where drink is sold. I want to use it as an illustration to show how the clauses in this Bill relating to clubs will affect a club of the character of that to which I am referring. With a membership of 10,986, it has an average attendance of from 600 to 1,000 every night at various meetings. The total takings at the bar amount to £2,086 7s. 7½d., a year, and of that amount, the secretary informs me, one-third was for food and for temperance drinks, tobacco and cigars. Therefore, if you take the figures that are left, some £1,300, the average is 1¾d. a week taken over the whole membership of the institution. That is perhaps one of the best clubs. It is only open for six days a week and for fewer hours than the public-house. To that kind of club some of the clauses of this Bill will be somewhat irksome. There are possibly twenty or thirty, probably more, trade union branches meeting there night by night, and a large number of friendly societies and secret Orders such as the Oddfellows, Foresters, and Gardeners. As the Bill stands at present, a policeman can go into the lodge-room and inspect these men. That would be a real hardship. I, though not an abstainer, am willing to do all that lies in my power to promote temperance. I know what the evils of drunkenness are from past experience. I have been in the trade and know it from both sides. Let us for a moment note how this police inspection will affect clubs. By this measure obviously we want to prevent the bogus club, the purely drinking club, from continuing its existence. Are we going to do that by police inspection? The police have had every opportunity under the existing law to close scores of public-houses that certainly ought not to have existed. We want inspection of clubs, but inspection of another order entirely. We want inspection by some person who can look at the balance-sheet and see whether it is being conducted merely for the purpose of drinking. It is no advantage to send a policeman, who finds a drunken man on the premises and declares that the club should be closed. You want something more. I take it that those of us who are genuinely in support of the Bill want to prevent a club being established where a brewer
1318
has one of his houses closed. How far can we effect that by anything in the Bill? It would be possible, I submit, to introduce a provision that where any facility for drinking is taken away, within an area to be prescribed no further facilities should be laid down. That would be a distinct advantage as compared with the clauses of the Bill. Then there is the question of objection. As the Bill stands any man can object to the renewal of registration. If we had the right kind of inspecting officer—we suggest an Inland Revenue officer, a supervisor or exciseman who has undergone a Civil Service examination and would understand from the club accounts whether it was serving its purpose—he would be the person to object. But it is a wrong thing entirely to give power to any Tom, Dick or Harry to lay an objection gainst a club. It may be a man who has been turned out, and he may do it for spite. There is nothing to be gained by leaving that clause as it stands if we desire to assist the bona fide club and to put down the bogus club. The clause which deals with the question of the sale of liquor off, as it stands, is not in any way a temperance clause. Then, I think, the penalty is too high, and I have no doubt that in Committee that will be remedied. It may seem peculiar support of the Bill to criticise these clauses in relation to clubs, but I am prepared to vote for any measure which will do away with bogus clubs. We want a clause in this Bill which will absolutely prohibit a club which is tied to a brewery. That kind of club should go at once. Every member who desires to see the ideal club established will be prepared to vote against that kind of thing. I believe the working men's clubs will be the first to agree that the club that is tied to a brewer should go by the board. I say, as one who has served some portion of his life behind the bar of a public-house, and who has gone to public-houses right from boyhood, that it is high time this House, whatever may be the financial proposals, should tackle this question of the excessive drinking habits of the people. Go into the slums of our large cities where you see drunkenness at its worst, not always because of the quantity consumed, but

1319
because the people have no food in their stomachs, and buy drink with their last shillings and coppers, and are drunk almost before they start to take it. In addition to that, the Return issued by the Home Secretary a few days ago contains evidence as to women and children who have been watched to enter public-houses—thousands of children under five years of age. That should be sufficient to induce any man who desires the good of his country to vote for a Bill of this character. As to the justice of the time-limit I hope the Government will stand firm. Fourteen years is ample. That which the people have given through their representatives in this House to the big brewing companies or to the licensees, the people have a perfect right to take away. The brewer has never paid for it. The licence-holder has never paid for it. All that he has paid for has been the value of his licence. And as for the widow and orphan, since this Bill came in, I have heard of more widows than I knew lived. The poor widow, so-called, who has her investment in breweries was robbed long before this Bill was introduced. I had offered to me some time ago £1 brewery shares for 1s. 6d. a share. Where had the 18s. 6d. gone? Certainly this Licensing Bill had not robbed the poor widows who were shareholders. The Bill would lose much of its value if the Government compromised this question of a time-limit and extended it long above the fourteen years. I support the Bill because I believe it to be an equitable Bill to the brewery shareholders, and in the main to be a measure which will assist in promoting temperance. But I believe that before we can thoroughly deal with this traffic we shall have to do something more than improve our licensing laws. We shall have to go down to the root of the problem, and probably the State will have itself to assume the management and control in the days that are coming before we can deal with the traffic.
*MR. WHITBREAD: Almost at the close of the second day's debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, I think we have arrived at this position, that whatever
1320
gain this Bill may achieve for the cause of temperance is a matter largely of opinion, and, at all events, of uncertainty. It will depend upon the experience of years to come, and its value will be appraised by the verdict of persons other than those who are engaged in the debate to-night. Another thing that is certain is that this is a measure, not only for the purpose of promoting temperance, but one of a very drastic and far-reaching financial nature. It is a measure aimed and directed, I think, avowedly—after the speeches from the Front Bench yesterday—against not only a single trade but a single portion of that trade. The speech of the Prime Minister yesterday went very far in that direction, and the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, if I may venture to say so, like an Eastern Mullah raising recruits for a holy war, carried his operations into the enemy's camp, and assured the House that he had discovered that the rascals were actually laying by reserve funds. I should have thought that a brewing company who had had the forethought and the means—instead of distributing a large amount of profit by way of dividend—to lay a certain amount of their profit to a reserve fund, would have come rather within the category, indicated by the Prime Minister, of the trader who had conducted his business in a prudent manner, and would be such a man as would deserve the favourable consideration of the Government in considering his financial position as affected by this Bill. But, if I understood the Under-Secretary for the Home Office aright, he rather seemed to indicate that the possession of a reserve fund was an additional reason for dealing in a drastic manner with the trader in question. That was the impression that was conveyed to my mind. This Bill will affect a single trade which has been described by the Prime Minister as a lawful trade, a trade recognised by the Legislature, and a trade investors in which are entitled to the same amount of protection and security at the hands of Parliament as the investors in any other commercial undertaking. The Prime Minister's words were quoted yesterday, and I will not quote them again to their full extent, but he said, speaking to a

1321
deputation which approached him in November last—
"Speaking for my colleagues as well as for myself, so far as we are concerned we shall certainly bring forward no proposals which will have the tendency or the effect—"
of which the deputation complained. When those words were quoted the Prime Minister intervened and said he had added a further sentence. That is quite true. Having stated, with emphasis, that the Government would not bring forward legislation which would have a confiscatory effect on the trade, he went on to say—
"I say this, however, without prejudice to the question, where I have no doubt that a great; difference of opinion will exist, as to the precise point where interference ends and confiscatory action begins."
It is precisely from that point of view that I wish to say a few words on this Bill to-night. Does it or does it not pass the point where legitimate interference ends and confiscatory action begins? What is the position at the present time? I take the case of a brewing company of which I have some information. The existing compensation levy exacted from that company represents an amount of money practically equal to 1 per cent. dividend on their ordinary share capital—it represents the difference between a 5 per cent. and a 4 per cent. dividend. During the three years of the operation of the existing Act that company has had some fifteen houses suppressed, with compensation. As a matter of fact the amount drawn from them by way of compensation levy has been about balanced by the amount they have received as compensation for the houses suppressed; so that their position to-day is this—a certain sum of money has been taken from one pocket and returned to the other, and they have lost the trade of these fifteen houses. That is not a position of which I am in any way desirous of complaining or protesting against. But the process of reduction under the present Act is, according to the advocates of this Bill, too slow and requires to be quickened up, and the process by which it is proposed to quicken it up is to unset and reverse what is known as the Kennedy judgment. I am not going to discuss the inherent
1322
vice which the Prime Minister has discovered in that judgment. I may have a partial affection for it myself, because it so happens that the County Licensing Committee, of which I am the chairman, had the very problem before them about a fortnight before the judgment was pronounced, and in the absence of any authoritative guide from the Divisional Court we had to do the best we could in the matter and the decision we came to was practically the same as was afterwards laid down by Mr. Justice Kennedy, so that I think it is a sound and fair one. I only want to point out what would be the effect on the firm I have mentioned under the operations of this Bill. If the Bill passes the same amount will be drawn annually from them in the form of compensation levy, and they will get in return in respect of each house suppressed in the future a sum equal to about one-fifth of the present compensation they would receive. That in itself seems to me to approach dangerously near the point where legitimate interference ends and confiscatory action begins. [OPPOSITION cheers]. Further, under the time-limit now proposed, this compensation—inadequate as it seems to me—will tend to diminish year by year. That is to say, the houses suppressed during the first of that series of fourteen years, and which, other things being equal, are presumed to be the worst houses, will receive a larger share of the compensation than the houses suppressed in the succeeding years. The compensation, therefore, to the worst class of houses will be much greater than the compensation for the better class of houses. That in itself does not seem to be a very admirable disposition of the modified fund for compensation which is going to exist under this Bill. The compensation will dwindle down from about one-fifth of the present compensation during the first of the fourteen years until it reaches almost vanishing point in the last of the fourteen years. As years go on the inadequacy of the compensation will increase, whilst the levy extracted from the pockets of the trade will remain the same as it is to-day. The Prime Minister yesterday asked those who are in the position of opposing this Bill to give a definite answer to the question whether they admitted

