Sitting of 14 December 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN ELECTORS).
  Return [presented 11th December] to be printed. [No. 364.]
Copy presented, of Further Regulations for the Army Reserve [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
Copy presented, of Further Regulations for the Territorial Force [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
Copy presented, of Rules made by the Board of Trade under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 33, 1908).
Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and France respecting the exchange of Post Office Money Orders between France and the Transvaal. Signed at London, 25th January 1908. Ratifications exchanged at London, 30th November, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 589 (British Guiana, Report for 1907–8) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
Return ordered, "showing the number of appeals under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts to the County Courts since the 1st day of November, 1906 and setting forth the same in respect to each rural district affected, the number of cottages and plots being the subject matter of such appeals, how many were approved and how many disallowed on appeal."—(Mr. Kendal O'Brien.)
Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Cost of Living at Bangor, County Down.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the cost of living has yet been obtained at Bangor, County Down, Ireland; and, if so, can he state what is the final classification of the indoor and outdoor staff, respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Board of Trade has not been asked to conduct a special inquiry into the cost of living at Bangor, County Down. The final classification of Bangor has not yet been decided.

  Pay of Casual Labour in the Post Office at Christmas.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why the casual men taken on for Christmas work in the letter department in London start at 24s. per week while in the parcels department they commence at only 20s. per week; and what is the test that the latter men have to pass before their wages are increased to 24s. per week.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Button.) All casual men engaged during the Christmas season to assist with sorting work, whether for letter or for parcel work, have to acquire some knowledge of sorting before any practical use can be made of their services, and during the period of tuition they are paid at the rate of 20s. a week. When they are able to pass an easy test, which is, as a rule, in a few days, they are paid at the rate of 24s. a week. The casual force engaged to assist as postmen and porters do not need training, and they are paid at the rate of 24s. a week from the commencement of their employment, which is, as a rule, of shorter duration than that of the sorting force.

  Expenditure on Licensing Public Vehicles.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a sum of £41,658 11s. (according to the Metropolitan Police Accounts for 1907–8) was the annual expenditure in the licensing of public vehicles and drivers and conductors in the Metropolitan area; and whether he will furnish a statement showing fully how this total is made up, what sum it amounts to per vehicle and per man licensed, and also what is the cost of this work for each of the last ten years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The sum mentioned represents the expense of carrying out the provisions of the Public Carriage Act, 1869, and the London Cab Act, 1907, within the Metropolitan Police district during the year, 1907–8. Full details of the expenditure will be found on page 9 of the Accounts for that year. The number of vehicles
  1212
  licensed in 1907–8 was 16,132, and the number of men was 31,162. The pay and expenses of clerks and inspectors, and other items of expenditure, cannot be apportioned as between vehicles and drivers and conductors, and it is therefore impossible to state the average expenditure per vehicle and per man licensed. The expenditure for the past ten years has been as follows—

  Year to 31st March.

  —

  £

  s.

  d.

  1899

  35,533

  2

  9

  1900

  35,135

  10

  0

  1901

  37,224

  11

  0

  1902

  39,669

  15

  1

  1903

  38,558

  7

  1

  1904

  38,536

  0

  1

  1905

  38,515

  13

  5

  1906

  39,155

  7

  9

  1907

  40,398

  9

  10

  1908

  41,658

  11

  5

  Public Vehicles and Traffic Regulations.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under the regulations sanctioned by his Department, the exhibition of small printed notices in Metropolitan stage carriages of important matters affecting the public in relation to traffic working is prohibited; and, if so, whether an amendment of the regulations in this direction will be introduced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The exhibition of these notices is not prohibited, but requires the Commissioners' approval. Any reasonable request is never refused.

  Drivers' and Conductors' Licences.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the holder of a driver's licence is unable to act as the conductor of a Metropolitan stage carriage unless he is also the holder of a conductor's licence, and vice versa; whether each of such licences cost 5s. per annum and are renewable yearly; whether any other licensing authority makes so high a charge; whether, even in paying for both licences, a conductor has to deposit his driver's licence with the police, and similarly with a driver; whether considerable inconvenience is thus caused

  1213
  to the licence-holder in changing from driver to conductor, or vice versa, especially when a man's duty is required to be altered at short notice in order that his employers may be able to fulfil their obligations to meet the public convenience; whether, when the holder of one licence applies for another licence to enable him to act in either capacity, even when he may have acted in a licensed capacity, without change of employer, for twenty years, a delay of two or three weeks not infrequently occurs whilst the inquiries applicable to an entirely new application are prosecuted; and whether he will arrange for a composite licence, at one annual charge, to cover driver and conductor,
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The question of composite licences presents considerable difficulties, and is being carefully considered by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police at the present time.

  Distress Committee for Grays Thurrock.
  MR. WARDLE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now say if his Board is prepared to grant the application of the Grays Thurrock Urban District Council for sanction to create a distress committee.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am in communication with the district council on this subject, and am not at present in a position to arrive at a decision with regard to it.

  The Salvation Army and the Truck Act.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the most part of the men employed by the Salvation Army at the Hanbury Street joinery works only receive in cash from 6d. to 3s. per week, the rest of their wages being paid in kind, i.e., food and lodgings; and whether, seeing that this is contrary to the provisions of the Truck Act, he will institute proceedings against the responsible manager.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) As I have stated in answer to previous
  1214
  Questions on this subject, it is not at all clear that the Truck Acts apply to the case of persons seeking aid from charitable institutions; and the extension of the Act to cover such cases would involve considerable difficulties. I understand that the matter has been considered by the Committee on the Truck Acts, whose Report is expected shortly.

  Dirty Carriages on the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the public complaints of the unclean condition of many of the third-class carriages on the suburban lines of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway; whether any public authority is charged with the duty of inspecting the condition of railway carriages and prohibiting unclean carriages being used; and, if not, whether his Department has any power in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I have recently received a complaint in this matter which I have forwarded to the railway company. I now propose to invite the company's observations upon my hon. friend's Question, and will communicate with him in due course.

  Excess Postage on Letters from Abroad.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the hardship inflicted on innocent people of imposing a fine amounting to double the deficiency on letters from abroad; whether he is aware that a gentleman in this country complained recently that he sent a letter to Papua, New Guinea, for 4d., that his correspondent there sent a reply in a letter of less weight and prepaid 4d. for postage, and that the recipient in this country was charged 3s. 8d. for deficient postage on this letter, the whole of which sum was appropriated by the British Post master-General and went into the British Treasury; and will he say whether the rate of postage from England to Papua, British New Guinea, is 1d. per ounce, while the rate of postage from Papua to England is 4d. per ounce.

  1215
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is in accordance with the provisions of the International Postal Union Convention that the surcharge on insufficiently prepaid letters is double the deficiency and is collected from the addressee. The Postal Union has declined to alter the practice, though, at the last Conference, the British delegates pressed for a reduction. I am not aware of the facts in the case referred to by my hon. friend; but if he will furnish full particulars I will make further inquiry. If, as seems to be suggested, the letter weighed less than four ounces, and was prepaid 4d., the surcharge should, it would appear, have been less than 3s. 8d. The rate of postage from England to Papua, British New Guinea, is 1d. per ounce, and in the reverse direction is the Australian rate of 2d. per half ounce.

  Postage on Foreign Letters.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, at the Postal Union Conference held in Rome in 1886, it was agreed that the weight of a letter at the minimum rate of postage to and from foreign countries be one ounce or the equivalent of an ounce; whether he will state what countries have carried into effect this reform, what is the present rate of postage and weight allowed for each letter from the following countries to Great Britain and Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey, Greece, Roumania, Russia, and United States; and whether he has any objection to publish the above information in the next issue of the British "Postal Guide."
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The international unit of weight for a letter was not fixed at one ounce or the equivalent of one ounce. The unit decided on was 20 grammes, less than three-fourths of an ounce. But on the motion of the British delegates, permission was given to certain States, of which Great Britain was one, to adopt one ounce as the unit weight. At the same time other States were permitted to retain the former unit of
  1216
  15 grammes. In the result, some States of the Union have fixed the unit weight for letters in the International service at 15 grammes, some at 20 grammes, and some at one ounce. I will send the hon. Member the detailed information he asks for. I could not undertake to publish it in the "Post Office Guide."

  Licensing Charges for Stage Carriages in London.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that while in the larger provincial cities the average annual charge for a stage carriage police licence is under 5s., this charge in London is £2, in addition to the Inland Revenue licence of 15s.; and can he inform the House upon what principle this differentiation is made.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am aware that in some of the large provincial cities the annual charge for a public carriage licence does not exceed 5s., while in other large towns it is more; but the conditions of traffic in London are unlike those in any other city, and it is estimated that in the current financial year the cost of administering the Public Carriage Acts will involve a net charge of about £2,000 on the Metropolitan Police Fund, after allowing for the sums received for licences.

  Claiming of Lost Property from Scotland Yard.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in order to secure the return of property left in Metropolitan stage carriages, it is necessary for claimants inhabiting outlying parts of London to travel up to New Scotland Yard, at great inconvenience and expense, especially to persons of the poorer classes; and, if so, will he consider whether the regulations relating to lost property could not be amended so as to allow the local police to retain all such lost property for a few days thus enabling claimants to obtain it in their own districts, and to avoid the inconvenience and expense to which they are now put.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The hon. Member has not been correctly

  1217
  informed, since it is unnecessary for losers of property who are able to give satisfactory details by letter to attend at Scotland Yard, their property being sent to them by post when they so desire. Apart from other difficulties, the suggestion made in the Question is not practicable, because the property may be left in the stage carriage in an entirely different part of London from that in which the owner resides, and it would often be more convenient for the owner to go to the local police station than to New Scotland Yard. Moreover, the owner would often not know in what district he left his property or in what district it might be found, and would therefore have to pursue his inquiries from one police station to another along the whole route of the omnibus. Under the existing arrangement, everyone knows where to apply, and I am informed that no complaints have been received of any inconvenience.

  Pay of Extra Men at Sheffield Post Office.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the extra men now being engaged at the Sheffield General Post Office are being paid 5½d. per hour for a forty-five-hour week, instead of 25s. per week for the same number of hours; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As I have already stated in the House, the rates of pay for extra men varied according to the district. It seemed advisable, as far as possible, to place the rate of pay on a uniform basis, and to base them on the rates recommended by the Select Committee for auxiliary service. Besides the fixed rate, the men receive special pay for night work, for Christmas Day and Boxing Day, and get overtime pay where it has to be worked. The general net result of the alteration will be an increase in the total amount of pay. The payment of 5½d. per hour, which it is proposed to pay at Sheffield, is the auxiliary rate proper to that office. The reference to a forty-five-hour week is not understood, as probably all the casual force will be employed for at
  1218
  least forty-eight hours during the Christmas week.

  Old-Age Pensions—Army Pensioners Receiving Advances from Guardians.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is now able to give an answer to the question as to whether an Army or other pensioner who receives weekly advances from the guardians between his quarterly pension days, such advances being deducted from his pension, is eligible for an old-age pension.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am advised that such a person would not be eligible for an old-age pension.

  Claim of Mr. W. R. Morgan.
  MR. J. WILLIAMS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the correspondence that has passed between his Department and a person named W. R. Morgan, residing at a house named Westfa, Mumbles, who claims, without prejudice, the sum of £5 for damages caused by the flooding of his house on the night on the 25th ultimo, and his reply thereto, he will state the grounds upon which he repudiates responsibility in the matter; whether he has drawn the attention of the local authority to the same; and further, what steps, if any, have been taken to avoid a repetition of such an incident.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Mr. Morgan sent me a copy of some correspondence he had had with the Oyster-mouth District Council, from which it appeared that he had claimed compensation from them in consequence of his house having been flooded during a heavy storm on the night of 25th September last, owing, as he considered, to a certain drain course not having been kept clear. The district council repudiated liability, and thereupon Mr. Morgan wrote suggesting that he was entitled to make a claim for compensation against the Local Government Board. It is evident that the alleged failure of the district council to keep a drain course clear gave Mr. Morgan no right to claim compensation from the Local Government Board, and he has been informed

  1219
  that they could not accept any responsibility in the matter. It was needless for me to draw the attention of the district council to the subject, as they were already well aware of it.

  Housing and Town Planning Bill—Additional Duties on Local Authorities.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is in a position to state to the House the changes contemplated in the Local Government Board (Scotland) in order to carry out the added duties imposed upon that Board by the provisions of the Housing and Town Planning Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Leith Burghs on 6th November, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. friend.

  Alleged Threats, of Legal Proceedings on the Kenmare Estate.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that threats of legal proceedings have been made to the tenants on the Kenmare estate, County Kerry, who have expressed their willingness to purchase at the prices offered by the landlord; and if the Commissioners can take any steps to effect a settlement in such cases, having regard to the fact that the estate is now before them for sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge of the threats referred to. As regards the remainder of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question asked by him on the 7th instant.

  Irish Land Bill—Issue of Statistics.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will lay upon the Table, as a separate Command Paper, for the convenience of Members and for the purpose of facilitating consideration of the Land Bill, copies of the Tables Nos. 60 to 76, embodied in the General Report of the Census of
  1220
  Ireland for 1901, relating to agricultural land, tenement valuation, etc.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Tables referred to cover 189 pages of the General Report on the Census. I do not think that I should be justified in incurring the expense involved in reissuing these tables, which are easily accessible, as a separate Command Paper.

  Special Police Protection in Ireland.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of police employed in affording constant police protection to persons and property in Ireland on 30th November, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The number of police so employed on the date mentioned was 266.

  United Irish League Cases at Ballymote Petty Sessions.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the decision of a majority of the justices at Ballymote Petty Sessions, on 12th November, adjourning until February next, without hearing any evidence for the prosecution, summonses charging twenty-one members and officers of the United Irish League with intimidation designed to compel Protestant farmers in the Riverstown district to become members of the League, whether the Law Officers of the Crown have now concluded the consideration of the question of making application to the Kings' Bench Division of the High Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the justices to hear and determine these cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I have conferred with my colleague, the Solicitor-General, and with the counsel who appeared for me at the first hearing of the case, but I do not think it would be in the public interest that I should state the conclusion at which, in concurrence with them, I have arrived.

  Irish Agrarian and Non-Agrarian Outrages.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of agrarian outrages reported to the Inspector-General of Constabulary in the years 1906 and 1907, and in the period of eleven months ended 30th November, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The number of agrarian offences reported was: 234 in 1906; 372 in 1907; and 537 in the eleven months ended 30th November, 1908.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of crimes classified as agrarian and non-agrarian respectively, under each of the headings firing at the person and firing into dwellings, for the period of eleven months ended 30th November, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) During the eleven months ended 30th November last the number of crimes classified as agrarian and non-agrarian under each of the headings mentioned were as follows: Firing at the person, agrarian 14, non-agrarian, 26; firing into dwellings, agrarian 61, non-agrarian 20.

  Persons under Police Protection in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of persons receiving constant police protection and special protection by patrols throughout Ireland on 30th November, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The number of persons receiving constant police protection on 30th November last was seventy-nine, the number receiving special protection by patrols on the same date was 272.

  Cyclist Companies for Territorial Battalions.
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that a number of the best Volunteers have been lost to the Territorial Force
  1222
  owing to the abolition of the cyclist companies, and that it would be easier and more economical to re-establish these companies than to raise entire new cyclist battalions, and that the question of these and of the special service sections of Territorial units is still unsettled, he will give consideration to the question of raising complete special service cyclist companies for infantry units which could, if required, be brigaded for training or on mobilisation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The principle of having cyclist battalions in lieu of cyclist companies attached to infantry battalions was definitely adopted after very full consideration by the General Staff. This is a matter in which broad principles of organisation must necessarily override special interests. It is not proposed to reconsider the matter.

  Street Improvements at Kingston, Jamaica.
  MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a much-needed street improvement in Port Royal Street, Kingston, Jamaica, was being delayed or prevented owing to a controversy with the War Department as to encroachment; and, if so, whether he will give instructions that all reasonable facilities should be accorded to the town of Kingston in widening its streets after the earthquake.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This matter is one that incidentally involves researches into questions of title dating back to 1745. The War Department building only projects 7 feet 6 inches beyond the line laid down for buildings by the local authorities. It is hoped that the military requirements will permit of the buildings being set back to that line.

  Papuan Land Ordinance.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to Section 4 of Ordinance VII. of 1908, enacted by the administration of Papua, empowering boards locally appointed to decide in a summary manner

  1223
  all questions as to the ownership of lands in which a Papuan native is claimant, with an appeal to the central Court; whether he is aware that the Papuans are very attached to their land; that, owing to the system of fallows, it is difficult to discriminate between owned and ownerless lands; and that, owing to the extreme ignorance of legal procedure on the part of the Papuans, and to the central Court being situated in one corner of an immense tract of country, the boon of an appeal can be of no use to them; whether he will inquire from the Governor-General of the Australian Commonwealth his reasons for assenting to the Ordinance; and whether he will advise that the Ordinance be amended, with a view to special precautions being taken to safeguard native rights, such as the appointing as a member of every board constituted under the Ordinance a white man familiar with the current native language, who shall be charged to represent native interests and, when necessary, to conduct Papuan land appeals before the central Court, as well as requiring the evidence to be fully taken down in every case and the detailed reasons for every finding recorded.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The Secretary of State will ask the Governor-General for a report on the suggestions made by my hon. friend in regard to the recent Papuan Land Ordinance.

  Agricultural Returns—Irish Labourers' Wages.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he can state why the Returns relating to the wages paid to labourers throughout Ireland, and hitherto included in the annual Returns of agricultural statistics, have been excluded from the annual Returns for 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The statistics as to the wages paid to agricultural labourers throughout Ireland in 1907 were published this year in the Department's Report and Tables relating to Irish Agricultural Labourers 1907–8, as it was considered more useful that they should appear in this Report
  1224
  than, as heretofore, in the agricultural statistics Returns.

  Government Life Insurances—Recommendations of Departmental Committee.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to state when the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Government life insurances will be given effect to by the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Report of the Departmental Committee on the Post Office life insurance system is under consideration. I am not yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the Committee's recommendations.

  Drumkeerin Post Office, County Leitrim.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the accommodation of the Post Office in Drumkeerin, County Leitrim; whether he is aware that the public are compelled to remain in the open street in all sorts of weather awaiting replies to queries; and whether he will give instructions that the necessary accommodation should be provided in connection with this Post Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The accommodation provided at the Drumkeerin Post Office is considered to be sufficient for the requirements of the locality. A counter will, however, be provided by the sub-postmaster as soon as he can make the necessary arrangements.

  Deaths under Anæsthetics.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the following deaths under anæstheties: Kathleen Lee at Ryde, in the Isle of Wight, on 25th November; Robert Henry Harland, of Plough Court, E.C., on 25th November; and William List Smith at Southampton, on 3rd December; whether he has yet received the contemplated reply from the President of the General Medical Council to the communication addressed

  1225
  to him, and the nature of such reply; and whether, having regard to the number of deaths that are constantly occurring in all parts of the country of persons whilst under anæsthetics, he will consider the advisability of recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) My attention has not been called to the cases mentioned, except by my hon. friend's Question. I have now received, through the Lord President of the Council, a reply from the General Medical Council. The Council does not see its way to support legislation to make practical training in the use of anæsthetics a compulsory part of medical education, but it is communicating with the several licensing bodies as to how far they have given effect to the Council's recommendations on this subject.

  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries— Office Accommodation.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, having regard to the primary importance of agriculture and fishing to the economic condition and welfare of the nation, he can, without much further delay, secure that the business of the Department relating to these industries shall be transacted in more convenient and appropriate premises than those now allotted to it.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I am doing all I possibly can in this matter.

  Defective Water Supply at Stornoway Infectious Diseases Hospital.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that the supply of water for the Infectious Diseases Hospital at Stornoway has been defective for some time, will he state whether the local authority have yet secured a satisfactory supply; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that a proposal to extend the water supply of the burgh of Stornoway to this hospital has been under consideration,
  1226
  and negotiations between the hospital joint committee and the district committee with that end in view are still in progress.

  Trial of New Floating Dock at Trinidad.
  MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give instructions to His Majesty's cruisers when next they are in West Indian waters to make a trial docking in the new floating dock at Trinidad in order to satisfy the Admiralty of its utility for naval purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Rear-Admiral commanding the Fourth Cruiser Squadron has already been directed to report on the suitability of the new floating dock at Trinidad for naval purposes, and further steps will be considered on receipt of that Report.

  Women Clerks in the Board of Education.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether any, and, if any, how many, women first or second division clerks are employed in his Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Nineteen women clerks are employed under the Board of Education. They are not termed either first or second division clerks.

  Examinations for Second Division Clerkships.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners have under contemplation the introduction of any change in the syllabus of examination for clerkships in the Second Division of the Civil Service; if so, whether they are prepared to give intending candidates any intimation of what the contemplated change is likely to be, having regard to the fact that many candidates have been, and are now, preparing themselves in the syllabus in use up to the present time, and, if not prepared to give such intimation, when may an official announcement on the subject be expected; whether it is contemplated to make any change in

  1227
  the existing age limits of seventeen and twenty years for such examination; and whether, in the event of any such change being introduced in the limits of age, will boy clerks of approved service in His Majesty's Civil Service still remain entitled to the two years extension of age to which, under their conditions of service, they are at present entitled when competing for clerkships of the second division.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) No changes are contemplated in the list of

  —

  (a) Number of apprentices entered.

  (b) Average number of men employed.

  Percentage of (a) to (b).

  Portsmouth: 1906

  52

  8,597

  ·60

  1907

  56

  9,126

  ·61

  1908

  72

  9,854

  ·73

  Devonport: 1906

  41

  7,488

  ·55

  1907

  52

  7,888

  ·66

  1908

  63

  8,437

  ·75

  Chatham: 1906

  40

  6,703

  ·60

  1907

  50

  7,313

  ·68

  1908

  53

  8,089

  ·66

  Sheerness: 1906

  15

  1,718

  ·87

  1907

  18

  1,780

  1·01

  1908

  29

  1,954

  1·48

  Pembroke: 1906

  8

  1,998

  ·40

  1907

  11

  1,980

  ·56

  1908

  11

  2,005

  ·55

  Haulbowline: 1906

  16

  600

  2·67

  1907

  14

  635

  2·20

  1908

  11

  675

  1·63

  The numbers shown in the second column (b) represent the average of the whole of the employees at the several yards.

  subjects of examination or the limits of age for clerkships in the second division.

  Apprentices at Royal Dockyards.
  MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of apprentices entered during the years 1906, 1907, and 1908, in each of the royal dockyards, showing the percentage in each year to the average number of men employed in each dockyard.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.)—

  Civil Service Temporary Clerks—Deductions for Absence through Sickness.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in various Government Departments in the United Kingdom there are temporary, other than boy, clerks employed, the services of whom are as indispensable as those of clerks on the establishment, and that when any of these clerks are absent from duty on account of sickness a deduction is made from their salary, a practice that is not adopted in outside commercial houses; and, in view of the fact that to many of those officials such a deduction is a great hardship, will he take steps to have this grievance removed, seeing that the present Government have already made many reforms in the conditions of employment of other civil servants.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I do not see any sufficient ground for altering the rule under which only three-quarters pay is allowed to temporary employees. The rule is, I believe, more generous than the practice which generally obtains in private employment for temporary clerks.

  Old-Age Pensions Regulations.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that cases of hardship have arisen to applicants for an old-age pension being refused owing to their having resided for a short period in a British Colony during the twenty years preceding their application, though they are otherwise able to comply with all the requirements of the Act and the Departmental regulations; and whether he is prepared to take or advise the taking of steps to amend the law so as to permit such applicants to receive the pension.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Old-Age Pensions Act requires as a condition of receiving a pension that the claimant shall have resided for twenty years in the United Kingdom up to the date of the receipt of any sum on account of the pension. I will take note of the point raised in the Question, but I cannot promise any amendment of the Act with regard to it.

  Trustee Savings Banks and Life Insurance.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the want of success attending the efforts of the Post Office to popularise the Government system of life insurances, he will consider the advisability of authorising the trustee savings banks of the United Kingdom to grant insurances; and whether any fresh legislation would be necessary in such an event.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The question of granting life insurances through the trustee savings banks has been under consideration from time to time, but it appears to be undersirable to exercise this power except through a Government Department. No fresh legislation would be necessary.

  Duty on Coffee Essences.
  MR. BRANCH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the sale of mixtures of coffee and chicory with other ingredients in liquid form, under the name of coffee essences, and thus evading the duty of excise leviable on the same ingredients when sold in dry condition; and will he consider what steps should be taken to prevent the loss to the revenue arising from this evasion.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I will consider my hon. friend's suggestion.

  Recruiting of Staff for Estate Duty Office.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a loss of £30 per annum will be occasioned to the State by the transfer of each second division clerk now performing first division duties in the Estate Duty Office to a vacancy in another office and his replacement by a new entrant from the first division examination at £100 per annum, as compared with the promotion of the experienced second division clerk to a first division clerkship in the Estate Duty Office without loss of salary and the introduction to the other office of a new entrant from the second division examination at £70

  1231
  per annum; and, if so, on what grounds is he prepared to incur this additional expenditure and at the same time sacrifice the experience of the transferred clerk.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It is no doubt somewhat more expensive to recruit the Estate Duty Office from the first division examination than it would be to promote the existing second division clerks; but it is hoped that the new method of recruitment will increase the efficiency of the office, and I am not prepared to alter it.

  Women Clerks at the Treasury.
  MR. COOPER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any, and, if any, how many, women are first or second division clerks in his Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) No women are first or second division clerks in the Treasury.

  Inspection of Estates at Cahertubber, Ballydavid.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the date of inspection of the estate of Mrs. Rodney and others situated at Cahertubber, Ballydavid, and including a portion of the town of Athenry; whether repeated application has been made by the solicitors for the owners for the schedule showing the amount of each tenant's purchase money, and that such schedules cannot be produced on the grounds that they are still in the custody of the inspector; whether recently the agent on this property held an office for the collection of rents of the tenants who refused to pay; and, as proceedings for the recovery of this rent are being commenced, will the amount of the purchase moneys be sent to the solicitors, so that the interest payable by each tenant may be calculated and collected in lieu of rent, in order to prevent legal proceedings and secure the peace of the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that a preliminary inspection of this estate
  1232
  was made in September, 1907, at the request of the owner, who instituted proceedings for sale in May last. The formal proposal of the Commissioners cannot issue until title is proved, and it is not their usual practice to furnish particulars of the prices in anticipation of their proposal. They will, however furnish such particulars in this case having regard to the circumstances mentioned in the Question.

  Clergy and Inspection of Irish Estates.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inspector of the Estates Commissioners who was sent down to divide the Anketel Grove estate, in County Monaghan, was accompanied during the greater part of his inspection of the estate by the local parish priest; and why, in view of the fact that the population of the district is composed very largely of Protestants and that many of these had claims on the farms at least equal to those of the Roman Catholics, a Protestant clergyman, or some person who would represent the claims of the Protestant community, was not asked by the inspector to accompany him.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners do not know whether their inspector was accompanied by any clergyman when on these lands. In alloting untenanted land the Commissioners have no regard to the religious beliefs of the applicants.

