Sitting of 9 December 1908

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

  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By ORDER).
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid the North British Railway Company was one of several companies that had entered into a combination, and he had received a communication from the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce pointing out that these companies were calling upon traders to sign documents freeing them from claims that might arise.
  MR. SPEAKER: Which clause is the hon. Member referring to?
  MR. C. E. PRICE: Clause 1.
  MR. SPEAKER: Clause 1 says, "This order may for all purposes be cited as the North British Railway Order."
  MR. C. E. PRICE, continuing, stated that at the Waverley Station, Edinburgh, the North British Railway Company were discharging a large number of hands.
  MR. SPEAKER: Which clause is that? The hon. Member must make his speech relevant to the clauses of the Bill.
  MR. SMEATON: Am I not entitled to state to the House objections on general grounds, apart from the text of the Bill, to the passing of this Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: On the Third Reading the hon. Member must confine himself strictly to the clauses of the Bill.
  MR. SMEATON: Then I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Smeaton)—put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next, at a quarter past Eight of the Clock.

PETITIONS.
  ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  Petition from Launceston, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Inverness, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Judicial Statistics for England and Wales, 1907. Part II. (Civil Judicial Statistics) edited by Sir John Macdondell, C.B., LL.D., Master of the Supreme Court [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LAND PURCHASE PRICES (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd December; Mr. Flynn]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 356.]
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 7th December; Mr. William O'Brien]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 357.]

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY BOROUGH OF EXETER).
  Return ordered, "comprising, (1) the Reports made to the Charity Commissioners in the result of an Inquiry held in the County Borough of Exeter into Endowments, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1895, and appropriated in whole or in part for the benefit of that County Borough, or of any part thereof, together with the Reports on those Endowments of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning Charities, 1818 to 1837; (2) a Digest showing whether any, and, if any, what such Endowments are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners in the County Borough; and (3) an index, alphabetically arranged, of names and places mentioned in the Reports."—(Mr. Soares.)
Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Portsmouth Harbour Defence Works and Danger to Coasting Craft.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received a petition, signed by some 700 mariners and fishermen of Portsmouth, representing that the new Admiralty works for protecting the entrance of Portsmouth Harbour are, in their present form, not

    445
    only preventing the said mariners and fishermen from following their avocations, but also constitute a danger to their lives and vessels; whether he is aware that there have been already several accidents to boats resulting from these works; and whether he will consider the request of these petitioners to have a slight modification effected in the arrangement of the concrete blocks so that one navigable opening may be left in time of peace which could readily be closed in time of war.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The petition referred to by the hon. Member has been received. While it is recognised that the work may cause some inconvenience to coasting craft, it does not constitute a danger to them if proper care is exercised. One case has been reported in which a boat was slightly damaged. The modification proposed by the petitioners would impair the utility of the work, which is necessary for the proper defence of the harbour, and, looking to the important interests involved, it is regretted that a departure from the original scheme, as indicated, cannot be made.

    Board of Trade Examinations for Master Mariners and Mates.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the notice issued by the Marine Department, and which came into operation on 1st April of this year, as to candidates for certificates of competency as master or mate, showing that they possess a knowledge of first-aid to the injured, the fees for which are not likely in any case to exceed £1 1s., is not being carried out; that the fees are about double that mentioned above, whereas at the adjoining ports of South Shields and Hartlepool the fees are 15s. and £1 1s., respectively; that such restrictions act as a hindrance to candidates taking the ambulance certificate in Sunderland; and, if so, will he state what action he intends to take, with a view to giving more favourable facilities than now exist to candidates in Sunderland.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I am aware that in certain cases the fees charged at Sunderland for instruction and examination in first-aid to the
    446
    injured are higher than those estimated in the notice referred to and than those charged at neighbouring ports. The Board of Trade have been in communication with the St. John's Ambulance Association on the subject, but the association state that they are unable to interfere in the financial arrangements of their local centre at Sunderland, and the Board have no power to require a revision of those arrangements. It may be pointed out that it is open to candidates to use the facilities at neighbouring ports in the cases in which the higher fees are payable at Sunderland.

    Policing of Primrose Hill.
    SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.): To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has received complaints as to the insufficient policing of Primrose Hill; how many keepers and constables are employed by day and by night on the hill; and whether he proposes to increase the number.
    (Answered by Mr. L. Harcourt.) My attention has been drawn to the desirability of additional park-keepers for Primrose Hill. The number at present is, by day two park-keepers; by night two police constables. It is proposed to appoint an additional park-keeper in the coming year for day duty. The policing at night is in the hands of the Commissioner of Police.

    Evicted Tenants—Application of J. P. Listen.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners received an application from John P. Liston, of Cooltomin, Shanagoldon, in the county of Limerick, for reinstatement in the holding from which his father, since deceased, was evicted; and, if so, what action do they intend to take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners do not propose to take any action on this application. The holding in question was bought under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891. The applicant is the owner of a portion of it, and his aunt is the owner of the remainder.

    Delay in Giving Grants to Evicted Tenants on the Knight of Glin's Estate.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what is the cause of delay in giving grants to the evicted tenants on the Knight of Glin's estate, at Glin, in the county of Limerick; is he aware that these tenants were reinstated last May and promised grants to enable them to pay the percentage on the purchase money pending completion of sale, and that unless provision be made for them at once to enable them to stock their farms they cannot in the future pay their instalments.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that

    —

    1903.

    1904.

    1905.

    1906.

    1907.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Government

    236,120

    211,855

    309,566

    309,567

    298,615

    Commercial:

    Spirits

    220,871

    277,300

    262,256

    301,738

    385,505

    Other

    1,671,151

    1,933,558

    2,020,584

    2,236,013

    3,155,219

    Total Value of imports*

    2,128,142

    2,422,713

    2,592,406

    2,847,318

    3,839,339

    * Exclusive of specie imported.

    Value of Marsh Land Purchased at Glasgow Green.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland with reference to the property of about forty-three acres of marsh land beside the Clyde, near Glasgow Green, which was purchased by the Glasgow Corporation about ten years ago, and part of which has now been made up into Richmond Park, what was the total area purchased; when was the purchase effected; what was the price per acre; what was the total price; and what was being taken as the annual value for rating of that property as a whole at the time of purchase.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The total area purchased was 44 acres 8 poles. The date of purchase was Whit-
    the purchase agreements signed by these tenants were not lodged until the end of October last. The Commissioners are considering the question of making them grants.

    Imports into Southern Nigeria.
    MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total amount in value of the imports into Southern Nigeria during each of the last five years, distinguishing alcoholic liquors and also articles imported by the Government itself for railway and other purposes.
    (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The figures are:—
    Sunday, 1898. The price per acre was £1,000, and was fixed by a valuator named by purchasers and sellers. The total price was £44,050, loss £2,926 19s., the capitalised value of feu duties for which purchasers were to be liable. The land purchased formed part of a larger area and was not separately shown on the valuation roll. It is estimated that its annual rateable value was about £300.

    Hampstead Telephone Exchange.
    MR. BELLOC (Salford, S.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether the day staff had left the Hampstead telephone exchange before the night staff came on duty upon Sunday, 11th October last.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In no case did a telephonist leave her position until relieved by a night operator

    449
    on the 11th October last, and the charge of the exchange was not handed over to the chief night operator by the supervisor until the whole of the day staff had been relieved.

    Report of Interdepartmental Conference on the Coastguard.
    MR. REMNANT: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why the further Report of the Interdepartmental Conference on the Coastguard, which has been received by the Admiralty, should not be made public at once; and whether he will undertake to do so without delay.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 2nd December to the hon. Member for the Strand. The Report is being dealt with in this Department, and no statement with regard to its publication can yet be given.

    Old-Age Pensions—Remuneration to Pension Officers.
    MR. LEVY LEVER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the scale of remuneration to clerks to pension committees and to postmasters for their work in connection with the old-age pension scheme has been fixed, and that the pension officers have been promised extra remuneration for their work, he will state the amount per claim that will be paid to the latter officials.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the Answer I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for the Thornbury division on the 3rd instant.

    Old-Age Pensions—Claim of John Ryan.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a man named John Ryan, who spent fifty years in one employment, was an applicant for an old-age pension, and fully satisfied the Kilkenny committee of the justice of his claim in the matter of age and with regard to every other qualifying condition, and that his claim was rejected by the pensions officer on the ground that he was in the workhouse hospital for a short time recently, being taken there by the union doctor for special treatment of
    450
    some disease which could not be properly treated in his home; whether he is aware that John Ryan, since his discharge from the hospital, has repaid to the union the cost of his maintenance and treatment while in hospital; whether, under all the circumstances, this man is entitled to the pension; and will he instruct the pensions officers that it shall be allowed to him.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The question whether the man is entitled to a pension is for the pension committee to determine, subject to appeal to the Local Government Board. If a pension has been refused by the committee it is, of course, open to the claimant to appeal.

    Old-Age Pensions—Disqualification through Illness in Union Hospitals.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Board of Inland Revenue have issued instructions to pension officers in Ireland to treat claimants for old-age pensions who had been, through illness, in union hospitals as disqualified; whether the Board in issuing such Order in Ireland had acted on the opinion of a qualified Irish lawyer; whether the legal grounds, if any, on which the Board's view was based would be furnished to the local pension committees for their information and consideration; whether such committees would be furnished with funds and other facilities for obtaining the best independent legal advice obtainable on the question; and whether the Government will provide some tribunal to hear and decide appeals on behalf of the pensions committees, and provide the necessary funds to enable the committees to be represented by counsel.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are advised that maintenance in a union hospital constitutes a disqualification under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Old-Age Pensions Act, and pension officers who have made inquiries on the point have been informed accordingly. Pension committees are, however, not bound by the opinion either of the pension officer or of the Board of Inland Revenue, and they can, if they feel any doubt on the subject, apply for advice to the Local Government Board, or, if they are satisfied that there

    451
    is no disqualification, they can grant the pension. In the latter case, it will of course be open to the pension officer to appeal against the grant to the Local Government Board, with whom, under the Act, the final decision rests. The Local Government Board (who are the appeal authority provided by the Act) have access to the highest legal advice, and I understand that they are prepared to consider any representations made to them by pension committees, and I see no sufficient reason for adopting the suggestions made in the Question, to which, in any case, effect could not be given without further legislation.

    Old-Age Pensions and Poor Law Belief.
    MR. L. HASLAM: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether under the Old-Age Pensions Act, a person, having received Poor Law relief during 1908 and precluded thereby from the benefits of the Act during the following year, will be precluded from its benefits during the years 1910–11 if he has not received Poor Law relief during the years 1909–10.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Under the law as it stands at present such a person would be disqualified until the 31st December, 1910; after that date he would be eligible for a pension.

    Payment of Irish Poor Law Officials for Extra Work caused by making Returns for Royal Commission.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that many of the officials under the control of Poor Law Guardian Boards in Ireland were engaged for some months this year in making out Royal Commission Returns over and above their ordinary duties, and that certain of these officials have not yet been paid for this extra work; whether in the event of the board of guardians paying for this work, the amount involved will be refunded by the Treasury; and, if not, what steps, if any, will he take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am aware that extra duties have been discharged by certain officers by boards of guardians in Ireland in connection with the preparation of the Returns referred to, which were ordered by Parliament. I under-
    452
    stand that some of these officers have not been paid by the boards for their extra work. As regards the concluding portion of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question asked by the hon. Member for South Wexford on the 26th November.

    Army Pension for S. J. Frost, Late 1st Scottish Rifles.
    MR. CAVE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Samuel Joseph Frost, late of the 1st Battalion Scottish Rifles and 1st Mounted Infantry, on his enlistment in 1888 was medically examined and passed as fit for service; whether, after upwards of four years efficient service, he was found to be suffering from varicose veins and discharged without a pension or allowance; whether the man attributes his disability to exposure while on military duty; and whether his case can be reconsidered with a view to the grant of a pension or compassionate allowance.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This man was discharged in 1892 as stated. As the medical report was to the effect that the varicose veins were neither caused nor aggravated by military service, but were constitutional in origin, the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital decided that he had no claim to pension. His case has already been reconsidered, and the man was informed on the 25th November last, that there were no grounds for departing from the previous decision.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Conditions of Service in the Navy.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether young men on joining the Navy are informed of the amount of compensation they will receive in the event of their contracting illness as the result of exposure when on duty and being discharged as unfit for further service; and, if not, whether the rules of the Admiralty as to compensation will in future be made known to all entrants so that the risks of the service may be appreciated.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative; but the pamphlet issued to candidates for the Navy informs them that the conditions of service are to be found in the King's Regulations, which contain all information on the subject. The pension regulations relating to injury and disability depend so much upon the circumstances of the individual case, that their insertion in recruiting pamphlets and posters would be of very little practical value to recruits, and would in many cases undoubtedly mislead them.

    Admiralty Contract at Portsmouth.
    MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to Clause 2 of the wages and working conditions agreed to by representatives of the contractors and the navvies and labourers in the Portsmouth district, which states that the wages shall be 6d. per hour; whether Messrs. Morrison and Mason, the contractors for the new lock, are paying 5d. per hour to their navvies and labourers; and whether this breach of the Fair Wages Clause of the contract, signed by the contractors with the Admiralty Board, has been sanctioned by his Department.
    MR. MCKENNA: I must refer my hon. friend to a long reply I gave to a similar Question on this subject from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton on 30th November. According to the information I have received, Messrs. Morrison and Mason are paying 6d. an hour to a number of their navvies and labourers. Those who are receiving less than this wage appear to be paid at the same rate as is paid by other employers in the district for similar work. The working conditions referred to have been fully considered by the Admiralty.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor decided that when the regulation wage was 5½d. per hour, contractors for dock construction should pay that sum as a minimum? And now that rates have increased, is a fair wage paid when the amount is reduced?
    MR. MCKENNA: The investigations made by the Admiralty show that labourers who can properly be described as navvies are paid 6d. per hour, but there is another class of labour receiving loss, and such labour is paid at the same rate by all other large employers in Portsmouth.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received an official letter from the Contractors' Association in the locality protesting against the decision of his Department in allowing this firm to pay less than the proper rate of wages?
    MR. MCKENNA: I must ask for notice. Such a letter has not come under my personal observation.
    MR. BRAMSDON: How many men are getting 6d. per hour?
    MR. MCKENNA: I should like notice of that Question also.

    Newcastle-on-Tyne Artillery.
    MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what number of batteries of Royal Artillery are at present stationed in Newcastle-on-Tyne; what number of men and horses belonging to each battery are actually in barracks there; and what is the age of the guns with which such batteries are armed.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,: There is one training brigade of Royal Feld Artillery of three batteries at Newcastle-on-Tyne. The strength of men and horses according to the latest Returns are as follows:—

    37th battery:

    84 men;

    43 horses.

    61st battery:

    80 men;

    45 horses.

    65th battery:

    88 men;

    41 horses.

    The howitzers with which they are armed are six or seven years old.

    Worcestershire Regiment Promotion Grievance.
    CAPTAIN MORRISON-BELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a subaltern officer has been transferred from the Leicestershire regiment to the

    455
    Worcestershire regiment on his original date of commission, thus going over the heads of some forty subalterns, and has since been passed over for promotion; if so, what was the justification for this transfer which, under the circumstances, must naturally create a strong feeling of injustice amongst battalion officers in the regiment concerned who have hitherto considered themselves safe from hindrance to promotion in their own rank provided that they maintained the standard of proficiency for that rank.
    MR. ACLAND: In consequence of the recent reductions of battalions this officer of the West India regiment accepted transfer to the Leicestershire regiment as junior of his rank. When it was found necessary to resort to compulsory transfer of the supernumerary officers of these battalions to other regiments it was decided to allow officers on transfer to retain their seniority, and to restore their seniority to those who were voluntarily transferred as juniors of their rank. This officer's position in the Leicestershire regiment by seniority would have placed him over the heads of subalterns of longer service; he was accordingly transferred to the Worcestershire regiment, where his seniority did not cause him to supersede lieutenants of longer service. Had he not been transferred to the Worcestershire regiment another supernumerary officer would have been transferred in his place.

    Bombay Opium Exports.
    MR. BELLOC: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the names of the principal firms exporting opium from the port of Bombay to Chinese ports and the port of Hong-Kong.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,: We have no official or other list of the firms engaged in the trade referred to by the hon. Member, so that I cannot give him the information he asks for.
    MR. BELLOC: But is not the India Office in possession of the information?
    MR. BUCHANAN: It is not our duty to have a list of the firms engaged in a particular traffic. We may know the firms' names, but if I Were to say A. B. and C. were the principal firms, I should at once get a protest from D, E, and F.
    MR. SMEATON: But are not the shippers of the opium also the purchasers?
    MR. BUCHANAN: Very likely.
    MR. SMEATON: Then the Government ought to know the names of the exporters.

    Emigration Literature.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the circulars, posters, and other printed matter issued by the Emigrants, Information Office to shipping agents, emigration agents, post offices, and local authorities are issued free, at cost price, or at a profit; and whether the handbooks and other printed matter sold to representatives and emigration agents of the Colonies in this country are sold at cost price or at a profit.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,: The circulars and posters issued by the Emigrants' Information Office are issued free of cost. The handbooks are issued at various prices, not exceeding 6d. for any one book. Those issued at 6d. which relate to tropical possessions and certain foreign countries, probably pay for the cost of production. Those issued at lower prices, including the 1d. hand books on the self-governing Colonies, are issue at a loss.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Do I understand that this printed matter is supplied to shipping agents at cost price or below it?
    COLONEL SEELY: On the more expensive ones we probably make a slight profit, but not with the cheaper work. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me a week's notice I can supply him with a profit and loss account.

    Chinese Coolies in the Transvaal.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Chinese coolies were employed in the Transvaal mines in January, 1906; how many are employed at the present time; and by what date it is expected that all the Chinese coolies will be repatriated.
    COLONEL SEELY: 47,166 Chinese were employed in the Transvaal mines in January, 1906. On 31st October last—the latest figure which I have—there were, I understand, 12,317. The last of the coolies should be leaving South Africa in January, 1910.
    MR. SMEATON: Is 47,000 the maximum number?
    COLONEL SEELY: No; the maximum has been something over 50,000.

    Mr. Churchill's African Tour.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister for how long the President of the Board of Trade, when Under-Secretary for the Colonies, was absent from the Colonial Office on his journey to British East Africa, Uganda, and elsewhere; what length of time he spent in Nairobi and British East Africa and how many deputations he received there; what was the object of these deputations; and what was done to adjust and regulate the relations between the settlers, natives, and the Government, which was the avowed object of the Under-Secretary's mission.
    COLONEL SEELY: Mr. Churchill was absent from the Colonial Office from October, 1907, to January, 1908. He arrived at Mombasa on 28th October, and received there deputations from the Goanese community and Planters' Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Zanzibar Khojas. He was at Nairobi from 4th to 15th November. He received addresses from the Colonists' Association, the Pastoralists' Association and the Indian, Goanese, and African communities. Deputations from the Colonists' Association discussed with him the following subjects: Land tenure; labour; agricultural and commercial, problems; white colonisation; mining
    458
    laws; and the administration of law. As regards the last purl of the Question, the main object of Mr. Churchill's mission was to make himself acquainted with the Protectorate. The knowledge which he acquired has been of much service to His Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the consideration of the many questions arising in connection with East Africa, but it is impossible to give within the limits of an Answer to a Parliamentary Question an account of the action of the Protectorate Government on these questions. Such an account must be sought in the administration Reports of the Protectorate.
    MR. FELL: Could we not have first hand from the President of the Board of Trade the report of his interesting visit to those countries, rather than seek for them in the administration papers?
    COLONEL SEELY: If the hon. Gentleman wishes for that information he had better ask my right hon. friend. But I daresay he can obtain it at any bookstall.
    MR. SWIFT MACNETLL: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, so far as he is aware, did the President of the Board of Trade give any illegal tea-parties in the town-halls of the places he visited?

    The Congo Free State.
    MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has officially recognised the transfer of the Congo Free State to Belgium; and, if so, whether guarantees have been given by the Belgian Government ensuring a continuance of international free trade in the territory transferred, as defined in the Berlin Act of 1885.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. MCKINNON WOOD,: His Majesty's Government have not yet officially recognised the transfer of the Congo Free State to Belgium. In the discussion on this subject between the two Governments, which has been presented to Parliament, the Belgium Government have formally declared their intention to abide by the Treaty obligations of the Congo State under the

    459
    Berlin Act of 1885. The position remains as disclosed in the Papers laid before Paliament.
    MR. BELLOC: Shall we have a discussion on this before the end of the present session?
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: That is not a matter on which I am able to reply.
    MR. BELLOC: Will the Papers be laid before Parliament before the end of the present session?
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: I believe they will be laid before Parliament in January.
    MR. RENWICK: Has any progress been made on the point raised in the last part of the Question?
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: That question has been answered. The Belgian Government have formally declared their intention to abide by the Treaty obligations. That covers the point.
    MR. BELLOC: Is there a guarantee that His Majesty's Government will not act before Parliament meets again?
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: Of course, my right hon. friend is taking continuous action to secure objects which I am sure have the sympathy of my hon. friend.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Secretary of State the fact that there is a large body of opinion in this House, which objects to the suppression of Papers until Parliament is not sitting?
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: There is no question of the suppression of Papers.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Well we heard nothing of the Treaty with Russia until after Parliament was prorogued.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

    Taxation of Land Values.
    MR. WALTER ROCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can obtain from
    460
    the British Ambassador in the United States, or otherwise through the agency of the Foreign Office, a full Report showing the effect of the taxation of land values in New York City and Boston U.S.A., and how such valuation was carried out.
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: His Majesty's Consul-General in New York and Boston shall be instructed to furnish Reports containing such information as is available on the subject.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirablity of getting Reports from San Francisco and other States not named in the Question where a separate valuation has been carried out?
    MR. MCKINNON WOOD: I should like notice of that Question.

    Instruction to Pension Officers.
    SIR WALTER NUGENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that pensions officers in Ireland determine the income of applications for pensions by trebling their rents; and if he can state on what grounds they do so.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,: I may perhaps be allowed to refer the hon. Baronet to the replies which I gave on this point to Questions by the hon. Member for East Tyrone, on the 10th ultimo, and to the hon. Member for Newry on the 18th ultimo.

    Pot-still Spirit.
    MR. H. C. LEA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will grant a Return showing the output of pot-still spirit in Scotland and Ireland, respectively, during the last financial year and for the six months ended 30th September last; and the output in gallons of patent-still spirit in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, for the same periods above mentioned.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The information in question is not available.

    461
    The Board of Inland Revenue are not required to discriminate, for duty or other purposes, between pot-still and patent-still spirit, and consequently separate accounts are not kept of the respective outputs.

    Irish Pension Claims.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give any explanation of the miscalculations made of the number of persons in Ireland over seventy years of age who it was anticipated would become entitled to pensions under the Pensions Act; to what does he attribute the discrepancy; and are the numbers of applications for pensions from Ireland being tested by comparison with the ages in the Census Returns on which presumably the calculations of the numbers were based.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The calculations were based on the Registrar General's estimate of total population over seventy, less the estimated number of persons who would not be qualified by reason of their possessing means above the statutory limit or for receipt of poor relief and other causes. The number of claims received indicates both that the estimate of total population over seventy was too low and that the estimate of persons in possession of means in excess of £31 10s. a year was too high. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative, the Census Returns of 1901 not being open to inspection by pension officers.
    MR. FLYNN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the percentage should be based on the population of seventy years ago rather than upon the present population, in view of the enormous migrations from Ireland, and the great decrease in the population generally?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I rather agree with my hon. friend. There is something in that. It means that the old people have remained in Ireland while a number of the more vigorous people have left the country.
    MR. FELL: Has any information reached the right hon. Gentleman to account for the great discrepancy shown and to show whether the Registrar-General in making up the figures he supplied the right hon. Gentleman with did not take into account the emigration from Ireland?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am making inquiries into this matter. It is rather premature for me to make, a statement, but the Census Returns were really not accurate. We made inquiries, and the constabulary rather confirmed the impression created by the figures that a great many people understated their ages in the Census papers.

    Pension Appeals.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether pension officers have been instructed to appeal against claims granted by a pension committee on the ground that the applicant has been absent; and, if so, will he state the nature of the instructions issued to pension officers, especially with reference to seafaring persons.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The instructions on this point are contained in the Statutory Regulations, paragraph 29 (a) (ii.), to which I may refer my hon. friend. No other instructions have been issued.

    Indecent Literature.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the re-appointment next session of the Parliamentary Committee which was appointed to consider, among other things, the subject of indecent literature, but which subject, presumably for want of time, is not dealt with in their Report of 29th July, bearing the title only of Lotteries and Indecent Advertisements.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,: The Secretary of State thinks the right hon. Member

    463
    has been misled by the title of the Report. The Report deals with indecent literature, as well as advertisements, and he hopes it may be possible to introduce legislation on the subject next session.

    Factory Employment and Inspection.
    MR. WALTER ROCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of males and females now engaged in employment coming under the Factory Acts; and the number of male and female factory inspectors employed by the Home Office in inspecting such factories.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The figures for 1904, which are the latest available, give 3,116,726 men and 1,737,821 women employed in factories and workshops, excluding workshops in which men only are employed, and excluding docks and other premises, which only come within the Act for the purposes mentioned in Sections 1904–1906. The Home Office has no Returns of persons employed in these places There are 172 men-inspectors of all classes, and 15 women-inspectors; 10 more men and 3 more women-inspectors are to be appointed to complete the authorised strength.

    Weights and Measures Acts.
    MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant a Return showing the number of stamping-stations under the Weights and Measures Acts which are located on premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor.
    The next Question on the Paper was as follows:—
    MR. BRUNNER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that stamping stations under the weights and measures Acts are frequently on premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor; and whether he will issue a circular to local authorities pointing out that this practice is undesirable.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,: I propose to answer this Question and that appearing next on the Paper to-
    464
    gether. The Weights and Measures Regulations provide that unless no other suitable promises are available a stamping-office shall not be on premises where intoxicating liquors are sold. Some latitude is necessary on account of the difficulty of finding suitable temporary premises in small villages, and from certain information in my possession, of which I will furnish my hon. friend the details it he wishes, it would seem that 19 county authorities possess among them 231 stamping-stations on licensed premises. Altogether there are 1,000 stamping-stations in these counties. I propose to obtain more complete information, and where the number of stamping-stations on licensed premises appears on the face of it to be excessive, the attention of the authority will be called to the matter. When the information is complete I will consider the desirability of issuing a Return.
    MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade has raised any objection to the use of police-stations as stamping-stations under the Weights and Measures Acts.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade have no objection to the use of police stations as stamping-stations provided the accommodation is adequate.

    Unemployment in London.
    MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what number of unemployed have been registered with the distress committees of London up to the present time; and for how many has work been found.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,: The number of the unemployed registered with the distress committees in London up to the 5th instant was 38,678. The number employed on work provided or aided by the Central (Unemployed) Body up to date is 4,185. In addition, I find from some inquiries I have made that at the beginning of the month upwards of

    465
    3,200 men had been provided with work by certain of the metropolitan borough councils.
    MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many persons are registered as unemployed in the borough of Stepney at the present time; how many were registered at the same date last year; and for how many has work been already provided.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The number of persons registered as unemployed in the borough of Stepney on the 8th instant was 1,427. The number for whom work has been provided is 244. The number registered at the same date last year was 270.

    Births and Deaths.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of births and the number of deaths which took place in the United Kingdom during the year 1906 and the year 1907, thereby showing the natural increase of the population in each of the two years named.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The number of births in the United Kingdom in 1906 was 1,170,622, and of deaths 681,343, giving an excess of births over deaths of 489,279. In 1907, the figures were: births, 1,148,573; deaths, 678,822; giving an excess of births over deaths of 469,751.

    Distress at Stoke-upon-Trent.
    MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received an application from the town council of Stoke-on-Trent to reconsider his refusal to allow such council to establish a distress committee under the Unemployed Workmen Act; and, if so, what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am in communication with the town council on the subject. I caused a letter to be written to them on the 5th instant, asking what works they have in hand
    466
    upon which, if a distress committee were established, men registered under the Act could be given employment, and I am now awaiting their reply.

    Longton Town Council and Unemployment.
    MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a resolution from the Longton Town Council, supporting the proposals contained in the Unemployed Workmen Bill, 1908, and requesting that his Department should give immediate facilities for passing a similar Bill into law; and whether he has received resolutions similar in character from other local bodies; and, if so, how many.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not find that I have received any resolution passed by the Longton Town Council with reference to the Unemployed Workmen Hill, 1908, or that resolutions from other local bodies have reached me referring specifically to this measure. I have, however, received resolutions from five town councils, twenty-one urban district councils, five rural district councils, four boards of guardians, and five distress committees in support of the Unemployed Workmen Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Leicester in 1907, and several of these refer to any other measure dealing with the same matter.

    Seamen and Pensions.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if a seafaring person occupying a small holding, his wife and family cultivating the holding In his absence, will he debarred from the old-age pension scheme by reason of his absence at sea; and, if so, if he will state what length of absence constitutes disqualification.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The condition for the receipt of a pension imposed by the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908, that a person must have had his residence in the United kingdom for at least twenty years up to the date of the receipt of a pension, is not infringed by temporary absences, if before the absences he was living in the United Kingdom, and throughout the absences he was serving

    467
    on board a vessel registered in the United Kingdom.

    Hampstead Telephone Exchange.
    MR. BELLOC: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the manager of the Hampstead Telephone Exchange has specifically refused to subscriber No. 1253 any definite in formal ion as to the cause of a delay of twenty minutes upon Sunday, 11th October last, during which delay the exchange, though there was no breach in the electrical communication between it and the subscriber, failed to attend to his call; and will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,: It is not the case that the manager of the Hampstead Telephone Exchange declined to furnish any information to the subscriber mentioned. My hon. friend has apparently been misinformed, as the manager has been in correspondence with the subscriber in question in regard to the matter, and has given an explanation of it. There docs not seem to be any necessity, therefore, to take any further action.
    MR. BBLLOC: Does the manager say he gave on explanation?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Certainly.
    MR. BELLOC: I have the letter in my pocket in which he says he will not.
    MR SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman had better let me see it.

    American Mails.
    Captain DONELAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the American mail carried by the "Lusitania," which arrived at Queenstown on Tuesday, 1st December, was taken on to Liverpool with the result that the letters were not delivered until Thursday morning, rendering it impossible for replies to be sent before the following Sunday; whether he is aware that, if this mail had been landed at Queenstown and despatched by special train, these letters would have been delivered in London early on
    468
    Wednesday afternoon in time for replies by the outgoing Thursday steamer, thus obviating a delay of three days; and can he say why this mail was not landed at Queenstown.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If the mails had been landed at Queenstown they would have reached London about 6 p.m. on Wednesday the 2nd instant, too late for delivery in business hours. The "Lusitania" was delayed by fog off the Mersey. Otherwise the mails would have reached London by 1.30 p.m., or four and a half hours earlier than if landed at Queenstown. The decision to send them on in the packet to Liverpool was arrived at after consultation with the Cunard Company.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the mails carried by the "Celtic," which arrived at Queenstown on the previous Sunday, were also taken on the "Lusitania" and that both whip and mails were held up for twenty-four hours by the fog? Did not this affect some 4,000 bags of mail?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked for notice.
    CAPTAIN DONELANurged the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the vast commercial interests involved, to direct that the special train service for Queens-town should be made use of in such cases and that Queenstown should have fair play in this matter.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Hoard of Agriculture, what States in the United States are now scheduled as infected with foot-and-mouth disease; and whether the port of Boston is still free.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,: Foot-and-mouth disease has been declared to exist in the States of Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland and Michigan, and regulations have been

    469
    made by the Federal Government prohibiting the movement of cattle from those States. The orders of the Board prohibit the importation of animals from the States of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware. Boston is still a free port.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Will the Board adopt in Europe the same system as prevails in the United States and schedule the States separately?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I explained the other day that the conditions in Europe and America were entirely different.

    The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act.
    MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many and which counties, if any, have not appointed official samplers in pursuance of the provisions of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 19060.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: All county councils have appointed official samplers.

    Small Holdings in Kent.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Kent County Council is negotiating for the acquisition of the dairy farm at Crockham Hill under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907; that the official surveyor to the county council is acting for the owner of the farm as well as for the council; and that applicants for land are asked by the surveyor to pay a rent of 25s. an acre, whereas the present tenant pays only 10s. an acre; and whether he can take steps to prevent the same person acting for both parties in these negotiations, as this practice must militate against small holdings being supplied at reasonable rates.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are aware of the negotiations to which my hon. friend refers, but they understand that the surveyor to the
    470
    council is not acting also for the owners of the farm. A proposal to appoint a salaried agent who will devote his whole tune to the work arising under the Act is now under the consideration of the county council. Until the negotiations with respect to the acquisition of the land are further advanced, it is not possible to say at what rent it will be possible to let the small holdings which it is proposed to create.

    Post Office Cheques.
    MR. WALTER ROCH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the successful working of Post Office cheques in Austria-Hungary; and whether, seeing that the same system might be of great assistance in agricultural and rural districts, the Board of Agriculture will confer with the Postmaster-General with a view to introducing the same system in this country.
    SIR EDWARD STRACTHEY: Yes, Sir, the President will take an early opportunity of conferring on this matter with my right hon. friend the Postmaster-General.

    American Farm Inquiry.
    MR. WALTER ROCH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if his attention has been called to the committee appointed by President Roosevelt to investigate and make suggestions as to the ways in which the social, sanitary, and economic connitions of American farms can be improved; and if the Board of Agriculture intend to proceed on the same lines, or to initiate legislation, or take other steps to assist agriculture generally in this country.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board are aware of the appointment of the Commission to which my hon. friend refers. They will carefully study its Report as soon as it is published.

    Charity Lands and Allotments.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Barnstaple

    471
    Division as representing the Charity Commissioners, if he will state how much charity land, in how many allotments, has been let to the labouring classes under the Allotments Extension Act, 1882.
    MR. SOARES: The Charity Commissioners are anxious that charity land should be let in allotments whenever it is desired, and in all recent cases whore complaints have been made to them they have taken steps to see that the Allotments Extension Act, 1882, should be carried out, but they have not found it practicable with the limited staff at their command, to require from the trustees of every charity which is subject to the Act particulars of the extent and number of the allotments let under its provisions. They are therefore not in possession of the information asked for by the right hon. Member.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Cannot the hon. Gentleman get the information?
    MR. SOARES: I am afraid that to communicate to all trustees of charity lands would involve the expenditure of a great deal of time and money.
    MR. ESSEX: Does the Act referred to in the Question place any difficulty in the way of thus dealing with charity lands?
    MR. SOARES: No, Sir.

    Scottish Fishery Regulations.
    MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the advisability of altering the bye-laws and regulations of the Scottish Fishery Hoard which prevent British vessels from going to some of the best trawling grounds, whilst leaving them open to foreign trawlers so long as they keep outside the three-mile limit.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,: The policy of the Government on this matter was stated by the Prime Minister in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 4th November, and I have nothing further to add.
    MR. WATT: While the Question is pending cannot the right hon. Gentleman
    472
    see his way to placing Britishers on the same footing as foreigners?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Dublin Crown Jewels.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the belief of the Vice-Regal Commissioners appointed to investigate the charge of neglect of Crown Jewels stolen from Dublin Castle last year, as expressed in their Report, that the Government were already, before that partial inquiry began, in possession of all the information the Commissioners were empowered to elicit, will he state why no inquiry has yet been instituted with power adequate for a criminal investigation of the theft, with a view to the conviction of the thief and recovery of the stolen articles.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the complete failure of the Vice-Regal Crown Jewels Commission to do anything towards recovery of the jewels stolen from Dublin Castle or towards identification of the thief, and the general desire that a criminal investigation on oath for these purposes should be held, whether he will give the House his reasons for refusing such an investigation.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,: I have dealt fully with the subject of these Questions in the numerous replies which I have already given and in particular in my reply to the hon. Member for St. Pancras East on 1st June last. I have no intention of reopening the matter.

    Irish Land Purchase.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total number of sales effected to tenants under the Land Purchase Acts prior to 1st November, 1903; the general average number of years' purchase advanced under those Acts; the number of cases in which the Land Commission refused to sanction the advance of the full purchase price at which the tenant had agreed to purchase their holdings; the total number

    473
    of sales sanctioned under the Act of 1903 to 1st November, 1908; the general average number of years' purchase sanctioned under this Act; and the number of cases in which the Estates Commissioners have refused to sanction the advance of the full purchase price at which tenants had agreed to purchase their holdings.
    MR. BIRRELL: As regards the first part of this Question, the hon. Member will find the information he requires in the recently issued Irish Land Purchase Acts Return [Cd. 4412] and in the Returns moved for by the hon. Member for Cork and the hon. Member for North Cork which will shortly be laid on the Table. The Land Commission are unable to state in regard to proceedings prior to the Act of 1903, the number of cases in which they refused to sanction the full purchase money agreed to, but the cases so refused under the Act of 1903 by the Estates Commissioners will be found in Table 7 appended to their last Annual Report.

    Teaching of the Irish Language.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, notwithstanding the stringency of the regulations governing the payment of extra fees for the teaching of Irish in national schools, there is nothing in these regulations prescribing a maximum to the expenditure that may ultimately be reached for this service; and if he will state whether the Irish Government and the Treasury propose to take this matter into consideration and fix a limit.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am not at present aware of any reason why the existing arrangements with respect to these fees should be reconsidered.

    Outrages in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the number of agrarian crimes of firing at the person and firing into dwellings during the period of ten months ended 31st October, namely seventy-one, is
    474
    greater by sixty than in the year 1905, and greater also than in any previous year since 1882; and if he will state whether it is his intention to adopt the measures which have proved so efficacious in past years in diminishing this form of crime.
    MR. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. In reply to the hon. Member's concluding inquiry I would refer him to my Answer to his Question of 19th October.
    MR. LONSDALE: But has not the number of shooting outrages increased in the last year?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have answered that Question.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not the fact that immediately on the repeal of the Crimes Act the number of outrages began to increase and continued to increase from that moment?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think that is so.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: But it is so.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is it not the case that the increase in the outrages is owing to the fact that in the north of Ireland they manufacture a lot of bad whisky which is sold elsewhere?
    MR. P. MEEHAN: May I ask if included in the Return is the case in which four Protestant planters fired on two Catholic peasants in my county last May?
    MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that.

    Lord Clinton's Cork Estate.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Mary Daly has applied to the Estates Commissioners several times for reinstatement in her late husband'3 farm on Lord Clinton's estate, County Cork, from which he was evicted in 1888; and whether any steps have

    475
    been taken by the Commissioners to consider her application.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received from Mrs. Mary Daly an application for reinstatement in a farm which is in the occupation of another tenant. Mrs. Daly's application will be considered in connection with the allotment of untenanted land to be acquired by the Commissioners.

    Devlin Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an approved scheme for labourers' cottages with plots, promoted by the Devlin District Council, comprised three for James Ward, Michael Fagan, and Patrick Morgan, on the part of Windtown ranch nearest to Castlepollard and to these men's usual place of work; that no opposition was offered to these sites at the inquiry and that they were duly mapped; that afterwards the Local Government Board, without consulting either the district council or the labourers, cancelled the sites that had been chosen without opposition and offered sites on the other side of the ranch, where they cannot be accepted, there being no work available there for the men, the place being a mile and a half further away from their place of work and the district council being unwilling to erect cottages there; and, in view of the hardship to those men, all of whom are paying for lodgings and two of whom have families, whether he will ask the Board to reconsider the matter and have the cottages erected forthwith on the sites regularly selected.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Devlin Rural District Council proposed to provide three cottages as stated. No opposition was offered at the local inquiry, but the inspector did not consider that the necessity for the cottages was established, and he therefore excluded them from his Order. The Local Government Board did not intervene. Certain other sites at Windtown were disallowed by the inspector, as the taking of them would have injured the farm for the purposes of sale. A tract of land in lieu of the sites so disallowed has now been offered
    476
    by the Estates Commissioners to the council and accepted. It will be dealt with in a further scheme. The Local Government Board have no power to reconsider the matter, or to have the cottages erected on the original sites.

    Strabane Letterkenny Railway.
    MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the grievance of the ratepayers in the guaranteeing area of the Strabane to Letterkenny Railway, East Donegal; whether he is aware that the rate is levied on the area and the railway lying dormant and unopened for traffic, though completed for many months; and whether he will inquire into the cause of the delay and take steps to have the line opened for the accommodation of the public, or prohibit the collection of rates to pay a guarantee to a non-working railway.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Act authorising the construction of this line provides that the payments under the guarantee which the county is empowered to give shall run from the date of issue of certain proportions of the capital of the company. I have no power to interfere with the collection of rates for the purpose. As regards the opening of the line, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade on 5th November. I understand that the Board are still awaiting a communication from the railway company.

    Mr. Boyle's East Donegal Estate.
    MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Joseph James Savers, of Magheracorn, near Convoy, East Donegal, on the estate of Alexander Boyle, and another, which was sold to the tenants before the Act of 1903, whether he is aware that Sayers, owing to arrears of rent, was unable to buy with the other tenants, but, after the Act of 1903, he was in a position to purchase and signed and lodged an agreement before the sale to the other tenants was completed; whether he can say why the Commissioners refuse to include

    477
    Sayers' holding in the sale, of the estate to the tenants; and whether, in view of the landlord's title having been fully investigated, and Sayers by settling with him having brought himself within the scope of the Land Acts, he will ask, if the Commissioners do not include him in the original sale, that they will declare his holding a separate estate and allow the sale to be completed.
    MR. BIRRELL: Proceedings for sale in this case were instituted under the Land Purchase Acts prior to 1903, and the agreement signed by Sayers to purchase his holding for £653 was refused by the Land Commission in 1899, on the ground of insufficient security. Sayers subsequently agreed with his landlord to purchase the holding for £660 under the Irish Land Act, 1903, but the Estates Commissioners refused to declare the holding to be a separate estate.

    Bloomfield Estate, Castlecaldwell.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether care will be taken in respect to the distribution into holdings of the farm of Mr. Leonard Cannon, which closely adjoins the Bloomfield estate, Castlecaldwell, and which has been bought by the Estates Commissioners, having respect to the congested condition of the neighbourhood, that due regard will be had to the needs of local tenants.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have intimated by notice in the Dublin Gazette their intention of acquiring compulsorily 115 acres in County Fermanagh, the property of Mr. Council Cannon, The Commissioners propose to use these lands, if acquired, for the purpose of the Evicted Tenants Act.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the demesne lands, comprising about 500 acres, of the Bloomfield Estate, Castlecaldwell, owned by the Life Association of Scotland, was sold separately from, the rest of the estate to the Estates Commissioners last September, but that the deeds of conveyance cannot be obtained
    478
    till March next; whether he is aware that a very large proportion of this demesne land consists of land from which tenants have been evicted, and that these tenants or their representatives are now eagerly awaiting restoration to their old holdings; whether he will be able to obtain or to give information of the acreage of each holding from, which a tenant has been evicted; whether the Estates Commissioners propose to reinstate in their holdings those evicted tenants, and if the residue of the demesne lands will be kept as meadow for the poor mountain tenants on this estate, who have, no other means of raising hay for their cattle during the winter; and whether, having regard to the fact that the tenants on this estate are congested and require these demesne lands, on which there is no residential mansion, care will be taken to provide for their accommodation prior to the bringing of other evicted tenants from other parts of Fermanagh, and to secure that the proceedings for the restoration of the former tenants be expedited.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not purchased this estate, but proceedings for its sale have recently been instituted under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. Until the property has been inspected and reported on, the Commissioners will not be in a position to make arrangements as regards the demesne land.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman get these proceedings expedited?
    MR. BIRRELL: I always do my best, but I cannot be interfering with the Commissioners every day of the week.

    Land Purchase in Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what was the average price paid for the purchase of land all over Ireland from the year 1885 to the year 1903, and what was the average price paid in the county of Limerick during the same period; and what was the price paid all over Ireland from November, 1903, to the latest date of return and during the same period in the

    479
    County of Limerick, that is, the average price paid under the present Land Purchase Act, this word price meaning the number of years purchase.
    MR. BIREELL: I must ask the hon. Member to await the issue of the Return ordered on the 7th instant, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork, which will shortly be laid on the Table. That Return will contain the in formation which he requires.

    Cloncurry Evicted Tenants.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that there are hundreds of future or excluded tenants who lost their titles in their farms through evictions and other campaigns with landlords, as in the case of the Cloncurry tenants in Murroe, County Limerick, between the years of 1881 and 1887; and will those tenants be included with the tenants in Part V. of the present Land Bill, so as to have a fair rent fixed under the status of present tenants.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have no means of ascertaining the number of future or excluded tenants who were evicted between 1881 and 1887. Part V. of the Irish Land Bill applies only to cases in which a present tenancy was determined after the passing of the Act of 1887.

    Warnings to Irish Newspapers.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the result of the consideration given by the Law Officers of cases in which the warning given to certain newspapers against the publication of intimidatory resolutions of the United Irish League has had no effect; and what further action is to be taken in the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is not in the public interest that I should give any answer to this Question at present.

    Verschoyle Estate, Donegal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the landlord and tenants of the
    480
    Verschoyle estate, Dunkineely, County Donegal, a majority of whose tenants have holdings totalling over £5 valuation, agreed on a price for the sale of this estate, that agreements were lodged but that the Estates Commissioners refused to sanction the sale on the ground that the estate was congested, but having regard to the protest of the tenants against this decision, sent down an inspector, who, after examination, reported that the estate was not congested, but that, this Report notwithstanding, the Commissioners again refused to sanction the sale; and whether, having regard to the disappointment of both parties to the contemplated sale and the desirability of an immediate settlement, steps will be taken to secure that the agreement which both parties desire to be carried out may be completed.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that purchase agreements were entered into between the owner of this property and his tenants with a view to a direct sale under the Irish Land Act, 1903. The Commissioners, however, refused to declare the lands in their present condition to be an estate, the property appearing to be congested within, the meaning of Section 6 of the Act. The statement that the inspector reported that the property was not congested is not correct. The Commissioners cannot see their way to depart from their decision.

    Dublin Royal Canal.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland are again seeking power to destroy a section of the Royal Canal at Dublin; whether he will allow that proposal to be entertained until the board of control of the Royal Canal has been consulted; whether a meeting of that board is due to be held immediately after each statutory meeting of the railway company; and whether he will ascertain when the last meeting of the board was held.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am aware that the railway company are promoting a Bill for next session, providing amongst

    481
    other things for the abandonment of a portion of the Broadstone branch of the canal and the matter will therefore be one for the decision of Parliament. The board of control is not in my jurisdiction, but I have ascertained that there is no obligation on them to meet immediately after each statutory meeting of the company, but that a meeting of the board will be held on the 14th instant. Their last meeting was on 24th April, 1907.
    MR. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Board of Works in a recent Report declare that this railway company is not discharging its legal obligations? Will he require it to do so?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think I will give any pledge as to coercing any Irish Board until I have had an opportunity of considering the matter.