1323
the principle of the time-limit. I am sorry to say that, as a matter of principle, I am not at all enamoured of it, because to me it seems to be an attempt to mortgage the action of Parliament. It seems to me to be an attempt to bind the State fourteen or twenty-one years hence to do something which everyone knows it cannot and dare not do to-day. I think that is a bad principle, but as a matter of practice I am prepared to admit that a time-limit may be a convenient and practical means of getting out of a difficulty insuperable by any other means. I will, however, proceed with my argument as to the justice and equity of this Bill. At the end of fourteen years one-third of the existing houses will have been closed under this scheme, and the remaining two-thirds, numbering 60,000 odd houses in all, are to lose their licence value and goodwill with no compensation at all. That is to say, the unfortunate investor in brewery securities is to continue for fourteen years to pay to the State 1 per cent. dividend on his ordinary shares by way of insurance and in return for that he will receive from one-fifth of the present compensation down to a vanishing sum altogether. Therefore he will part with one-third of his property during those fourteen years for quite an inadequate return, and he will lose the remaining two-thirds of his property with no return at all. Then if he survivies that point, subject to local veto—a machinery of vague and doubtful application—he will then be invited to compete at auction if he is still alive in a financial sense to recover something of what was yesterday his property, but which has since been taken over by the State. According to this Bill I believe he will have to pay the cost of the Commission which will have to sit to decide this question. I understand, however, that the provision which provides that the cost of the Commission is to be saddled upon the trade is to he mercifully removed from the provisions of the Bill. As a matter of equity the whole process resembles the cutting off of a man's legs, and then punishing him on the ground that he has no visible means of support. I think this certainly passes the point where legitimate interference can be said to end and confiscatory action begins. We were told yesterday quite rightly
1324
that there is considerable doubt and misapprehension as to what is the meaning of the term "monopoly value." If I gathered correctly the words of the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, it is proposed to confine and restrict the monopoly value, which will have to be paid for after the fourteen years time-limit expires, to a a sum which will be represented by the difference between the rateable value of the house with a licence and the house without a licence. If that is so it is of course true that that will represent a smaller burden, although it will be a serious burden, than would be the case if the lines of the Kennedy judgment were adhered to and the goodwill and the wholesale profit were included in the monopoly value. But I am a little doubtful as to whether the Government will be able to secure that the restrictions will always hold good. Let us take the case of what will happen in the future when the monopoly value is restricted by some such limits as I have indicated. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in want of money. Tariff reform will probably have been tried, and will have failed to come up to all that is expected of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, in that case, if we may judge from experience, almost inevitably cast his eyes to that well-known beast of burden the licensed trade, and he will say: "Here is a trade paying only a small sum for a small consideration, an annual licence, which has to be applied for in order to be renewed each year," and almost inevitably it will occur to him that if the tenure of these licences were a lease of seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years, it would become a valuable and more secure property, and it is quite possible for the State to claim a certain amount of that value from the licensee. They would immediately have conferred on them an added value, and competition to obtain them would inevitably be set up. The State would then find, as it has found in the past, that it has conferred a valuable right of property upon persons who have paid inadequately to the Exchequer in return for it. So the whole vicious circle would be repeated: there would be a rush of speculation, and another measure would be brought in

1325
for the purpose of extracting more from the coffers of the trade. That is an objection which I foresee to be brought against the proposal to define the monopoly value at the end of the time-limit. I agree with the remarks which fell this afternoon from the hon. Member for Coventry in his able and forcible speech. He could not understand the meaning of the word "resume" mentioned in connection with the monopoly value, and I do not see how the State can be said to "resume" a property or right which it has never secured for itself. The foreign anarchist, when he finds an inconvenient police officer in his path, never proposes to assassinate or murder him, but passes a resolution that the officer in question is condemned to be "removed"; and in the same way the promoters of this Bill are, I think, rather squeamish in their phraseology when they talk about resuming a property, a right, which the State has never in recent history proposed to arrogate to itself. The expectation of the renewal of a licence has over and over again in our Courts been treated as a property assessable, taxable—a property the owner of which has a right to be secured in the possession of it. Take the case of the trustees of the Somers estate. In that case the Divisional Court held that the expectation of the renewal of the licence was to such an extent a property which they ought to recognise that they granted an injunction on the application of the trustees for the remainderman to restrain the tenant for life from doing an act which would have the effect of reducing the value of the licence. Reference has been made more than once in the course of the debate to a much more practical recognition of the expectancy of renewal which existed in the shape of a Return which the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool has quoted—the instructions issued in 1890, signed by Sir Algernon West, who was at that time the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, indicating the manner in which licensed properties were to be assessed for the purpose of death duties. It goes through the whole category of every form of interest in licensed property, and a note is appended stating that the assump-
1326
tion is to be made—there is no permissive nature about it—the official is instructed that the whole property is to be valued upon the assumption that the licence will continue to be renewed during the lifetime of the successor, because without a licence there can be no goodwill in the valuation of the property. That is a very definite, distinct corroboration of my contention that the State, through its officials, has always and does to-day recognise the expectancy of the licence holder's renewal of his licence. The Prime Minister yesterday asked for the date of that document. The date is very remarkable. It is the year 1890. After the original issue of these instructions in 1891, there was pronounced the famous judgment in the case of Sharp v. Wakefield, which is supposed to have opened the eyes of the public for the first time to the great and indisputable fact that the licence is issued for one year, and one year only. If that judgment meant all that was claimed for it and was pronounced just one year after these instructions to the officials of the Inland Revenue Board, it was surely the duty of that board at once to cancel the instructions and instruct their officials that licences were only for one year and that property held under a licence of that kind was to be valued accordingly. But did they do so? These instructions were not withdrawn, and they continue in force to this day. In view of the long-continued consistent practice of the Inland Revenue authorities it is nothing less than a juggling with words to say that the expectation of the renewal of a licence is not a property which a man has a right to hold and in which he has a right to be confirmed and protected by the Legislature. Again, I say that in dealing with the expectation of the renewal of the licence in the manner in which this Bill proposes to deal with it, it is proposing to pass beyond the point where legitimate interference ends and confiscatory action begins. When this return was first alluded to the Prime Minister justified the proposal of the Bill by quoting as a simile the case of the owner of a racehorse, and said the value of a racehorse depends upon the probability of its winning large stakes in a race. That is an uncertain probability, and yet if it was a question of taxation

1327
the authorities would be justified in estimating its value at the highest sum it would fetch in the open market exactly in the same way as these instructions estimate the value of licensed property. But the simile is not altogether justifiable, because if the Prime Minister was dealing with a racehorse instead of licensed property I am afraid he would lie under the imputation of trying to nobble the animal—I think that is the phrase—in such a way as to prejudice his chance of winning the race or even acquiring the greater value which attaches to thoroughbred animals in their later and more luxurious years.
I now pass to another matter. What probability is there of this Bill effecting any great or material advantage in the cause of temperance? I at once freely admit that where there is a reasonable probability of any great public advantage then the rights of private individuals may be modified, and even in extreme cases disregarded. I now pass to the considerations which belong to the category of probability and conjecture. I think it is generally admitted—and it is a matter of congratulation—that during the last few years the people of this country have been advancing in sobriety. Every year the Chancellor of the Exchequer has almost reluctantly, from a financial point of view, pointed to the diminishing revenue from the sale of intoxicating liquors. From that it follows that if this Bill when it passes and becomes law is going to show any great gain for temperance, it will have to show a good deal. It will have to show that we are not only maintaining the present rate of progress in temperance but effecting a material acceleration of that rate of progress. Every speaker, and almost every writer, who has dealt with this question has been driven to admit that there is no real correspondence between the figures of the diminution of drunkenness in the country and the reduction of licences. It is quite easy to set up one set of figures which will show that the reduction of licences has produced a great and immediate gain to temperance, but immediately afterwards another set of figures, equally reliable, will show that in another part of the country exactly
1328
the reverse had followed. That is only another case where figures supply brilliant illustrations, but are quite brittle and unreliable when used as a matter of argument. I think that for the first time during the debate, attention has been called to the regulation of clubs. I do not want to quote any more or less comical advertisements which are issued by these clubs, although I have a copy of the journal referred to. It would be comical, if it were not rather pathetic, to notice the attractions which are almost universally held out to induce persons to visit these clubs, during the hours which ought to be devoted to divine service of some sort or another. I strongly support the hon. Members who have emphasised the fact that unless the unrestricted hours and opportunities for the consumption of alcoholic drink in these increasingly numerous clubs are much more drastically dealt with than at present under this Bill, it is a mere farce to pretend that you are going to achieve any great advance towards temperance by merely adding further burdens on carefully supervised public-houses. The Government have announced that they are open to consider Amendments upon the club clauses, but. I am afraid that they are likely to be pressed, and quite as strongly and effectively pressed, to consider Amendments from the point of view of those who wish to increase these clubs as from those who wish more drastic and firmer regulations. At any rate, I can find no solid ground in the provisions of this Bill to assure me that the gain which it will promote to the cause of temperance is in any way sufficient and sufficiently certain to warrant what I consider the unduly drastic provisions that it proposes to impose on the owners of licensed property. I have one other objection to the Bill, and that is the objection which has already been pointed out, viz., that this Bill is hailed from one quarter of the House, not for what it does or proposes to do in the direction of temperance reform, but as a first and important step in that Socialist policy of acquiring without compensation the means of production and distribution throughout the country. Hitherto, the advocacy of such a policy has been left to the less responsible Members of this House,

1329
but I cannot regard, with anything like confidence, a measure promoted by the Government of the day, which is so graphically characterised by an hon. Member who writes that—
"On the whole this Bill is one which Socialists may welcome, not so much for what it will do immediately, but as to the future possibilities it opens out in the direction of the policy which they advocate."
Upon these grounds I regret—and seriously regret—to find myself unable to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. I am one of those who would be very glad—I would sacrifice a great deal to see placed on the Statute-book a measure which was just and equitable in its provisions and would tend to some permanent settlement of a question which has been too long unsettled. If in the course of its progress through Committee this Bill is remodelled and altered in the directions I have attempted to indicate, I should be very glad to be able to support it on the Third Reading. I am sure the Prime Minister will not refuse to believe me when I say that it is a matter of sincere regret to me not to be able to follow him through the Lobby on the first of what I trust will be many occasions when he will lead a majority of the House in a division during this Parliament. But holding as I do the view that this measure will inflict undeserved injustice on a large number of persons in this country without securing any adequate gain to the cause of temperance, I am reluctantly obliged to oppose its Second Reading.
MR. CAMERON CORBETT: An hon. Member on the other side of the House objected to our bringing into this discussion any analogies from different parts of the world, as to the treatment of expectation of renewal. But it seems to me that we may get rid of a great many ambiguities if we review all analogies as to expectation of renewal from whatever quarter they come. In the United States we have it on the authority of the Blue-book that in no single case in any State has any compensation been granted for non-renewal of a licence, nor has any time-limit been given to the existence of the licence. In no province in the Dominion
1330
of Canada where licences have been legislated upon has any time-limit been given nor compensation awarded. In the European States the same policy has been followed. In Norway and Sweden, when a change was made in the licensing system to public control or local veto, there was no time-limit or compensation awarded to the then holders of licences. In France, in the time of Napoleon III., a great reduction was made in the number of licences without a time-limit or compensation. In Russia the system of licences was swept away in favour of the nationalisation of the liquor traffic, but there, too, there was no time-limit or compensation, the theory being that licences were granted for one year and one year only. The licensee got the benefit where renewal took place and the disadvantage when the licence was taken away. It is true that in certain Australian Colonies a time-notice was given, but in no part of the world has more generous consideration been shown for the expectation of renewal than the fourteen years time-limit given in this Bill. Attempts have been made to prove that this is unfair treatment; that you do not take away the property of the landlords at the end of fourteen years. But in the case of land the only expectation of renewal is the landlord's expectation, not the tenant's. I happen to have the happiest relations with the tenants on the Rowallan estate, where they and their families have been in occupancy of holdings for 400 years. But none of these tenants maintain that there is any right as against the landlord to a freehold interest in their farms because of an expectation of a renewal of their tenancy. I look to the possibilities of this measure from the temperance point of view. I say no word against those who are opposed to the Bill. I believe that they act as sincerely as I do in supporting it. All the agencies throughout the country, whether Church of England or Nonconformist, whether mainly Liberal or mainly Conservative, in favour of temperance, believe that this Bill will materially assist their efforts in that cause. Attempts have been made to show that legislative efforts would not materially assist the cause of temperance. Anybody who knows Scotland is aware that Sunday