  Purchase of Estate of Mrs. Patrick Cassidy.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board have failed to complete the purchase agreement with Mrs. Patrick Cassidy, of Coolnaha, on the Dillon estate, in County Mayo; whether a Memorial, signed by a large number of Mrs. Cassidy's neighbours, calling on the Board to complete the purchase, has been forwarded to the Board; and whether he will insist on the Board doing its duty in this matter without further delay.

  1233
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board have decided to take up a portion of Mrs. Cassidy's holding for the purpose of enlarging a small holding of one of her sub-tenants, and proceedings for resumption are pending. When the Board have obtained possession and have rearranged the holdings they will proceed with the sale. The Board have received the Memorial referred to, but see no reason to alter their decision.

  Continuance of Police Hut at Ballyscullion.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the former prevalence of illicit distilling in the neighbourhood of Lough Beg, near Toome, County Antrim, and in view of the services rendered by the police in the hut or barrack at Ballyscullion in preventing it, and in view of the opinions held by the most respectable inhabitants of the district that the police hut ought to be retained, he will see that this hut is not interfered with.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) There is no intention of discontinuing the police station at Ballyscullion at present.

  Delay in Division of the Bingham Estate.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the cause of the delay in dividing the grass lands and improving and enlarging the small holdings of the tenants on the Bingham property, situate at Cloona-castle, near Ballinrobe, County Mayo, purchased by the Congested Districts Board in 1906; and whether, in view of the need of enlarging the small holdings in the townlands of Cregduff, Cloona-carneen, Drumhill, and Cloona-castle, he will urge the Board to proceed with that work without delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board have not as yet been able to secure possession of any part of the grass land referred to, which consists of four large farms, one held under a yearly tenancy and the other three under lease.

  Evicted Tenants—Application of Representative of late Mrs. Brennan.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from the representative of the late Mrs. Brennan, who was evicted in 1881 from a holding on the estate of Mr. John Henry Edge, situated at Upper Farnans, Queen's County; and can he say what course the Commissioners propose taking in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The particulars given in the Question are not sufficient to enable this application to be identified.

  Application of Representatives of late Bernard Dumphy.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken in the case of the representatives of the late Bernard Dumphy, evicted in July, 1882, from a holding at Rosnaclonin, Camross, Mountrath, Queen's County, estate of Mrs. Cornealius; is he aware that the evicted farm is now, and has been ever since the eviction, on the landlord's hands; and can he say why the compulsory provisions of the Evicted Tenants' Act have not been put into operation in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have decided not to take any action on the application for reinstatement lodged by Dumphy as the representative of a former sub-tenent of the holding in question.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants on the Scrahan Estate.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any further steps towards bringing about the reinstatement of the two evicted tenants on the Morphy Scrahan estate, County Cork; and Whether, in view of the fact that the planter tenant is willing to surrender these holdings on receiving some compensation, that the agent is willing to see the evicted tenants reinstated, and

  1235
  that the ratepayers have been saddled with the cost of four or five extra policemen in connection with these evicted holdings for over twenty years, the Commissioners will take all possible steps to expedite the reinstatement of these tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The matter is engaging the attention of the Estates Commissioners. The present occupier is not willing to surrender the holdings in question unless he is given equivalent lands in County Cork, and up to the present the Commissioners have not found it possible to do this. The three policemen in the hut at Scrahan are not extra police, but belong to the free force of the county.

  Sale of the Earl of Erne's Estate.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Earl of Erne has sold portion of his estate to his tenants in the townlands of Knockninny and Glenawley under the 1903 Act; does this include his entire estate; and, if not, will the fact be carefully borne in mind by the Estates Commissioners when this estate is mature for inspection.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the Earl of Erne has instituted proceedings for the sale to his tenants of certain lands, including those mentioned in the Question. The Commissioners are not at present in a position to say whether the entire estate is included in the proposed sale.

  Land Purchased by Alexander and James Boyle.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what quantity of land Mr. Alexander Boyle and his son, Mr. James Boyle, of Aghmacart, Queen's County, have purchased under the various Land Purchase Acts; and what Was the total amount of the advance made to those purchasers for farms purchased in Queen's County and County Tipperary.
  1236
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Advances amounting to £3,000 were made to Alexander Boyle under the Land Purchase Acts prior to 1903 for the purchase of 197 acres in the counties mentioned. No advances have been made to him under the Act of 1903, and no advances have been made to James Boyle under any of the Land Purchase Acts.

  Purchase of Farm of James Brett, at Tannerhill.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the negotiations for the purchase of James Brett's farm, Tannerhill, from Captain Walker, with a view to restore the evicted tenant, has been successful; and, if not, will the Estates Commissioners take up the farm compulsorily and sell it to the evicted tenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) No purchase agreement in respect of this farm has as yet been lodged with the Estates Commissioners, but the estate is pending for sale and will shortly be inspected, when the matter will be further inquired into.

  Retrospective Payment of Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of a claimant for an old-age pension who has lodged his claim and who would be entitled to a pension on 1st January next, if his claim dealt were with before that date, the claimant will be entitled to receive the pension retrospectively from 1st January to the date on which his claim shall have been dealt with and admitted.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The answer is in the negative, since under Section 5 (2) of the Act the pension does not commence to accrue until the first Friday after the claim has been allowed.

  Fishing Harbour on the Donegal Coast.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent disaster

  1237
  of fishing boats in Sheephaven, County Donegal, following on a somewhat similar occurrence about twelve months ago; and whether, in view of the importance of the herring fishery to the County Donegal, steps will be taken to create a more secure harbour for fishing boats on this part of the coast.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My attention has been called to the loss of the boats and gear in Sheephaven during the past two years, and the matter has been fully considered by the Congested Districts Board. I am informed that a work providing reasonable shelter for the fishing fleet in such an exposed bay would cost something like £40,000. The Congested Districts Board have no funds for a work of such magnitude, and I cannot hold out any hope that the money can be provided from other sources.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Store Department.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in the Naval Store Department promotion to the position of foreman of store-houses is no longer to be by the hitherto recognised method of examination; and if so, what is the reason for the change, and the method of promotion it is proposed to adopt in the future.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the Question, promotion to the grade of foreman of storehouses will in future be by selection. All candidates for entry as storehouse-men will be required to pass an examination which will prove their fitness, as regards educational and technical subjects, for advancement to higher posts in the store-house staff. An inspector of store-houses on advancement to the higher rank of foreman is expected to have, not so much higher literary or technical attainments, as proved capacity for handling men. The examination system has not been invariably successful
    1238
    in bringing out the men best qualified for promotion.

  Dockyard Employees and Territorial Camps.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty Whether, with regard to the question recently under consideration of empowering His Majesty's dockyard authorities to make to employees who have attended recent camps as members of the Territorial Army such residual payments in respect of the time spent in camp as will provide that they will not suffer loss through their action, he will be able to announce a decision before the prorogation of Parliament.
  MR. MCKENNA: It has been decided that the men who attended camp during the current year shall receive the difference between their civil and military pay, in accordance with the Treasury Circular. This decision relates only to the current year, and the policy for future years is under consideration.

  Admiralty and the Coastguard.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the further Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Coastguard has been now presented to the Admiralty; and whether he will undertake that, before the House of Commons is asked to pronounce upon the wisdom of the policy of the Admiralty in regard to the Coastguard, the Report of the Committee shall be presented to the House.
  MR. MCKENNA: I cannot add anything to the Answer I have already given on this subject to the hon. Member for the Holborn Division of Finsbury.

  Cost of the Special Reservist.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his official estimate of £27 19s. 6d. as the total cost to the country of a Special Reservist from the date of enlistment to the end of his six months' training includes the expenses of permanent and instructional staff, and of barrack accommodation or other

  1239
  housing; and will he further state what items of cost his estimate does include.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The estimate of £27 19s. 6d. includes barrack accommodation, clothing, pay, bounty, messing allowance, provisions, equipment, arms, ammunition, and charges for travelling, fuel and light, enlistment expenses, barrack stores and all other expenditure which can be regarded as personal to the man. It does not include any portion of the cost of the establishment of Regular soldiers assigned to a Special Reserve battalion.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated total inclusive cost, per man per annum, of that portion of the Special Reserve which has concluded its preliminary training of six months, but which is still liable to be called up for service.
  MR. HALDANE: The average cost of an Infantry private of the Special Reserve after his recruit year is about £9 a year.

  Cost of National Defence.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the basis of the official estimate, given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on behalf of the Government, that to increase the number of men annually trained in the manner in which the Special Reserve is trained, to a figure which would ultimately produce a total of 1,000,000 men thus trained and still available for service, would entail an addition of £20,000,000 to the Array Estimates.
  MR. HALDANE: This rough estimate was based on the estimated normal annual cost per head of the present Special Reserve.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether to train 150,000 men annually for this cost per head would not produce a total of £4,250,000, not £20,000,000.
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to reply that, worked out on the basis of the
  1240
  Special Reserve, the cost would be over £20 per head, which would give £20,000,000 for 1,000,000 men.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: But I ask the right hon. Gentleman not what it would cost to train 1,000,000 men every year but sufficient men to produce 1,000,000 men eventually for service.
  MR. HALDANE: It is to that figure I have addressed my Answer. To keep going 1,000,000 men in the country it would cost on an average over £20 per man a year.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: May I ask why it should cost £20 a year to train a man-one of a million—and only £9 a year to train a man for the Special Reserve?
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. and gallant Member has quite misunderstood my Answer. I said it cost nearly £28 for the initial training of the Special Reserve; it cost £9 thereafter; If you take into account wastage, the cost works out at something over £20 a year for the average Special Reservist, counting together those who are under training and those who are in the Reserve. With 1,000,000 men you would soon have to provide additional barrack accommodation.

  Small Arms Committee.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what are the powers of the Small Arms Committee with regard to improvements in small arms or ammunition.
  MR. HALDANE: The Small Arms Committee has no powers with regard to improvements of small arms or ammunition. It is merely an advisory Committee to consider questions referred to it and to report what is recommended. Expenditure of money cannot be incurred by it without authority.

  The King's Regiment.
  MR. SWIFTMACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Captain V. C. Gauntlett, who has been recently brought into the King's Regiment, is junior in original date of

  1241
  commission to no fewer that six subalterns of the regiment and has seen no active service, whereas many of the officers over whose heads this gentleman has been placed have had experience in the field; whether Major Carter has been brought into this regiment from the Lancashire Fusiliers to be supernumerary, thus blocking the expected promotion of the senior captains and also indirectly that of the subalterns; whether, regard being had to the fact that with one exception, that of the adjutant, no subaltern of this regiment has been promoted since the disbandment of two battalions in 1901, when an undertaking was given by Mr. Brodrick, the War Secretary of the day, that no injustice would be done to the junior ranks of this regiment whose senior first lieutenant has a service of ten years, what is the explanation for the further blocking of the promotion in this regiment, which has been exceptionally slow, by the bringing of officers from other regiments into it; and whether, having regard to the feeling of disappointment produced by this action of the War Office, what steps, if any, will be taken to rectify it.
  MR. HALDANE: The first-named officer is junior in original date of commission to the five senior lieutenants of the Liverpool Regiment, but he is nearly six years older than the senior subaltern. Consequently his eventual superannuation will cause him not to affect adversely the prospects of those junior to him. He has seen no active service, but age and seniority, and not active service, have been taken into consideration in placing transferred officers in their new regiment. The second-named officer has been brought in supernumerary to establishment; the Liverpool Regiment is not singular in this respect, other regiments having been similarly treated. As regards the other points raised in the Question I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a similar Question on this regiment put by the hon. and learned Member on 23rd November.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great discontent among the officers of the regiment at having unknown men of junior standing placed over their heads?
  MR. HALDANE: There is always discontent in cases like this, but we have acted in the general interest.

  Military Piquets at Aldershot.
  MR. H. C. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the recent action of the general commanding at Aldershot abolishing military piquets and appealing to the honour of the soldier to insure good behaviour on the part of all ranks of the garrison when outside barracks; whether this innovation on the part of General Smith-Dorrien has been attended with successful results; if so, can he see his way to issue orders to the other generals commanding to adopt a similar rule; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Departmental Committee to inquire into the necessity of retaining the military foot and mounted police as an integral part of the military forces of the Crown, having in view the diminution of all categories of offences amongst soldiers, more especially that of drunkenness, during the last ten years.
  MR. HALDANE: I have already explained to the House that the regulation as regards the patrolling of the streets of garrison towns is permissive, that the practice is not universal, and that the question as to the necessity or otherwise of employing men on this duty should be left to the discretion of the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief. As regards the military police, my hon. friend has evidently forgotten that the preservation of good order among soldiers is but a minor part of their duties, and that the Provost Establishment of a Field Army can only be formed from such a body. The suggestion, therefore, of their abolition is quite impracticable.

  Army Ordnance Department Writers.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has yet concluded his inquiry into the rates of pay granted to writers of the Army Ordnance Department at out-stations; if so, whether, in the event of it being contemplated to make any improvements in the existing scale, he will direct that such changes shall take effect from 1st April, 1907, thereby

  1243
  putting these clerks on an equality with similar employees of the Admiralty who received a general rise of pay from that date; and, if the inquiry has not yet been concluded, will he say when it is likely to be.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,): Yes, Sir. It has been decided to improve the rates of pay granted to writers of the Army Ordnance Department at out-stations, to take effect from 1st April, 1909. A circular letter notifying the new rates will shortly be distributed.

  Marriages with Indians.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a matrimonial dispute between a native of India, who is a member of the Indian Civil Service, and his English wife; and whether any and, if so, what steps can be taken to warn English women of the risk they run in marrying natives of India, and who are not by such marriage in Britain debarred from marrying other wives in India.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The case to which I understand the hon. Member to refer has been reported in the newspapers, and the Secretary of State does not think any exceptional action of the kind suggested is called for.
  MR. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that something should be done for the protection of English women in this behalf?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Sufficient publicity has already been given to the danger they incur.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Is not this the first case of the kind that has occurred in our Courts, and is there any ground for the general reflection upon Indians contained in the Question?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not know.
  MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several cases have; occurred, though they do not come into Court?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Bombay Opium Shipments.
  MR. BELLOC: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the amount of opium shipped from Bombay during the year 1906, the names of the six largest shippers of the same, and the respective amount shipped by each of these.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State will ask the Government of Bombay if they can supply the information which the hon. Member requires.
  MR. BELLOC: Shall I get the Answer in January?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am writing out for the information, and hope to get an early reply.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: In the Ides of March?

  Trial by Jury in India.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a new penal law has been passed by the Government of India abolishing, for those accused under it, the right of trial by jury and depriving them of the right to bail as long as there is reasonable ground for inquiring into the charges against them, and making evidence against them the depositions of witnesses who may be prevented by death or absence from giving oral testimony at the trial; whether the same law makes highly criminal the mere membership of certain associations without any specific crime having to be proved against the individual; and, if so, whether he will state the precise offences against which this law is directed and whether there is any precedent for such an enactment.
  MR. HERBERT: I beg also to ask

  1245
  the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Bill for the trial of prisoners accused of sedition in India provides that the prisoner is in no case to be allowed bail; whether there is any, and, if so, what, reason to distrust the proper action of the Courts in India by depriving them of the discretion as to granting bail; does the Bill also provide that the depositions taken at a preliminary inquiry of witnesses who have died before the trial are to be admissible in evidence if against the prisoner but not if in his favour; will he state whether this Bill requires, or has received, the assent of the Secretary of State for India; and will the Government take all necessary steps to secure that under exceptional legislation of this kind prisoners are guaranteed a trial at least as consonant with the principles of justice as they would be entitled to if they were tried under martial law.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Bill was passed at a meeting of the Governor-General's Legislative Council on Friday last. The Secretary of State had already sanctioned its introduction. All Acts of the Legislative Council become law at once, but are subject to disallowance by the Crown on the advice of the Secretary of State. It will at once be laid upon the Table of the House. Meanwhile, perhaps hon. Members will excuse me from giving an Answer to their questions in detail. The Act deals with murderous outrages and kindred offences, and not with sedition.

  Martial Law in Natal.
  MR. BELLOC: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the petition of Mr. Colenso charging the Governor of Natal and two other persons with specific oppressions and abuses, under cover of martial law, since the date of Dinizulu's arrest; and whether the Secretary of State proposes to hold any, and, if any, what, investigation into these charges before advising His Majesty to allow the last Natal Indemnity Act.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): Yes,
  1246
  Sir, the Secretary of State has seen the petition referred to. It is not possible for him to hold an inquiry, but the Natal Government has promised to hold an inquiry into the allegations of flogging made by Miss Colenso. Ministers have not felt themselves able, up to the present, to deal with these allegations, but the Secretary of State is still in communication with the Governor regarding them. I would add that the Secretary of State cannot admit the justice of the reflection on Sir Matthew Nathan made in the petition referred to.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Government be represented at the inquiry?
  COLONEL SEELY: No, that would be quite irregular; but the inquiry will no doubt shortly be held.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Was not this matter brought under the notice of the Natal Government so long ago as August last?
  COLONEL SEELY: It was a long time ago.

  British Guiana.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Governor of British Guiana did, by his casting vote against the almost unanimous objection of the elected members of the combined Court of the Colony, decide, on 3rd November last, on the abolition of the office of medical inspector of estates' hospitals; whether the salary of that office, which was instituted for the protection of Indian immigrants indentured for service on sugar plantations, is secured by the law of the Colony; whether the Government of India has been consulted and has agreed to the abolition of this office; and whether the Secretary of State proposes to take any action in the matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: The facts stated in the first part of my hon. friend's Question are generally correct, and the

  1247
  action of the Governor was in accordance with the law, which expressly provides that he shall have both an original and a casting vote, but I may explain that if, as is proposed, the separate office of medical inspector is abolished, arrangements will be made for the efficient discharge of the duties hitherto attached to it, experience having shown that they are not sufficient to occupy the whole time of one officer. It has not in the circumstances been considered necessary to consult the Government of India. The law of the Colony imposes no obligation to appoint a separate officer for the sole purpose of medical inspection, although it empowers the Governor to appoint such an officer at a salary not exceeding £1,000 per annum. At the Governor's instance, the whole matter has been deferred for the present, pending further discussion in the combined Court.
  SIR H. COTTON: Was not the sole object of this appointment the protection of British Indians at Demerara, and does the right hon. Gentleman realise the supreme importance than that protection should be adequately maintained?
  COLONEL SEELY: We are fully cognisant of that, and it has not been lost sight of in the Colony; indeed, it is stated that the change will not reduce the amount of supervision.

  Political Crisis in Victoria.
  CAPTAIN ARTHUR MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any official information in connection with the recent political crisis in Victoria; and, if so, whether he can give the House any information on this matter.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Government of Victoria were defeated in the Legislative Assembly on 3rd December on a Resolution of no confidence, and the Governor, in the exercise of his discretion, after consulting his Ministers, and after the fullest consideration of all the circumstances, decided to grant a dissolution. My attention has been directed to a newspaper paragraph which intimates
  1248
  that there is local dissatisfaction with the action of the Governor. I have not heard of anything of the kind, and it may not be unfair to surmise that in the paragraph there is confusion, as to the political and party issues involved as distinct from the constitutional position of the Governor.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did not the objectionable paragraph referred to appear in the columns of the veracious Times?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Plague in Liverpool—Spanish Quarantine for Vessels.
  MR. MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the periods for which vessels arriving in Spain from Liverpool have been detained in quarantine on account of recent cases of plague in Liverpool; whether he is aware that the detention has amounted to as much as twenty days, although the International Sanitary Convention of 1903 (to which all European countries, except Spain, Greece, and Norway, were parties) decided that a period of five days quarantine, computed from the date of isolation of the last-known case of plague at the infected port, was sufficient; and whether he will make representations to the Government of Spain with a view of bringing the usage of that country into accord with that prevailing in other European, countries, so as to minimise the loss and inconvenience to which British shipowners and merchants are subjected.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. MCKINNON WOOD,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I am not aware that detention in quarantine in Spanish ports has amounted to as much as twenty days. Twelve days was the period fixed in the first instance by the Spanish Sanitary Regulations; but representations were made by His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid, and subsequently the Spanish Government gave free pratique to healthy vessels

  1249
  arriving from Liverpool, subject to certain reservations in accordance with the Venice Sanitary Convention, to which Spain is a party. His Majesty's Government recognise the importance of securing uniformity and a common standard of regulations, as provided by the Paris Convention, and will do all in their power to facilitate its general application.

  Lado Enclave—Alleged Lawlessness.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received any information from Brussels or elsewhere respecting the alleged state of affairs in the Lado enclave, the lawlessness that is said to prevail there, and the waste that is being committed in that territory.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: We have not yet received any information on the matter. We have already instructed the authorities in the Soudan to inquire as to the facts.
  MR. FELLasked as to telegrams received from Khartoum and the Soudan.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: If the hon. Member will supply me with the information on which he appears to have based his Question, I will make further inquiry.

  Ivory Shipments from the Lado Enclave.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that a cargo of ivory of the value of £7,000 has been shipped from the Lado Enclave down the Nile through the Soudan; and, if so, will he consider the possibility of placing an embargo on further shipments, which appear to be in direct contravention of the intenational game convention.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: We have received no official information confirming the report mentioned. His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo has been instructed to recommend the Soudanese authorities to take any steps that may be within their power to prevent the destruction of elephants in the Lado Enclave, if the reports to that effect which have appeared in the public Press can be verified.

  Pension Officers and Statements of Age.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Census Returns of 1901 are not placed at the disposal of the pension officers for the purpose of assisting them, to test by the readiest and most unprejudiced evidence the statements of age made by applicants; and why the Census Returns should not be accepted until disproved by birth certificates or other undoubted evidence.
  THE CHANCELLOR OP THE EXCHEQUER (MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): A pledge was given by the Government upon the schedules sent out in connection with the Census of 1901 that the information supplied would be treated as confidential and world not be used for purposes other than those of the Census. It would accordingly be impossible to make use of the Returns of that Census in the manner suggested.

  Old-Age Pension Qualifications.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with a view to the guidance of district sub-committees in Ireland, he will state whether, in the case of a husband and wife living apart, one of whom was in receipt of outdoor relief, the other, who neither sought for nor gained anything from said relief, is disqualified from obtaining a pension grant if otherwise eligible.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am advised that poor relief given to a wife in all cases disqualifies the husband. In the circumstances mentioned in the Question the wife would not be disqualified by poor relief given to the husband.

  Workhouse Medical Relief and Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the difficulty experienced by sub-committees in Ireland under the Old-Age Pensions Act, if he will state whether a person who, under medical advice and because of illness, goes to the workhouse infirmary, now generally termed district hospital, and stays there some time to avail of proper medical treatment but is unable to pay for it, is disqualified from receiving a pension if otherwise eligible.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The point raised in the Question was dealt with in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Kilkenny on the 9th instant, to which I do not think I can usefully add anything.

  Spirit Duty Export Allowances.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that nearly all the allowances on the export of British spirits do not now go into the pockets of the distillers, but into those of exporters, who are blenders and often shipping or forwarding agents; and whether, seeing that the revenue officers, in their supervision of spirits in bond, do in the course of racking, blending, bottling, and other numerous operations which are constantly going on, a great deal of work which traders would otherwise have to do and pay for themselves, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing these allowances.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: As at present advised, I am not prepared to propose an alteration of the law on the subject.

  Old-Age Pensions Regulations.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a person who would be eligible for an old-age pension by reason of age on 1st January, 1910, would become ineligible if such person during the year 1909 received outdoor relief, no matter how small the amount; and whether, if such is the case, and that, old people must run the risk of starvation under such circumstances, he will propose some alteration of the law to prevent the hardship and suffering that must ensue in such cases.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The prospect of obtaining an old-age pension will, no doubt, prove an additional incentive to people to submit to privation rather than to apply for poor relief, but as the latter alternative (under which they will, even for the period to 31st December, 1910, be in no worse position than if the Act had not been passed) is still open to them, there is no necessary increase in the risk of starvation.
  1252
  The whole question of the disqualification on account of poor relief is receiving the careful consideration of the Government, but I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statements made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and myself when the Bill was before the House.
  MR. JOYCEsuggested that Irish boards of guardians should be asked to warn poor people of this result of getting relief.

  Penal Servitude Sentences.
  MR. BELLOC: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the absolute increase or decrease in the number of men condemned to penal servitude for the third time at least in 1907 as compared with the similar number for 1887; and also the proportionate increase or decrease compared with the total of sentences to penal servitude in those years.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am afraid that the precise figures desired by my hon. friend are not available, and could only be obtained, if at all, by a very long and laborious research; but if he will refer to Table 36 in the Annual Volume of Criminal Statistics he will find a quantity of information with regard to the previous convictions of prisoners.

  Metropolitan Police.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary if State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the Metropolitan Police force is undermanned for the great increase of duties recently thrown upon it, thereby subjecting the force to an undue physical strain, he would be prepared, if so desired by the Metropolitan Borough Councils, to advise Parliament to grant such an increase in the Metropolitan Police rate as would provide an addition to the number of the men sufficient to cope with the situation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There has for some years been a rapid growth in the charge for Metropolitan Police pensions, and it is now so heavy that for the past

  1253
  two years it has not been possible to make the normal increase in the number of Metropolitan Police to keep pace with the growth of population. The question of increasing the police rate is likely, therefore, to arise soon, and any expression of opinion by the Metropolitan Borough Councils would have weight with me in this matter.

  Deer Hunting.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an incident which occurred on 3rd November last near Uckfield, when a carted deer hunted by the Surrey staghounds, being dead-beat, and with one of its forelegs hanging from the fetlock, broken in an attempt to jump a fence, was worried by the hounds while vainly trying to limp away until the huntsman came up and killed it with a knife; whether he is aware that on 6th November last another carted deer, hunted by the Berks and Bucks stag-hounds, broke its neck in the course of the run in leaping into a lane; and whether, in view of the fact that such incidents are of frequent occurrence, and are inevitable when the sport is pursued under such conditions as prevail in the home counties, he will consider the desirability of so amending the Acts for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animls that such cases may be brought within their operation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My attention was not drawn to these particular incidents. I have stated before, in answer to a Question, that I think the hunting of carted deer is open to strong objection, but I regret I am not in a position to make any promise of legislation.
  MR. BYLES: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a private Member's Bill before the House which the Government could, by consent, press through?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, I am quite aware of that, and the Bill can be brought in again next session.

  Dove Quarter Sessions Case.
  MR. BELLOC: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now give the result of his inquiry into the case of Barber, and of the sentence he received at the Dove Quarter Sessions in Herefordshire.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The case presents features of difficulty, and I am not yet able to add anything to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on 1st December. I hope to let him know my decision very shortly.
  MR. BELLOC: Will it be before the end of the present session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.