    The Scottish Peerage.
    CAPTAIN ARTHUR MURRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that of the thirty-two Scottish Peers who are not hereditary Peers of Parliament sixteen only are Representative Peers, the remaining sixteen being without the franchise and debarred from entering either House; and whether, having regard to the fact that a Liberal Scottish Peer has little chance, owing to his political opinions, of being elected as a Representative Peer, he will consider the propriety, when introducing a Reform Bill, of so amending the Act of Union as to enable non-representative Scottish Peers to become eligible for election to the House of Commons.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to the thirty-two Scottish Peers mentioned in the Question, there are fifty others who are Peers of the United Kingdom, and accordingly take part, although they are Peers of the United Kingdom, in the Scottish elections; and in the proposed reform Bill, will he do his best to deal with these noble fagot voters?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): My hon. and
    482
    gallant friend's inquiry opens up a very wide field. I will consider the point raised.
    MR. JAMES HOPE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman see his way to getting over the difficulty by adopting in toto the suggestions of the House of Lords' Reform Committee?
    MR. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation, at an early date, to put Scotsmen on the same level as Irishmen?
    [No Answer was returned.]

  REMISSION OF SURCHARGES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Remission of Surcharges (Dublin) Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Nannetti.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill [Lords]): Colonel Seely; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Atherley-Jones.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 399.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Incest Bill, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.)THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.) rose to move: "That for the remainder of the session,

483
Government business be not interrupted under the provisions of any standing order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11." He said: This Motion is usual, and indeed inevitable, at this stage of the Parliamentary session. In asking its acceptance by the House, I think I may fairly claim that during the autumn sittings, and, indeed, during the whole of this long session, the Government have made a very sparing use of the power of the majority to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. I am one of those who think, very strongly, that it is not desirable that our normal hours of sitting should be altered, except on special occasions and under the pressure of some particular emergency; and by adhering, so far as we have been able, to the ordinary arrangements we have adopted the plan which conduces, more than any other, to facilitate the transaction of Parliamentary business. But there always comes a time when it is necessary, for the purpose of winding up our business, that there should be an extension of the ordinary time available, and it is for that purpose that I make this Motion. It is customary and proper on such an occasion to make a brief statement, partly by way of review and partly by way of prospect, of the business of that part of the session with which we are now concerned. As the House is aware, the principal measure which has been the subject of discussion during the autumn sittings—I refer to the Licensing Bill—has, since we last took leave of it, met elsewhere a fate which has befallen many other useful measures. I reserve anything I may have to say, and there is a good deal to be said, in regard to that incident to a more appropriate occasion. I need also only make a passing reference to the disappearance of the Education Bill, to which we devoted in these sittings a substantial amount of time. There remain a number of measures which we still hope will receive, before Parliament is prorogued, the Royal Assent. I will mention six in particular to which the Government attach great importance. The first is the Children Bill, which only awaits in this House the consideration
484
of the Lords' Amendments. The second is the Scottish Education Bill, which is now under consideration in another place, and in regard to which any Amendments that are made there will have to be considered here. The third is the Prevention of Crime Bill, which is in the same position. Next I come to the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill, a useful measure which has passed the House of Lords, and in regard to which also we have only to consider the Amendments of the Lords. The remaining two are measures which have not yet left this House—the Port of London Bill, with which I hope at eleven o'clock tonight my right hon. friend will be able to make further progress, and the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, the Report stage of which will commence as soon as this Motion is agreed to. There are also some measures of less prominence which we hope to pass, as they are mainly departmental or of a non-controversial kind, and appear on the Paper numbered 6 to 15. Among them are the East India Loans Bill and three Scottish Bills—Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Bill, Local Government (Scotland) Bill, Crofters' Commons Grazings Regulation Bill—which have passed the Committee stage. Then comes the Hops Bill, introduced by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, as to which I will only say that we are anxious to see it passed into law, if there be general agreement about it, but unless there is that general agreement it must be speedily withdrawn. Then there are five other Bills which have come from the Lords, none of which raises any party or, I think, departmental controversy—Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, Lunacy Bill, Post Office Consolidation Bill, Companies Consolidation Bill, and Post Office Sites Bill—which we also confidently hope will receive the Royal Assent before the prorogation. There are two other Bills which are now before Select or Standing Committees—the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill, which was read the second time here the other night; and the Statute Law Revision Bill, which comes down from the House of Lords—and which we also expect to place on the Statute-book. There is one further measure of a similar class which is numbered 36 on the Paper, the Post Office Savings Bank (Public Trustee)

485
No. 2 Bill, and takes the place of a Bill previously introduced, No. 35 on the Paper. I come next to another category of Bills which have to pass their remaining stages and in regard to which we shall not take any effective steps if they meet with more opposition than we anticipate; they appear under Nos. 16 to 20 inclusive on the Order Paper, the Provisional Order Procedure Bill, Commons Bill, Criminal Appeal Amendment Bill, Constabulary (Ireland) Bill, and Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill; and I may add there are two other Bills, the only private Member's Bills to which we propose to give facilities, and only to these if satisfied there is general agreement to them, the Ferries (Ireland) Bill, and a Bill which does not appear on this Paper, which has passed all its stages in the House of Lords and for which the hon. Member for a division of Buckinghamshire is responsible—the Law of Distress (Amendment) Bill, subject of course to the same conditions. There are also Bills—I think I need only mention they are not controversial and we propose to include them in the facilities—the three charity Bills, Buxton, Long Ashton, and Abbots Bromley. Now I pass to a more painful branch of my subject, the Bills we propose not to press during the remainder of the present session, and they appear on the Order Paper numbered 22 to 31 and include, as I have said, 35 also. I will mention two of them especially, the Irish Land Bill and the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill. To the great regret of the Government we regard it as not possible to make such progress with these during the session as to give a reasonable chance of their being placed on the Statute-book this year. I need hardly say that in arriving at this conclusion there is no want of interest on our part in the future fortunes of the Bills, and we shall do our best to carry them into law as soon as may be. One other measure I must allude to, for it is of great importance, the Housing and Town Planning Bill, introduced by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board. It was our expectation, our very strong and confident expectation, that this Bill would pass during the present session. Hon. Members interested in the subject have, as the
486
House knows, given an enormous amount of time and attention to the Bill during twenty-three sittings of the Standing Committee upstairs, and we had great hope of its passing into law. But, undoubtedly, on the Report stage serious considerations with consequent discussion must arise from the complexity of the subject, and drafting Amendments of considerable magnitude must inevitably be made, giving rise to considerable debate, with the result that it might very well be that the Bill could not reach another place at such a time before prorogation as to allow of the consideration its importance requires. I do not now go into a question—I do not desire to do so—upon which there is a variety of opinion on both sides of the House, and as to which I do not think that either front bench, if the members were consulted, would be in complete agreement—the question of the desirability of carrying over Bills. I myself have always maintained an opinion in favour of it—it is my personal opinion as an individual only—with some well-considered machinery for the purpose. But in holding that view, I am conscious that I am taking up a position that was strenuously opposed by no less a Parliamentary authority than the late Mr. Gladstone and which, carrying as it does with it, if it is once brought into practical operation, a number of far-reaching consequences that require to be carefully thought out. I do not ask the House to adopt hastily, and without the fullest consideration of its constitutional aspects, in regard to one specific measure, ardently as we desire to see that measure carried through. In regard to this Bill, in which we are interested, we propose, without raising the larger question, a course which we hope may meet with general assent—to withdraw it this session and to re-introduce it at the earliest possible moment after the re-assembling of Parliament, when, having regard to the fact that its details have received most careful consideration in Standing Committee during twenty-three days, we may curtail the Committee stage within as narrow dimensions as may be reasonably possible, and in this way we may hope to get the Bill into the House of Lords at a very early date next session. That House will then have full

487
opportunity for considering the provisions of the Bill, and it may pass into law at an early date. I believe that in the circumstances this will be the best course to take in the interest of the measure itself, reluctant as I and my colleagues are to abandon the hope, long entertained, that before Christmas the Bill would be passed. The House will naturally desire to know, that being our amended programme, what business is to be taken between now and the prorogation. I have already said we propose to-night, at or about eleven o'clock, to adjourn the consideration of the Eight Hours Bill, and then to make further progress with the Port of London Bill, in order that it may reach another place at the earliest possible day. To-morrow we shall proceed with the Report stage of the Eight Hours Bill, and at eleven o'clock, or when that stage comes to an end, we hope to take the Committee on the East India Loans Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to finish the Report of the Eight Hours Bill then?
MR. ASQUITH: We hope to do so. I do not know whether we shall succeed in doing so, and to take the Third Reading on Friday. Such is our hope; whether it will be realised remains to be seen. If that hope is realised, if we take the Third Reading on Friday, we should occupy the time that may remain before five o'clock with the Lords' Amendments to the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill, unless they are previously disposed of. Assuming that we are successful in getting through that business this week we shall on Monday take the Lords' Amendments to the Children Bill, and I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means will in the evening ask the House to consider the London Electricity Supply Bill and a few other private Bills. On Tuesday we shall proceed with other Bills, and on Wednesday in pursuance of—I will not say a pledge—but of an expectation which has found expression more than once during the session, we propose to give half a day to discussion on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. This is a matter that should form part of the business of
488
every session. After that we shall then and on Thursday (17th) complete the stages of the Bills, a list of which I have already read. I trust—and here, again, I am only in the region of hope, not of certainty—I trust that on Friday (18th) the House will be in a position to come face to face with prorogation, but on this I cannot make any definite statement or give any specific assurance until we see what progress is made with business. I do not know whether I have made my statement clear and complete, but I am ready to answer any further inquiries.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11."—(Mr. Asquith.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the interesting statement of the right hon. Gentleman I have only to comment on three points. I understand that he proposes to bring within the period before prorogation not only discussion of Amendments that come to us from another place, but he has given us a list of a large number of Measures he hopes to carry through—no less than twenty-six Bills. [An HON. MEMBER: "Twenty-eight."] My hon. friend says twenty-eight. His enumeration may be more accurate than mine; at all events, twenty-six is the minimum on the list. Though I am not in a position to forecast the practicability of this programme, to ask us in the course of five or six days to pass no less than twenty-six Bills does appear at first sight and in the absence of closer examination of the Bills to impose a task almost impossible for the House to accomplish. Time will show whether the right hon. Gentleman is too ambitious in deciding upon the passing of these twenty-six Bills in addition to the disposing of the other business he has mentioned before we part for the Christmas holidays. Then the right hon. Gentleman, in order to carry out this ambitious programme, asks for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule.

489
I quite admit that the right hon. Gentleman is justified, within bounds, in making that request. When, however, he boasts that he has been more than usually anxious to keep to the normal hours of the House during the session, and that he has hardly ever asked us to sit beyond eleven o'clock, the hour which the modern House of Commons regards as the natural termination of its labours, I would remind him that he has asked us to suspend the rule no less than twenty times during the session, and if hon. Members will do a simple sum they will see that that is equivalent to asking us to suspend it during five Parliamentary weeks. While I make no complaint of the course which the Government has found itself obliged to adopt with regard to the suspensions of the rule, I do not think the figures I have given show any particular reason for the self-congratulation which the right hon. Gentleman has bestowed on himself and his colleagues on that bench. The only other point connected with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which I need refer relates to his observations with regard to carrying over. There is great difference of opinion with regard to carrying over, and I do not mean to discuss the question in any detail. I am one of those who, differing from my hon. friends on this side of the House, have been in favour of carrying over, and I remember drawing a report in favour of carrying over embodying a scheme which was ultimately passed by a bare party majority in a very important Committee of this House appointed to deal with the question. It was a very strong Committee, and the parties were very evenly divided. Included upon it were Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt, and other very high authorities upon the other side of the House—great authorities in Parliamentary procedure—and those high authorities resisted my scheme at every stage and presented a counter-report of the strongest kind; and the ultimate report I ventured to Jay before the Committee was only carried by the bare party majority on the Committee, every single member of the party represented by the present Government voting strenuously against the suggestion I laid before them. I do not believe that the party of which I am a member was
490
unanimously in favour of the scheme, although apparently the whole of the party opposite was unanimously against it. Whether there has been any change of opinion on the subject, I know not. Certainly, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite is a convert to the views which I pressed on the House ten or twelve years ago and which were so vehemently resisted by almost every single member of the party which he now leads, it is a very interesting fact in the development of Parliamentary institutions.
MR. ASQUITH: I have always held the same opinion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman was not on that Committee. If he had been, we could have carried the scheme by something more than a bare party majority. I think really those are all the observations I need make upon the business part of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has laid before us; but it has been customary for the Leader of the Opposition on occasions like this to make some survey of the work of the session, or part of the session, in which the Motion is made. I do not think it is necessary for me to do that, partly because the work does not seem to have led to very much practical fruit. I noticed with some interest that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the fate of the Licensing Bill in another place. He said that upon the subject of the rejection of that, and, I think he said, many other useful measures by the House of Lords he would have much to say on another occasion, but that this was not the occasion. I suppose the occasion the right hon. Gentleman refers to is an occasion when I shall not be present.
MR. ASQUITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept an invitation?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt, Sir, if I were to attend all the right hon. Gentleman's public dinners, and he were to attend all mine, those entertainments would become even more popular than they are at present. But, on the whole, I am inclined to think that these postprandial occasions are more properly opportunities for delivering speeches not to

491
be replied to than for carrying on debates for which this House is the proper arena. When this happy occasion comes to which the right hon. Gentleman looks so eagerly forward on which I shall not be present to applaud him, I suppose he will deliver one of those stormy attacks on another place to which we have become accustomed from time to time from Gentlemen who sit on that bench. We have had a good many of them in the course of the last three years. We have had Resolutions, I think, passed in this House which do not seem to me so far to have borne much fruit anywhere. But outside the House such speeches have been even more numerous. I think it was the Chief Secretary for Ireland who made the last one. I cannot follow all Ministerial utterances, but there was a very recent one by that right hon Gentleman, spoken, no doubt, from the fulness of his heart, and characterised not only by the eloquence which always characterises his speeches, but by more than his usual vehemence of statement. As I have said, I am not present to answer these attacks, and I shall not be present in the future; but I have noticed that by the beneficent dispensation of Providence there has always been a bye-election which comes immediately afterwards, and those by-elections afford a far more effective and satisfactory reply than the most eloquent statement I have it in my power to make, and a form of reply which everybody can understand. In these circumstances, although the right hon. Gentleman has deferred to a more appropriate occasion this philippic against the other Chamber, I confess that even the impossiblity of replying to him leaves me quite serene. I will only say one word more, and it is absolutely necessary to be said now that the autumn session is drawing to a conclusion. I do not think our time has been well spent during it, but it has been laborious. There is no doubt whatever that Members of this House have been extremely hard-worked, and, what I think much more important, His Majesty's Ministers and the Departments of State have been very hard-worked. I have always said, and I say again, that I think this habit of taking autumn sessions for really no adequate
492
reason that I can discover is absolutely destructive of the proper working of cither the legislative or the administrative Departments of the State. I am sure it is not good for the House of Commons; but whether it be good or not for the House of Commons, I know it is fatal to the proper preparation of business, the proper working out of Government Bills, and the proper dealing with the Estimates of the year. I do not ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to believe me when I say sincerely that, quite irrespective of my objection in principle to much the Government has done and has tried to do in the way of legislation, their habit of throwing into the compass of one Bill a series of different proposals, imperfectly cementing them together and imperfectly working out all the details and forcing the whole thing through by means of the closure by compartments, is totally destructive of the proper working of this deliberative Assembly. We do not have the details put before us in a proper shape, and we cannot put them into proper shape. That cannot be right. The Government undertake Bills of extraordinary difficulty which require, immense working out. How is it possible for any Minister to work out a Bill either before he brings it into the House or to defend it when it is in the House when a Government are worked as this one are worked? There is the Prime Minister himself. I am quite sure he has been as anxious as any of his predecessors to be present in the House, not merely for debate, but for the conduct of Bills for which he as an individual is responsible. He was the Minister who introduced the licensing Bill. He was the Minister who, at all events, sketched the Old-Age Pensions Bill. He was the Minister who was as largely responsible as the President of the Board of Education for the Education Bill. That is an immense amount of legislative work for any Prime Minister to undertake. But there is an enormous amount of work of which the public never know anything that every Prime Minister has got to undertake whether he likes it or not. What is the result? The right hon. Gentleman is only human. He cannot turn the twenty-four hours of the day into forty-eight, and he was

493
not present constantly at some of the most important debates on his own Bills. I think that is very unfortunate. It cannot be wholly avoided under any arrangement, but it is absolutely inevitable under the arrangement the Government have chosen to adopt. I do not wish to press the matter of the different Departments; but every Minister who has held office and is holding office knows how great is the work thrown on the public Departments by the mere fact that the House is sitting and that it insists on asking eighty or 100 questions every day. The work is enormous, and if you have got towards the end of February to produce not merely your Estimates for the year, not merely your Budget, but also to deal with vast and novel problems like the unemployed question, the Poor Law, and other such matters, I say the work cannot be done. I do not think it is right for us to separate without again making our protest against the abuse of autumn sessions by this Government. The last autumn session of any magnitude before this Government came into office was for the Education Act of 1902. That autumn session had to be held because we did not closure that Bill by compartments until it had been thirty-eight days in Committee. If we had adopted anything like the plan of the present Government we should have been saved that autumn session. I think at once to make us have autumn sessions and closure by compartments for every Bill in the autumn session is really a combination of evils which I hope will never be repeated either under the leadership of the present Prime Minister or any of his successors. I am afraid that in the annals of Parliament this long session will be looked back to as the one in which the habit of closuring great measures by compartments has become hopelessly confirmed. It is a session in which there has been more done in that way than in any previous one. It is a session in which the Government have adopted that plan as an ordinary expedient, and it is that culmination of the increasing use of that particular method of stopping debate which has made me and my friends think it is hopeless to protest any longer against it and we must acquiesce in it more or less as a general system, however much we may object to its application.
494
That is a melancholy reflection with which to conclude the session, but I am afraid it is one thoroughly well deserved. Whatever else this session may have produced in the way of legislation, good or bad, the fruit of our labours at all events is one which I think utterly poisonous and pernicious, and I am sorry that it has fallen to the lot of the right hon. Gentleman who now leads us, in many respects with such distinguished ability, to have been the Minister under whose guidance and management this deplorable depth of Parliamentary imbecility has been reached.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he did not propose to indulge in any general topics on the Motion before the House. He had risen really for the purpose of asking the Prime Minister two questions, but before asking those questions perhaps he might be allowed to express the deep regret of the Irish Members at the announcement that it was apparently impossible to proceed this session before the end of the year with the remaining stages of the Irish Land Bill. The Leader of the Opposition was quite correct when he said the House of Commons had been hard worked this session, but, speaking for the Irish representatives, he could say that, notwithstanding that fact, they would have been quite willing to have sat on any time that was necessary in order to consider the remaining stages of this important measure. They heard with some satisfaction, although not with complete satisfaction, the emphatic statement made last night by the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, and they gathered from that statement, coupled with the declaration of the Prime Minister to-day, that it was the intention of the Government to reintroduce the Irish Land Bill immediately at the commencement of next session, proceed with it immediately, and pass it through all its stages in this House as rapidly as possible. He gathered that was the meaning of the statement which had just been made by the Prime Minister coupled with the declaration of the Chief Secretary last night. Although they were not satisfied, and although they would have been glad if the measure could have been proceeded with, under the circumstances they must rest satisfied with that

495
pledge. The two particular questions he had risen to ask the right hon. Gentleman came within the category of Bills which he said could not be passed if there was any serious opposition, and he mentioned the Irish Constabulary Bill. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that that Bill raised very serious and determined opposition not only on the Irish benches but from other quarters of the House, and principally from other Irish representatives. He wished to know whether, under those circumstances, he would relegate that Bill to another category, because, in his opinion, it could not be passed without prolonged consideration and opposition. The other question he wished to ask was with reference to the Catholic Disabilities Removal Bill. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt noticed that that Bill, upon its introduction, met with opposition and a division was taken, but that division only went to show that there was in every quarter of the House, and amongst all parties, what he might call a general agreement as to its principle. Under those circumstances he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not give some facilities for the progress of that Bill, but failing that he wished to ask whether he could give any reassuring statement on behalf of the Government that the matter was receiving their serious consideration, and that they hoped to deal with the subject next session. He hoped on those points the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory answer.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that perhaps he might be allowed to say with regard to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition that the House would be found in general agreement with his criticism of the present haphazard method of autumn sessions. He thought there was also a substantial agreement that if the session were divided into two regular parts leaving the summer free for other purposes it would tend to facilitate business. [Cries of "No."] He did not rise to enter into any controversial matter. One of the measures referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was the Bill now before the House on its Second Reading slightly to amend the Unemployed Workmen Act. He was
496
still of opinion that, with those exceptions, which they always looked for in regard to legislation of this kind, the Prime Minister and the Government would find substantial agreement in regard to giving a very few hours to allow that Bill to become law. He did not ask the Prime Minister at that stage to make the measure a Government Bill, but surely time might be given and the question left an open one for the decision of the House. As to the necessity of some such measure the figures supplied by the President of the Local Government Board at Question-time that day were ample justification, because he informed them that the number of unemployed workmen who had actually been registered in London was 38,600 whereas the number for whom work had been found was only 4,100. No less than 38,000 men had been certified by the distress committees of the central body to be fit recipients for assistance under the Act and they had only been able to find employment for 4,000. That represented a very serious and saddening state of affairs. There was no difference of opinion as to the advisability of giving relief to the unemployed. Naturally and properly there were differences of opinion as to the methods to be adopted, but on the main question itself there could be no two opinions, and all they were asking was that the distress committees set up by the party now in Opposition should have their powers somewhat enlarged to enable them during this winter to deal more effectively with distress arising from unemployment. He appealed not only to the Government but to hon. Members in all parts of the House to use what influence they might possess to allow this modest and moderate proposal to pass through its various stages in this House so that after the House had dispersed and when the distress committees in every part of Great Britain were wrestling with the almost impossible task of finding work for the unemployed they might have their powers somewhat strengthened and their task lightened by the proposal contained in this Bill. He hoped the Prime Minister would be able to give them encouragement to hope that in addition to the measures he had outlined a small part of their Parliamentary time

497
would be found for the particular Bill to which he had referred.
SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGsaid he wished to ask the Prime Minister a question in regard to the Housing and Town Planning Bill. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman state that he did not disapprove of a well-guarded procedure for the carrying over of Bills. He was glad to hear that it was in any case the intention of the Government to re-introduce the Housing and Town Planning Bill at an early stage of the next session under circumstances which would give it a chance of being carried through. But as the right hon. Gentleman approved of a guarded process of carrying over Bills, he wished to make this suggestion: why should this measure not be carried over in its present condition by a special Resolution of the House? There were a large number of hon. Members who had shared with him the very laborious and prolonged consideration given to every part of this measure who would he was confident be ready to support that course. That Bill had not only occupied a great portion of Parliamentary time, but it had been carried throughout without any application of the closure. There had been no possible point that could be raised in regard to the machinery of the Bill which had not been fully discussed during the proceedings in Committee and as to which the views of nearly every section had not been practically met. That afforded some ground for what he ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill might well be carried over to next session by a special resolution as had been done with the Port of London Bill three years before. Anyone who had gone through the laborious consideration of such a Bill must feel that to Reconsider it in detail and have a full discussion next session on the Committee stage would be a serious Parliamentary blunder.
MR. DILLONsaid he wished to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government had had under consideration the question which had often been put forward of dividing the session into two parts, commencing on 1st November, adjourning over Christmas and adjourning
498
for the summer vacation on 30th June. That proposal had been frequently put forward, and if the Government had considered it he would like to know if they expected to arrive at any decision in the matter before the commencement of next session. If not, would they allow the House to debate it so that the Government might obtain the opinion of the majority. To many of those who had sat for many years in the House the custom of sitting till the end of July or the middle of August was intolerable. He believed more business would be done at much less cost to the health of Members if that plan were adopted.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYthought that after the three speeches which had been delivered in favour of carrying the Housing and Town Planning Bill over some protest ought to be made against it, so that it should not be thought that the general opinion of the House favoured the idea. The Leader of the Opposition had referred back to some-what ancient days, but the resolution arrived at then had been brought forward under different circumstances. At that time closure by compartment had not become the rule. Now it was becoming the ordinary procedure, and that fact should make them very careful not to adopt any system of carrying over Bills which, combined with the operation of the guillotine, might lead to the House losing the power to discuss any question. Under present circumstances the proposal to carry over Bills was a revolutionary change in procedure. In reference to what the Prime Minister had said as to the credit which should be given to the Government because the Eleven o'clock Rule had been rarely suspended, he would like to point out that a very large portion of the session had been carried on under the guillotine which had obliged the House to end its discussions at half-past ten. Considering the weeks they had passed under the guillotine they could not feel that the House had had that liberty of discussion indicated by the Prime Minister. Only a short time ago they had had a great change in the procedure of the House. A Standing Committee had been set up in connection with private Members' Bills, and that Committee had continued

499
its work long after there was any possibility of private Members' Bills being discussed in the House. After Whitsuntide only two days were given to those Bills in the House, and it was impossible for any Bill to go forward except with the help of the Government. There was a long list of those Bills on the Paper which had been forced through Committee with no possible object. He thought the Government should find some amendment of the procedure of the House to secure that that work should not be wasted. He had been sorry to hear from the Prime Minister that the Hops Bill would not be proceeded with if there was any opposition. He hoped, however, that that Bill would be placed on as favourable terms as any other Bill in that category. Even if there was some slight opposition he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would remember the pledges given by two of his colleagues in regard to that matter.
CAPTAIN WARINGasked the Prime Minister if he would give early facilities to the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill. He hoped it would be given a prominent place next session either by inclusion in the King's Speech or in some other way.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERregretted that the Prime Minister was not prepared to make an exception with regard to carrying over Bills in the case of the Town Planning Bill. Would the Prime Minister assure the House that the Bill when it came before them next session would be in the form in which it had been amended as the result of the Committee stage? The Bill had undergone comprehensive and drastic alteration in Committee in both drafting and principle, and there were one or two points which some of them had succeeded in getting into the Bill and which they considered indispensable for the future reform of housing. It would be a matter of the greatest possible regret if those things were omitted when the Bill was introduced next year.
LORD R. CECILdesired to put one or two questions to the Prime Minister in regard to
500
one or two Bills on the Order Paper. There was one little Bill which he feared could not now be secured, the Infant Life Protection Bill, which had passed through Grand Committee and was almost if not quite non-contentious. A very small number of hon. Members might still object to it, but he asked the Government to give it very serious consideration, for he was confident that if they did they would find it was a small but decided reform in the law which ought to be made. He understood that the Government intended to take the Port of London Bill after eleven o'clock. Could any indication be given as to how late the House proposed to sit? It was a Bill of importance which ought not to be considered at an unduly late hour. Another Bill, the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, of course had no chance of passing this session. That was a matter for rejoicing to some hon. Members and of regret to others. He most earnestly submitted that in their treatment of that question hon. Members had not been consistent. There was an enormous majority of the House absolutely pledged to the principle of the Bill. He was not saying that the Bill was right or that it was wrong, but a very large majority of the House was pledged to it, and to go on from year to year without taking any effective step to carry out that pledge was not consistent with the dignity and honour of the House. He trusted that in the next session some opportunity would be given to the House to carry that measure into law. He had observed with some surprise that the Chairman of a Standing Committee had made an earnest appeal on behalf of the progress of the Town Planning Bill. That was a novelty in the proceedings of the House. He thought some measure of housing and town planning would be very desirable, but he must ask the Government earnestly to consider the drafting of the Bill, even after its amendment by the Standing Committee. It was not a measure which in its present form could be put on the statute book. It ought to be redrafted from beginning to end, and every principle in the Bill ought to be abandoned and reversed. He observed that the failure of the Licensing Bill was entirely attributed to the House of Lords. He did not believe that any hon. Member

501
opposite honestly believed that that was a full and honest account of the matter. The Bill contained a certain number of very controversial propositions. That was a matter on which it was right and proper in his view of the constitution of the country for the other House to express its opinion and if it disagreed with those propositions to reject them. In addition there were other propositions not so contentious.
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is a long way from the point.
LORD R. CECILsaid he passed from the Licensing Bill merely observing that in that matter the conduct of the Government had not been altogether blameless. The same observation applied with regard to other measures with the substance of which he would not deal. But he wished to deal with them from the point of procedure of the House, which was very important when they considered Bills of this sort. He said nothing of the merits of the Education Bill or of the Old-Age Pensions Bill, but he thought that the procedure adopted to carry them through the House was really a scandal. On the Old-Age Pensions Bill, there was no opportunity of discussing the crowds of Amendments which had been removed out of the consideration of the House. The numerous difficulties which had occurred in regard to the administration of that Act would not have occurred if the Government had given time for the discussion of the Amendments that had been put down. Then, with regard to the Education Bill, whatever they might think of its merits, no hon. Member could do otherwise than admit that the procedure adopted failed in carrying it. He thought it would have been disastrous if a Bill which had excited so much controversy had succeeded in passing the House under the conditions which the Government imposed. He regretted the observations which had fallen from his right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, that he and his friends proposed to acquiesce in the imposition of the guillotine in the future. He trusted that that would not be the view of the House at large, and he earnestly hoped that those hon. Members of the House
502
who were not on either of the front Benches, but who occupied a position of less dignity, but of equal responsibility, would, as Members of the House, seriously consider whether they were really going to tolerate as a permanent institution the guillotine which might be carried to grossest excess as in the case of the Education Bill and the Licensing Bill. He earnestly appealed to the Government that they should give an early opportunity next session to consider this question of procedure, and he asked the Prime Minister to appoint a Committee on which no official Members should have a place—a Committee consisting entirely of private Members—of course of experienced Members; and that that Committee should be trusted to prepare a scheme of procedure with regard to all Bills—a plan not in the interests of the Government of the day, but in the interests of the country at large. It had been said that no remedy for the present state of things was possible. He did not in the least believe that. He thought a remedy was possible. It was a matter which closely concerned the honour of the House and the constitution of the country. Unless some remedy was found for the present state of affairs with regard to procedure, the House would no longer occupy the position which it should do in the Constitution.
SIR GEORGE MCCRAEasked the Prime Minister whe her he would give facilities for dealing with a less contentious Bill on the unemployed than that introduced by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. The Bill he had himself introduced was of that nature and would get rid of many difficulties which faced distress committees at present. It was simply an amendment of the machinery part of the present Act. He referred particularly to the limitation which was put upon councils contributing to the relief of unemployment. Under the Act of 1905 a council could not contribute to any work which included wages. That was an unnecessary limitation. The present working of the Act tended to great extravagance with regard to charges of administration, and prevented local authorities from subscribing to works for the benefit of the unemployed. His

503
Bill did not raise the question of a 1d. rate for the payment of wages, but it allowed a council to contribute to works including wages, which was a very different thing in principle. The situation in Scotland with regard to unemployment was very alarming, not only in Glasgow, but also in the City of Edinburgh, where one would not expect such a large number of unemployed. They had in the last six months, before the severity of the winter had been felt, a larger number of good cases which had been approved by the distress eommittee than had obtained during the whole of last year. If the winter became severe before Parliament met again, he was afraid the position would be very serious indeed. Parliament should do what it could to make the machinery of the Bill of 1905 more elastic and thus do something to relieve the present situation.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would attach very great importance to the plea of hon. Members who urged that the Bills in which they were interested should not be sacrificed because of the pledges which they had given at the general election. It should be remembered that circumstances had altered very considerably since that time. He himself did not ask the Prime Minister to give facilities for taking on any further business this session. He noticed that the Prime Minister had given notice of going on with twenty-nine Bills and that it was proposed to include two private Members' Bills which might take, say, seven days. The Prime Minister had taken credit to himself for not having suspended the Eleven o'clock Rule until now. He hoped the Prime Minister did not desire to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule and at the same time impose the guillotine when the House was to sit for ten months of the year. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his party had been in office for three years, and that they had practically for two years sat all the year round with the exception of August and September. From his own experience of the House, which now extended to eleven years, he thought that the
504
suspension of the eleven o'clock rule was bad. He did not think that they could get good legislation when only a small number of tired legislators—perhaps thirty on the Opposition side, and a sufficient number on the Ministerial side to secure the closure when it was moved—were present while all the rest of the Members were away enjoying themselves. Was it possible that they could know what they were doing, especially when it was remembered that they had already sat for ten months this year? Therefore, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman that instead of adding to the list of Bills he had announced to carry through, he should take 75 per cent from his list and include them in the massacre of the innocents already announced. It should be remembered that the House of Commons had to consider the Lords' Amendments to various Bills besides those thirty-one Bills to which he had referred.
MR. ASQUITH: Many of them have been through the Lords.
SIR F. BANBURY: Some of them, but not all. He hoped the Lords would have an opportunity of considering and discussing Bills from the Commons which would require considerable amendment. Then there was an Amendment to the Children Bill made in the Lords, which the House of Commons would have to discuss. A clause from the Licensing Bill had been introduced into the Children Bill upon which there would be considerable discussion in the House of Commons. It was a very curious principle to take a clause out of a Bill which had been rejected in another place, and put it into the Children Bill. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there would be considerable discussion on that clause. Then there was the question of carrying over. The hon. Baronet opposite said that he had laboured long at his own particular Bill and hoped that the Prime Minister would accede to his request that it should be carried over. But every Member who had an interest in a measure would ask that his Bill should also be carried over. That meant that they would be introducing the system of carrying over in a general sense,

505
because they would have any number of energetic Members of the House who would ask that it should be done with the Bills in which they were particularly interested. If Bills were sent to a Grand Committee on which there were only eighty Members, and these were to be carried over, the vast majority of Members of the House would not know what points had been discussed in Committee; and, besides, the Members of the Grand Committee could not carry all the details in their memory. He was really speaking in the interests of good legislation when he opposed this system of carrying over. Nothing was more fatal to the interests of the country at large than passing ill-digested measures without any one knowing what their ultimate effect would be. He hoped, at any rate, that the right hon. Gentleman would not insist on the House sitting after one o'clock in the morning to the end of the session. The Leader of the Opposition had said that the suspension of the eleven or twelve o'clock rule had been the habit of the Governments of both parties in the House. He was afraid that that habit had been adopted in order to force certain measures through the House. He agreed with his right hon. friend that that was a method of carrying on Government business; but he did not believe in it. He thought it would be better for the House and the country if they legislated more for quality than for quantity.
MR. CORRIE GRANTwho rose amidst cries of "Divide," asked the indulgence of the House for two minutes to make two comments and one suggestion, and reminded hon. Members who cried "Divide" that it was the first time he had spoken at these sittings. They could all sympathise with his hon. friend who had just sat down. With the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule his work was done—Othello's occupation was gone. He was sure the House appreciated the position his hon. friend had won for himself by extreme pertinacity and regular attendance—he was not going to refer to the phrase by which he was known in the lobby, which was expressive, accurate, and
506
dramatic—but when the eleven o'clock rule went, though his hon. friend would still be there, his opportunity for promoting useful legislation disappeared. He would like to say one word further with regard to the protest which was made just before. He thought everyone would agree with that protest whether they had voted for the guillotine or not. He had never voted for the guillotine, but they had to recognise it for the moment as existing although they had all hoped that it would never become part of the permanent procedure of the House. His hon. friend the Member for the City of London was a new Member. He knew nothing of the procedure of the House in past days. Nor did the Cabinet. He had worked up the dates when the four leading members of the Cabinet entered the House, and he found that the oldest Member was the Secretary of State for War. He came into the House in 1885, and he was, therefore, a comparatively new Member. Old Members, and he thought he could claim to be an old Member of the House in that sense, would remember the sessions from 1874 to 1880. He watched the proceedings of this House throughout the whole of that Parliament much more carefully than any Member of the House, and well remembered that the most important part of the work of the House was done after twelve o'clock—done with great consideration and great benefit to the country. [An HON. MEMBER: You did not then sit ten months in the year.] No, but they sat then till four, or five, or six o'clock in the morning, at some detriment to the health of Members of the House, but with great benefit to the country. If they could return to that practice—[Cries of "No, no."] Hon. Members who said "No, no," knew nothing about it. [Cries of "We do not want to."] That was the attitude of a man who, first of all, being ignorant of the matter talked about, did not wish to hear the facts which would enable him to alter his opinion. Some of his friends who remembered the Parliament before 1874, and the Parliament from 1874 to 1880, knew perfectly well that private Members then left the conduct of Government business to the Government and came down there at ten or eleven or twelve

507
o'clock at night, and when the Government had ended their work, proceeded to transact their business, it was true in a small House, but in a House as large as the Standing Committees of to-day. The result was that private Members cognisant of small, unimportant evils in their own districts were able to correct them by their own effort. One Member of the House, Mr. Sheridan, boasted, and boasted advisedly, that he carried a private Bill every session. What Member of the House could go to his constituents and say that he had carried a private Bill in this Parliament? Those Bills were small and useful. He, therefore, rose to make a practical suggestion. The suggestion he made was that the Prime Minister should consider—not now, but when he came to deal with a similar situation next cession—whether he should utilise the knowledge and ability of the private Members who sat behind him and who faced him that day, who were anxious to take part in the work of the House and who were disgusted with the way in which they walked up and down the lobbies, knowing perfectly well that if they opened their mouths they were only wasting the time of the House; who, therefore, were going back to their constituents with the consciousness that they had not done their duty, and some of them not able to find the reason why that had come about. The procedure of the House built on hundreds of years of progress had been broken into pieces by a revolutionary party using unconstitutional methods and justified in so using them, but they hoped that the time was coming when that revolutionary party would disappear—[OPPOSITION cheers.] He should have thought some hon. friends of his would know him well enough not to interrupt him in the middle of a sentence—they hoped that the time was coming when that party would disappear as a revolutionary party and would take its place as part of a House of Commons doing constitutional work for the whole Empire as they used to do in the old days. That day on the Order Paper, there were 116 Orders; of these 31 were Government measures, the remainder were those of Private Members and others who desired to promote useful legislation.
508
What he wanted to ask the Prime Minister was to consider whether they could not revert to the useful precedent of bye-gone days, of which the right hon. Gentleman himself had no experience, and let private Members do their own work after he had finished what the Government wanted to do. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman would try the experiment, he would find that there were some Members opposite, and a great many on that side, who were willing to do work in the early hours of the morning if they could only see that the work which they were going to do would be beneficial to the country.
MR. MORTONsaid there was a good deal to be said in favour of the compartment system they had attempted to adopt, if they could possibly carry it out so that the allotted time should be properly divided up over the whole of the clause; but as a matter of fact, and unfortunately, the time generally was taken up on the discussion of a few sentences at the commencement of the clause, and a great many clauses were not considered at all. He thought the House would agree that the allotted time should be fairly divided so that all the clauses might be criticised. At any rate he should think that might be a successful way of getting the work done properly. He had always been in favour of carrying over Bills—he did not say from one Parliament to another—but from session to session. He should think that would save a great deal of time, and hurt no one except those who did not want to pass any legislation at all. He thought more business had been crowded into this autumn session than when a Tory Government was in power they attempted to deal with in three or four sessions of Parliament. Therefore, they had tried to do a great deal even if they had not succeeded. He would like to ask the Prime Minister on behalf of those Members of the Liberal Party who had done their best to support him for the last two or three months not to keep them much after eleven o'clock. The front bench Members were paid, well paid, but they, the private Members, were the great unpaid, and had to give a great deal of time—more than they expected. To be

509
out late at night was dangerous to health and was not the best way of spending the end of the year. What he rose specially to speak about was the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill. He should like the Prime Minister to see if he could not get that Bill passed, as it was of great importance to thousands of poor fishermen in the North of Scotland. There were a great many other Bills which might be dropped without doing so much harm as would be caused if that Bill were abandoned. He was not sure that the Scottish Office had been serious in the way in which they were dealing with this Bill. He believed it was at the end of 1906 or the beginning of 1907 that they were promised this Bill. It was not a question simply of trawling but of obeying the law. The Scottish Judges unanimously decided that these foreign trawlers had no right in Moray Firth. That was the law of the land, and the Government should take steps to see that it was obeyed. If these foreign trawlers were really foreign trawlers he should not think so much about it, but they were Englishmen and English companies.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Gentleman was now discussing the merits of a Bill which was going to be dropped.
MR. MORTONsaid he was sorry; he regretted that these English companies made use of a foreign flag to break the laws of this country. He hoped the Prime Minister, if the Scottish Office would not do so, would take this matter which affected 70,000 or 80,000 line fishermen into serious consideration, and endeavour to do something to see the law obeyed. If the Bill could not be passed this session, he hoped it would be brought in early next session, and pressed forward as rapidly as possible. That would be only acting fairly. He was speaking in the interests of his constituents and of constituencies which the Scottish Members represented, and he trusted that they would have some distinct assurance from the Prime Minister that the Trawling within Prohibited Areas Bill should be carried into law at the earliest possible opportunity. He (Mr. Morton) might repeat
510
that he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman for the remainder of the session would not keep hon. Member in the House long after eleven o'clock at night.
MR. ASQUITH: I have been subjected to a somewhat lengthy series of Questions and I am afraid my Answers will be somewhat incoherent. My hon. friend the Member for Rugby lamented the days when, he said, the House transacted its business more satisfactory than now by sitting up late. I can remember those days when we used to sit up till two, three, or four o'clock in the morning to the detriment of our health, to the destruction, or, at any rate the deterioration of our temper, and with a very unsatisfactory output of public work as the result. I think we live in much better days now. Speeches are much shorter than they used to be, the methods of business are much more strict and accurate, and the output of work is much more satisfactory whether regarded from the point of view of quality or bulk. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London would sacrifice quantity to quality. But then, we do not always agree as to what quality means. And when my hon. friend says as a proof of the shortcomings of our Parliamentary procedure, that no private Member was able to pass a Bill in the course of the session I would point to the hon. Baronet who succeeded in carrying a Bill this session, with the general assent of all parties in the House. With reference to the Irish Constabulary Bill, the Chief Secretary regards its passing as a matter of the utmost importance, and unless it excites more opposition than we anticipate we think it our duty to persevere with it. I have been asked whether the Government will give facilities for the Bill for the removal of certain Roman Catholic disabilities. I am afraid it is quite out of the question, having regard to the short time which remains at our disposal, to consider a Bill which, as the division on its First Reading shows, excites a considerable amount of controversy.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It was passed by a large majority.
MR. ASQUITH: Well, there are at least the elements of controversy in parts of it. I should be willing to vote for its Second Reading, without, however, committing myself to all its details. But as regards the grievance, which, I believe, is really felt by Roman Catholics and which, with other grievances of comparatively minor importance, is dealt with in the Bill—I mean the Royal Declaration on the Accession of the Sovereign—I would refer the hon. Gentleman to what was said yesterday in another place by my noble friend the Earl of Crewe. He will see from the language then used, which expresses the mind of the Government, that we are most anxious to arrive, in this difficult and delicate matter, at some form of words which will preserve what the people of this country regard as the substance of the Declaration, but which, at the same time, will cease to give offence to the Roman Catholic community. With regard to the Bills dealing with unemployment, I have already indicated that this subject will have to be dealt with by further legislation, but I cannot, with the time at our disposal, promise to give these Bills facilities for passing this year. A plea was made that the Housing Bill might be carried over to next session by special Resolution. I do not think any Minister would be justified in applying that novel procedure to a particular Bill until the House has had an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion as to whether or not such a complete innovation in its ancient procedure should become part of what I might call the common law or statute law of Parliament. I have already indicated my views on this matter. They are not shared by some of my colleagues. At any rate, I cannot, on my own responsibility, take that course at this time of the session in regard to any particular Bill. But I think the assurance I have given ought to be satisfactory—namely, that the Bill will be reintroduced at the earliest possible moment next session, not, of course, in its original form, but as amended by the Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Mayo advocated, as I have done myself in days gone by, the beginning of the session in November and its termination reasonably early in
512
the summer. There is no doubt in my mind that that is a rational way of disposing of the Parliamentary year. But there are great difficulties in the way. In the first place we can never get to a year in which we can give it a fair trial. If we begin in February and decide to have no autumn session, it would be the same thing as having an autumn session, if we met again in November, and if we did have an autumn session, obviously the question would have to be postponed for another twelve months. Another practical difficulty is that we have no dead end in the calendar, if we terminate the session in the month of June. The 12th of August is a dead end. It is regarded almost as a violation of the etiquette of society to be in London and not on the grouse moors after that date. Christmas, too, is a dead end. People have to go away for their holidays. But if we were to adopt an indeterminate date in the summer, such as 30th June, which is not even the day on which the children's holidays begin—a circumstance which would operate with a certain amount of leverage on the minds of the domestic section of the community—a day which has no sanction from the calendar, tradition, custom, or convenience, I am afraid we would find that the pressure exercised by the Government of the day to keep on sitting through the month of July and a week into August would be so great that the House would be unable to resist it. Therefore, excellent from an ideal point of view as the suggestion is, the more I think of it the more I realise what practical difficulties there are in carrying it into effect. As to the Hops Bill, there is no hope, as I have already said, of carrying it into law during the present session unless it meets with practically universal assent. We are anxious to see it passed into law, and I can assure my hon. friend that there will be no unavoidable delay on our part to take steps to make it a portion of the statute law of the land. The noble Lord opposite, I think, mentioned two Bills. The Infant Life Protection Bill is a very admirable measure, but I am sorry to say that I cannot conceive its coming within the category of a non-controversial measure, otherwise I would be glad to include it. Another measure to which the noble Lord referred was

513
the Bill relating to female suffrage. I thought that Bill had disappeared.
LORD R. CECIL: No.
MR. ASQUITH: Well, I accept the noble Lord's assurance that it has not. It escaped my notice. Again I am afraid that I must repeat the hackneyed formula that in the existing state of things this Bill cannot come within the category of uncontroversial measures. I think I have dealt with all the specific questions, and I will only say one word in conclusion in reference to a remark which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my indisposition on this occasion to discuss the merits or demerits of the action of another assembly with reference to the Licensing Bill, was not due to any desire to debate that matter in his absence—on the contrary, I would rather debate it when he is present—but simply from a well-grounded fear that it might be out of order, and certainly, also, lead the debate into bye-paths in which it would be very undesirable on an occasion like this that we should travel; but, no doubt, the time will come when we will be able to freely talk over the matter across the Table of the House. The right hon. Gentleman seems rather to share the view of the hon. Member for Rugby as to the degeneracy of the present condition of the House as compared with the better days when he and those who preceded him were responsible for the conduct of its business. Two things I noticed, I confess with a certain amount of surprise, in the right hon. Gentleman's comments on this point. The first is that he now regards—what a change time and circumstances make in us all, and how desirable it is we should show ourselves with the right hon. Gentleman intellectually elastic and amenable to the teaching of experience in this respect—the right hon. Gentleman now regards a bye-election as conclusive proof of the opinion of the country on the conduct of the Government.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not overrate a bye-election. I only say it is an adequate answer to a Ministerial speech.
MR. ASQUITH: I can remember the days when it was not regarded as an adequate answer to a Ministerial speech, but, on the contrary, when it was treated as one of those insignificant, erratic, spasmodic, sporadic and altogether unaccountable phenomena which sometimes darken the political sky, and which a wise man need not even put up his umbrella to defend himself from. The second point made by the right hon. Gentleman, which also struck me as evidence of his elasticity of mind—I know of that elasticity from other indications—was that he lamented, almost with tears in his eyes, what he now recognises as an accomplished fact—that what is vulgarly called the guillotine has become an accepted part of our Parliamentary procedure. So it is. But the right hon. Gentleman surely cannot forget—I am not going into the old controversy as to who has used it with more frequency and least justification—that the credit belongs to himself and his own party as the original authors and promoters of this new political instrument. Surely it must be gratifying to those who had the ingenuity first to devise the weapon which never occurred to us, or to any of their own predecessors—it must be gratifying to them that it has become part of the regular political armament, and that no party is capable of dispensing with its use. In conclusion, all I have to say to the House is that I still think that we have been sparing in our use of the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule during the session now drawing to a close, and that this more or less attenuated programme which we now submit of what may be done before it completes its Parliamentary labours, is one which, if carried through, will add many useful measures to the Statute-book of the country.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 318; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 437.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Agnew, George William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Alden, Percy

Atherley-Jones, L.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Erskine, David C.