1331
closing has largely diminished drunkenness. Attempts have been made in England to discredit Sunday closing, but they are not made in Scotland. In no part of Scotland is there any belief in that. English newspapers sometimes say that in Glasgow Sunday is the most drunken day of the week, but if the statistics are taken from eight o'clock on Sunday morning to eight o'clock on Monday morning so as to clear responsibility for the Saturday night drinking, it is found that drunkenness on Sunday is only one-sixtieth part of the drunkenness during the whole week, and instead of Sunday being the most drunken day in the week it has now only a tenth of the average drunkenness of any other day in the week. I wish to deal with what has been tried elsewhere. This measure, after the end of fourteen years, does open up splendid possibilities, and in the United States of America and our own Colonies wherever public control in the form of local veto has been tried the people increasingly believe in its effect. At the beginning of last year 33,000,000 people in the United States were under prohibition; at the beginning of this year the number had increased to 36,000,000. Then during this last month there have been fresh votes taken in the United States, and what has been the result? In five States 2,500 contests have resulted in 2,000,000 of additional population being brought under prohibition. Why is it that the people of the United States go on increasingly adding area to area under their prohibition law? I do not want to go into the matter fully to-night, but I have reports from the great majority of governors of the States where these experiments have been tried throughout the United States: I want to take the most difficult cases. We are constantly told that it is easy to carry out prohibition in country districts or among village populations, but that it is very hard to carry out the system in large populations. I have information as to four cities of the United States, with 100,000 population and over, which have tried this experiment. With reference to Atalanta, I was not able to get much official information, but all that I have is favourable. I sent a telegram to the Chief Constable, to which I received an
1332
answer yesterday, inquiring if prohibition, which had been introduced at the beginning of the year, had diminished crime, and the reply that I received was "Yes." With reference to Kansas City, we have more definite information. At the beginning of last year an interview with the Chief Constable of Kansas City was published in the newspapers, to the effect that crime had been reduced, by doing away with liquor-shops, by one-half. At Birmingham, Alabama, where prohibition has been in force since the beginning of this year, I wrote to the Chief Constable, and I have a letter from him, in which he says that crime has been reduced there by 50 per cent. I come to the other of the four cities, Cambridge. There the facts with regard to the reduction of crime are very much the same as in the other cases, but as it has had prohibition for over twenty years the Chief Constable deals more largely with the matter. What strikes him most, he says, is the increased expenditure on food, clothing,' and shoes, and he remarks that the change in the condition of the people is especially marked among the poorest classes of the community. Now, I would ask, does this system really interfere with the freedom of individuals? I maintain that it does not. I maintain that the freedom of the individual implies his freedom to do wrong as well as his freedom to do right, but that the freedom that you have to conceive is the freedom of the man's permanent purpose and fixed intention. If any man in a prohibition State wants to drink whisky or beer or wine he can do it. They perfectly well know how to manage it, but if that is their purpose they are resolved to do it. But, on the other hand, if a man wishes not to do this thing, if he is one of the men who have a difficulty in passing a public-house, and who would prefer to be an abstainer, that man's permanent freedom is also respected, and his permanent purpose is carried out, and it is just as much carried out because these restrictions tell against the individual. Where you have this prohibition you have a great reduction in the consumption of alcohol and a great reduction in criminality. I know we are told that in the United States the consumption of alcohol has gone on

1333
increasing, but our Returns as regards that are not very recent. I have, however, very recent information from the leading liquor papers in the United States, and they describe the loss which has been brought about by prohibition. They enumerate all the trades dealt with and all the industries connected with the production of alcohol, and everything connected with the trade, and they say, that the loss is almost incalculable, and if that almost incalculable loss falls upon those engaged in producing liquor, and in barrelling and bottling it, and in its transit, there must he a diminution in the amount of liquor consumed. I, for one, while I do not judge any of those who differ from me on this occasion, do feel that this is the most important issue with which this House has had to do for many a long day. We have to deal with the question of moral influence which touches most pressingly the interests of our people, and when we look back in days to come we shall look with satisfaction on everything that we did in helping to pass this Bill.
*MR. GEORGE FABER: The speech of the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon might have marked a new departure. Since the Prime Minister, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he was then, introduced this measure, much has happened, and we, at any rate on this side of the House, were waiting to know yesterday whether it was to be a case of return to the older and sounder policy or whether the Prime Minister intended to continue the course which, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he followed when he introduced this measure. I am only a humble Member of Parliament, and I am no master of tactics, but I do not know whether the tone adopted by the Prime Minister yesterday indicated what he felt about this measure, or whether he desired to put new heart into his supporters. One sentence that he let drop certainly indicated one or the other, because he said, towards the conclusion of his speech, in his eloquent peroration, that the trade would find that they were living in a fools' paradise if they thought they were going to conquer in this matter. Well, Sir, it is very unsafe for anyone to prophesy
1334
unless he knows, and whether upon the conclusion of this matter it will be the trade which will be in a fools' paradise, or whether it will be the Government, remains for the future and the future alone to judge. The Prime Minister may have forgotten the prophetic and ominous words of the late Sir William Harcourt upon his introduction of the Local Veto Bill in 1893. He said—
"The Government are not unaware that in navigating this sea they are navigating an ocean that is covered with many wrecks."
And the right hon. Gentleman by his own measure added another wreck to the number. Members who were in the House at that time will recollect that that ship sank as soon as it was launched, and never reached the open sea at all; it never got beyond the First Reading. But what about this vessel in which the Prime Minister put out to sea yesterday afternoon? Almost as soon as it got there the hon. and learned Member for the Kingston Division fired a shot at it which struck it straight amidships in such a way that I do not imagine the vessel will ever recover from that drastic operation. Already it is drifting more or less waterlogged, and, as far as I can see, it looks as if it will go to pieces on the ruthless rocks of public opinion. The reason is because it is certainly not a just measure, and from my point of view it certainly is not a temperance measure. You are going to reduce the licences by 30,000 in the next fourteen years, but it has been proved over and over again in the course of the debate yesterday and to-day that if you do that you do not necessarily lessen the amount of drunkenness, because the conditions of the times have become so complex that there is no longer only one place to drink in, viz., the public-house, but there is the club and the home which is supplied through various channels. There are avenues of drink, everywhere, and if you reduce the number of public-houses you are only going to open the door in other directions. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House are never tired of saying that the democracy must govern, and yet you propose to interfere with the social life of the democracy in a matter in which they have not been consulted, and which deeply touches its liberties. You intend

1335
to make a large reduction in the number of public-houses, but you do not propose in any way to deal with the question of clubs. You are of course entitled to think that the reduction of public-houses in this country will reduce the consumption of drink, but if you want to reduce the number of licences why do you not pay for those which you reduce? And here I have the authority of one of the greatest Parliamentarians who ever adorned this Chamber. I have the authority of no less a potent person than the late Mr. Gladstone What view did the late Mr. Gladstone take of this matter on the Liquor Bill brought forward in 1880? On the introduction of that Bill Mr. Gladstone said—
"We ought not to allow our prejudices with regard to this particular trade…to cause us to deviate by one hair's breadth from the principles on which Parliament has always acted in analogous circumstances, namely, that when a vested interest has been allowed to grow up the question of compensation should be considered when such vested interests were proposed to be interfered with by Parliament. What I am prepared to say is this, that the licensed victualler has the same right to fair consideration that is enjoyed by persons following every other trade or calling which is interfered with by Act of Parliament, and to whom compensation is awarded owing to such interference.… When Parliament enacted negro emancipation it was preceded by a preliminary Resolution in which the principle of compensation was recognised."
Later Mr. Gladstone said—
"The withdrawal of the licence is the confiscation of the estate."
Upon the next stage of the measure the right hon. Gentleman spoke in no less strong terms. He said—
"I should have been better pleased with the matter of the Resolution, if my hon. friend had included in it some reference to the principle of equitable compensation… I want a frank recognition of the principle that we are not to deny to publicans as a class the benefits of equal treatment.… Considering the legislative title they have acquired, and the recognition of their position in the proceedings of this House for a long series of years, they ought nut to he placed at a disadvantage on account of the particular impression we may entertain—in many eases too justly—in relation to the mischief connected with the present licensing system."
Many years have passed since those words were spoken by that eminent gentleman. I do not know whether the Radical Party still sit at his feet.
"Imperial Caesar, dead and turned to clay,
May stop a hole to keep the wind away."
1336
But, if "he being dead yet speaketh," the whole ground of your so-called compensation falls from under your feet. Look at the whole course of the procedure that has been followed. Look at it as sensible men. The State for generations has not only recognised the trade, but patted it on the back. The drink bill of this country is something like £160,000,000 a year. Out of that the State is taking one-fourth. It is taking nearly £40,000,000 in excise alone, and if everything, including income-tax and death duties is taken into consideration, I should not be surprised to find the State takes between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000 a year from the trade. The State is almost a partner in the business. It has put in no capital, but takes the greater part of the profit out. It is under the shadow, under the authority, of the State that this trade has attained the honourable position it holds to-day; an honourable trade conducted by honourable men. I speak without any interest in it. I am not a brewer—I should not be ashamed if I were—but as a barker I am able to see that this is the first step down that long lane which leads to ruin. This trade has grown up under the wing of the State. The State has taxed it, and the local authorities have rated it, as if it were an enduring property, not as if the licence lasted for one year. It is treated almost as a freehold. I think the instructions issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to the Inland Revenue authorities are absolutely conclusive evidence in themselves that the State considered the licences as an enduring property. It is absolutely impossible for the State now to turn round after all that has happened, and after all the money that has been put into the trade by individuals, and taken out of it by the State, and say that licences are not an enduring property; that they only last for a year, and can be taken away at the whim and pleasure of the State. The State, local authorities, the magistrates, and the Law Courts, have all treated them as an enduring property—liable, of course, to be taken away for bad behaviour, but, excepting in cases of proved superfluity, not otherwise. It was because Mr. Gladstone saw this so clearly that he