  Police and Public Meetings.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government will appoint a Commission or Committee to consider the difference of police procedure in different parts of the country in regard to the preservation of order in public meetings, and to report whether any general and uniform practice could be established throughout the country; and whether any fresh legislation is required to protect the right of public meeting and free speech.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I propose, as soon as I can, to appoint a small Departmental Committee to consider this subject.

  Imprisonment under Separation Orders.
  MR. BELLOC: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men were imprisoned in Brixton prison during the year 1906 for failure to pay the full amount due from them under a separation order; what has been the average length of such imprisonment; what was the average amount due when the imprisonment began; and what was the largest due in any one particular case when the imprisonment began.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Answer to the first part of the Question is 286; to the second, twenty-eight days; to the third, £7 19s.; and to the fourth,

  1255
  £217 13s. 6d. Prisoners of this class were not received at Brixton prison prior to 1st June, 1908.

  Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of women enduring imprisonment at the present time owing to circumstances arising out of the Suffragist agitation, and of the imprisoned women how many are suffering imprisonment by a sentence passed by a Judge on conviction after a trial by jury; what is the period of the imprisonment and in what division, how many under sentences inflicted by magistrates, and for what terms and in what divisions have they been placed, and how many for failure to give securities to be of good behaviour although they have been convicted of no offence, and the sentence of imprisonment from which there is no appeal is regarded by law as no punishment; and whether, having regard to the circumstances and the fact that these ladies have not been guilty of any offence savouring of moral degradation, he will consider the desirability of advising the Crown to exercise its prerogative for their release in order to enable them to spend Christmastide in their homes instead of in a prison.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Three ladies are at present imprisoned. They were sentenced by a Metropolitan magistrate, two to three months, and one to ten weeks imprisonment, in default of finding sureties to be of good behaviour. They are being treated under the rules for second division prisoners. As regards the last part of the Question, I must ask my hon. friend to excuse me from making any statement at the present time.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: IS not the treatment accorded to these ladies slightly different from that accorded to Dr. Jameson, C. B., and his confederates?
  MR. LONSDALE: Are not these ladies treated with far greater severity than the cattle-drivers in Ireland?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Blaenau Festiniog Quarry Accident.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the number of men employed at the Oakeley quarries and the Votley and Bowydd Quarry. Blaenau Festiniog, during 1907; how many of these men were employed underground and above the surface, respectively, in each quarry; what were the number of accidents reported during that period, distinguishing those to men employed underground and outside in each quarry respectively.
  MR. GLADSTONE: At the Oakeley Quarries 906 persons were employed in 1907; 357 underground, and 549 above ground. The number of accidents was ten; six underground, and four above the surface. At the Votley and Bowydd Quarry, the number employed was 357; 188 underground, and 169 above ground. The number of accidents was five; four underground, and one above the surface.
  MR. JOHN WARD: Were any of the accidents fatal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will inquire.

  Accidents on Building Works.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State or the Home Department whether, in view of the large number of accidents to workmen employed on buildings in course of construction and demolition, he will consider the advisability of issuing special regulations under the Factory and Workshop Act embodying the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONE: As I have pointed out in answer to previous Questions this session, the recommendations of the Committee cannot be carried out without further legislation, and it was for this purpose, among others, that I introduced this session the Building Operations and Engineering Works Bill. I hope to reintroduce the Bill early next session.

  Religious Institution Work Places in London.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give

  1257
  the number of work places carried on by religious institutions in London that have been added to the Home Office registers under Section 5 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1907.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The number of premises in the administrative County of London, forming part of institutions carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes, which have been added to the Home Office registers under Section 5, is sixty-four.

  London Church Army Homes.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the men employed on fire wood-cutting at the Church Army Homes in the Metropolis are paid their wages partly in kind; whether deductions are made for other purposes; and, if so, whether, in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1907, he proposes to take any steps to prevent any contravention of the law relating to truck.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I understand that these men are paid piece-work rates, and that a deduction is made from their earnings to cover the cost of their board and lodging. As I have stated in answer to previous Questions on the subject, it is not at all clear that the Truck Acts apply in cases of this kind, and the further consideration of the matter must await the Report of the Truck Committee, which is expected shortly. Section 5 of the Factory Act of last session does not affect the question of the application of the Truck Acts.

  Welsh Church Commission.
  MR. WALTER ROCH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Report of the Welsh Church Commission may be expected.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Chairman informs me that he expects the Draft Report will be under the consideration of the Commissioners in a few days' time.

  Unemployment at West Ham.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local
  1258
  Government Board whether he is aware of the lack of employment in West Ham and of the fact that turning men out of the workhouse tends to increase the evil; and whether, in view of the duty of the guardians to give employment in such cases in accordance with 43 Eliz., C. 2 and 4, and 5 Will. IV., c, 76, he will communicate with the West Ham Guardians and with the Local Government Board inspector of the district so that the law may be carried into effect.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am aware of the circumstances connected with West Ham. It is no doubt the general duty of the Guardians to relieve cases of destitution where application is made to them for the purpose, but it does not appear to me that it is their duty under the statutes mentioned by my hon. friend to afford that relief in the particular way to which he refers.

  Workhouse Relief in West Ham.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that on 24th September last, in Volume 10, Clause 6, page 427, of the House Committee's Report of the West Ham Board of Guardians, the committee passed and submitted to the next board meeting a resolution directing the clerk to instruct relieving officers to give men who were frequently in and out of the workhouse orders for the casual Wards instead of house orders, and that only on the advice of the clerk was this direction withdrawn; whether he is aware that at the house committee's call-over on alternate Thursdays men are informed that the House is not the place for single men and that they must look for work, and if they remained in the House, they would be dealt with, and this notwithstanding that the men had no employment to go to and no means to maintain themselves, the following being instances: A. Sharp, Who said he had nowhere to go, and T. Hammaford, who had nowhere to go, no food, and no place in which to sleep, and who asked if he was to start stealing if he went out of the house; and if the President proposes to take

  1259
  any action in connection with these matters.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: As regards the first part of the Question, the facts are as stated. As regards the second, I understand that, owing to the demands on the available accommodation in the workhouse for the sick, and for the old and infirm inmates, single men are informed, when they attend before the house committee of the guardians, that the workhouse is not the place for them, and that they should look for work, but no undue pressure is brought to bear upon them to leave the institution. With respect to the two cases mentioned in the Question, I am informed that Sharp is an able-bodied man, twenty-seven years of age, who was admitted to the workhouse on 20th October, partly on account of an injury to his knee. He took his discharge on 6th November last. The other case is that of an able-bodied man, twenty-three years of age, who during the present year has been admitted to and discharged from the workhouse on nine occasions, his stay in the establishment varying from six to eighteen days.

  Motor Speed Limits.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that applications by local authorities to reduce the speed limit of motors to ten miles an hour are persistently opposed by motor or automobile associations, he will consider the advisability of taking steps, by legislation or otherwise, to throw the cost of inquiry upon such associations where the opposition might be held to be frivolous.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will consider the suggestion of my hon. friend, but it would require legislation, and I cannot promise him that I shall find myself able to adopt it.

  Metropolitan Asylum Hospital Nurses' Christmas Gifts.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that subscription lists are presented to the
  1260
  nurses in the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, whose salaries range from £24 to £25 per annum, soliciting subscriptions for Christmas gifts to the matron and assistant matron, and day and night sisters, and also that the nurses are expected to give presents to the day and night servants, to the nurses rooms' servants and the gate porters; and whether he will communicate with the Asylums Board immediately, so that notices may be posted before the ensuing Christmas, discountenancing the system of the receipt of gifts by any of their officials.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have communicated with the Asylums Board with regard to this matter, and I find that inquiries with regard to it have been made by them at all their hospitals. I understand that the replies received show that in the large majority of the cases nothing of the kind mentioned in the Question takes place; but that in one instance the practice referred to appears to have prevailed, and that in two or three others there has been some such practice, though of a more limited and partial character. I am glad to say, however, that instructions were given on Saturday last to the medical superintendent in each of these cases to the effect that the practice should be discontinued forthwith.

  Outdoor Relief Orders.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Order issued by him, and known as the Outdoor Relief Order, dated 14th December, 1852, to guardians of the poor that relief must not be given outdoor to able-bodied men, or their wives and children, under the Modified Workhouse Test Order, where the man is in the workhouse under this Order for more than eight weeks in any one year, will compel more than 100 families to seek shelter in the workhouse before Christmas; and whether, to avert this, he will suspend or extend the Order for a few weeks.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to this matter, and on the 7th instant I informed the guardians

  1261
  that I was prepared to sanction a departure from the Regulations in force in the parish so as to enable the men now in the workhouse to remain there, and their wives and families to receive relief outside the workhouse, for a further short period in such cases as the guardians may recommend. In this way the point referred to in the Question will, I think, be satisfactorily met.

  Motor Speed Limits.
  MR. LAMBTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the Resolution passed by the Council of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture asking, among other things, that in all populous places and at cross-roads the speed-limit of motor cars should be reduced to ten miles an hour; and whether he will issue a circular to county and borough councils reminding them of the powers which they possess under the Act of 1903 to establish such a speed-limit with the sanction of the Local Government Board, and offering to co-operate with them in securing this partial protection against the dangers inflicted upon the public by inconsiderate drivers of motor vehicles.
  MR. HAROLD COX: May I also ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the Resolution passed by the Council of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture asking, among other things, that in all populous places and at cross-roads the speed-limit of motor cars should be reduced to ten miles an hour; and whether he will issue a circular to county and borough councils reminding them of the powers which they possess under the Act of 1903 to establish such a speed-limit with the sanction of the Local Government Board, and offering to co-operate with them in securing this partial protection against the dangers inflicted upon the public by inconsiderate drivers of motor vehicles.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received a copy of a Resolution passed by the Council of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture on the 9th
  1262
  instant, in relation to this subject, which, however, as forwarded to me, does not quite answer to the description given in the Question. I would remind the hon. Members that, in the circular which I issued in September last, I drew the attention of local authorities to their powers in this matter, and practically anticipated the suggestion now made. I will send them copies of the circular.

  Harberton Mail Contractor's Loss.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in the case of Mr. Rouse, of Harberton, South Devon, whose horse, borrowed in an emergency by the mail contractor after an accident to draw the mails to their destination, was destroyed, he will consider the possibility of awarding compensation more commensurate with the value of the horse than the sum offered.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I am laying the facts of the case before the Treasury for their consideration.

  Civil Servants and Outside Appointments.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether Mr. J.W. Crawford, an assistant-controller in the London postal service, receives a salary of £800 per annum from the Department; whether this is the same person who acts as auditor to the Provident Clerks and General Mutual Life Assurance Association, for whose services the sum of £210 appears in the Association's balance-sheet for 1907; and, if so, whether the duties of assistant-controller are of such a character as to leave ample time for this officer properly to attend to his private practice, or does the Postmaster-General grant the assistant-controller special leave for that purpose.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The facts are as stated by my hon. friend, except that the remuneration of £210 is divided among three auditors. The duties of auditor to the Association in no way interfere with Mr. Crawford's official

  1263
  duties, nor make demands upon his official time.
  MR. JOHN WARD: Is special leave granted to this official for this purpose?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The information I have is that his duties as auditor in no way interfere with his official duties.
  MR. JOHN WARD: The do I understand that a controller in the London postal service has sufficient spare time to attend to the business of a society with an income of £1,500,000?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I can only repeat my Answer, that the efficient discharge of his official duties is not interfered with.

  Canada and the Atlantic Cable Rates.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: I beg to ask the postmaster-General whether he has been in communication with the Canadian Government on the question of the Atlantic cable rates, with a view to their possible reduction.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Advantage has been taken of the presence in England of Mr. Lemieux (the Postmaster-General of Canada) to discuss the question of Atlantic Cable Rates. We have arranged that representatives of the British and Canadian Governments should meet here in the spring to consider the subject.

  Christmas Work at Seacombe Post Office.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether applicants for special Christmas work at Seacombe, Cheshire, have received forms stating that the pay is to be 5¼d. per hour, whereas previously I it was 6d. per hour up to 21st December, and 8d. per hour from that date until the work finished.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will inquire and let my hon. friend know.

  Communication with North Ronaldshay.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can now state, in view of the sympathetic
  1264
  attitude of the Board of Trade, the Congested Districts Board (Scotland), and the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners, the willingness of the people to help as far as they can, and the isolation of so many people, if he will put the island of North Ronaldshay in communication with the outside world.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I fear that I cannot at present add anything usefully to the Answer I gave my hon. friend on the 30th ultimo beyond saying that as soon as I receive the estimate of the cost which I have called for I will let him know particulars of the guarantee which will be necessary.

  Taunton Postal Official's Pension.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether an ex-superintendent at the Taunton post office, who was invalided out of the service about two years ago on a pension of about £100 a year, is at present in the employment at the same office, for which he is also receiving wages; whether he has been in this employment for the past few months; and, if so, whether he will give instructions that persons wholly unemployed shall have preference for employment when the pension is of similar proportion to the above.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will make inquiries in the matter.

  Inspection of Secondary Schools.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state under what enactments, if any, the Board of Education are entitled to require the inspection by officers of the Board of secondary schools not receiving any Government grant.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): Under Section 9 of the Charitable Trust Act, 1853, the Board of Education, as successors of the Charity Commissioners under the Act of 1899, are authorised to examine and inquire by their inspectors into educational charities in England or Wales, and the

  1265
  nature and objects, administration, management, and results thereof; and under that section many endowed secondary schools not receiving grants from the Board of Education have been inspected. Whether or to what extent these powers are sufficient for all the purposes of a complete educational inspection of an endowed school on lines similar to those on which the inspection of secondary schools on the grant list is condacted, is a matter of interpretation, which has not been the subject of a judicial decision, and with regard to which, as the Board have recently been made aware, a serious difference of opinion has arisen in the last few months.

  Training Schools for Elementary School Teachers.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state the number of pupils in the colleges and other centres for training teachers for elementary schools who were examined during the past year in gardening, horticultural, and rural science generally; and how many, if any, of such colleges and centres had land connected with them for the practical teaching of such subjects.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave upon this subject on the 12th March last. I may say that the first examination in the new optional, course in rural science was held this summer and that nine students entered for it.

  Pupil Teachers' Examination Syllabus.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if the following are grant-earning subjects in the syllabus for candidates for pupil teacherships in elementary schools: construction of a triangle equal in area to a given polygon, construction of tangents to a circle, construction of common tangents to two circles, construction of circumscribed, inscribed, and escribed circles of a triangle; and whether, seeing the number of these pupils who will be engaged as teachers in rural and semi-rural elementary schools, he will make horticulture, nature study, the elements of agriculture, and rural science generally compulsory subjects in the syllabus.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Question appears to be asked under a misapprehension. The Board prescribe no syllabus for candidates for pupil teachership, nor are there any "grant-earning subjects" for them. Such candidates are as a rule taught in secondary schools or in preparatory classes attached to a pupil teacher centre, and receive a general education suitable to all pupils between the ages of 14 and 16, whatever career they may be intending to adopt. The Board share the view that such a general education may properly receive a rural bias in rural districts. The examination formerly held by the Board for candidates for pupil teacherships has now been discontinued and no syllabus for such an examination is therefore in force.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Are no other subjects included?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: There are no others prescribed by the Board of Education.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Cannot the subjects mentioned in the latter part of the Question be made compulsory?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot see my way to do that.

  Motor Speed Limits in Scotland.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that applications by local authorities to reduce the speed-limit of motors to ten miles an hour are persistently opposed by motor or automobile associations, he will consider the advisability of taking steps, by legislation or otherwise, to throw the cost of inquiry upon such associations when the opposition might be held to be frivolous.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I can only assure my hon. friend that this whole question is receiving the consideration of the Government.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Cannot associations with no locus standi be prevented appearing at these inquiries?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I do not think there is reason to believe undue weight is given to their representations, as the decisions arrived at on the whole commend themselves to the community generally.

  Scotland and the Housing and Town Planning Bill.
  MR. CLELAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is in a position to state to the House the changes contemplated in the Local Government Board (Scotland) in order to carry out the added duties imposed upon that Board by the provisions of the Housing and Town Planning Bill.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Leith Burghs on 6th November, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. friend.

  Motor Traffic Regulations.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the circular of the Local Government Board recently issued to local authorities in England and Wales with reference to motor traffic and the speed-limit has any application to Scotland; and whether the issue of that circular, or of a similar one, to the local authorities in Scotland is under consideration.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The circular referred to has no direct application to Scotland. The terms of a Scottish circular are at present under consideration.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be issued?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I cannot say at the moment.

  Dumbartonshire Boat Regulations.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that persons owning small boats for their private use and persons owning small boats for hire on various portions of the Dumbartonshire coast have, for the first time, been served with a notice
  1268
  that the owner of every such boat, not being of the burden of 100 tons and not belonging to a ship, should, under liability of forfeiture of the boat, have painted upon the outside of the stem of such boat in white or yellow Roman letters, of not less than two inches in length, on a black ground, the name of the owner of the boat and of the port or place to which she belongs; and whether he will take steps to prevent Section 176 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, being pressed in this way.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE): The notice in question, as my hon. friend is aware, merely draws the attention of boat owners to the requirements of the law, in regard to which I understand some laxity had been shown. The Board of Customs regard it as important that the provisions of the law should be complied with, and I see no sufficient reason for interference on my part with a regulation which I cannot believe can cause any serious inconvenience.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the first time the regulation has been enforced there?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir, I am not.

  Alleged Jury Packing at Sligo.
  MR. MCHUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he has been informed by the Crown Solicitor for Sligo that persons had come from Sligo to Limerick for the purpose of influencing jurors in the cases of the Geevagh, County Sligo, traversers; who were the persons who came from Sligo to Limerick for the purpose alleged; what was the nature of the influence complained of; and can he give the names of the jurors who were ordered to stand by because they were believed to have been influenced in the manner suggested by the Crown Solicitor.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): Yes, Sir. The information, as stated in the Question, has been furnished

  1269
  to me. The influence complained of was an organised attempt, by personal visits to persons summoned on the jury panel, to prejudice them against the case for the prosecution. I have been furnished with the names of six persons, in addition to those who came from Sligo who, it is believed, took part in this improper proceeding; and inasmuch as I am at present considering the propriety of instituting criminal proceedings, it would be improper for me to mention any names. For the same reason it would not be in the public interest that I should mention the names of the persons ordered to stand by; but these also have been furnished to me.

  Irish Crown Solicitors and Jury Challenging.
  MR. MCHUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in the empanelling of juries in Ireland, the right of unlimited challenge without cause assigned may be exercised by Crown Solicitors as they think fit; whether the present administration of the law in regard to trial by jury in Ireland differs from its administration under his predecessors in office; and, if so, will he inform the House in what particulars the difference consists.
  MR. CHERRY: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. Strict rules are laid down for Crown Solicitors to follow in ordering jurors to stand aside. The chief grounds upon which they are authorised to challenge are: (1) Affinity to the person on trial; (2) partiality; (3) bodily or mental infirmity; and (4) in cases of peculiar local excitement in any particular town or district, residence in the immediate neighbourhood. As regards the latter part of the Question, I do not like even to appear to criticise the action of my predecessors in office, but I understand that complaints were made, formerly, that jurors were ordered to stand aside, not for these or similar reasons only, but also by reason of their religious or political views, and that in consequence it frequently happened that Catholic peasants were put upon their trial before juries composed exclusively of persons who were Protestants in religion and Unionists in politics, and who might not
  1270
  unreasonably be supposed to be prejudiced against them. I cannot, of course, say whether these complaints were well-founded or not, but I have taken every possible precaution against any such practice being followed since I have been in office, and I have issued strict injunctions to all Crown Solicitors not to order any juror to stand aside by reason of his religious or political views. The first charge that has been made against a Crown Solicitor since I have been in office of exercising the power of standing by improperly is that now made against the Crown Solicitor for Sligo, and in consequence of it I have made such inquiries as I could as to the religious and political views of the jurors empanelled in the three cases referred to by the hon. Member on Thursday last and to-day. I find that of thirty-six jurors in all sworn to try these cases, twenty were Roman Catholics, twelve were Protestants two were Jews, and there are two whose religion is unknown. As to their political views I am unable to obtain such definite information, but my informant, who has lived in Limerick all his life, and has made careful inquiries, tells me that so far as he can ascertain the great majority of them were Nationalists. It appears to me that these facts completely exculpate the Crown Solicitor for Sligo from any charge of unfairness in empanelling the juries.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Was the Crown Solicitor in this case resident at Limerick or Sligo? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Crown challenge in this case was based on a just exception, and does he think that a jury empanelled in this manner, and presided over by a partial political Judge, could give a fair trial?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is an irregular Question, and notice should have been given of it.

  Canvassing Jurors.
  MR. MCHUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he has been informed by the Crown Solicitor for Sligo that, at the Connaught Winter Assizes in Limerick, an active canvass of the jurors had been made on behalf of the Geevagh, County Sligo,

  1271
  traversers; what was the evidence on which the Crown Solicitor grounded his information; and can he state the names of the persons who canvassed the jurors and the names of the jurors who were canvassed.
  MR. CHERRY: I received information not only from the Crown Solicitor for Sligo, but from several other independent sources as well, that a systematic and organised canvass of the jurors on behalf of the Geevagh traversers was made at the recent Assizes in Limerick. I cannot give any names, or state the nature of the evidence available for the reasons I have already stated in answer to previous Questions, but I can promise the hon. Member that I will take every possible means in my power to put a stop to this nefarious practice.
  MR. MCHUGH: On the first available opportunity I shall call attention to jury packing in Limerick and move a Resolution.

  Kerry Labourers' Cottage Schemes.
  MR. J. MURPHY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the County Court Judge of Kerry recently in dismissing several applications for houses by labourers, on the ground that such houses should be provided by the employers of the labourers concerned; whether in the cases concerned the erection of the houses was authorised by the Killarney District Council and by the Local Government Board; and whether he can take any steps to secure that the labourers referred to will be provided with house accommodation.
  MR. CHERRY: I understand that in the case of the last scheme promoted by the Killarney Rural District Council under the Labourers Acts, sixty appeals were presented to the County Court Judge against the order of the Local Government Board inspector. The Local Government Board have only received notifications of the decisions on thirty-nine of these appeals, nearly all of which were upheld, and they are not aware of the grounds of these decisions. The order of the County Court on such
  1272
  appeals is final, and the question of making a new scheme to provide for the labourers whose needs are unsatisfied is one for the Rural District Council.
  MR. J. MURPHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the County Court Judge he ought not to have refused the applications on the ground he did?
  MR. CHERRY: I have no control over the County Court Judge.
  MR. J. MURPHY: You might suggest to him he has taken a wrong view?
  MR. CHERRY: I cannot do that.

  Castleconnel Arbitration.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what was the total amount of the remuneration paid to the hon. Member for East Wicklow, recently employed as arbitrator in the case arising out of breaches of an agreement entered into between the Department and Antony Mackey, who conducted a peat-works experiment at Castleconnell, County Limerick; over how many days the arbitration extended; what was the rate of the arbitrator's fee; and from what source was the payment made by the Department.
  MR. CHERRY: My right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture informs me that the total amount of the fees paid to the arbitrator in this case was £78 15s., being for five days hearing in the country at the rate of fifteen guineas a day. The Department are advised that this is a very reasonable fee for a practising barrister acting in this capacity. The payment was made from the Endowment Fund of the Department.

  Omagh Court House.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what rent is paid by Colonel Irvine, sub-sheriff, and rent collector for the Greer estate, for the use of the Courthouse at Omagh, County Tyrone, as a rent office.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I am informed that the under-sheriff for County Tyrone is also agent for the Greer estate. He attends at the estate office, which is near the Court-house, for the collection of rent on the appointed rent days. On other days he is frequently engaged in the sheriff's office in the Court-house, and tenants sometimes call and pay their rents there. The under-sheriff pays no rent for his office in the Court-house.

  Land Purchase in County Cork.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the average price paid in Cork County under the Ashbourne Act was 15·1 years purchase, and under the 1903 Act the vendor received 23·8 years purchase, an increased price amounting to 57½ per cent.; can he say how much land sold in Cork County under the Act of 1903 was proposed to be sold under the Ashbourne Act, the inspector reporting on behalf of the Treasury want of security for advance; and whether these lands have been sold at the inflated price of 57½ per cent. advance under the Act of 1903 due to want of inspection.
  MR. BIRRELL: The average price under the Irish Land Act, 1903, quoted by the hon. Member included the bonus. There are no records showing what holdings, if any, were sold to tenants under the Act of 1903 in respect of which advances had been refused under the prior Land Purchase Acts.

  Knox Estate, Curry.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps, if any, are being taken by the Estates Commissioners to have the ten evicted tenants on the Messrs. Knox estate, situate near Curry, in the County of Sligo, reinstated in their holdings; whether the present occupiers of these evicted holdings are now prepared to surrender them in consideration of compensation being paid; and, if so, whether immediate action will be taken to have these families restored to their homes.
  MR. BIRRELL: In two of the ten cases referred to the applications for reinstatement were not received by the Estates Commissioners within the time prescribed by the Evicted Tenants Act, in five the Commissioners have decided to take no action, in two they have intimated to the receiver the price they are prepared to pay for the evicted farms if the former tenants are restored, and the remaining case will be considered in connection with allotment of untenanted land. The Commissioners cannot say whether the present occupiers of the holdings in question are prepared to surrender them.

  Brinkley Estate, County Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a memorial praying for the reinstatement of Pat Breheny, junior, of Annaghcarty, Riverstown, County Sligo, an evicted tenanted on the Brinkley estate, was received by the Estates Commissioners in February last; whether an inspector visited this evicted farm in June last and reported; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of this official's report.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received an application from this man for reinstatement, and have informed him that his name is noted for consideration in connection with the allotment of such untenanted land as they may acquire. His former holding is in the occupation of another tenant. The Reports made to the Commissioners by their inspectors are confidential, and their contents cannot be disclosed.

  Waste Grazing Lands in County Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are on the Phibbs, Cooper, M'Clin-tock, and other estates in the neighbourhood of Riverstown, County Sligo, over 1,500 acres of waste grazing land, from which tenants were capriciously evicted some forty years ago; whether on one of these estates, Brinkley's, 800 acres of these grass farms are held by two non-residential graziers, whilst twenty-seven tenants on the same property occupy small holdings consisting mostly

  1275
  of reclaimed moorland; and, if so, in view of the fact that some of these landlords are negotiating with the view of selling these lands to graziers, will steps be taken by the Estates Commissioners to acquire them for the purpose of relieving congestion in the district.
  MR. BIRRELL: No proceedings for the sale of these lands are pending before the Estates Commissioners, and they cannot interfere in the matter.