Lambert, George

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Essex, R. W.

Lamont, Norman

Barker, Sir John

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E)

Barnard, E. B.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Fenwick, Charles

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Beale, W. P.

Feren, T. R.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Beck, A. Cecil

Ffrench, Peter

Lewis, John Herbert

Bennett, E. N.

Field, William

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bertram, Julius

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lundon, W.

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

Findlay, Alexander

Lupton, Arnold

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Flynn, James Christopher

Lyell, Charles Henry

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Black, Arthur W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

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

Boland, John

Furness, Sir Christopher

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Brace, William

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Maclean, Donald

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gill, A. H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Branch, James

Ginnell, L.

McNeill, John Gordon Swift

Brigg, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Macpherson, J. T.

Bright, J. A.

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Brodie, H. C.

Glendinning, R. G.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

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

Glover, Thomas

M'Callum, John M.

Brunner,RtHnSirJ.T.(Cheshire

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Crae, Sir George

Bryce, J. Annan

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Grant, Corrie

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Maddison, Frederick

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Mallet, Charles E.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hall, Frederick

Markham, Arthur Basil

Byles, William Pollard

Halpin, J.

Marnham, F. J.

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Massie, J.

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hart-Davies, T.

Meagher, Michael

Chance, Frederick William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

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

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harwood, George

Menzies, Walter

Clancy, John Joseph

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Middlebrook, William

Clough, William

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Clynes, J. R.

Hazleton, Richard

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henry, Charles S.

Morrell, Philip

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.)

Morse, L. L.

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Higham, John Sharp

Muldoon, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hobart, Sir Robert

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Cooper, G. J.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Murray, Capt. Hn A C. (Kincard)

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

Hodge, John

Myer, Horatio

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hogan, Michael

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholls, George

Cox, Harold

Holt, Richard Durning

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Crean, Eugene

Hooper, A. G.

Nolan, Joseph

Crooks, William

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Crosfield, A. H.

Horniman, Emslie John

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Crossley, William J.

Hudson, Walter

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Curran, Peter Francis

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Nuttall, Harry

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Delany, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Doherty, Philip

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Dowd, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Grady, J.

Dillon, John

Jowett, F. W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Joyce, Michael

O'Shee, James John

Donelan, Captain A.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Duckworth, Sir James

Kekewich, Sir George

Partington, Oswald

Duffy, William J.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Paulton, James Mellor

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Laidlaw, Robert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Pollard, Dr.

516

517

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Seely, Colonel

Walton, Joseph

Power, Patrick Joseph

Shackleton, David James

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

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

Wrd, W.Dudley(Southampt'n)

Radford, G. H.

Sheehy, David

Waring, Walter

Rainy, A. Rolland

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Reddy, M.

Snowden, P.

Waterlow, D. S.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Soares, Ernest J.

Watt, Henry A.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Rendall, Athelstan

Stanger, H. Y.

Weir, James Galloway

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

White,J.Dundas(Dumbart'nsh.

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

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Richardson, A.

Steadman, W. C.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whittaker, Rt Hn.SirThomasP.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wiles, Thomas

Robertson,Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Robinson, S.

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Sutherland, J. E.

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

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Rose, Charles Day

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

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

Rowlands, J.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Samuel,Rt.Hn.H.L.(Cleveland)

Tomkinson, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Verney, F. W.

Sears, J. E.

Vivian, Henry

Seddon, J.

Walsh, Stephen

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F.

Gardner, Ernest

Morpeth, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(City Lond.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, W.E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haddock, George B.

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pretyman, Ernest George

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heaton, John Henniker

Renwick, George

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir John H.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kerry, Earl of

Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

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

King,Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Collings,Rt.Hn.J. (Birmingh'm

Lee,Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham

Valentia, Viscount

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A. R.

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

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Craig, Captain James(Down,E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cross, Alexander

M'Arthur, Charles

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Doughty, Sir George

Magnus, Sir Philip

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. George D. Faber.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Fell, Arthur

Middlemore,John Throgmorton

Forster, Henry William

Mildmay, Francis Binghum

COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
As amended, (in the Standing Committee) considered.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH, in moving to leave put clause 1, said he did not disguise from himself the
518
fact that if the Amendment was accepted the Bill as an Eight Hours Bill would fall to the ground, and he sincerely hoped it would be added to the victims of the massacre which took place a few moments ago. He desired to trespass on the indulgence of the

519
House for but a few moments, but he wanted to put forward the reasons why he was entirely opposed to the principle which underlay the whole of the Bill. He felt that the measure was going through the House by default. It had been before the House for some years past, and he might perhaps be allowed to trace its history and the reasons for which it had been brought forward. It had been brought forward on Friday afternoons and had assumed such an academic character that hon. Members had not taken that amount of interest in this great and far-reaching question that they ought to have done, and they had usually selected the day on which the measure had been brought forward as a day on which they could attend to other business which had not been in the House of Commons. There was only left a very short time in which they could protest against this measure; and he craved the indulgence of the House to bear with him perhaps for a few moments longer than was usually allowed to the mover of an Amendment on the Report Stage, because, though deeply interested in the measure, perhaps as deeply interested as any hon. Members in the House, he had not an opportunity on the Second Reading of putting forward his reasons which he held very strongly, and which he had entertained for a very long time past, why the measure should not become the law of the land.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: May I ask whether the noble Lord is entitled to go into the general principles of the Bill and to make a Second Reading speech?
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is entitled to discuss Clause 1.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid the pith and essence of the Bill were contained in Clause 1. The whole principle was involved in that clause, and it was for that reason that he had put down the Amendment he was now moving. There was no need for him to make any secret of it, and he did not know that there was any need to explain to hon. Members that he himself
520
was as interested as any hon. Member in the House in the coal trade. But he would take it for granted that he was absolved, certainly by Members below the gangway, from protesting against this measure from any unworthy motive, in exactly the same way as he absolved them from putting forward this measure on their own behalf. Might he be allowed as briefly as possible to put forward the reasons for his direct opposition to the Bill? He was opposed to it, first of all, because it was the first attempt which had been made in this country for the purpose of curtailing the hours of adult labour. The second reason was that it was uncalled for by the people of this country; and the third reason was that it established uniform legislation to meet wholly different local conditions. On the economic aspect of the question, the harm it would do to the coal owner or the coal consumer, he did not propose to touch. He would leave that to hon. Members on both sides of the House who put this subject forward in a far more eloquent manner than he could ever hope to do. What he desired to impress upon the House was the very far-reaching and important principle involved in the Bill. It was quite obvious that if the principle was once admitted it could not remain where it was at the present moment. That principle, once extended to the coal industry, could not remain with the coal industry. It must extend to other industries and eventually control the whole industrial life of the country. Might he be allowed in a very few words to put before the House the history of the Bill? In 1887 an Amendment was proposed to the Mines Regulation Act—
MR. MARKHAM: On a point of order, is the hon. Member in order, on Clause 1, in going into the history of the Bill and the manner in which it has passed through the House?
MR. SPEAKER: I think the noble Lord is taking a little too much licence now. It is no doubt a very important principle, and a good deal is contained in Clause 1. I should have thought that

521
would be sufficient material for the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he desired to point out that the Bill had been brought forward by Gentlemen below the gangway and had been supported by right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench with a view to showing that it was to be entirely confined to the coal trade, and had been brought forward in the interests of humanity, and of the miners themselves, and was not, as he took it to be, a Socialistic proposal for the purpose of curtailing the hours of labour in this country. He thought it was only by touching on the history of the measure that they could see with what object it was brought forward. The promoters of the Bill, in the first place, were members of a Socialistic party who desired to extend this principle to other industries. Of course, if he was trespassing on the ruling of the Speaker it certainly removed a great deal of the force of the argument which he wanted to put forward. He did not desire to enter into economic details of the cost to the coal owner or anything in that respect, but he desired to oppose as strenuously as he could the very important and far reaching principle which he maintained was contained in the Bill. Perhaps he might say a few words with regard to the origin of the movement.
MR. SPEAKER: That is still worse; that is appropriate to the Third Reading.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid that perhaps he might refer to the different attitude which had been taken up by Members below the gangway and hon. Members who sat on the front bench. They had heard a great many speeches from Members connected with the Labour Party, both in the House and on the Committee stage upstairs, and they had ventured to concentrate their remarks as applicable to the coal trade. They had heard a great deal on the Committee stage with regard to the tyrannical employer and they were told that this clause which embodies the principle of the Bill was intended for the purpose of protecting the miner from what the tyrannical employers did to him. When this measure was taken up by the
522
Government and was supported by the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman prefaced his speech with a dramatic account of the life of the miner underground. The President of the Board of Trade appealed to the House to pass the measure on the ground that the miner was excluded from the light of day and should not be excluded for more than eight hours. If one-tenth of the statements put forward by the right hon. Gentleman were accurate he would be entirely justified in bringing a Bill into the House prohibiting labour being carried on underground at all, and instead of using coal as an article for the purpose of providing warmth for the human body and for carrying on great industries, the British public would have to find some substitute. But that statement was not entirely accurate. He did not for a moment pretend that the industry was named on under altogether pleasant and comfortable conditions, but there were other industries in the country to which equal objection could be taken. That was an argument at one time used with great force, but it was obvious that it must now be a diminishing force. He objected to the clause because it contained the principles of curtailment of the hours of labour and free action affecting a very large community in this country. It was quite obvious that labour in this country could claim to be in the same position to maintain its rights as employers of labour. There were two main points to which he desired to draw attention. The first was that if it was meant that this principle of the curtailment of the hours of labour was to go no further than was proposed in this measure, he would suggest that the proposition put forward in this clause should be left to the trade itself to decide. If it was meant to apply to all industries in the country then he could only say that if the House of Commons decided that that step should be taken the doom of the industries was sealed for ever. If that principle remained part of the Bill it was obvious that the legislation could not remain at the point at which this Bill left it. It was obvious that this measure must be the precursor of far more stringent legislation, and when eight hours had been adopted for coal mines they would probably have seven or

523
eight hours Bills introduced to establish the same principle for every industry in the country. He hoped that they would hear some really adequate and important reasons put forward by the right hon. Gentleman on the front Ministerial bench for taking up the Bill on behalf of the Government. He objected to legislation of this kind because he was one of those who looked upon all restrictive legislation affecting the hours of labour as a necessary evil, and, therefore, the House needed to be very careful lest it went too tar in legislating, not for controlling the minority for the benefit of the majority, but for controlling the majority for the benefit of the minority. In moving the rejection of the clause he which it contained might very well be left to some arrangement between those concerned in the trade. He could testify well to the relations which existed between the employers and employed in the coal trade in the North of England. Those subject of boast in that part of the country, and he did not think that the regulations of the hours of labour of those who worked in the coal trade in the North of England could be left in better hands. It might be said that the Railway Regulations Act and the Shop Hours Act were instances of the curtailment of hours of work of adults. But he had not the time to go into those two measures, beyond stating that under no circumstances could they be taken as any analogy whatever to the case before them. He would point out to hon. Gentlemen who had not taken the interest in this Bill which he thought a Bill of this magnitude was entitled to receive at their hands, that the injury the Bill might do to the individual coal owner or coal consumer was nothing whatsover as affecting the main question. The injury to the individual was but a passing thing. There might be a great dislocation of trade, but that was a thing which might possibly right itself. What he wished to impress upon hon. Members was that by passing this measure they were admitting a principle which had never been admitted in this country before, and one which he was perfectly convinced would do infinite harm to the
524
character and life of the whole of the industrial population. He should have liked to have gone at far greater detail into what he believed would be the effect of the clause, but owing to the ruling of Mr. Speaker he must content himself with confining his remarks within these very narrow bounds. He hoped what he had said would persuade hon. Members to consider the measure in its proper light, and with those few remarks he ventured to move, "That Clause 1 be omitted from the Bill."
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that in seconding the Amendment he did not intend to go into the side of the subject with namely, the larger question of limiting the hours of labour, but he desired to allude to some matters which had occurred since the Bill was before the House. They had had on past occasions various arguments in conection with in reference to this particular measure they had travelled a great deal from the original position as to what was an actual eight hours day. Even the promoters of this measure had had to confess that difficulties which, when they raised them at first, were laughed at, were very real ones, and they had now to consider seriously questions of winding, and other matters, which when first brought forward, were considered as unreal. One great change made by the Government in connection with Clause 1 had not, in his opinion, improved the Bill in any way. The change he referred to was in connection with putting in that favourite device of the Government, the time-limit, so that the Bill did not come into operation until a period when it was very likely they would not incur any disadvantages from the results of this particular legislation. He only hoped in connection with this point that after the very strong argument which the Home Secretary put forward in favour of a scheme for five years, he would adhere to the Amendment he now saw on the Paper, and restore the clause to what he suggested in Grand Committee. He hoped he would not think that he

525
was doubting his bona fides on this question, but they could not help remembering what happened on the Report stage of the Workmen's Compensation Bill when a similar thing occurred. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman was defeated in Grand Committee, and he said he would put the matter right again on a subsequent stage. When the Motion was proposed from the front Opposition bench and seconded, in extremely strong and convincing speeches, the Government would not put on their own Whips to tell in the division upon the Question.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,: It is not quite accurate to say that. What I said in Grand Committee was that I should leave the matter to the House to decide. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] I am speaking from memory, and that is my recollection of what occurred.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he was only alluding to that incident as an analogy in order to make sure that, at all events, in view of the arguments that had been used, there should not be any wavering upon that particular point. This, however, did not affect his argument at all, because he did not think the alteration was one of any advantage even to those interested in the Bill. The clause as it passed through Grand Committee had really very little more effect on the Bill than when they were discussing it on the Second Reading. The two great considerations which really affected the House were, first of all, the opinion of the hon. Member for Gloucester, who presided so ably over the Departmental Committee, and gave them the most valuable information upon this question which they had ever received. On the Second Reading he supported the Bill in a somewhat critical speech. They knew also that the Bill as it came back from the Grand Committee contained some very grave faults indeed, and although the hon. Member for Gloucester's own suggestion for amending those faults was not one which appealed to the coal owners—he did not know what the coal consumers thought
526
upon it—they had this fact established, that the Bill as it stood at present, and this clause which really enshrined the whole Bill, would lead to very great danger to the coal industry. Although the hon. Member was in favour of the principle, he considered that this section as it stood contained a very serious danger, and if passed in its present form, the hon. Member thought that very great disaster might accompany its enforcement in the country. That was a very valuable opinion coming from the source that it did. The second point was that they had always had assurances from hon. Members below the gangway that in no sense was the Bill put forward in contemplation of prices being raised and wages in proportion. On that point they had a very full statement made by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan on the Second Reading, when he said—
"He could, were he a clever diplomatist hedge the question, but he would much rather frankly tell the House what they had done, or rather not done. Not in conference or in any congress or in any committee, or in private conversation, had his colleagues and himself discussed the question of advancing the wages consequent upon the passing of the Bill."
The only thing that they had had in connection with that since had been that on the 23rd November, at a considerably later date, at the half-yearly council meeting of the Northumberland Miners Association the following resolution was passed—
"That, in view of the probable early passing of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, and the subsequent likelihood of reorganisation having to be made in reference to wages, we request the Miners Federation Committee to convene a conference at an early date of the workmen members of the various conciliation boards, with a view to drawing up some uniform system applicable to the whole Federation, whereby a higher basis wage and a higher minimum wage can be obtained."
He thought it was rather too much that before the Bill was carried, they should have all the miners meeting together in order to raise wages. The apprehensions in connection with the Bill appeared to be justified, even at the early stage of the proceedings. On three points they were now meeting the question in a decidedly worse position than when the Bill left the House for Grand Committee. They

527
had the Government not daring to bring the Bill into operation till the end of five years, they had the knowledge that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway intended to make the Bill a basis for increasing the price, and they had the knowledge on the authority of the hon Member for Gloucester that the Bill as it stood was very dangerous to the industries of the country.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."—(Viscount Castlereagh.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'for,' in page 1, line 6, stand part of the Bill."
MR. BRACEsaid he had listened with much interest to the proposer and the seconder of the Amendment, and he must confess that he thought they had put forward no argument at all which would justify the House in rejecting the clause. They had said that the Home Secretary had put down an Amendment deferring the operation of the Bill for five instead of three years; they had criticised him, and they had gone on to say that he had only put in this time-limit because he was afraid of the Bill. The miners' Members who supported the period of three years in Grand Committee; supported three years now because they realised that three years was more than sufficient to deal with anything that might arise in connection with this clause or with any portion of the Bill. The proposer and the seconder of the Amendment had said that that was the first time that the House of Commons had been asked to deal with adult labour. Indirectly it had always dealt with adult labour. In dealing with the hours of labour for children the House had also indirectly dealt with adult labour. He only needed to quote the Factory Acts and the Coal Mines Regulation Act to prove that. The opponents of the Bill, as usual, had beaten the big drum about the doom of industry; but had the House ever been asked to deal with any kind of legislative problem affecting labour when there had not
528
been the cry raised that our industries were to be ruined? The Compensation Act was a good instance of that kind. Members of Parliament declared that if that Bill was passed industries would be ruined, but there had never been such a profit, made as since the time when that became an Act of Parliament. If history repeated itself the passing of the Eight Hours Bill into an Act of Parliament would have no more influence in dooming industries than the passing of that piece of humanitarian legislation. They were told that this matter ought to have been left to be arranged between the trade unions and the employers. That was a proposition which was argued when the Bill came before the House for Second Reading. He said then what he said now, that it was because the workmen's leaders and the workmen themselves looked on this legislative Chamber as the proper place for settling a matter of this kind that they had come there in preference to using their power. He was not saying that their trade unions could not settle the matter themselves, and if the House rejected their responsibility the trade unions would have to settle the matter themselves. Some hon. Members cheered that statement, but if in consequence of the trade unions having to take it on themselves to settle the matter they had a prolonged strike which affected the whole of the industries of the country there would be no reason to cheer. When hon. Gentlemen told them to go and settle the question by the power of their trade unions they were giving a piece of advice which, if carried to its logical result, they would be the first to condemn them for. They had come to the House because they felt that this was one of those questions that an Imperial Legislature could deal with without injustice to anybody and without damaging industry. They had brought the question out of the area of a stoppage of work which would bear powerfully on the industries of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord had said that they were not united, but on this occasion they stood before the House absolutely united in their demand for legislation. The noble Lord and his friends said "No." They seemed to know much more about the matter than the men's leaders. There was nothing

529
like having a healthy conceit of themselves. Hon. Gentlemen above the gangway were assuming a right which they had no right to assume, for they stood before the House of Commons as an absolutely united body from the North of Scotland to the West of Wales, save and except perhaps "the great important coalfield in the Forest of Dean," though he thought that the right hon. Baronet who represented the Forest of Dean would be able to tell them that there also they agreed with them in asking the House to accept this Bill. The hon. Member for Ashford said that a five-year period was of no advantage, and that it would be no more advantage than a three-year period.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he certainly did not express himself clearly if he did say so, because he had appealed to the Home Secretary to stick to the period of five years.
MR. BRACEsaid he accepted the correction, though he took the words down at the time as he was rather startled at the statement. The hon. Member had quoted him correctly when he said that he had stated that they had had no arrangement, no conference, no discussion in the Committee, no discussion among themselves as to a policy for the raising of prices with a view to the raising of wages as a result or in consequence of the passing of this Bill. The resolution which the hon. Member had quoted regarding Northumberland was a resolution which the Northumberland members of the Federation were perfectly competent to propose as a section of the Federation; but till the hon. Member could come to the House and say that the Miners Federation as a body had passed a similar resolution to that which he had read, he would not be justified in assuming that there was a consensus of opinion among miners about raising prices, and thereby raising wages. The hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that it was a very easy thing to raise wages, and that all they had to do was to ask and take. If the hon. Gentleman had had as much experience as he had had in begging for something like a minimum wage he would be able to understand that the coal owners on the question
530
of wages were able to look after themselves, and were very difficult to persuade to increase wages. It was more than suggested that miners would have an advantage by raising prices because they would be enabled to cover themselves through the increased wage they would receive. The averages price for cutting the coal in South Wales was 1s. 6d. per ton. On the standard that was all the collier who went into the pit got. The highest percentage they ever received in the greatest boom year they have ever known was 78¾ per cent. The maximum at the present moment was 60 per cent., so that if they went to the highest point of a coal boom ever known they would only get 18¾ per cent. above what they had now. That worked out at 2·47d. Yet hon. Gentlemen asked the House to believe that they would use this Bill to increase the price of coal because they would be more than compensated by the increased wages they would receive. Could anyone conceive that a miner would reduce his output by one ton of coal per day so that by losing 1s. 6d. he might receive an addition on his standard of 2d or 2½d? It was too ridiculous to talk about, yet with great solemnity and great authority they heard it said that the miners would be raising prices, and that this was what the Resolution that had been read intended. He had listened carefully in all those debates to hear the human side of the problem dealt with, but all that was talked about was the question of the raising of the price of coal. The Coal Consumers' League had recently issued a manifesto asking not only that the House should reject the Bill, but that people should send them money so that the resources of the league might be replenished. When he remembered the mining industry with its appalling death roll—hon. Members laughed at that, but while at that moment they were discussing the Mines Eight Hours Bill amid the jeers and ridicule of Tory Members, within recent days there had been a terrible disaster in Lancashire, and the bodies of sixty-eight of their fellow men were locked up in that mine, the mine having been flooded with water to put out the fire caused by the explosion, and when he talked of the appalling death roll it is received with jeers. [Cries of

531
"Shame," and OPPOSITION cries of "No."] The time had come when some hon. Gentlemen should visit the raining villages after one of these disasters, so that they might be able to realise that the human heart responded as softly, tenderly, and quickly to sorrow amongst the poor as in higher classes. When he went down to Lancashire with his colleagues in connection with that disaster, for days they were depressed with sadness because of the sorrowful scenes they witnessed. It was for the miners and their families that they pleaded. It was with fear and trembling that he ventured to urge that there was a human side to this problem which the House could not afford to pass lightly by. They did not think that the Bill if passed would in any way advance the price of coal. He held that if there was a time at which such a measure could be safely introduced it was now. They had thousands of men idle. Colliery owners were shutting down their pits, because it did not pay them to work the coal at present. If this Bill was allowed to come into operation during a period of depression, when there was more than a sufficient supply of coal to meet all requirements, by the time the cycle of good trade came round, and the markets went up, they would have the advantage of being ready to supply all the demands for coal. In connection with the Amendment standing in his own name, to Clause 1, dealing with the question of firemen, examiners, and deputies, he wanted to make a point now because he did not desire to trouble the House again. For some reason or another, firemen, examiners, and deputies had been excluded from the general operation of the Bill, and dealt with specially in a clause of their own. [An HON. MEMBER: On the ground of safety.] As the question of safety had been raised, he said that if there was any body of men in connection with colliery work entitled to special treatment, by way of short hours, it was the examiners, firemen, and deputies. It was on these men that the safety of the mine really depended, and from the moment they went down the pit until they came back all their faculties must be on the alert. On the examiners especially the colliers largely depended
532
for keeping a close oversight of the general conditions of safety in the mine. While they felt that the manager, under-manager, and overmen might be left out of the provisions of the Bill, they felt strongly that the examiners deputies, and firemen, ought to be within the Bill, and given the same conditions as the colliers. As to the time when the Bill was to come into operation he hoped his right hon. friend would feel that the Grand Committee had some right to be considered on the point. After thoroughly threshing out the question, the Grand Committee decided that the time-limit ought to be three years. His right hon. friend shook his head; and he knew it was said that that decision was obtained by a combination. He admitted that there was a combination, and that it was only by a majority that the Grand Committee decided that they must have the period of three years; still his right hon. friend would have something to gain by throwing in his lot with the mining Members in support of the Bill as it stood.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever to dealing with what he calls the human side of the coal miners' question. That cannot be ignored without very great disadvantage. But I would remind him of two points. In the first place, although everybody must admit that there are great risks and perils connected with the mining industry, and that miners are subject to accidents that do not affect other industries, nevertheless the general conditions of the trade are from the point of view of health not unsatisfactory; and, in the second place, I would point out that there is a very human side to the question of the price of fuel. I am not going to dogmatise upon the matter, but I think it will be admitted that if the effect of this Bill were to raise the price of fuel the effect upon the poor consumer of coal and upon the industries which give employment to the great body of our working men, is part of the human side of this question which it is impossible for this House to ignore. It is at least as human as the side upon which the hon. Gentleman has so eloquently dealt. It

533
is quite true that the miners' occupation is a risky occupation, and that we are only too often deeply stirred by the great disasters which occur in the mining industry in different parts of the country; but I do not see that this Bill touches that point, and, if it does, there are many people who think there are points in the Bill which would increase the dangers to which the coal miner's life is unhappily subject. But so far as accidents are concerned there is no comparison between disasters on the one hand, and short hours on the other. Because a man is leading a life in which tragedies occur, as they do in the coal mining industry, and in the nautical industry, how do you lessen these perils or touch the question by dealing with the hours of labour? If it can be alleged that the present hours of labour in themselves have the smallest effect in increasing the perils of the miner's occupation, I believe every man in the House would agree that this legislation was imperatively and immediately necessary. I do not understand that any of the miners' representatives do allege that the diminution of the hours of labour from eight-and-a-half or nine hours by half-an-hour has the smallest relation to the risk which the miners now run.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: With the greatest possible respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do believe sincerely that, if this Bill were passed, it would make a very serious difference in greatly decreasing the dangers of mining in South Wales; because the hours there are very much longer than they are in other parts of the country.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman no doubt speaks with knowledge at all events of his own district, but I may shelter myself behind the Report of the Parliamentary Committee, which stated, in perfectly explicit terms, that, so far as their investigations went, there was no connection between the actual length of hours worked in the mines and the number of accidents. I pass from that to ask one or two questions. I approach this question in no dogmatic spirit, and with no violent pre-conceived ideas. I am anxious to
534
learn what is to be said in favour of this measure, and I hope that, on this Report stage, we shall get explicit answers from those concerned in the mining industry to one or two questions, to which, speaking for myself, I have not been able as yet to find a reply. I understand that, broadly speaking, as far as the hours are concerned, we may roughly divide England and Scotland into three regions. There is the region which includes most of Scotland and part of Yorkshire, where, I believe, the hours now worked are not materially different from those which are prescribed in the Bill, and I suppose that there the Bill, though I believe it is desired by the miners, would effect practically no change in their position. I am talking of Scotland and Yorkshire, not of Northumberland and Durham. I do not suppose, therefore, that the Bill would have any economic effect either upon the workmen themselves or upon the general problem. That is the first division. Another division is South Wales and Lancashire. I understand that in South Wales, as the hon. Gentleman has just stated, and in Lancashire the actual hours now worked are greater than the hours prescribed in the Bill—are materially greater in some cases. If that be so, when this Bill passes, in these districts, and I confine myself to these two districts, there will evidently have to be an important readjustment of some kind or another, and I wish very much to ask the representatives of the miners in those districts of what nature they think that readjustment is going to be. It is quite clear that if the general condition of the industry remains the same, the diminution of hours will carry with it diminution of output. I am not now laying down a general proposition as to all industries, but I believe it is not denied that in these particular districts and industries a diminution of the hours of work will be followed by a diminution of output. If that be true, one of three things must happen. The profits of the coal owner must diminish, or the wages of the workers must be diminished, or the price of coal must rise, and all the other industries affected, and all those who use fuel for domestic purposes in the shape of the coal which comes from these regions will be deeply affected.

535
One or more of those three things must happen. Now I am very anxious to know what, in the opinion of the miners, will happen. Do they accept, for instance, as has been alleged by some of them—not by the hon. Member who has just sat down—that while prices rise, while wages rise, and the profits of the mine-owner rise, the only sufferers will be the vast general body of the consumers? If that is their view, I think it ought to be clearly stated in order that we may know where we are. If that is the view of those districts where the hours worked are materially longer than the hours prescribed in the Bill, and if that is the result, I think the House and the country should know that that is the anticipation of those through whose influence in the main this Bill is to be passed into law. If it is not that, are they going to acquiesce in the only alternative, which is a diminution of wages? The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down drew a picture of what would happen in the way of trade disputes if this matter were dealt with, not by Parliament, but by the mutual play of the forces under the control of the trade unions on the one side, and the Coal Owners' Association on the other. The hon. Gentleman stated that, though no doubt as a matter of fact the unions would be able to arrange the hours to their satisfaction, that end could only be arrived at after a serious trade war between the employers and the employed. But are they going to acquiesce in a diminution of wages without a trade war? If the result is not a rise in the price of coal but a diminution in rates of wages owing to the Bill, are they going to acquiesce in that consequence, and arrange with the employers or owners of the mines that as they are working less, they should get less, and are they going to accept contentedly that conclusion? Again, I think, if that is their view, they are in a position to say what their explanation is; but I think it is most important that they should give the House with all seriousness what they contemplate as the result of this legislation. There is only one more question which I will put to these Gentlemen who are more qualified to instruct us in these matters than any other body in the House. The hon. Gentleman who
536
has just sat down has told us that, with the single exception of the Forest of Dean, he believes that the whole of the mining industry on the workmen's side is absolutely unanimous from the North of Scotland to the South of England in favour of this measure. Well, Sir, I quite accept his statement that it is formally accepted, but I should like to ask what the words formally accepted carry with them in Northumberland and Durham. I understand that Northumberland and Durham acquiesce, per haps they do more, perhaps they approve, but I should be surprised if any representative from Northumberland can be found to say that. But, however that may be, and I do not wish to inquire into the matter too closely, what I want to know is this. How is the industry in Northumberland and Durham to Tae remodelled by July so as to be brought in accordance with the scheme of this Bill? The House will see that I am trying to confine myself to a very practical issue. I am not going into theory at all. The practical issue is of the very first importance. I think those who represent the miners in the House should tell us quite candidly and frankly whether they think that it is possible to uproot the immemorial, or, at all events, the long traditional usage in Northumberland and Durham, and whether it is possible for Northumberland and Durham to acquiesce in this Bill at all unless those who work at the "face" of the seam in those counties, I think that is the word, are prepared not to diminish but to increase the hours they at present work. I am told that they at present work six and a half hours. Would it be possible—I put it as a question; I do not feel that I know enough about it to give an answer myself; I only ask for information—is it possible to apply to that peculiar system of Northumberland and Durham the provisions of this Bill, they being required to work longer time than they do now? I may be quite wrong, but if they really signify their acquiescence in a revolution of their method of conducting the industry which involves an augmentation of the hours of labour of all the grown-up married members of the coal mining community of those two districts, I shall be surprised. These

537
two issues are, I think, of the greatest possible importance. I do not ask the Government to reply to my queries, but I should very sincerely desire to hear a reply by those who represent the miners. Be it observed that this Bill will very greatly restrict the liberty of miners, by which I mean the local man will not be allowed to work so long as he does now. There are many cases where he does not work so long as he will work under this Bill, and where he can choose the days and hours of his own work. He evidently will not have the same facilities if this Bill passes. If miners require that, it is not for other people to quarrel with it, but I sometimes doubt whether they have realised the inconvenience to them. But when I talk about their personal convenience I am travelling beyond my own province; they are the best judges of that. But the other queries I have put with regard to the alternatives of a rise in price and diminished wages and about Northumberland and Durham are of the utmost importance, and if we could, before agreeing to Clause 1, have an answer from those who represent the mining part of the community, I am sure it would facilitate the latter part of the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONE: I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes particularly to hear the opinions of the representatives of the miners who come from the districts affected, but there are one or two points upon which I should like to make an observation or two, and I should also like to reply to the speech preceding that of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his speech raised a very important point, a point which distinctly deserved regard, and that was the question of Durham and Northumberland. He asked how it was possible to expect Durham and Northumberland to make adequate preparation for reorganisation by 1st July. I quite agree that that is a very serious question. The point was raised at the inception of the discussion in the Standing Committee, and that view was strongly pressed by my hon. friend the Member for Mid Durham, and I undertook to see whether we could
538
meet his views. It could not be done then, but I myself consider that no serious objection could be taken by the representatives of any other part of the country if we did give a special extension to Durham and Northumberland of three or six months. As it is, the Act will bring in Durham and Northumberland with the rest of the country on 1st of July, but it appears to us that no objection, no practical objection, can be taken if in consideration of what I admit are the very special circumstances of those counties an extension of time were given of three or six months. I agree that the Bill concerns Durham and Northumberland more than any other part of the country. It means in Durham and Northumberland that an organisation which is as hon. Members know carried to a very high point must be entirely reorganised. We have never concealed that fact from ourselves, and we have given to it a great deal of consideration. I will return to that point again because it mainly arises upon the question of the date at which the Bill shall come into operation and, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman took me by surprise in raising the point so early in the discussion. But I quite agree that his question is a very fair one, and I will in the course of the evening communicate the decision in the matter.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: In Committee the right hon. Gentleman kindly undertook to consider the question of differentiation between different districts as to when the Act came into operation. I said that 1st July was a very inconvenient date for South Wales and Monmouthshire.
MR. GLADSTONE: That is prefectly true, but I am not going to be drawn further into the matter now. All I say is that the case of Durham and Northumberland is in the opinion of hon. Members who have studied this question really different from others. The case of Durham and Northumberland in my opinion and in the opinion of those who are familiar with those counties stands by itself. The right hon. Gentleman has asked some interesting questions which go to the root of the Bill. He dealt first of all with the question of

539
health. That is an old question. I do not anticipate that the Bill can materially decrease the accident rate. It may be true that if the Bill actually diminishes in so dangerous a district as South Wales the dangers of the miners' occupation pro tanto the risk of accident will be much decreased. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that that must be so. I dealt with the question of health on the Second Reading and the hon. Member for Dulwich who replied did not contradict what I said on that point. My point is this. The investigation of the Committee dealt only with the mortality statistics, and I contend that the mortality statistics cannot be taken as a test of the health and longevity of the mining population. Miners necessarily are a selected body. They go into the mines young. Boys who are very delicate do not go down at all, and boys who do go down the mines and are found unfit from some delicacy which develops itself later would be taken from the mines and put to some other occupation. The boys who permanently take to the miners' life are the strongest boys, and it therefore follows that the great body of miners are men physically above the average. But even the mortality statistics show there is an abnormal death rate of boys of under fifteen years of age employed in the mines, and at the other end of the scale among old men who work in the mines there is also an abnormal death rate, higher than the average death rate above ground. That is all I say about health, and I do not want to labour it or carry it too far. If it be true that the life being arduous affects the health, then it follows that anything which diminishes the danger to health will improve the health of the miners. That is a very fair conclusion. I do not want to put it too high, and I have said everything that I wish to say upon that point. Now, the right hon. Gentleman devoted himself to two points. The first was a possible rise in price, and, secondly, he asked how we were going to meet any disorganisation which had to be made good owing to the operations of this Bill. I agree, in the first instance, that if the price of coal rises materially it is a very serious thing for everybody in this country. Everybody will admit that. We all agree, and hon. friends of mine who represent mining constituencies
540
admit, that the only question is whether there is going to be such a rise in price and, if so, to what extent it will go. May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the first part of the Report of the Committee, which I think answers his question? The Committee there accept the conclusions that the loss would be 21,000,000 tons, calculated on the basis of the 1905 output, and then they go on to show what clauses will be brought into operation to mitigate that decrease—
"(1) By some increase in the efficiency of the labour at present employed, especially in the districts in which the hours are longest; (2) by improvements in the mechanical equipment of many collieries in the winding and hauling machinery, in the construction of the underground roads, and in some cases the sinking of new shafts and bringing upcast ventilating shafts into useful winding; (3) by the extension of the use of labour-saving machinery—coal-cutting machines and conveyors; (4) by the extension of the multiple shift system; and (5) by the improved conditions and economic pressure stimulating the existing flow of labour from other areas and industries into the mines.
AN HON. MEMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the next recommendation?
MR. GLADSTONE: I do not agree with that.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with what might happen in the distant future through improvements in machinery. My question is, What would happen under the operation of this Bill to-morrow?
MR. GLADSTONE: The Bill will not come into operation to-morrow. They will have six months to prepare, and one may assume that these suggestions would be acted upon. But the right hon. Gentleman asks what would happen if the Bill came in now. Well, if the Bill came in now I do not think that anything serious would happen. The collieries are working on short time, and with the restrictions that are proposed by the Bill if it came into operation I have not the slightest doubt the country could supply the demand at the present moment, without any material increase in the cost of production. I, of course, agree that much must necessarily depend on the state of the market, and that the risk of the

541
rise in prices must necessarily be great when a change arises which does temporarily check the power of production. If that change comes when the market is high or when the price is rising, then the question becomes much more serious. As regards the general question as to whether it is going to cause an increase in cost, I have never tried to hide my anticipation or opinion of that, and on the Second Reading I took my stand on the Report of the Committee. I have seen no reason whatever to alter my opinion. I read out on the Second Reading from page 36 of the Report the passage in which they stood out for the introduction of an eight-hour day. In that case you must allow for a temporary reduction of output. I did not read the preceding passage then, and I will venture to read it to the House now—
"The probable cumulative expense of the operations of these various influences in mitigating the effect of a reduced working day in curtailing production must remain a matter of uncertainty and of opinion. Upon all of them we have heard the evidence of the most skilled and experienced witnesses, and the more detailed conclusion we have expressed in the sections devoted to each lead us to the general conclusion that the total effect of all will tend towards the maintenance of an equilibrium between supply and demand."
That, I think, states the case. I agree, if that is the general conclusion, that then of course hon. Members opposite are perfectly entitled to ask us if we think, having regard to the possible dangers indicated by the Report of the Committee, that necessity and justice really compel us not to introduce this Bill. We hold that this Bill is a necessity and is required in the interests of those for whom it is intended. For my part, I do not for one moment believe, having given much anxious consideration to this question and having consulted all whom it was in my power to consult, that any enormous rise in price will be justified. I believe the amount of the rise will depend upon the conditions of the working and the outcome of the operation of the Bill. I have always maintained, and still maintain, that under this Bill the producing power of this community will be largely increased and that the result to the consumer of coal must be a lower-
542
ing of the prices, but that, of course, is a speculation. But the argument that it will lead to increased power of production is not a speculation, because under this Bill you will have all the new developments in the present mines, the sinking of new shafts and new developments in new mines, new plant on the basis of this Bill, and the introduction of double shifts where there is now only a single shift. All that necessarily means a larger increase of production. I pass now to the one or two observations which were made by the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, and who seemed to believe that we were bringing in this Bill for some sinister socialistic purpose. I am not a Socialist, and I do not believe in a socialistic policy, but I am not afraid of these things. This Bill is not the first attempt in legislation of this kind, and therefore the noble Lord will pardon me if I do not accept that statement from him. It has been said that this would be an interference with adult labour. The noble Lord said it was an interference with male adult labour. He will understand that the Ten Hours Bill was a limitation of male adult labour. We all know that. Adult labour was directly referred to in the Ten Hours Bill. There has been the Railway Servants Act and other measures which in other ways interfered with adult labour.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: The Railway Servants Act was for the protection of passengers.
MR. GLADSTONE: Whatever the motive was, the fact remains that adult labour was interfered with; and if it depends only on motive, then, of course, the matter is made much clearer. I do not think the noble Lord can stand on a hard and fast principle in regard to the interference with adult labour. If he agrees that there was ground for an Act based on motive in one case, then with equal justice motive could be recognised in another. The Member for Ashford referred to the question of the time-limit. With regard to that, I have an Amendment on the Paper. I may add, however, that I made a perfectly explicit statement on the point in Committee upstairs, namely, that the

543
Government would have to reinsert the five years; and I did so because, on the Second Reading, I made a distinct statement to the House that the Government had decided to put in the period of five years, and I felt I was bound in those circumstances to move to reinsert that period, which I pledged myself to on the Second Reading. So my hon. friend need be under no misapprehension on that score. He complained that we put in what is called a time-limit. I must remind him that there was a time-limit of eighteen months, and I think he is rather ungrateful when we propose to put in five years to meet the fears and the arguments of his own friends and the Opposition generally. The point really comes to this, that during the five years both winding times are to be excluded. That makes a material difference. My hon. friend tried to bring in the hon. Gentleman behind me, the Member for Gloucester, who is quite competent to speak for himself. The hon. Member for Gloucester has an Amendment on the Paper proposing to postpone the Bill for eighteen months altogether, and I understood him to say that we did not care to bring the Bill into operation at once. On the contrary, we are going to bring the Bill into operation as soon as ever we can, and we think that the two winding times being excluded for a period of five years will make a material difference.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what the mine owners have always asked for was that the Bill should come into operation at one time, and that the different districts should not have recourse or be forced to have recourse to different periods for reorganising their industry. That is what is done by the Amendment.
MR. GLADSTONE: No; we had an eighteen months period in a former Bill, and our objection to my hon. friend's Amendment on the Paper is that it proposes the period of eighteen months. I do not understand, therefore, why the hon. Gentleman opposite quoted my hon. friend to-night.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I thought I had made myself clear. The right
544
hon. Gentleman proposes a double operation. The hon. Member for Gloucester proposes a treble operation, but the mine owners always asked for one operation, and that is where I differ from both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member.
MR. GLADSTONE: I quite agree that it is a point for argument that will rise for discussion on the clause. I spoke at great length on the Second Reading, and I really have nothing special to add to the arguments which I have ventured to bring forward on this point. I say that this Bill is necessary, and I believe that the general opinion of all who have closely studied the question in this House and out of it is that this measure is needed. If I may say so with respect, I welcome the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who put perfectly fair, searching, and legitimate questions. He did not, indulge in language which I have heard used in other quarters, namely, the language of denunciation. His tone was one of inquiry, of argument, and of reason. That is a perfectly right spirit in which to approach this question. The right hon. Gentleman knows that support of this Bill has not been confined to the Treasury Bench. It has been supported by leaders and individual Members on both sides of the House. I will not go further than to say that I see at any rate two hon. Gentlemen opposite sitting on those benches who are supporters of the Bill, and I welcome their presence here to-night. I hope we will get their support in the course of this debate. This is not an ordinary question of parties. It is a social question. We have the fact that in spite of everything that has been said against this Bill, of the difficulties and dangers which it is going to bring about, it was carried on the Second Reading by a majority of 274–394 for the Bill and 120 against. I take it, quite apart from party politics, that if half, or even a tenth part of the damage was likely to result from this Bill which was prophesied in some quarters, it would not have been passed on the Second Reading by that great and sweeping majority. I have noticed that the opposition to this Bill has always been of a somewhat peculiar

545
character, and was usually brought up at bye-elections. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes, because you may say a great deal at bye-elections which you are not called upon to prove. However, I am not making any special use of that circumstance, because I recognise that there are six of us and half a dozen of the others. I am an old enough politician to know that, on the moral point in this respect, there is not much difference between one and the other. If there is, I am not bound to admit it, and what I do admit I will not say here. Still, I will say that the opinion on this Bill has been a fluctuating opinion. There is a body calling itself the Coal Consumers' League. Of course the coal consumers are a colossal and important body, but I cannot say that the Coal Consumers' League, which is a self-constituted and self-appointed body, who are visible at all bye-elections, and always appear on one side, can be regarded as of the same importance. But apart from that, where is the evidence that expert opinion is really alarmed? We have received numerous resolutions, and I have in my pocket at this moment a resolution from the Leeds Chamber of Commerce. I have talked to a number of these gentlemen, but I have not found that any of them has read the Report of the Committee. The opinions in opposition to the Bill are founded upon this hypothesis, that it would lead to a large increase in the price of coal, and that if there was a large increase in the price of coal all sorts of dangers would happen to the industries of the country. It is undeniably true that if the price of coal were permanently put up 5s. a ton much mischief would be caused to the industries of the country. But it is not proved, and I maintain that all examination of the question shows that the price will not be raised. I hive found myself from the first on the opinion of the Committee, and I maintain that if hon. Members fairly study the Report they will see that there are no such dangers as are anticipated by some opponents of the Bill. I have spoken longer than I intended, and I would, in conclusion, express the hope that the House will reject the Amendment.
SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid he had a good many years experience of these matters, and he had some knowledge of what the Bill would ultimately mean if it were passed. In his opinion, in the first instance, the Bill was an interference with the freedom of contract between employers and employed. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman that such interference with adult male labour as was now proposed was not exceptional. They had it with regard to railways, but in other respects there had been no interference by the House with freedom of contract between employers and employed; for there was this reason—and his friends for the greater part would bear him out—the trade unions of this country had always been strong enough to fight their own battles, and he held that if there was any necessity at all for interfering with the hours of labour of miners, the trade unions of the miners would have been amply strong enough to secure such a measure. That was one of the reasons why he objected to the Bill in toto. Another reason why he objected to this clause was that if it were passed there would be far greater danger of accidents in mines than at present. In Durham and Northumberland every precaution was taken to prevent accidents in the mines. Of course they all deplored these accidents, and hoped that they would become less and less in the future. But he ventured to say that if this Bill were passed and the hours were reduced materially, in some districts the work would be hurried over; the miners who were working in one shift would not take due precautions when they were leaving to see that everything was in perfect order for the next shift; possibly a big prop might be left out where it was required; and it would be found that owing to this hurry and lack of precaution, more accidents would occur in the future. Therefore he strongly opposed the Bill. Then he thought it would be unwarrantable altogether because it would bring about industrial warfare in many districts. At present, at any rate in his own immediate neighbourhood, everything went on exceedingly pleasantly between employer and employed. There was not the slightest question of the

547
employees to-day having any grievances which were not met by the employer. There was a strong trade union, and the employers also had combined; the representatives on both sides were able to meet; if any question cropped up it was amicably settled, and, as everybody knew, a strike in the colliery districts was almost entirely out of the question. With such men as they saw in that House, the representatives of Durham and Northumberland, there was no fear whatever that questions would arise which would bring about a cessation of labour. He could not for the life of him see why there was any necessity at all for interfering with what was at present a prosperous trade which meant good wages to the miner. They were not asked to work unreasonable hours, because the hours in Durham were only about six-and-a-half per day, and generally speaking the miners only worked about five days in the week, and there was no question of any undue pressure upon them whatever. That was why he said if they passed a Bill of this kind they would introduce something which was almost certain to bring about difficulties between the employer and the employed, and for that reason he did not see that there was the slightest necessity for the Bill at all. If they passed the Bill, let them say what they liked, it must bring about a reduction in the production of coal. That was quite certain, and it was put by the Departmental Committee at 25,000,000 tons per annum to start with. The right hon. Gentleman might point out that it was the intention to improve this, that, and the other, but he could assure him that when he said measures would be taken to bring about a larger production of coal, that everything had already been done. There was very little that could possibly be done to bring about a larger production of coal which had not been already effected. It was quite untrue, in his opinion, that it was possible so to arrange the mines in one way or another as to overtake this deficiency of 25,000,000 tons per year. If that was so, it was a very great difficulty indeed. The argument was that the cost of labour per ton would only amount, some people said, to 6d., but it had been tried in the Clifton Colliery
548
in Yorkshire, where it worked out at 1s. 11d. per ton. But that did not regulate the price of coal in the market in the least—the price was regulated by supply and demand. If they reduced the supply they would bring about a state of affairs which they had seen only about eighteen months ago, and which was practically still to some extent prevailing in the country—they saw a rise in price for a month or so of not 6d. or 1s., but of 5s. a ton. What was bound to happen was that immediately the Bill came into effect partially or altogether there would be a deficiency in the supply, and then the demand would spring up. There was very little difference in the production of the coal between good times and bad times. He had heard it said that 1,000 men were out of employment in the coal districts. Not to his knowledge. As far as he was aware, the colliers both in Durham and Northumberland were very well employed. To-day the price of coal, as everyone knew who had anything to do with coal at all, was something like 1s. 6d. or 2s. a ton more than it was two years ago, and in Wales 3s. to 4s. a ton more. That showed that there was a large field of labour for the men, or the price would go down to its normal state. It was not at its normal state to-day, and if they brought about an artificial reduction in the production they would at one bound enhance the price of that product, not by the additional cost of production, but by an amount which could not be measured by anyone. It might be 5s. or 10s. a ton, as it was immediately after the Franco-German War, when coal went up from 8s. to 21s. or 22s. a ton, not because the cost of production had increased—it had not increased in the slightest—but because the demand was greater than the supply; and that was what was going to happen. Members of the House and the outside public did not realise what they were going to do, because they did not understand it. A good many Members of the House did not see it yet. They could not possibly see it. They were not within the wheels to have knowledge of it. They supposed it was like everything else and that if there was a little more labour and cost it was made up by additional cost to the consumer to that extent,