1337
took the view he did in 1880, because he saw the State had put itself into such a position in regard to licences by the course it had pursued, that it could not turn round and say there was no property in them. The State is not a petty-fogging attorney to take advantage of any quibble, of any hole, that it can find in the logic of the position. The position of the State ought to be a position of integrity and fair dealing. This is not a Bill to promote morals, it is a Bill to get money. The President of the Board of Education, it seems to me, let that out in a recent speech at Dewsbury. I doubt, however, if the Government have even concealed it from themselves. First and foremost this is a Bill for getting money. What did the President of the Board of Education say? He said this Bill would be very convenient for old-age pensions. Have we really come to the stake when we are going to rob Peter to pay Paul; to take money from tens of thousands of shareholders in brewery comparies and licensed victuallers, in order to promote old-age pensions? The Government, as a matter of fact, are out of elbows; they have made promises they have not the money to carry out, and in order to carry out those promises are endeavouring to seize the first Naboth's vineyard they car find, namely, the licensed trade of this country.
MR. LUPTON: The hon. Member admits that the trade collects £160,000,000 from the people, and hands over £40,000,000 to the State. I would ask him, Would it not be better for the State to collect the £40,000,000 direct, and leave the remaining £120,000,000 in the pockets of the people?
*MR. GEORGE FABER: I do not quite follow the hon. Member. Does he suggest that there should be total prohibition?
MR. LUPTON: I suggest that the people would be better off if the trade did not collect this £120,000,000 from them.
*MR. GEORGE FABER: What I complain of is that at the end of fourteen years the State is going to appropriate
1338
all licenses without paying anything for them. It is not only going to collect the £40,000,000 in exciso,but is going to be the master of the licensed trade and perhaps take every farthing of the profit. [Cries of "No."] Hon. Members cry "No," but at the end of fourteen years the State will recover the monopoly value of the whole trade to do with the licences exactly what it pleases. The State may, and I think will, reap the entire profit of the trade. Nobody imagines there is going to be prohibition. This is simply a Money Bill, a money device. The Bill from that point of view is artfully drawn. It is drawn so as to meet the views of temperance reformers in this respect, that during the next fourteen years 30,000 licences are to be abolished. That is to catch the bishops and the temperance party. At the end of fourteen years the State is to recover the monopoly value. This Bill is to put money into the pockets of the Treasury. As regards the first part of the proposition, namely, a wholesale reduction of licences during the next fourteen years, where do the Government find any warrant for the proposition? Certainly it is not in Sharpe v. Wakefield. All that that case laid down was that the magistrates in a particular case, having considered all the circumstances of the case, might suppress a particular licence. Sharpe v. Wakefield never contemplated the wholesale reduction of licences. What Lord Hannen said was that each case must be considered on its merits, and Lord Halsbury said the matter must be decided according to law and not according to hull-mar. When you take away 30,000 licences in the next fourteen years, is that treating the matter judicially?
And, it being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, further proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

EAST INDIA (EDUCATION).
*MR. LAIDLAW, in calling attention to the present educational conditions in India and moving "That the time has come for an impartial and searching inquiry into the scope, character, and methods

1339
of education in India," said that he did not propose, in moving that Resolution, to occupy the time of the House at any great length. If he were bringing forward a Resolution for the adoption of any great change in our educational system in India it would be incumbent upon him to bring forward facts and figures in support of any argument lie might advance. But he was not doing that; he was simply calling for an inquiry, and in doing that he should represent to the House the feelings and opinions of a large number of people who were interested in this question, and who were able to judge of the merits of the present system. But before proceeding he would like to congratulate the Secretary of State for India on having appointed, last year, a Committee to look after the interests of the Indian students who came to this country to complete their studies. That Committee, he understood, had now completed its labours, and he trusted that in the more serene atmosphere of another place, the noble Lord the Secretary of State would make some pronouncement as to what was to be done in regard to the recommendations made by that Committee. During a long residence in India, and during a recent visit, he had talked with all sorts and conditions of people in regard to this great question, and he had not found anyone who approved of our present methods in any branch of education in that country, and the results of this lay at the root of much of the discontent and unrest which unhappily prevailed in some parts of India at the present moment. He was not able to-day to propose a remedy. When it came to questions of reform, he had the authority of no less a personage than Sir Theodore Morrison for saying that there were as many views with regard to what should be done, as there were people engaged in the Educational Department of India, What was wanted was a thorough and impartial investigation. There had been no general inquiry with regard to our educational methods in India since the Royal Commission in 1882, and during the twenty-six years which had since elapsed he was sure that everyone would agree that more changes had taken place in India than in all the
1340
past 200 years during which we had been associated with that country. It was high time that we had another independent investigation. What he contended was required at this time was an impartial investigation. He would deprecate an inquiry by any of those estimable gentlemen who were connected with the working of the educational machinery in India. They were liable to be somewhat prejudiced, and somewhat Conservative. They were likely to be somewhat opposed to change, and what was wanted was that some fresh minds should be brought to bear on the subject. He mould like investigations to begin with an inquiry into the scope of our educational work. They were all aware that the Indian Government for some years had pronounced most emphatically in favour of further elementary education. The Indian Government had been looking towards that for some years, and they continued to look in that direction without making any real progress towards that object. He would like to quote Lord Curzon with regard to the position of the Government of India. In a speech which he made shortly after he went to India in 1901, in connection with an education Conference at Simla, he said—
"Primary education, by which I understand the teaching of the masses in the vernacular, opens a wide and a very contested field of study. I am one of those who think that the Government has not fulfilled its duty in this respect."
Then after giving some reasons, the lack of vernacular literature being one reason, Lord Curzon went on to say—
"My second reason is even wider in its application. What is the greatest danger to India. What is the source of superstition, outbreaks of crime, yes, also of much agrarian discontent and suffering among the masses? It is ignorance. And what is the only antidote to ignorance? Knowledge. And in proportion as we teach the masses so shall we make their lot happier, and in proportion as they are happier so will they become more useful members of the body politic."
We were proud of what we had done in India in by gone generations, but it was very sad to find that not more than one-sixth of the boys of school age and a very much smaller proportion of the girls were yet in school. There were only 98 per 1,000 of the male natives of India and 7 per 1,000 of the female natives

1341
who could read the vernacular. Then the amount of money spent upon education in India was deplorably inadequate. It worked out at 1½d. per head of the children of school age. He would be out of order if he suggested any special means of raising f ands, but there was a widespread feeling, not only in this country but also in India, that what we were spending on our military defences in India was altogether out of proportion to what we were spending on education. Personally, he very strongly supported that view. He held that there was no necessity to-day for the large military expenditure being maintained at the point at which it stood thirty years ago. He did not base that opinion so much upon our good relations with our neighbours as upon the fact that communication was very much easier now and that it only took days where formerly it took weeks to transport troops from outlying and southern districts to the North-West frontier. He thought the Government would do well to consider the question of reducing the military expenditure in India as soon as possible and of applying what was saved to the cause of elementary education. He was told when he was at Calcutta a short time ago by a very high authority that a special tax for education would be popular, and he was sure that that would be so in some of the provinces. This question of primary education alone 'justified them in asking for an inquiry as to existing methods and how far they could be improved. When they came to the question of secondary and higher education, there was a diversity of view as to what should be done. It was universally held that our present method was not the best, and that there was vast room for improvement; they were driven to that conclusion by results. The Government and some of the great missionary societies had done a great deal for higher education. They had vied with each other in providing this at very low cost to those ready and willing to receive it. The result had been that a large number of men had gone through the colleges and taken university degrees and were now suffering from the kind of education that had been given them, and a great many of them could see for themselves that the course of training they had
1342
undergone had not been such as fitted them for such careers as were open to them. It had been a great deal too literary. They had memorised a great deal of English classical literature, and had, gone through numerous examinations. Their whole training had not been sufficiently scientific and practical, and the result was that there were to-day crowds of educated men who looked to those who had provided their education to provide them practically with a career, and with everything else in life, instead of looking to themselves to develop the great resources of the country. These resources as it was were being left to be exploited by people who had no special or permanent connection with or interest in the country. That was not as it should be. Everybody in India was agreed upon that. But when it came to a question of a remedy, there was great diversity of opinion, and for that reason he, for one, was not prepared to make any suggestion; it would be exceedingly foolish in view of the manifold variety of opinion to dogmatise at all with regard to any particular remedy. The whole system of education all the way through was being starved for want of money. That was the root of the whole evil. There was an altogether inadequate supply of teachers, and they did not always get the very best material because the inducements offered did not attract talent to the profession. Then they were lacking in training colleges. If they had training colleges, and offered better inducements, things would very speedily improve in that respect. The fact of the matter was that the whole system was starved, and the Government of India should resolutely face the question of providing in a very much more liberal manner than they had done hitherto for this great work. He would not like to say—there would, perhaps, be no justification for saying—that the domiciled community had not received their due share of educational facilities compared with, what was spent upon the natives, but they saw that in that connection in regard to the money devoted to the education of the domiciled community how painfully inadequate the amount was. These people, especially the Eurasians, were in