  Shannon Bridge, King's County.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Shannon Bridge, King's County, and the property of Lord Ashbrooke in the neighbourhood, has been sold to the tenants; and seeing that Shannon Bridge is one of the most peaceful places in the world, can he say why the local police force has been increased by five constables.
  MR. BIRRELL: I understand that the property referred to has been sold to the tenants. Part of the district attached to the Shannon Bridge Police-Station is in Roscommon and part in King's County. The latter portion is peaceful, but it has been found necessary to strengthen the station by the addition of five men belonging to the Roscommon force for duty in that county.

  Reeves Estate, Mallow.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the circumstances under which Mr. George O'Sullivan was compelled to sign agreements for the purchase of his holdings on the Reeves estate, near Killavullen, Mallow, County Cork; and whether the Commissioners will direct an inquiry and inspection of the holdings to be made before giving their sanction to the sale, in order that the system of squeezing tenants to compel them to pay higher prices than tenants who are free agents may be stamped out.
  MR. BIRRELL: The estate will be inspected in its proper turn. Any representations made to the Estates
  1276
  Commissioners will be considered before the advances are sanctioned.

  Leader Estate, Dromagh.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can now state what steps they have taken towards acquiring the untenanted lands on the Leader estate, Dromagh, County Cork; and whether, in view of the necessity of acquiring land for the reinstatement of evicted tenants of the locality, the enlargement of present uneconomic holdings, and the securing of suitable plots for deserving labourers under the recent Acts relating to these classes of the working population, the Commissioners will do all in their power to expedite proceedings on this estate.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are in negotiation with the owner of these lands.

  Abercorn Estate Evicted Tenant.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Land Commissioners has been drawn to the farm 1098, which was situated in the past on the Duke of Abercorn's estate, and was purchased by the late Margaret Crumley, and now occupied by Rachel Crumley, who has signed an agreement to give the farm up to the Land Commissioners or to Samuel Keys, the former tenant, who was evicted from it by the Duke of Abercorn, if she gets adequate compensation in either land or money; and whether he can state what steps the Commissioners have taken in in the matter, and when Keys will be reinstated in the farm from which he was evicted.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member on 16th November.

  Public Record Office Delays.
  MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it takes from three to four weeks before a reply can be got from the Public Record Office, Dublin, to applications for

  1277
  certified copies of Census Returns made by people whose names do not appear on local baptismal registers, and who need those Returns immediately to enable them to prove their claims for old-age pensions: whether this delay is due to insufficiency of staff; and, if so, in view of the fact that an advance fee of 2s. is paid by each applicant, thus providing for the cost of any temporary increase of staff, he will take steps to have all such certificates sent to the applicants so as to enable pension Committees to complete the claims before 1st January.
  MR. BIRRELL: The facts are as stated in the Question. The Deputy-Keeper of the Records informs me that every effort is being made to meet the demand for evidence of age, and that a considerable temporary increase has been made in the staff of the Public Record Office for the purpose. He has no reason to doubt that all cases in which applications have been received up to the present will be dealt with before 1st January.

  Dublin Overseer as Post Office Detective.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster General under what circumstances an overseer at Dublin substituted the detective police sergeant attached to that office while the latter was absent for a few days; and will he say what particular fitness this overseer showed for the duty, and the place he occupied on the list of sorting clerks prior to his appointment as overseer.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am making inquiry into this matter, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Irish Head Post Offices.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General under what circumstances a number of head offices in Ireland are being reduced to the rank of salaried sub-offices; will he say if the reduction is warranted by a falling off in business, and is he aware that the reduction will give rise to auxiliary labour; can he say if it is contemplated to reduce many more Irish offices; and whether in any cases the local people have objected to the change.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The reduction of small head offices to the rank of salaried sub-offices is not confined to Ireland. It is found to be desirable in some cases as a purely administrative measure carried out solely with the view of obtaining more efficient administration without curtailing postal facilities. The change does not lead to an increase of auxiliary labour. I am unable to say at present whether any further reductions than those already agreed upon will be necessary. Any opposition which has been offered to the reduction of an office has been based, generally speaking, on a mistaken idea that postal facilities will be in consequence reduced or that the interests of the town will be prejudicially affected. In no case has the alteration resulted in any curtailment whatever of existing facilities and prejudicially affected the inhabitants.

  Dual Duties in the Dublin Post Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if it is the intention to abolish the dual system in Dublin as recommended by the Hobhouse Committee; can he say if the recommendations of the Committee regarding the confining of the day's duty to within a period of twelve hours will be carried out at that office; and, in view of the statement made on behalf of the Department before the Hobhouse Commission that a large sum of money had been expended in abolishing split duties in London, if he will say what sum, if any, has been up to the present spent in pursuit of the same object in Dublin.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is not proposed to abolish the dual system at Dublin. It is necessary there for the due disposal of the work. A revision of the indoor force at Dublin is now under consideration, and care will be taken to confine the attendances as far as possible, within a period of twelve hours in accordance with the Parliamentary Committee's recommendation. I am unable to give details of expenditure incurred for the purpose of reducing the number of split duties at Dublin; but the hon. Member may rest assured that I shall carry out that policy as far as practicable.

  Dublin Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of entrants to the class of sorting clerk and telegraphist at Dublin within the past two years; the number of such entrants who have entered other than by open competition; the number of learners now fully qualified there and awaiting appointments, and the likelihood of appointments for such qualified learners; will he state on an average how many extra sorting clerks and telegraphists would have been required daily for the past three months if auxiliary labour had not been employed; and how many learners have been employed on full duty for the same period.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am making inquiries, and will inform the hon. Member in due course.

  Castletown Bere Postal Arrangements.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the defective postal arrangements at Castletown Bere; whether he is aware that business people in the town who do not reside near the post office are debarred from answering letters by return of post; and, if so, seeing that Castletown Bere is a naval base and an important fishing station, he will take immediate steps to provide better postal arrangements for it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will make further inquiry into the question of improving the postal service to Castletown Bere; but, for the reasons explained in my Answer to the Hon. Member's previous Question on the subject on 18th May last, I can, hold out little hope that it will be found practicable to provide an improved service.

  Pension Application Forms in Cork Post Office.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been made aware of complaints concerning the inadequate supply of application forms under the Old-Age Pensions Act for the districts of Newmarket, Meelin, Rockchapel, and Boherbee,
  1280
  County Cork, and the complaint of the Rev. Father Norris, chairman of the Newmarket sub-committee, to the pension officer that many applications have not yet been made in the district owing to this cause; and whether immediate steps will be taken to remedy this defect in the administration of the Act.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I was not aware that the supply of application forms under the Old-Age Pension Act had in any case been found inadequate; and I will have immediate inquiry made respecting the districts mentioned by the hon. Member.

  Government Indian Reform Proposals.
  MR. G. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider his refusal to arrange for a statement to be made on Indian reforms in this House simultaneously with that made by the Secretary of State.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: May I also ask the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House of the nature of the reform scheme for India?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And may I further ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the very general feeling of disapproval in this House that a statement of the policy of the Government in respect to India is to be made in the other House before the Members of this House have been placed in possession of the general features of that policy, he will consider the advisability or convenience in the public interest of making some arrangement whereby Government declarations on Government policy should be communicated in the future to this House of the elected representatives of the people before such communications have been made to the House of Lords?
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg further to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the financial and constitutional responsibility of this House for the government of India, he will allow the House to be made acquainted with the main features of the legislation to be proposed by His Majesty's Government

  1281
  for the better administration of that country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am sorry to say that the statement of my noble friend Viscount Morley, owing to his indisposition, cannot in any case be made to-day. I hope, but I cannot at present say for certain, that it may be made some day in this week, and immediately after the statement the despatch containing a full explanation of the proposed reforms and other papers will be circulated to Members of this House. I will undertake that a statement shall be made in this House on the same evening.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will there be an opportunity for discussion in this House?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; not on that night.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then the discussion will be in the other House only?
  MR. ASQUITH: So far as I understand, there is not going to be a discussion in the other House.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is it not possible to have the papers circulated before the statement is made?
  MR. ASQUITH: I think the statement had better be made first.

  Board of Trade and Local Government Board.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether any progress has been made with the inquiry, which was promised at the beginning of the session, into the functions and status of the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board.
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir, considerable progress has been made with the inquiry, but I am not in a position to make a definite announcement.

  Reform of the House of Lords.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the attention of the Government has been directed to a Report from a Select Committee of the House of Lords, of which Lord Rosebery was the Chairman, on the House of Lords with a view to the reform of that body; whether he is aware of Lord Rosebery's declaration in the House of Lords in the year 1884, that reforms in the House of Lords would not be carried out by previous appointment of a Select Committee, but by a proposal coming from Ministers of the Crown.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Government are not prepared to take any action on the Report in question.

  Indian Sedition Bill.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the penal provisions of the new Sedition Bill passed by the Government of India and the strong feeling that such provisions are a serious infringement of the constitutional rights of British subjects, this House may be given an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this measure before it is put into operation.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Bill to which the hon. Member refers is not a Sedition Bill, but a Bill for dealing with murderous outrages and kindred offences. It has been passed, and is now in operation.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of putting into operation of coercive measures of this kind before remedial measures is calculated to excite to outrage?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is a matter of opinion.
  MR. MACKARNESSwas understood to ask at what offences the Act was specially aimed?
  MR. ASQUITH: The offences are set out in the Schedule of the Act which will, I believe, be circulated on Wednesday.

  Select Committee on Home Work.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend in the coming session to introduce legislation to carry out any of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Work; and whether, in the event of their doing so, they will bear in mind the necessity of making special provision for the distinct case of home workers in rural districts.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid that I am not in a position to make any pledges as to the legislation to be introduced next session. In the event of a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Work being introduced, due regard will, no doubt, be had to the case of rural as distinguished from urban home workers.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.—(Mr. Cherry.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I beg to move that the proceedings on any private business set down for consideration at 8.15 this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, may be entered upon at any hour, and be not interrupted under any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House. I may say that the only object of this Motion is to enable the three private Bills down on the Paper to get through, and that we may, I was going to say, not be troubled with them any more during this session, but so that they may have a fair chance of not being put an end to at 9.30 this evening. I do not regard this Motion as in any sense a precedent. If it were, I should not take such action, as I think it would be undesirable for the ordinary private business of the House. I make the
1284
Motion simply in view of the exigencies in which we are placed at this moment and of the importance of the great time and labour expended on these Bills not being wholly wasted. Under these circumstances, I hope the Motion will meet with general agreement.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at 8.15 this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, may be entered upon at any hour, and be not interrupted under any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House."—(Mr. Asquith.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not rise to raise any objection to the Motion. This may be a very proper proceeding. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not propose, except in similar difficulties perhaps, that this should be made a precedent. But what does he propose should be the course of business before and after the private Bills?
MR. ASQUITH: Before, until 8.15 p.m., we propose to take the Third Reading of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill. As regards the business subsequent to the consideration of the private Bills, that depends on the length of time which they take. Our second Order to-day is the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Children Bill, and if the Private Bills were disposed of at a comparatively reasonable hour—I suppose I might say ten o'clock—I think we might take the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Children Bill; but if it turns out that the private Bills occupy a longer time we will defer the consideration of what is really a very important question, viz., the Lords' Amendments to the Children Bill, till to-morrow. There are two other Bills, neither of which raises any question of serious controversy, which I hope we might take to-night, first the. Committee Stage of the Crofters' Commons Grazings Regulation Bill, and the other the Second Reading of a Bill which has already passed Revision Bill. The important question, of course, is the Children Bill, and I will undertake that we shall not proceed

1285
with that except at a reasonably early hour.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked if it was not possible to take the Children Bill before entering upon the consideration of the private Bills.
MR. ASQUITH: If we get the Third Reading of the Eight Hours Bill at an early hour we should proceed with the Children Bill.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether if the Motion of the Prime Minister were agreed to, the private Bills could not be taken at any hour of the evening.
MR. ASQUITH: No; they must come on at 8.15 p.m.
MR. KEIR HARDIEpointed out that the Motion said they might be entered upon at any hour. Could not the Children Bill, therefore, be taken before them?
MR. SPEAKER: It would not be possible to take the private business before 8.15; it has been fixed for that time by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, it was that the private Bills might be entered upon after 8.15 p.m. I do not believe that is the intention of the Government, but the prima facie reading of the Resolution seems to support the contention of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. ASQUITH: The object of the Motion is this. Under the Standing Orders we cannot enter on the consideration of a private Bill after 9.30, and it is to provide for that contingency that I move the Resolution.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered accordingly.

COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): A very few words are
1286
necessary from me on this occasion. I must remind the House at the outset that we have not rushed the Bill through its various stages. It is entirely innocent of the guillotine. For eighteen months the Bill has been before the country, and on eighteen days the Bill has been under discussion. I will say one or two final Words as regards two of the principal points in connection with the Bill. First of all, as regards the question of safety, which was one of the main points submitted in the Committee examination, I maintain that we have provided against all those dangers which in some quarters were anticipated as likely to result from the Bill. We have introduced safeguards against these dangers, first of all by excluding the second winding for a period of five years, which will certainly reduce any tendency to haste in the Working of a coal mine under the Bill; in the second place, we have provided for securing a safe period of winding the men up and down; in the third place, we have exempted firemen and other special classes of men upon whom the safety of the mine more immediately depends; and in the fourth place we have excluded general workmen underground whose continued presence in the mine may be necessitated by apprehended danger. I say now that, having regard to these safeguards, there is no reason at all to fear the effects of this Bill with respect to any increase of danger in coalmining. The second point on which I have to say something is the economic side. I admit now, and I have never used different language, that it is not possible to forecast precisely what the amount of disturbance may be in the working of a mine when this Bill comes into operation, or what the precise increase in the cost of production may be, but let the House remember this, that whatever may be said in regard to some districts, this Bill cannot be an element of disturbance in no inconsiderable number of the mines of the country, and in that number I include some of the very greatest mines which are now being worked. Those mines which are now worked in two or three shifts on the eight hours basis will not be affected at all. There are other single shift mines which are now practically working eight hours a day, and there are a considerable number

1287
of mines which are worked only slightly in excess of eight hours a day, where the effect of this Bill in any case will be immaterial and not appreciable. On the other hand I admit that in Durham and Northumberland something like complete reorganisation of most of the mines will be necessitated, and on a scale and at a cost which justifies the extension of the preparatory period which we have now given them in the Bill. I am confident that mine owners in other parts of the country will not grudge this small concession to Durham and Northumberland, in view of the better facilities which they have in conforming to the provisions of the Bill. I agree that there may be some difficulties such as were pointed out by my hon. friend the Member for Mansfield, but I do not believe that he, when he considers it wholly, will really grudge this benefit, such as it is, to Durham and Northumberland. Then I come to the South Wales and Lancashire mines, and here again I admit that for a time the Bill may put these mining districts to some inconvenience; but I am not to be told that the skill and resource of the managers and the owners in Lancashire and South Wales will not be amply sufficient to effect changes which are necessary either by the establishment of double shifts or in any other way by reorganisation which may be necessary. So, Sir, though I say that the transition period may involve some rise in price, still I maintain it is by no means improbable that in a very short time, because of the increased power of production which this Bill in operation will bring about, consumers will gain and not lose by the Bill. That is not very material to the argument, but I make bold to say that, and in time we shall see who is right and who is wrong. Though the reception of the Bill was not altogether friendly, yet I wish to thank the House for its patient and considerate attention. I do not think it is necessary for me at the outset to go into the substance of the case. I have spoken over and over again until I am tired of the sound of my own voice on this subject, and I therefore leave any further statements or arguments which may have to be made in reply to the speeches on the Third Reading to my right hon. colleague.
1288
I thank the House for its consideration, and I thank in particular my hon. friend the Member for Hanley and his colleagues for their zeal and their restraint in this matter, which were equally helpful to me. I wish to say that in the course they pursued they were not merely discharging a political obligation. For twenty years many of us have voted or spoken in this House consistently in support of the principle of this Bill. Twenty years ago perhaps the support of the miners might not have been so necessary as some hon. Members take it to be now, but, at any rate, the events of twenty years go to show that those who consistently, year after year, voted for the Bill have not done so out of a mere wish to get votes. I have not any miners' votes in my own constituency, but it was because we expected the change which we were proposing was really going to confer very considerable benefit that we supported it. Therefore, I say we have not brought in the Bill and worked it up to this stage for the purpose of securing the votes of miners, though I admit those votes in most parts of the country have been very friendly to the party to which I belong. But that is not so all over the country. There is the great mining county of Lancashire, where certainly the miners are not more friendly to the Liberal party than to the Conservative party. However that may be, I present this Bill to the House for Third Reading as something which through its agency will give to a large section of the country fresh hope and confidence in life. We hope to close a long controversy between employers and employed which threatened to develop, and, indeed, might easily develop, danger and loss. We believe that this Bill will establish a great national industry on a rational and permanent basis, and that it will help to render the hard lives of miners less arduous and to increase the sum total of contentment and prosperity.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
LORD R. CECIL, in moving that the Bill be read the third

1289
time upon that day three months, said there was one observation of the right hon. Gentleman with which he found himself in complete accord. The right hon. Gentleman congratulated the House on the fact that the Bill had not been passed by means of the guillotine. It was indeed a matter of congratulation that any Bill in this Parliament should not be passed by that means. While according all the praise they deserved to the Government for their self restraint in the matter, he thought that a considerable meed of praise was due to the Opposition for the extreme moderation with which they exercised their rights on Thursday and Friday last in the discussion of important details. They had, so far as the House of Commons were concerned, reached the last stage of the controversy, and it was not his purpose to attempt any complete survey of the field occupied by the Bill. He merely desired to draw attention to a few topics which had become familiar to the House during the discussion of the Bill in its various stages. One thing that struck him in almost all the discussions was the attitude of the Government. He did not believe that a Government Bill had ever been recommended to the House with less confidence, or indeed with less argument. The speech to which they had just listened was a fair example of the general tone which the Government had adopted in reference to the matter—a few perfunctory phrases about benefit to the country, always undefined, and the rest of the speech, as indeed was the case with all the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, occupied by explaining to the Opposition that, bad as the Bill was it was not so bad as they thought. The right hon. Gentleman took great credit to himself that he had provided against the dangers which would be caused by the change of system, that he had excluded winding and firemen, and in other ways taken steps to diminish the injury it was likely to cause. He had added that it was impossible for anyone to forecast the amount of disturbance or the precise amount of the increase in the cost of the material which might be caused thereby. He did not think anyone had ever heard a responsible Government put forward, a measure to be defended by an argument
1290
of that description. The right hon. Gentleman could not afford to himself the melancholy consolation of Touchstone in the play. Undoubtedly it was a poor thing, but the right hon. Gentleman would hardly venture to add: "It is my own." No one really supposed that the Bill was brought forward by the Government of their own motion. They all knew the authors of the Bill. There was no secret about the matter. They were the hon. Members below the gangway, familiarly known as the Labour Party. Therefore, in examining the arguments by which this Bill had been recommended, he thought he would more usefully occupy the time of the House by examining the arguments used by the hon. Members below the gangway than in dealing with those put forward by the Government. The first thing that would strike everyone was the change of ground which had taken place even in the advocacy of the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. Hon. Members were quite familiar with the well-known passage in the speech of the hon. Member for the Wansbeck division in the House on 27th February, 1901, in which he pointed out that the original advocacy of this Bill was put on an absolutely different ground from that now relied upon. The hon. Member said—
"My hon. friend has said that it is not the object of this measure to limit the output of coal, but this was really the object with which the agitation began. At the Bradford Trade Union Congress in 1888, it was distinctly stated that it was to restrict the output of coal, which was about 20,000,000 tons more than was necessary, but when it was found that the British consumer would have something to say to any limitation of the output, then the promoters took another line, and said that if the hours of labour were reduced employment would be found for a greater number. When the weakness of that was pointed out the promoters fell back on a third line, that the Bill would increase the safety of the miners."
That was no doubt the argument mainly put forward by hon. Members below the gangway. It was clear in the first place that they were entitled to say that that was something of an argument, and that in itself the Government did not very much believe in it, for the Home Secretary had explained how many precautions he had taken with the view to avoid increasing the danger in mines by the Bill. His anticipation was not that the Bill would increase the safety

1291
in mines, but rather that unless it was carefully guarded it would increase the danger.
MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. The safeguards we put in were to meet special points brought to my knowledge by experts, but I have never thought, and I do not think, that this Bill is going largely, or very materially, to increase the danger of coal-mining in any part of the country. I quite agree that danger ought to be met and provided against if possible.
LORD R. CECILsaid that was exactly what he stated. The right hon. Gentleman, being of an optimistic or sanguine disposition did not think that the Bill was going materially to increase the danger of mines. That was very modified praise for the Government to give of the measure. But the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, being still more sanguine, said that it was going positively to diminish the danger, and it was on that argument he desired to say a word. The hon. Member said, in the first place, that a priori and in itself it was likely to increase safety because if men were not so long below ground, they were likely to be more at their best for the time they were there, and not so likely to do careless or dangerous things. As to that, they had had the other opinion—an opinion expressed, and so far as he knew not withdrawn—by the hon. Member for Wansbeck that there was at least equal danger that if they confined by rigid rules the hours below ground, miners, being human, would work more quickly, and, therefore, less carefully than if they were allowed a longer time to earn their money. Therefore, so far as the a priori ground was concerned, the matter was one on which he was not in a position to form any independent judgment of his own. He must leave that matter to be discussed and determined by such experts as the hon. Member for Merthyr and the hon. Member for Wansbeck. The hon. Member for Merthyr did not confine himself to mere theory. The other night he gave figures which he said showed as a matter of fact that the decrease of the hours worked meant an increase of safety, and he cited three
1292
particular districts in support of his view. He had not been able to see a report of the hon. Member's speech, but he thought he was accurate in saying that the hon. Member stated that in Scotland the hours were lowest, and that there mining was safest; that in Northumberland and Durham the hours were rather greater, and that there the proportion of fatal accidents was rather larger.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: What I said was that in Durham and Northumberland the hours are shorter.
LORD R. CECILsaid if the figures which the hon. Member gave showed that the hours were shorter there than in Scotland, the illustration fell to the ground immediately. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that in South Wales the hours were still longer and the danger still greater. He left out of consideration all questions of the relative difficulties in working the mines. He knew very little of the subject, but he thought it was admitted that in South Wales they had the most dangerous mines in the country, both in regard to explosions and falls of stones from the roof. He wanted to test the figures of the hon. Gentleman. He was not taking three selected mining industries, but he had tried to see what was the result of an examination of the general statistics of labour as to accidents; and he found this. In the last ten years, from 1897 to 1907, the number of fatal accidents per 1,000 of the population was practically the same. In 1897 they were 1·34; in 1907 they were 1·32. In the intervening years they had fallen to 1·24 and had risen to 1·36, but they remained practically the same during the ten years. That he presumed was a fair test which showed that there had been no change at all in the safety of the working of the mine. But it was not true that there had been no change in the hours of labour. He could not give the details, but the net result of the change was that there had been a very decided reduction in the hours of labour in the mines, taking the whole of the districts of the country in the same way. Therefore, they had this broad fact, that, whereas the hours of

1293
labour had diminished, the Safety was just where it was ten years ago. He thought that was quite a good commentary upon the figures of the hon. Member for Merthyr. But it did not stop there. That was only a very small part of the argument. He thought what was much more important was the conclusion to which the Departmental Committee arrived. They examined all the figures, and what did they say? They said in the plainest possible way that they disagreed with the hon. Member. Here were their words—
"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 underground by the men, or with the districts in which the longest hours are worked."
Therefore, that Departmental Committee had, having an opportunity of examining all the figures, arrived at a conclusion directly opposed to that at which the hon. Member for Merthyr arrived. He felt that in the face of that, the argument from safety was really utterly unsound. And when they were asked, as they were by the hon. Member for Glamorgan, to look at the human side of the question, was not that a clear intimation to everyone who was opposed to the Bill that he was guilty of inhumanity? He was not surprised that that observation was greeted with a certain amount of impatience by his hon. friends. For what did it amount to? Putting aside the question of safety, what other ground for humanity was there in the Bill? Something was said on that side of the House as to the good health of the miner, and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had suggested that really the conclusion which the Departmental Committee had arrived at as to the health of the miner, was not altogether sound. But the right hon. Gentleman never suggested that the Bill was likely to make—he would not say the slightest, but a material difference in the health of the miners, at their work. There was no support for that view, and certainly the Departmental Committee arrived at precisely the contrary conclusion. The Departmental Committee, which was an absolutely impartial Committee, took all the evidence possible on this point, and they distinctly said that the health of
1294
miners stood exceedingly high compared with the health of those engaged in other trades, and that they saw no reason to suppose that the Bill would increase the healthiness of the coal miner. What else was there to be considered? There was no question of sweating in the case. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would put fresh hope and confidence in the miners. That was very appropriate language when they were dealing with labourers in other industries who were being sweated. But had the coal miners been sweated? Here they had on the one side no doubt a very powerful body of employers, and on the other side an equally powerful body, of employees. These latter were grown men, banded together in the most powerful organisation in the country, possessed of great wealth, and as they all knew, to their cost, possessed of great political strength. It was really absurd to ask the House to interfere to save these men from the oppression of their employers. The hon. Member asked them to take a human view of the subject. He quite agreed. He assured him that they above the gangway were not less humanitarian on this subject than hon. Members below the gangway. In his view, if they were to take a human view of the question they must take a larger view. No one doubted that it would be a good thing, and generally it sounded a good thing, if everyone was able to have more money with less work, and in a sense any Bill that proposed to accomplish that object was a human Bill; but they must consider not only the immediate purpose of the measure but its total effect—the effect of the Bill not only on the coal miners but on all the other industrial and domestic interests of the country. It really came to this: would the Bill cause a diminution of output of coal? That was the essential question on the Bill; and here he wished to challenge the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. That hon. Gentleman, with his usual courage, had gone as far as to say that it would not diminish, but rather increase the output per miner; and he cited in support of his view, the case of the East of Scotland. He had given some figures from a relatively small mining district to show