549
but that was not the fact. It would increase considerably more. What would be the effect of that on the country? Just take the shipping interest alone. Everyone supposed the shipping industry was one which had made the fortunes of many men in the country. He admitted that, but what was it to-day? To-day there was not a single cargo boat afloat which could pay its way. The freights had gone down almost to nothing, and anyone who had any knowledge of the shipping trade was aware of the fact. He was not in the habit of saying anything of which he was not certain. His own firm—he did not want to brag about it—had something like fifty steamers. It was not a question with them to-day how much they were going to make on a voyage. Their people were calculating day and night to find a freight in which the steamer could pay its way. That was the position of the trade to-day. What were they going to do? They were going to increase the price of coal by possibly 5s. per ton, which would mean that these ships would have to be laid up. It was said the consumer would have to pay, and that if he wanted the stuff he must pay higher freights to make up for the higher price of coal. That would be right enough if we were the only nation that owned ships. But we were not. We had to compete to-day against German, Norwegian, Italian, and other mercantile fleets which did not pay the same wages and did not feed their men as we did. Immediately they increased the price of coal, as they would be bound to do, the foreigners would get a preference and would carry what was to be carried and British steamers would have to lie idle and see the work done by other nations. That was what was going to happen. Then what would be the result to the shipbuilding trade? As his friends in the trade knew well enough, most of the yards were standing idle. His own shipyard in Stockton had been standing idle for twelve months. He could not get an order for love or money. He was quite prepared to take orders from any man who would give him them at less than cost price. He would take £1,000 below cost price and give ten years to pay for the ship. These were facts. It was no good mincing matters. That was the state of
550
the trade to-day. But it was said it would come all right again. It might come all right if they had not the position that they had to-day in Germany. Formerly, when an order came into the market for a German, Norwegian, or Swedish owner, shipbuilders knew that ultimately that order would come to England. The position to-day was this—that if an order of that kind came into the market, instead of ships being given to us to build they were built in Germany, Norway, Holland, Belgium, or Denmark. Not only were they building for themselves, but to-day where an English owner wanted to buy a new ship he asked not only English builders, but Germans to tender, and tramp-steamers to-day were being built in Germany and other parts for English owners. That was the position of affairs. He knew what the result would be. They would be driven to protect their own trade. He had never been so far what had been called a whole hogger.
MR. SPEAKER: I think it is desirable to leave the fiscal question out of consideration.
SIR ROBERT ROPNERthought he had said enough to show that if they interfered with the price of coal in this country it would mean the ruination to a large extent of their trade. It would mean an increase in the price of coal to every trade, because coal was required by every manufacturer. The Labour Party should realise that it would mean that a great many men would be thrown out of employment. Hon. Members were already regretting the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Formerly only an accident which prevented a man working for fourteen days was paid for, but to-day every accident had to be paid for.
MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the clause.
SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid he would, of course, obey Mr. Speaker's ruling. He thought it would be a great mistake in passing a Bill of this description to restrict the number of hours, because trade unions were strong

551
enough to bring about whatever alteration of the hours of labour they desired, and he did not see the slightest necessity for the House being called upon to interfere.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he rose for the purpose of endeavouring to supply answers of a practical kind to the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The two points upon which the right hon. Gentleman desired special information were safety and output. He did not think anybody anticipated a Second Reading debate on this clause, and he was sure that he was speaking for all his colleagues on this question when he said that they had not the material ready to their hands which they certainly would have had had they anticipated the turn which the debate had now taken. He thought, however, he would be able to supply the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition with complete information on one point, and he would do his best with regard to the other. First of all, with regard to the question of safety. It was a most remarkable fact that the percentage of accidents in mines went down proportionately as the hours of labour were decreased. This was so universal that it could not be altogether accidental, and the hours of labour worked in mines must have some relation to the accident rate. If they took the district which he knew best, namely, Scotland, he found that in 1896 the collieries there were working ten hours per day, and the death-rate from accidents amongst those employed underground was 1·62 per 1,000. When the ten-hours day was changed to an eight-hours day the death-rate in the same district dropped to 1·42 per 1,000, which was a very marked improvement. If they took that part of the country where the hours of labour were shortest of any, namely, Durham and Northumberland, they would find that in the Newcastle district the fatal accident rate in mines was only 0·87 per 1,000, or almost 1 per 1,000 below the rate which obtained in Scotland. If they went to Wales, where the hours of labour were longer than in any other part of the country except one, they found the death rate from accidents in mines was 1·70 per 1,000, which was the highest of the three districts which he had quoted, the lowest being Durham and the Newcastle district,
552
in which the hours of labour were the shortest, and the next lowest being Scotland, where the hours had been reduced, and where the death rate had gone down accordingly. The highest death rate was found in the Cardiff and Swansea district, where the hours of labour were the longest. The reason for this was very plain to those who had had practical experience of working in mines. When the hours of labour were long everything was done slipshod; there was a lackadaisical spirit upon everyone which affected the methods taken to preserve safety, and had a distinct effect upon the number of accidents. Again, the reduction of hours of labour whilst increasing the output of coal, as he would show was the case, had also a distinct effect in strengthening the administration of the mine, thus making for efficiency, with a consequent increase of safety. In that way they accounted for the low death rate in those places where the hours of labour were the shortest. Because of the increased efficiency in the management of the mine which followed in the wake of a shortening of the hours, they argued from that that when this Bill became law what was not now the universal rule would become general in the whole of the districts affected by this Bill.
MR. LUPTON: Are the hours of labour worked by the miners in Durham shorter than those in Scotland?
MR. KEIR HARDIE: Yes. There was an eight-hours day in Scotland, and in Durham the men worked from six and a half hours to seven and a half hours per day. As to the point whether the Bill would add to the danger of working in mines, which he admitted was a strong point honestly held by those who were opposing the Bill, they submitted from their practical experience that with the shortening of the hours which the Bill would bring about, the condition of the roadways and of the shafts in which the bulk of the accidents took place would be so much improved that a corresponding reduction of the rate of accidents would follow. He hoped that from, this experience and from the actual facts as tabulated in the Report of

553
the mines inspectors, the House would dismiss from its mind any apprehension as to increased danger arising from the working of the Act. The second point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was that if there was a diminution of the hours of labour there would be a corresponding diminution of output, and that then one of three things must happen—either profit or wages or both must go down, or the price of coal must rise. Here again it happened that they were able to speak with absolute certainty, not from any theoretical point of view, but from actual experience gained by reducing the hours of labour. He held in his hand the Report of the Mines Inspectors for Scotland for the year 1906, which was the latest issue he had been able to obtain. That Report gave the output from the mines of Scotland from the year 1895 down to the year 1906, inclusive. As he had already explained, the number of hours worked by the Scottish collieries during that period had been reduced from ten per day and over, to eight per day. In 1905, under a ten-hours day, the output was 29,911,000 tons, or roughly 30,000,000 tons. In the year 1906, under an eight-hours day the output went up from 30,000,000 tons to 47,000,000 tons, or an increase of 17,000,000 tons a year with a reduction of two hours per day in the working day. But that was not all, because the increase had been gradual year by year. It was suggested sotto voce that the reason was that trade was better in 1906 than in 1905. But he found that in the year 1903, the output was 30,000,000 tons; in 1904, 41,000,000 tons; in 1905, 45,000,000 tons; and in 1906, 47,000,000 tons; so that it would be seen there had been a gradual progressive increase under the eight-hours system. It might be said that the reason for the increased output was an increase in the number of persons employed. Unfortunately, the official table from which he was quoting was against those who took that stand. There had not only been this increase in the output, but an actual decrease in the number of men employed; that was to say, the output per head of the persons employed in the mine had considerably increased under the working
554
of the eight-hours system as compared with the ten-hours system. He did not quote the figures for 1895, because in 1899 a considerable number of men and boys who were previously classed under the Mines Act were transferred to the Factory Acts, and so they got a fictitious reduction in the number employed. He would take the figures from the year when the change was made. In the year 1899, the number of persons employed after making the reduction he had referred to was 97,995. In the year 1906, it had gone down to 91,516, a reduction of 6,500 in the number of persons employed underground, and at the same time an increase, as he had already shown, of 17,000,000 tons in the output. He hoped the figures were satisfactory and conclusive, but this case did not stand alone.
MR. BONAR LAW: Will the hon. Member state the district to which those figures apply?
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that the figures were for the East of Scotland, No. 1 District. He had other figures which he should like to give, if the House would bear with him, affecting the output, and they showed how the Bill would not, if it became law, necessarily reduce the output. He would like to visualise the working of a mine for the benefit of those hon. Members who had had no experience of a mine and did not know what the work was like. First of all, there was the winding machinery for bringing the coal up the shaft; then there were the haulage arrangements for bringing the coal from the coal face to the bottom of the shaft; and, thirdly, there was the working place in which the colliers got the coal: when all these three were in full working order and efficient, they then got the maximum output, but if one of these three parts happened to be disorganised, then the whole of the output was affected. Every colliery had a certain winding power, and as a rule a sufficient number of men were employed to produce coal to keep the colliery going full time. There was usually, he was speaking now of Wales, a weak link between the point where the coal was got and the point where it was sent up the shaft. He would not mention names, but he would

555
show the documents to hon. Members who desired it in regard to the three cases he was now going to quote. In the first of the three, the winding power of the engines and the number of men employed represented a possible output of 6,480 tons per week, the week taken being that in which there was the largest output in two years. In that week the actual output was 3,852 tons. In the second case the possible output was 10,800 tons, the actual output was 6,159 tons. In the third case the possible output was 9,800 tons, and the actual output was 4,152 tons. When this Bill became law, all that would be necessary to prevent any reduction of output was simply to improve the means of connection between the place where the coal was got and the shaft. Every collier knew what time was lost day by day through trams and tubs getting off the rails all through sheer carelessness. When this measure became law it would be imperative on the colliery owner to see that the haulage roads were kept in proper order, and by that means the output could remain undiminished. He had always advocated from the point of view of the working collier as well as that of the colliery owner that it was good business to regulate supply and demand, for this prevented both wages and profit going down below a certain point. But the Bill would not lessen the production or output of coal by one single ton a year. If that was so, there could be no increase in the price and there could be none of those dreadful calamities so often described on bye-election platforms and repeated there that night. What the Bill meant was that where colliers had been kept underground for ten hours, they would now be able to be there for eight hours, performing the same work and receiving the same pay. The object of the Bill was to give them two hours more freedom in which to enjoy comfort and fresh air. Much had been said of the opposition to the Bill. They had heard of the Coal Consumers' League, and the Home Secretary had told them that the Chamber of Commerce at Leeds had protested against the Bill. Evidently, the prompting which had taken place during the last few days was beginning to produce its effect. The Coal Consumers' League,
556
which was represented by persons who were also mixed up with a good many other organisations which had not proved themselves specially considerate of the working classes in the past, had just issued a circular which had been sent round to chambers of commerce and large employers of labour. It set out by saying it was desirable to bring home to the House of Lords in the most forcible way possible the issues at stake in the Bill—
"My Committee (it went on to say) are inviting those who control large coal consuming undertakings throughout the country to defend themselves by passing strong resolutions against the Bill, and by forwarding the same to Lord Lansdowne."
"It is felt desirable that each undertaking should draw up its own resolution, but I venture to make one or two suggestions."
The suggestions were headed "resolution points."
"The resolution should describe the industrial undertaking from which it comes, preferably stating the capital involved and the number of hands employed; that there is no general mandate from the country for the Bill; that it penalises the whole community in order to serve the sectional interests of the miners, and that for the above reasons and others we desire to state that the House of Lords is urged to reject the measure."
Then came the important point of the circular, like a postscript in a lady's letter—
"N.B.—If you have not already contributed to the funds of this league which is defending your industry, we beg that you will give this matter your earliest consideration, as additional funds are urgently needed."
Here they had the Coal Consumers' League urging that industries were going to be destroyed by the Bill, and they had an organisation that had so valiantly entered the breach to defend the country against the Eight Hours Bill compelled to send the hat round for subscriptions. The real fact was that there was no genuine feeling in the country against the Bill. Most leading men of industries, ironmasters and colliery owners, knew as well as he did that the Bill would not affect them in the slightest degree. The whole agitation was bogus from start to finish. It was being faked up for political purposes, and he hoped the House would, as it did by agreeing to the Second Reading, show what it thought of the agitation by carrying the Bill through

557
all its stages so that in the near fulness of time a reform for which colliers had agitated for the last twenty-five years might fructify in an Act of Parliament.
MR. RIDSDALEhoped it would not be counted to his score that he paid no regard to the welfare of humanity if he announced that he intended to vote for the Amendment. The hon. Member for South Glamorgan had spoken in very strong terms about the human interests involved in the question. He did not think it lay in the mouth of one individual Member or any group of Members to claim a monopoly of interest in humanity. He was quite certain any hon. Member, wherever he sat and whoever he might be, had as lively an interest in the well-being of the coal miner and had as high a respect for his devotion to duty as the hon. Member who used those words had himself. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil referred to the agitation got up against the Bill outside as a bogus agitation. He knew nothing about that. He had no connection with that agitation at all. His right hon. friend the Home Secretary looked round at those benches when he said that some of his hon. friends were members of the Coal Consumers' League. He was not a member of that association, and he knew nothing of its existence except what he heard in that House and read of in the newspapers. He thought, however, as a Member representing the traditions of the great Liberal Party, that there was a principle involved in Clause 1 upon which he ought to speak in the interest of those principles which he held dear, and which he thought those who were the trustees of those old Liberal principles ought to hold dear also. What did this clause do? It imposed a limitation upon the liberties of our adult fellow-subjects. It laid down the rule that there should be a limitation as to the number of hours anybody should be allowed to work below ground. What grounds were put forward for that proposal? He quite agreed that occasionally it might be necessary to make rules by which they should govern the will of an adult person; but, before they did it, they should have some clear ground that that liberty was doing
558
some harm, if not to the individual's own health and to himself, at any rate to his neighbours or to the State. He had listened to the debate on the Second Reading, and, so far, to the debate on this Amendment, and he had not heard a single reason given as to what harm the unrestricted liberty of a man to work underground as long as he pleased did either to himself, his neighbours, or to the State.
A LABOUR MEMBER: Or as short as he likes.
MR. RIDSDALEsaid the Bill did not say he should not work as short hours as he liked. He objected to any limitation to the discretion of a man to do what he pleased so long as he did not do any injury to himself or anybody else. He thought there had been too much of a tendency towards the limitation of individual liberty and that it was high time something was said against any further extension of that interference. He remembered that in the debate on the Second Reading it was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that the principle in the clause was going to be extended to other industries. At present the limitation was only to be imposed as long as a man was below ground, but it was intended to impose it upon a whole series of other industries; this was only the start. That might be the politics of the Socialist Party, but it was not his politics, and he wished to register his most emphatic protest against it. He did not know from what source the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil obtained the figures which he quoted, but no doubt the source of his information was trustworthy or he would not have given the figures to the House. Upon those figures he made the statement that, according as the hours of labour were decreased, so the percentage of fatal accidents decreased. In Northumberland and Durham, where they worked the shortest hours, six and a half, the accidents were 0·87 per thousand, Scotland was next, and so on until they came to South Wales, where the hours were longest.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I quoted figures from the Mines Inspector's Report.
MR. RIDSDALEsaid he had not got those, but he had got a summary of the Report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Gloucester. The Committee reviewed all the figures which the hon. Member presented, and after giving considerable time to analysing them, the Committee reported thus—
"We may, however, remark that we have failed to obtain any evidence which would associate the number of accidents in any disproportionate degree with the hours in excess of eight spent underground by the men, or with the districts in which the longest hours are worked."
He thought the Committee might be fully trusted to look carefully into the figures of the Miners' Union, and of the medical officers of health, before they gave forth their considered opinion as to all the dangers which might arise. But there were further figures in that Report, which really seemed to imply that the coal miner's business was one of the safest in the whole country. There was a very disastrous disease known as phthisis, and there appeared to be some disinfecting element in the coal seams, for it would seem that miners were less liable to consumption than were the great majority of the population of the country. They heard from the hon. Member for Glamorgan that the dangers in coal mines were very very serious, and the hon. Member worked up the feelings of the House by an account of a very serious and unfortunate accident which occurred in Lancashire. Well, he hardly thought that it was fair argument to harrow the feelings of hon. Members in considering a Bill of this kind. It was an argument which could not have any possible bearing on the Bill at all. But, including all the accidents to which coal miners were liable, what did they find? They found that the number of deaths among coal miners was less than they were among occupied males; and much less than accidents amongst all adult males in the population.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Not in South Wales.
MR. RIDSDALEsaid that this Report was by a Committee which sat and received evidence both from South Wales and all over the country. It was a general
560
statement to be found on page 48 of the Report to which he referred his hon. friend. He respectfully submitted that when they were asked for the purpose of one section of the community to impose limitations upon the whole of the members of the community, they ought to have some reasonable case set out as to what injuries people were suffering from who were to be prevented from working these extra hours. So far as he had heard, there was no case at all. They knew that this clause affected only coal miners, who were to be prevented from being underground for a longer period than eight hours. Why was it only applied to coal miners? There were other miners in this country who did not happen to belong to the hon. Member's federation, and who did not happen to have such political influence among them; and who had not the same chance of giving forcible expressions to their wishes. He thought, however, that it was incumbent upon their fellow working men to see, when they brought in their Bill, if its principle was right, that the allied industries—the lead-mining, tin-mining, copper-mining, and other mining industries—were also included in its provisions. He had said that he was going to vote for the Amendment. Well, he was, and he only trusted that a few more hon. Members on his side of the House who thought and felt as he did upon the matter, but who had not yet given expression to their feelings, might have courage to follow them into the lobby and vote in favour of the Amendment also.
MR. BOWLESsaid he hoped that the House would realise that the Amendment raised the question of principle involved in the Bill. If he ventured for a few minutes to make some observations on this matter, it was really because he was able to take some little part in the discussions on the Bill in Committee, and also because it appeared to him, as the hon. Member for Brighton had said, that the measure affected, not only the coal miners, but much more greatly the whole body of the people of the country. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment said truly that the Bill introduced a novel principle in legislation, in that it interfered with

561
the freedom of adult, males. That was so. The Home Secretary had quoted instances in which there had been small interferences with adult labour in the past, but those interferences were all indirect. Even the interferences with the labour of women and children, when direct, were clearly not made in the interests of the class of people employed, but in the interests of the country at large. In supporting the Bill he was quite free from prejudice, or from any desire to oppose what was good and proper legislation. What were the grounds on which the proposed legislation was supported? That legislation would affect three classes in the country. First of all, the coal miners; secondly, the coal owners; and thirdly, the general public. The first question he asked was, what case had been made out for legislating for coal miners out of all the classes of labour throughout this great industrial community? And let it be remembered that the legislation asked for was admittedly of an altogether unprecedented character. He ventured to say that the class which was calling out for this special legislation was, without exception, the best organised in the whole country, the best paid, the least hard-worked, and that which had more leisure than any other class. And yet the hon. Member for Glamorgan, and other Gentlemen below the gangway, came before the House and made pitiful appeals on behalf of the miners. They said: "Consider the case of these wretched miners who work underground, and are exposed to all sorts of risks of accidents." He knew from experience, and he had had it from miners themselves, that if anyone were to go to any ordinary collection of miners in their villages, and suggest to them that they were the sort of people who were deserving of pity, they would laugh at them. No, he did not believe that the miners were the most hardly pressed class of workers in the community, and he said that legislation of this sort should not be made in the interest of the most powerful and the most thoroughly organised labour class in the country. The hon. Member for Glamorgan said that the miners of the country stood solid in favour of
562
the Bill. The Leader of the Opposition had asked whether it could really be said, and he asked also whether hon. Gentlemen below the gangway seriously contended, that the miners of Durham and Northumberland were, in any real sense of the word, in favour of the Bill. He was informed that the position as regards Northumberland and Durham was this—and if his information was not accurate hon. Gentlemen below the gangway would have full opportunity of contradicting it. On 25th June, 1903, a ballot was taken among the miners of Durham, and the result was a majority of 19,942 against the Bill. That vote had never been rescinded, and no effort had ever been made to take a vote on this or any other Bill. He should like a specific answer to the question as to whether that was a fact, and if a fact, he should like to know how the hon. Member for Glamorgan could suggest that the miners of the country were thoroughly solid in favour of the Bill. With regard to Northumberland, the case was almost equally strong. A poll was taken on 21st May, 1906. The total poll was something like 17,000 voters, but only a bare majority—465—voted in favour of the Bill. But the total number of persons capable of voting in Northumberland was 46,000. He was dealing with the question of whether the miners wanted the Bill. The hon. Member for Glamorgan said that they did; but would any hon. Member representing the miners in Northumberland or Durham assure them that that was so? He assured the House that he did not wish to put a gloss on the facts, but the House, as the Bill had come before it, was entitled to know what the facts were, and when hon. Members went upstairs and assured the Committee and the House and the country that the miners were solid in favour of the Bill, it was to be observed at any rate that they had never given them the figures or facts upon which they based their opinion; they had to rely upon that important subject solely on their assurances. So far as he was concerned he gravely doubted whether, at any rate so far as Northumberland and Durham were concerned, the statement of the hon. Member for

563
Glamorganshire, that the miners were solidly in favour of the Bill, could be substantiated. But his main objection to the clause from the miners' point of view was this. The Home Secretary had said that to bring in at once the provisions of the Bill, which were to obtain at the end of three years as it now stood, or five years if the Amendment was carried—that to bring in a Bill including certain workers at once would involve serious danger in the working of the mines. Let the House realise what that meant. In five years if the Bill was passed they would be bringing upon the whole of the mines of the country a state of things which it was admitted would, if it were introduced now, involve great danger to the working of the mines. Surely it was legitimate to ask what security was offered that at the end of five years the danger would be less than it was now. Was it reasonable to ask the House of Commons to pass a measure involving thousands of lives and a great industry of this kind on a mere speculation that during the five years some new, unnamed, unknown invention, unhinted at by hon. or right hon. Gentlemen or anybody else, would suddenly be discovered in order to get the Government out of the difficulty with which they would, if they passed this clause, be face to face in five years time? He thought that was a most rash and wanton thing to do, and he had never heard any reason, and he doubted whether any could be adduced, to justify them in doing it. If that alone were his objection to the clause, he should feel perfectly justified in going into the division lobby against, it. So much for the effect of the Bill upon the conditions of the miners themselves; but he said they were not a people who ought to be singled out for special compassionate treatment. It was doubtful whether they wanted the Bill and whether those who said they wanted it really understood it. They were passing a Bill to come into operation five years hence which, if it were passed now, would produce a state of things which would be thoroughly dangerous, and which there was no reason for believing would be any less dangerous then than now. With regard to the coal owners, who were also affected by the Bill, he said nothing. There were
564
several of them in the House well able to speak for themselves, but surely the House ought, in dealing with this matter, to have put before it clearly the case of the consumer of the coal. In the first place, in a special degree the consumers of coal represented the whole body of the country. There was not an individual in the country who was not in a direct way a consumer of coal. He was a consumer in his household and in many cases was afforded employment by the use of coal. And further there was this reason. Coal was, after all, a prime necessity. Whatever else manufacturers and others might be able to economise upon, they must have coal if their industry was to continue, and the effect of a shortage of coal had been admirably pointed out in the Report of the Committee. In their admirable Report the Committee said that a very small shortage, a shortage of two, or three, or five per cent., would result in the prices of those things which everybody must have rushing up far beyond what might be expected in the case of an ordinary commodity, and that famine prices would soon be reached. He could assure the House that he had done his best to see how there could be any real practical meaning in the contention which his hon. friends had all along made, that the Bill would result neither in a decrease of the output, nor in an increase of the cost. He should like to put to them quite clearly and seriously his view. This clause was to shorten the hours of work in the mines. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway told them that after the Bill had passed and the hours had been shortened, the output was to remain the same. There were only three ways in which those conditions could be fulfilled if they were going to make men work less time and not produce less coal.
MR. W. T. WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many hours the colliers work now?
MR. BOWLESsaid he could not tell the hon. Member, and he could inform himself as well as he could by reference to the Report of the Committee. His question had no relevance to the

565
subject. They were going to shorten the hours per day in coal mines and keep up the output of coal. There were only three ways in which that could be done. The men had either got to work harder than they were working, or they must work more days a week than they did at present, or else more men must be employed on the work. Those were the only ways conceivable in which they could shorten the hours and get the same amount of work. Take the first two, that the men must work harder or work more days a week. Did hon. Gentlemen below the gangway mean to let the House understand that they recommended the Bill to their constituents on the ground that they would have to work harder while down below? Did they understand that the Bill would benefit them because, while they would not have to work any harder while they were at work, they would have to work more days a week? He thought not, and he submitted that if the hours were to be shortened by the Bill and the output was to be the same as it was at present the alternative to which they were driven was that more men would have to be employed, and of course that meant an increase in the general expense of raising the coal. After all, what were they quarrelling about? It was agreed that the effect of the Bill would be to raise the cost of production. The hon. Member for Merthyr, who was a supporter of the Bill, and whose authority to speak on this matter nobody would doubt, told them in Committee upstairs, and repeated it in a letter to the Daily Express on 28th October last—
"I have repeatedly stated that the increase in cost in South Wales"
—which, after all, was an enormously important district—
"would be very considerable—probably eight-pence to tenpence a ton, unless the system is altered."
Everybody surely must know that the cost of production must be increased, and it was impossible for the House to believe that it would not be increased by the Bill. If the cost of production was increased the cost to the consumer must be increased, in his
566
belief, very much more. The effect of that would, of course, be as bad as possible for the whole country. He had considered this mutter to the best of his ability, and, in spite of the vehement denials of hon. Gentlemen, he believed sincerely and honestly that the real object of the Bill—which had been frequently alleged and never repudiated by any federation—was by decreasing the output and raising the price to increase the wages of this highly-leisured, prosperous, well-to-do, and well-organised class at the expense of the whole mass of their fellow-workers and of the community generally. Having arrived at that opinion, which, although he might be mistaken, was an honest and sincere opinion, it appeared to him that it was a demand which ought not to be mule upon them and which could not be defended on any real consideration of public expediency. Inasmuch as that principle was involved directly in this first clause, he should feel bound unless some much more serious reason than had been adduced either in the House that day or in the Committee upstairs was forthcoming, to support his noble friend in regard to the Amendment he had moved.
SIR. C. J. CORYsaid the hon. Member for Merthyr had striven to prove that the death rate in different districts was affected by the hours of work, and he had told them that in Scotland in 1896 when the hours were ten, the death rate was 1·62 per thousand, whereas he said in Wales at the present time where the hours were longer the death rate was 1·70. As a matter of fact, he did not think that would prove his argument, because the Departmental Committee's Report stated that the average hours in South Wales at present were nine hours and forty-six minutes; and not withstanding that the hours therefore were shorter than they were in Scotland the death rate was higher. He thought that did away with that part of his argument. Then the hon. Member assured the House that in his opinion the passing of the Bill would in no way decrease the output of coal, notwithstanding that the Departmental Committee, after having sifted the evidence of experts from all

567
over the country, came to a contrary conclusion. If hon. Members could make those statements to the House he could not for the life of him make out why they did not come to the Departmental Committee and make those statements there where they could have been sifted by experts and counter-evidence given. What did they find from experience in France? There they had an Eight Hours Bill for hewers only. There they had proceeded by steps, and in 1906, although the hours had only been reduced to nine, which was very little less than the number of hours they were working previously over the whole coalfield in France, they found that even that small reduction in hours meant a diminution in output of 1,600,000 tons. There the Legislature appointed a Committee to inquire into the probable effect of an Eight Hours Bill supposing it was extended to all the workers underground, and that Committee came to the conclusion that the reduction would be very great, he thought 6 per cent. in one case and 10 per cent. in the other. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had laid great emphasis on what he thought was the hardship of men being deprived of the sunlight for more than eight hours. He thought the collier should for that reason have an eight-hours day. They had heard, however, from hon. Gentlemen representing Labour that, if they got this Bill through, they intended trying to extend it to all other classes of labour. The contention, therefore, that it was men who worked underground who should have their labour limited was done away with, because they sought to do the same thing with regard to men working above ground. The Home Secretary had admitted that there were difficulties if the Bill passed with regard to Durham and Northumberland, and, in order to meet those difficulties, he proposed to put down an Amendment to extend the time before the Bill should come into operation in those districts. He would, however, point out to him that the Northumberland and Durham coal competed more particularly, and almost solely, as regards coal from this country, with the South Wales coal, and therefore, if that were done, it would give a very distinct advantage to the exporters of Northumberland and
568
Durham coal as compared with the exporters of coal from South Wales. He really thought it would be hardly fair to give them that advantage. The Mining Association of Great Britain was opposed to making any difference between one coalfield as compared with another. The right hon. Gentleman said that he believed in bringing in this Bill he would lower the death rate, because the men who took up mining were generally the strong members of a family. If there was a weak member, he went into some other walk of life. As a matter of fact, the direct opposite occurred. If a boy had a weak chest or was consumptive, he chose to go underground rather than go to sea or where he would be exposed to the air. He did not think the death rate was brought lower by the weak members of a family going underground, but on the contrary was made higher. He submitted that if the Bill passed it would increase the death rate, especially as old men, who would have to hurry to their work and hurry at their work, would be very detrimentally affected. He was sure their health would be anything but improved; quite the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Departmental Committee considered that it would bring about a reduction of output. The methods they suggested to overcome that were that they should have improved efficiency of labour, multiple shifts, and that they should introduce coal-cutters. How were they to get improved efficiency of labour? He doubted whether they would get any difference in the working as compared with the present, and, so far as South Wales and Monmouthshire were concerned, the men would not agree to multiple shifts. Then with regard to coal-cutters, it had been shown that, if they had a rigid time-limit, they could not work them to advantage. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that, if the Bill came into force on a depressed market, prices would not be increased. He admitted that, if the Bill came into operation in a depressed period, the probability was that prices would not be very much affected for that time, because, when things were bad, collieries were very often stopped one, two, or three days in the week,

569
perhaps more; and the probability was that, if the Eight Hours Bill was in operation at the time, instead of stopping two or three days, they would stop only one. Directly the trade improved, notwithstanding that the Bill might have been in force some years, they would, however, be bound to see the effect of the Eight Hours Bill. In booming times, as in 1900 and in the last year or two, it was generally accepted that the demand did not exceed the supply by more than about 5 per cent. That, however, had made prices go up from perhaps 10s. or 12s. to 20s. and 25s. per ton. If a shortage of 5 per cent. made prices go up like that and the Bill brought about a shortage of 10 per cent. or 12 per cent., they might have prices going up to 40s. and 50s. per ton. There was no limit to which they might not go.
MR. GLADSTONE: What coal are you referring to?
SIR C. J. CORY: It does not matter what the coal is. We have had steam coal going up to 20s. and 25s. and bituminous coal going up to 18s. and 19s. per ton end over.
A LABOUR MEMBER: Who gets the profit?
SIR C. J. CORYsaid the mine owners and the miners would get the benefit if it went up to 50s. and the poor consumer would have to pay. He made no excuse for opposing the Bill because he was in the trade, as he believed colliery owners might make colossal fortunes if prices went up for a few years, but he thought it would be bad for the consumer and for the industries dependent upon the coal trade and the country at large; and eventually those who owned the collieries in future years and also the miners in the future would suffer. The cost might not, as some hon. Members said, go up more than 6d. a ton or more than from 1s. to 1s. 6d. as foreshadowed by other Members, but that was no measure of the increase in price that might be brought about by the shortage caused by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought that in view of the tremendous majority
570
obtained on the Second Reading the House was bound to pass the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONE: No, I never said that.
SIR C. J. CORYwas sorry if he had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but he referred to the big majority on the Second Reading and seemed astonished at the opposition now. He would point out that a very different feeling had arisen among Members in the House since the Second Reading. They had learned a good deal since then. Not only had opinion in the House altered, but opinion throughout the country also. Public opinion had been very much educated since that time, and, whenever the Bill had been put before the country at bye elections, the electors were, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, very much against it. He had heard it on the authority of Members on his own side that there was no measure before the country more unpopular than the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill. The hon. Member for South Glamorgan said that those who opposed the Bill were opposed to other measures which were for the benefit of the working man, and he instanced the Workmen's Compensation Bill, saying that when it was before the country the effect that it would have upon trade was exaggerated. But, as a matter of fact, it had put up the cost of working.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment and is not in order.
SIR C. J. CORY: The Workmen's Compensation Act has been alluded to, and I think, therefore, I have a perfect right to refer to it.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not a right to go into the whole history of that Act, but, if he is referring to it as a particular instance, he is in order.
SIR C. J. CORYsaid that that was what he was doing. It was referred to by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan. He said it did not increase the cost of

571
working, and that the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill would not increase it either. He begged to point out that at the Odd fellows Congress this year one of the delegates from Birmingham said that, whereas formerly when a man who met with a slight accident went to the hospital and returned to work in a few hours, he was now away from work three weeks, and that, whereas formerly a man who met with a more serious accident was away three weeks, he was now away three, four, or six months.
MR. WARDLE: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that increases the cost of work?
SIR C. J. CORYsaid that of course it did. If a man stayed away three months instead of three weeks and got compensation all the time it very materially increased the cost of working. The hon. Member for South Glamorgan said that practically the whole of the colliers throughout the country were unanimously in favour of the Bill, but, as had been pointed out, the colliers of Northumberland and Durham were as opposed to it to-day as ever. [LABOUR cries of "That is not true."] He understood it was a fact that they were not actively opposing it now for the reason that they had joined the Miners' Federation, and in order to do so they had had to accept the whole programme of that federation, one item of which was the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill. Although they were not in active opposition to the Bill, they were, he understood, as opposed to it as ever. Having joined the Miners' Federation, they were not in a position to oppose it. Then, with regard to Lancashire, he would quote the speech of the hon. Member for Ince, who addressed the miners at Wigan. He stated that they did not want the Bill there and did not mean to have it unless the Miners' Federation forced it upon them. Apparently the Miners' Federation had forced it upon them. The Forest of Dean were at first in favour of it, but, after a discussion of about two years, they opposed the Bill. They were told they were now in favour of it, but it was possibly in the same way as Northumberland and Durham and Lancashire were supposed to be in favour
572
of it. It could not be said with truth or justification that the whole of the colliers were in favour of the Bill. He went further. If the colliers in every district were to copy the example of the Forest of Dean and thoroughly debate the question, he believed they would find a great many miners who were to-day in favour of it would be opposed to the Bill. The hon. Member for South Glamorgan referred to the lamentable accident which took place in Lancashire recently. He said that, if the Bill had been in force, the probability was that the accident would not have occurred.
MR. GLOVER: He never said anything of the sort.
SIR C. J. CORYwas sorry if he misunderstood the hon. Member, but he thought he made some such statement. He did not want for a moment to misrepresent him, and he would not therefore labour that point. There was really no necessity for legislation in order that the miners might obtain what they wanted in the shape of reduced hours, for there was no trade union in the country so powerful as that of the miners. They had been told that it might mean a strike if the miners did not get what they asked for through this Bill. But they had not made any demand on their employers. As a matter of fact, they had never formally demanded of the employers what they demanded in this Eight Hours Bill ["Oh."] They had never formally demanded of the employers of this country an eight-hours day.
MR. GLOVER: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because his statement is not true. The Miners' Federation of Lancashire appealed through the Secretary to the Masters' Association many times for the purpose of ascertaining whether the leaders of the employers could see their way to shortening the hours in Lancashire, for they knew well that we were working longer hours there than in any other part of the country. We have tried to get meetings, but we have on every occasion met with a refusal from the employers.
SIR C. J. CORYsaid he did not dispute the fact that in Lancashire they might have demanded an eight-hours day, but Lancashire was not the whole country, and the miners of the country had never made this demand of the employers as a whole. They had never demanded it formally in South Wales or in Monmouthshire. If the miners had asked the employers for an eight hours day he did not say that it would have been granted, but as a matter of fact they had never demanded it as a whole. But even if they obtained it by legislation, it was not at all certain that it would obviate the dangers of a strike. The hon. Gentleman knew very well that the price lists of to-day were based on a longer day than eight hours, and the question was whether they were going to accept the same price lists as they had now when they had the eight hours day. If they would not, then the question would arise whether the employers would give them a higher price list. If the employers did not do that, then he presumed that there would probably be a strike, or if the employers sought to reduce the wages of the day men owing to the reduced hours it might cause a strike, so that the bringing about of an eight-hours day by legislation did not by any means obviate the danger of a strike. The real object of the Bill was to restrict output, and to increase the price of coal thereby, and in consequence increase wages as well. They knew that there was a conference of miners at Chester this year, and what was the demand made there? A resolution was proposed that the number of days a week that they worked should be restricted to five. The hon. Member for Hanley, with his accustomed common sense and caution, pointed out that they should not press that Amendment now, because it would cause alarm that there should be if this Bill was passed, not only a reduction of the hours worked per day, but a reduction in the number of days worked in the week as well, which would result in there being a still greater restriction of output. Further, as a matter of fact the miners at Tredegar only last month approached the management in regard to their hours. They worked long hours from bank to bank—far in
574
excess of eight hours; yet, notwithstanding that, they had spontaneously passed a resolution requesting that their time from bank to bank should be increased by a quarter of an hour on four days a week and reduced an hour on one day in the week, which would still further increase the excess of time over eight hours on four days a week. In the circumstances he could not help feeling that the House ought not to pass this clause, and he should vote for the Amendment.
MR. DUNNsaid he would not have risen had it not been for some of the speeches which had been made, particularly that of the hon. Member for Brighton and that of the hon. Member for Norwood. The question had been asked as to why they did not include the workers in tin mines within the four corners of the Bill. There was a reason why the tin-workers were not included. First of all, they must remember the vast majority of the tin-workers in the tin mines work by contract. Wages as understood in certain mines were unknown to them. A tin-worker was paid according to the amount of work he did, and he would ask the House for a moment to bear that in mind when he said that for many years they had had an eight hours day in the tin mines. They worked in those mines by a system of three shifts of eight hours each. They had therefore enjoyed for years this eight hours day which it was proposed to confer on the workers in coal mines. And that had been obtained not by any great agitation, and not by the force of a great trade corporation behind the men, because unfortunately the tin-workers—and he used the word "unfortunately" advisedly—had no trade union to protect their interests. But in spite of the fact that they worked by contract, they had, without the aid of a trade union, been able to obtain from the employers this eight hours day. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Yes, they were able by the force of their arguments to show the masters that it was to their advantage to adopt the eight hours day. [An HON. MEMBER: That is an argument against trade unions.] No, it was not an argument against trade unions; it should that the tin-workers succeeded by the force of their arguments, though, as he

575
said, they unfortunately had not a trade union, and it showed that they had no fear of a decreased output. It was useless to argue against trade unions in these days, and he did not think that even the hon. Member for Norwood could get up and argue against them.
MR. LUPTON: Do they change at the face or at the bank?
MR. DUNNsaid Cornish miners changed at the bank. His hon. friend the Member for Brighton said that he could not see that there was any real demand by the men for this legislation. He had examined the division list taken on the Second Reading of the Bill, and he noticed that, with hardly a single exception, no Member of the House who represented any large body of miners, whether setting on that or the other side of the House, voted in opposition to the Second Reading. It had occurred to him that if Brighton or even favoured Norwood had been a mining district, the Members for those constituencies might, he would not say have voted for the Second Reading, but at any rate they would have been better informed perhaps as to the needs and requirements of the miners of the country. He desired to say one word in answer to his hon. friend and colleague the Member for St. Ives, who in reference to the death rate, told them that the low death rate among men engaged in coal-mining was caused by the fact that the coal mines were regarded as a kind of sanatoria—that if there was a weak member of a family he was just sent down into the coal mine to work long hours underground in order to cure him of the particular disease from which he suffered. He had the highest possible respect for the hon. Member for St. Ives, but he must say that he required a certain amount of confirmation in support of his statement. He observed that the hon. Gentleman in comparing coal-mining with other occupations referred to the sea, and he was careful enough to say that some boys sooner than be sent to sea preferred to go down the mines. He was not at all sure that any medical man or friends of a consumptive youth would advise either sending him to sea or down the coal mines. What they did know was that only strong and muscular men,
576
with excellent health, were fit for the occupation of mining, and it was because the pick of our men were sent down the mines that the death rate among them was lower than it would otherwise be. They had been told by the hon. Member for Brighton that they would be voting against one of the first principles of Liberalism if they voted in favour of this clause because it would interfere with the liberty of the subject. He thought the House had often heard arguments of that kind. Many years ago when they were discussing the first Factory Act they heard the same argument, that they were imposing restrictions on a man's labour. Then, as now, they were told that it was against Liberal principles to interfere with liberty of action. He took it that the Bill was not an interference with liberty of action. If they were in favour of allowing men to work as long as they liked, surely they had equal liberty to work as short hours as they liked.
MR. BOWLES: Hear, hear.
MR. DUNN: The hon. Member for Norwood said "Hear, hear." But he should remember that there were other things which very often tied a man's liberty besides Acts of Parliament, and it was because of such a tying up of his liberty that this Bill had become necessary. They knew that the miners in many district, and they heard to-day in the vast majority of districts, were in favour of this demand, but up to now the men had been powerless to obtain it. The hon. Member for St. Ives said that the miners had not approached the employers, and the hon. Member for St. Helens replied that the statement was not correct. The hon. Member for St. Ives was naïve enough to confess that if the men had made the demand for the eight-hours day they might not have got it.
MR. MARKHAM: As a matter of fact the coal owners approached Mr. Pickard, representing the Miners' Federation, some few years before his death and offered to give the men an eight-hours day excluding both windings. Mr. Pickard refused that offer, insisting on eight hours from bank to bank. The object of the Bill, therefore, is exactly the same as

577
the Miners' Federation of Great Britain was offered by the coal owners, I believe, in 1895, but I am not quite clear.
MR. DUNNthanked his hon. friend for the interruption and the information he had given to the House. At any rate it was surely one of the principles of Liberalism that they should have the greatest good for the greatest number. His hon. friend said: "What about the consumer?" How anxious his hon. friend was with regard to the consumer. He suggested that the Bill would enhance the price of coal. The hon. Member for Norwood said: "Of course it would," and he was inclined to think he was right. He was inclined to think advantage would be taken of the passing of the Bill at first to put up prices. But he was confident, whether that was so or not, that the ordinary course of natural competition would very soon right matters, and although certain interested parties might seek to take advantage of the passing of the Bill in order to raise the price of coal, yet he was quite sure that before very long they would be forced in their own interests to bring it down to its normal point again. He should certainly vote against this wrecking Amendment.
SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid it would be impossible to listen to any speech which would be more forcible in inducing the House to vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord than the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He was asked why the miners engaged in other branches of mining work were not included in the privileges of this Bill, and his simple answer was, because they had made terms with their employers and had obtained the eight hours without legislation.
MR. DUNN: The hon. Gentleman will pardon me. He is putting it rather too generally. I was asked with regard to tin, and I replied with regard to tin.
SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid he was referring only to the branch of mining with which the hon. Member was per-
578
sonally acquainted, and he had said that for many years the tin-miners had already enjoyed an eight-hours day, and they had obtained it simply by negotiating with their employers with respect to the number of hours they had to work. What they asked on that side of the House was why the coal miners could not do exactly the same thing. The hon. Member pointed out also that miners, as well as other persons, ought to have the right to work less than eight hours if they chose, and should not be compelled to work more than eight hours. Of course they ought to have the right to work any number of hours which they chose and which they could arrange with their employers. There had not been many speeches made in favour of this clause. There had been a conspiracy of silence as a means of obtaining a vote on the subject. He did not think that was altogether a wise proceeding, because they were really very anxious to hear what were the reasons which could be adduced, after the Committee stage of the Bill, in favour of this particular clause. He himself owed an apology to the House for intruding in the debate at all. He was not a coal owner nor a working miner, but he had attended very regularly the meetings of the Committee upstairs, and he had also read with some care the very valuable Report of the Departmental Committee on the subject, and he challenged anyone, even the Home Secretary, who had carefully studied that Report to say that it afforded any strong evidence in favour of the Bill now before the House. It had also been said by one of the few Members of the House who had spoken against the Amendment of his noble friend that it would be impossible for the trade union of miners to enforce these terms upon their employers, and if they endeavoured to do so, they would have to fall back upon a strike. He did not know exactly what was the object of a trade union unless it was to negotiate with their employers with respect to the conditions and terms under which they worked. It seemed to him there were many ways in which trade unions employed their funds which were not quite as profitable as that of endeavouring to obtain better

579
wages or conditions of work for themselves, but he could not understand for a moment how it was that trade unions were unable to negotiate with their employers as to the terms and conditions under which they desired to work. If they were unable to do so, as the hon. Member for South Glamorgan said, and for that reason Parliament must interfere between the workmen and their employers, why was it not equally necessary that Parliament should interfere in all trades between workmen and employers; and, if so, where was the necessity for the existence of trade unions? Surely it was better, as had been done by the tin-miners, not to invoke Parliamentary legislation, but to endeavour to settle the conditions under which they worked between themselves and their employers. He should like to say that if for one moment it could be contended that the health of the miners depended upon reducing the number of hours during which they were under ground or if the safety of the mine were dependent upon that condition, the House, he believed, would unanimously vote in favour of this Bill. That statement had already been made by the Leader of the Opposition, and he was quite certain everyone in the House would endorse it. But had there been adduced any single argument to show that the health of miners suffered by the length of hours during which they were employed? If they turned to the Report of the Committee, which was a mine of information on the subject, they would see that after considering all the statistics which had been brought before them, the Committee deliberately came to this conclusion—
"Therefore, judging from the general statistical information available, the occupation of a coal-miner cannot be considered an unhealthy employment."
Now they were told by the Home Secretary, and he mentioned it also in his Second Reading speech, that there were other statistics which the Committee did not consider. Those statistics were not before the House, and had not been before the Committee. It was to be regretted that if there were any statistics which would tend to a different conclusion from that at which the Committee arrived, they should not
580
have been placed before the Committee. But they were also told it was only the strongest and healthiest men who engaged in this employment. That might be so. He did not doubt it, but there were many employments in which only strong and healthy men could engage. One would not send weaklings to undertake work which could only be carried out by strong men. There were many employments which could only be undertaken by strong men, but it did not follow that because strong men only could be employed in such work, therefore the general health of those who were employed would be injured if they worked half an hour longer than they were required to do under this Bill.
MR. GLADSTONE: May I just remind the hon. Member that on page 40 of the Report the Committee say that, so far as the evidence goes, it tends to show that the standard of health of the workers is lowest in those districts where the longest hours are worked.
SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid the quotation he was making was on page 48, which came after the passage to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. As regarded danger, if there was one matter which was most carefully considered in the Committee, it was with regard to the danger which the miner incurred in carrying out his hazardous work; and he must own that he had not heard one single argument adduced upstairs or in the House to show that if the number of hours were reduced, the danger to miners would be decreased. On the contrary, with any general legislation of this kind, requiring that no person should be underground more than eight hours, it was essential, as was shown by the Bill now before the House, that there should be all kinds of exceptions to that general rule, and it had been part of the duty of the Committee upstairs carefully to consider what exceptions were necessary for the safety of the mine; and could it be said even now that they had considered every possible exception that was necessary? But he should like to point out that when any exceptional treatment of persons engaged underground was suggested with a view to the safety of the mine or of the miners, it was generally opposed by the whole