1343
an exceedingly difficult position. There was no scope for them amongst the labouring classes, and even the most incompetent amongst them, without a fairly good education which would enable them to take a clerkship, or something of that kind, were in an exceedingly difficult and deplorable condition, and the demand for some better provision for their education and uplift was very strongly called for. Referring again to the discontent and unrest that prevailed in some parts of the country, in making inquiries he found it was very largely a schoolboy agitation. They had set their hands to the plough and must not look back. A great deal of the trouble arose from the fact that these lads were half-educated. The kind of education they had received had not been on the right lines, and they must remember that a little knowledge was a dangerous thing. We were not in India by chance or for what we could get out of the country. We were there for the uplifting of the people. He sometimes thought it would be one of the best things we could do for that country greatly to enlarge the facilities for adequate and proper education on the right lines. A few years ago a popular soldier was sent to India with practically a free hand to spend ten millions of money in making a new redistribution of the troops. He wished they could send an educational expert and enthusiast to India with a free hand to spend not £10,000,000, but £20,000,000 or £30,000 000 during the next ten years. That would be one of the finest things—it would make those ten years the best and the work done would redound more to our credit in connection with our relations with India than anything during our past connection. He had not come forward with any suggestion of his own with regard to a remedy. He had no change to propose at this stage. All he asked was that there should be an impartial inquiry as to the scope, character, and methods of our educational system in India. He begged to move.
MR. HART-DAVIESin seconding the Resolution, said how very much they regretted that the new Under - Secretary for India was not present. He was sure he would
1344
wish to have been there, and made his first appearance as representative of India on a question so extremely far-reaching and important as this. He was quite sure, from the Imperial point of view, it was an extremely important question. He took a peculiar interest in it because some years ago he was at the head of the Education Department in a large though rather backward province in India, and he remembered how very much they were handicapped, by want not only of funds, but of any determinate plans, so to speak, on which education was being carried on. There was no doubt our educational position in India was profoundly unsatisfactory for various reasons, as to both quantity and quality. We spent on education in India with its population of 250,000,000 only about £3,000,000. Compared with the expenditure on education in England that was ludicrous. Fees accounted for about £1,000,000 of that, £1,500,000 were derived from provincial, municipal, and local funds, and the rest was provided by the Government of India. That was an absurdly small amount to spend on a huge country like India where education was extremely valued. There was no want of enthusiasm for education in India. It was only the want of money that prevented the development of education. That was a most deplorable thing, and it reflected a certain amount of discredit on us as a ruling race in India that we spent so much money on fortifications on the North-West against a purely imaginary danger. When he remembered that we might have spent all that money on education, he was not exactly proud of the Government of India. As regarded primary education he thought there should be in every village a primary school, and that education should be free, and they ought to have in as many places as possible a secondary school. Education was perhaps more important in India than in any other country in the world. He had a great deal to do at o time with a certain department which had to deal with agricultural indebtedness. Agriculture was the principal industry of India, and one of the principal reasons of the distress of agriculturists was that they were in a state of indebtedness all

1345
over the country and were in the hands of the money-lenders. He did not want to say anything against the moneylenders who performed a useful part. They served to bridge over hard times, and on the whole he did not know that they were more grasping or more hard than money-lenders in any other part of the world. But when he looked into the debts and the history of their indebtedness, he found that one of the principal causes why agriculturists were in such a hopeless condition was that they were unable to contest the figures of their creditors or to tell the history of the debt, being unable to read or write. They could not keep any check whatever on the operations of the moneylenders, and that was one of the reasons why they wanted education. If the people could only learn how to read and write and add simple figures, that would make a very great difference in their well-being. There was also a great want of technical education in India, although there was no want of technical ability. More agricultural instruction was also required. This want had, he was aware, been removed of late to a certain extent, but not so much as it ought to have been. There was a great deal more required to be done in all the secondary branches of education. In alluding to higher education one touched upon more difficult ground. He was aware that some people held the view that the higher education in our universities only tended to make disloyal subjects. This was the fault not so much of the education as of the manner in which it was imparted. In the old days more individual attention was paid to the students by the professors in our universities. This was important because the Indian student was a man who responded very readily to sympathy. He was extremely amenable, and if they could introduce more of the old personal feeling. which used to exist between the professors and their pupils, they would be going a long distance towards removing some of the evils of the system of higher education in India. Under the present system the young man had to study with a large class of other students, and the professors could not introduce that personal sympathy which was the true secret of all our rule in India, and the want of which was the
1346
real root of all our difficulties. This was all a matter of money, for if they sent out more professors and had a more-careful selection of students they would do away with a good many of the difficulties. The present system might be described as pouring new wine into old bottles. The Indian students had already assimilated the philosophy of the West, but they did not know how to apply it because they had not been properly trained and led by the sympathetic treatment of their professors to understand what western ideas really meant, He had met Indian gentlemen of high education with whom he could talk as freely as he could with any Englishman, and who could speak with him on equal terms on these great questions. They had to take care that the rising generation of India was brought up in such a way that they would be able to absorb the real spirit of western culture and assimilate it to the spirit of eastern culture. If they would treat Indian students in this way they would find that a great many of the difficulties existing at present would disappear. They were bound to go forward in this matter because it was too late to turn back. If they persevered with the sympathetic treatment of these Indian students he felt sure that in the future they would have no reason to complain of having introduced western culture in India. He was aware that for all these things they required more money, and they would have to spend a great deal more money in the future upon education in India. It was necessary for them to introduce fresh spheres of industry. India was not a poor but a rich country, enormously rich in mines, but the natural resources of India were not properly exploited. To do that, more education was required. It was lamentable the amount of brain-power that was being wasted in India. Many new industries might be introduced. Some hope should be held out that the Government of India would institute an inquiry into the present condition of education in India and suggest how it might be improved and developed.
Motion made, and Question proposed." That the time has come for an impartial and searching inquiry into the scope, character, and methods of education in India.—(Mr. Laidlaw.)
*MR. KEIR HARDIEexpressed regret that during the discussion of this subject the Government of India were not represented on the Government Benches. It was a very serious state of affairs. It was also to be regretted that the head of a great Department like the India Office should not sit in that House, but in another place. He endorsed what had been said by the mover and seconder of the Resolution concerning the importance of the question of the education of the people of India. The condition of the village industries of India could be vastly improved if only technical instruction were imparted to those who has followed certain occupations for ages, but who continued to pursue them in accordance with the methods which obtained generations ago. It had been estimated that the produce of the soil at present under cultivation in India might be increased by from 30 to 50 per cent. if more modern methods of agriculture were employed. It could not be alleged that the paucity of education in India was due to any want of desire on the part of the people to have better education for their children. One of the things that impressed him most in the country villages of India was to find the sons of ryots coming long distances and paying what for them were heavy fees in order to attend school. The village schools were crowded. There was the further fact to be borne in mind that owing to the action of the Government in this matter there was now growing up in India, and especially in Bengal, and educational movement apart altogether from and without the control of the Government educational institutions. It was entirely owing to the policy which was being pursued towards the schools both of the higher and of the lower grades. In this, as in many other respects, the native states were setting an example which might with advantage be followed by our own Government. Baroda and Mysore in particular stood out as examples of what could be done when the Government determined to make education a matter of real importance. In Mysore for example, according to the figures in the Inspector's Report for 1906, the expenditure on schools was made up of 78 per
1348
cent. from public funds, 11 per cent. from fees, the remainder being made good from endowments and other sources of income of a miscellaneous character. In East Bengal the figures were 45 per cent. from public funds, 38 per cent. from fees. He thought these figures were in themselves sufficient to justify some inquiry into the methods of education. According to the Inspector's Report the amount spent on education in the State of Mysore was equal to a rate of four annas per head of the population, and according to the figures given by his hon. friend opposite the expenditure in British India amounted to something less than 1d. per head. In Baroda education for all classes was free and compulsory. What was being done by native States ought surely to be done under British administration. He rose particularly to give one or two illustrations of the way in which the authorities were seeking to hamper and interfere with the education of the youth of India. He would not refer on that occasion to the University Commission Report, where it was expressly laid down that the fees for entrance to the higher grade schools should not be so low as to encourage boys to enter them who were not suited for rising in the higher walks of life. He wanted to deal in particular with what was known as the Barisal case. In a circular which had been issued by the Indian Home Office it was laid down that certain schools were being used for the purpose of political propaganda. Certain pains and penalties were outlined which were to be applied to schools in which political propaganda was indulged in. During his visit to Barisal a case was brought to his notice which he thought the representatives of the India Office ought to know about, with the view, if possible, of having it put right. In April last year Mr. Sharp, Inspector of Education, complained that the schools at Barisal were being used as a sort of harbour of refuge for rebels and others, that one of the professors had preached sedition in certain villages, and that one of the students had attended a meeting at which seditious speeches were made. The head of the institution pointed out that the student had withdrawn from the college altogether, his time being expired before the meeting

1349
referred to, that he had made it a rule not to allow students to take part in such meetings, and that the professor referred to was on holiday at the time he committed the alleged offence. The correspondence on this matter went on for some time. The police of the district supplied the authorities as usual with all sorts of misleading information, and the final result was that the grant to the school was withdrawn, and the threat held out that the right to be examined for entrance to Calcutta University would be withdrawn. It seemed to him that that was a case requiring some investigation. He had gone through the whole of the correspondence, and there was no proof to substantiate the charges which had been levelled against the school or its administration. That being so the school ought to be allowed to continue its privileges until at least something could be proved against it. At Seraj-Gunge there were two higher grade schools of a semi-private kind. Both enjoyed a reputation as centres of education. It appeared that in April last year a local banker was alleged to have been assaulted by school boys. The official statement showed that what he complained of was that the boys made a noise, that his horse shied, that stones were thrown, and that his hat fell to the ground. Beyond that nothing seemed to have happened, but the Government education authorities insited on the schools managers discovering the boys alleged to have been guilty of the assault and having them punished. The master replied that he did not know the boys and that it was not his business to play the part of the police. Then the grant to the school was withdrawn, and it was still withdrawn, and boys who desired to go up to the university for examination were barred from doing so. He respectfully submitted that action of that kind was not consistent with our whole policy with regard to education. If anyone had been guilty, by all means let him be punished, but to punish a whole school for what might have been the horseplay of a few boys was neither logical nor just. He hoped a promise would be given on behalf of the Government that there would be full inquiry into the whole of the state of education
1350
in India, and especially into the question how far the Government of India was punishing schools for alleged political malpractices which had not been shown to exist. No one could visit India without being impressed with the great need which existed for the better education of Indian children. If only a tenth part of the money which was being wasted on military operations were diverted to education, the result would be a gain to the people of India and increased prestige to the people at home.
*MR. REEScongratulated the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil on the comparatively moderate speech he had made. He agreed with much of what had been said regarding the native States, but he would point out that the hon. Member had been most unfortunate in his selection of the native States which he had named. It was quite true that education in Mysore was highly developed, but hon. Members knew that this development occurred under the administration of the Government of India, and when the rendition took place the public servants, whom the Government of India had employed were retained. The administration of Mysore continued up to the present day was as British in character as it was during the fifty years when the administration was actually British. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion had asked why they should waste so much money on the defence of India instead of spending it on education. It was because of the peace which our military expenditure introduced in India that they were able to attend to education at all. Previously, the native States were employed in petty warfare with one another, and there was no education at all. No hon. Gentleman had been able to make out any case against the British Government in this respect. He would ask the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Resolution, and who had travelled as very few men had, why he should condemn the insularity of this House in debating at such length the proper number of public-houses, while he ignored the fact that if it were not for the military expenditure in India there would