1295
that in the past ten years, though the hours worked by miners had become less, the output per miner was greater. But if he had extended his investigations further he would have found that that rule did not apply to other districts of the country. In the West of Scotland, where the hours of work had also been reduced, in 1897, 22,000,000 tons of coal were raised; in 1907, 25,000,000 tons. As to the men employed, in 1897, they numbered 62,000, and in 1907," 77,000. If hon. Members would do a little sum in arithmetic, unless he was much mistaken, they would find that whereas in 1897 the output per miner was something between 350 and 360 tons, in 1907 the output had fallen to between 310 and 320. So that, again, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil's figures did not appear to stand detailed examination. His hon. friend the Member for Dulwich, who was unable to be present that day cited the case of Lanarkshire last week. In that county the output had fallen per man, according to the figures given to him. In 1896, when the coal miners worked a nine hours winding day, the output was 483 tons per man; in 1901, when only eight hours work per day was registered, the output fell to 405 tons per man, or a diminution of rather more than 16 per cent. as opposed to a reduction in the hours of work of 11 per cent. He might go on citing figures for ever without arriving at a perfectly certain conclusion; but he believed that the hon. Member and his friends in their view that the Bill would not diminish output were mistaken. Moreover, there was no question that the whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, indicated that in his view the Bill would, for a fact, diminish the output per miner, because he talked of the benefit he was going to confer on the miners of Durham and Northumberland by excluding them from the Bill for six months. That also was distinctly the view of the Departmental Committee. He quite agreed that the Departmental Committee did not take the figures that were put before them by the Coal Owners' Association. But the hon. Member for Mansfield on Friday spoke of the great effect which, he said, the Bill would have on the mines in the
1296
North. He said that if they excluded Durham and Northumberland for six months from the Bill they would throw the whole coal trade into confusion, because those districts would be able to undersell others in every market. The hon. Member said the difference of 6d. or 4d. per ton Was a small amount, but he himself gathered from the evidence of the supporters of the Bill that the change, whatever it was, was going to be enough to give an important commercial advantage to those who were not submitted to the provisions of the Bill. Then, what was the burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucester on Friday? He said they were not dealing with an ordinary trade, but with a trade that had the characteristic of being exceedingly inelastic. What did that mean? It meant that the ordinary influences which caused an increase or a diminution in production in a particular trade did not operate in any slight degree in the case of the coal trade but remained very much the same. In spite of depression the output remained very much the same, but he knew, and they all knew, that although the output remained the same the price varied very considerably. And what Was the inference that he drew from that? It meant an enormous alteration in the trade; whether it was in the direction of cutting down demand or reducing output it would produce an enormous effect upon the price of the article produced. That seemed to him to be all the more valuable because it was an opinion given by an hon. Gentleman whose opinion on this subject was second to none in the House, and an hon. Gentleman who was favourable to the Bill. What was the conclusion from that that any impartial man must draw? Why, that the Bill would diminish the output and increase the cost of production. Using to the full the observation of the hon. Member for Gloucester, he said boldly—he was not going to prophesy what the exact rise of price would be, he did not think anyone could do that—but he did say with great confidence that in a trade of this kind an increase in the cost of production might mean a rise in price altogether out of proportion to the increase of cost of production. That seemed to him, if they

1297
had any knowledge of economic science, to be the conclusion that they could safely come to. The hon. Member for Hanley, who was in a position of great responsibility with regard to this Bill, said they were told that if they got an Eight Hours Bill they would get a rise in the price of coal of 5s. a ton. That was on 6th October; he said he did not know how much that rise of price would be, and another thing, he did not care. He had not met anybody yet who was sufficiently informed to tell them what might be the increase. The hon. Member said he did not care. That was the attitude of hon. Members below the gangway. Supposing they were dealing not with the case of coal, but with the case of bread, and supposing, in passing some measure, a statesman were told that the effect of his proposal would be greatly to raise the price of bread, and he were to reply: "I don't know whether it will, and I don't very greatly care," what an outcry there would be from the benches opposite. How they would say: "Look at this reckless plutocrat who cares nothing for the sufferings of the poor, and who has only in view the gains and the earnings of one particular class." Yes, but if a Labour Leader said that, they were not allowed to make those comments; they were told that he was acting from the highest and most disinterested motives. There could be no question, let them not conceal it from themselves for a moment, that if the phrase was applicable to any Bill at all, this Bill might be defined as class legislation. They heard a great deal in the last Parliament of doles to classes, but if there ever was a dole to a class this was one. He confessed that, holding that view about the Bill, his difficulty had been to assign any respectable reason why a responsible Government should have brought forward such a measure. The Home Secretary, with more than his usual pathos, said the presentment of this Bill was not merely a discharge of a political obligation, by which delicate words he understood him to mean that he was not merely attempting to catch votes; but if he was not doing that he did not know what he was doing. Did anyone suppose that the Bill would
1298
have been brought forward or pressed forward by the Government if the Miners' Federation did not command a large electoral force? It was not a Bill to protect a small and struggling class; it was not a Bill to save some wretched workers from the oppression of their employers; it was a Bill to confer a benefit upon people who were perfectly well able to protect themselves. The only reason why the Bill was brought forward, and this absolute disregard of the industrial interests of the country had been shown, and the harm which the Bill might inflict put on one side, was that the Government knew that if the Bill did not pass it would not have the least hope of retaining the votes given to it by the mining constituencies. It was for that reason, and because he regarded the Bill as a degradation of the legislative work of this Parliament, that he ventured to move that it be read a third time that day three months.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he desired to second the Motion so ably brought forward by the noble Lord behind him, and from the comprehensive manner in which he had covered the field he felt that there was no need for him to go into those details which they had discussed in the House to such a great extent, and he would confine himself to the principles of the Bill. They had reached the closing stage of this measure, and he supposed it would go to another place for acceptance or rejection. What he should like to know were the recommendations with which it would go up to that House. They would be told that it had been received by the united support of the great majority of the representatives of the people of the country. He ventured to disagree with that suggestion entirely. This measure had been passed by an alliance between the Government and hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. An enormous majority would follow the Government into the lobby knowing nothing of the merits of the Bill. They would then see two right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench opposite and very few behind them, and he thought, it was pretty obvious that the all unwilling dog was being wagged by the all powerful tail, and when hon.

1299
Gentlemen went into the lobby they would go absolutely regardless of the effects of the measure. Hon. Members below the gangway, however, knew exactly what they were about, and they were looking upon the Bill with the greatest possible pleasure for the purpose of bringing about that eight-hours day for which they had been working for twenty-one years, and perhaps it was a curious thing that the entry of the measure into Parliament was coincident with the birth of that new trade unionism which they knew had been dominated throughout by the Socialistic idea. It was also true that a great many of the Labour leaders were entirely opposed to the measure, and there were Labour leaders in the House, who had spoken and fought against it. What was the hypnotic influence by which they had been induced — he could not think to alter their opinions, but certainly to vote contrary to those opinions which they had always held up to now? This measure had been passed through the House accompanied by academic discussions, and he for one looked with great suspicion upon debates of that character, because if they were carried on often enough, as in this case, they saw a measure carried by the persistence of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, He ha been found fault with by the Home Secretary for an assertion to the effect that this was the first real measure that had been brought into the House for the purpose of curtailing male adult labour in this country. He ventured to repeat that assertion, and he would establish its correctness by saying that the two measures relied on by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1803 and the Shop Hours Act of 1904, offered no analogy whatsoever. Let him take the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1893. He knew perfectly well that hours were curtailed there, and for what reason? For the purpose of safeguarding the lives of passengers who travelled by railway. Could that measure be brought forward as an analogy when they knew perfectly well that these men, signalmen and engine-drivers, were engaged at work holding the lives of persons travelling in express trains especially in the hollow
1300
of their hands? Could this measure be brought into comparison in any sense of the word with the case of miners working underground and under no mental strain? [Cries of "Oh!"] Would hon. Members say that a miner who hewed coal was for a great part of the time exercising his brain in that way? [Cries of "Yes."] He ventured to disagree. Then he would take the Shop Hours Bill of 1904. That was voluntary and was limited to closing shops, and had no regard to the hours of employment. It was possible under it for the employer to keep men at work after his shop had closed. Therefore, neither of those measures could be looked upon as a precedent for curtailing the hours of adult labour in this country. What was actually the object of the Bill? And this was what he wanted to bring before hon. Members opposite. The object of the Bill was to lay the foundation by precedent for enforcing by legislative action an eight-hours day in every industry in the country. He thought too, they must attach the greatest significance to this—that it was noticeable that there had been far greater interest outside the House in this measure during the time that it had been before them in Committee and on the Report stage, and it was obvious that people were beginning to understand the aim and object of this unwarrantable interference with the rights of a portion of the people. He thought the argument which the noble Lord had put forward in regard to what they might call the humanitarian point of view had been convincing, and they might claim that that point of view had fallen to the ground even if there was anything to be said for it in times gone by. This was probably due to the fact that improvements had been brought about in appliances in mines through which the workman was exhausted less than before. At the present moment he ventured to say that there was not a single Member opposite would dare to go down to his constituency and put forward the humanitarian argument which was advanced in the House of Commons and repeated from Radical platforms for the purpose of furnishing perorations to speeches in the country. They knew very well that

1301
the health of the miners compared very favourably with the health of those engaged in other industries. Surely the provisions that had been brought into the Bill for the purpose of avoiding evasions were very significant. They were a very striking feature of this Bill. The men whom the Bill was to benefit, they understood, were to be hounded out of the mine whenever they should stay a few minutes more than they ought to stay in the opinion of their friends in the House of Commons; and if those men did stay a few minutes longer, and their employer could be proved to be cognisant of the fact, then he was to be guilty of an indictable offence. The idea that the Bill was put forward on humanitarian grounds was an absolute fallacy. The argument had been put to the miners in quite a different way. It had been put to them that they would have a higher rate of wages and do less work. There was such a thing as human nature, and although it might not be a very laudable characteristic of mankind there were very few who would be able to withstand the temptation to support the Bill if they were told that they would do less work and get more money for it. But if the Bill was made the subject of a referendum to the miners and it was put to them that there was to be less work and therefore they would earn less wages, it would be found that there was a very large majority in favour of continuing as they were now going on. With regard to the conspiracy of silence to which they had been subjected by hon. Members below the gangway during the debates on the Bill, he would like to ask: was that conspiracy of silence to be broken that afternoon? If it was, let him put one or two specific questions to which he would like a reply. The first question was this: was it only on humanitarian grounds that they were pressing this Bill forward? The second was: had they ever informed the miners that they were going to do less work and receive a higher wage? And the third, whether they would support the proposition that all labour in this country should be reduced to working only eight hours a day. There might be some argument in favour of working five days a week, but he did not think that hon.
1302
Members below the gangway would support such a suggestion as that, because that would necessitate some latitude being given, and they had opposed any latitude whatever or any departure from the rigidity of the Bill. But he submitted that five days a week for mining would be a far better condition of work than a rigid eight-hours day. A good deal of time was lost going to and fro, and surely it was better when a man was at his work that he should be allowed to work a few hours longer than to be stopped at the end of eight hours. He had one good authority for that suggestion. It was well-known that at the Tredegar Mines a resolution was passed by the miners for the purpose of forwarding a petition to the employer to allow them to work a quarter of an hour extra on four days a week with the condition that on one day of the week their work should be reduced by one hour. That was considered by the employers, and they refused to accede to it, because they believed that this Bill would pass, and that the days the miners proposed to lengthen would be shortened, and the day they proposed to shorten would be lengthened.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he was interested in the Tredegar Collieries and he could only say that there was absolutely no proof for the latter part of the statement the hon. Member had just made.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHwas glad the hon. Member had spoken. He would have an opportunity of giving his views later. He could only say that he believed everything he had said was absolutely correct. He would like to draw the attention of hon. Members opposite to the provision for postponing the full operation of the Bill for five years, and enacting that during those five years two windings should be excluded. This was done by the right hon. Gentleman, as he said, in the interests of safety. It was certainly a novel form of legislation to enact that the successors of the right hon. Gentleman—and he presumed he would have successors in the next five years—should be bound to carry forward what this House has laid down. Surely it must be an object of speculation, but the right

1303
hon. Gentleman was convinced that the march of invention would be so great that appliances would be invented during this period that would justify the provisions of the Bill. There was one other point to which he would like to refer. There was the individual who owned two pits and the individual who owned two scams in one pit. Surely it was very hard that the individual who owned two pits should have an extension of sixty hours in each pit and he who owned two seams in one pit should only have the extension of sixty hours divided between the two seams. He had not touched on the measure from the economic point of view. If it was true that the work was injurious or even deleterious to the health of the miners underground he would be the first to say that no work should go on underground at all. But that had never been and could not be proved, and if it was not injurious or deleterious to the health of the miners to work in the mines under present conditions then no condemnation could be strong enough to be meted out to the Government who brought in such a Bill as this. The output would be decreased, that was admitted, and every individual industry in the country would be hampered and handicapped in the competition of the world, and every consumer would be put to inconvenience and expense. That being so he did not think the Government was justified in inflicting such a hardship on the community. He had ventured to make his protest, and would now make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. He appealed to them to consider the Bill on its merits and before going into the Lobby to consider exactly what they were voting for. They were establishing a precedent which was bound to be acted on as years went by. He believed that hon. Members opposite were all returned to Parliament as free traders. Was it a free trade argument that they should hamper and handicap the source of all our industries and hinder them in their competition with foreigners over the seas? He should like to ask whether Mr. Cobden, the patron saint, of hon. Gentlemen opposite, would have supported this measure? He thought not. He ventured to think that he would have been consistent and would have opposed it in every possible way.
1304
He did not know whether it was any use making an appeal to the most subservient majority that ever answered the summons of a party whip, and he would, therefore, content himself by seconding the noble Lord's Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Lord Robert Cecil).
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. E. EDWARDSraid that on Friday he ventured to put the views of the Miners' Federation before the House upon this question. He had listened with considerable interest to the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, and had noted that the noble Lord had honoured him by quoting a speech which he had delivered at Chester in connection with the increased price of coal. If the noble Lord had had before him the addresses which he had continuously delivered upon this subject, he would have observed that he had continuously dissociated himself from those who said that there would be no increase in cost as the result of the Bill. He had always endeavoured to make it plain that in his opinion there must be some increase in the cost. But it was nonsense to say that the increase would be 4s. or 5s. a ton. That he absolutely denied. As a matter of fact, he had been engaged for some time in meeting the objections to the increased cost. They now heard that the great objection was the increased cost, and many of those who had urged that objection were gentlemen not familiar with mining though they might have been prompted by those who had knowledge on the matter. Many mistakes had in consequence been made which he would like to correct lest they should remain on the minds of those who had taken an interest in the debates of last week. Those objections had been urged, as he had said, by hon. Members knowing nothing about mining or the methods by which the work was carried on in the mines. They had been asked,

1305
Why not allow a man to work as long as he liked, or as short hours as he liked. That was where the ignorance of hon. Members was shown. When they were dealing with a coal mine and with people working underground they must deal with the men in one block. Mines had a general set of rules. A coal mine was not a factory to which a man might go to work at any time or come away at any time. The collier must observe the rules, and he could not either go down the pit or leave the pit save at stated times under the rules. Hon. Members must be aware that the arrangements of a colliery had to be made with due regard to the regulations imposed by the law, and that this was done in the interests and the safety of the men's lives. Therefore, it would readily be seen that a miner could not go down the mine or leave the mine at any time he chose, and it was for this reason that for years miners had been asking for a Bill which should not require, their being underground for more than eight hours a day. The noble Lord opposite suggested that this Bill asking for a miners' eight hours day was preliminary to a demand for a general eight hours day all over the country. So far as he knew, this was a miners' Bill and a miners' Bill only. It was the Bill for which miners had been asking for twenty years, and in all that time there had been no suggestion for a general eight-hours day. The claim made now under this Bill was very much what it was when brought forward twenty years ago. It might be said that there was nothing new in it compared with the first demands. The miners asked for this eight-hours day because they were miners, and because, being miners, they worked under conditions unknown to any other trade of the country. The miner lived the greater part of his life buried away from the world and from what went on in it, and considering the conditions under which he had to labour, he ought not to be asked to spend the greater part of his life underground, away from the surroundings of daily life. The sacrifices the miner was called upon to make were very great, and it was on that ground that there was a strong feeling in support of this Eight Hours
1306
Bill. When they came to realise all the dangers which beset the calling of the miner they would see that eight hours underground was long enough for any person to work. So far as the miner was concerned, as he had already said, they had for many years urged that eight hours from bank to bank was quite long enough. They had been reminded of the difference on this question which existed between Northumberland and Durham and the Midlands, South Wales, and Scotland. Everybody knew that it had not been necessary to refer to the speeches of the hon. Member for Morpeth or the hon. Member for Wansbeck, for they all knew that at one time they entered the division lobby in opposition to the Eight Hours Bill. He did not dispute that there was this difference, and that the representatives of the Northumberland and Durham miners did record their votes against the previous Bill; but they would not vote against the Third Reading to-day; they would go into the division lobby in favour of it, because the miners in the north of England were members of the Miners' Federation. [Opposition cheers.] He was pleased to hear those cheers, because they marked the fact that they were now a friendly combination, and they knew that the miners of the North of England, through their representatives, would show their loyalty on this question. He would like to remind hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, who had had so much to say in regard to the speeches of his right hon. friend the Member for Morpeth, that those speeches had not gone, he thought, to the length of some of the speeches made by hon. Members in that House in opposition to the Eight Hours Bill. His right hon. friend the Member for Morpeth had already felt, as many of them had felt, that the unfortunate position taken up by the miners of the North of England in regard to the eight hours question was largely caused by the number of boys who were kept underground for long hours, day in and day out. The miners' conference and the miners of the country desired to reduce those hours for boys from one end of the kingdom to another, and it was because of that position that the Miners' Federation undertook to press

1307
this Bill upon the House in season and out of season. During the last twenty years some of the best of hon. Members on the other side of the House had given their support to the Bill, and he expected they would find a number of them supporting the Third Reading to-night. During the discussion it had been said that no effort had been made by the workmen to settle the question of an eight-hours day between themselves and their employers. He might say that during seventeen or eighteen years several efforts had been made to bring about a general agreement between the coal owners and themselves. They had never been able, so far as he knew, to include in those interviews the coal owners from Durham and Northumberland. Otherwise the rest of the United Kingdom and Scotland and Wales in the early part of this year had a settlement offered by the coal owners, but in that case, and at no time, had they the support of the North of England. Then the question was asked, and it was one of those questions which he had never been able to understand, and he had not met anybody in the House or out of it who did understand it, namely, what would be the increased cost of coal caused by an eight-hours day? He did not know, and he had not found anybody who thought he knew. He realised there might be a higher price after the Bill came into operation, but when they considered in these days the improved facilities for getting coal to bank, and the numerous means of expediting the operations in the mines, he personally did not anticipate that there was going to be any serious difference in the price. Looking at the Bill now as it stood, he found that there were in it limitations which were rather dangerous. Although they loyally supported the Bill, he suggested that there were limitations in it of which the miners had never been enamoured. Nevertheless, they accepted the Bill, which affirmed the principle of an eight-hours day from bank to bank. The proposals of this measure came very near those in the modified Bill which they introduced, and he hoped that the present Bill would go through the House, and also through another place, without serious alteration or serious opposition. He believed when the Bill
1308
came into operation they would find a very cordial desire on the part of the federated and non-federated districts and the coal owners to make this Bill effective and practicable. It might arouse some opposition, and he was satisfied that the concentrated wisdom that was manifested in those great gatherings between employers and employed would find a solution which would enable the Bill to be carried out without damaging the interests of any other trade in the country, and it would be welcomed by the miners throughout the land as one of the best steps ever taken by Parliament in the interests of that class.
MR. RUSSELL REAcongratulated those hon. Members who represented the miners on the completeness of their victory in passing this Bill through the House. The Bill, when it came into full operation, would establish, not a nominal, but a real and actual eight-hours day from bank to bank for the average individual miner. From the moment he stepped into the cage to descend into the dark under-world, to the moment he stepped out of the cage into the sunshine on the pit brow, would be neither more nor less than eight hours. He was surprised to find that this was not clearly understood even yet outside the House, and by some Members of it. He had carefully defined such a day in the Report as a day with one winding of men included, and one winding excluded. Under it the first man to descend would descend half an hour before the statutory eight hours began, for the first winding was excluded; if he was the first man to ascend, he would ascend half an hour before the statutory eight hours ended, for the second winding was included. If he was the last man to descend, he would descend at the stroke of the beginning of the eight hours period; and if he was also the last to ascend he would ascend at the stroke of the end of that period. The middle man would descend a quarter of an hour earlier than the beginning, and ascend a quarter of an hour before the end. It was true the first man down, if the last man up, might be down eight and a half hours. It was also true that the last man down, if the first up, would be down only seven and a half hours. If it were possible,

1309
as it was not possible, for the men to come up in the same order in which they went down, every individual man would have been under ground from bank to bank for eight hours, neither more nor less. And that was as near to the ideal of a perfect eight-hours day as could be reached so long as men had to descend into coal pits by shafts. This was the eight-hours day he had always supported, and would again support by his vote that day. But in so doing he was expressing his own individual opinion on the principle of the Bill. He did not profess to be expressing the opinion of the Committee. But their opinion on the merits of the question was not asked, and it was not given. Had this question been submitted to them, he was bound to say their Report would not have been a unanimous one. But although the object and ultimate effect of the Bill were what he desired, and for that reason he should vote for the Third Reading, yet he did not profess to be satisfied with all its provisions. However beneficent the revolution might be, it was a revolution; and a revolution might be either a peaceful and orderly revolution, or a violent and destructive revolution. They all desired that this revolution should be of the first kind, and not only that opposing forces should not enter into conflict, but that non-combatants should not suffer. He could not but think the Government had been over-sanguine in its estimate of the difficulties of the period of transition, and rash in not providing a more carefully graduated scheme. It would be useless to repeat now the arguments he had used in the House and out of it in favour of a more cautious procedure. He might be forgiven it he said of himself that he did not speak as an armchair chairman of a Committee, but from a life-long commercial experience, not as a coal owner or miner, but as a coal distributor on a tolerably extensive scale, and as a member of a firm which hour by hour, tide by tide, had its finger upon the pulse of production and demand, especially in the districts of South Wales and Lancashire. And if the Bill became law in the precise form in which it left the House, he should watch the earlier stages of its
1310
operation with considerable anxiety and apprehension.
MR. LAMBTONsaid the support that the hon. Member who had just spoken had given to the Bill did not seem to him to be a very hearty one. He looked with anxiety on its effects, even in the coalfields of Wales and Lancashire. He told them he objected to the exemption for six months of Northumberland and Durham, although he told them the Bill would produce a revolution and reorganisation of the coal trade from top to bottom, and that it would mean a re-shuffling of the cards. In fact, he looked with a light heart on this gamble with the coal of Northumberland and Durham. But he had some misapprehension in the case of Liverpool where they used Welsh coal. A great many hon. Members opposite seemed to object to the exemption of Durham and Northumberland for six months, and the hon. Member for Hanley rather upbraided some of the coalmining Members for Durham and Northumberland, who had in the past opposed the Bill, and said he was quite certain they would be loyal to the Federation and support the measure. He was sure they would be loyal, and they were going to vote for the Bill simply out of loyalty to the Federation, and not because they liked the Bill, or because the miners in Northumberland and Durham desired them to vote for it. That was, he thought, a well-known fact. He would not taunt his hon. friends with any change of opinion. They were quite capable of expressing their opinions in that House, and they were highly respected there. When the hon. Member for Hanley told them the Federation had always had this Eight-Hours Bill before their minds, they were federated to mines in other parts of the country, and they would have been able to arrange with their employers for an eight-hours day if it had not been that the employers of Northumberland and Durham, stood out, why could not they make their own arrangements without bothering about Northumberland and Durham? It simply meant that an eight-hours day, if arranged on voluntary terms instead of being

1311
enforced by Act of Parliament, would so reduce their output and increase their cost that they would not have been able to compete successfully in the markets of the world with Northumberland and Durham. That was the reason why the hon. Member for Mansfield was so hostile to the claims of Northumberland and Durham. He let the cat out of the bag the other day. He said the coal owner of Yorkshire would have to compete on disadvantageous terms with Northumberland and Durham. It was well known to the House that the men there worked less than eight hours a day and the boys longer. That was always held up as a most inhumane arangement, but after all, the boys in Durham and Northumberland did not work longer hours than boys in other parts of the country. If they did work too long hours—he did not know whether all hon. Members opposite thought these boys of Northumberland and Durham were so badly treated—it was the business of Parliament to step in and protect them. Was the Home Secretary of opinion that the boys in Northumberland and Durham worked too long, and that their hours ought to be restricted by Act of Parliament, and had he been long of that opinion? He had been in office three years. Why had he not brought in a Bill in those three years respecting the hours of boy labour in mines? Why did he wait to bring in a Bill to restrict adult labour? He shook his head, but he (Mr. Lambton) had been taunted with belonging to a class which was inhumane towards the boys of Northumberland and Durham. He should like to see all the boys work less than eight hours. When hon. Members taunted them with inhumanity why had not they brought in a Bill long before to restrict the labour of juveniles in the mines? The only answer was that the boys had not votes, and they did not think it worth while. He hoped they had heard the last of inhumanity. On the question of diminishing boy labour, it was not such a simple matter as it appeared to be. He thought the hon. Members for Morpeth and Wansbeck would like to see the hours of boys shortened, but they did not think they had done them any particular harm. He thought at present, about
1312
11 per cent. of the boys in these districts were under sixteen. If they had three shifts of eight hours and two of ten, he presumed a greater number of boys would have to be employed. Would they all be able to rise to the position of hewers in a few years as they did now, or would they when they had served to the age of seventeen or eighteen be cast adrift in the world with no employment at all? That seemed to him a considerable danger. If the hon. Member for Leicester was there he would ask him what his opinion on that point was, because he noticed a communication in The Times that morning signed by him, pointing out the extreme danger of bringing up boys in casual employment and turning them adrift at about seventeen or eighteen. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to be sure that he was not going to introduce that danger into the coalfields of Durham and Northumberland. But he objected altogether to interference with adult labour. If they objected to boys working long hours let them bring in a Boys Bill, but what right had they to dictate to a man the hours he should work? Why should they tell him he must make his living in six days of eight hours instead of four or five of longer hours? It was absolutely absurd to interfere with the right of grown-up men to dispose of their labour. If they wanted to make the Bill a reality, and he did not believe the ostensible supporters of the Bill were in favour of it, they ought to give the miners of the country the choice of adopting or rejecting the Bill. They ought to accept some contracting-out clause. The hon. Member for Mansfield did not like that much. It would take away some of the profit he would make.
MR. MARKHAM: That is not quite fair. You are going to put a burden on Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Nottingham coalowners. It should apply all round.
MR. LAMBTON: I have no wish to be at all unfair.
MR. MARKHAM: I said the argument was unfair. I did not say the hon. Member was unfair.
MR. LAMBTONsaid he did not want to put a burden on anyone, but the Bill would impose a burden all round, and he wanted to prevent, as far as he could, his own constituency suffering under the burden. But this must be a burden. He dared say it would not be a burden to the coalowner or the collier, because they could put the increased cost of the measure upon the consumer, And perhaps the manufacturer would not suffer; he also would be able to pass his cost on to the consumer. But what would be the case of the unhappy consumer himself? He would not be able to pass it on to anyone; he would have to pay an immensely enhanced price for his coal, and would receive no Benefit whatever. The Bill is one of the most protective measures that had been introduced. Pure protection was what the hon. Member for Mansfield asked. He said he could not compete with the free trade of Northumberland and Durham, and must have protection, and he was an orthodox free trader. That was not his sort of free trade. He had endeavoured to point out the extreme danger of the handicap they were placing upon the industries of the country in regard to the export trade. Manufacturers for the home market might pass their extra cost on to the unfortunate consumer. But what about the export coal trade of Northumberland, and what, about the manufacturers who would produce at an enhanced cost for export? Would they be able to hold their own in the markets of the world? They would have the strongest case in the world for demanding protection, and they would demand it, and yet a free trade Government brought in a measure of this sort. It was one of the most anomalous Bills he had ever seen brought into Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman smiled. He had told them himself he did not know what the cost would be. He had acknowledged that in a few years it would be very great. Now he shook his head and said "No," but in the speech he had made less than an hour ago he said there would be a reorganisation in the first five years, and the hon. Member for Gloucester said it meant a re-shuffling and re-organisation of the trade from top to bottom. There was not the slightest doubt, more
1314
especially after the speech to which they had just listened, that the effect of the Bill would be greatly to increase the price of coal. It had already been pointed out that this powerful federation desired to increase its force because it knew it was dealing with a weak-kneed Government. He hoped the House did not imagine that this was going to be the last Eight Hours Bill. Not one single argument of any weight had yet been advanced by the Government in support of the Bill; they were working quite in the dark. During its passage through the House the Bill had never been adequately defended. Surely before such a measure was passed there ought to have been some much more powerful advocacy of the real reasons for its introduction He had no hesitation in saying that not one of the arguments used in favour of this Bill would hold water. He wondered why the hon. Member for the Mansfield division had not introduced into his own collieries this system of eight hours without coming into Parliament to force men to work eight hours who desired to work longer. The Bill was a form of tyranny which he hoped would not be repeated.
MR. WALSH: An appeal was made by the noble Lord who seconded the Motion suggesting that those sitting on the Labour bench might break the conspiracy of silence into which he imagined a number of hon. Members below the gangway had entered. He was quite sure that the noble Lord knew the reason for their silence, namely, that they desired to save this measure, and to be free from any responsibility for strangling it themselves. Consequently it was absolutely necessary for them to remain silent, as the procedure in the House was calculated to hasten the death of Bills unless they knew the golden value of silence. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone made one statement in which he said the central question was, would this Bill diminish the output of coal. He did not believe that the central question was the economic question at all. His opinion was that the central question was a great moral and social one. Notwithstanding what