581
of the miners themselves, and there was nothing which some of them more regretted than the fact that the working of half an hour more underground was regarded by the miners generally of more importance than the safety of the mine which might be endangered by a shortened period of work. He asked whether, during the course of this debate, any sufficient reason had been shown for this undue interference with the liberty of contract. The question of the liberty of contract between employer and employed was top often pooh-poohed. They were told that Parliament had already interfered with the hours of labour in the Factory Acts, but he need scarcely remind the House that those Acts referred to the working of women and children, and it was and would remain the duty of all men to protect by legislation as far as they could the safety and health of women and children. But he said distinctly that no single argument had been adduced for the general principle of requiring that miners should only work eight hours. Surely the onus of proof lay with those who introduced the Bill. He could find no valid argument for interfering in this particular trade more than in any other. On the other hand, anyone who read the Report would find that there were very strong economic arguments against the adoption of this first clause. It had been distinctly proved that the diminution of the number of hours of work must, as had been pointed out by other speakers, have a decided effect upon the output and consequently upon the price of coal. The Home Secretary had indicated a certain number of mitigations of the effect of the diminution in the number of hours, and they were referred to in the Report in a paragraph which the light hon. Gentleman read on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was, however, necessary to bear in mind that after giving all reasonable credit to those considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the Committee were nevertheless convinced that the establishment of a fixed eight-hours day, whether introduced suddenly or gradually by annual reductions of half-an-hour or otherwise, would be sure to result in a temporary contraction of output, and a consequent
582
period of embarrassment and loss to the country at large. The Committee further stated that—
"The extent and duration of this period would depend chiefly upon the intelligent and willing co-operation of both employers and workmen to reduce it to a minimum, both in the immediate interest of the public and the ultimate interests of the coal industry."
He did not want to dwell upon the serious effects of this increase in the price of coal, but he thought the consumer was the person who ought to be considered in legislation of this kind. It was not only the domestic consumer who would suffer, but, as had already been pointed out, the whole of the industries of the country would suffer in competition with the industries of other countries. The other point which had been raised was the question of danger. There was no one more sensible of the danger that might result from this shortening of hours than the Home Secretary himself. What did he say in answer to a deputation? He said—
"But there is another point urged with regard to safety. Of course we all agree that one of the first considerations is the security of those who work in and about the mines, and it would indeed, be disastrous if, by speeding up the machinery or hurrying the work of timbering, or interfering with anything connected with the safety of the men, we made the ratio of accidents much too great through faulty legislation. I quite agree that the views expressed on that point deserve close and anxious consideration."
What was the close and anxious consideration the Home Secretary had given to this matter? The result of it had been the postponement of the complete operation of this clause for a period of five years. That was the sole result of his "close and careful consideration," and yet they knew full well that if the periods of winding were included in the eight hours during which the miners were to work there must be a natural tendency on the part of employers to hasten those windings which was attended with considerable danger to the men. Why were they to expect that after five years the danger would be less than it was now?
MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member is quite in error in saving that that is the sole reason. He will see that there is

583
an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the question of winding.
SIR PHILIP MAGNUSsaid that was so, but the main danger to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was that connected with the hastening of speed of winding. And now, against the united wish of the miners he was proposing to put off this reform for five years; and why for five years only? It was his hope that during that time science might come to his aid and provide inventions which would make the danger less than it was at the present time. He did not know what claim the right hon. Gentleman had to speak in the name of science, but how did he know that science would come to his aid? Surely in legislation of this kind it would be much better to legislate from what he did know than upon such a hypothesis as that which he had put forward. When they came to that particular clause of the Bill he trusted that he would agree to accept the Amendment that the winding up and down should be excluded altogether from the eight hours, or, until such time as scientific invention had come to his aid to show that it was no longer necessary. He felt that he had no right to detain the House longer, but he would like to point out one other thing. They had been told they must follow foreign countries, that France, Germany and Holland had all introduced legislation of this kind. As he read the Report, legislation on this matter was very recent in foreign countries and they had not yet ascertained what might be its effect. The law was introduced in France in the year 1906, and according to that law the eight hours were exclusive of both windings and of periods for refreshment in the mines. Therefore, the French Bill differed in important particulars from the English Bill. If they took other countries they found the same result. There was another very strong reason for rejecting this clause, and it was that it proposed a uniform eight-hours day for the whole country. At present in some parts of the country the men men worked less, in others a little longer than that; and what reason could be shown for introducing this uniformity, having regard to the fact
584
that different conditions must prevail in different parts of the country? Surely the mine owners, in co-operation with the workers, might be allowed to determine the number of hours they should work. Personally, he felt that no case whatever had been made out for the introduction of this clause into the Bill, and he hoped that all hon. Members who cared for freedom of control and of competition would agree with him that no sufficient reasons had been adduced for legislative interference with this particular trade, and he trusted they would vote in favour of the Amendment, of his noble friend.
MR. LUPTONsaid he made a long speech on the Second Reading, and he did not mean to do so again on this clause. Two eloquent speeches had been made in support of the clause already. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil mentioned the case of the Scottish miners who used to work ten hours a day and were now working eight. They had managed without Government interference to get an eight hours day in Scotland, and he took it they got it became they wanted it. He had yet to learn that the miners of England could not get an eight hours day if they wanted it. The hon. Member for Camborne said the men in the Cornish tin mines had not got a powerful union, but without any union they had met the owners of the mines, and they had got an eight-hours day. There they had two good illustrations showing that without a clause of this kind the miners had been able to get what they wanted. What they were being driven to by the supporters of this measure was not to give what the miners wanted but what they did not want, and that was what was being forced upon them by this Bill. [Cries of "No."] That, at any rate, was the fact as regards Durham and Northumberland. As the hon. Member for Norwood had stated, there were hon. Members in the House who were in a position to contradict that statement if they could, but they had not done so because they know it was true. They knew that the miners in Durham had voted against an Eight Hours Bill, and that if it was forced upon them it would be contrary to their will. The

585
miners of Yorkshire, Staffordshire, and part of Warwickshire already had a sort of eight-hours day, although it was not exactly the same as would be forced upon them by this Bill. Nevertheless it was one which was quite satisfactory to them. For more than forty years Yorkshire miners had had an eight hours day, and so had the miners of Derbyshire. The miners in Yorkshire liked an eight hours day, and those in Derbyshire preferred a nine hours day, and why should the Yorkshire minors force their will upon the Derbyshire miners? He was speaking from his own experience of Derbyshire miners, for he had worked a miners eight hours shift himself. [An HON. MEMBER: Where?] He did not mind telling the hon. Member privately. The miners in the district he was referring to adopted two nine-hour shifts, and their wages went up 1s. a day because they were working piece-work. If they reduced their hours from nine hours to eight, of course their wages would go down 1s. a day, and there would be a jolly row in that district. This measure was one which would tend to make strikes wholesale in Lancashire, Durham, and Northumberland, because it would cause such a disturbance in their systems that prices would have to be altered and wages would go down. Miners would not take lower wages until they were forced, and if they found that the effect of the Bill was to reduce their wages they would kick up a row and ask for a revision of prices; whether they got that or not depended upon the state of the coal trade at that time. Of course, if the owners put up the prices and got larger profits they would be ready to pay almost any wages that were asked, and they would do everything they could to facilitate the miners and meet their demands when trade was good. If owners were getting 5s. or 10s. a ton extra they would not mind giving the miners another 1s. out of it, and they might give them another 2s. 6d. if necessary. What he said was that the condition of trade would be such after the passing of the Bill that they would have to revise their prices. He was certain that the effect of the measure would be to restrict the output. It will have a great effect on the market. Production would be very far from its
586
maximum, for there would be a reduction of 10 per cent. in the output. That would send up prices to any extent they liked to name. No one knew how much the increase would be, but it would be very considerable. The miners would, of course, get the rise they wanted, and everything would go very sweetly. It was the public who would have to pay. In previous booms the increased price had come from the outside. The iron trade had been good, and coal owners had been able to get a rise in price, and miners a rise in wages, and no harm had been done. That was because the iron trade and general trade had been good. This new increase would come when the iron trade and general trade was not good, and hundreds of thousands of men would be thrown out of employment. They would not be the ordinary out-of-works—men who could not work if they wished. They would be real men, the men who had made England what she is, men of strength and muscle, and if they were thrown out of work through the operations of the law, they would have something to say that would be disagreeable to those who had to hear it. He would have to support the Amendment. It was a drastic Amendment, for if they omitted Clause 1 there was little, left of the Bill. The hon. Member for Glamorgan, who was one of the best speakers the minors had, had appealed to the human side of the case. He (Mr. Lupton) had been glad to hear that appeal because he wanted the House to attend to that side. They had heard too much of what the mine agents wanted, and what the colliers wanted. What would happen under the Bill to the man who was a little past his prime? He would have to rush to his work and would have little time for rest in his working hours. He him self had rushed through mines in his younger days; he went more gently now, and knew what it would mean to those men. The hon. Member for Camborne, if he wished, could tell the House how many tin miners had died from disease through rushing up and down ladders.
MR. DUNNsaid that was a new suggestion. Although they had had many reasons advanced they had never heard of that suggestion before.
MR. LUPTONsaid that statement showed that the hon. Gentleman was new to the question. It was a commonplace that the early death rate through the exertion of rushing up and down ladders was very great. If the House started colliers running, it would kill a great many of them. He was sorry hon. Members laughed, but there had been an appeal to humanity, and he wanted humanity to be considered. They were going to drive a great many men in sorrow to the grave. It was necessary for the managers to keep up the receipts of their mine, and if there was a man who did not earn sufficient money, they did not want to keep him, for the miners' agents would say the men were not earning a good wage, and there must be a rise in price. A great many of the men now working and keeping themselves and their families would be forced into the workhouse. If the appeal was to humanity, he said humanity was against the Bill. They were told that accidents would be reduced under the Bill, but the number of accidents was small compared with the number of deaths there would be due to rushing which the Bill would cause. The Home Secretary had tried to show that there would be some saving in human life and that if they reduced the number of hours from ten to eight, they would reduce the number of accidents. The miners' agents had said, however, that the number of days work would be increased and that would increase the number of hours worked. If that was not so, the number of men would have to be increased, and if they had more men underground they would probably have more accidents. The miner who worked four days one week and five the next, had a good week-end clear from the mine, but now he was to be forced to go down the pit six days a week. That would be slavery to the miner. A man might have an hour's walk underground to his work and an hour's walk back again. That would be unproductive labour which he would have to undertake six days a week. The great bulk of the colliers would sooner work a longer number of hours while they were there, than be forced to go down the pit six days a week for the same amount of
588
work. They were asked to pass that Bill in the name of humanity, but colliers only worked on an average forty-three out of 168 hours in a week, which meant that only a quarter of their time was spent underground, and of that they were not working all the time. Many colliers believed that that was a Bill of a very different character from what it actually was. They imagined it was a Bill fixing the hours of work. Even some of their Members of Parliament thought the same. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton West had moved an Amendment in Committee upstairs—
"Whereas at the passing of this Act the hours of labour underground, etc."
The hon. Member had had the idea that the Bill dealt with the hours of labour, but it did nothing of the sort; it dealt with the hours underground. It was like saying that the hours a man spent in a train going to and from his work were hours of labour, whereas they were simply hours of travelling. The Bill was merely one for fixing the hours underground; it was not a Bill fixing the hours of labour at eight. The Home Secretary and the hon. Member for St. Helens had made the same mistake as other hon. Members in Amendments which they had brought forward. The French Act had fixed the hours underground and had left, out the time for rest and refreshment, enforcing a maximum of eight hours for labour. They knew eight hours labour was long enough at a time, and if left to themselves, the men were not likely to work much longer. The Bill, however, had reduced the hours practically to six a day. That was a very arbitrary measure. It was very arbitrary to say to a strong collier in the prime of his life, when he might earn money to save for himself and his family in order that he might be independent, that he must not do more than a certain amount of work. The Government side of the House was elected in the cause of free trade, but that was not a free trade measure. It was not fair to interfere with a man's right to sell his labour and to prevent him from earning more than £1 a week. It was with very great sadness that he had to oppose the measure. But he objected to it because it was opposed to all the great principles of his life, and to all the principles for

589
which the Liberals fought at the general election. He objected to it on the grounds that it would be oppressive to the poor working men and their families, because of its effect on the coal market and on the hundreds of thousands of people who were dependent on coal for carrying on their industries. For these and other reasons he hoped the House would accept the Amendment.
MR. BONAR LAW: Like the hon. Member opposite I do not think a Second Reading debate is necessary in regard to this clause. I have no intention of trying to make a case against the Bill as a whole. All I intend to do is to take up as well as I can, at any rate as well as I can remember, some of the arguments which have emerged during the discussion, to which importance may be attached by some hon. Members. My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition put to the House, and more particularly to the representatives of the mining industry, who are far more interested than the Government in this matter, three questions. An attempt has been made to answer two of them. The first question had reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Glamorgan, who said, that we talked only about prices, but let us look at humanity. I think everybody will recognise the soundness of the argument. If it can be shown that either health or safety is injuriously affected owing to the length of hours of a miner's occupation, then a case is made out for the House of Commons to consider. An attempt was made to answer that point by two hon. Gentlemen, one the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and the other the Secretary of State for the Home Department. As it happens, one of these Gentlemen gave a defence which was denied by the other, and both gave a defence which was contradicted by the Report of the Special Committee. As regards health, the Home Secretary read a paragraph in the Report of the Committee which pointed to the fact that there is a greater amount of illness in some districts where the hours were longer, and in other districts where the hours were shorter than eight hours.
590
But here is a summary of the evidence in the Report—
"Judging from the general statistical information available, the occupation of a coal miner cannot be considered an unhealthy employment."
That is on page 48 of the Report. But the right hon. Gentleman said that the men working in coal mines were picked men, men of special strength, and that delicate men and boys were never sent into the mines. Now, I have made actual inquiries about this matter I have a great many friends in Scotland who are coal owners, and I put the point to them, and this was the answer I got. They said that so far from its being the fact, comparing the coal trade with other trades which require a certain physical strength, such as iron workers, the comparison was in favour of the men engaged in the coal trade. They lived to a large extent in villages. Then their children naturally followed their father's occupation, and only those who were unfit for work in the mine on account of lack of physical strength or physical defect, were sent to other occupations. Therefore, I think that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman falls absolutely to the ground. In regard to accidents, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, whose moderation I am pleased to refer to in the House, said that these accidents do diminish in proportion as the hours of labour in the mines are diminished. The hon. Member talked of Scotland, and compared 1896, when the hours of labour were longer, with 1906, when the hours were shorter. The number of accidents he said were less in the latter year than in the former. Was there ever a more flagrant case of post hoc propter hoc? If it was true that the diminution of accidents is due only to the shorter hours, what has been the use of all the efforts made by the miners' representatives during the last twenty years to get the general conditions in the mines improved? I prefer the opinion of the Committee, which was at least impartial, and who took a good deal of trouble in their investigations into this question. In their Report that Committee said:—
"We may remark that we have failed to obtain any evidence which would associate the number of accidents in any disproportionate degree with the hours in excess of eight spent

591
underground by the men, or with the districts in which the longest hours are worked."
Their conclusion is that there is no connection whatever between the two. But, as a matter of fact, the case is stronger in the other direction; instead of diminishing the number of accidents this Bill is going to increase them. That was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman himself in a speech he made in Committee upstairs, when he said—
"I do not say that the danger to accidents will cease in five or ten years, but the danger will be reduced."
Here we have the very Minister responsible for this Bill actually saying that the Bill, if it became law, instead of diminishing the danger arising from accidents, will increase it!
MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman should read out the context of that sentence. My impression is that I was speaking with regard to the special danger of winding.
MR. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking as to whether three or five years should be the probationary period. There is nothing about winding in the notes I have. He said that there is danger and that he did not say that it will cease in three or five years. Did not that mean clearly that, to some extent at least, the Bill is going to increase the danger? The second point raised by my right hon. friend was one with regard to which there had been no attempt at any answer. My right hon. friend said in effect to the representatives of the mining industry, the existing conditions in Durham and Northumberland are acceptable to all the men, but what is quite true, the boys work longer hours—though they are not really boys but lads. But let the House remember that they are a class which in the process of time will themselves get the advantage of the shorter hours now enjoyed by the older men. Now I admit that it is a hard thing that the young should have these longer hours, but that difficulty applies all round. It applied in my own case when I went to an office. It is the lads who get the longer hours; as they grow older and rise their hours become shorter. If you find that on the whole the class engaged in this particular trade do not object to the
592
existing hours, surely that is a strong point for leaving them as they are. Do the Gentlemen who are responsible for this Bill and the miners' representatives intend to deal with that question? We are entitled to an answer. There are representatives of the miners here who are not taking any part in these discussions. I would like to hear what they think. Here is what the Special Committee said on the point—
"To the solution of the problem we found both the employers and workmen had given much more serious thought than appeared to have been the case in other districts; and notwithstanding the difficulty of substituting for the present varied and elastic system one of greater rigidity and uniformity, we are convinced that, whether by the institution of three shifts of hewers, or two uniform shifts of eight hours for all classes, or by some other arrangement, the same organising ability and the same co-operation between the employers and workers which has evolved the present system, would succeed in evolving a satisfactory substitute for it should the necessity arise. We found it to be the opinion of all the witnesses, however, that this could not be accomplished without some increase in the numbers of underground workers, and some addition to the cost of production."
Here again, I am quite ready to be corrected if I am wrong, but I am informed that in Northumberland and Durham the position was put to the men in this way. They were told: "You only work six and a half hours and this Bill only refers to the maximum; therefore, nothing that can happen will make your hours of work longer." Obviously, if this is true, then one of the alternatives of this proposal is missed out, namely, that there will be eight, hours work for the hewers as well as for the other people in the mine. I say, therefore, that when representatives of the workers in a great trade like this come to the House and admit that this problem is facing them, and that they have no idea how to find a solution, that is really playing with the House and with Parliament. But more than that, the hon. Member for Glamorganshire hinted that, if we do not pass this Bill, there will be the danger of a strike, and that the men would fight for it if it could only be got by a strike. I say that on every page of this Report there is a clear indication that it was in the mind of the Committee that so many novel subjects will be raised giving rise to disputes that

593
there will be a grave danger of strikes in consequence of the pasisng of this Bill. I have been told by gentlemen connected with the coal trade in Northumberland and Durham that, in their opinion, this difficulty in regard to the two counties will not be got over without a strike. We have here the representatives of the coal miners in those counties, and if they will get up and say that I am talking exaggerated nonsense and that there is no danger of strikes arising, it would be a real relief to me as well as to the House. The next point raised by my right hon. friend was this. He pointed to districts like Lancashire and South Wales where the hours of work are longer, something like ten hours, and they are to be reduced by two hours. He said quite obviously, I think, that, given the conditions as at present, either you will have to raise the price of coal or wages will fall. What attempt has been made to deal with that point? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr did make an attempt to reply to it, and his answer was that he thinks the output will be precisely the same in eight hours as it has been in ten, and his reason for coming to that conclusion was that the men would work harder in the shorter time and give out a larger output. He gave figures in support of that contention, but they are figures with which I am not acquainted as they relate to the trade in the East of Scotland. I have the figures here relating to Lanarkshire, where the coal trade has been much more developed than it has in the East of Scotland. In Lanarkshire, in 1900 they got an eight hours winding day. The average output per man for the four years preceding 1900 was 472 tons, and in the four years succeeding it was 421 tons. That was to say, there was a falling off in the output per man to just about the same extent as the shortening of hours, in spite of the improvement in the methods of production.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us at the same time the number of days per week the colliers worked for the two periods.
MR. BONAR LAW: I have that stated in the Report from which I am
594
quoting, and the statement is that they were practically the same in both cases. In any case precisely the same criticism can be made in regard to the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave from the East of Scotland. So much for the idea that the output is going to be the same working 20 per cent. less time. My hon. friend behind me quoted a resolution of one body connected with the Miners' Federation which admitted that there was going to be a rise in wages and the price of coal as the result of the passing of this Bill. The hon. Member said we had no right to refer to that until the whole Federation had passed it, but I think we have a right to say, not that the Federation agreed to it, but that the only body of miners who considered it have plainly stated that that was their interpretation of the Bill. There are a great many members of the federation in this House. Will they undertake if that resolution is introduced to vote against it? If they refuse I think the House can draw its own conclusions.
MR. BRACE: May I point out that there has been no consultation with the men, and we can give no undertaking when we have not consulted the men.
MR. BONAR LAW: That strengthens very much what I have said. These Gentlemen who tell us that the prices are not going to be raised can very well tell us what their vote will be when the question is raised, but there is another consideration which ought to be taken into account. The hon. Member for the Ince division of Lancashire made a speech which has not been denied in the least. He said quite openly and honestly that the effect of this would be that 4d. a ton would have to be added for the hewers' wages and 2d. for the other persons engaged in the trade. That was 6d. a ton, and it will have to be paid not only in good times, but in bad times. But that is not all. There are other charges which must rise with the wages, and nobody can dispute that there is going to be a rise in the price of coal as the result of this Bill. By the admission of the Miners' Federation, who introduced this Bill, there is going to be a rise in the price of coal. The Home

595
Secretary says that any substantial rise would be a great misfortune to this country. I go further than that and I say that any rise due to other than natural causes, however small it be, will be a grave misfortune from every point of view to this country. [Ironical MINISTERIAL cheers]. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they have any desire to get this Bill through, are not taking a very wise course in raising the issue which they have. I can assure them that it is an issue that I am never afraid of. But since they have raised it, may I point out this as some answer to those cheers? Even the addition of 9d. a ton on coal admittedly and undoubtedly would mean an addition of 40s. per ton on the price of the kind of steel which is coming into this country. That is a 5 per cent. preference to the foreigners who are sending in that kind of steel. I therefore do not think that hon. Members have scored very much; but the subject is wide enough without our bringing in side issues. I say that, a thing outside of natural causes which would raise the price of coal is going to be a bad thing for the trade of this country. We know—and that is admitted by everyone, whatever view he takes of fiscal policy—that we have suffered from a competition which we are told is due to the natural advantages of other countries in regard to raw materials. The one raw material in which we have an advantage over European countries, though not over America, is our coal. There is another side of this policy which has to be considered. It is quite true, as hon. Members have said, that if a change like this is made in time of falling trade it will not raise prices, but it will prevent thorn falling, and everyone who is engaged in business knows that the thing that gradually brings about a turn for the better is the low prices at which commodities are produced, which encourages buying. We have in coal this advantage, and the Government—I do not think it is the Government, to do them justice; they would get out of it if they could—but the system of logrolling by which legislation is carried on is compelling them to take that course which is bound to prevent the expansion of our trade in good times or prevent
596
its recovery in bad times. I am not going to prophesy in the least what the extent of the rise will be. It entirely depends upon circumstances and on the condition of trade at the time; but this I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, it is not a thing which applies only when you make a change; it is a condition which will recur every time there is a scarcity of trade. The effect on prices has nothing whatever to do, for the time being, with the increased cost of production. I was myself engaged in a trade of a very speculative character, and I have more than once seen the price of the article doubled by a rise of 10 per cent. in the price of coal. Hon. Members will not be surprised, because coal is an article you cannot do without, and if one manufacturer thinks it is short and that he will not be able to get what he wants he will rush in and buy in order to see that he, at least, is all right. Other manufacturers rush in at the same time, and in consequence the price is driven up. I say, without hesitation, that I believe this is one of the worst Bills ever introduced even by the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State appeared to be astonished at what he called the Coal Consumers' League. I do not know anything about the Coal Consumers' League. They have never asked me for any money. They knew that it was not worth while.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are a Scotsman.
MR. BONAR LAW: Now that I am no longer representing a Scottish constituency I am prepared to admit that that is not a bad reason. This is not a question between the coal masters and the coal miner. There are a great many coal masters who would do anything but benefit by this Bill. This is a Bill that will benefit new mines at the expense of old mines that could not equip themselves. But it does affect the consumer. The consumer is not organised, but now an attempt has been made to focus the opinion that is held by those who consume coal, and I think that is a good thing. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil made a statement that I do not agree with, that neither coal masters nor iron masters were afraid of this Bill. It

597
so happens that there is no class of the community amongst whom I have so many friends. I have spoken to many of them about it and there is not one who does not believe that the effect of the Bill will be greatly and permanently to raise the price of coal in this country. They are afraid of it. There is not one who is not afraid of a rise in the price of coal in this country. They admitted they did not think it was going to be a great evil, but because it is not going to be a great evil that is no reason for entering into any evil. Whatever has been said which was not well-founded, this, at least, is true, that all men engaged in industry in this country believe that this Bill will have a very grave effect upon the particular industry in which they are engaged.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,: The hon. Member who has just sat down prefaced his speech by saying that he was going to make a Second Reading speech and said that he was driven to making a Second Reading speech by the speeches which had gone before. That may be so. As a Welsh Member I did not intend to take any part in this discussion, and if I might presume to advise my friends I would say that they should not extend the discussions on this measure by making Second Reading speeches. There were several passages in the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, several propositions which would be excellent propositions for free trade if they were to be applied all round, but these things must be avoided on this occasion. The hon. Member repeated some questions which had been put by the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the debate, not so much to those who officially represent the Government as to those who represent the mining industry, to whom I shall be content to leave the answering of those questions, as I think they will be able to deal with that matter on the Report stage of Clause 1 much more ably than I should. Then there is the question of the humanitarian reason. I think it was rather a pity that the hon. Member said that the Government had not brought in this Bill for any humanitarian reasons but because they were engaged in a log-rolling policy It does not help matters forward in the
598
slightest degree to say that the responsible Government are only indulging in a log-rolling policy, when they at last bring in a Bill to represent the views of a certain section of the population, many of which views have been represented here for twenty years past. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if he were Prime Minister to-day, would not have found the feeling on this matter so strong that it would have been necessary even for him to bring, in some measure of this kind. Now let me say a word or two with regard to three heads: First, the humanitarian point of view. This can be regarded from two points, the point of view of health, and the point of view of danger. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the Committee had reported their opinion, that, ordinarily speaking, the occupation of a coal-miner is not an unhealthy occupation. That does not determine this matter. The question is whether it is a healthy occupation up to eight hours a day and whether it does not become more unhealthy when you pursue it for another hour or two. It is not enough to say that the occupation of a miner is healthy, and therefore it is not right to limit the hours during which he has to be underground. It is a very difficult thing to decide whether there is any increase of danger by excess of work. It is very difficult to prove that by statistics, but this I am able to say, that it has been the opinion of those engaged in this industry in South Wales that there have been dangers and accidents leading often to deplorable explosions in which on occasion one, two, or three hundred men have lost their lives, and that the dangers have been increased by the working of long hours. It cannot be proved by figures, but it is right that I should tell the House that that has been adopted as the deliberate opinion of those engaged in this industry in South Wales; that is to say, you have a greater danger due to less attention or to non-compliance with the rules which may, and no doubt has, sometimes produced very serious accidents owing to the men working excessive hours. That is what I say with regard to the first head, except one remark with regard to health and not mere danger after working nine or

599
ten hours. Has the hon. Member opposite ever been down a coal mine?
MR. BONAR LAW: No.
SIR S. EVANS: I thought he had. If he had, and if he had been down some of the old mines when they were working a few years ago, before they had been improved, he would have been satisfied, I think, if he could have done an ordinary day's work of eight hours that it would have been quite enough for him. I have been down many in the course of my avocation, because, whenever I was engaged in a mining case, I always went down to see the locus in quo. I have been down constantly, sometimes in a new pit in which the conditions by comparison were far better than in the old, and I have been down old coal pits where it was cruelty to make a man work six or seven hours. The present discussion relates to Durham, and I do not know anything about Durham or Northumberland, but I can say that it does appear to me to be a little unfair to say that an experienced miner need only work six or six and a half hours, while your boys, as they are called, ought to work nine or ten. A skilful debater like the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said that no doubt the lads in Durham during the first years of their work in the mines in Durham have to submit to a nine or ten-hours day, but then, he said, the boys would improve their position, and have the advantage which was thus obtained from shorter hours. What are the advantages? We believe there will be advantages to be obtained from shorter hours and for that reason we have produced this Bill. The last point he made came well within the province of the hon. Member. He dealt with the cost of production. This also is a difficult matter to deal with by way of figures, but the hon. Member will remember as a matter of history that predictions of exactly the same kind were made when the first Coal Federation Act was brought in, in 1872, and I found out quite recently that the same predictions were made and had
been made ever since the first improvements were made with regard to coal nines in 1852. In 1872, it was said that the price of coal would go up at least 1s. 6d. a ton. Similarly, as a consequence of the Compensation Act the increase was to be 3d.; it only went up one farthing. I only indicate these matters to show that prophecies of this kind have been made on previous occasions and nearly always falsely. I believe with the hon. Member for Merthyr that, broadly speaking, there will be no change in the productivity of the mines, or in the labour of the men. Everybody will know that the hours must be limited to eight. But I believe you will find that in the ordinary course not less but more coal will be produced in eight than is now produced in nine and a half hours. I understand one of the reasons for the state of things described by the hon. Member opposite is that the coal mines in that particular part of Scotland to which he alludes are nearly worked out on their last ridges, so to speak.
MR. BONAR LAWdissented.
SIR S. EVANS: Well, that is my information. If it is not correct I will not press it. I have made this reply to him. It has been a Second Reading speech and could not help being a Second Reading speech, but on the Report stages I shall certainly not make long speeches and so prevent this Bill from being passed; but speaking, not as a member of the Government, but as a Member for one of the divisions in South Wales, which has been looking forward to this Bill for years, I say I believe that the reduction from nine and three-quarter hours to eight will be, as the people of that country believe, a very great boon.
MR. GLADSTONErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 266; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 438.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Agnew, George William

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Maddison, Frederick

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mallet, Charles E.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gill, A. H.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Massie, J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Glendinning, R. G.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Beale, W. P.

Glover, Thomas

Menzies, Walter

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bennett, E. N.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Middlebrook, William

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn.SirW. Brampton

Mond, A.

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Morrell, Philip

Black, Arthur W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morse, L. L.

Boland, John

Hall, Frederick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bowerman, C. W.

Harcourt,Robert V.(Montrose)

Muldoon, John

Brace, William

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Brigg, John

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

Murray,Capt.HnA.C.(Kincard.

Bright, J. A.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Brooke, Stopford

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Myer, Horatio

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

Hemmerde, Edward George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Bryce, J. Annan

Henry, Charles S.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor(Mon., S.)

Nicholls, George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nolan, Joseph

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hodge, John

Norman, Sir Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Holland, Sir William Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cameron, Robert

Holt, Richard Durning

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hooper, A. G.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Chance, Frederick William

Hudson, Walter

O'Dowd, John

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Grady, J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hyde, Clarendon

Parker, James (Halifax)

Clancy, John Joseph

Illingworth, Percy H.

Partington, Oswald

Cleland, J. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Clough, William

Jenkins, J.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Clynes, J. R.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pollard, Dr.

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

Jones,Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Jones,William(Carnarvonshire)

Price,Sir Robert J.(Norfolk,E.)

Cooper, G. J.

Jowett, F. W.

Radford, G. H.

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

Joyce, Michael

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Kilbride, Denis

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Crean, Eugene

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Reddy, M.

Crooks, William

King,Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rendall, Athelstan

Crosfield, A. H.

Laidlaw, Robert

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Crossley, William J.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

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

Curran, Peter Francis

Lambert, George

Richardson, A.

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd)

Davies,Sir W.Howell(Bristol,S.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.

Robinson, S.

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

Lever,A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rose, Charles Day

Dillon, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Rowlands, J.

Duckworth, Sir James

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Samuel,Rt.Hn.H.L.(Cleveland)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Maclean, Donald

Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Seddon, J.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Seely, Colonel

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macpherson, J. T.

Shackleton, David James

Essex, R. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

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

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Callum, John M.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Fenwick, Charles

M'Crae, Sir George

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Laren,RtHn.SirC.B.(Leices.

Snowden, P.

Findlay, Alexander

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Micking, Major G.

Spicer, Sir Albert

602

603

Stanger, H. Y.

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

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Thomson, W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Thorne, G. R.(Wolverhampton)

Whitehead, Rowland

Steadman, W. C.

Tomkinson, James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whittaker,RtHn.Sir ThomasP.

Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)

Verney, F. W.

Wiles, Thomas

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Vivian, Henry

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Summerbell, T.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Walsh, Stephen

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Walton, Joseph

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Waring, Walter

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

White,J.Dundas(Dumbart'nsh.

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(City Lond.)

Forster, Henry William

Paulton, James Mellor

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Furness, Sir Christopher

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Baring,Cap.Hn.G.(Winchester)

Gooch,Henry Cubitt(Peckham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston

Pretyman, Ernest George

Beck, A. Cecil

Guinness,W. E. (Bury S. Edm.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bellairs, Carlyon

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renwick, George

Bowles, G. Stewart

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ridsdale, E. A.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunt, Rowland

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecelesall)

Bull, Sir William James

Joynson-Hicks, William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir John H.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

Lockwood,Rt.Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R.

Valentia, Viscount

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Watt, Henry A.

Clive, Percy Archer

Lupton, Arnold

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

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Cory, Sir Clifford John

M'Arthur, Charles

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Cox, Harold

Magnus, Sir Philip

Craig, Captain James (Down,E.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Castlereagh and Mr. Harmood-Banner.

Doughty, Sir George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the

The House divided:—Ayes, 267; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 439.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Black, Arthur W.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Boland, John

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bowerman, C. W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Agnew, George William

Brace, William

Clancy, John Joseph

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Brigg, John

Cleland, J. W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Brooke, Stopford

Clough, William

Ashton, Thomns Gair

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

Clynes, J. R.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Bryce, J. Annan

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

Balcarres, Lord

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Compton-Rickett, S. J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cooper, G. J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Byles, William Pollard

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Beale, W. P.

Cameron, Robert

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Bennett, E. N.

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Crean, Eugene

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Crooks, William

Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Rom'frd

Chance, Frederick William

Crosfield, A. H.

word 'for' in page 1, line 6, stand part of the Bill."

Crossley, William J.

Laidlaw, Robert

Rendall, Athelstan

Curran, Peter Francis

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Lambert, George

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamont, Norman

Richardson, A.

Davies,SirW.Howell(Bristol,S.)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lea,HughCecil (St. Pancras, E.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lever,A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robinson, S.

Dillon, John

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Duckworth, Sir James

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lewis, John Herbert

Rose, Charles Day

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rowlands, J.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Dunne,MajorE.Martin (Walsall

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

Samuel,Rt.Hn.H.L.(Cleveland)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Maclean, Donald

Schwann, SirC.E. (Manchester)

Essex, R. W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Seddon, J.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Seely, Colonel

Everett, R. Lacey

Macpherson, J. T.

Shackleton, David James

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

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

Ffrench, Peter

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Callum, John M.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Findlay, Alexander

M'Crae, Sir George

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Snowden, P.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Laren,RtHn.SirC.B.(Leices.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Fuller, John Michael F.

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

Spicer, Sir Albert

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Micking, Major G.

Stanger, H. Y.

Gill, A. H.

Maddison, Frederick

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Mallet, Charles E.

Steadman, W. C.

Glendinning, R. G.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Strachey, Sir Edward

Glover, Thomas

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Massie, J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Summerbell, T.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Menzies, Walter

Sutherland, J. E.

Gurdon,RtHn.SirW.Brampton

Micklem, Nathaniel

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Middlebrook, William

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mond, A.

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Hall, Frederick

Morrell, Philip

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morse, L. L.

Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hardie,J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

Muldoon, John

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

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Thomson, W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Murray,Capt.HnA.C.(Kincard.

Thorne,G.R. (Wolverhampton)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Tomkinson, James

Henry, Charles S.

Myer, Horatio

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Herbert,Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Verney, F. W.

Higham, John Sharp

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Vivian, Henry

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholls, George

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hodge, John

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Walsh, Stephen

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Walton, Joseph

Holt, Richard Durning

Norman, Sir Henry

Wardle, Beorge J.

Hooper, A. G.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Waring, Walter

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan.

Hudson, Walter

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

White,J.Dundas(Dumbart'nsh.

Hunt, Rowland

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Dowd, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Grady, J.

Whitehead, Rowland

Illingworth, Percy H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Partington, Oswald

Whittaker,RtHn.SirThomas P.

Jenkins, J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wiles, Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Jones,Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Pollard, Dr.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Jones, Lief (Appleby)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jowett, F. W.

Price,Sir RobertJ. (Norfolk,E.)

Joyce, Michael

Radford, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Kearley, Jir Hudson E.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Kilbride, Denis

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Reddy, M.

606

607

NOES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.

Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Doughty, Sir George

Morpeth, Viscount

Armitage, R.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fletcher, J. S.

Paulton, James Mellor

Baring,Capt.Hn.G.(Winchester

Forster, Henry William

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Furness, Sir Christopher

Pretyman, Ernest George

Beck, A. Cecil

Gooch,Henry Cubitt(Peckham)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Belllairs, Carlyon

Guinness, W. E. (Bury, S. Edm.)

Renwick, George

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Ridsdale, E. A.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Bright, J. A.

Houston Robert Paterson

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bull, Sir William James

Joynson-Hicks, William

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir JohnH.

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.)

Watt, Henry A.

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Lupton, Arnold

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Cory, Sir Clifford John

M'Arthur, Charles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Castlereagh and Mr. Stanley Wilson.

Cox, Harold

Magnus, Sir Philip

Craig,CaptainJames (Down,E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered to-morrow.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
As amended, considered.
MR. STEADMANsaid he had no desire to obstruct this Bill. On the contrary he desired to see it passed into law, so that something might be done for the Port of London. But he was strongly of opinion that the Board of Trade and the Admiralty should have no right of representation on the new board. They were only lay figures on the present Conservancy Board and knew nothing whatever about the matter. There were hon. Members ready to get up and talk upon any question under the sun and they generally knew nothing about the subjects upon which they spoke. In that way a good deal of time was wasted. The Port of London could only be managed by those who knew
608
the requirements of London. The Board of Trade knew nothing about it and the Admiralty knew less, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would agree to delete the representatives of those two bodies and put others in their place who understood the business.
MR. MORTONsaid he had not altered his mind about this Bill not having had a Second Reading debate and it had never been considered in Committee, in fact it had been rushed through regardless of the best interests of the people of London, and apparently at the dictation of trusts and companies. Bearing in mind, however, the late hour of the night, and also the time of the year, and the fact that it was impossible to get a proper debate upon the subject, he proposed to follow the example of his hon. friend the Member for Central Finsbury, and he would not move the Motion standing in his name.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL, Dundee) moved a new clause amending the Pilotage Order Confirmation Act, 1896. At present Trinity House had a Pilotage Committee upon which there was a representative appointed by the General Shipowners' Society and they had to provide for another representative to

609
take the place of the one hitherto elected by that society. This new clause proposed to give the Board of Trade power to nominate a representative after consultation with the General Shipowners' Society of London to replace the old representative. He begged to move.
New clause—
"As from the appointed day, and unless and until a Provisional Order under Section 577 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, dealing with the matter is made and confirmed, a shipowners' representative on the Pilotage Committee of the Trinity House shall, instead of being elected in the manner provided by the Order scheduled to the Pilotage Order Confirmation Act, 1896, be appointed by the Board of Trade after consultation with the General Shipowners' Society of London, and such other persons or bodies having knowledge or experience of shipping in the Port of London as the Board think fit, and the Order scheduled to the Pilotage Order Confirmation Act, 1896, shall be read accordingly as though references to such an appointment were substituted for references to elections by shipowners."—(Mr. Churchill.)
Brought in, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
LORD R. CECILsaid the drafting of this clause must have been exceedingly difficult and he could not quite understand it. What was the Provisional Order under Section 577 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and why had that been selected rather than a Provisional Order under this Bill? There were powers under the Bill to issue a Provisional Order, and he wished to know why the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the procedure under the Merchant Shipping Act. He objected to legislation by reference and the whole of the clause was difficult to follow.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid there was a clause under the Merchant Shipping Act, under which the Pilotage Committee of Trinity House appointed a shipowners' representative. A new method was being chosen of appointing a representative of the shipowners' interest, but the Provisional Order would be made under the Merchant Shipping Act which governed such an appointment.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid this clause was giving a preference to London over other ports in regard to the arrangements with Trinity House. London was being placed in a better position than any other port, and in this clause they were going to give the General Shipowners' Society of London the right of appointing a representative on the Pilotage Committee of Trinity House without reference to other shipowners in the Kingdom. So long as there was this distinct preference given to London over the other ports of the Kingdom he should protest against the action of the Government.
Clause added to the Bill.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved a new clause dealing with mutual rights as to the inspection of documents. It was necessary to provide which documents should remain with the old authorities, and which should be transferred to the new authority. The two parties concerned were the Thames Conservators and the Watermen's Company, and both these bodies were agreed upon the course suggested by this clause. He begged to move.
New clause—
"In page 33, after Clause 34, to insert the following clause:—'All minute books, books of account, vouchers, maps, plans, and other documents transferred by this Act from the Conservators or the Watermen's Company to the Port Authority shall at all reasonable times be open to the inspection, free of charge, of the Conservators or the Watermen's Company, as the case may be, and all minute books, books of account, vouchers, maps, plans, and other documents belonging to the Conservators or the Watermen's Company and not so transferred shall at all reasonable times be open to the inspection, free of charge, of the Port Authority, and if any question arises as to whether any such documents are to be transferred to the Port Authority, the question shall be decided by the Board of Trade.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Brought up, and read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The next dame (Provisions as to lighting, buoyage, and beaconage) standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale division of Liverpool is out of order because it

611
proposes to transfer the property of other people to the Port of London governing authority without having given any notice to Trinity House that it is proposed to take over their property without paying anything for it. That may be done by public Bills, but it cannot be done by private Bills.
MR. MCARTHURsaid that the lights and buoys were not the absolute property of Trinity House, but were held by that body in trust for the people who paid the money.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not think it matters whether it is trust or other property, you must give notice to those who own the property which you propose to take in order to give them an opportunity of looking after their interests.
MR. MORTON*MR. MORTON moved a new clause, providing that the dock and river accounts should be kept separately. He said that the object of the clause, which had been carefully drafted, was that the accounts should be kept separately of the dock business and the ordinary business in the river. He was quite unable to understand why the Board of Trade had objected to this clause. In the case of the Mersey Dock business at Liverpool they were compelled by Act of Parliament to keep separate accounts between the Mersey Conservancy business and the dock business. In the present Thames Conservancy they were also compelled by Parliament to keep the upper and lower river accounts separately. Now neither in the Mersey accounts nor in the Thames Conservancy accounts had there been any difficulty whatever in keeping them separate so that everybody concerned was able to understand how the money was received and expended by the different departments. The only reason given before the Joint Committee against the clause was given by the dock companies. They ought not to be dictated to by the dock companies as to what they should do. They wanted a free hand and they should be able to consider the matter without regard to what the dock companies thought of the clause, because after they had sold their docks what did it matter to them how the accounts were kept?
612
It had nothing to do with the dock companies after they had received their money. What was said by Sir Edward Clarke and others was that if they kept separate accounts as those suggested it would wreck the Bill. He supposed the meaning of that was that, notwithstanding that they were told that the net receipts would balance the net expenditure and pay interest on the stock, there was going to be a loss on these matters and the Board of Trade and the Committee did not want people to know it. But they surely had a right to have the accounts kept separate, and the Government and the Board of Trade ought not to be afraid or ashamed to show their accounts. It was estimated the other day that there was to be a loss on the purchase of the docks of £180,000 per annum. But the other night the Government practically admitted that it would be £300,000 per annum, because when they offered to limit the dues to be collected on goods—when that was being discussed, and they were asked to put a limit, they said they must have at least £300,000, and they put forward some calculations showing that some thousand articles dealt with would produce that £300,000, and that was evidently the estimated loss on the purchase of the docks. Why the people of London should be called upon to lose all that money for the benefit of speculators and adventurers, which was the only reason why the Bill was introduced at all, as far as he could see, he could not understand. Be that as it might, surely the people of London who were called upon to pay this, and whose food was to be taxed to make up the deficiency in this large amount, had a right to see the accounts and have them kept so that they could understand what had been earned on the one hand by the dock undertakings, and on the other what was paid by charges on the food of the people of London to make up the great loss that must come. He would not go into every detail of the proposed clause, but unless the Board of Trade were afraid of it being made public they ought at once to agree to this. The right hon. Gentleman told them he had already agreed to put something at the end of the clause which he (Mr. Morton) was told on excellent authority would not