1351
not be that peace which, he would allow, made education possible. The hon. Member for Nottingham seemed to imagine that we could maintain peace, perfect peace in India by means of agreement with European powers and withdraw the British Army.
SIR H. COTTONsaid he never made such a statement.
*MR. REESsaid that he thought that the hon. Member's little book on India practically stated what he had just said. He thought that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was unfortunate in citing the case of Mysore, and he objected to any deductions regarding the treatment of educational institutions by the Government of India being drawn from the district of Barisal. That was the only district in India in which the Government found it necessary to apply the Seditious Meetings Act. He protested against any deductions being made from what had taken place in one town of one district of one province in the great Empire of India. His hon. friend who moved the Resolution was anxious that the Government of India should spend immensely large sums on education, but where was he going to get the money? This was not a case in which the Government had a Monte Cristo gold mine. To carry out the hon. Member's views the taxation of India would have to be enormously increased, and that was the one thing which should be most carefully avoided. The hon. Member had talked about sending out an enthusiast on education with thirty millions of money, but he protested that an enthusiast would probably do an infinite amount of mischief. Was it to be supposed that our fellow countrymen, with their long experience of government in India, were so ignorant or malevolent that they did not make the best possible use of the money collected from the people, and that that money should be largely increased for the purpose of hurling education at those who—he did not say did not want it, but who were not in a position to pay for it, and did not ask for more of it? His hon. friend who moved the motion bad said that there had been no inquiry into education in India since Sir William
1352
Hunter's Commission in 1882. Surely his hon. friend did not believe that nothing could be done without a Commission of Inquiry During the last five years the whole educational system of India had been over-hauled in the completest way possible; there had been arrangements made for co-ordination which had never been possible before; the heads of departments had met together and had made every possible effort to improve the educational system. He admitted that this question was of the greatest importance, but it should not be judged as at least one hon. Gentleman had judged it, from the standpoint of the conduct of a few students in one school in one district in one province. That was not the way to bring such an important question before the House. His hon. friend the mover had said that be wanted free elementary education throughout India. Did the Iron Gentleman know what the parents of the children really paid for elementary education in India? It was the merest bagatelle, and elementary education was already practically free. If the hon. Gentleman meant that the State was to provide large sums of money to build schools in every village in India, he was proposing to penalise the people of the country to an extent that could be hardly appreciated. They would have to screw up the Land Tax, which was at present moderate, to the sort of figure which was falsely and ignorantly asserted now obtained. Again, with what countries was the education in India compared when the backward condition of education in India was spoken of? It was said that four out of every five Indian villages had no school, that three out of every four boys had no education, that only one girl out of every forty was at school. But hon. Members were comparing- an Oriental Empire with this island; and was there any reason in that? There was no possible basis for a comparision between an Oriental Empire and a Western island. If his friends wanted to contrast the relative goodness or badness of the education in our Indian Empire, let them compare it with that of other Oriental countries. [An HON. MEMBER: Japan.] But Japan was only one country and he regretted he had not the facts,

1353
but he understood that already some of the characteristic virtues of the people were threatened. The nearest Oriental country to India was China, and nobody had thought that the information in regard to education in China was worth collecting. He submitted that to compare the educational figures of India with those of this country was to fall into a gulf of insularity that was abysmal. If knowledge was not comparative, what value could attach to the statements of his hon. friend? They were told that there were 1,000,000 natives in India who were to some extent literate in English. The inference he drew from that fact was that so much attention should not be paid to those who spoke for this small fraction of the population, but that an attempt should be made to get at. the feelings of the real masses, who were not denationalised, and who had not forsaken all the habits and customs of their country. His hon. friend had referred to Sir W. Hunter's Commission. He remembered that Sir W. Hunter said that, as the result of the present educational system, the original principles of which had been laid down in 1854, we should have a loyal India, and that the educated classes would not want to get rid of us. Now, if there was one class which desired to get rid of us it was that very class of people who had received a sort of English education. The education given to the masses of the people of India where it was desired, should be suited to those who received it; it should be given in the vernacular, and should lay before them the former state of the country, the anarchy and misery from which they had emerged, and the great benefits they now enjoyed from British rule. That was far from the result upon those who were at present literate in English. No reference had been made by the hon. Members who had moved and seconded the Resolution to the fact that the present Secretary of State for India had appointed two educationists to his Council, one a native gentleman of great experience in education in a native State, and the other a European of high educational authority. The present Government of India, under Lord Minto, was also considering what great advantage could
1354
be gained by making elementary education throughout India free—a proposition which he understood from inquiry had not met with very general support. Then, comments had been made by his hon. friends upon the expenditure on education in India. He saw that there had been an annual increase in the last thirty years of a quarter of a million in the amount spent upon education, He did not know why this should be the subject of criticism, when he considered that eighty per cent. of the population of India were agriculturists in a small way, and were not in need of that kind of education which would make them discontented with their occupation and their rulers. It was at least doubtful, in his opinion, whether there was any particular need for taxing them in order to hurl at them a system of education for which they had not asked. The sum spent on education produced annually 1,500 B.A.'s and 8,000 graduates whose conduct had not been such as to encourage the Government to make the sum larger. Was it certain that this sum was inadequate to meet the requirements of the State? His memory would not serve him to recall the many classes of colleges and schools which existed in India, and it was extraordinary that this system of education should be so complex, so complete, and so widely dispersed in India as it was. It was not as if it were a case of European countries, where the Government had yielded yard by yard in resistance to the demand made upon it, but the Government of India had, out of its own conscientiousness and its own sense of what was right and just to the people, practically thrust upon them this education. He did not say that the people had not readily assimilated it, that was to say, the upper classes, such as the Brahmins, the landlords, and particularly those in Bengal—those upper castes whose electioneering talent and political instinct were so great that although they were members of a privileged class, and aristocrats of the most distinguished position, they had persuaded the democratic Members of this House, who sat upon the opposite bench and the Radical Ambers who sat on that side, that they were their natural allies, and had induced them to make

1355
common cause against the interests of the masses of their fellow-countrymen. What was this education in India into which they were asked to have an inquiry? There were five Universities after the model of the University of London, and they controlled nearly 200 colleges and about 23,000 students. It was originally intended that supervising officers should inspect these colleges in order that they should be kept in some control; but that did not happen, and these colleges had been left to their own devices. Very soon it became apparent that English education had a marketable value however imperfect it was, and these colleges were used not for the furtherance of education or for the keeping up of educational standards, but for the easy acquirement of a Bachelorship of Arts, or failing that a subordinate qualification which might give a claim to a clerkship. In this way the standard of education fell below that which was originally intended and which the Government desired to keep up, and a conference was held on the subject in 1905. The Government of India proposed to the provincial governments of India that they should make the care of elementary education in India one of their chief concerns, and not only did the former Government profess that desire but they gave a grant of some £200,000 a year for the purpose of assisting local governments to carry it out, and they had made that grant annually ever since. It had become absolutely necessary that the senates of these Universities and the governing bodies should be reconstituted, and they were reconstituted by an Act passed after the fullest possible inquiry by the late Viceroy after communication with every important educational authority in India, in order to keep up the standard of those colleges which were affiliated to those Universities. And what was the result? A storm of protest, and the Viceroy who had carried that measure left India under a cloud of obloquy, and amidst a storm of abuse. This was because of the reform of these Universities and colleges in order to keep up the standard of education and prevent them from turning out half educated graduates and scholars. The object of the scholars too often
1356
was not education but to write B.A. after their names, and it was because he desired to prevent this state of things that the late Viceroy left India one of the most unpopular of men, and it was this and nothing else which led to his being the victim of most gross and unfair abuse by the vernacular Press of Bengal. The Government properly proceeded on the basis of allowing the Universities to reform themselves. An inspector of education, Mr. Orange, was brought out from England, and after his arrival he believed a new era of educational efficiency began in India, just as a new era of administrative efficiency began in England when the House of Orange came here. He did not attribute this, however, to the introduction of a stranger from England to the chief place in the educational hierarchy. Another step had been taken by the late administration in India. The Government of India had the courage to point out that in the schools of India the vernacular was not sufficiently taught. That was the fact, and it was also the fact that our public servants were not able to converse easily with the natives. The Government insisted that education should be given in the vernacular language, and no step was more necessary in our educational arrangements in India. Then as to secondary education, new training schools had been opened; and in regard to primary education, more and better teachers were appointed, the inspecting staff was increased, and the industrial and commercial branches were developed. He could remember the way in which senates of Universities were formed. Everybody who was of any importance, or thought himself to be of any importance, became a fellow of his local University. In the time of the late Viceroy this matter was altered and senates more capable of performing the duties were appointed. In addition hostels were founded in order to give the students somewhere to live, a most necessary provision, because he would really hesitate to tell the House the manner in which those students who ought to be in a state of pupilage lived, and the conditions of the quarters of the towns in which they dwelt. Efforts were also made to remove politics from the purview of these

1357
educational institutions, and to keep boys from college out of brawls in which they were far too prone to indulge. But the reforms which had lately taken place did not stop there Training schools were opened for Hindoo and Mahomedan widows and the wives of masters, so that there might be women capable of inspection for education purposes, and of giving zenana teaching to girls of high class families. Another step had been taken by improving Bengal into two administrations with equal rank, the original province, equal in size to over a dozen Scotlands and in population to two Great Britains and Irelands, having been too large to manage. He thought that these and other measures ought to be mentioned to show that the Government of India did not lie under the accusation of being indifferent to education or had not provided sufficient funds for it. A searching inquiry into the scope, character, and methods of education in India was in his judgment uncalled for and might at the present moment do more harm than good. Nothing could be less justifiable than this charge, though of course it might fairly be said against our system of education that it destroyed that reverence for authority which was desirable, and that instead of being brought up to reverence his parents, his religion, his country, and his Government, the Indian student was brought up now to show no respect for anybody else, and little for himself. A change was needed in that respect. The Government of India worked under extraordinary limitations. It had to divorce education from religion and it was not to be supposed that this particular difficulty had escaped its notice. The Government of India had had it before them over and over again and they had attempted to deal with a by prescribing text-books and by other measures. But the difficulty was inherent in the situation. The Government of India could only be neutral as to religious instruction, and therefore we should have to put up with this difficulty and the difficulties we were now exposed to would multiply and increase. He had seen a statement made by the superintendent of the municipal schools of Bombay. That gentleman was a Parsee and there-
1358
fore impartial as well as capable. He said—
"The Indian student does not command much influence among the masses of his countrymen and does not represent them."
He believed that to be literally true. There must be something wrong he thought about a system of education which produced students of whom such things could be said and which turned out so many lawyers that the people talked of our Government as the "Kingdom of the Lawyers." These lawyers said: "Who says we are not capable of ruling India? We rule India now." Mr. Bepin Chandra Pal had said that. Yes, but subject to the impartial British supervision. It was that feature of the system of which they desired to be rid. Did his hon. friend approve of the character of the educational establishments in Bengal, for instance, and of their results? He did not think an inquiry of the kind asked for would remove the real educational difficulty of our government of India. He did not know how it could be removed, but if it could it would be a great step forward. Those who were responsible for this system of education so little knew what they were doing that Lord Macauley in 1836 said that if his advice was taken there would not be an idolator in Bengal in thirty years time! If any change was to be made it should be in the direction of going back as far as possible to the vernacular languages. We wanted to depart from the principle of teaching everything through the medium of the English language and from inculcating the principle that anything that is good for this country must of a necessity be good for India. If the hon. Gentleman could institute an inquiry or Commission which would remove this difficulty, he himself would gladly vote for it. But because he believed that no inquiry would be able to solve this question and that an inquiry now would only have the effect of stirring up factious agitation which was now on the wane, he should vote against the Motion.
*SIR J. JARDINEsaid the hon. Member had spoken strongly against the Motion, but he was only a private Member, and the House had