1315
hon. Members who were opposed to this measure had stated he claimed that the Bill had always been put forward by the Miners' Federation, and for many years before that federation was formed, upon the broad ground of the moral and social betterment of the people engaged in the mines. So great were the material considerations, so vast was the number of people employed, so great was the amount of capital invested, and so enormous were the number of people dependent directly and indirectly upon the fruits of this industry, that, of course, the economic question must be one of very great importance and they could not under-rate its importance. He would assume for the moment that the noble Lord was right in saying that the central question was, would the Bill diminish the output of coal. He said emphatically that it would not diminish the output, and he said that because every mining engineer in the country knew that the resources of the mines were not by any means utilised to their fullest capacity, and by a better manipulation of the resources of the mines, by better transit arrangements in the mines, they were confident that the output of the mines would not be diminished by the operation of the Bill.
SIR F. BANBURY: Does the hon. Member remember a speech which he made on this question in 1908?
MR. WALSHsaid he would come to that point a little later on if the hon. Baronet would remain silent. The fear that the output would be diminished had been constantly put forward and had been as constantly falsified; for the last twenty-five years the production of the mines had increased year after year in unbroken succession, and inasmuch as the ingenuity of the people engaged in the management of mines was day after day engaged in putting down stronger plant, larger engines, wider shafts, developing the resources inside and outside of the mines, there was not the slightest fear that human ingenuity and skill would find itself more than able to cope with any slight decrease in the output caused by
1316
the passing of the Bill. It was said that there would be great danger to life involved because of the increased hurry that would result from the passing of this measure. He desired to point out that the districts with the shortest hours not only possessed the greatest winding capacity, but they also had the credit of having the smallest ratio of accidents to life and limb. Take, for example, the counties of Durham and Northumberland. Taking Durham alone, which was the greatest mining county in the kingdom, they found there the greatest productive capacity for winding and the greatest amount of coal produced of any county in the kingdom, and yet there they had the shortest hours of labour and the cleanest accident record. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes, and that without an Act of Parliament.] Yes, he was aware of that, and he was simply speaking of the fact that there they had a great mining county, the greatest in the kingdom, which put out the greatest amount of mineral, and yet had the shortest hours of work and the cleanest accident bill of any mining district in the kingdom. Now if there was any real force in the objection that greater accidents would result from this measure, they certainly ought to think once, twice, and more than thrice even, before those who were, after all, directly responsible for the men and their welfare, thought of pressing such a measure as this upon the attention of Parliament. If they thought this would lead to an increase of danger to human life, could it be imagined that they would press forward such a proposal at all, especially in view of the fact that some of them were in the direct pay of the men, and that they were in close contact with them day after day. But leaving out altogether the individual argument as to what they would or would not do, the facts themelves told against the contention that shorter hours of labour meant a greater number of accidents to life and limb. Again it was said that if it did not increase the number of accidents to life and limb, it would undoubtedly lessen the individual output. Here again the concrete fact was testified to by every mining county in the kingdom that where the shorter hours of labour

1317
existed there the individual output was the greatest. [OPPOSITION cries of "No" and "Quote."] He was not going to quote figures now, because he quoted them last year and they had been frequently quoted in the debate. What was more, the Blue-books were at the disposal of every hon. Member, and he again asserted that the figures proved that the result of increased efficiency within the mines, and the greater human efficiency of the men, was that shorter hours not only did not lessen the output, but substantially increased it. Again he took up this argument that accidents would increase and the output diminish. He said that those two contentions were completely demolished by the facts as they existed to-day. He would like to point out that in this case not only had the miners a good claim for shorter hours of labour, but in many counties, notwithstanding the great increase in the productive capacity of the mines and those employed in the mines, not only had that productive capacity not brought a corresponding relaxation in the hours of labour, but in some cases the pits were working a longer working day than ever before. In Lancashire it was perfectly true that in some parts of the south-west and south-east of that county many of the youths and the men employed in winter hardly ever saw the light of day. He had never been quite able to understand why it was perfectly proper for Parliament to legislate for a boy up to the age of sixteen, but the very day after he reached that age he had to be left to his own individual resources. Between the age of sixteen and twenty-one was the time, above all others, during which that young fellow's career should be guided, because incidentally the fortune of the State of which he formed an individual part was affected. It was their duty to develop the physical qualities of these youths and see that their intellectual prospects did not suffer. They had a right to have a fair opportunity of shaping and carving out their own future. That was certainly their right. When these youths were engaged in the mines, as they often were, soon after five o'clock in the morning until between five and six at night, what possible opportunity could there be for those young lives becoming
1318
that valuable factor in the assets of the nation which they were all desirous of making them? It was on those grounds that they pressed forward this Bill. He had never spoken at any meeting which he had addressed for the last twenty-five years without insisting that these were the broad grounds on which such a Bill as this ought to be argued. There was the argument of fear which had been put forward by the noble Lord that this was only the beginning, so to speak, of a long succession of calamities. Fear did possess the minds of most of them some time or other, but he thought that in connection with this measure it might be banished. Hon. Members who opposed the Bill said that it ought not to pass the Third Reading, and that if it did it ought to meet with a miserable fate elsewhere, because of some Socialistic bogey which was to uprear its head. Their attitude reminded him of the lines of Coleridge—
"Like one who in an entry dark
Doth fear to turn his head,
Because he thinks a frightful fiend
Doth close behind him tread."
There was no frightful fiend going to follow the passing of this Bill. Not at all. It had for its purpose the amelioration of a class who as a whole were, he thought, as deserving as any other class in the nation—a class who were subjected to conditions of labour which were utterly unknown in any other industry. It was for them he and his friends asked the House to pass this Bill. They believed that employers and employed, when once the State had expressed its mind, would combine in introducing for the benefit of the people directly engaged in the industry those changes which were required, and they believed that the best results would be brought out of the Bill. They were certain that nothing serious could happen to the State, and that the poor consumer had nothing to fear. Reference had been made to a speech which he delivered six or eight months ago at the conference of the Miners' Federation. There were reporters present at the meeting, and no doubt they took down as quickly as they could the words which he used on that occasion. He wanted to get away from the statement which the papers represented him as having made. First of

1319
all, let it be remembered that they were dealing with a furious and violent agitation, and that a body had just come upon the field armed cap-à-pie called the Coal Consumers' League. At that time a distinguished member of this Government experienced some change and vicissitude of fortune at a particular election. It was said by the representatives of that league that if the Eight Hours Bill were passed coal would not only cost the consumer more, but that it would cost 5s. per ton extra. At the conference which was held after that statement was made he took out the figures for the actual hewing rates paid to colliers and their mates—the men engaged in hewing coal and in drawing it. He took the actual tonnage rates paid at forty-eight of the best-paid collieries in South-West Lancashire. The actual tonnage rate paid at the time came to 2s. 8d. per ton, and that was a time when wages were at their highest and when the average working day was about nine hours and a half. Supposing broadly that the collier would receive 1s. 6d. per ton, and the drawer 1s. 2d. per ton, here was the point which he wished to emphasise to the conference. If the average working day in a large portion of South-West Lancashire was nine and a half hours, the collier was receiving something like two-pence per ton, and if they knocked an hour and a half per day off the working hours the effect would be to increase the actual hewing cost by anything from 4d. to 6d. per ton, taking all classes of labour underground. He put that forward at the conference in order to show how utterly hollow and insincere, or, if not hollow and insincere, how utterly ignorant of the facts, must be those who were engaged in the agitation against the Bill when they put forward the contention that 5s. would be the probable increase in the cost to the poor consumer. He went on to remark that the increase in the cost which he had indicated was estimated on the assumption that there were no changes underground or on the surface and that neither the workmen nor the employers would set themselves to deal with the new condition of things. But to assume that the men working in the mines would take that course was to
1320
assume that the men were not careful of their own interests, and that they were simply vacuous. He did not think anyone would put forward that argument. He said that both employers and employed would set themselves to face the new conditions and that the industry would be regulated with due regard to their economic effects. There was to-day constant abstention from work. A man who had worked a long day often abstained from working altogether on the following day, but if the hours of labour were so regulated that a man need not leave his work one day in the last stage of physical exhaustion and, therefore, be incapable of work the following day—if by this measure his hours of labour were so regulated that he would be able to work with greater regularity than had hitherto been the case, a great advantage would be gained.
SIR F. BANBURY: What the hon. Member said was, that if the Bill becomes law the cost of production will be raised an eighth or a ninth, and that a higher rate per ton would be charged to the consumer in order to compensate for the limitation of hours.
MR. WALSHsaid he did not see anything in that. He might remind the hon. Member of the latter part of his speech which he had not read out at all. He stated that the estimate which he gave to the conference was based on the assumption that neither the workmen nor the employers did anything to introduce altered conditions in the working of the mines. Surely there would be notice taken of the altered conditions brought about by this Bill. What was an eighth of 2s. 8d.? Well, it was 4d. The noble Lord, the Member for East Marylebone, said he was not much of an arithmetician, but even he could manage that point. What he wished to impress upon the public at the time was the danger of being misled by the wild, whirling agitation which was being brought against this measure. The arguments against the Bill had been reasoned out in Committee upstairs and in the House, but amongst the arguments which had been adduced in opposition to the measure the statement which was made by the Coal Consumers' League as to the

1321
cost being increased by 5s. per ton had not been put forward. No one had dared to repeat that argument here. He hoped this Bill would pass the Third Reading. He believed it was a measure which would make for the great moral and social betterment of an enormous number of His Majesty's subjects. It would not only give great satisfaction to the people who were to receive immediate and direct benefit, but he believed that if the Bill passed every man who had given his vote for it would in years not far ahead look back with satisfaction to the vote he gave as one of the best actions he had ever performed in the House. He believed that a brighter day ought to dawn for the miners of the country. They would be better able to take advantage of the intellectual and physical advantages which would then be within their reach. They appealed to parents to allow their children to attend continuation schools and evening classes in order that they might obtain wider knowledge of trades and handicrafts so that they might not become unemployed in after-years. If their youths were down in the mines for long hours, the evening classes would remain the absolute failure they were at the present moment. It might be said that they were not kept down in the mines. Every colliery manager knew that that was not the case. Every colliery manager knew perfectly well that the men must be kept down in the mines a definite number of hours per day, and that they must be dealt with not individually but en bloc. It was especially in the interests of the young that they made this appeal, and he sincerely hoped that the House would give a Third Reading to the Bill by an enormous majority.
MR. BECKsaid the speech to which they had listened might be taken as representative of the arguments which had been used in favour of the Bill. It was more eloquent than some of the speeches they had listened to, but not more logical. His hon. friend closed his speech with an appeal on behalf of the young lives in the mines. For his part, if the Bill had been produced to regulate the hours of those under twenty-one years of age he would have been quite willing to
1322
support it. [An HON. MEMBER: This Bill does so.] The hon. Member said this Bill did so. This was a Bill to regulate and deal with the hours of adult male labour, and for the first time in the history of the country, except upon grounds of public safety, they were going to regulate the hours of adult males. What he would venture to point out to the House was the inconsistency underlying all these arguments. The hon. Member talked about continuation schools, the benefits of daylight, and so on, and yet a few sentences before he said that they wished to put an end to the state of affairs under which a man worked ten hours one day and did not go down the mines on the following day. Surely, if a man wished to enjoy a modicum of daylight, it was better to remain above ground from morning to night on one day than that he should go into the mine on two days, and get his hours of labour reduced by an hour or half an hour each day. He had never heard that the evening air was so salubrious that two eveaings above ground were better then one whole day above. That was the kind of argument to which they had listened from those who had been advocating the passing of this Bill. He personally knew nothing about coal mines. He only knew about the coal merchant, and he knew that they were asked to pay an intolerable deal of gold for very little coal. He was on the Committee upstairs, and he did his best as a Member of the House to balance the arguments for and against the Bill. He would point out that the arguments which the hon. Member had used as to no reduction in output resulting from reduction in the hours of labour were directly opposed to the arguments used not only by hon. Members opposite but by the friends of the Bill. The Home Secretary had said that there would be a reduction in the output. The hon. Member for Gloucester, whose valuable speeches on this subject were listened to with so much pleasure, had expressed his grave misgiving in regard to the effect of the measure on the price of coal. The hon. Member for Ince did not seem to have ever weighed the evidence which was given by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. He wished very heartily to protest against the Bill. He protested

1323
against it not only because it would inflict hardships upon consumers of coal throughout the country, but because it would handicap our commerce and the great trades of the country. It had two very great defects. One was that it would tie the hands of future Parliaments, in regard to the time-limit of five years. And he protested against it, in the second place, because of its tyrannical character. Notwithstanding all the talk about humanitarism, this Bill would coerce grown-up men into doing what they did not wish to do. No hon. Member opposite denied that. No friend of the Bill had ventured to defend it in any way with enthusiasm, except hon. Members below the gangway. He would as soon expect farmers to oppose in argument a corn tax as hon. Members below the gangway to offer argument against this Bill. As he had said on the Report stage, and throughout the session, hon. Members below the gangway, he knew, were in touch with their fellow workmen who went below ground and who were exposed to the dangers attaching to a miner's life; but what they did not realise was the hardships which the Bill would entail on every other class of the community—upon men who worked as long as miners did, upon men who lived harder lives even than those of the men whom they represented. It was for these reasons that he would give his vote in favour of the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. He believed that they had entered upon a course which it would be very difficult to retrace. His only hope was that the operation of this Act, and Acts of this character, would open the eyes of the people of the country to the dangers of this kind of legislation. He was convinced that ever-growing numbers of persons in the country were feeling a violent reaction against Bills of this kind. As he had said, he intended to vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, and as a loyal supporter of the Liberal Party he must say that he was afraid that the Government had done much to destroy their chances of success at the polls at the next general election by proceeding with a measure of this dangerous and mischievous character.
MR. W. E. HARVEYsaid he supported this Bill on
1324
the Second Reading, and throughout the Committee stage, but some statements had been made in regard to it to which he wanted to refer. It was stated in Committee, and they had heard a remark that afternoon from the noble Lord, the Member for Maidstone, that if a referendum were taken on this Bill it would not be passed. It seemed strange, after those remarks from hon. Members opposite, to remember that the Bill had been carried twice through the House of Commons by a Conservative Government. [HON. MEMBERS on the OPPOSITION benches: "No," "Private Bill," "Second Reading."] That was what he was about to say. The Bill was brought in year after year, and the Second Reading was carried by a large majority when a Conservative Government was in power. On 2nd February, 1901, the Second Reading was carried through this House by 212 against 199, a majority of 13. On May 3rd, 1903, the Second Reading was carried by 279 against 201, a majority of 78, and a Conservative Government was then in power. If Conservatives had not voted on those occasions in favour of the Bill the Second Reading could not have been passed. It was said that on those occasions the Bill was a private Member's Bill. That might be, but there was great log-rolling among the Conservatives on those occasions when they voted for the Second Reading of the Mines Eight Hours Bill. But Conservatives who had fought mining constituencies had also asserted that they were very staunch and loyal supporters of the Eight Hours Bill. He wondered how many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite there were who had not supported the Bill in the mining counties! At the bye-election for North-East Derbyshire the Conservative candidate made that Bill the leading item in his programme; and at no meeting in the constituency was there a member from the Conservative Party who dissociated himself from the policy of the Conservative candidate. Was there not some logrolling there? And now they found that, although the Conservative Party when in power, allowed an Eight Hours Bill to pass its Second

1325
Reading, they now came and said when there was a chance of the Bill passing into law that it was going to destroy the trade of the country. Of all the audacities he had even heard of, the present opposition on the part of Conservatives was the biggest; because they had been fighting for these twenty years past for an Eight-Hours Bill, and at every election, at any rate in Derbyshire, the Conservative candidates had always put the Eight-Hours Bill in the front of their programme. Where was all their sincerity now? Why, the prognostications he had listened to in the House during the discussions of this Bill were the most startling that he had ever heard. It was curious what strange acts politics would lead some men to do. He should like to know who were financing the Coal Consumers' League. He wanted to ask if the present secretary of the Coal Consumers' League, Mr. Raynes, was the same gentleman who fought the Holmfirth division of Yorkshire at the general election. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Yes."] If he was, the Eight-Hours Bill was the most prominent part of his election address. All this was rather interesting for some of them who knew a little of these men who were going about the country changing their coats so often that they did not know where they were. The reason why this secretary of the Coal Consumers' League, which was being financed by nobody knew whom, and other Conservative candidates put the Eight-Hours Bill for miners in the forefront of their programme was that they were in mining constituencies, and that they knew that the miners wanted it. Were there not four hon. Members opposite, including the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley Division of Lancashire, who formerly went into the lobby in favour of the Eight-Hours Bill for miners? And why did they do so? It was because they knew that their constituents wanted it, and that they would not have been elected unless they had agreed to support what the miners wished. Again, this was an illustration of what strange acts politics would lead some men to do. He challenged any hon. Member to bring forward the case of any great reform in this country and he would
1326
prove the assertions that were made to prevent its passing and the prophecies which were uttered as to its ultimate failure. Now he had a word to say to his hon. friend on that side of the House, who had said that if a Bill were brought in to limit the hours of persons under twenty-one years of age he would have supported it. It would have had just the same effect as this Bill had now, because he would prove to him that his reasoning was fallacious if he understood coalmining at all. He would take the 1872 Coal Mines Regulation Act. He had been careful to overlook that debate and to find out what the House was told in the course of it. It was told that the measure would ruin the trade, that it would cause foreign competition, and that it would close the old pits. Yet the House passed the Bill to reduce the hours not of men but of boys to fifty-four per week. The men were working sixty, sixty-two, and sixty-five hours a week, and that Act of 1872 brought, the men's hours down to fifty-four. Why? Because men could not work without boys and boys could not work without men, and legislation, whether it was for men or boys, affected the whole body of workers. On that ground, therefore, he thought his hon. friend ought to go into the lobby for this Bill, because he had said if they had a measure before them limiting the hours of persons under twenty-one, he would vote for it. This Bill would do it, and in the interests of that young, developing life his hon. friend ought to support it. In regard to the Act of 1872 it was said that it would increase the cost of inspection, which already involved an expenditure of between £12,000 or £13,000 a year on the public. The prophecy was that the public would have to pay an enhanced price for their coal and also for an increased number of inspectors. That was in 1872, but none of these predictions came off. [An HON. MEMBER: The price of coal rose in 1873 and 1874 by several shillings.] Yes, and he would tell the House why. It was because of the Franco-German War. Everybody knew that it was not the Bill that did it. Then they had the Employers' Liability Act, which was not for reducing the hours, but for protecting men from being

1327
injured and slaughtered by bad machinery and other things. There was the same cry against that, and everything was going to be ruined because it was passed. Mr. Knowles, a colliery proprietor, said that it would render it difficult, if not impossible, to compete with foreign nations, and all coal in the country would be largely depreciated in value. Another colliery proprietor stated that it frequently happened that men exhausted their capital in opening up mines, and only little capital was required afterwards, but the result of this Bill might be to absolutely ruin men in that position. Down to 1907 they had the same doleful cry. The pages of Hansard showed that every great reform for the betterment of the lives of the people had been met—as this Bill had been—with dismal predictions of the approaching ruin of trade. That was the cry of many in the House, but he ventured to say that their case stood on as firm a foundation to-day as twenty years ago; they had looked upon this question from every standpoint and found it to be sound. He would not be sentimental, and did not want to talk about the great humanitarian idea, but he did want to say as emphatically as he could a word on a subject they had not heard much of in the House, and that was the people's health. The naked light had gone out of date, and the men worked in a very dim light. It was proved that they had a larger percentage of men going out week by week in consequence of nystagmus and night blindness. The miners' health suffered, because they had now to work at a much higher temperature and great oculists said that the diseases he had mentioned were caused by the poor light which the men had when they were lying in a cramped position. He had had night blindness himself, and he had been led by his wife when he could not see his way through disease of the eye, and because he had worked in the mine with this little dim light and had had to peer at his work through it. He had suffered agonies through it, and he told the House seriously that when they had the naked lights they knew little of it. They contended that a man should not be compelled to work so long in a mine that he should go blind. Even the right
1328
hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham supported the Second Reading of an Eight-Hours Bill, and he remembered when he was not a Member sitting under the gallery and hearing the right hon. Gentleman speak very favourably in regard to that Bill. It was true he spoke with a proviso, but he also made reference to this hard-working and deserving class of men. As a man who had had twenty-five years of a miner's life, working through all the grades, and as a practical man, he ventured to say that this Bill was required by the men in consequence of the conditions under which they worked, and the increasing tax which was put upon them by the higher temperatures, and there would be tens of thousands of miners and their wives who would thank the House when it had carried the Bill to a successful issue.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, it is unnecessary for me to say that I do not endeavour to compete with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in practical knowledge of mining. He has just told us that he has spent the best years of his life in actual mining operations, and he is, therefore, necessarily seized with a practical knowledge to which only those who have been similarly circumstanced can pretend. But he will forgive me for saying that the particular class of arguments on which he at the end of his speech laid great stress, have not figured largely, or at all, I think, in the speeches of the official authors of the Bill, and that they have received no confirmation from the Departmental Committee appointed by the Government to look into this question. You may search in vain through the very able Report which that Committee presented to find anything which would confirm the very gloomy picture which the hon. Gentleman drew of the results on miners of modern conditions of work in coal mines. I think there was, no adequate and substantial basis dependent upon a wide survey of varied conditions of all the coal mines in the country for the contentions with which he concluded his speech. I think we ought to have heard them before, and that they ought to have been relied upon by those who are responsible for bringing this Bill before the House of Commons.