613
carry out what they wanted, that separate accounts should be kept. They found on the Thames Conservancy Board that the necessity of keeping separate accounts for the upper and lower river had made the Board more economical, because they had had to practise economy so as to make both ends meet; and this, by showing receipts and expenditure, had enabled those who wished to carry on business in a businesslike way to know where there was a leakage if any. He trusted now that he had removed subsection 5, to which objection had been taken, the House would agree to have this very righteous clause inserted.
MR. WARDLEseconded.
New clause—
"The following accounts shall be kept separately by the Port Authority in addition to any other accounts which are by this Act prescribed to be kept as separate accounts, that is to say:—(1) An account (to be called the Docks Capital Account) showing: (a) The amount of Port Stock created and issued in substitution for the existing stocks of the dock companies; (b) the amount of money expended by the Port Authority on capital account in improving the docks, basins, cuts, and entrances by this Act transferred to the Port Authority or in constructing and equipping new docks, basins, cuts, entrances, and other works or otherwise on capital account in improving the Port of London. (2) An account (to be called the Docks Revenue Account): (a) Of all sums received in respect of vessels entering, lying in, departing from, or otherwise using the docks, basins, cuts, or entrances from time to time vested in the Port Authority, other than the duties of tonnage prescribed in Section 155 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, as amended by Section 7 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1905, and by this Act and in respect of all goods imported into or exported from such docks, basins, cuts, and entrances, and in respect of services rendered or accommodation provided by the Port Authority within the same and of all other revenue received by the Port Authority in respect thereof (to be called dock receipts); (b) of all sums expended in respect of the maintenance, management, and improvement of the Port of London, including all sums paid by way of interests on or redemption of money expended on Dock Capital Account (to be called dock expenditure). (3) An account (to be called the River Capital Account) showing: (a) The amount of Port Stock created and issued under this Act in substitution for Thames Conservancy Redeemable "A" Debenture Stock; (b) such amount of the money expended by the Port Authority on capital account as, in the opinion of the-auditor of the Port Authority is capital expenditure necessitated by the requirements of persons and vessels not using the said docks,
614
basins, cuts, and entrances of the Port Authority. (4) An account (to be called the River Revenue Account): (a) of all sums received from the said duties of tonnage and in respect of all vessels, goods, services, and accommodation, other than the vessels, goods, services, and accommodation referred to in subsection (2) (a) of this section, and of all other revenue received by the Port Authority (to be called river receipts); (b) of all sums paid: (1) By way of interest on or redemption of money expended on River Capital Account; (2) such proportion of the expenditure referred to in subsection (2) (b) of this section as, in the opinion of the auditor of the Port Authority, is expenditure necessitated by the requirements of persons and vessels not using the said docks, basins, cuts, and entrances of the Port Authority (to be called river expenditure)."—
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid his hon. friend had certainly made some very strong assert ions, but scarcely any more far-reaching than the suggestion that the Government had admitted that the loss on the Port as conducted by the new authority would aggregate at least £300,000 a year which would be borne by taxes on the food of the hard-working people of the Metropolis. His hon. friend went to a division when the Bill was in Committee on this very subject or on a question phrased in almost identical terms.
MR. MORTON: I did not go to a division; you closured it, without even allowing me to explain some objections that had been raised.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the closure at any rate was moved upon the clause on which this question arose and his hon. friend marched into the lobby with only fourteen supporters. Nevertheless he was very anxious to conciliate his hon. friend. He felt that the Bill lacked only his support, and if by any reasonable effort of draftsmanship or of good will it were possible to encourage him to support the measure, or at any rate remove some of his apprehensions and objections to it, he would be prepared to make great exertions to placate him. He would remind the hon. Gentlemen that they had already gone a long way to meet him: they had provided that the receipts

615
from Port rates were to be accounted for separately, but as he had explained there was great difficulty in giving accounts separately of expenditure on different parts of the river.
MR. MORTONsaid there was no difficulty in Liverpool or in London.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid there was no difficulty in Liverpool because there was no free water in that port. He could not accept the clause in the form in which his hon. friend had moved it, although he was sure the House would recognise the knowledge, skill, and care with which he had presented it. He was prepared, however, to move at the proper time an Amendment to the effect that in prescribing the form of accounts the Board of Trade should have regard to the desirableness of showing separately as far as practicable such items of receipts and expenditure on capital and revenue accounts as were wholly or mainly attributable to the dock undertakings of the Port Authority in particular. That would secure the maximum of information to the public, and secure it by statutory enactment.
MR. MORTONsaid he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy; he thought he had better take what he could get, and therefore he asked leave to withdraw his clause on the understanding that his right hon. friend would move his Amendment at the proper time.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WALTER GUINNESSsaid he wished to move an Amendment to Clause 1 to increase the number of appointed members of the Port Authority from ten to eleven, and to add that new member to the representation of the Board of Trade, at the same time making that Board responsible for the whole of the representation of Labour to which the President of the Board of Trade consented at a previous stage of this Bill. As the Bill left the Committee, the London County Council was, after consultation with the Labour Party, to appoint one Labour representative, and the Board of Trade the other; but he thought that it would be more
616
convenient if the Board of Trade appointed both. He was of opinion that the London County Council had been somewhat badly treated. Originally, the County Council was to have had five members, but one representative had been taken away in Committee, and when the Bill came downstairs another representative was practically taken away as, they were to be deprived of the right of making a free choice and only to make the appointment in consultation with organised labour. He did not think that a Labour representative appointed in that way would be in touch with the views of the majority of the London County Council and could not be expected to represent them. He quite approved of the proposal that Labour should be represented. The weight to be given to that particular interest had, however, been increased, and he saw no reason why it should be at the expense of an authority whose claim to be heard on the Port Authority was equally strong. The President of the Board of Trade had all through resisted the demands of the local authorities to have their representation on the Port Authority increased. His Amendment could not, however, be opposed on that ground as it was not a proposal to give added representation to the local authorities, but merely to alter the authority who should nominate the representatives of Labour. This matter was not adequately discussed in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman then made it quite clear that he would reconsider the matter on Report, and he hoped he would see his way to protect the interests of the London County Council by leaving them their already reduced representation of four members unfettered by any conditions, while at the same time preserving the extra member to represent the interest of Labour. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 2, to leave out the word 'ten,' and to insert the word 'eleven.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he would be the last man in the world to impose restrictions on the Board of Trade. He was

617
inclined to think that the London County Council ought to make a selection of a really good representative of labour, and that no harm would be inflicted on them if they were entrusted with that duty. If the hon. Gentleman really spoke for the London County Council, and they wished to divest themselves of this one member, or if they wanted three instead of four, or was it three and a half, he would not resist it; but so far as the Government were concerned, and he spoke after carefully considering the situation as it was revealed as they left the Committee stage, he did not feel that it was desirable to add to the nominated members. Quite apart from the question of keeping the nominated members in their present position, an ugly rush might occur at any moment on the part of suburban districts and boroughs who had very good claims for representation. He might have all these claims ranking equally, and it would be impossible to satisfy them. He thought they ought to adhere to the number at present in the Bill. It really came down to this, whether the London County Council should have a fourth member or should transfer him to the Board of Trade, who were willing to undertake the duty of dealing with the question. He felt that on reflection the hon. Gentleman would come to the conclusion that, alike in the interests of a small and compact Port Authority and those of the London County Council, they had better stick to the framework of the Bill.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the point raised by his hon. friend, which was that when the Bill was drafted the London County Council had five members, but one was taken away and given to the City Corporation. When they got I into Committee another member was not taken away, but the choice of the County Council was confined, and they were directed, in fact, to appoint a Labour member. His hon. friend said he had no objection to two Labour members being put on the Port Authority, but he thought that ought not to be done at the expense of another authority. That point did not appear to have been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, who only said that the number was fixed and unalterable, and he could not extend
618
it even for the London County Council He did not think that was very satisfactory and he hoped the Government would treat the London County Council differently.
MR. CROOKSsaid there was nothing to prevent the London County Council sending along to the Board of Trade and saying that they should prefer them to select their fourth member, but surely it could not be argued that in the great County of London the County Council could not pick out a Labour man who would understand the interests of London. Surely he would not be a prominent Labour man if he did not understand the administrative work of the County Council. He thought that they were making a mistake in handing over this power, but if they did hand it over there was nothing to prevent them from suggesting the nomination should be made by the Board of Trade.
MR. ROWLANDSsaid he agreed with the President of the Board of Trade that, if he was going to give way on this question, he certainly would have to face the whole of the demands which would be made by authorities who had quite as strong a case as that put forward by the hon. Member, who was very anxious to see that Labour was well represented on the new Port Authority, but did not wish to take the responsibility for it. Another thing, the hon. Member was afraid that owing to the action of the Committee in allocating one of the seats to Labour, he and his colleagues had lost an opportunity of appointing a middle-class gentleman on the Port Authority. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] That was the case. The hon. Member wanted the power strengthened so that they could have as many of one class of the community on the Port Authority as they would have had but for the Amendments which had been made. So far as he was concerned, if the President of the Board of Trade gave way on this point, he and others would consider it their duty to fight for that representation which they thought had not been justly granted to them at the present time.
MR. BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman refused to accede to the

619
Amendment, because it would involve increasing the number of appointed members to eleven. That really was not so. The point was this: they had decided and the right hon. Gentleman had decided, that of these ten or eleven members two were to be representative of Labour. The question was, who was to appoint those men? His hon. friend below him said it was rather hard upon the County Council that they should be made to appoint one of those gentlemen, and the Board of Trade said that no other authority would be equally competent to choose another man. What had been done deprived the County Council of a quarter of the members they could send. That was unfair, because they had already taken away from them the fifth man whom they had allotted to them and given him to the City Corporation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might consider whether the equity of the case could not be met by allowing the City Corporation to have the great privilege, which they would highly value, but of which the County Council was not so proud, of appointing a representative of the great cause of Labour upon the Port Authority. He did not know how that was regarded by the City Corporation and how they would care to accept the charge of appointing a representative of Labour upon the Port Authority. He was bound to say that he thought the County Council, for whom his hon. friend spoke, had a grievance when they said: "You have taken from us one man and given him to the City Corporation, and you have further limited our discretion in forcing us to exercise our power as to the fourth member in a particular direction." There was a second alternative. The right hon. Gentleman had said there should be two members to represent Labour, but he did not know what objection there was to the Board of Trade appointing one member. He did not know why some explanation could not be given, and unless one was given, if the Amendment was pressed to a division, he should support it.
MR. CARR-GOMMdid not think anyone who knew the Port of London
620
would have imagined that there would have been all this difficulty. It showed, however, where the shoe pinched, and he could assure the hon. Member that if the Government stood by the view it had taken up, the County Council would find that the shoe fitted better. He thought it was most important that the two representatives of Labour should not be selected by the same authority. The policy adopted by the Board of Trade would be very different from that of the County Council, and it would be unfortunate if the two representatives of Labour were selected by the same political party. If one were selected by the Board of Trade and the other by the Council they would be much more likely to get two men who really represented Labour. He thanked the Government for having stood by the sub-clause.
MR. MORTONsaid he did not object to the increase in numbers, for his only objection was that the number twenty-eight was too few. They might, with advantage, increase the number to forty. Small bodies were too often controlled by officials, and they wanted sufficient members to make the members of the Board masters in what was their own house. The old Metropolitan Board of Works, one of the most useful boards that ever existed, had been virtually ruined by the smallness of its numbers, which enabled the officials to boss the show. His experience, which was considerable, was that there should be popular representatives because they represented the people. He hoped the Government would allow the number of members of the board to be increased because it would be in the best interests of the authority itself.
Amendment negatived.
MR. STEADMANsaid the object of the Amendment which he now moved was to substitute for the representation of the Board of Trade and the representation of the Admiralty one member nominated by the West Ham Borough Council, one member nominated by the Essex County Council and one member nominated by the Kent County Council. He believed the Amendment would be a very useful one, and he intended to

621
make an honest effort to convert the President of the Board of Trade to that view. He was encouraged to hope by the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the last Amendment. He had said that he had been very much impressed by the representations the counties had made to him, and the great objection had been that to carry them out it would have been necessary to increase the number of members of the board. He was prepared to agree that the number of members of the new board were quite sufficient. The present board had thirty-seven members to cover an area extending over the river, from thirty miles above Oxford to the lower reaches. Middlesex and Surrey would have plenty of members to represent them on the Upper River Board. The Board of Trade representatives knew nothing about the work. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman to put the present representative through an examination, and see how he would come out of it. As to the Admiralty, there might be a lieutenant in one of His Majesty's warships or an admiral or two who knew something about the river, but it was 1,000 to 1 that they had seen it only from a penny steamer or from the Thames Embankment. What connection had the Board of Trade or the Admiralty with the business they wanted to transact on the river? They were surrounded by competition, and unless the Bill was a success, they were going to lose the little trade they had at present. The one thing which he noticed in connection with the Bill was the connection running through it between the Port Authority and the Board of Trade. It put him in mind of the connection between the Local Government Board and the local authorities throughout the country, which did a great deal more harm than good. Speaking from experience, he said that if the Local Government Board had done their duty there would have been none of those scandals about which they had read of late. It was a mere matter of form writing up to the Local Government Board. If they were going to have a new Port Authority, they ought to allow it to manage its own business more than the Board of Trade proposed to allow it to do. In regard to the counties he
622
had mentioned, he spoke from experience. They had no two harder-worked representatives on the Thames Conservancy than those for West Ham and the county of Essex. Trade was not going up the river, it was gravitating down the river, and it would be concentrated in those two counties. If they had no representation on the Board the Board would be continually in hot water, but the difficulties could easily be avoided. He did not believe in nominated members, he had seen enough nominated aldermen: he had seen the difference between a progressive county councillor elected by a constituency and the same man defeated and made an alderman. The difference was like that between a Member of the House of Lords representing nobody but himself and a Member of the House of Commons who represented the people who sent him there.
MR. MORTON*MR. MORTON seconded the Amendment. The hon. Member knew from, practical experience all about the subject with which the Amendment dealt, and would not, he was sure, advise anything which would not be an improvement.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words 'Admiralty 1, by the Board of Trade 2,' and insert the words 'West Ham Borough Council 1, by the Essex County Council 1, by the Kent County Council 1.'"—(Mr. Steadman.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Bill."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had told the House that nominated members were under all circumstances bad, and that as that was so, members should be nominated by the County Borough Council of West Ham, and the County Council of Essex. When it came to representing local and special interests, however, he thought that representatives of the Board of Trade and of the Admiralty, both of which were large Departments with Ministers in that House responsible for them, would be more regularly kept in touch with special interests than those proposed by the hon. Member and for

623
whom he had made so strong an appeal to the Government to alter the represensation that had been arranged. He much regretted to tell the House that the did not think it would be a useful thing to adopt the Amendment. They had had a long and exhaustive discussion on the composition of the Board's nominated members on the Committee stage, and after that discussion had progressed a considerable way, he had offered certain concessions which had procured for the time being general agreement. He hesitated to do anything to upset that agreement. If he agreed to the claims put forward by the hon. Member he certainly would upset it. What would then happen to Surrey and to Middlesex? This was a House of Commons Bill if ever there was one, and it would not do, therefore, to upset the balance the House of Commons had arranged.
MR. BARNARDdesired to express the view that the Government's position was one which undoubtedly deserved every possible support.
Amendment negatived.
MR. RADFORD*MR. RADFORD (Islington, E.) moved the omission of Clause 3, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity for justifying the terms of purchase contained in the clause. There was no doubt as to the existence of a widespread anxiety, to put it no higher, in regard to the terms of purchase. They were dealing with a sum of money running into millions of pounds, and among hon. Members in that House and in the City of London and elsewhere, there was grave apprehension that they had been committed to a very bad bargain. When the matter was last before the House the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Trade did not do anything to dispel the anxiety with which the purchase was regarded. The hon. Baronet told them on that occasion that he had had no valuation made of the property which the Port Authority proposed to acquire. He (the speaker) did not think that was anything to boast of. He thought that if there had been a
624
valuation showing them that some substantial property was being acquired it might have been some consolation to the persons who were interested in, the Port Authority to know that they would have a valuable asset in their hands even when the time arrived, if it should arrive, when the income failed. The hon. Baronet told them that lands would be acquired with the docks, which he thought were worth more than a million of money although he had no valuation made. He hoped the hon. Baronet was right, and he thought he was right, but that only accounted for £1,000,000, whereas the purchase money was £23,000,000. Therefore that did not carry them very far. Moreover, the hon. Baronet told them, in justification of the terms of the clause, that he thought they were doing better under it than if they went to a compulsory arbitration under the Lands Clauses Acts. That was very faint praise for a Minister in charge pi a measure, because probably no property ever acquired by a public authority was worth the money they had to pay under the Lands Clauses Acts. The hon. Member went further than that in saying that he thought they were making better terms, than in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board. The terms that were made with regard to the Water Board ought to be borne in mind by that House as a warning for all time. What did that House do? The House generously compelled the London water companies to part with their undertakings at several millions more than they were worth and sent in the bill to London. They were in danger, it seemed to him, of making a very similar mistake on the present occasion, and it was in order, to give the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of allaying the anxiety that certainly, existed in regard to this matter that he ventured to move the omission of the clause. The hon. Baronet told them that they were levying an income; he believed a net maintainable income of £809,000 a year. That was a very substantial sum, but the figures which the hon. Baronet very frankly laid before them really did not justify the statement that there was an income of that amount. The figures were taken as the average of the last six years.

625
The first figure they had was £873,000 and the figure of the last year was more than £100,000 less, amounting only to £700,000 odd. Therefore the hon. Baronet was inviting them to buy a growing concern on a declining income, and the figure of £809,000 was made up on the average or mean income of six years. Even that mean income did not amount to anything like £809,000, but was supplemented by bringing to its credit certain sums which were expected to arise through economy of management in the hands of a public authority. From what they knew about public authorities he was bound to say that he thought the saving assumed to be effected was not altogether certain. They had learnt in regard to many public authorities, where through concentration of management there ought on all reasonable grounds to have been a saving, that there had in fact been no saving at all. Therefore he was very much afraid that what they were proposing to purchase, as a net maintainable income of some £809,000 would turn out to be an income very much smaller. Having arrived at what was called a net maintainable income they were proposing to authorise the acquisition of it at something like thirty years purchase. He shared the apprehension that was felt in that House and in the City of London and elsewhere with regard to this matter, and he would be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would say something to allay that anxiety.
MR. MORTON*MR. MORTON had great pleasure in seconding the proposal. He did not intend going into the whole question that night, although he did not forget that the question his hon. friend had raised had never yet really been discussed. There was no Second Reading discussion, and it was not discussed at the Joint Committee, where it ought to have been discussed, that being the only place where people representing the various authorities concerned could have been heard by counsel and otherwise. That was a reason why they should discuss it now if they had time of opportunity. Personally, he had always been opposed to the purchase of these docks. He could understand paying an extraordinary price to purchase docks in cases where they wanted to get command of the port. Liverpool,
626
Glasgow, and various other places had complete control and command of the port, and if by purchasing docks at extraordinary and inflated prices they could get command of the port, he could understand there was something but not much to be said for it. But in this case they were not going to do anything of the sort. The docks at the present moment did about 40 per cent. of the business, and 80 per cent. of the business they did do was never landed in the docks at all. It was put into lighters over the shipside and might just as well and more economically be dealt with in the river at a wharf or jetty or in the river. Private enterprise had built up the business in the port and had made it successful and useful to the people of London, whereas the docks had been of but little use either to their shareholders or anybody else. It was the private wharves and jetties that had built up the business. Therefore, they were not going to get command of the Port in any shape or form unless they proposed to go further and pay £100,000,000 to buy up the jetties and wharves. He did not suppose that was likely to be done. He knew, although they were not told so, that those concerned in the dock interests—and if the new body was going to make the docks a paying concern it would have the same thing to face—wanted to kill the barge business. For many years they had been trying to destroy the barge business. That business was unique in the Port of London, and was not found anywhere else, except, perhaps, to a very limited extent from Rotterdam tip the Rhine. They had been trying all along to kill that part of the business, and, he supposed, drive it to the railways for the benefit of the docks. He could understand it was possible that traders and other business men might prefer to use the railway, but, as a matter of fact, they preferred very much to use these barges. Evidently it paid them better and suited their trade, but it was proposed to kill that if possible so that the barges should not compete with the docks. Everybody who had studied the question knew that development in connection with all ports now was in the direction of jetties or wharves. That was going on all over the world. Wherever trade was done people found it more convenient

627
and useful, as well as more economical, to use deep water jetties and wharves rather than to go into the docks at all. There had been much mystery about the agreements. He was told that they would not show the agreements with the dock companies, and for some reason that he could not understand the Board of Trade had refused to produce the most vital information, namely, Mr. Crutwell's Report on these docks. Unless there was something in the Report against the Board of Trade one would have thought they would have been only too glad to bring it forward; but they would not show it to anybody, although clearly the Joint Committee and the House of Commons were entitled to see it. When the matter was before the House on the Second Reading they were actually promised that they should have all this information before the Joint Committee so that they could judge, but that had not been done in this case, and he again asked the Board of Trade, as he asked them a week ago, for their own credit and for the credit of the engineer who made the Report, that it should be produced, so that they could ascertain really what the professional gentleman thought about the matter. Now it was proposed to give the dock companies something like £23,000,000, and, as his hon. friend had said, it was not shown how the payment of the interest would be able to be met, and no provision was made for expenditure so as to put the docks in decent repair. Everyone knew that since the Royal Commission's Report in 1901 or 1902, the companies, thinking that they were going to force someone to buy the docks some day, had only done what repairs were absolutely necessary to keep them together, and experts knew that a great deal would have to be done to the docks to put them even in decent repair. He believed that the docks were not wanted at all. There were no docks in New York or in Glasgow.
AN HON. MEMBER: Nor in Sutherlandshire.
MR. MORTONsaid he did not know that his hon. friend knew where Sutherlandshire was, or he would be aware
628
that there were no docks there, because they used wharves and deep-water jetties. There were no docks in Glasgow, and that was one of the places they used to compare with London. There were no docks in New York, Hamburg, Rotterdam, or Bremen. Some hon. Gentlemen objected to his statement as to Bremen the other night, but he believed they found out he was right in his geography. Our own Consul-General had in a quite independent and impartial Report, which the Board of Trade could not get away from, stated that the shipping interest preferred wharves and jetties to docks on all occasions, and that they were much better suited for trade than docks. The big ships of the White Star Line did not go to docks at Southampton, but to wharves. There were places, of course, where it was perhaps absolutely necessary to have docks. The Bristol Channel was one of those places. There the tide rose some forty feet, and it was somewhat difficult, no doubt, to get on without docks; but even in the Bristol Channel they did without docks when they could. Even at Newport, Monmouthshire, it was recognised that it was more economical to have deep-water wharves and jetties, and consequently last year, or the year before last, 500,000 tons of Spanish ore or something of that sort was brought into that port and unloaded at the wharves for the sake of economy. Therefore, whenever they could do without docks, they did so, both on the ground of economy and time-saving. Personally he was afraid a great mistake had been made, and he was not speaking solely as representing himself. He was exceedingly sorry that his hon. friend had said that in this matter he was solely representing himself. That was absolutely untrue. But if he did, he had a right to take notice of everything concerning the whole of the United Kingdom, including the Metropolitan Water Board—the greatest scandal that ever existed, although his hon. friend was not responsible for it, nor was that Board.
MR. SPEAKER: That has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, to which the hon. Member must confine himself.
MR. MORTONsaid he was sorry to go beyond what was right in the matter, but he could not help—
MR. SPEAKERagain interrupted the hon. Member to point out that he must confine himself to the Amendment.
MR. MORTON, on a point of order, asked whether he could not reply to the statement of the hon. Member that he only represented himself on this subject.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has replied to that as far as it is necessary. Will the hon. Member kindly apply himself to the Amendment before the House?
MR. MORTONsaid he must in that case, take another opportunity of replying to the incorrect statement, but he should like, as it was a personal matter—
MR. SPEAKER (interrupting): I have twice asked the hon. Member to address himself to the Amendment before the House, and I must now ask him to discontinue his speech.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 31, to leave out Clause 3."—(Mr. Radford.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he did not rise for the purpose of entering into the merits of the Amendment, but he would like to point out to the House that this was a question of business, and not of politics. The points which had been raised had been already decided by the House, and 99 per cent. of the arguments just heard were addressed to the House at an earlier stage. He ventured therefore to appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the other side not to obstruct a useful Bill at that period of the evening.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the observation he had just made, and he really thought the House might safely allow the clause to stand part of the Bill. The matter of the terms of purchase would have been discussed
630
in the very small hours of the morning had he not arranged, in order that this, the essential part of the Bill, should be discussed at a time when it could be properly considered, that the position of the clause in the Bill should be altered. At the end of four or five hours discussion the purchase terms, for good or for evil, were confirmed by the House, and by representatives |of all parties by 180 votes to 19. Under those circumstances, although it was not an argument he often used, or which he thought ought to be used often, the expression chose jugee might really be applied to the purchase part of the Bill. It was the kernel of the Bill, and the whole of their labours for many months would be thrown away if they rejected this clause. Therefore he would strongly urge the House to accept the clause in the form in which it was left after the elaborate discussion the other day.
Amendment negatived.
LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved to leave out Clause 6. He said he could not allow this clause to remain in the Bill without some words of protest. He still maintained his objection to this new departure from the ordinary law, although the new subsection (4) had to some extent diminished the objection. Such a novel departure, he thought, however, ought to have been made by general legislation and not inserted in a special Bill of this kind. There was another point in connection with the clause which he thought had escaped the attention of the Committee, and as to which he desired to ask the Government whether they thought it was a desirable provision to insert. Under the Bill very considerable powers had been conferred on the very important authority which it constituted, and it was proposed in effect by this clause, unless he had misread it, that none of those powers were to be exercised without the approval of the Board of Trade. The clause said that where the Port Authority proposed to construct, equip, maintain, or manage any works, and the works proposed to be constructed were such that they could not be constructed without statutory authority, or were such that in the opinion of the Board of Trade they ought not to be

631
constructed except under the authority of such an Order as hereinafter mentioned, a Board of Trade Order must be issued. That seemed to him to limit very greatly the powers of the Port Authority. Without this provision they would be able to construct anything except those works which they could not construct without statutory authority. The Board of Trade under this clause would be able to say that works, however small they might be, could not be constructed except by an Order, and therefore whatever the powers of the Port Authority might be they were suspended until the Board of Trade had issued these Orders. It meant that every work before construction must be submitted to the Board of Trade for their approval to see whether they required an Order or not. He confessed that that seemed to him to be a very undue extension of the powers of the Board of Trade and a very undue diminution of the powers of the Port Authority. The whole of the clause seemed to him to be a very novel departure from the general principles they had proceeded upon with very great success in dealing with harbour authorities, and he hoped that even at the last moment the Government would still see their way not to insist on the clause, which was not part of the general scheme, and might be rejected without any injury to the Bill. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 28, to leave out Clause 6."—(Lord R. Cecil)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. BOWLESsaid he regarded the Bill as an extremely valuable and useful, piece of legislation. Holding, as he did that view, he earnestly joined in the appeal which had been made to the Government to consider whether they felt it was necessary to put into the Bill what would really be a blot upon any measure. There was no need to labour the arguments against the clause. They were advanced very fully the other day, and were well-known to the Government. The clause was an afterthought. It was not an essential part of the scheme. Its
632
effect was really to depose in respect of all the useful works which it was the object of the Bill should be carried out both the Port Authority and the Houses of Parliament in favour of the Board of Trade. The clause was unnecessary, mischievous, and a grave departure which might be pushed much further than many Members of the House supposed. In view of the fact that in some respects the clause was bad and dangerous, unless the President of the Board of Trade really set great store by it, or was able to give some reason why it was valuable to him, or likely to be valuable to the Port Authority, he might well consider whether he could not leave it out of the Bill.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that he was somewhat disappointed with the noble Lord, because he thought that when this question was last discussed he was able to make a concession as a result of which there was to all intents and purposes a complete agreement between both sides of the House on the subject. At any rate the moment that concession was announced all the Amendments in the names of those who usually acted with the noble Lord were withdrawn. He was therefore disappointed that this Amendment had been placed by the noble Lord on the Paper at all. Of course, he did not make any suggestion of bad faith. Still he thought that when a very substantial concession had had the effect of allaying recent apprehensions and bringing the House together on a particular proposition, it was very much better to let that bargain stand and let it be the last word.
LORD R. CECIL: There was no bargain of any kind.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was not making any charge. He was not only disappointed in the noble Lord on the ground of practice, but also in regard to his logic, because, after all, the whole object of the clause was to extend the facilities of the Port Authority. It was to enable the Port Authority to carry out certain minor works and to make certain small purchases of land which would otherwise require statutory authority, without the need of going

633
through all the elaborate and costly business of private Bill procedure, for which it substituted a cheaper, easier, more convenient, and more practicable procedure. The noble Lord hitherto had opposed the clause on the ground that it was conferring altogether extravagant powers to the detriment of Parliament on the Port Authority. The whole advantage of the clause was for the Port Authority, which, in a matter which did not require statutory authority to enable them to act, would act without such authority. As the noble Lord knew, any corporation in the country which went outside its powers brought itself naturally within the jurisdiction of the Courts, and there was no reason, therefore, to apprehend that the Port Authority would endeavour to exceed its rights. The whole object of the clause was to extend the liberties of the Port Authority, with proper safeguards in the interests of the public, yet the noble Lord now came forward, and said is would limit the liberties of the Port Authority. He said that the authority would be restricted by the clause to such works as the Board of Trade were graciously pleased to allow it to construct. The noble Lord would not have ventured to bring that argument forward in any Court for a moment, because he would know perfectly well that the wording of the clause in no way bore the construction he had put upon it. But how did the noble Lord propose to extend the functions of the Port Authority? By the simple process of moving the rejection of the clause introduced for no other purpose than to give the Port Authority greater facilities to buy land and construct works. Whether from the point of view of Parliamentary practice or that of the smooth presentation of logical argument, the noble Lord had on this occasion fallen below his usual high level.
Amendment negatived.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKS MR. JOYNSON-HICKS (Manchester, N.W.) moved an Amendment giving the inhabitants on the banks of the Thames the right of an appeal to the Local Government Board if the Thames Conservancy failed properly to regulate the flow of water over or through the
634
weirs before or during flood-time. The effect of the Amendment, he explained, was practically to give the Local Government Board an extension of powers under the Bill. The Thames Conservancy were reconstituted under the provisions of the measure and certain appeals were allowed from the Conservators to the Local Government Board if the former failed to exercise the powers conferred on them. He wished to insert the words he had moved to enable an appeal to lie from the Thames Conservancy to the Local Government Board if they did not properly look after the flow of water over the weirs in times of flood. As most Members of the House knew, considerable difficulty had from time to time arisen through floods. In the course of the winter great damage was done to gardens, to property, and to health through floods. Very often that damage was occasioned to poor people who had no remedy. There was a very strong feeling in all quarters that the Thames Conservancy, to put it no higher, did not do all they might in regard to causing a cessation of floods. There would be no difficulty two or three days before the flood came down in gradually opening the weirs, starting at Kew and going higher up the Thames. If that were done, less damage would be caused when the flood came down. He did not wish to cast any aspersions on the Thames Conservancy, but there were so many appeals provided for under the Bill in case the Conservators did not do their duty in certain respects, that he hoped the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in the temporary absence of his right hon. colleague, would see his way to grant this concession which would be very much appreciated by users of the Thames, both for business and for pleasure.
MR. MORRELL MR. MORRELL seconded the Amendment, which he described as very slight, but very important. He thought when the Government accepted an Amendment which was moved in Committee, that this point would have been covered and an appeal would have been allowed to the Local Government Board in the case of floods. But he was advised that was not the case, and that however much the

635
Thames Conservancy might be in default in regard to occasional floods the inhabitants on the riverside who suffered had no right of appeal to the Local Government Board under the clause as amended. He was sure the evil which had been described by the hon. Gentleman opposite was well known, and it was admitted that year after year enormous damage was done in the Thames Valley by floods. There was great damage to property, great damage to health, and in some cases even loss of life was occasioned. As the hon. Gentleman had shown there was good reason for thinking that these floods were preventable. By the exercise of a little more thought and by a more systematic use of the weirs they might largely be avoided. He would read a sentence or two by a gentleman who had studied this question very much and was in a position to speak on it. This gentleman said that at the present time there was no definite system, no definite regulations, and no step were taken to lower the level of the river before a flood was expected. The matter was left largely to the discretion of the lock-keepers. All that was asked for by the Amendment was that where it could be shown that the Conservators had neglected to do their duty the inhabitants should have a right of appeal to the Local Government Board. They were told, he knew, that the Thames Conservators were not a flood authority. That was perfectly true in some senses, because they could not be called upon to construct expensive works to get rid of floods, but they were the only authority which controlled the weirs and sluices provided to deal with the difficulty. Therefore it was only reasonable if they failed to control them in a proper way and by commonsense methods that there should be some right of appeal to the Local Government Board. The Thames Conservancy were a nominative body and if these people suffered they had no direct remedy for their grievances. The Conservators held their meetings in private and it was very difficult to get information. If there was ground for an appeal to the Local Government Board on any subject, there was surely reason for asking for an appeal on this subject of floods, which might cause so
636
much damage to life and health. He trusted that his hon. friend would see his way to accept this very small, but very important Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 3, at the beginning, to insert the words 'properly to regulate the flow of water over or through the weirs before or during flood-time or."—(Mr. Joynson-Hicks.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,said he spoke, feelingly, in regard to that Amendment, for no one knew better than he, the serious condition of things in the Thames Valley. There had been complaints that the Thames Conservancy had not taken the necessary precautions to prevent flooding over adjoining lands when the river was high or in flood. The Amendment looked to be one which the Government ought to accept, but it was not really so simple as it appeared to the hon. Member for North-West Manchester. If they were to accept the Amendment it would be practically saying that the Thames Conservancy was a bad authority, while at the same time it would impose on that authority the responsibility for the expenditure of money for which it had not any statutory authority. The suggestion which he was prepared to make was that the consideration of the matter might be left to a public inquiry into the whole of the administration of the upper river. The President of the Board of Trade had not committed himself definitely to that inquiry, but he recognised that it was a very necessary thing. The Board had spent some time considering the matter, and still had it under consideration. They were fully alive to the necessity for conferring on this authority further powers if those powers were found necessary after investigation. Before they could impose on a new Board this duty they should have an inquiry. After that inquiry had been held a simpler way of proceeding could be arranged than that in the Amendment. The Board would prefer to go to work in its own way, and he thought if the matter was left to it something beneficial would be effected.
MR. MORTONsaid he would not have intervened in this matter, though he was quite aware that something ought to be done to regulate the floods, if it had not been for the extraordinary statement which had been made that the Thames Conservancy held its meetings in secret. That was not true. About four years ago the Board at his (Mr. Morton's) request had opened its meetings to the Press, and reports of the proceedings had since been given by The Times and other newspapers, and all the meetings of the Board were open to all the papers.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid he was quite sure, after the statement they had just listened to, that something satisfactory would be done. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment that lower Port rates might be charged in respect of goods to be discharged from a vessel in a dock of the Port Authority, or to be landed on the premises of or warehoused with the Port Authority, by reason only that the goods are to be so discharged, landed, or warehoused. He said the principles of the Bill gave equality of treatment between the docks and the river. The intention in enjoining equality was to veto adverse discrimination, but he did not think that it was necessary to veto beneficial discrete discrimination by the Port Authority if they thought fit in favour of the river. For his own part, as representing the Board of Trade, he would prefer to continue the equality, but a pledge had been given upstairs that when the Provisional Orders fixing the rates were framed, it should, in the river interests, be possible to sue for beneficial discrimination. While he did not commit himself or the Board or Trade to the view of agreeing to that discrimination, it would be carrying out the pledge that was given to the Committee if a question could be raised on the Provisional Order. They had heard a great deal about giving the river interests a fair chance, and that Amendment, in so far as it was obligatory, would be operative in the direction of giving that fair chance. It would enable the river interests to put forward a claim
638
which would afterwards be dealt with on its merits.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 22, to leave out from the word 'charge,' to the end of line 27, and insert the words 'lower port rates in respect of goods to be discharged from a vessel in a dock of the Port Authority, or to be landed on the premises of or warehoused with the Port Authority, by reason only that the goods are to be so discharged, landed, or warehoused."—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. RENWICK*MR. RENWICK moved to insert the words "dues on goods imported coastwise or exported coastwise shall in no case exceed one-fourth of the rate or dues charged on goods exported to or imported from places beyond the seas." The question was of very great importance. He had put it forward on the Committee stage and had quite expected that the President of the Board of Trade would have recognised its importance by proposing an Amendment on this stage to deal with it. The object of the Amendment was to provide that where coastwise goods were imported or exported they should not be charged more than one-quarter of the dues on goods carried over sea. It was customary to have a provision of that sort; there was nothing in the Bill dealing with the point. The same amount of dues might be charged under the Bill on goods coastwise as on goods oversea. As he read the Bill there could be no other intepretation of it. The effect of the Bill was that the rate for goods should not exceed one-thousandth part of the value whether coastwise or oversea.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was making an Amendment later which would make the point clear. At present there was nothing in the Bill which made it necessary for any dues to be raised on goods coastwise. The hon. Gentleman, by his Amendment, would make it necessary to raise one-quarter of the dues imposed by the Bill on oversea goods. He submitted that the best point to raise the matter would be when the House was considering the Provisional Order fixing the rate.
MR. RENWICKsaid that Clause 13 distinctly stated that, subject to the provision in this section, all goods might be liable to such dues as the Port Authoity might fix. There were no exceptions provided by the Bill. There was power to charge the same dues on goods coastwise as on goods oversea. He knew exactly how it worked. On articles like tea or Manchester goods which averaged about £100 a ton in value the one-thousandth part would be 2s. a ton, whether the goods were carried coastwise or overseas. That value would have to be paid. On the railways value did not enter into the question. The same rate was charged for a ton of wool worth £100 as for a ton of cement worth 25s. Under the provisions of the Bill the railways would get all the trade in regard to wool. It was most important for the merchants throughout the country, for it stood to reason that if they were charged 2s. dues on goods carried by steamers and no dues on goods carried by the railway they would send the goods by rail. He could give instances of goods which could be sent by rail hundreds of miles for 1s. a ton. How in a case like that could merchants afford to pay dues of 2s. a ton? If the right hon. Gentleman was accurate in stating that they did not intend to charge dues on goods coastwise he had had an opportunity since the Committee stage of putting an Amendment down to that effect. It was unjust and quite contrary to the usage in other ports to charge goods coastwise at the same rate as goods overseas. He would be quite ready to consider any proposal the right hon. Gentleman liked to make to meet the point he had raised.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 34, after the word 'only,' to insert the words 'dues on goods imported coastwise or exported coastwise shall in no case exceed one-fourth of the rate or dues charged on goods exported to or imported from places beyond the seas.'"—(Mr. Renwick.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR C. J. CORYsaid he trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would accept the Amendment. He thought there was no doubt that by that clause it would be possible to charge the
640
same dues on goods coastwise as on goods oversea. The Amendment was very reasonable. Apparently by Clause 13, subsection (b), if goods came in from foreign ports, and they were transferred to a coasting ship, they would have to pay dues, but if they went on in the ship that brought them into London apparently they would be exempt from dues. He saw no reason for differentiating in this way, and hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would accept the Amendment.
MR. CHURCHILLreminded the House that the hon. Member had said he would be very glad to have any contribution he could make. His contribution was very briefly this, that the best time for the House to settle the Port rates on different classes of goods was when the Provisional Order fixing the maximum Port rates came before the House. He thought there would be very great disadvantages in giving out their intentions as to particular classes of goods at the present stage. He personally agreed with all that had been said about the importance of the coastwise trade, and it was a point to be borne in mind in fixing the maximum. Port rates by the Provisional Order. Where they had the Provisional Order before them they would be able to take a logical and scientific view of what exemptions should be made in the public interest and what rebates? should or should not be allowed. He submitted that that was the proper time for discussion, and the most useful method of arriving at a conclusion. Meanwhile, the clause as it now stood imposed no complusion upon the Port Authority to put any rates whatever upon the coastwise trade, and it would have entire discretion to levy no rates at all or a small fraction of the rates which were levied on the foreign goods imported or exported overseas as the authority might think right and proper. Therefore, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would agree with him that the best time for meeting what was a very practical and real point would be when the Provisional Order came before the House.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he could not support the Amendment, but he thought the object his hon. friend wanted to secure

641
was simply to make sure that so far as the influence of the Board of Trade extended they would see that lower dues were placed on coastwise goods than on foreign. The Board of Trade had always shown in connection with the discussions in Committee that that was their intention, and he thought that if the President of the Board of Trade would say that when the Provisional Order was made he would have that point clearly in view that would satisfy his hon. friend.
MR. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade if he had said there was no obligation to place any due on goods that were carried coastwise.
MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether the President of the Board of Trade would give them any assurance that when the time came for the Provisional Order they would have an opportunity of discussing it. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to point to any part of the proceedings during the present year when the House had had a Provisional Order before it, and had been given a full opportunity of discussing it. Everybody who watched the proceedings of the House knew that a debate on a Provisional Order was a very rare occurrence, and under the gag and the guillotine it became more and more impossible and a mere sham and pretence. He hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment, which raised a matter of real practical importance, to a division, so that they might be able to record their protest against a system which had never been carried out, and which the Government knew perfectly well had never been carried out.
MR. CHURCHILLpointed out that in connection with the Provisional Order the Board of Trade would be in a judicial capacity and therefore he was not in a position to give any undertaking. As to the time when the Provisional Order could be discussed, it went before a Select Committee with counsel present and with every facility for adequate and proper discussion. To suggest that it was a question of a promise made and not carried out was most unjustified.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid a point of principle was involved. It was as to whether there was to be laid down by Parliament definite discrimination between the charges the Port Authority could make between coastwise trade and overseas trade. He suggested that the Board of Trade should settle it. Whether it was one-fourth, or one-fifth, or some other fraction, there should be a definite embodiment in the Bill that the Port Authority should make a discrimination between coastwise trade—the English trade—and overseas trade. Otherwise, it would be perfectly possible for the Port Authority to charge such rates to the coastwise trade as to throw the whole of the trade back into the hands of the railway companies, and really prevent the traders having a very useful source of competition with railway rates. The President of the Board of Trade had suggested there was nothing in the provisions of the Bill to prevent discrimination or to prevent the Port Authority charging a lower rate for coastwise goods than for overseas goods. But in one place in the Bill it was distinctly laid down that the Port rates charged by the Port Authority should at all times be charged equally to all persons in respect of the same descriptions of goods. He admitted that there were added the words "in like circumstances." What did "like circumstances" mean? Did it only mean that the goods must come in the same ship from the same port? If not then those words made it perfectly clear that the same rates must be charged for carrying the same goods. He submitted that the words "in like circumstances" were not sufficient to give the Port Authority the power to discriminate as between coastwise trade and overseas trade. It was important that Parliament should establish the principle rather than leave it to the Board of Trade, and he hoped his hon. friend would go to a division unless the President of the Board of Trade was able to make some suggestion that would obviate that very real difficulty.
MR. HOLThoped the Government would stand to the position they had taken up in the matter. He did not want to enter into any argument and he

643
quite admitted that coastwise dues were nearly always less than overseas dues, but he would remind the House that it was a very dangerous thing for them to lay that down in a hard and fast form which could not be got over. London had a very large distributing trade, not only as other ports in England, had to coastwise ports, but a very large distributing trade to the near Continental ports. If it was stipulated in an Act of Parliament that they were pledged to charge goods going to a near Continental port four times as much as goods going to Liverpool or Aberdeen, then they would find they had done a great deal of harm to their distributing trade to the near Channel ports. It would be a great mistake if anything were put into the Bill that would make it impossible for the Port Authority to charge possibly equal rates and very low rates on the same class of goods going all over the world. It would handicap them very seriously indeed in trying to establish a good schedule of rates. If they would follow the advice of the President of the Board of Trade and let the matter remain open until the Provisional Order came on they would then have before them the great advantage of the views of certain gentlemen who were appointed by the Port Authority and who could give the results of a very much more detailed examination of the matter of drawing up a Schedule than could any Member of that House.
SIR H. KEARLEYsaid he could supplement the very cogent remarks of the hon. Member who had last spoken by putting a case—the example of Liverpool. Liverpool had the exact powers that would be given to the Port Authority in this Bill. What did Liverpool do? It exercised its powers as it chose, but it made no charges on coastwise goods at all. The mere fact of inserting in the Bill that powers should reside in the Port Authority to make charges on coastwise goods did not necessarily involve that the Port Authority should make an excessive charge. They would finally assume a judicial capacity with regard to the Schedule drawn up by the Port Authority. What would happen? The Port Authority would hold an inquiry, and that
644
would give traders an opportunity of going there and making good their claim to exemption. The hon. Member for Newcastle would have an opportunity through his firm, or through people interested in his trade, of going to the Port Authority and laying down that a charge of a certain amount would be excessive and injurious to the trade. That inquiry would be held, and he had not the slightest doubt that everybody who was really and reasonably interested in having small dues imposed upon their goods would have the fullest possible opportunity of making good their case. The Port Authority was not going to set out with a view to ruining trade, but were going to see that trade was not driven away from the Port. After the investigations they would go to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order, and they again would have it in their power to continue these inquiries, and must continue to do so. If a view were put forward that a certain due was onerous the Board of Trade would take action, and if the Board of Trade were finally satisfied with the Schedule, it would then come to the House for confirmation, when anybody, on objection, could ensure that a Select Committee would be set up still further to consider the matter. With all those safeguards, and in view of the circumstances he had mentioned in connection with Liverpool and all ports where they had the power to levy dues on coastwise goods, he thought the House could leave the matter where it stood. It would be wrong to commit themselves seeing they had to stand in a judicial capacity.
MR. BOWLESasked if they were to understand that the Government was in favour of the object of the Amendment. That object was a perfectly simple one. It was to insure that coastwise trade should not be dealt with in the matter of dues at so high a rate as the ordinary oversea trade. He understood that the Government agreed. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought it very important and it had always been his view and that of the Board of Trade that such differentiation should be made. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said he could not

645
say anything, but gave the House clearly to understand that they need not be under any apprehension that the object of his hon. friend would not be carried out. But was that so? The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, had said it was so, but had added that they could not give any assurance about it because it would be very improper for them to prejudge the matter, as they would have to act in a judicial capacity. That was all very well, but the right hon. Gentleman was acting now, not in the judicial spirit, but in the legislative capacity, and he could not get rid of his responsibility in the matter of legislation. When an important point of genuine substance was raised, and the Government had nothing to say except that they agreed with it, and that the House need be under no misapprehension as the object they had in view would be carried out, it was not sufficient. He submitted that so far from this not being the proper place, it was the only place in which to do the thing effectively. There was no other chance, if the House desired to deal with this matter, of being sure of obtaining absolute security except by agreeing to an Amendment of this kind. He could not, however, support the Amend-
ment in the form in which it was proposed by the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this matter must be considered on a Provisional Order. He (Mr. Bowles) was an inexperienced Member of the House, but he was informed—and certainly his small experience bore out the information—that the opportunities of the House upon a Provisional Order were perfectly delusive. He was informed that it was impossible to amend the terms of a Provisional Order. The right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for saying that in all these circumstances it was not altogether fair to the House to oppose an Amendment of substance on two grounds neither of which appeared to hold water. If the Government and the House at that moment meant to ensure that coastwise trade should be treated differentially, and upon a lower rate than other trade, then that was the only opportunity the House would have of ensuring that object, and he thought they ought to be grateful to the mover of the Amendment for having reminded them of it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 11; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 440.)

Nicholls, George

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Verney, F. W.

Norman, Sir Henry

Seddon, J.

White,J.Dundas(Dumbart'nsh.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Seely, Colonel

White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Pollard, Dr.