1359
the right to hear any political reasons there might be against the inquiry from the responsible representative of the India Office. In these Indian debates there were so many Members of great Indian experience and sometimes of high position who wished to speak that they were almost bound to speak with their eyes on the clock.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
*SIR J. JARDINE,continuing, said that this being the great inquest of the nation it must not be supposed that the discussion must mean censure of the Government of India. He agreed very much with what had been said by the mover and seconder of the Resolution, and concurred in the view that more education was wanted, and that it would have an extremely beneficial effect on the masses of the people. It was necessary to put the ryots and the peasantry upon something like fair terms with the money-lenders and. the petty officials who now tormented them. Without doubt, in regard to processes of agriculture and manufacture of many kinds, technical education would prove a great blessing in India. He had had the opportunity of observing the work done by colleges and Universities in higher education, and he could say that in India, as in this country, and as in Ancient Greece, learning had been well justified of her children. Much of the improvement, the social reforms, the progress in practical arts and in development of the resources of the country had been started and carried out by natives who had received the benefit of higher education. It was one of those matters which might well be submitted to inquiry. It was admitted that by means of the colleges and Universities the public service had been supplied and advanced both in learning and integrity. That was one of the commonplaces they might hear any day from Indian statesmen at prize-givings. The new education had really changed the whole state of things. The subject was often complicated by discussions as to the effect of University education upon
1360
speculative political thought and the loyalty of the people. He thought these things were beyond the question. It was difficult to know how much was due to education. Once they had wakened up the mind to think in unaccustomed grooves then they got an element of speculative thought thrown across the landscape of life and what the result would be no one could tell. He thought they might leave these matters out of consideration. The same kind of objection was raised in Ancient Greece when the questioning methods of philosophers like Socrates began to make people think. He was charged with sapping the moral foundations on which the ancient order reposed, with unsettling the minds of youth. Supposing it was true, it could still be said that by education much of the ancient fanaticism had been exploded. He thought a case had been made out as to whether the time had not come for a much greater extension of education in India. They all knew there were great difficulties in the way; those who had had most to do with India were most aware of that fact. Many of the people who forty or fifty years ago were obstinately against any great change were, however, now willing. He would urge that inquiry might be made into the question as to how far the Government had gone forward or had been guilty of shortcoming in getting the natives to join in the management of every sort of educational concern. The chief value of high bodies of learning in India was that Europeans and natives met on terms of learned and academical equality and there was a large exchange of views. Where they had western people laying down the law for oriental communities that was a very desirable thing, and it might be carried out much further. He thought there would be a great advantage in having sonic such inquiry as had been suggested by the hon. Member who moved the Resolution. It was evading the question to try and make out that this was some sort of censure upon the Government of India. It was waste of time to lavish praise on distinguished Viceroys whom no speaker had abused. He would remind the House of an ancient Latin problem:

1361
Whoever found fault with Hercules? The Motion raised a very serious question. It was admitted that the money spent annually on education in India was nothing great. There was a tendency now in the highest official circles in India to make elementary education free, and there was a great discussion of the subject going on in England. It would be a good thing if this inquiry were begun, even if it were confined to one province and to finding out what methods had been successful there. If the inquiry took place in the small province of Burma where there had been uncommonly good results through establishing a popular Educational Board, where not only departmental officials but all the learned professions, the missionary colleges, and the Buddist monks were well represented, he could understand that it would be an advantage to the officials when the report was sent in. He wished particularly to endorse what his hon. friend had said as to the great advantage of the professors sent out from this country being imbued a great deal with a knowledge of oriental people and a great regard for them. The great danger now was that we might be altogether too western in our notions. In old times it was sometimes said that every European who went out to India used to degenerate towards the oriental character. Sir James Mackintosh recorded that the mild ones among us became Brahmanised and the haughtier ones sultanised. There were disadvantages but also advantages in that, and he thought the danger now was that in the administration of education as well as of other things we might not be giving sufficient weight to the feelings of the people, their learning, their traditions, their religions, and generally to the pervading influences of that peculiar world in which they had been born and in which they had grown up and into which we had been pitched. Therefore, for such reasons as had occurred to him in the course of the debate, he should support the Resolution.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he could not claim to speak with the export knowledge of those who had addressed the House, but the subject of education necessarily had a special interest for him,
1362
and he had long made the subject of Education in India a matter of special study. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had expressed surprise that so few members were present to listen to the debate, and he especially singled out the Opposition as failing in that respect; but, if educational discussion at home were to turn upon questions of that kind, upon the vast differences between the west and the east, upon certain political discussions and differences, and upon divergencies on purely financial questions, he wondered what interest they would raise in the House even if the Motion related to education at home. It was not at all necessary to enter upon these wider questions in connection with education. Could they not leave them open and direct their attention to the very definite questions which called for solution? The House was not provided with the necessary material for fully discussing the question; and, even when they did get to discussing it, instead of confining themselves to purely educational matters they got into all sorts of side issues of caste and political divergencies. There were two or three educational matters which struck him as requiring attention and amendment in India. He would not say this if he depended merely on his own knowledge, but he was convinced he would have the agreement of the majority of those actually engaged in the administration of India and especially of education there. His own observation on the spot had only confirmed those views. The first of these was no doubt the difficulty that had been referred to, that the education was too bookish and not sufficiently practical. That was quite true, but how could they teach technical art and workmanship in a country where the particular inhabitants were brought up to inherit a particular trade and not to interfere with any other? They were carpenters or weavers, or followed some inherited and well-defined handicraft, and they would not change. It was very hard to spread technical knowledge of a general kind among a population of that sort. In fact the question of technical education n India was a subject of vast difficulty. No one could fail to be impressed by its

1363
defects, and also by its urgent need; but the utmost caution was required in seeing how to engraft it upon the local conditions. As for the question of free education, it was almost a mockery to speak of it. The fee paid was very often something like two annas a month or a nominal fee of that sort. In most cases there was also some payment in kind, but such payment in kind was traditional and usual. He wanted rather to come to that part of education which came more prominently before an Englishman visiting India, and on which he was perhaps able to form a better opinion. The first defect he had seen in the secondary schools, comparing them with our own, was what applied there far more than in elementary schools—the lack of any practical technical education. It seemed to him as he went through school after school that there was a mildew over the work in this respect. He would give only one instance. He remembered having been shown by the head of one of these schools an instrument for taking Marconi messages. He asked with what place they were connected and was told there was no connection and that it was simply an instrument to show how a message was taken. It was of no more value for technical education than a toy, giving no scientific knowledge of the subject at all. The same sort of thing spread through it all and no one was more ready to admit the defects than the heads of some of these colleges. There was another defect which went far deeper, and that was that the education, faulty and defective as it was, was far too much regulated by the evil system of examinations. He was not going to praise or blame those who established the educational system in India. It was established at a time when the worship of competitive examinations held full sway and when it was believed that it and it alone was to regenerate education. He referred to the ideas prevaling in the third quarter of last century. We had learnt better. We had learnt that the system was thoroughly false, and were getting quit of it as fast as we could from our schools. More and more we were feeling that it was wrong, that it took away from the teacher the real influence that he ought to have, and
1364
that it made school work a degrading and not a fruitful pursuit. That was exactly what they had got and what they apparently could not break away from in India. He remembered a conversation he had with one of the very best of the principals of these schools, who told him how he was held down in all his work by the necessity of preparing exclusively for these examinations. He must work his scholars solely for matriculation or the first B.A. examination or some or other of the University examinations. He said—
"Why, do you know what I have been doing to-day. I have been teaching these Indian boys 'Silas Marner,' and Shelley's 'Ode to a Skylark.' They could not understand one word of it."
They could not get that into the minds of these people. A book like "Silas Marner" was absolutely unintelligible to an Eastern student. Yet against his will, knowing that it was doing no good, this able and highly qualified principal was being forced to teach according to this treadmill work. He knew the difficulties perfectly well. He knew the hon. Gentleman would put forward the difficulty of getting rid of the system, and point out that they could not without it maintain any uniform standard or trust the localities not to undersell each other. That might be true. He admitted the difficulty; but unless they could get over that some way or other, and get rid of this competitive system, they would never have real education in India. One other point he would press on the hon. Gentleman. He was not in favour of a new Commission of Inquiry. Let them not pull things up constantly by the roots to see how they were growing. It was the worst thing in the world. Let them leave education to grow by itself. If any official went wrong let them hang him. Let them bring him to book and turn him off, but let them not interfere with his work by a constant recourse to the meddling of Commissions. He knew what these Commissions would do. They had had a tendency already to this interference of officialism at home. Personally he regretted the sending out of a junior official from England to take a portion of authority over old and experienced men. The hon.