1329
The hon. Gentleman and his friends ought to have taken adequate precaution that those views were brought before the Departmental Committee and were sifted by inquiry. Nothing of that sort was done, and I must honestly say that to ask us now to approve a Bill upon that class of argument at this, the very latest stage of our discussion is hardly to deal very fairly with the House, and is to ask us to come to a conclusion upon evidence which is diametrically opposed to most of that which has been put before us by those who are best qualified to give it. The last part of the hon. Gentleman's speech I admit to be perfectly relevant to the Bill and of great importance if it is to be considered of general application, but the earlier parts of his speech I confess I do not consider so relevant. He dwelt at great length upon the fact that this Bill had passed the Second Reading when introduced by a private Member. It sometimes passed, and sometimes, I think, it was rejected, but he did not mention that fact. The hon. Gentleman must know, however, that it is really not legitimate to take, as indicating the settled opinion of this House, the passing of a private Member's Bill in the absence of the inquiry and full consideration which attends a Bill when it is brought forward by responsible Ministers of the Crown. It is not because the Bill has often passed a Second Reading in a thin House on a Friday afternoon that it deserves the respectful attention of this House. The reason it deserves the respectful attention of this House is really, as I understand it, because this is a Bill which is put forward as a model of what the Government are prepared to do in this particular field of their favourite operations for social reform. I say it is their favourite field because much was said about social reform in the Licensing Bill; in that measure itself social reform was put off for some fourteen or fifteen years. The Licensing Bill was to prepare the way for some plan by which Parliament was to deal with the drink traffic in the future. Here the Government are not leaving it to future Parliament to determine how this social reform is to be carried out. On the contrary, not only do they embody the proposals which appear in the Bill, but they actually have the foresight to anticipate
1330
what is going to happen at the end of five years when this Bill is to reach its mature and ultimate stage. It is a remarkable power of prophecy on the part of the Government—I admire the boldness of their prophecy—which is the more remarkable because right hon. Gentlemen themselves in the discussion on this Bill have used certain arguments which certainly lead me to think that it is very doubtful whether in five years the extension of the principle embodied in this Bill is one which ought to be permitted to take place. What does the full extension at the end of three years amount to? I ask the House to remember two things. In the first place, the extension will only be legitimate in the views of right hon. Gentlemen opposite if it is preceded by certain improvements and inventions for carrying on the mining industry which will enable to be done safely in five years time what cannot be done safely now. By what gift of prophecy does the Government know what course invention is going to take during the next quinquennial period? By what powers of prophecy do they so pierce the future as to know what methods will be in vogue for winding up and down the shaft, bringing men up out of the mine or lowering them into the mine, which will enable things to be done in 1913 which cannot safely be done now? But that is not all. The Government, sharing to a certain extent the fears of the Chairman of the Departments' Committee, are clearly of opinion that in consequence of this Bill there may be a rise in the price of coal which may greatly embarrass industries if it comes into operation at a time of crisis or rising prices. Therefore, the Bill is to come into operation in the summer months. Why do the Government choose the summer months? They choose the summer months because they say that it would be most dangerous to choose the winter—this is the point—it would be very dangerous to bring this Bill into operation in the winter months, and they will not take the risk of there being a diminution in the supply of coal in the winter when, owing to the inelastic character of the coal supply, a momentary decrease in the supply with the consequent increase in the

1331
price might bring on a crisis which would be a national misfortune. That is the Government's view. How do they know whether in five years prices will rise or fall? By what means can they forecast that the extension of this Bill will not come into operation during one of those times of crisis? It is not for this strange peculiarity of the present measure that I think it is specially deserving of respect as an effort of social reform.. It is a very curious Bill if you take it in connection with other views which His Majesty's Government have held at other times. In the first place I will ask how the Government reconcile a Bill of this kind with their views upon the question of employment. It is quite true that in one sense this Bill may increase the demand for labour. There may be an increased demand for labour in a certain class of mines, but is it not absolutely certain that in many old mines, and in mines where a long interval takes place before the men can get from the bottom of the shaft to their place of work this Bill may cause something approaching a disaster to the owners, and is it to be contended that such disaster affecting the owners will not react upon the workers in that mine? It is vain to say that somewhere else there are other mines where a larger number of men will find employment. I do not know that there will be this increased demand, but there certainly will be the risk of a certain number of men being thrown out of employment, a certain fraction—I do not know how large it may be—of the men engaged in this particular class of mine. Therefore it is ludicrous to come forward and start work at the cost of the ratepayers in order to employ people upon work which they cannot do, when, I at that very moment, you are bringing in a Bill to prevent people doing a particular kind of work that they can do under existing circumstances. This is not inconsistent with what the hon. Member who has just sat down has said. He has said, and said quite truly, that all the miners want it. No doubt those who want the miner's vote had to introduce this Bill, but I do not know that that means anything except that the miners generally want the Bill, and that I am quite ready to accept. I do not know any test that I could apply to the proposition that
1332
would lead me to a different conclusion, but it does not in the least prove that there are no sections of the mining population who will be injured by this measure. But, rightly or wrongly, the miners think it is to their advantage, and the truth of the statement of the hon. Gentleman that all would like to see this Bill brought into operation is incontrovertible. But upon that may I say one word with regard to the position of another hon. Member representing a miners' constituency? The hon. Member for Hanley, in dealing with the objection that the Bill interferes with the flexibility of labour, preventing a man from working longer hours on some days and taking a day's holiday, said that that objection showed ignorance of mining life, that miners must be dealt with en bloc, that they must go down and come up together, and all conform to the general rule. That is true enough within its limits; but would the hon. Member say that under the existing system a man could not, if he chose, earn as much by working longer hours and taking an occasional day's leisure as he would under the new system.
MR. BRACE: No, he cannot arrange his time.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He cannot arrange his time in the same way as, say, a small holder, can arrange his. That I quite agree, but surely the hon. Member will not tell me that he cannot arrange his time so as to give him days of harder work with longer periods of rest.
MR. THOMAS RICHARDS: If I may explain I would say that in very many mines the men of the shift have to leave together, whether some of them have had a holiday the day before or not. The men can only work for a certain time. They have to leave at a stipulated time whether they like it or not, because at four or five o'clock, as the case may be, a shot is going to be fired and they have to come out of the mine.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not deny that, but a man confined to an eight-hours shift each day will have to work each day and will lose the right to do

1333
the same amount of work in five days and take a holiday on one day in the week. Legislation of this kind must interfere at all times and in all circumstances with the personal liberty of the individual man, and with his power of arranging his own time in his own way. In addition to these inevitable trammels which are the result of the character of the industry, you are now introducing a new trammel due not to the character of the industry but to the deliberate will of Parliament. This is an interference with liberty, great or small, which ought not, I venture to say, to be undertaken unless very serious reasons can be urged in its support. That really brings me to another strange inconsistency, as it seems to me, between the principles which we are told are animating the Government and the doctrines which they proclaim at the top of their voice on every seasonable and unseasonable occasion from one end of the country to the other. I should have thought this was an impossible Bill for a free trade Government, or that it was the last Bill that a free trade Government would have introduced. Certainly I know that the fathers of free trade orthodoxy would have regarded this interference with production as almost the grossest conceivable interference with that kind of general free trade which they admire and which they desire to see adopted. I cannot believe that this is a proposal which Adam Smith would not have opposed—this kind of interference with the arrangements of labour. Arguments are used of the most extravagant and violent form against protection as it is now practised, say, in the United States of America, or in some other countries where protection in its extremest form is the accepted system. What are the arguments? The first argument is that this opens the way to every sort of pressure upon the Legislature by the interests affected. If anybody doubts that this Bill is due to pressure upon the Legislature of interests affected, they have only to listen to the eloquent speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The first threequarters of an hour of his oration was a pæan of triumph because of the pressure put on Members of this House
1334
by the particular interest which he represented. Nothing could be more clear or a more striking example of the power which a highly organised interest can exercise upon the proceedings of the Imperial Parliament than the pressure brought to bear by one interest in connection with this Bill. Then the next argument we have always heard against the extreme or any form of protection to which hon. Gentlemen object is: "Oh, the consumer!" Though a protected interest may gain or appear to gain by the procedure, and the public as a whole, as consumer, suffers; yet as far as the public in its position as consumer is concerned, you must not allow yourselves to be misled by the apparent advantage to one particular industry to do an injury to the community as a whole. That is the argument. I would like to ask whether there is any case in which by fiscal arrangement you do a more obvious injury to the consumer than you do in this case by direct legislation. That is not denied. We get now and again casual and sporadic denials from gentlemen who support the Bill, but people in authority do not deny it. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Ince, in the speech which he made on the subject explained that wages would have to be raised 6d. a ton in order to make up for the loss of hours.
MR. WALSH: That is the total cost.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong when I say that he gave us figures which seemed to lead to the conclusion that the men would have to earn so much per ton in order that their wages under this Bill would equal their wages at present. I think he put it at 4d. or 6d., and he assumed most frankly that this rise in the price of coal would be the only rise that would take place in consequence of this measure. But he must know perfectly well that if the output is diminished the rise in the price of coal does not depend upon the additional cost of production. I think the hon. Member for Gloucester was perfectly right in what he said, that this Bill probably will, to a certain extent, and may to a dangerous extent in certain contingencies, raise the price of coal on the consumer. I want to know

1335
what more evidence of the worst protection you want. But that is not all the arguments we hear against protection. What has become of the poorest of the poor? Where have the poorest of the poor who figured in every peroration in the last Parliament upon the fiscal question gone to? Why are not the poorest of the poor referred to on this occasion? Are there no poor under a Liberal Administration? I hardly think that in these days of unemployment that this can be maintained. Is it alleged that the poorest of the poor do not burn coal? It is quite evident that of all the necessaries of life fuel is really the most universal. Fuel is as fundamental as any of the necessaries that can be named. I should have thought that a Bill which raised the price of a supreme necessary of life to the poorest of the poor, would not have any support from the party or the Government who are never tired of saying that their system is the only system under which the poor can really have more cheaply the primary necessaries of life. They have gone about the country talking about the big loaf and the little loaf, but I Would suggest that there should be something said about the big scuttle and the little scuttle, which is as emphatic a commentary upon the policy of this free trade Government as any other symbolic expression that could be invented. There is only one more point to which I wish to refer, and it is one which is always being rubbed in by the free trade party, and that is the question of raw material. I am not going into any refinements on the subject of raw material, but I think it will be universally admitted that if there is one thing which is necessary more than any other in our industries, in any part of the country, it is coal. You are going to raise the price of this universal raw material. I cannot understand this attitude on the part of free traders. The Prime Minister gives, as he tells us, a fair lead in respect to two great subjects round which revolves the policy of the present Government. One is the House of Lords, about which it would not be relevant to speak here, and the other is free trade. On what principle can you defend free trade which actually does not condemn this Bill? The Member for Gloucester, who has not, I am sorry to say
1336
returned to his place, is one of the ablest of the extreme free traders, and one of the ablest advocates of this Bill, and I shall be very glad to know how he defends the support of this Bill in view of his speeches on the other and rival policy. It is quite true that the crudest and worst form of protection does differ from the protection under this Bill; but, after all, the duties which Americans put on importations from this country do increase the output of the particular industry in their own country which those imports affect, but in this country the output is going to be diminished. In a highly protected country like America the duties act between the industries equally, but this form of protection would act most unequally between the different lands of industry in this country. One hon. Gentleman very competent to speak on the subject, informed us that the result of the Bill will be to cause certain mineowners to make fortunes while other mineowners would be ruined. Those who have new mines or are about to sink new shafts will gain enormously in consequence of this Bill. Those who have old mines where the management could not be brought into harmony with this Bill will be entirely destroyed. One other point, and only one which seems to me to differentiate this form of protection. After all, protection does bring in revenue, though it may be in a very costly way. Therefore, if you survey the whole field, if you examine every one of the familiar arguments upon the point of free trade, the Government's main policy, there is no condemnation which can be brought against even the most extravagant, and I think, absurd form of protection, which cannot be brought with double force against this Bill. For these reasons, I do not think this experiment of the Government in social legislation is a very felicitous one. They have brought it in avowedly in obedience to the great interest, so admirably organised, which has expressed its views with such vigour from below the gangway. They have supported it steadily, though hardly enthusiastically. They expressed many doubts about the immediate future—I do not say about the remote future—but all these things sink into insignificance beside the fact that so little do

1337
they attempt to bring their political views into some organic coherence, so little do they attempt to look at the great social problems of our time in the light of one body of consistent doctrine, that they actually bring in a Bill which carries with it every offence and every defect which the most extreme form of contemporary protection has ever shown, and is without the advantage which modern free traders freely admit may attach even to extreme protection. They bring it in without the smallest apparent idea that they are defending at one and the same time two totally inconsistent bodies of political doctrine, which no ingenuity will really fundamentally reconcile. For these reasons I shall give my vote as I have always given it, whether I had miners in my constituency or not, against this measure. It is not, and never has been, regarded as a party Bill, and I do not speak for more than myself, but the opposition which I have consistently offered to it for all these years I offer to it now, and I am bound to say with a much greater feeling of confidence when I see how utterly unable its true sponsors are to give any rational defence of the plans which they have adopted from others, and which they apparently do not care very greatly to defend.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. HERBERT SAMUEL,): I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has been opposing this Bill because he is a free trader, or because he is a fiscal reformer, or whether he disregards his own attitude and is only anxious to convict the present Government of inconsistency. I will assume the latter. He attacks us for bringing in a Bill of this kind, while we hold free trade doctrines, on the ground that we are inflicting deliberately an injury upon the consumer, who has hitherto been our special care, and are deliberately raising the price of raw material when we have loudly declared that raw materials should be as cheap as they can be obtained. But he is assuming that we are contemplating that there will be an appreciable and a permanent burden on the consumer, and that there
1338
will be a permanent and appreciable increase in the price of raw material. That assumption is wholly unfounded. If we thought for a moment that the consumer was likely to have imposed upon him by this Bill a burden which could be long and seriously felt, we should have hesitated long before we asked the consent of Parliament to its provisions. The right hon. Gentleman's chief argument was the principle that interference with the hours of labour was contrary to the pure milk of the word of free trade doctrine, that the two questions are inextricably entwined, that if we believe in no State interference with trade, therefore, we must believe in no State interference with the conditions of employment. But where does that doctrine lead him to? If it applies to one side it applies to the other. If, because we are opposed to tariffs, we are obliged to oppose this Bill, then, if you support a tariff you are obliged to support this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman in any degree believes in his own argument he is in this dilemma. He must either declare himself a free trader, about which there is still some uncertainty, or else he must vote for the Bill. Since he has declared that he is going to oppose this Bill one must suppose that he must necessarily be a free trader, and so, perhaps, the incidents of to-day may throw a light on this somewhat obscure topic. But, of course, as a matter of fact, it does not in the least follow that, because you support this Bill, therefore, you must support a tariff, nor does it follow that because you oppose a tariff you must oppose the regulation of the hours of labour. The right limit that is to be put on State action is, of course, one of the most difficult and the most important problems which can face any Legislature. But all researches lead to this conclusion, that each case or each group of cases must be judged on its own merits. You do not ask free traders to vote for the repeal of the Factory Acts because they are free traders. There is nothing in any extension of the Factory Acts which is inconsistent with free trade. There is nothing, again, in extending the Education Acts, interfering with liberty by compelling parents to send their children to school, and regulating the

1339
lives of the young people of the country—interference of that kind is in no way inconsistent with the doctrines of free trade; and so it is in this particular question. There is no more reason why free trade should lead us to complete individualism in all things than why tariff reform should lead Members opposite to complete Socialism in all things. So far with regard to this somewhat academic question of the relation between free trade and the doctrines of State interference with labour.
I do not think anyone who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech and to his declaration that that speech will be followed by a hostile vote against the Bill, or anyone who has listened to the speeches to-day and on previous days against the Bill from hon. Members opposite, will have fully realised that a Miners Eight Hours Bill not many years ago formed one of the chief items of a Unionist programme, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham whose authority in his party the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will not disavow, made the proposal of an experimental eight hours day one of the chief planks of his programme at the general election of 1895, and that that programme was given the authority of the sanction of Lord Salisbury, then Leader of that party. It is a remarkable thing that with the recollection of the immediate past hon. Members opposite should still denounce a proposal of one of their most valued leaders as a monstrous interference with the liberty of the subject. But hon. Members opposite do not limit their efforts at making the most of both worlds, to at one time supporting a measure of this character in order to win votes, and at another time opposing it in order to win votes; but they carry those efforts even further, and at one and the same time, those Members of the front Opposition bench who represent mining constituencies steadily vote for the Government on this Bill, while hon. Members behind and around them are left free to denounce their action as most injurious to the country as a whole, and as likely to cause increased poverty and greater suffering to our poorer classes. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken admits the fact
1340
that his own colleagues voting for this Bill, as they do day by day, conclusively proves that the miners of the country do want this Bill. His saying that to-day has wiped out as by a sponge a great deal of the arguments which were addressed to us on the Committee stage. We were told that if only the miners were not coerced by their leaders, if we could take a referendum, if they were free to express their unfettered desires, we should see that a very different state of things is the fact from that which has been represented. The right hon. Gentleman disavows all that and says that since even Members of his own party who sit for mining constituencies are obliged to be supporters of the Bill, the fact proves conclusively that the mining population of the country as a whole desire this measure.
But the right hon. Gentleman's chief attack upon the Bill was upon the five years period which finds a place in it. Anything in the nature of a time-limit—I suppose it is force of habit—seems to arouse his special condemnation. He speaks of this as an extension of the Bill at the end of five years. It is not an extension of the Bill at the end of five years. The Bill, as we have always intended it to be, was an Eight Hours Bill from bank to bank. That Bill will come into full operation at the end of five years.
AN HON. MEMBER: No it will not, one winding is excluded.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is an eight hours day from bank to bank. An eight hours day from bank to bank means that each man, on an average, shall be below ground for eight hours. It does not mean an average of seven and a half hours as it would be if both windings were included. It means that each individual miner throughout the country shall be below ground on an average for eight hours, and that will be the case when the Bill comes into full operation at the end of five years. The first man down, if he is the first man up, will be below ground for eight hours, the last man down if he is the last man up, will be below ground eight hours, and the middle man down, if he is the middle

1341
man up, will be below ground eight hours. Every man on the average will be below ground eight hours. If you were to include both windings in the eight-hours period, then the average man would be below ground only seven and a half hours. That was never intended. It would not be an eight-hours Bill. The Bill which we now propose, as it will come into full operation after five years, is an eight-hours bank to bank Bill, properly speaking. At the end of five years we shall have not an extension of the Bill but the Bill itself, and the intervening period is a period of delay when the Bill is brought into partial operation, a period introduced mainly for economic reasons. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken quoted the hon. Member for Gloucester and the fears which he expressed to-day as though they were hostile to the five-year period, and had regard to the state of things to come into operation at the end of five years. That was not so. My hon. friend the Member for Gloucester, said very little to-day about what is to happen at the end of five years. What he said was that when the Bill first came into operation there might be a period of economic stress, and on that ground he criticised the precise method of bringing the Bill into operation, and urged the proposal that it should be brought into operation not in two stages but in three. But the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition himself only two or three days ago completely showed to the House that it was neither necessary, practicable, nor desirable to carry out the proposal of my hon. friend and adopt the three-stage method of bringing the Bill into effect.
Now let me say a few words on the economic aspect of this Bill, and they shall be very few, because the matter has been so thoroughly discussed and completely argued that there is very little left to be said. My first observation is that we are continually told that this Bill, by its rigid regulations, will press hardly on old men and on old mines, and apparently it is assumed that under present; conditions discrimination is made in the case of old men and old mines. As a matter of fact, there is no such discrimination, because in any given district, whether it is an eight-hour, or a nine-hour, district, the
1342
old men go down at the same time as the young men, they start to get to their places of work at the same period as the young men. And there is no discrimination whether the mines be well equipped or badly equipped, whether the working places be remote or close to the shaft, in each district uniform hours are worked throughout the district. Therefore, the whole of the arguments we have heard with regard to old miners and old mines would apply equally to the present conditions of things, and it has been found that no hardship in that respect occurs. With reference to the case of the Forest of Dean, often quoted as a special case, I would point out first—and I do not say this is a conclusive argument—that the Forest of Dean is a very small area. There are nearly 1,000,000 miners—the correct number is 900,000—employed above and below ground in this country, and in the Forest of Dean there are only 5,000, so that it is obviously a very small part of the total number engaged in this industry which is affected in the Forest of Dean. The question is comparatively a minute one. At the present time the Forest of Dean mines are working an eight-hours winding day under precisely the same conditions which we propose should prevail all over the country for the next five years. Therefore the Forest of Dean district will be in no way affected by our Bill for a period of five years, and when that period comes to an end, I wish to point out that by the overtime provision it will get a large advantage. The Forest of Dean district is a place of seasonal trade whore they work busily during the winter months and sleekly during the summer months. The overtime provision will allow in that district one hour extra on sixty days, equal to one hour on five days a week for twelve weeks, so that for three months in the year under our Bill, even after the period of five years, the mines in that district will be able to work longer than they do to-day. So much with reference to the Forest of Dean. There is a further point of some importance from the economic point of view which I should like to mention. It is assumed that the coal nines of the country are working up to their utmost capacity, and that any diminution of the hours, of labour must, unless there

1343
is some readjustment of conditions of working or more arduous labour on the part of the men, lead to a diminution of production. I have made inquiries through the mine inspectors in the various mining districts of the country, and I am informed by the Chief Inspector of Mines that at the present time 44 per cent. of the mines—the number is not necessarily exact, but it is about 44 per cent. in round figures—are now working slack time. I will read a few extracts from the Reports. I will take first of all East Scotland where, according to the Report, about 80 per cent. of the mines are now working from three and a half to four days per week. In the York and Lincoln districts there are 130 collieries employing about 30,000 persons, working only four days per week, whilst in the West Lancashire district one-fourth of the collieries only are working full time, and three-fourths of them are working half a day or one day short per week. In the Midland districts not more than twelve collieries out of 286 are working full time, whilst in Staffordshire only 10 per cent. of the large collieries are working full time. I know there are certain districts where full time is being worked, but about half the mines of the country are working far less than their full capacity, and, therefore, the argument that when this Bill comes into operation—supposing the existing conditions of trade continue?—there must necessarily be a great restriction of output completely falls to the ground. And now what shall we say of the gross exaggerations, the deliberate misrepresentations of the economic effects of this Bill which have been spread broadcast in the country? Hon. Members opposite have referred more than once to the Coal Consumers' League. I hold in my hand a leaflet which has been distributed by that league, and I have already quoted from it. Nevertheless, I do not think it amiss to recall it to the attention of the House, because some people think there is a genuine movement amongst certain classes of the population against this Bill, and I will quote to the House from this leaflet just to show the kind of argument which has been used to stimulate opposition to this measure. Here is the leaflet circulated
1344
at bye-elections by this mendacious league, and it says that the probable effect of the passing of this Bill will be, not temporarily but permanently, a rise in the price of coal of 5s. per ton. Now, is there any hon. Member opposite who will say this leaflet tells the truth? [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Is there a single hon. Member opposite who will get up in his place and say that in his view it is true to say that the probable effect of the passing of this Bill will be a permanent increase in the price of coal to the extent of 5s. a ton? It is impossible for any hon. Member to make himself responsible for such a statement as that. They say in this leaflet that the probable effect, not temporary but permanent, will be that you will have to pay strike prices for your coal, always, and strike prices always for your gas; strike prices for everything you want by machinery always, and work will be as scarce as it always is at strike times and so forth. This pamphlet further states that this Bill will increase the cost of the poor man's coal by 3d. per cwt., which is 5s. per ton, as a very simple calculation will show. After the methods of this league have been so completely exposed in the country from various sources, it is not surprising to find Lord Newton, the Chairman of the League, saying at an emergency meeting a few days ago, at which he presided, that "he was surprised that the objectionable character of the Bill had not been realised throughout the country." As has already been said by other hon. Members, we are accustomed to these prophecies when a measure of social reform, of industrial legislation is introduced. On the Second Reading of this Bill I quoted a well-known precedent, the Workmen's Compensation Bill of 1897, when the Mining Association—the very body who are now actively opposing this Bill—went in deputation, headed, I think, by Lord Londonderry, to the right hon. Gentleman himself, and said that the effect of the Workmen's Compensation Bill would be to raise the price of coal 2d. or 3d. a ton. An inquiry subsequently held by a Departmental Committee showed that that deputation was out in its estimate by 80 per cent., and that the actual effect of the Workmen's Compensation

1345
Bill on the coal trade had been one-fifth of what they asserted would be the case. There have been, during the short time I have been a Member of this House, many discussions in which I have taken a keen interest in which similar prophecies have been made of ruin and disaster, sometimes in large matters and sometimes in small ones. Take, for example, the question of Chinese labour, a controversy in which I took the very greatest interest. We were told that if we stopped Chinese labour the result would be inevitable ruin to South African mines because it was totally impossible, with the best will in the world, for the mine owners on the Rand to get more black labourers than they were getting, because they had reached the maximum number obtainable. We were confronted with Blue-books, and bombarded with reports of Commissions. But what have proved to be the facts? The number of black labourers employed when those statements were made was 70,000, to-day there are over 150,000 black labourers employed in the mines. When the Workmen's Compensation Bill of 1906 was introduced we were told by those interested in sailing ships that the effect of the passing of the Bill would be to destroy the sailing ship industry of our country. I have made inquiries since, and I have been informed by one of those gentlemen who formed part of a deputation on that subject that the actual result in that industry has been a charge of one third or one-fourth of what they represented would be the case. I will turn for a moment to a very small matter, although it is a very interesting example—I refer to a little Bill introduced by the Home Office dealing with the question of privileged cabs in the Metropolis. We were then told on the authority of railway directors, and on the authority of the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London, that if we insisted on passing such a mischievous Bill the effect would be that no traveller, late at night, or in cases of emergency, would be able to get a cab at a railway station, and that the whole population of London under our Bill would be subjected to the greatest it possible inconvenience. Since that Bill has come into operation, far from having a storm of protests, not a single whisper of a complaint has been made with regard
1346
to the supply of cabs at railway stations. Nevertheless, hon. Members opposite are in no way abashed. They go on repeating the same arguments in regard to each Bill as it is brought forward, and on each measure they prophesy ruin and disaster to the country with the utmost glee. This kind of thing has gone on generation after generation and century after century. Individual spokesmen may come and go, but these forecasts go on for ever. I believe that if 100 years hence our spirits could revisit these walls, we should still find here the descendants of hon. Members opposite telling the House that the proposals then being made meant ruin and disaster to industries, and above all injury to the workpeople themselves, and we should find probably the Minister of that day standing in my place answering in the words I am using the same arguments which have been put forward to-day. I ask, why should we believe to-day the forecasts of those who have been proved so often to be false prophets?
Lastly, I come to the question whether it is legitimate to interfere in this way with male adult labour. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not lay the greatest stress on that argument; he did not lay down the doctrine that under no circumstances was it legitimate to interfere with the hours of male adult labour. The right hon. Gentleman said this ought only to be done when there was a clear case, and when the advantage of doing it was obvious. Hon. Members opposite and some hon. Members behind me have, however, laid down in un-compromising terms the doctrine of the complete individualist that you must never prevent a man from "working what hours he pleases." But that is just what the man does not do now. If he was able to work what hours he pleased there would be no case for legislation. It certainly seems an extraordinary perversion, a topsy-turvy argument to say that if you help a man to work the hours he wants to work it is tyranny, but if he is left to the mercies of our industrial system and compelled to work long hours which he does not wish to work, that is liberty. I have never been able to understand that argument. I suppose there must be some force in it, because it has been advanced by so many able men,

1347
but at any rate I have never been able to understand it. If you help the miners by the force of a statute to do that which by their express declaration they desire, then you are extending liberty and not decreasing it. Nor do I understand the argument that whatever is is natural, and that whatever legislation effects is artificial. I have never been able to see the force of that. Were the long hours worked before the Factory Acts natural? Are the hours which are now being worked in the mills of Lancashire artificial? It seems to me that the one is as artificial or as natural as the other. When children of six or seven years were being worked in mills under the lash of overseers, was that natural? I should say that the restrictions imposed by legislation resulted in effects much more in accordance with the dictates of nature. We are told that the present eight-hours day in Scotland is natural, but that if we establish it in Wales it is not natural. We are told again that if the men succeed in establishing what the Bill proposes by a strike, that is natural and no one should complain, and if there is a rise in price we must not quarrel with that; but if precisely the same thing is effected by Act of Parliament, that is unnatural, and should be opposed. I can see no ground of theory which should prevent us from using the powers of the State, so long as it appears that there will be no indirect effect for harm, to facilitate working and to soften the rigour of our harsh industrial system.
The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill said he did not know what the reason was why the Government should have brought in this Bill except to catch votes. I will tell him the reason. We may be wrong or we may be right, but we regard it as our duty here to pass such laws as are practicable to secure better conditions of living for the mass of our population. All our social legislation is of a piece. Our measures with regard to the aged poor, temperance, workmen's compensation, small holdings, this Bill—are all parts of one large policy. When we find that there are in this trade nearly 1,000,000 persons employed, representing a population of 4,000,000, and that about one-eleventh of the whole population of our
1348
country will be affected, directly or indirectly, by its benefits; when we find that they are engaged in a specially arduous employment and are subject to greater discomforts than any other part of the population; when we find that they ask for larger leisure; when we believe that that boon can be conferred upon them without injury to the rest of the population, we ask ourselves not why we should introduce the Bill, but why we should not introduce the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that these men ought not to be singled out for special consideration because they are a particularly healthy class. [Indications of dissent.] I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but he says that they are not specially unhealthy. But these men are not healthy because they are miners; they are miners because they are healthy. There are, as my hon. friend the Member for Derbyshire said in his moving and interesting speech, special conditions which ought to be taken into account, and special ailments that affect them. But the fact has to be remembered that unless a man has a good physique he cannot undertake this arduous employment, and that is the reason why the miners have such good rates of mortality and are not subject to diseases which affect other portions of the population. The main reason for this Bill is not the ground of health, but the immense importance of adequate leisure for our industrial population. As civilisation progresses, as invention develops, as science advances, so industrial processes improve; and the question is: To whom, and in what way is the benefit of that industrial progress to go? There are many directions in which it can go. It may go to increase the value of the mines, in the direction of larger royalties [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear]; it may go in higher profits to the coal owners, who may obtain larger remuneration for their enterprise and the use of their capital; it may, in course of time, go in the form of higher wages for the workmen; it may go in the direction of lower prices for the consumer; or it may go in the form of greater leisure for the workmen. It may go in a combination of some of these various methods. But we believe that