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Radford, G. H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Straus, E. A. (Abingdon)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Robinson, S.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH moved to omit subsection (3) of Clause 13, with the object of ascertaining whether it really carried out the intention of the Government. The subsection stated that if in each of two successive years the aggregate amount received from port rates on goods from and to ports beyond the seas, exceeded one-thousandth part of the aggregate value of the goods imported into and exported from the Port of London in those years, it should be the duty of the Port Authority to take the necessary steps to prevent the continuance of the excess, including, if necessary, an application to Parliament to provide them with further means of meeting their financial obligations. It was a complicated subsection, and he moved its omission to ascertain from the President of the Board of Trade whether it carried out his promise to the House. The provision was not of the simple character that London Members generally, he believed, thought it would be. It seemed to suggest that it would be very difficult to impose the restriction.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 19, line 10, to leave out subsection (3) of Clause13."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the second word 'from' in page 19, line 12, stand part of the Bill."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the House would remember that this limit was inserted to meet a general desire. If in each of two successive years the total amount of Port rates on foreign trade exceeded a thousandth part of the total value of the goods, one of two things would happen: either the Port Authority must reduce the excess, or it must ask Parliament to say what was to be done
648
in the circumstances. Parliament would then concentrate on the subject all that attention which had marked this discussion, and he trusted it would be guided on such an occasion by the illumination and skill of his right hon. friend.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the speech to which they had just listened from the right hon. Gentleman was delivered, he presumed, in order that the House should be led to think that when the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington was of interest to the trade of the Port it would come before Parliament and would be adequately discussed. Unless he was mistaken the provisions of the Bill and the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade went to show that the only way in which Parliament would have a voice in the matter hereafter was when it came before the House in the form of a Provisional Order. The right hon. Gentleman did not indicate how Parliament would have a right of interference and decision in the matter.
MR. CHURCHILL: By Bill.
MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if the House was to understand that the Board of Trade or the Government Department concerned would have to introduce a Bill dealing with this point. It was a question of the highest importance, and it would certainly conduce to the shortening of their proceedings if the President of the Board of Trade could tell the House exactly in what form this matter would come before Parliament, so that it could be discussed and Parliament could have proper control over it.
SIR H. KEARLEY: When application is made to Parliament it would be by Bill.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: What sort of Bill?
SIR H. KEARLEY: The ordinary kind of Bill.
MR. RENWICKwished the President of the Board of Trade to tell the House how it was intended to arrive at the thousandth part of the value of these goods. He could see how it could be done in regard to goods from oversea, because they would be entered at the Customs House and the value would be declared. But no value was declared in the case of goods sent by rail or coastwise in a steamer. Therefore, in those cases he could not imagine what method would be followed.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid it was arranged when they last discussed this matter that the value would be calculated on the value of the foreign trade entering the Port of London in one year. That did not include land or coastwise trade coming in. It simply took the Customs returns and calculated the one-thousandth part.
MR. RENWICKremarked that nothing the right hon. Gentleman had said enlightened him as to how he was going to arrive at the value of these particular goods. No declaration was made of the value of the goods and no entry was made in the Customs House. How was it to be done? Some means would have to be adopted of settling the dues to be put on these goods. It could not be done under the present arrangements in the Bill.
MR. BOWLESthought that as the clause stood it would include not only goods from and to places beyond the seas, but also goods going coastwise.
SIR H. KEARLEYsaid there was an Amendment on the Paper to deal with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he would now move an Amendment which would meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Norwood. When the Bill was going
650
through the Committee stage the form which this safeguard was to take was agreed upon generally by the Committee, but in the rapid despatch of business—not too rapid he might say—the words were put in the wrong place. In the course of reading out the Amendment from the Chair the words "from and to ports beyond the seas" were inserted after the word "goods," in line 12, whereas they ought to have gone in after the word "London" in line 14. The effect was curious. The intention was that the thousandth part should apply to oversea trade only, and it was only practicable that it should do, because there was no record of the coast trade. But if they left the clause as it now stood, the consequence of the words being inserted in the wrong place would be that it would be open to the Port Authority to raise to a thousandth part of the foreign trade only, and then to levy dues to any amount on the coastwise trade. That was the exact opposite of what was intended. As the clause would read when amended the words "from and to parts beyond the seas" would be inserted after the word "London" instead of where they now stood after the word "goods."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 19, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'from and to parts beyond the seas.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. RENWICKthought the admission made by the right hon. Gentleman was a very extraordinary one. His own opinion was that, notwithstanding the Amendment, they were in as great muddle as ever as to how they were to arrive at any value of coastwise goods, and levy any dues upon them in accordance with this clause. He made one more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, that, if he did wish to differentiate between goods conveyed coastwise and goods brought from or sent to parts beyond the seas, he should hand in an Amendment which would make clear to all those connected with the coasting trade the precise way in which he proposed

651
they should be treated. He did not think the House quite recognised the importance of the coasting trade.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. CALDWELL,: Order, order. That question, I understood, was decided, and the present Amendment is simply to transpose words which somehow had been put in the wrong place.
MR. RENWICKsaid the principle might have been settled, but he still maintained that the clause represented the matter in a most uncertain way. It was not at all clear and he repeated his appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to insert an Amendment to make it clear.
SIR C. J. CORYobserved that, as the right hon. Gentleman truly said, the effect of the clause before the Amendment was proposed to limit the dues on foreign goods and leave the amount unlimited in regard to coastwise goods. The purpose of the clause now seemed to him to be that the same dues would be payable on all goods whether coastwise or foreign-wise.
MR. CHURCHILLwas sure he could explain to his hon. friend that the position was otherwise. It had been agreed that the moment the Port Authority should have to secure new powers in Parliament or reduce their expenditure should be the moment when the dues on goods should be one-thousandth part of the oversea trade of the Port of London in one year.
SIR C. J. CORYpointed out that it was said they must have a Provisional Order as to what the dues on coastwise goods would be. He asked why that was necessary, seeing that in subsection (b) of Clause 13 they laid down the terms of a Provisional Order on certain goods, and why could the Government not lay down that the terms in the Provisional Order should provide that the dues on coastwise goods should not exceed one-fourth of the dues charged on oversea goods?
MR. CHURCHILLwas sorry to interrupt his hon. friend, but he really was discussing a point that was not raised
652
by the clause under discussion. This clause did not deal with the rates on goods either coastwise or foreign-borne, from the point of view of the imposition of such rates. It only provided means for the imposition of a top limit, and in order to find a convenient measure the rough and ready method had been adopted of calculating one-thousandth part of the oversea trade. The clause merely used the aggregate value of a particular class of trade coming into the Port as a convenient method of restricting the discretion of the Port Authority.
SIR C. J. CORY: The aggregate value of all goods—coastwise and foreign?
MR. CHURCHILL: No, no.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 19, line 14, after the word "London' to insert the words 'from and to other parts beyond the seas."
"In page 19, line 15, to leave out the words 'those years' and to insert the words 'the year.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
"In page 19, line 35, after the word 'owner' to insert the words 'or consignee.'"—(Sir H. Kearley.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment providing that a Provisional Order "may authorise the making of special arrangements respecting the time and method of payment of Port rates on goods by any persons, who at frequent intervals, become liable to pay those rates, whether on their own account or on account of any other persons." He said this Amendment was designed to carry out a promise given to the hon. Member for Hexham on the Committee stage. It was desired to give the Port Authority power to enter into certain arrangements with firms who had a good deal of business to transact under which running accounts could be kept for the year to be adjusted at the end of the year. The Amendment only gave power to the Port Authority which was already in the hands of all other Port authorities in the Kingdom.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 19, line 37, at end, to insert the words 'and such Provisional Order may authorise the making of special arrangements respecting the time and method of payment of Port rates on goods by any persons who at frequent intervals become liable to pay those rates, whether on their own account or on account of any other persons.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved a drafting Amendment referring to the method of collection of Port rates. The Bill said that the method would be regulated by provisions in the Bill itself, but as a matter of fact, it would be regulated by a Provisional Order under the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 20, line 19, after the word 'by' to insert the word 'under.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment, making it clear that the power to levy dues, and exemptions in regard to certain docks of the East Indian Company still continued.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 20, line 27, to leave out the words 'apply not only,' and to insert the words 'continue to apply.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 20, lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words 'of that company transferred to the Port Authority by this Act but also,' and insert the words 'and shall also apply.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment "providing that nothing in the section shall be construed extending any limit on the immunities conferred by Section 13 in regard to any harbours or docks." It was a purely drafting Amendment which they had been asked to insert in order to make it clear that certain exemptions should not be taken away.
MR. BOWLESsaid they had had no notice of the Amendment which was not
654
on the Paper. Evidently it involved matters of considerable perplexity and difficulty and could hardly be described as a drafting Amendment.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the President of the Board of Trade talked about rights and exemptions as though they were small matters, but rights and exemptions dealing with the India Docks surely involved a large sum of money. Would the right hon. Gentleman say how large a sum was concerned and what property was involved? Again and again they had found that what had been described as small affairs had turned out to be very large, and the House must be very careful what it was doing otherwise an amending Bill might be necessary to set the matter right.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. MORTONsaid that he had four Amendments on the Paper which he had been requested to move by the Corporation of London and the Thames Conservancy, and he might say in passing that all the clauses and Amendments that he had moved had been prepared by one or both of those bodies and moved by him (Mr. Morton) at their request. The four Amendments had one object, namely, to insist that the interest of 3 and 4 per cent. on the Port Stock should be paid and paid only out of the net earnings of the docks. That was an ordinary business proposal which Parliament generally insisted on in every enterprise that got Parliamentary sanction. They ought not to pay dividends out of capital, and they ought not to pay the interest on Port Stock out of a tax to be put on the food of the people and it was wrong and wicked to tax the business of the jetties, quays and wharves, which had been built up by the enterprise and efforts of the traders and others, to make up the loss incurred by the purchase of the docks at an unfair price. Those who said that the docks could be made to pay ought in common honesty to at once agree to these Amendments, but was there anyone who thought the docks would pay, he (Mr. Morton) thought not, and he fully believed that there must be a big deficit on the working of the docks. But at this late hour of the night, when even the Government had no chance of

655
getting the closure, and when all young people should be going home to bed, he did not propose to move his Amendment, perhaps knowing that he had but little chance of carrying them.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved the first of two Amendments, the object of which, he said, was to provide that the regulations of the Board of Trade regarding stock should be by an Order having statutory effect.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 23, line 41, after the word 'by,' to insert the words 'an Order of.'"
"In page 24, line 2, after the second word 'time,' to insert the words 'by order.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment to Clause 24 to give to the Board of Trade the duty of discriminating so far as possible between the river and the dock interests. It was, he said, an Amendment he had promised.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 27, line 7, to insert the words 'In prescribing the form of accounts the Board of Trade shall have regard to the desirability of showing separately so far as practicable such items of receipt and expenditure on capital and revenue accounts as are wholly or mainly attributable to the dock undertakings of the Port authority.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment to Clause 26, dealing with charitable subscriptions. Under the Bill, he said, the Port Authority was allowed to subscribe to certain charitable objects to which the old dock companies used to subscribe. The words, "with the consent of the Board of Trade" were inserted by a printer's error. It would be putting an unnecessary labour on the Board of Trade to require their consent in every particular case in which a constribution, for instance, was made to a hospital, to which dock accident cases might be taken.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 30, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words 'with the consent of the Board of Trade."—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 34, line 21, after the word 'secretary,' to insert the words 'or assistant secretary.'"
"In page 34, line 25, after the word 'secretary,' to insert the words 'or assistant secretary.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. WALTER GUINNESS MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved an Amendment to extend the right to parties who were represented on the Port Authority of being heard against any Order of the Board of Trade. He thought it was probable that the word "Order" had been left out of the clause through inadvertence.
MR. RENWICKseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 34, line 37, after the word 'Bill,' to insert the word 'Order.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'order' be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the Amendment was not necessary, and would make bad drafting. There would be regulations in the case of Orders.
MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether it was to be understood from what had fallen from the President of the Board of Trade that it lay in the discretion of the Board of Trade as to whether any parties should be heard against any Order.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking that he would provide in the regulations for the right of parties to be heard.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the ordinary procedure would be fully adhered to.
MR. WALTER GUINNESSasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 30, line 12, after the second word 'of,' to insert the words 'or under the control of.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved an Amendment to Clause 52 to provide that the financial periods of the dock companies should run on all fours. The Amendment, he said, was rendered necessary by the fact that the financial year of the Surrey Commercial Dock Company differed by three months from that of other dock companies.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 42, line 26, after the word 'eight,' to insert the words 'or, in the case of the Surrey Commercial Dock Company, for the last nine months of that year.'"—(Mr. Chucrchill.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 42, line 28, after the word 'year,' to insert the words 'or those nine months.'"
"In page 42, line 28, after the word 'year's,' to insert the words 'or nine months.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. RADFORD*MR. RADFORD moved the omission of Clause 58, which provided for compensation to directors of the dock companies. The proposal, he said, was quite unusual, and almost unprecedented. What happened nowadays when a company was taken over by a public authority was that the compensation payable to the company was ascertained, and the directors who lost their posts brought their claims against the company, who discharged the claims. He knew no reason why that course, which was the normal and proper one, should not be pursued in this case. It could not be said that a fund of some £23,000,000 was inadequate to pay the directors the sum of £127,600, or something more than £3,500 apiece, and the only precedent that could be suggested for the course proposed was the case of the Metropolitan Water Board. But that was really not a precedent but a danger signal, and when it was proposed in that case it was opposed, he believed, by every Liberal Member in the House. He would be very sorry if that grew into a precedent. It had been suggested that the right hon. Gentleman might have proposed the clause because he was unwilling to swell the number of unemployed without providing remuneration for them, but if that were his motive, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman it was quite unnecessary, because he had
658
looked into the occupations of the thirty-six directors concerned, and he found that nearly all of them, in addition to their own business, were directors of numerous other companies. Among them they held seventy-three directorships in other companies. He submitted that the clause was quite unnecessary, wasteful and profligate, and contrary to public policy. When directors were negotiating for the transfer of an undertaking to a public body they should look to the shareholders for any remuneration. He made no personal charge against the gentlemen concerned in this case, but he did say it was undesirable that their interest should conflict with their duty. He felt strongly about this matter, and if there were two Members in the House of a like mind with himself he should go to a division.
MR. CLAUDE HAYseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 45, line, 23, to leave out Clause 58."—(Mr. Radford.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the only issue involved was that between purchase by arbitration and purchase by agreement. The principle of purchase by agreement had been accepted with almost unanimity by the House. Of course, there were advantages from purchase by agreement and also advantages from purchase by arbitration. If they were to purchase by agreement this was an integral and essential part of the agreement, and he had no power to vary it without breaking the foundation on which the whole of this complicated bargain rested. The proposal was an essential part of the arrangement, and he had found it, after severe examination from many points of view, to be important in the public interests and generally acceptable.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSwas glad to have an expression on the part of the Government that anyone who held an office—and he supposed it would apply to a licence also—and who had an expectation of renewal, or, as in this particular case, an expectation of re-election, was entitled to compensation when that office was taken away from him. Under

659
those circumstances he had the utmost pleasure in supporting the Government against the Amendment.
MR. H. C. LEAsaid he had very much pleasure in supporting the Amendment. It seemed to him that the duty of these directors ended with getting the best possible terms for their shareholders in accordance with the various articles of association, and it was a monstrous thing on the part of the Government to hand over £120,000 odd to be divided among these men merely to bribe them into concluding a bargain, and a bargain for which the London Members thought too high a price was being paid.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he must enter ft protest against the use of the word "bribe" applied to an honourable condition. As having any part in the Bill he could not submit to that being said without making a protest.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 48, line 24, after the word 'company,' to insert the words 'such of.'"
"In page 48, line 28, after the word 'three,' to insert the words 'as determine the rights of those officers in the event of the undertaking of the company being purchased in pursuance of any statutory power (except in the case of the two first-mentioned agreements the provisions of Clause 6 of those agreements.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 48, line 29, after the word 'section,' to insert the words 'both as to the conditions of employment (if the Port Authority elect to employ them) and compensation, and as respects the said provisions of those agreements the Port Authority shall, except as aforesaid, be subject to the exclusion of the company, to all the duties, liabilities, and obligations of the company under those agreements in like manner as if they were the company.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
MR. MORTON*MR. MORTON moved an addition to the first Schedule, to provide that all the meetings of the Port Authority should be open to the public, unless otherwise determined by the majority of the members present and voting on the question. The hon. Member said he was unable the other evening to induce the President of the Board of Trade to accept the proposal, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was now
660
in a better state of mind, and would agree to it. He thought it was a very desirable proposal. There was nothing in the Motion which would prevent the Port Authority closing their doors if they thought proper. If it was desirable to close the doors they could at once do so. They had a Standing Order of that sort in the Common Council, and it worked exceedingly well. The same practice obtained in that House. Under the old procedure any Member could say: "I spy strangers," and the doors closed at once, but that had been altered. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would give way on the Amendment. He must have understood, from a hon. Member (Mr. Morrell) who had raised the question in another way, the necessity of the doors, under normal conditions, being open, at least to the Press and to the public, as far as there was room.
MR. CLAUDE HAY MR. CLAUDE HAY seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 53, line 6, at end, to insert the words 'All the meetings of the Port Authority shall be open to the public unless otherwise determined by the majority of the members present and voting on that question.'"—(Mr. Morton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the Port Authority was primarily a business body interested in a vast commercial concern and entrusted by Parliament with a grave and heavy responsibility. He did not think it would be to the advantage of the authority in any way if the proposal were accepted. His hon. friend must himself be aware of the disadvantages that sometimes followed on the sort of thing suggested in the Amendment.
MR. MORTON: No, never.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that sometimes there was a very shocking tendency on the part of Members to make longer speeches than they would otherwise do.
MR. MORTON: Our experience both at the Court of Common Council and the Thames Conservancy is the reverse of that.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that sometimes Members are found to make

661
speeches not so much with a view to urging their point as with a view to attracting attention, perhaps not always of a very desirable character, out of doors. On reflection he did not feel it was desirable to alter the view he originally took of the proposal.
Amendment negatived.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL submitted Amendments with a view to making 1st June the uniform day for the periodical retirement of elected and appointed members of the Port Authority.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 54, line 26, to leave out the word 'June,' and to insert the word 'April.'"
"In page 54, line 33, to leave out the word 'June,' and to insert the word 'April.'"
"In page 54, line 33, to leave out the word 'twelve,' and to insert the word 'thirteen.'"
"In page 54, line 34, to leave out the word 'June,' and to insert the word 'April.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 58, line 30, to leave out the word 'prescribed,' and to insert the words 'set forth in a Provisional Order to be made by the Board of Trade.'"—[Mr. Walter Guinnesss.)
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL accepted the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILL, in moving that the Bill be now read a third time, said he did not wish to take up the time of the House at such a late hour, but he would like to express, on behalf of the Board of Trade and of the Government, the substantial obligation they felt themselves under to all parties for their co-operation.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
MR. MORTONsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the Third Reading that night. There had been a good many Amendments moved, and some carried, and they ought to have them printed and discuss the Third Reading at a reasonable hour of the day. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had the power to press the Third Reading, but it would be wrong to use that power in that way. It would absolutely prevent all of them who wished to do so having an opportunity of speaking against the Bill on the Third
662
Reading in a way that they had not had up to the present moment. The Bill might be better described as a Bill to unload the Dock shares on to the public for the benefit of Trusts companies, speculators, and adventurers. All business men except those interested in the Dock shares were opposed to the purchase of the Docks. It was ten times worse than the purchase of the water companies undertakings.
MR. CLAUDE HAYalso appealed to the Government not to press the Third Reading that night. The right hon. Gentleman would, he was sure, be the first to acknowledge that throughout the discussion very important alterations had been made in the Bill. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would bear him out when he said that a discussion often led to the Government giving an undertaking to meet any point hat might arise by entrusting a Minister in another place with Amendments that would carry out pledges given by the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman would defer the Third Reading until Friday, he might rest assured that it would not take more than a few minutes, and yet might serve a useful purpose. The desire that there should be this further opportunity for discussion in accordance with the practice of the House was widely held.
MR. JOYNSON-HICKSwas sorry that he could not join in the appeal of his hon. friend. They had had a very pleasant evening, and on behalf of the few Members who had taken part in the discussion he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy with which he had met them. He also congratulated him on the result.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time and passed.

HOVING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.
Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

HOPS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. HOLT MR. HOLT moved the adjournment of the debate. He pointed out that the Bill had only been in the hands of Members since the Wednesday morning, and it was then nearly three a.m. and Members had been given no time in which to consider it. That was really not a fit and proper time of the night or morning to ask the House to embark on the consideration of a highly contentious measure of that sort.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Holt.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,trusted that his hon. friend would withdraw his objection to the Second Reading being taken that night. The Bill was framed purely to carry out the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee appointed by the present Government to inquire into the question of preventing the use of certain deleterious hop substitutes and to impose the same conditions upon the importers of foreign hops as were already imposed by Acts of Parliament on British hops. The recommendation was strictly unanimous; Members of both parties agreed to it and there was nothing in the Bill which had not been before the House of Commons for months past. If his hon. friend had read the Blue-books he would have discovered that this was not a new thing at all but was purely a confirmation of what had been already put in the draft Bill introduced by another hon. Member. If his hon. friend would allow the Government to get a Second Reading of the Bill that night he would have a full opportunity of discussing its details in Committee of the Whole House, and any objections he might have with regard to the first part of the Bill which related to hop substitutes, or the second part which regarded the marking of hops, could be thoroughly ventilated. He wished to make it quite clear to the House that the Government had no desire to withdraw the Bill from the consideration of the House.
MR. LEIF JONESdesired to join in the appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to proceed with the
664
Second Reading of the Bill at that sitting. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the Committee were unanimous upon the Bill. That might be so; but it was certainly the case that the House was not at all unanimous upon it, nor even the party of which the right hon. Gentleman was so distinguished an ornament. The Bill had only been put in the hands of Members that day and there had scarcely been time to study it; therefore he did not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to ask them without notice to commit themselves to the principle of the Bill. He certainly would be bound, if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in pushing forward the measure, to ask the indulgence of the House while he stated the very strong objections he and others felt towards the Bill.
SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid if there happened to be anything controversial in the propositions contained in the Bill, that certainly did not show itself in the Report of the Select Committee. Although acutely divided on the question of an import duty on hops, the Committee were absolutely unanimous in regard to these two simple questions as to which it was thought that hop-growers had a legitimate grievance. The matter was very thoroughly threshed out by the Committee whose Report had been before the Members of the House for some time and had been fairly well discussed outside. Hop growers attached great importance to the matters dealt with in the Bill, and he hoped, therefore, that the discussion would be reserved to the Committee stage.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,did not think there was very much chance of the Committee stage being proceeded with that week, but he hoped they would be able to secure an opportunity next Monday. It was only fair to the House to point out that in the Prime Minister's statement made earlier in the sitting, it was announced that in the event of opposition being offered to the Bill, the Government did not propose to proceed with it. The House

665
would have a much better opportunity of judging the extent of the opposition to the Bill after Amendment had been put down than could be possibly disclosed by a Second Reading debate.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. LEIF JONES*MR. LEIF JONES moved that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months. He felt bound to put forward the objections he entertained to the Bill. It had been said and it was well-known that the Bill was the outcome of the Select Committee on hops, over which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, W. presided. That was the origin of the Bill as it stood, but the genesis of the measure was to be found in the Pure Beer Bill, presented to the House for many years in succession during the last and the early days of this century. In fact the first part of the Bill was practically the same as Clause 4 of the Pure Beer Bill of 1902, which prohibited the use of hop substitutes in the brewing of beer. At that time the proposal was hotly opposed by the Liberal Leaders of the House, who were then in opposition He had searched the records of the debates in the hope of finding an eloquent speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman, however, apparently did not speak, but the late Sir William Harcourt spoke very strongly and Mr. Fletcher Moulton, as he then was, made a speech on the Pure Beer Bill, which he thought went far to destroy the case for the right hon. Gentleman's Bill at the present time. The motive that lay behind the Bill was not very obscure; the whole agitation which led to the Bill came from those who desired protection for the hop industry in this country. The aim of the first part of the Bill was to give protection to the hop growers The hon. Member for Gravesend was very much alarmed in the early part of the year at the tremendous dumping of foreign hops from California, which was magnified by his imagination, and to a very great extent led to the appointment of the Select Committee, and finally to the present Bill. Although the Committee failed to see that any protection was necessary, in the suggestion to prohibit hop substi-
666
tutes they were clearly giving a protective advantage to hops.
LORD BALCARRES: Why not?
MR. LEIF JONESthought the interruption of the noble Lord should give a warning to Members on the Ministerial side of the House of the true character of the Bill. Whether it was the intention of the Government to give protection or not, he unhesitatingly said the effect of the first part of the Bill would undoubtedly be to give protection to hops. It was admitted by everyone, and certainly by a good many witnesses before the Committee, that the use of these hop substitutes chiefly occurred when the price of hops was high. To prohibit the use of substitutes would have the tendency to raise the price of hops, and, therefore, it could not be denied that that part of the Bill would be of a protective character. Another objection to the Bill was that it was anti-scientific. He was surprised that an eminent scientist like the Member for West St. Pancras should associate himself with a proposal which was definitely aimed against chemists and chemistry. The House was asked to assume that it would be the right thing to prohibit the use of hop substitutes, but if this sort of doctrine had prevailed and the Government had been led to say what should, or should not, be used in brewing beer, he would like to point out that no hops could be used in making beer in this country at all, because, in the time of Charles II. the use of hops was prohibited by the law of the land. In those days anyone using hops was liable to be imprisoned, and the hop was known as "the wicked weed." If the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer underlying that Bill had prevailed at that time no hops could have been used at all, and they would not now have been asked to stereotype the present practice. They were wantonly interfering with industry. The brewery industry had become very highly developed. It employed excellent chemists, and he did not see why they should be prevented from employing scientific substitutes

667
for hops if they could do so. No need had been shown for the prohibition. The Committee which had sat this year had differed from the Departmental Committee which had satin 1899, of which Lord Pembroke was the Chairman. That Committee had been satisfied from the evidence put before it that no deleterious materials were introduced into beer by way of substitutes for hops. Was it contended that there had been a great change in the last ten years? He found no evidence of such a change. The Committee of 1899 had recommended that there should be a declaration as to the hop substitutes which were used by brewers, and since 1901 that had been carried out, and the figures in the Select Committee's Report did not show that there had been any increase in the use of hop substitutes. In 1902 the percentage was ·05. It rose to ·14 in 1905, and in 1907 sunk to ·08. That did not show that the use of these substitutes was increasing, but rather that substitutes were not in general use. Everybody agreed that there was no satisfactory substitute for hops, and the substitutes that were used would only be used for particular classes of beer. He would not oppose any proposal to stop the putting of deleterious substances into beer, though he was afraid he would never be able to get what he regarded as the most deleterious material done away with. He thought it would be undesirable that a Liberal House of Commons should pass that Bill. He had been sorry to detain the House at that late hour, but he felt very strongly on the subject, and unless the right hon. Gentleman was able to effect a great change in his views he could offer him no prospect of the Bill having a non-contentious passage through the House.
MR. DUNDAS WHITEseconded the rejection of the Bill. If the object of the Bill was to prohibit the use of hop substitutes with a view to securing public health, the prohibitions should extend only to such substitutes as were deleterious.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr Leif Jones).
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid he resented the suggestion of the hon. Member for Appleby that the Report of the Committee on the question of hops had suggested protection. As a matter of fact he had seen that Report used for the purpose of propaganda by the Free Trade Union. If the hon. Gentleman had read the Report carefully he would have seen that the case for protection in regard to the hop industry had been disproved by the figures it contained.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid what he had stated was that the Report had exploded the idea that it was protection, but for all that the Bill was a protective Bill.
SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid he thought the marking of foreign hops and the prohibition of hop substitutes could be entirely justified on grounds other than protection. The hon. Member who had carried his researches back to the time of Charles II. in his speech had omitted altogether to make any reference to the Report of the Royal Commission on arsenical poisoning in 1904. In the evidence it was shown that some, at least, of the hop substitutes contained deleterious ingredients. The Bill, if passed, would meet the legitimate grievances of hop growers, but it was in no way a protective measure.
MR. BENNETTsaid he only rose to give one more indication of the strong feeling of Members sitting on that side of the House who cherished free trade feelings, against this Bill. It would be some satisfaction to them if the Bill was wanted by some considerable section of the community, but there was no evidence of that. As far as he had been able to discover it was not wanted by the brewers. They knew perfectly well that one portion of the Bill would have the effect of limiting the supply of hops from Austria and Germany. It was also quite clear that the brewers realised the necessity for having a constant supply of hops from abroad. A very well known brewer had said that before the Committee, and because of having given that evidence he had had the mortification of having his own beer boycotted. Subsection (a), Clause 2,

669
provided that the name of the planter or grower of the hop was to be placed on the packet. That provision was perfectly possible and could be carried out in many places. It was quite impossible to carry it out satisfactorily in Germany or Austria, for the hops there were produced by the small holders and were brought to England in small quantities to which it would be quite impossible to attach individual names. The whole object of the Bill was, so far as possible, to keep German and Austrian hops out of this country. That was a tariff reform touch, and he was surprised that the Government had agreed to it. The Attorney-General, giving evidence before the Committee, had called attention to the immense difficulties following on attempts to mark goods coming from abroad. He had given instances where the law had been got over, and had spoken of some people, known as "the lost souls," who were prepared at any moment to provide formal affidavits. He was surprised that so transparent a tariff reform device as that which had been practised in this case should have escaped the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Amendment negatived.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for this day.—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

IRISH LAND BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

TRAWLING IN PROHIBITED AREAS PREVENTION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

CONTEMPTS OF COURT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

COUNTY COURTS BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

ELECTION OF ALDERMEN IN MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

LONDON PAVING EXPENSES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

BUILDING OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING WORKS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

BAIL BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

BUXTON CHARITY BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:
MR. CLAUDE HAYasked for some information about the Bill. The Schedule contained various provisions which were almost unintelligible. He wished to protest against the Bill being taken in that form without any scheme in regard to it having been put forward.
MR. SOARESsaid the whole scheme was put forward in the Schedule. There had been an agreement in regard to the

671
Bill. It had been arranged that the Bill should be printed, and put in the Library of the House, and on that condition the noble Lord the Member for Chorley had agreed to let it go through its Committee stage and Third Reading.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 were added to the Bill.
Schedule:
MR. CLAUDE HAYasked what were the conditions in the Schedule in regard to property. The Bill gave the Church in question powers to take certain action by special resolution, but there was nothing whatever in the document to prescribe how such a resolution was to be arrived at, how a meeting was to be called, what a quorum was. That omission was singular when the Long Ashton Bill provided for the points referred to. In fact the whole document seemed to be most slovenly. He wished to enter a protest against Bills being put before the House at that hour in the morning and not printed and presented in the form which was usual in regard to public Bills presented to the House of Commons. There was nothing in the Schedule to make the trustees fill up vacancies, and it would appear that the whole of the property and the duties appertaining thereto might devolve upon one person, who might call himself the Church and pass a special resolution enabling him to dispose of the property.
MR. SOARESsaid the whole of the scheme and the provisions in Section 8 of the Schedule had been approved of by all parties, and no objections whatever had been raised by anyone. As to the question as to what a special resolution meant, if the hon. Member would refer to Section 16 he would see it was there described as a resolution passed at a special Church meeting by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the persons present and voting.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

LONG ASHTON CHARITY BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

ABBOTS BROMLEY CHARITY BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that power was given the trustees to deal with the property without the necessity of obtaining the consent of the Church. Why should the trustees be free from obtaining the consent of their constituency for the disposal of the trust confided in them? Did that power relate to any property over which the Charity Commissioners had no jurisdiction?
MR. SOARESsaid the reason why those powers had been conferred upon the trustees was because the trustees desired them, because all those people who were interested in the Charity desired them, and because the Charity Commissioners thought it wise.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: Is this the usual practice in connection with Bills of this sort?
MR. SOARES: Yes.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that if a man was a trustee it was a very singular thing that with respect to a portion of the trust he should be subject to control, and with respect to another portion he should be an absolutely free agent. He did not believe it was usual, and ho, had some reason for saying so.
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported, without, Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (PUBLIC TRUSTEE) BILL
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes after Three o'clock, a.m.

PETITION.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition for amendment of; of the Dunfermline Protestant Defence Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MISCELLANEOUS, No. 9 (1908) (NATIONALITY AND NATURALISATION).
  Despatch from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Rio de Janeiro inclosing a translation of decrees regulating the naturalisation of aliens in Brazil. (In continuation of Parliamentary Paper, "Miscellaneous," No. 1. (1903)).
  Report of the Fair Wages Committee, with appendices and minutes of evidence.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES), 1907; (PART II.; CIVIL STATISTICS.)
  Statistics relating to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the House of Lords, the Supreme Court of Judicature, County Courts, and other Civil Courts, edited by Sir John Macdonell, C.B., LL.D., a Master of the Supreme Court.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
  Rules made by the Board of Trade, CXCV.—CCII.
  INCEST BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order). Then Standing Order No. XXXIX., considered (according to order), and dispensed with. Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  RICHMOND ALLOTMENTS.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the President of the Board of
  398
  Agriculture in his place, I wish to ask him a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether his attention has been called to the statement that the Richmond Town Council have received from the Department of Woods and Forests a month's notice to quit part of the allotment ground rented from the Crown to the Corporation, and whether, in view of the keen demand for allotments in Richmond and the difficulty of obtaining land for the purpose, he will ask the Commissioners to withdraw the notice to quit or to provide other suitable land in place of that taken away.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord I have to say that the land to which he refers is not under my authority. I am, therefore, unable to give any particulars at present, but I am making inquiries. My colleague will receive a deputation from the Richmond Corporation on the subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl who leads the House a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he is able to give your Lordships any information as to the course of business in this House during the next few days.
THR LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess for having given me notice of this Question. I am not able to give him an absolutely precise answer, but I think I can give some general information which will be of service to the House. As noble Lords know, the Education (Scotland) Bill is down for Committee to-day, and the Second Reading of the Prevention of Crime Bill is down for to-morrow. That Bill has come up, I think, in a somewhat less controversial form than seemed at one time possible. I do not think, therefore, that it will occupy a very great part of the time of your Lordships. The two remaining Bills of importance

399
which we shall ask the House to consider are the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill and the Port of London Bill. On Monday next my noble friend Lord Morley is to make his statement with regard to Indian Policy, and although I cannot say for certain—I may be in a position to do so to-morrow—I think it is possible that in view of that debate not being likely to occupy any very great period of time, it may be well to put some other business down for that day. Speaking generally, next week will be devoted, if your Lordships please, to the alternate consideration of the two measures I have indicated. There will be no doubt one or two other small Bills coming up from another place, but I do not think anything of a controversial character. I should hope, therefore, that Parliament may be prorogued somewhat earlier than at one time appeared to be likely.
LORD NEWTON: I should be much obliged if the noble Earl would give me an assurance that the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill will not be taken next Monday.
THE EARL OF CREWE: If the House agree, I think it would be a reasonable course to take that Bill on Tuesday.
LORD NEWTON: I should be very grateful to the noble Earl if he would be good enough to take it on Tuesday. But I would point out that there is some danger of his rather optimistic estimate not being fulfilled. Assuming that Amendments are carried to those two Bills, how will it be possible to prorogue on Friday week?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I never mentioned the date of Friday week.
LORD AVEBURY: The Port of London Bill is a very controversial measure, and there are great differences of opinion about it. We shall not have had time really to consider it by Monday, and I hope, therefore, it will not be taken on that day.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now road 3a."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Moved, "That the Bill do now pass."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I beg to move the omission of the word "now" in order to insert at the end of the Motion the words "this day three months." About the genesis of of this Bill we know very little. It was, I believe, promoted in the other House by some private Members. What examination it received in the House of Commons I do not know, but the noble Earl, in introducing it to your Lordships' House, said he believed it was an agreed Bill, or nearly so. But almost every provision in the Bill was taken exception to. It enacted, in the first place, that accommodation must be provided for the Press; in the second place, it provided that if members of the Press felt themselves dissatisfied with the accommodation they might apply to the Local Government Board, who were to settle the question; and, in the third place, there was a proposed enactment that, on the application of any newspaper, notice of every meeting was to be sent to the office of that newspaper by the county clerk or other official. Those were, I think, nearly all the enactments in the Bill. Those enactments have all been struck out, and all that remains is the provision that the Press is to have a right of being present at the meetings of local authorities. We do not know that there is any necessity for this measure. No practical grievance has been alleged. I have been told by more than one member of the Press that the Press do not require the Bill. Why in the world we should cumber the Statute-book with surplusage of this sort I am at a loss to understand. For those reasons, and for those reasons only, I am very sorry to be obliged to oppose the Bill. Even my regard for the noble Earl in charge of it will not make me willingly consent to the placing of what I consider surplusage on the Statute-book.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out the word 'now' in order to insert the words 'this day three months.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD FABER: My Lords, this is a Bill to give right of entry to the Press as regards the meetings of local authorities. There seems to be a fear in your Lordships' House that the provision of accommodation for the Press to these meetings will load to large expenditure. I do not share that fear, and for this reason. The public generally do not care to read reports of the meetings of county councils, parish councils, and similar local authorities, and, that being the case, newspapers do not send reporters to those meetings. Consequently, there will not be that rush to attend the meetings of local authorities which some noble Lords appear to be afraid of. I do not think there would be much change in the attitude of the public with regard to this question. But, if I am wrong in thinking that the public do not desire to read these reports, is it not right that a ratepayer who wishes to know what is going on in his own parish council should be able to find out from the local paper? Will he not be a better citizen for the interest he takes in the administration of the rates by his local authority? At present, as I understand it, if a man wishes to know what has been taking place at the meeting of his parish council he has to ask his parish councillor, and although I desire to speak with the greatest respect of such an august personage as a parish councillor, yet I am inclined to think that he is, perhaps, more a disseminator of gossip than a purveyor of accurate news. This Bill passed through the other House supported by both parties, and it received no opposition from the county councils or local authorities generally. By this Bill the Radical and Conservative Press are placed on exactly the same footing. That, perhaps, is a thing to be desired in view of the decision early in the year in the case of the Tenby Corporation v. Mason. The judgment in that case laid it down that a local authority had power, not only to exclude all the members of the Press, but to exclude certain Pressmen and allow others to remain. Your Lordships will not think that a fair state of the law. It is surely better that the Press of both parties should be placed on the same footing. I am given to understand that the Press desire this little Bill, and it does not seem to me to be contentious in any way. It is quite true that some of us are rather cross at
402
times with the local Press, but that is because they report what we do say and not what we thought we ought to have said. I do not think there is anything quite so gruesome as reading in the morning one's rhetorical efforts of the night before. I trust that, in view of the fact that this was an unopposed Bill in the House of Commons, and that all the important Amendments moved in your Lordship's House have been accepted, the Bill will now be allowed to pass.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, when we were in Committee on this Bill I proposed an Amendment which did not meet with acceptance on the part of your Lordships. From that action on my part I may be supposed to be in favour of the Bill, and, indeed, at that time I regarded it as a matter of comparative indifference whether it was passed or not. But I confess that the more I have reflected on this Bill the less case there appears to me to be for it, and the more reasons why your Lordships should not assist in passing the Bill into law. I do not, of course, object in the slightest degree to the Press attending the meetings of local authorities and giving the fullest publicity to what takes place there, but I think that Parliament would be wise in not interfering in this matter with the discretion of the local authorities. As far as I know, there has been no substantial ground for thinking that there has been unfairness on the part of any local authorities. These bodies are responsible to their electors, and if any number of them combined to do that which was objectionable the electors would have an opportunity at the next election of giving expression to their wishes and signifying their desire that the Press should be admitted. I believe there is no real ground for anxiety on the part of the Press with regard to admission to the meetings of these authorities, and there is, I think, substantial reason why Parliament should not interfere with the comparative independence of local authorities in framing by-laws for themselves as to the conduct of their own meetings. Consider to what length the supporters of this Bill really desired to go. In order to allow the Press security to attend they wanted to have notice given to the Press of all meetings of the local authorities, and to provide that a certain period

403
must elapse before the meeting could take place. Surely that was strictly irrelevant to the purpose of this Bill, and was an interference with the freedom of the local authorities in the conduct of their business. I ask your Lordships to consider this question for a moment in respect of your own practice and the practice in another place. The admission of the Press to hear debates in Parliament may be said to be vital to the work of Parliament generally, although that admission has been only gradually established, and even within my own memory the Press have been excluded from the other House on the initiative of a single member. Would your Lordships for a moment dream of prescribing rules of procedure under which your meetings should be held, and agree to a statute regulating the admission of the Press to the Reporters' Gallery of this House? The matter is left to the discretion of this House and the other House of Parliament, and why the same discretion should not be given in the case of local authorities I am at a loss to conceive. We have passed the days of Dr. Johnson, one of the first reporters of the Parliamentary debates, who carried away as much as his memory would allow, and who admitted that he always gave the "Whig dogs" the worst of the argument. We have passed all that, and we now recognise that the attendance of the Press is essential, and every reasonable accommodation is provided for them. Your Lordships would never think of laying down rules on the subject, still less of agreeing to an Act which should override your own management of your own affairs; and I think it would be only respectful to local authorities to allow them the same liberty. Therefore, if the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment goes to a division, I shall follow him into the lobby.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, as I was responsible during the Committee proceedings on this Bill for moving three or four Amendments on behalf of the County Councils Association, I should like to say a few words before we go to a division. In the first place, let me remind the House that the Bill as it came up, although it had been spoken of as if it had met with very general support in the other House, certainly contained provisions which were very
404
objectionable and extremely badly drafted. But my noble friend in charge of the Bill accepted every substantial Amendment that was moved both in the Committee stage and on Report, and as the Bill now stands, although it does lay down as a rule that reporters and the public should be admitted to the meetings of these authorities, yet it only in that respect puts into an Act of Parliament what is the universal practice, at all events on the part of the important local authorities. I am quite aware that, in these circumstances, the Bill might be said to be unnecessary. The County Councils Association have never taken exception to the principle of the Bill, and considering that it was not opposed on Second Reading and that all the Amendments suggested have been accepted, I think it would be a very unusual proceeding to throw out the Bill at this stage now that it has been divested of all objectionable clauses. I had some difficulty in following the argument of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Courtney. Although he defends what I should always wish to defend, the giving of full discretion to county councils and other bodies, yet one of his arguments was that it would be very inconvenient for notice to have to be sent of all meetings together with an agenda of the business to be taken. The noble Lord does not seem to have mastered the fact that that clause has been struck out of the Bill, and that there is now no suggestion of anything of the sort. I may go further. With regard to the principal authorities the procedure of giving notice is already dealt with under statute, and the clause that was in this Bill only referred to the minor authorities who might call meetings without giving any notice. In these circumstances I regret that my noble friend is going, at this late stage of the Bill, to try and reject it, especially in view of the fact that we have been courteously met by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and that he has accepted all our Amendments.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I trust that the doctrine which my noble friend Lord Belper has laid down will not be held good in this House. His doctrine, as I understand it, is this, that after we have road a Bill a second time we are not to

405
reject it at the final stage if the Amendments we have moved in Committee have been accepted. The argument is very often used that we ought to see what we can do with a Bill in Committee, whether we can make it workable, and not reject it on Second Reading. But even though we may find that our Amendments are accepted we ought to reserve to ourselves the right to reject a Bill on Third Reading. The consequence of the opposite doctrine laid down by the noble Lord will be that we shall have to reject a lot of Bills on Second Reading for fear we should find in Committee that we could not alter—
LORD BELPER: I beg the noble Duke's pardon. I laid down no doctrine. What I said was that the Bill had not been opposed on Second Reading, and that all the important Amendments moved to it having been accepted it should not be rejected on Third Reading.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I apologise for using the word "doctrine"; I will substitute the word "appeal." I do not think the appeal of the noble Lord is a convincing one. I want to know what is the argument in favour of giving the Press a statutory provision which they have never yet assumed. As I understand, it is that the public may be accurately informed of what is going on in these local bodies. I cannot conceive any other object. Now, what is the value of the information which the public gets in respect of these meetings from the Press? I happen, since the former stages of this Bill, to have had personal experience of the way in which the matter acts. At the last meeting of the county council over which I had the honour to preside, a member of the council made an attack upon the chairman of one of the committees, and proceeded to read out from a newspaper a report of a speech which the committee chairman had made at a former meeting of the county council, for the purpose of showing that the chairman had been inconsistent. I at once called the attention of the council to the matter, and said I doubted very much whether it was in order to read a report of this kind, because there was no guarantee that it was a correct report, and we had not seen the newspaper to which the member was referring. Upon this the chairman
406
of the committee who was attacked said he could end the matter at once because he had seen the report. It was, he said, absolutely incorrect and totally misrepresented what he said. That, my Lords, is a practical instance of the value of admitting the Press to the meetings of local authorities. I will say no more, except that I trust my noble friend will take a division, and, if he does, I shall certainly support his Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the principle of this Bill was not opposed on Second Reading, and I think the House must universally recognise that the noble Earl in charge of it did everything he possibly could in Committee to meet the objections taken. In those circumstances, what is there left in the Bill to which the noble Earl objects? There is left a statutory right to the Press to attend the meetings of local authorities. Probably in the case of county councils that right will not be of such great importance, because the Press are now allowed to attend the meetings of those bodies. But your Lordships must, I think, have fresh in your memories the scandals which have recently arisen in connection with the expenditure of public money by the smaller bodies. It must be borne in mind that what gave rise to this Bill was the claim of the local authority of Tenby to select the particular reporter who should attend their meetings and to say to another particular reporter that he should not attend. If a local authority had the absolute power of dictating who should be the only channel of intercouse between them and the public, and if they had a body the majority of which was corrupt and in which corruption was a regular, constant, and understood part of the proceedings—and we have seen some of the smaller bodies in which these things have been—it is only a step further to secure the attendance of a corrupt reporter. It is to remove objections of that sort that it is desired to provide for the admission of the independent Press, and I think it would be rather unusual at this stage to reject a Bill the principle of which has not been seriously attacked.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I feel that I need add very little to what has been said. In fact, it would be impossible to do so without

407
incurring the danger of repetition. But I think I may congratulate myself on the distinguished convert I have made below the gangway. Lord Belper was good enough to say that I had done my best to meet him and other critics in Committee, and I can only say that I am gratified that I should have been able to do so so successfully. I am only sorry that I have not made another convert below the gangway. The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, has objected to this Bill—shall I say?—from the first minute that he set eyes upon it; but, curiously enough, he did not happen to see it until it was too late for him to give notice of rejection on Second Reading. The noble Earl himself moved Amendments which were, I hope, designed to improve the Bill, and I can only regret, having done my best by accepting his Amendments to placate him, that the more his appetite has been fed the greater it has become. We now find him moving the rejection of the Bill at its final stage. The noble Earl claimed there was no necessity for this Bill. Your Lordships will excuse my not going into that point at any length after the reference to the Tenby case by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. That case was a very great surprise to many laymen, and it was with the object of reversing the decision there given, which I have no doubt was perfectly correct in law, that those for whom I am acting promoted this Bill. Next, the noble Earl referred to the opinion of the Press regarding this Bill, and I regret he did not go into that point in greater detail. He told us that several Pressmen had informed him that they did not like the Bill. I am advised that there is only one newspaper in the whole of this kingdom of any importance that has objected to the Bill. It is one of the prominent London evening papers, and a paper which probably knows less about the subject than any other, for the reason that this grievance is very much more a provincial grievance than a London grievance. But I might mention, as an answer to that, that I have the names here of about a dozen of the most prominent newspapers, all of whom have expressed their approval of the Bill. They are the Newspaper Owner, the Birmingham Post, the Sheffield Daily Telegraph, the Western Daily Mercury, the Northern Echo, the Manchester Evening Chronicle, the Glasgow Herald, and so on.
408
The Bill is supported by important newspapers spread over different parts of the country. It is promoted by the National Union of Journalists, a young body, but a body which represents about 1,500 working journalists. I admit that it is not supported by the Institute of Journalists, of which the noble Lord opposite is a distinguished member. The Institute of Journalists is, of course, the senior, and, I do not deny, the most important association of journalists that exists; but I believe the reason they would not support the Bill was that they had a Bill of their own dealing with the point in a slightly different manner. I am, however, authorised by the honorary secretary of the Institute of Journalists to say that the Institute have not inspired or in any way had anything to do with the opposition to the Bill this afternoon on its final stage. I think it would be a great pity if the Bill were rejected now owing to the opportunity that would be thus given to local authorities, if they desired to do so, to conduct their proceedings behind closed doors and without the light of public opinion being shed upon them. The cases of West Ham, Poplar, and one or two others have really scandalised public opinion throughout the country. I do not suggest for one moment that these cases are typical of English local government, but, if such cases exist, those will be the sort of authorities which will avail themselves of the power to sit in camera, and the task of finding out the existence of such cases will be made more difficult than if the Bill were allowed to pass. I submit that a case has been made out for the Bill, and I trust your Lordships will pass it.
LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, it hardly seems necessary for me to say anything after the exhaustive debate which has taken place to-day. I may, however, observe that, although His Majesty's Government were not originally responsible for the introduction of this Bill, they have supported it in all its stages in both Houses. The Bill was introduced at the instance of the National Union of Journalists in consequence of a certain legal decision. I submit that the principle of the Bill has been already accepted by your Lordships' House, and that as almost all the Amendments of serious substance have been so well met,