1365
Member who had moved the Resolution hoped that no one connected with Indian education would be a Member of the Commission—no one, that was to say, who had given his life to the work, and necessarily knew it. In sending out a Commission which was to be exempt from any sort of experience, to be drawn from new men, who were to be dumped upon India without knowledge of the vernacular, which could only be slowly acquired, would be to commit over again the mistake that was made between 1850 and 1860, when this county dumped upon India its new idea of competitive examination. Let them try to develop the genius of the Indian people on their own lines and get rid, if they could, of that absurd idea that they could only teach higher education through the medium of the English language. The very same Principal whose words he had just quoted told him that the very best student of philosophy he had ever met with in India could not get his degree in philosophy on the verdict of the examiners, although they all agreed with the Principal in placing him at the highest intellectual level, simply because he was not familiar with the English language. Could there be anything more absurd? They had to train these natives to take their place in native States as Indian gentlemen, Indian landlords, and leaders of Indian society, which was far better than that they should be Babus or lawyers or agitators. Why should they be taught that no knowledge can come except through the language of a Western island? Some of the wisest men he had met amongst our own administrators regretted this superstitious cultivation of the English language among the natives. One very high official, in all but the highest official rank in India, told him that he had called on an Indian gentleman and finding his children alone in the room he began to speak to them in Hindustani. They said they did not know the language, but if he would speak in English they could understand him. So far had this superstition gone that in certain Indian families the children were discouraged from speaking in their own vernacular, but were encouraged to speak in a foreign language. He was not in
1366
favour of a new Commission of Inquiry bringing in a flood of alien ideas, but he would press the hon. Gentleman to consider one point which he thought essential for the bettering of educational administration in India. A great scheme of educational change could only be put forward in the Viceroy's Council through the Secretary for the Home Department in India. How should we do here if the Board of Education could only be represented in the Cabinet by the Home Secretary or sonic alien official? He was perfectly certain that in the working of the Education Department they could not have their views properly laid before the highest authority until they had a representative on the Viceroy's Council. He had heard over and over again complaints amongst the educational administrators of India of the difficulty they had felt—that after they had elaborated their scheme the whole thing had to go through the gamut of secretaries, under-secretaries, and clerks in another Department. He knew that the general view of the official in India was against this, but he was certain if he had learnt anything in educational administration that the complaint made by the educational administration in India was a just and right one, and that they would never have a sound scheme brought forward and carried through or even considered with due care unless they had what all the other administrative Departments of India had, a representative of their own on the Viceroy's Council.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE,): I regret that my hon. friend the Under-Secretary for India is prevented by indisposition from being present on this occasion to reply for the Government. The hon. Member who has just sat down has indicated as his remedy, for many of the educational defects in the educational system of India the adding of another member to the Viceroy's Executive Council. But quite apart from the difficulties in the way of adding a member to that Council I cannot help expressing my own feeling, drawn from a very considerable experience at close quarters with Indian administration, that an additional member

1367
on the Viceroy's Council generally means delay and not expedition in the treatment of subjects, and while I have no authority to speak on behalf of the India Office upon this matter my own opinion is clearly against any such remedy. The Resolution before the House is that there should be an inquiry into "the scope, character, and methods of education in India." It has been suggested in the course of the debate that it would practically, be a censure upon the Government of India if such an inquiry were instituted. I have had an opportunity of seeing Indian administration at the closest possible quarters during the last six months, and I am in a position to tell the House with confidence that there is no subject, amongst all those which occupy the attention of those entrusted with the government of India, which is so close to their hearts and so much occupies their constant attention as that of education. If I were to indulge in any personal criticism of that administration I should say that their thoughts are too much and not too little occupied with the subject of education. Quite apart from the effect which the acceptance of this Motion might have upon the Government of India, I should like the House to consider what the Government has done daring the last ten years. The hon. Member for Hackney has pointed out that the amount spent upon education in India is comparatively small. I agree. It is now about £2,500,000, but that is an increase in the last ten years of 80 per cent. upon the previous expenditure. Since the year 1895–6 that expenditure has gone up from £1,400;000 in round figures to £2,500,000 in the year 1905–6. It is said that more money is wanted for education. But there is not a service in India which does not utter the same cry; so that the House has to choose whether it will increase the taxation of India, or reduce the expenditure on certain objects, or starve the future requirements of India in respect of sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries, which are badly wanted in the country districts, and agriculture. All these are the pressing needs of India, and their provision means a substantial addition to expenditure. While on the one hand we have this demand for increased expenditure, the Government are
1368
threatened with a possible diminution of income in India from opium. We are also faced in the present year with a balance which, although it is on the right side, is so small that we cannot by any means be assured that we shall find ourselves on the right side in the future. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out what advantages have been derived by the people of India from this increased grant for educational purposes during the last ten years. The number of educational institutions has gone up from 152,000 to 160,000, and the number of persons attending from 4,300,000 to 5,250,000. Therefore there has been a notable and substantial addition to the number of persons who desire to take advantage of the education provided, and who have had facilities afforded them for bettering their position. And here let me say how cordially I agree with everything that has fallen from hon. Members on both sides of the House as to the advantages of education given in the vernacular. There has been a notable increase in the number of those who have studied the vernacular and received their education through its aid. The numbers have increased by 700,000 and the attendances of those in the primary schools are equally satisfactory. I hope I have not dwelt upon these very material facts at undue length. Let me now return for a moment to the inquiry suggested in the Motion. Reference has been made to the Educational Commission, under the chairmanship of Sir William Hunter, which was instituted during Lord Ripon's Viceroyalty. The effects of that Commission are reviewed quinquennially; and the Report, which is expected this year, will, I am sure, be very satisfactory reading to hon. Members. But there has been more recent investigations. In 1902 there was an Indian Universities Commission, the result of which was that the control of the Universities over the affiliated colleges and high schools has been greatly increased and the standard of education raised. In 1901–2 there was a technical education committee, which resulted first of all in the appointment of certain special instructors of high attainments; and secondly in a special grant of 2½ lakhs for technical

1369
instruction. Some of the methods in the technical schools have been criticised, but I myself have found in one school the practice of weaving being taught on a commercial scale. Some of the pupils themselves introduced a hand loom, and so simplified the machine as greatly to reduce the cost. There has also been the Simla Conference of 1901, which was attended by all the directors of public instruction of the provincial Governments, and led to the entire reconstruction of educational methods and control in India. It led further to a great reduction of examination and to a great increase of inspection—a change which has been decidedly beneficial. Now, what is the present system in India? The universities are controlled by their own senates, and the higher schools and colleges are more or less largely controlled by the university authorities. I think that in most cases—I am not sure that I can say all—they receive considerable grants from the Government. Then there is the case of the middle schools. I am not altogether sure that they are in a satisfactory state. They are largely under the control of the municipal authorities, and the inquiries which I and my colleagues have had to conduct in India on another subject, and which it was impossible in many cases not to include under the head of education, have led me clearly to the conclusion that an education tax is not regarded by them with any satisfaction at all. That is natural. We are not load of taxes in our own country. An education tax does not bring with it an immediate return, and while we regret the apathy with which education is regarded by the municipalities I think that after all that is a passing condition of sentiment, and no doubt the time will come when in the municipalities in question they will perceive the advantage of rating themselves for the benefit of their own children. I come now to the case of the primary schools. These are under the control mostly of local boards, assisted no doubt by Government grants. Here my own experience leads me to think that there is far too much interference with the educational authorities in the primary schools, and, although the district boards may not conduct the
1370
primary schools as the Education Department might desire at the present moment, I would rather see greater responsibility placed on the district boards with the view of their educating themselves in the management of these schools, so that eventually both the boards and the schools might become more interested in education than they are now. Reference has been made to female education. Nobody who has ever been in India, for however brief a period, or who has in any way studied Indian problems, can have omitted to notice the extraordinary advance which has been made in the education of girls. The religions, caste and tradition, are against it, and it is very slowly indeed that the gates are being opened to the females of India to place them on the high road of education. It is impossible to force upon any class in India the education of their female relatives until they themselves arc ready to send them to school. Let me add this. There has been to a limited extent, from all that I can gather, a very great change in the opinion of certain classes in India as to female education. I recollect very well on one occasion I saw performed in public certain dances by female children of Brahmins—an exhibition which, I am told, twenty years ago would have been absolutely impossible. That is a mark of the progress, almost the revolution, which has taken place on that subject in the course of the last quarter of a century. I have dwelt on education as applied to the general masses of the population of India. I have not mentioned what is a very important factor in Indian social life, namely, that there has been a distinct attempt to give instruction to the ruling classes—the chiefs and the aristocracy. There are five colleges all doing excellent work in the training of chiefs to take a serious part in the administration of their States, and everyone who has visited and seen these colleges cannot help testifying, I think, to the efficiency of the educational work they are doing. As to the people administering the great system of education, there is the Indian educational service recruited in this country, the provincial service recruited in India—these two forming what is called the superior service—and there is the

1371
subordinate service recruited entirely in India. I do not know that all these three classes are in an entirely satisfactory condition. There are improvements which might possibly be made in the status and condition of entry into these classes, and these alterations and improvements are occupying the careful and earnest attention of the Secretary of State. We have heard a great deal as to the feeling here on education in India. We are entitled to ask what is the state of feeling in India on education. One class, not inconsiderable as regards numbers and influence, would like to see examinations lessen and graduates increase. On the other hand, an increasing class in India, as I heard from the Vice-Principal of Calcutta University, want to see education "screwed up," so to speak—concentrated in a smaller number of schools of greater efficiency, in which the standard of instruction is very high and the teachers most capable. I entirely sympathise with that school of thought, and I should like the university degree to connote a high standard of education. I think it is almost impossible to deny that in many places the municipal authorities are apathetic as regards the matter of education in relation to primary schools. I hope that there is an increasing interest among the district authorities in that country. I am quite certain as to the kind of encouragement which ought to be given in the primary schools. It is only in what are called the backward districts that there is any freedom or latitude at all given to the local authorities as to the kind of education given in the schools. I should like to see that extended so that the education might be adapted to the requirements of the district, and I should like to see very much greater advantage taken of the schools which are maintained by the priestly class in Burmah and Scinde. I do not think enough advantage has been taken of these two mediums, and more sympathetic administration might conduce to greater use of them. I am glad to think that the authorities in these two provinces are well aware of the shortcomings of the past, and that it is their intention to make greater use of these mediums in the future than they have
1372
hitherto done. If, on behalf of the Secretary of State, I am unable to accept the Resolution it must be understood that it is not because there is not the fullest sympathy with the object in view and with the opinions expressed; it is rather because the work of education in India has progressed and is steadily being pushed forward, and any inquiry of the sort suggested would not really expedite it.
EARL PERCYexpressed his concurrence with the view of the hon. Gentleman, and hoped his transfer to another sphere of political life would not prevent his taking part in these debates. One inquiry had not been referred to, that made by the central government of local governments on the subject of free education. He hoped that the replies of the local governments would be placed before the House.
MR. LAIDLAWsaid he had no wish to press his Motion. The debate had been useful and interesting, and had served its purpose in eliciting the statement just made. He hoped that any expressions he might have used would not be construed into an attack on the Indian Government, the Secretary of State, or any of the officials connected with the Education Department.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LICENSING BILL.
Postponed Proceeding on Amendment to Question [28th April],"That the Bill be now read a second time," resumed.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
Adjourned at two minutes after Eleven o'clock.