409
it would be very unreasonable if the Bill were not now passed. On the Second Reading the Bill had the advantage of receiving the support of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, who concurred in the object of the Bill in view of the decision in the case of the Tenby Corporation v. Mason. The noble Duke opposite has referred to certain inaccuracies in the reports of proceedings of local authorities. I am afraid it would be very difficult to provide that there should never be inaccuracies in the reports of local authorities, or, indeed, of more important bodies, or even of Parliament itself. The only way of dealing with that question would be, I suppose, by the appointment of a Press censor whose duty it would be to revise the reports, but I think the noble Duke would hardly propose that such an appointment be made. I trust that, the Bill having gone so far, your Lordships will allow it to pass.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I always think the House owes a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Camperdown for the vigilance with which he watches over these minor measures, which sometimes do not receive quite the amount of attention which they deserve; but upon this occasion I am almost inclined to suggest that he has pushed his watchfulness too far. I do not mean to say that I regard this Bill as an important measure. Indeed, I am not sure that if I were asked whether it was desirable to introduce such a measure at all I should answer in the affirmative; but the measure has been introduced. After all, what does it do? It merely affirms this, that the Press has the right to be admitted to meetings of certain of our local authorities, to which is added the very important reservation that those authorities have the right, on certain occasions and for sufficient reasons, to exclude the Press. That is not really a very serious or very dangerous proposal, and it is not an innovation, because it really is a proposal which brings the law into conformity with the actual practice at present followed. This Bill has been a good deal discussed; it has met with a very large amount of support, and I have received a communication from the National Union of Journalists very strongly urging your Lordships not to reject it at the last moment. We have to remember that in
410
the House of Commons its principle was scarcely disputed, that it passed scathless through Standing Committee and through Report stage, and that on Third Reading not a voice was raised against it. When the Bill came up to us criticisms were made and Amendments proposed which were accepted in a very reasonable spirit by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. We have also to-night had what seemed to my mind a very important piece of testimony from my noble friend the chairman of the County Councils Association. I think the opinion of great associations like the County Councils Association, the Municipal Corporations Association, and the Poor Law Unions Association, is entitled to respect, and not one of those great bodies, so far as I am aware, has raised any objection to this Bill. For these reasons I must say I think it would only be for some very special or urgent cause that your Lordships would be justified in rejecting the Bill at the very last stage. Therefore, much as I regret to differ from my noble friend below the gangway, I shall vote against him if he goes to a division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to amend subsection (2), which deals with the provision of "accommodation, apparatus, equipment, and service for the preparation and supply of meals to pupils attending schools within the district," by omitting the words "and service."
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, lines 21 and 22, to leave out the words 'and service.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid the effect of the Amendment, as he understood it, would be to debar the school board from paying the wages of an attendant or cleaner, for instance, who helped in the preparation of the meal and in serving out the food. It seemed simpler that the preparation of the food and the supply of the meal should be regarded rather as a whole, and that there should be no artificial separation between one part of the expense involved and the other. It would be difficult to carry out in practice, and he could not see that it would effect any very great saving in expense. The services of the children themselves would be utilised as far as possible, as indeed they generally were at present, both in the preparation and in the service of the meal; but there would, of course, be need for the superintendence of a grown-up person to see that there was no waste. He understood that, in addition to the voluntary contributions, the school boards did in the present instance contribute a certain amount, although it was difficult to ascertain exactly the proportion. The effect of the clause was merely to remove a doubt as to the legality of an expenditure which was already incurred by many school boards in rural districts. He hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved the insertion of a proviso to the effect that in the exercise of their powers under subsection (2), a school board should not give any undue preference to pupils attending schools under their control over pupils attending State-aided schools within their district. The clause was, he said, a permissive one, and the object of the Amendment was to ensure that the local authority should deal equally with the various classes of schools, and should not refuse to one class of schools advantages which they conferred on another. The Amendment was in accordance with the spirit of the Bill, and he hoped the Government would be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 26, after the word 'provided' to insert the words 'Provided also that
412
in the exercise of their powers under this subsection, a school board shall not give any undue preference to pupils attending schools under their control over pupils attending State-aided schools within their district.'"—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid that to accept this Amendment would infringe the principle of the provision and would have the effect of compelling a school board, if they set up an apparatus to provide meals, on payment, for children attending their own schools, to do precisely the same for any voluntary school in the district. To do that was impracticable. He could not see that any hardship would result from the provision as it stood in the Bill, for if there were necessitous children attending a voluntary school for whom food was required, that would be covered under Clause 6 quite irrespective of the school the children were attending.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to amend subsection (3)—
"(3) In bringing opportunities for education within easier reach of children in outlying parts of their district, whether by providing means of conveyance, or paying travelling expenses for teachers or pupils to and from their homes, or defraying the cost of lodging pupils in convenient proximity to a school …"
by inserting, after the word "district" the words "distant not less than three miles from a school."
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 2, after the word 'district,' to insert the words 'distant not less than three miles from a school.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD HERSCHELLfeared that this Amendment would prove unworkable. It would be extremely difficult to lay down a provision that a conveyance should be afforded to children who inhabited a part of the district three miles from the school, and that this conveyance should not be allowed to take up any children whom it might pass on the way between that limit and the school. He thought the matter was one which might quite safely be left to the discretion of the local authority. One rather important point was that there were many districts with a scattered population where a school board was virtually

413
obliged to maintain several small and relatively inefficient schools, but if they were given a power of providing conveyances, without restriction as to distance, they might be able by this means to bring children to one central school, with the result that not only could that school be made more efficient in its working, but also, to some extent, expense would be saved. Of course, any improper use which might be made of the conveyance would at once be put a stop to by the Department on representation being made to them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved to insert, at the end of subsection (3), a similar proviso to that which he had moved to subsection (2) but withdrawn. He hoped the Government would be prepared to consider this Amendment in a more friendly spirit.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 9, after the word 'otherwise,' to insert the words 'Provided that in the exercise of their powers under this subsection, a school board shall not give any undue preference to pupils attending schools under their control over pupils attending State-aided schools within their district."—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHappealed to the Government to accept this Amendment on the ground of their argument for refusing to accept the last Amendment. The noble Lord had said that it would be absurd that a conveyance afforded to children living three or four miles away should not take up a child living nearer the school. Take the corresponding case. Supposing a conveyance went to fetch children going to a board school, and close by were children going to, say, a Roman Catholic school, surely it would be unreasonable that those children should not be allowed the benefit of the conveyance. He did not think the Amendment would make any real difference, but it would put on the face of the Bill an instruction to the school board that they ought to consider such a case.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid that subsection (3) did not define children attending any particular schools, but applied to all children.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: You mean that the subsection does already contain this provision?
LORD HERSCHELL: Subjection (3) applies to all children.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not very well acquainted with this matter, but it seems to me that the difference between the noble Duke's Amendment and the subsection as it stands is that there would be a compulsion upon the local authority not to give any preference to the children in the schools under their control, whereas, as the Bill stands, I imagine a preference would be given, but that, where possible, the authority would be in a position to take the other children. I think there is a difference.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought the Amendment a perfectly fair one. It was quite clear that under subsection (3) as it stood a preference might be shown.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid the provision in the subsection did not prohibit a school board from using its discretion; but, if the Amendment were adopted, it would be obligatory upon the board not to give any preference to pupils attending schools under their control.
LORD HERSCHELLasked the noble Duke whether, in the circumstances, he would be prepared to let the matter stand over for further consideration on Report.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: Certainly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid this clause was almost certain to impose a very serious charge on the ratepayers. It provided that a school board might, and where required by the Department should, provide for the medical examination and supervision of the pupils attending schools within their district to such extent, and subject to such requirements, as might from time to time be prescribed by any code or minute of

415
the Department. Therefore, by this clause they placed themselves entirely in the hands of the Department. He was more inclined to call their Lordships' attention to this clause because, in regard to the corresponding clause for England the other day, Lord Belper directed attention to the very great powers taken with regard to the amount of medical supervision which might be required. Lord Belper asked on that occasion, and he (Lord Camperdown) asked now, whether there was any intention on the part of the Treasury to contribute to this new charge upon the rates, the extent of which it was impossible to foresee.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHinquired whether there was any difference between "code" and "minute." As he understood it, a code meant the Education Code which was laid each year on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. To that, of course, either House could object if it contained improper provisions. But if a minute of the Department was simply intended, it would not come before Parliament. If that was so, he was bound to say there was some force in the contention of Lord Camperdown. The Department, he was sure, was not at all likely to be unreasonable, but perhaps everybody did not have such complete confidence in it as he had.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that, by subsection (7) of the previous clause, it was provided that no such minute should come into force until it had lain for not less than one month upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament The omisssion of any such provision in Clause 4 would rather indicate that the minute there referred to would not be laid before Parliament.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid the Department would undertake to lay any minute on this subject before Parliament.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHstated that his attention had just been called to the fact that in the statutory provisions dealing with the subject it was provided that no minute of the Scottish Education Department should be enforced until it had lain for not less than a month on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, the provision in Clause 4 could not be put in force without
416
Parliament having an opportunity of judging of its propriety.
LORD BELPERsaid that, this being so, Scotland was in a much more favour able position than England in this matter. They had complained that with regard to England Memoranda were frequently issued which imposed considerable charges on local authorities without Parliament having any cognisance of them before hand, and he felt—
THE EARL OF CREWE: I should be very unwilling to suggest that the noble Lord is out of order. I leave it to the noble Lord himself, as to whether he is in order.
LORD BELPERsaid he was only referring to the fact that Scotland was fortunate in having an Education Department which dealt with it in a more reasonable manner than was the case in England.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Is the noble Earl satisfied?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No; I have had no answer.
LORD REAYpointed out that in subsection (6) of Clause 17 there was a provision that where, under Section 4 of the Bill, a school board provide for the medical examination and supervision of the pupils attending schools within their district in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Committee or by the school board and in either case approved by the Department, there shall be paid in each year to the school board a sum equal to one-half of the cost incurred by them in making such provision. He thought that to a certain extent met the objections of his noble friend.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE)said it was impossible, in the Committee stage of a Bill of this kind, for the Government to make a statement in regard to matters which next year, no doubt, would come before Parliament in the usual course. It was well known that in the Education Bill of this year there were proposals for increasing the grants, and the then Minister for Education, Mr. McKenna,

417
stated that it was to be understood that one of the reasons why increased grants were being proposed was to meet the expenses of the Act of last year providing for medical inspection. Beyond that answer he did not think the Government could go that evening. Of course, what applied to England in that matter would also apply, under equivalent grants, to Scotland.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid this clause made an important change in the law. It provided that Section 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1883, should not longer have effect, and that in lieu thereof it should be enacted that—
"If it appears to a school board that the parent of any child without reasonable excuse is neglecting to provide efficient education for his child in terms of this Act, or failing to secure the regular attendance of his child at some public or inspected school, it shall be lawful for the school board, after due warning to the parent, to summon such parent to appear, with or without the child, before the school board at any meeting thereof, and to require from him every information and explanation respecting such neglect or failure of duty; and if he, or some person on his behalf, either does not appear or appears and does not satisfy the school board that he has not failed in such duty without reasonable excuse for such failure, it shall be lawful for the school board to order in writing that the child do attend some public or inspected school willing to receive him, and named in the order, being either such as the parent may select, or, if he does not select any, then such as the school board think expedient, and the child shall attend that school every time the school is open, or in such other regular manner as is specified in the order."
He moved to omit from the centre of this provision the words "or some person on his behalf." At present, if a school board had doubt about the attendance of any children under its jurisdiction, or desired to get a compulsory order for attendance, it had to go to the sheriff to have the child ordered to attend. That was a certain safeguard to the parents that an unreasonable order would not be made. But this clause changed the law, and gave power to the school board not only to summon the parent, but to be judge in what was practically its own cause. He
418
did not know that he objected to that so much, because in one respect it was more merciful to the parent, inasmuch as it obviated attendance at Court, with its consequent delays. But was it intended by these words which he proposed to delete to indicate that there was to be a regular process, a sort of tribunal set up by the school board, with the employment of a lawyer to attend and explain the case? If so, it would be introducing a new practice and one which he certainly could not support. On the other hand, it was possible that these words were only intended to imply that some friend might put in an appearance before the board on the parent's behalf. He did not think that would be very satisfactory. If there was to be only one attendance, the school board might reasonably hold their meeting in the evening, as many school boards did already, for the purpose of giving one of the parents of the child an opportunity of making a personal explanation. He did not think it would be satisfactory to have the explanation second-hand. It would be merely a hearsay statement, and would cause school boards really greater difficulty than if they held their meetings in the evening to enable parents to be present.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 11, to leave out the words "or some person on his behalf."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid the object of the words proposed to be omitted was simply to avoid cases of unnecessary hardship—cases, for instance, where a labourer might have to forego half or even a whole day's wages in order to attend, when, as a matter of fact, some other person well qualified to do so could make the necessary explanation, which in many cases would be found satisfactory, to the school board. But it would be still entirely within the discretion of the board in any particular case to say that they were not satisfied with the second-hand information and to require the parent to appear personally on another occasion, or, in default, to have an attendance order pronounced against him. He hoped this explanation would be satisfactory to his noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to reduce the limit of age at which attendance at a school or continuation class may be required from sixteen to fifteen. This was, he said, the first of two classes of cases to which he adverted on Second Reading. The clause extended the age from fourteen to sixteen up to which pupils excused compulsory attendance could be obliged to continue attending evening classes. The present law was that at the age of twelve, after a certain standard had been passed, a school board might excuse attendance and impose attendance at an evening class for such period as might be still to run until the child arrived at the age of fourteen. He thought that entirely reasonable, because if the education was not kept up in some way or another the knowledge learned would not be assimilated but often lost. He thought that a limit of fifteen was as great a burden as should be imposed, having regard to the fact that it was presupposed that the child specially provided for was much cleverer than the average. It was only a child of good natural abilities and regular attendance at school who could pass the test necessary to get the exemption at twelve, and therefore it seemed to him that to put a compulsory burden upon such a child to continue up to the age of sixteen was excessive.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 4, to leave out the word 'sixteen' and to insert the word 'fifteen."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid that at present it was not within the power of school boards to require attendance at a continuation class beyond the age of fourteen, and one of the results of this was that most boards were very unwilling to grant exemptions at all, partly because they would lose grants thereby and partly because there was a strong feeling that the part time attendance for two winters which might be imposed was quite insufficient to make up for the loss to the child's education incurred through the interruption in its regular attendance at school. The object of the present clause was, really, to offer an
420
inducement to school boards to grant exemption more readily in suitable cases, and it had been introduced very largely at the instance of bodies such as the chamber of agriculture and farmers associations, who had represented that there were many well grown and vigorous lads who might be allowed full exemption in order that they might acquire a taste for rural pursuits at a sufficiently early age. They had also expressed the view that if this exemption were granted they would see no objection to requiring part time attendance at school beyond fourteen for such time as might be thought necessary. The power of exemption rested with the school boards on the consideration of individual cases. Experience had shown that the boards were unwilling to grant exemptions freely if they had no power to secure attendance after fourteen, and it was doubtful whether an extension of the power to fifteen would effect any substantial change in their attitude. The original proposal of the Government was to extend the age to seventeen, and they somewhat reluctantly consented to sixteen as a compromise. They were not prepared to make any further concession in the matter, mainly for the reason that to do so would render the main object of the clause to a very great extent abortive. The age specified was, after all, the maximum age within which the board could prescribe conditions, and there was nothing to prevent a board accepting a lower age in any particular case. He regretted the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to leave out subsection (3). The subjection ran—
"(3) It shall be lawful for a school board from time to time to make, vary, and revoke byelaws for requiring the attendance at continuation classes until such age not exceeding seventeen years, as may be specified in the byelaws, of young persons above the age of fourteen years within their district who are not otherwise receiving a suitable education, or are not specially exempted by the school board from the operation of the byelaws; and that at such times and for such periods as may in such byelaws be specified. Such byelaws

421
may also require all persons within the district having in regular employment any young person to whom such byelaws apply to notify the same to the board at times specified in the byelaws with particulars as to the hours during which the young person is employed by them: Provided that no young person shall be required to attend a continuation class held beyond two miles measured along the nearest road from the residence of such young person."
He believed that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill stated, on the Second Reading, that this provision came from Germany. He thought it worthy of Prince Bismarck in his very best days. His object in moving the omission of the subsection was to call attention to the very great advance which was being made therein in the direction of compulsion. In the event of a school board making a byelaw to compel young persons up to the age of seventeen years to attend continuation classes, it would be likely to lead to an extensive migration from the district. Those who wished to have this education were provided for under subsection (1), but this subsection empowered school boards to make byelaws requiring the compulsory attendance of young persons above the age of fourteen at continuation classes until they reached an age not exceeding seventeen years. He did not know whether he would persevere in his Amendment, because he was generally favourable to the Bill and did not wish to destroy any of its valuable provisions; but, at the same time, he thought it worth while to call attention to the character of this subsection.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, lines 7 to 22, to leave out subsection (3)."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD HERSCHELLhoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. The real answer to the points raised was that, although power was given to a school board to make these compulsory regulations, it was obvious that such a power would in no possible instance be exercised by a school board unless it had a very strong measure of public support behind it. There was also no doubt as to the great advantages which might be obtained from this. In the first place, it would only enable education authorities to do generally, where they had the support of public opinion, what many large employers
422
of labour in the country, including several of the railway companies, had been doing for their apprentices. The principal advantages of the system were, in the first place, that it was a certain guarantee that the sums spent upon the earlier education of the children should not be thrown away by cessation of instruction: secondly, it ensured a certain continuation of discipline: and, thirdly,—and perhaps this was the most important point in view of the decay of the apprenticeship system—it enabled systematic instruction relative to particular trades to be provided for young persons between 14 and 17, which would, to some extent, at all events, mitigate the result of the breakdown of the apprenticeship system, and counteract the tendency on the part of youths to enter employment which, though for the moment sufficiently remunerative to attract them, did not lead to any permanent employment in later years. In view of all these considerations, he hoped the noble Earl would see his way not to press the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he had called attention to this subsection on the Second Reading, and had intended putting down the Amendment which the noble Earl had on the Paper. What he then said was publicly reported, and he had received appeals from friends, who were certainly authorities in the education world, not to press the Amendment. But let them look at what it was they were asked to do. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had made the best case he could. He had said the compulsory power would not be enforced until public opinion in the district wanted it, There were 972 school boards in Scotland. Was it really reasonable that Parliament should give to every one of those authorities the right to make a byelaw of this kind? And would it really result in any practical effect? Could they keep a lad of seventeen at school against his will? He believed they would do the greatest harm to the voluntary continuation schools if they drove into them a great number of reluctant lads and young women. At present it was not very easy to keep order in these institutions even when people attended voluntarily, but if people were driven in who did not desire to attend them matters would be reduced

423
to positive chaos. He did not think it was of much moment whether they deleted this subsection or not, because his belief was that it would never be put in force. Therefore, if the noble Earl went to a division he would be bound to vote with him, because it was really legislating far in advance of any public opinion which might exist in the country at the present time.
LORD REAYhoped his noble friend would not press the Amendment. He considered, with many others, that this was one of the most valuable provisions of the Bill He thought the way in which it would be carried out would be that in urban districts there would be some agreement between educational authorities and employers of labour to put the subsection into practice, and in the rural districts, of course, it would be necessary to have the support of the farmers. Furthermore, these continuation classes would be gradually developed. He did not think that there was any risk that this compulsion would suddenly be sprung upon the population of Scotland in all the school board districts, and for the simple reason that at this moment there was a very limited supply of teachers duly qualified to give this instruction in the continuation classes. Therefore, the noble Lord might feel assured that this subsection would come into gradual operation. As an ideal, he thought it of the utmost importance that the subsection should be retained in the Bill, because sooner or later the general necessity of these continuation classes would be recognised throughout Scotland.
LORD AVEBURYjoined in the appeal to Lord Camperdown not to press the Amendment. The period from the age of 14 to 17 was a very critical one in the history of young people, and anything which would encourage their attendance at continuation schools was of the greatest importance. He agreed with Lord Reay that the provision was not likely to be put into operation on a very large scale at once, but he believed it would eventually tend materially to improve the educational system of the country.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNintimated that he would not press the
424
Amendment. His real object in moving it was to call the attention of their Lordships to this subsection as an illustration of the doctrine of what was known as germs. This Bill provided that young men or young women might be required, under certain circumstances, to attend continuation classes up to the age of 17. The next Bill would require that they should attend them up to the age of 17 under any circumstances. And so they would go on. He would not, however, press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
LORD HERSCHELLexplained that the drafting Amendments standing in his name were designed to avoid the use of the word "national," which appeared to have no precedent in Acts of Parliament in this connection, and was certainly of a somewhat vague and indeterminate character. The object could be equally well attained by simply enacting that the expenditure in question, whatever it was, would have to be approved by the Department and embodied in Minutes to be laid before Parliament. The real sanction for expenditure would be the approval of Parliament in each particular case. It would not rest on the interpretation by the Department of the word "national."
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
LORD HERSCHELL LORD HERSCHELL moved the insertion of a proviso which he explained was designed to prevent an abuse that might be possible under the clause as it now stood. Hitherto some of the more enterprising school boards had provided, at considerable cost, secondary education which was available to, and made use of by, people in neighbouring parishes. These parishes, however, contributed nothing to the support of these schools, and, as this was felt to be an obvious

425
injustice, the Amendment had been introduced to enable such boards to recover the cost of the education of such extraneous children from the education fund of the district.
Amendment moved—
"In page 16, line 2, after the word 'rate, to insert the words 'Provided that in the case of pupils residing temporarily within the said school board district for the purposes of their education, no payment shall be made under this subsection from the district education fund of any district other than that of which the school board district forms a part, except in respect of pupils receiving aid under or in conformity with the general scheme of bursaries for the district in which their parents or guardians are ordinarily resident to be framed as hereinafter provided.'"—(Lord Herschell.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought the Amendment was a very just one and a great improvement on the Bill. The word "temporarily" occurred in the Amendment and the word "ordinarily" in the clause. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider before the next stage whether those two words were necessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL LORD HERSCHELL moved the addition of a new proviso, the object of which was, he said, to make the basis of payment under subsection (4) (a)—that was to say, in the case of endowed schools—correspond mutatis mutandis to what it was under subsection (1), in the case of schools under the board.
Amendment moved—
"In page 16, line 41, after the word 'reasonable,' to insert the words 'and provided also that in lieu of the deduction of income from all sources other than from school rate therein referred to there shall be deducted all income from grants made by the Department and from fees.'"—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
LORD HERSCHELLexplained that the Amendment standing in his name to this clause was necessary inasmuch as it was almost impossible, however careful a committee might be in fixing its scale of
426
charges, to avoid incurring a deficit occasionally. There must, therefore, be some fund from which the deficit could be met. It was sufficiently clear, however, from the wording of the provision, that the intention was that such deficit should be accidental and occasional only. The Department must be satisfied that this was so before sanctioning the payment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 20, line 1, after the word 'defray,' to insert the words 'as nearly as may be,' and in line 2, after the word 'for,' to insert the words 'provided that a deficit occurring in any year, notwithstanding such adjustment may, with the approval of the Department, be paid out of the district education fund or funds.'"—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved an Amendment, in subsection (1), to give power to unite a district "or part of a district." He thought it might occasionally happen that a portion of a district could be advantageously joined to an adjacent district.
Amendment moved—
"In page 21, line 28, after the word 'district,' to insert the words 'or part of a district.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD HERSCHELLaccepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment designed to give more efficient control over the accounts of school boards. He said the clause as it stood gave no really efficient control, in spite of the large amount of money from Imperial funds disbursed by school boards. The accountant of the Scottish Education Department went through the accounts of school boards, and called attention, where necessary, to what he

427
regarded as illegal payments, but there was no power whatever of enforcing his opinion, however gross the malversation might have been; and during the time he (Lord Balfour) was in office, cases arose where surcharges ought to have been made. As the Bill was first introduced, the Government proposed to apply to school board accounts the same form of audit as was now applied to parish council accounts; in other words, a professional accountant would go through the accounts, any ratepayer might inspect them and lodge any objections he might have with the auditor, the auditor made a proper report to the Scottish Education Department, and the Department then had discretion whether to surcharge or not. A good deal of objection was taken to that procedure, and many people urged that there should be an appeal to a Court of law for the purpose of deciding whether the payment was legal or illegal. To that he, personally, would have no objection; and in the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, there was a power of appeal allowed on the question whether the item in the accounts proposed to be surcharged was or was not illegal. But the Government, either on their own Motion, or as the result of pressure, had now inserted one of the most absurd clauses he had ever seen in a Bill. It was to this effect, that in the event of an illegal expenditure being made for the first time, the Department should draw the attention of the officer or person making the expenditure to the illegality, but should take no further steps. What would the officer or person making the payment care? The payment would have been made, and no power would exist of getting back the money, no matter how illegal the payment. The clause went on to say that if the school board did it again then the Department or the ratepayer might go to the Court of Session to have the payment declared illegal. But the payment would have already been declared illegal although there was no power to go further. Surely the proper course was to have objection taken to the payment in accordance with the practice in connection with parish council accounts. If the school board whose accounts were called in question thought the payment legal and that they had a case, they should be the persons to appeal to the Court. It was ludicrous to suppose that the procedure
428
now in the clause would ever be put efficiently in force. Supposing a school board in the last year of office made an illegal payment. Nothing could be done. A completely new set of persons then came into office. Three years, it might be, afterwards, that board would be prejudiced by the fact that their predecessors had made an illegal payment. At least, that was how he read the clause. But if it meant that the illegality might again take place, then the clause was rendered even more ridiculous. All his Amendment provided was that, if a ratepayer took exception to the accounts, the auditor should report, and the Scottish Education Department should have discretion to surcharge or not, and if they did surcharge an appeal was given to the aggrieved party. That would give a reasonable safeguard for the proper disbursement of public money.
Amendment moved—
"In page 24, line 2, after the word 'the' to insert the words 'accountant of the'; in line 4, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'surcharge the same on the person or persons making or authorising them and'; in page 24, line 6, to leave out from the word 'and' to the end of the subsection, and after the word 'account' to insert the following new paragraphs: Provided that any person I aggrieved by such disallowance and surcharge I may, within the time and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by Act of Sederunt, appeal against the same to either division of the Court of Session, who shall hear and determine such appeal, or in lieu thereof any person so aggrieved may, within fourteen days of receipt of notice of such disallowance and surcharge, appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, who shall have power, after considering the whole matter, to sustain or reject the said appeal; (f) if the Secretary for Scotland shall be of opinion that, although a disallowance or surcharge might be lawfully made, the subject-matter thereof was incurred under such circumstances as to make it fair and equitable that the disallowance or surcharge should not be made, he may on application authorise the accountant of the Department to abstain from making the same; (g) every sum determined by the accountant of the Department under this Act to be due from any person shall be paid by such person to the school board within fourteen days after such determination has been intimated to him, or, as the case may be, after the disposal of an appeal, and if such sum is not so paid it shall be the duty of the accountant of the Department to recover the same, and the school board shall reimburse him for his expenses, including a reasonable allowance for his time in so far as not recovered from the person surcharged.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid that, as far as he understood, the noble Lord agreed to the proposal of the Government up to a certain point—namely, to the point where the auditor discovered an expenditure which he considered to be illegal. The objections to the course which the noble Lord advocated were several. In the first place, it was very strongly contended by the representatives of school boards that a question of law ought not to be left to the decision of a single individual, who, however sound his judgment might be, would probably have had no legal training. Even though there was an appeal, it seemed hard that school boards, which had been proceeding in good faith and under the impression that they were incurring expenditure which was perfectly legal, should be put to the trouble and expense of an appeal at the discretion of a single individual. The clause as it stood was not open to this objection, for the decision as to whether or not the disallowance was to be made was not left to the auditor but to the Education Department, and even the Department could not proceed to make a surcharge without in the first place going to a Court of law and taking the opinion of the Court as to the legality or illegality of the expenditure incurred. The appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, when considered more fully, did not appear to be quite as strong an appeal as might at first sight be imagined. The accountant would be an officer in the Education Department, and the head of that Department was the Vice-President, who was responsible for the actions of those in his Department. They had, therefore, an appeal from the action of the accountant, for whom the Vice-President of the Department was responsible, to the Secretary for Scotland; but the Vice-President of the Department and the Secretary for Scotland were one and the same person. Therefore the appeal would not seem to rest on as strong grounds as might otherwise be the case. But, apart from this, the question of illegal expenditure was to a very large extent affected by experience obtained in the past of the number of cases in which it was likely to occur. He had received that morning an interesting communication from the chairman of the Edinburgh School Board, who wrote not only in that capacity, but also as chairman of the
430
conference of school boards, stating very strongly his view that the clause as it stood was preferable to the Amendment of the noble Lord. Among other statements, this gentleman said that out of an aggregate expenditure of £58,000,000 during the last twenty-five years, the total disallowed throughout the whole of Scotland was only £2,000. Another point worthy of consideration was that a great deal of this so-called illegal expenditure arose from the fact that in preceding Acts of Parliament no provision was made for amending the law so as to meet the requirements that might in subsequent years grow up. Subsection (7) of Clause 3 in the present Bill did provide that where future experience should show that Amendments were necessary, they could be made by Minutes of the Department, which, of course, would not come into force until they had lain for not less than one month upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. He did not think, therefore, that the number of cases of illegal expenditure would be very great. They should not assume that any of the Boards would willingly, on the strength of the provision in the clause under discussion, incur expenditure which they knew to be illegal. There was, however, a remedy. Any ratepayer in the district at present possessed the power, by refusing to pay his rates, to bring the action of his local authority under the review of a Court of law in order to challenge what he deemed to be illegal expenditure, and that even on the first occasion.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the noble Lord had given no reason for the Government's change of opinion. The Government clearly thought some alteration necessary, because they proposed a stringent audit in the Bill as introduced. Why had they changed their opinion? The noble Lord had quoted a letter from the chairman of the school board of Edinburgh. That board had an honourable record, and he was the last person to suggest that the school board of a great city like Edinburgh would ever commit an illegal act. But during his experience at the Scottish Education Department over and over again boards in different parts of the country were proved to have been guilty of illegal expenditure, but it was useless to disallow it because they could neither

431
get it back nor punish the offenders. He knew few ratepayers who would care to make themselves martyrs, and even if they did and their view was upheld there was no power to go further. He appealed to the Government to reconsider the absurdities and crudities of the clause as it stood.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHthought every precaution should be taken to ensure that the money of the ratepayer was properly expended, and that he was not compelled to pay something that was illegal.
LORD WELBYsaid that, in his opinion, Lord Balfour had gone very far in proving his case. He hoped, therefore, that unless the Government were prepared to reconsider the clause before the next stage of the Bill, his noble friend would press the Amendment.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid that, though the Government were unable to accept the Amendment, they would not put the House to the trouble of a division.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the Government had not challenged a division, but, at the same time, they had not accepted the Amendment. He hoped, if the Government could not accept his Amendment as it stood, they would make a real effort to devise a better clause than that at present in the Bill.
LORD HERSCHELLassured the noble Lord that the whole matter would be considered by the Government before the Report stage.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL LORD HERSCHELL moved the insertion of a new subsection, the object of which was, he explained, to postpone the application of the new regulations as to the audit of accounts to the next financial year beginning on 15th May, 1909.
Amendment moved—
"In page 25, line 41, after the word 'duties' to insert the following new subsection:—(5) Nothing in this section contained shall
432
affect the accounts of a school board or other managers for the year ending the fifteenth of May, in the year nineteen hundred and nine, or the audit of such accounts, and such accounts shall be kept, audited and otherwise dealt with as if this Act had not passed.'"—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27:
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved to leave out the first subsection setting forth that the "parish electors" should alone be eligible for the election of members of a school board. There were, he said, a large number of electors in the populous districts who had business premises not used as a dwelling house who had the right to vote. A change to the parish register would cause these electors to lose that right. If the franchise were changed, as proposed, it would eliminate one-third of the voters in Glasgow. He understood that there were 161,000 voters on the school board register, and only 106,000 on the parish register; therefore the change would deprive some 55,000 persons of their right to vote at the school board elections. He spoke on behalf of his co-religionists in Scotland, especially in Glasgow, where many Roman Catholics were already handicapped in education matters.
Amendment moved—
"In page 26, line 36, to page 27, line 4, to leave out subsection (1)."—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid it was perfectly true that in populous districts there was a discrepancy between the school board roll and the parish register, but the discrepancy was more apparent than real. On the roll were entered the names of the same persons very often three and four times, which accounted for a large portion of the discrepancy to which the noble Duke had referred. The school board roll was simply a copy of the valuation roll, leaving out properties under the value of £4 annually. That was the reason why the same names appeared frequently on the roll. There was another slight difference. It appeared to be a practice for the compilers

433
of the school board roll to enter automatically the names of joint owners and occupiers whenever the valuation of the combined holding amounted to more than £4 a head; but, in the case of the parish council register, joint owners and occupiers were not so entered. There was, in fact, very little real discrepancy.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLKasked whether it was not the fact that in the case of the parish register the name had to be on the register for a certain period before the person was entitled to vote.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHagreed that there was a certain measure of disfranchisement by the change in the Bill. The parish voters' roll was a residential roll, and the proprietor of a shop, for instance, in Glasgow who resided out of Glasgow, would not be able to vote at the election in Glasgow. Presumably the shopkeeper kept his children where he resided, and not at the shop. Therefore it was reasonable that he should have the education vote in the district where he resided. The Bill, however, carried out a great measure of enfranchisement in the country districts, especially in the Highlands and in the crofting districts. He knew of one case where the landlord, the factor, the clergymen of different denominations, and the schoolmaster himself were the only voters for the school board. It was clear that the great majority of the crofter population ought to have votes, and the subsection as it stood would be an enfranchising clause for the rural districts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the next Amendment standing in his name, raised one of the largest issues it was possible to imagine in a Bill of that kind. The cumulative vote, which was the present system, had by universal consent been largely discredited, and since the Second Reading of the Bill, he had received a considerable number of communications urging that that system should be got rid of. The Government had intended to abolish the cumulative vote, because in the Bill as introduced in the House of Commons, they proposed that the voting should be according to the system of each voter having one vote for as many vacancies as there were to be
434
filled. That system, however, might have resulted in the whole of the Board being of one colour. A considerable amount of dissatisfaction arose in consequence, and various suggestions were made. The system that he now recommended was put down, but unfortunately there was no time for its discussion in the other House. He believed the system he was recommending to the House would give minorities not merely as good, but a better chance of being represented, than the cumulative vote. This system—it had been so fully explained, and was so well-known to their Lordships, that he would not go into it at length—had been tried over and over again, and their Lordships had seen a good illustration of how it was worked in the newspapers of Monday last. Under it, elected bodies would be more or less an exact reflex of the opinion of the constituencies, and it was bound to make its way in the future by its own merits. He was so anxious that it should be tried that he was willing that the school boards of Scotland should be the corpus vile for the experiment. Even at this late period of the Session he hoped that an opportunity would be given for a free, frank, and unprejudiced discussion of the subject in another place.
Amendment moved—
"In page 27, line 8, after the word 'therein, to insert the following new subsection: (3) At every election for a school board, every voter may give his vote for one candidate only, but he may also indicate by the figures two, three, and so on, his second and further preferences among the candidates. If without taking account of the second or other preference the number of votes given to any candidate amounts to or exceeds a number (hereinafter called "the quota") ascertained by dividing the total number of votes given to all the candidates by a number one more than the number of seats to be filled, that candidate shall be declared elected. If he has more than the quota, a number of votes equal to his surplus shall be distributed among the other candidates not already elected in proportion to the next preferences indicated by the voters who voted for him, and any candidate obtaining the quota or more by adding to his original votes the votes obtained by him on such distribution shall be declared elected. When, in this way, no candidate has any surplus, the candidate having fewest votes shall be struck out, and the votes cast for him shall be distributed in the same way, and so on until all the candidates in excess of the number of seats to be filled shall have been struck out. The remaining candidates shall then be declared elected. The foregoing provisions shall be carried into effect by returning officers in such manner and under

435
such regulations as to recounting votes and otherwise as may be prescribed by the Scottish Education Department.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY had no doubt that the scheme would be more effective than the cumulative vote, and asked that the experiment might be tried. He reminded the House that their Lordships had sent down to the House of Commons last year a Bill providing that municipalities, where they were desirous of doing so, should be empowered to adopt the single transferable voting system, and that the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Cross in 1886–7, while not agreed upon the policy whether there should be a scheme for special representation of minorities, resolved that, if such a scheme were to be approved, the best way of achieving this was by the single transferable vote. No doubt the cumulative vote had worked better in Scotland than in England; but in England it had proved, perhaps, the most clumsy way of securing the representation of the minority. It was wasteful of votes for the majority, it embarrassed people as to how many candidates to run, and it led to the most elaborate wirepulling. He was quite sure that it would be a good thing to take this opportunity of trying the experiment of the system of proportional representation.
LORD AVEBURY, in supporting the Amendment, took exception to Lord Stanley's describing the system proposed as an experiment. He thought it, had passed far beyond the stage in which it could fairly be called an experiment. It had been adopted by the Northumberland miners in all their trade union elections for a number of years, and had worked well. The system proposed in the Amendment was working with success in Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, and various other countries, and he had not the slightest doubt that it would work equally well in this country.
LORD HERSCHELL, while admitting that on the merits of the Amendment there was a great deal to be said, pointed out that the matter had not been thrashed out, and the adoption of the method in this Bill might prejudice the inquiry
436
which the Prime Minister had promised into the whole question. Moreover, there had been no conclusive experiments which demonstrated the superiority of the system of proportional representation as compared with the cumulative vote. In a word, the position of the Government was this, that while, the cumulative vote had been shown to have many weaknesses in working, and while they would be very willing to discard it in favour of a more equitable system if it were shown, after careful and impartial examination, that a more equitable system was available, they had come to the conclusion that until that could be shown they would not be justified in discarding that protection for minorities which the cumulative vote, with all its faults, did secure.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHsaid the noble Lord who had spoken on behalf of the Government had pleaded in extenuation of his not accepting the Amendment two things—first, that this I question had not been sufficiently considered, and, secondly, that the Prime Minister had promised an inquiry which might be prejudiced by the adoption of the Amendment. As to the first point, by adopting the Amendment their Lordships would give the other House an opportunity of considering the subject. The original proposal of the Government had been rejected in Standing Committee in the other House; but, owing to lack of time, the substitution of the single transferable vote could not be considered, and the Secretary for Scotland had no alternative but to leave the cumulative vote as it stood. The question was ripe for consideration on the part of the other House, and there was no risk of the Bill being imperilled if the Government maintained an open mind on the subject and allowed it to be considered. He was convinced that if they did, the system proposed in Lord Balfour's Amendment would be adopted. As to the other reason for not accepting the Amendment, no one felt more grateful to the Prime Minister than he did for consenting to institute an inquiry into the matter; but there was this distinction between that inquiry and the present proposal—the inquiry would have reference to the representation of the people in Parliament and the manner in which Members of the House of Commons should be elected, whereas the

437
elections dealt with in the Bill were of an entirely different character. If it were a question of the election of a confederation of school boards in Scotland it might be pleaded that the inquiry was on all fours with the present proposal. The system of the cumulative vote had been discredited throughout Scotland, whilst that of proportional representation would secure, with greater certainty and more precision, the benefits indirectly secured by the cumulative vote. All he asked was that the other House should be given an opportunity of considering the subject.
LORD REAYurged that the Amendment should be withdrawn. He admitted that the arguments in favour of it were weighty, but questioned whether the present was an opportune time for the introduction of a new system of voting and of this particular method of giving effect to it. In the Report just issued dealing with the constitution of their Lordships' House, proportional representation was not proposed by the very influential Committee which submitted that Report; after careful inquiry, the Committee adopted the cumulative vote. That seemed to him a very strong argument for not interfering at present with the existing state of things in Scotland.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, my noble friend behind me put his case, as he always does, very clearly and fairly, and I think it is important to remind the House that the question under discussion is not the merits of the single transferable vote, but whether that particular method of voting should be applied in this particular Bill. That is really the only question we have to discuss. We are all, I think, interested in the manner in which my noble friend's supporters have increased within the last few years. There was a time when proportional representation was not regarded with very great general sympathy, but of late the question has become much more before the public, and I think the point of view of my noble friend has been adopted by many more people than held it formerly. We were all of us interested in the account of the election which took place the other day. I had the pleasure myself of voting for various gentlemen, including the Prime Minister and a
438
distinguished brother of the noble Marquess opposite, and I distributed a large number of papers in my own department. But, as regards the inclusion of the plan in this particular Bill, my noble friend has pointed out very fairly that a serious question arises with regard to the inquiry of which the Prime Minister gave notice in reply to a deputation. That inquiry, I have every reason to believe, will be a very thorough one, carried on by people of general eminence and in some cases of particular experience in the matter. It is impossible to say what conclusion they will reach, and it does seem to me that it would be curious and anomalous for the Government, while this matter is under consideration, to adopt in a Bill of their own one particular method put forward. I think my noble friend has put it somewhat high. Objections have boon taken even to the single transferable vote and to the method of its working in other parts of the world. Therefore it would be premature to say that that plan, in the form in which he proposes it, is the one which is certain to be recommended. It seems to me it would be difficult for us to insert it in this Bill without appearing to recommend it beforehand. My noble friend drew an extremely ingenious distinction between the election of a school board and a Parliamentary election. Is there anything very real in that distinction? The school board is as much a body of persons brought together to carry out a particular object as Parliament is itself. The difference is merely one of scale, and I confess I was not impressed by my noble friend's argument that if it was a question of what all the school boards in Scotland were to do when massed together the case would be different. It does seem to mo that a school board is an assembly, although a very small one, in the same sense that Parliament is an assembly. I can quite understand my noble friend desire to have a general discussion in another place on the single transferable vote. That, I think, is his object in desiring that this Amendment should be carried. Whether another place has at this moment, in the present state of public business, the same desire, I confess I have some doubt; and, under these circumstances, I do not feel that, it would give the Bill a better chance of becoming law if it were sent down to another place

439
with this Amendment inserted. On that ground I would appeal to my noble friend opposite not to press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think it must be satisfactory to my noble friend to find that the objection to his proposal is based almost entirely, not upon its merits, but upon its opportuneness at the present moment. So far as the question of merit goes, very little has been said to impugn it. The noble Lord who has charge of the Bill, and who has handled it with great dexterity, admitted frankly that the cumulative vote did not work satisfactorily in Scotland, and that there was a good deal to be said for the alternative procedure advocated by my noble friend. The only solid objection to his proposal is that the Prime Minister has undertaken that there shall be an investigation into the whole of this question, and that the adoption of this plan of proportional voting in the Bill now before us might embarrass the Prime Minister in reference to that investigation. I confess I am not quite able to see why that should be the case. My noble friend, who speaks with great authority on all Scottish questions, was ready to hand over his country—it was his expression and not mine—as the corpus vile upon which this experiment might be tired, and I should have thought the experiment would have been an extremely instructive and useful one. I think my noble friend will have to consider whether, after what has been said on behalf of His Majesty's Government, it is worth his while to press the Amendment to a division. The Amendment no doubt brings with it a very serious innovation, and I think it is doubtful, whether in a not very well filled House, in the teeth of strong opposition from His Majesty's Government, and at a period of the session when it is surely not very desirable that new points of controversy should be raised, he would do well to insist upon adding to this Bill the clause standing in his name. For this reason I would respectfully suggest to him that it might be better to defer to the strong pressure which has been put upon him by noble Lords opposite, and not ask the House to divide.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHconfessed to feeling himself in a difficult position. If this question was ever to be advanced it would have to be by practical experiment. It was all very well to praise the system in theory, but if never seriously put into operation it would never be advanced in public favour. The appeals made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition were appeals which had great force. Personally, he would be inclined to ask permission of the House to withdraw the Amendment, but, if other noble Lords insisted on dividing, he would, of course, feel bound to vote with them. Would it not be possible for the Government, at a subsequent stage of the Bill, to insert a provision empowering parishes to petition the Scottish Education Department to be allowed to vote in this particular way? The objection to the cumulative vote was stronger in some parishes than in others, aud it might not be uninteresting if in individual cases this particular form of election could be tried.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid the appeal which the noble Lord had made should receive the attention of His Majesty's Government. But bearing in mind the stage of the session at which they had arrived, he could not hold out any great hope that it would be possible for the Government to meet the noble Lord on this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to amend subsection (3) of Clause 27, by inserting the words "or on the petition of not less than ten ratepayers." The subsection would then read—
"On the application of a school board, or on the petition of not less than ten ratepayers, the Department may, for the purposes of the school board election, if they think fit, divide the school board district into two or more electoral divisions, may define the boundaries of such divisions, and may fix the number of members of the school board to be elected within each division."
Amendment moved—
"In page 27, line 9, after the word 'board' to insert the words' or on the petition of not less than ten ratepayers.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD HERSCHELLaccepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved the deletion of subsection (3) which the Committee had just amended. If the school board districts were broken up into small electoral divisions the advantages given to minorities by the cumulative vote completely vanished. He therefore hoped the Government would be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 27, lines 9 to 14, to leave out subsection (3)."—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid the subsection was inserted in the earlier draft of the Bill when it was proposed to abolish the cumulative vote. There was not quite the same necessity for it now; but, even with the cumulative vote, occasion might arise when it would be found convenient to subdivide some unwieldy constituency. The power which the subsection gave to the Department would certainly not be exercised unless there was general agreement in the locality as to its desirability.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, in withdrawing, owing to the lateness of the hour and the sparse attendance, an Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, expressed the hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House would turn his attention to this clause, with a view of seeing the really drastic changes it proposed in regard to trusts. The trusts dealt with under the clause were examined into twenty-five years ago by a Commission of which he was Chairman. They were then largely reformed, the governing bodies in every case liberalised, and representatives of public authorities placed upon them. It was now proposed to give a chance majority on any governing body the right to hand over the endowment to the district committee.
442
He did not think it would injure the Bill as a whole if the clause were omitted altogether. It would, however, to a certain extent avoid symmetry of administration, and he had therefore hesitated to go so far as to move its omission. But unless something were done to remove its drastic nature, he would be strongly tempted to move the deletion of the clause at the next stage
Clause 30 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived; Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 242.)

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDINBURGH AND LEITH CORPORATIONS GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas—Was presented by the Lord Herschell (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, sections 8 and 9); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 243.)
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Three o'clock.