1349
among all these various directions in which the benefit of improved industrial methods may be spent, an adequate amount of leisure ought to be almost a first charge. Leisure no doubt may be abused, but I think it is true to say with a very distinguished writer that it is only by allowing men to use leisure as they will that they can learn to use leisure as they should. I believe that in the long run this leisure will be used by the miners well and profitably. Certain it is that there can be no full life without it, and that is the essential reason why we ask the House to pass this Bill.
SIR C. J. CORYsaid it had been stated by the hon. Member for the Rhondda division on Friday that he (Sir C. J. Cory) had ridden into this House by means of promises to support the Eight Hours Bill for miners. In the first place, he had neither before nor during the election ever referred to a miners' Eight Hours Bill in his own constituency, neither had he made any promise respecting it in his own nor any other constituency. On asking the hon. Member where and when it was alleged he had made such a promise, the reply was that it had been made at a meeting which he had addressed on behalf of the hon. Member for the Rhondda division in the latter's constituency. On Friday he had emphatically denied the statement, and to-day he had with him copies of the two local papers which circulate in the hon. Member's constituency giving full reports of his speech at the meeting referred to, and in confirmation of his denial he would say that there was not one word in his speech with reference to the eight hours question, neither was any reference made to it by any one who spoke at the meeting. There were only tin miners in his constituency, and, as the hon. Member for Camborne had stated in this House on Wednesday, they had been able to get an eight-hours day by means of an arrangement with their employers. He contended that there was absolutely no reason for the Government proposing to establish an eight-hours day by legislation, as the miners with their strong organisations could easily obtain it for themselves. He repeated what he had stated before—that the miners had never, through
1350
their federation, formally demanded from the associated mine-owners of Great Britain an eight-hours day. It was said by the hon. Member for Hanley, that if there was a shortage in the supply it could be made up by increasing the facilities and by employing extra men. He submitted that if it were possible to make up the shortage caused by the Bill by improved facilities and machinery and by employing extra men—which he very much doubted, as in the new collieries they already had all the latest and most improved machinery, and he feared it would be difficult to get extra men in any very large numbers—it should be remembered that there was year by year an enormous increase in the demand for coal which would not be met as well in the way indicated. It seemed to him that it was not right that the Northumberland and Durham miners should be given the special advantage of having this Bill deferred for six months—that was until January, 1910. In South Wales contracts were from 1st January to 31st December following, and, therefore, if this Bill came into operation in the middle of the year it would cause the greatest inconvenience and embarrassment to the trade there. He stated before that the coal owners' agreement with the men did not terminate until 31st December, 1909, and therefore this Bill would come into operation six months before the agreement ended. That would cause a great deal of trouble and probably disputes, as employers would have to make some fresh arrangements with the miners for the intervening period as well as again at the end of the year. It had been said that in certain districts, if the Bill came into operation in winter, it would cause great inconvenience, because it might increase the price of coal, especially house coal. There was no reason why the advantage given to Northumberland and Durham should not be extended so far as South Wales and Monmouthshire. As regards that, inasmuch as the South Wales and Monmouthshire coal was practically all exported and used for steam purposes, it was said now that the miners in the coalfields of the country were entirely in favour of the Bill, and yet there was no clause nor Amendment proposed, to leave

1351
to the men themselves the question whether they wished to remain longer in the mine or to have a little more leisure than they had at present, but it was strenuously opposed by hon. Members representing labour on the grounds that miners might take advantage of such words to evade the Act, and it was said by the Minister in charge of the Bill that they dared not do that, because the men might take advantage of it and remain longer in the mines than the Bill would allow. He could not see why there should be any temptation for the miners to do any such thing if they were so strongly in favour of the Bill as was stated. It had been admitted by every supporter of the Bill that it would increase the cost of working. The hon. Member for the Ince division stated that the increased cost would be 6d. per ton. When the coal tax of 1s. per ton was put on, deputations were formed, including the miners' representatives themselves, to represent the disadvantageous effect which that tax would have on the coal trade of the country, in view of the competition of coal producers in other countries. And yet they were told that this increase in the cost of production, which would be one of the effects of this Bill, would not affect the export trade. So far as South Wales was concerned, there was no coal in the world which they had not to meet in competition, and if they got thrown out of the markets by reason of a difference in the price it might be impossible to recover the trade. The hon. Member for Ince said that Parliament dealt with the hours of labour of persons under sixteen years of ago, and he did not see why they should not regulate the hours of labour of persons over that age, but in all legislation dealing with the hours of labour it had been the custom of Parliament to deal with people under sixteen years of age or of tender age, but it had always been considered that when people arrived at mature age they should look after themselves. The hon. Member for Glamorgan said that the price for cutting coal was 1s. 6d. per ton, and he rather led the House to believe that that was all the collier earned. The collier cut a good many tons a day. He also got paid for cutting bottom and ripping top, and
1352
keeping out clod, and putting up timbers, and numbers of other items, on all of which he got the percentage—which in South Wales and Monmouthshire at the present time was 60 per cent.—over and above the standard rates.
MR. BRACE: The cutting price of 1s. 6d. includes all the dead work such as timbering in a number of collieries in Monmouthshire.
SIR. C. J. CORYsaid that on the other hand the cutting price was very much higher than 1s. 6d. in many cases, and the miners got other advantages. It was stated by the hon. Member for Hanley that Mr. Knowles had said in the House, when they were discussing the Employers' Liability Bill, that if it came into operation, on account of the burden which would be thrown on the industry many small colliery owners would be ruined. They knew that in South Wales there were many people who had sunk large amounts of money in collieries which had had to be abandoned and the whole of the capital lost. It was, after all, only the few who had made money in coal-mining over a series of years, the larger number of people in the coal trade having lost money. The hon. Member said that in future they would have deeper pits, and, therefore, higher temperature and closed lamps. So far as temperature was concerned they knew that there were improvements in machinery for ventilation, and that this improved machinery would counteract any higher temperature as compared with the machinery in the past. Then miners' lamps were very much improved, and they would be much further improved, no doubt, in the future. In speaking at a meeting at Cardiff some time ago he had referred to the fact that old men and old collieries would find the pinch of this Bill, and that he understood the miners in the Forest of Dean were opposed to the measure. The hon. Member for the Rhondda had said, at a meeting which he addressed at Barry, in reply, that the Forest of Dean was an old coalfield, they had old collieries and they were old colliers, and that was why they were opposed to an eight-hours day, which exactly proved his contention.

1353
In France the eight-hours scheme was practically inoperative; there was a conspiracy among all parties—miners, owners, and the Government, to ignore it; and he believed that something of the same kind would happen in the course of time after this Bill came into full operation in this country.
MR. J. F. MASONsaid the speech of the hon. Member for Hanley illustrated very clearly the extraordinary confusion in the minds of some hon. Members in regard to this question. The hon. Member acknowledged that the cost of production would be increased by 3d. per ton, and then he went on to say that there were people who said that the cost of production would be increased by 3s. per ton. They never said that the cost of production would be increased by 3s. per ton. What they had said and still said was that the price might be increased by 3s. a ton. The price had very little to do with the cost of production. The price related to supply and demand, and the question whether the price would be increased depended on whether there would be a shortage in the output or not. The Home Secretary had admitted that if there was an increase in the price of coal by 1s. 6d. per ton it would be a most serious matter to the industries of the country. He could not understand how, in view of all the evidence given before the Departmental Committee, the Home Secretary could still believe that there would be no increase of price if this Bill passed. The right hon. Gentleman said to-day in the course of his remarks on the economic side of the question, that it was impossible to say precisely what the increase in the cost of production could be, but he thought from that remark that the right hon. Gentleman had come to the conclusion at last that there would be a distinct increase in the price of coal. Now, the Departmental Committee reported that—
"If the price of coal should be doubled, the manufacturer cannot reduce his purchases in any degree except by ceasing to manufacture, consequently, the smallest deficiency causes competition that raises prices out of all proportion to the extent of the deficiency. The history of the trade shows that in the year 1873, and again in 1900, a rise in the latter case to almost double the prices ruling three years
1354
earlier, and in the former case a rise still more considerable, was produced by a small and temporary excess of demand beyond the immediate power of the collieries to supply. It is quite conceivable, therefore, that a situation might be created by an enhanced price of coal, following the enactment of an eight-hour law for miners, in which the immediate economic interests of employers and men engaged in the production of coal alike, might be opposed to the economic interests of the country at large."
The fact was that this rise in price of coal must always take place when there was a shortage of output. And how was this shortage of output going to be avoided? Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway told them that the men were going to work harder, and that machinery was coming to the aid of the Government in passing this measure by the invention of time-saving applicances. But the miners would have no inducement to work harder under the Bill than they worked under present conditions. In fact, they had no interest in preventing the Bill from having its natural effect in producing a shortage, as wages were dependent on the price of coal. There was nothing exceptional in this fact. They saw the same effect in other commodities. Why was the price of wheat in August 1907, 7s. 5d. more per quarter than in January in the same year? Did anyone suggest that wheat sold in August cost more to produce than that sold in January? It was a mere matter of supply and demand. There might be a suggestion that the number of miners would be increased. But he thought that Rule 39 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act placed a statutory impediment in the way of increasing the number of miners suddenly. That Rule said—
"No person not now employed as a coal or ironstone getter shall be allowed to work alone as a coal or ironstone getter in the face of the working, until he has had two years experience of such work under the superintendence of skilled workmen, or unless he shall have been previously employed for two years in or about the face of the workings of a mine."
So that entirely disposed of the argument that they could quickly increase the number of miners. The argument for shortage was, therefore, absolutely made out. Again, they could not prevent shortage by cutting off the export of coal. The Departmental Committee explicitly declared—
"We found that in past periods of scarcity the foreign buyer was prepared to pay the high

1355
prices current, and to secure his full share of the annual product. In those years the export trade fully maintained its relative position."
They were certainly not going to make up the home supply by cutting oft their export trade. He thought there was no doubt whatever that if there was to be a loss of time there would be a reduction of output, although he did not say for a moment that it would be equivalent to the full hours; and if there was a diminution in the output, he could not see why that diminution should not have the same effect as the diminution of demand and supply in other commodities. The enormous increase in the price of coal in 1872–3 was caused by an excess of demand over supply, and that demand was caused by a period of exceedingly good trade. In all other cases the same thing was seen; the price of coal had gone up by the excessive demand over supply, and not from the cost of production; but in this case they proposed to increase the demand, not at the moment of a natural increase of trade, but at the moment that the trade was excessively depressed. The Under-Secretary of State said that there were now a very great number of men working short time, and that they relied on these men working to make good their output shortage; but he also should have stated that these men were working short time because trade was bad and the winter exceptionally warm. He submitted that he had now made good the case that a shortage would occur, and that, as in other cases in the past, a rise of price might be looked for, out of all proportion to the rise in cost of production. And what would be the effect of this rise, whatever it might be, on the various interests involved? The position of the workmen was perfectly clear and consistent. They meant to get the same money for less work. What was the position of the owners? It was admitted that they were divided. There were a certain class of owners who said that they could make large profits during these temporary increases in price. The hon. Member for Bosworth said that the effect of the Bill would be to increase the price by 3d. to 6d. a ton at the pit bank; that it might cost half-a-crown
1356
at the end of twelve months, but that none would grudge that. And on the Second Reading of the Bill the hon. Member said that he regarded the effect of the Bill with the utmost equanimity, because the burden would not fall on his shoulders. The hon. Member added that if he shared all the advantages which a Welsh colliery possessed with the men who worked in the pit, he did not see that the increased cost would be any very great misfortune. The men would get better conditions of labour, and it would not necessarily reduce the profits of the producer of the coal. If he got that shilling out of his foreign customer he did not see why he should not cheerfully support the Bill. But other coal owners took a far-seeing view of the matter, like the hon. Member for St. Ives, who saw that the extra shilling would be got out of the British customer too; and that anything like a permanent serious increase in the price of coal would have an effect on the industries of the country. He now came to the third class, the consumer, who apparently had received very scanty consideration at the hands of the House. The hon. Member for Glamorgan said that this was an opportune moment to pass the Bill, because there were thousands of miners out of work. In order to remedy this evil, was it an opportune moment to throw thousands of men out of employment in other industries? He ventured to think that it was a very serious argument against this Bill that a question which the Government found difficult to deal with at present, namely that of the unemployed, was not made easier by it.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he was not going to make a speech, he only wanted to read a telegram which he had received in the course of the debate. The Home Secretary said that he thought he had exaggerated the case when he stated that if a preference was given to Northumberland and Durham for six months, it would greatly injure the Midland coal trade. He had received from the managing director of the largest colliery company in the Midlands a telegram in which he said—
"Six months preference to North of England means absolute ruin to Yorkshire and Derby shire shipping trade next year—"

1357
[Loud cries of "Oh!"]—It was practically correct in his opinion—
"and should be strongly opposed."
The condition of the coal trade was one of extreme depression. He was going down that night to a colliery in South Yorkshire where the men were working three days a week, and he would be asked by the colliers to-morrow: "Why are we not working longer time?" The 4d. or 6d. preference or whatever it was which they were going to give to the North meant that they would be working short time in the Midlands, whereas they would have a fair share of the trade if the preference had not been given. He strongly protested against this preference being given seeing that the North of England had had three years in which to make their arrangements, and if they could not do it in that time they certainly could not do it in six months.

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E)

Clough, William

Griffith, Ellis J.

Abraham, William (Rhondda).

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gulland, John W.

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Hall, Frederick

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ambrose, Robert

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Balcarres, Lord

Cowan, W. H.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hart-Davies, T.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Crossfield, A. H.

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

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Curran, Peter Francis

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, Timothy (Fulhan)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

Hedges, A. Paget

Beauchamp, E.

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

Helme, Norval Watson

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Henry, Charles S.

Bell, Richard

Duckworth, Sir James

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

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Higham, John Sharp

Berridge, T. H. D.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Holland, Sir William Henry

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

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Hooper, A. G.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Horniman, Emslie John

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Erskine, David C.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Boland, John

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hudson, Walter

Bowerman, C. W.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Brace, William

Everett, R. Lacey

Hyde, Clarendon

Brodie, H. C.

Fenwick, Charles

Idris, T. H. W.

Brooke, Stopford

Ferens, T. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Field, William

Jackson, R. S.

Bryce, J. Annan

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fuller, John Michael F.

Jardine, Sir J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Jenkins, J.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Ginnell, L.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Byles, William Pollard

Glendinning, R. G.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Cameron, Robert

Glover, Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Jowett, F. W.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Joyce, Michael

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Grant, Corrie

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Kekewich, Sir George

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Kettle, Thomas Michael

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he wished to confirm what the hon. Member had said. He had it from the Secretary of the South Yorkshire Coal Owners' Association that this six months preference which the Government proposed would be most detrimental to the coal trade of South Yorkshire and Derbyshire. He hoped the Under-Secretary would bear in mind this point and in another place see if he could not make the Act commence at one period for all the coal districts in the country. If he could do that and give every district an equal opportunity it would be a great improvement.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayer, 264; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 452.)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Nuttall, Harry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Lambert, George

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr-

Lamont, Norman

O'Grady, J.

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

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Lehmann, R. C.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Paul, Herbert

Tomkinson, James

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Toulmin, George

Lewis, John Herbert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Trevelyan, Charles Philip

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Pollard, Dr.

Ure, Alexander

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Verney, F. W.

Lynch, H. B.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Vivian, Henry

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bghs.

Radford, G. H.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Walsh, Stephen

Maclean, Donald

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Walters, John Tudor

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Walton, Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Macpherson, J. T.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wardle, George J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Waring, Walter

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Robinson, S.

Wasor, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

M'Crae, Sir George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rose, Charles Day

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

M'Laren, HD. (Stafford, W.)

Rowlands, J.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

M'Micking, Major G.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Mallet, Charles E.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Whitehead, Rowland

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Whitley, John, Henry (Halifax)

Markham, Arthur Basil

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

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Marnham, F. J.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Wiles, Thomas

Massie, J.

Sears, J. E.

Wilkie, Alexander

Masterman, C. F. G.

Seddon, J.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seely, Colonel

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

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

Mond, A.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Morrell, Philip

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Morse, L. L.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Snowden, P.

Winfrey, R.

Murray, Capt. Hn. A.C.(Kincard.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N. W.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Napier, T. B.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Steadman, W. C.

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

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Strachey, Sir Edward

Nolan, Joseph

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Summerbell, T.

NOES.

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Hill, Sir Clement

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Cross, Alexander

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Houston, Robert Paterson

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Hunt, Rowland

Baldwin, Stanley

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Joyson-Hicks, William

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Kerry, Earl of

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

Fell, Arthur

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Beck, A. Cecil

Fletcher, J. S.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gardner, Ernest

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Cave, George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

Lupton, Arnold

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

M'Arthur, Charles

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Courthope, G. Loyd

Helmsley, Viscount

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

1360

1361

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Valentia, Viscount

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Renwick, George

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ridsdale, E. A.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Nield, Herbert

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Oddy, John James

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Stanier, Beville

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord R. Cecil and Viscount Castlereagh.

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Thornton, Percy M.

LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER.)
As amended, considered.
A Clause (For the protection of the Admiralty and the Royal Observatory, brought up, and read the first and second time, amended, and added to the Bill.
MR. MORTONsaid the object of the Amendment in his name on the Paper was to preserve to the Corporation the full control over the streets of the City given to them by Section 133 of the City of London Sewers Act of 1848 which is in the following terms—
"And be it enacted, That no company or person shall take up the pavement or otherwise disturb the surface of any street, for the purpose of laying down, altering, or moving any pipe, or for any other purpose whatsoever, without the previous consent in writing of the Commissioners under the hand of the clerk, every such consent to state the name of the street in which the pavement is permitted to be taken up, and the number of square feet of pavement which may be removed or disturbed; and if any company or person shall take up or disturb the pavement or surface of any street without previous consent as aforesaid or shall take up or disturb a greater number of square feet of pavement or surface than shall be permitted by such consent, every company or person so offending shall forfeit and pay the sum of 40s. for every square foot of Pavement which shall be taken up or disturbed."
It was true that for various purposes, such as water and gas supply, telegraphs and telephones, and electric lighting, special powers of opening streets had been given by Parliament to various bodies, but all those had been for services required by the City itself. In the present case, however, the chief idea was to enable the companies by linking up to deal with
1362
or assist each other in dealing with the supply of electricity for power purposes. It was admittedly the case that the City contained but very few considerable users of electricity for power purposes, and the Bill was not needed for supplying them. "Linking up" work would therefore be done for the benefit of other districts, and it was to prevent the City streets being broken up that the Amendment was asked for. The City was like the hub of a wheel, towards which all the services involving the breaking of streets converged, and consequently the streets there were packed with ducts, mains, pipes, wires and other works, the demands upon which were of a very onerous and concentrated character, necessitating openings more frequently than in any other area of a similar size. According to the evidence given before the Royal Commission on London Traffic in 1903—that was five years ago—the number of openings of the streets of the City by the Post Office and companies were over 9,000 in number, over 6,000 of which were in main streets. It was, therefore, imperative to prevent unnecessary openings, such as the Corporation believed would be made under the powers of this Bill. The withholding of the Corporation's consent would at the worst mean only that the linking up mains would have to be taken a little further round instead of going across the City. Of course, if the companies could show that linking up was needed for the benefit of City users of electricity there need be no fear that the Corporation would place the least obstacle in the way of such work. The inconvenience, delay and loss to the public caused by opening the streets of the City were so serious and aggravated in the case of the City that the Corporation felt amply justified in asking for the special protective clause, of which notice had been given, and was now moved. Over 100,000 vehicles and

1363
1,250,000 people went in and out of the City every day. It was a question of the management of the trade and business, not only of London, but a large part of the world, and he hoped they would have the assistance of the Board of Trade in this matter. The constant problem before the City was the management of the traffic. He moved.
MR. REMNANTformally seconded.
New clause—
"In page 14, after Clause 15, to insert the following clause: Nothing in this Act shall authorise an authorised undertaker to break up or open any street or lay any electric main or other work for the purposes of this Act in or along any street, or part of a street, within the City of London, except with the consent in writing of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London in Common Council assembled.'"—(Mr. Morton.)—
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,)said the Amendment would give the Corporation an absolute veto. The Amendment was placed before the Committee and was rejected without the promoters being called upon. He could not ask the House to give the Corporation an absolute veto against laying mains which might be necessary; but if it would satisfy the hon. Gentleman he would accept the Amendment with the words added at the end: "Or failing that consent, with the consent of the Board of Trade."
MR. MORTON: I accept that.
SIR EDWIN CORNWALLregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had so readily conceded this proposal. If it was conceded to the City then it ought to be conceded to all the other authorities outside. It was a very serious thing for the House to concede such a privilege to the City without giving the same privilege to the other authorities. He hoped the House would resist the proposal. It was true that the traffic was very heavy in the City, but it was quite as heavy in Piccadilly and at
1364
Hyde Park Corner, and therefore it was not desirable that this concession should be given to the City alone.
SIR LUKE WHITEsaid it was quite true that this clause was placed before the Committee and that the Committee ultimately, after hearing all the arguments, came to the conclusion that the City in this matter did not stand alone, and that if such a clause was accepted it should be extended to the many borough authorities around London. The Committee was unanimous in its decision, and he therefore hoped the House would not agree to this proposal. He hoped the House would protect the interests of the whole of London and not grant a privilege to any particular portion without extending it to the whole of the county.
MR. BOWLESasked what view the right hon. Gentleman took of the effect of his acceptance of this clause and what was the general attitude that he intended to take up with regard to the other districts generally affected. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had thought it right to make a difference between every local body and the Corporation of the City of London. He thought it rather strange that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the clause, as he rather gathered that he did, because it gave a very considerable and palpable preference to the City Corporation over all the other local bodies of London. He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would give them some explanation of his views on the point. Were all the local bodies being equally affected?
MR. LOUGHsaid it seemed to him that the addition which the right hon. Gentleman made to the clause made it exactly the same as subsection (4) of the first clause. He was intensely anxious to agree with his hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green, who he knew was a sturdy guardian in all matters of electricity which interested Metropolitan bodies. But he had studied the clause, and he could not see the difference in principle, except a

1365
sort of recognition of the ancient rights of the City, by naming its authority in Common Council assembled and all that sort of thing. He could not see any difference in principle between the two clauses, and he should like to hear some information as to these words, in order that they might see whether there was any difference between the position in which the City stood and the position of any other local authority.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid there was a very great difference between the two clauses as his right hon. friend would see. In the first place all disputes would be settled by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade, and there were other minor matters. In the second place, if the City withheld its consent it would be open to the Board of Trade to give its consent. He was not prepared to say for a moment that the City of London was on all fours with every other borough in or out of London, and he thought that in regard to the traffic problem, great as it was in many parts of London, it was unquestionably greatest an the City area. He was only anxious as far as possible to give attention to all the views which were put forward, and which could be reasonably sustained in that House. All he said on behalf of the Board of Trade was that he did mot resist the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman if he pressed it.
MR. DICKINSONtrusted that his hon. friend would not insist upon this Amendment, which came upon him as an absolute surprise as a proposal which was to be accepted by the Government. There were two or three important points raised by it. Surely the right hon. Gentleman had embarked upon a very difficult and controversial subject. First of all there was the question as to who was to have authority as to the laying of the mains in the streets. There was no reason why an authority should be exercised by the City of London which was not exercised by any other borough in London. Under the Amendment which was now moved together with the words which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, if there was any dispute, it would be open to the Board of Trade to give its authority. He ventured
1366
to say that this was the first occasion that the Board of Trade was brought in to exercise its authority in these matters. The right to break up the streets was subject to the approval of the local authorities, and notice was to be given to the London County Council. He did not know that the London County Council had been consulted with regard to this question, and he could hardly believe that the members of that body would give their assent to this proposal, namely, that where it was a question between a private company and the local authority of breaking up the streets, it should be left to the Board of Trade. It would be very much wiser to keep the Department out of the government of London as much as possible, and this innovation was very unwise. He should not have spoken, but he had not the slightest idea that this Amendment was going to be approved. It was rejected in Committee, and he thought that it would have been rejected in any Committee.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid it was rejected on its merits. There was a very great difference between giving the City of London an absolute veto in regard to any construction in their area, and giving them a veto which, whenever they exercised it, might be reversed by an appeal to the Board of Trade.
MR. ABEL THOMASsaid he might state as Chairman of the Committee that they were unanimous that no exception of this sort should be given to the City of London, because in existing circumstances many other local authorities ought to have the same.
MR. DICKINSONsaid that was the point which he was making. It was rejected on that broad ground. He had heard it over and over again in Committees of that House, that whenever they dealt with one particular part of London they ought to deal out the same treatment to other parts. But this was a precedent which they were setting up in regard to breaking up the streets of London. It they were going to say that there was to be an appeal from the local

1367
authorities to the Board of Trade then-he respectfully submitted that they were introducing into legislation with regard to London a totally new principle, and one which he believed the local authorities and the London County Council would strongly resent. The Board of Trade was not the authority, if there was to be any authority, to decide this question. The right hon. Gentleman
had a very generous character, but he earnestly hoped that instead of being persuaded by his hon. friend below the gangway, he would leave this matter alone.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 28; Noes, 198. (Division List No. 453.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sears, J. E.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Paul, Herbert

Seaverns, J. H.

Walsh, Stephen

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Seddon, J.

Walton, Joseph

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Seely, Colonel

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Pease, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Saffron Walden

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Pollard, Dr.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Waterlow, D. S.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Radford, G. H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whitehead, Rowland

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Stanier, Beville

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Renwick, George

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Wiles, Thomas

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Steadman, W. C.

Wilkie, Alexander

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

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Ridsdale, T. A.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Winfrey, R.

Robinson, S.

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

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Rowlands, J.

Tomkinson, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dickinson and Sir Edwin Cornwall.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Toulmin, George

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Vivian, Henry

MR. CHURCHILL: The object of this new clause is to prevent the Company endeavouring to increase its revenue for the remainder of its term by raising the prices charged to consumers after a notice has been served on it by the London County Council that it is liable to purchase. The Amendment is desired by the London County Council in the interests of the public, and it is, I understand, agreed to by the promoters.
New clause—
"From and after the date when the council gives notice to purchase the undertaking of a supply company, it shall not be lawful for that company, except with the consent of the Board of Trade, to increase its charges for a general supply, as defined in the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899. If at any time after the aforesaid date the Company makes any higher charge for electricity supplied to any consumer under agreement than had been charged for a similar supply under similar conditions during the period of twelve months immediately preceding that date, the consumer affected may appeal to the Board of Trade who, if they consider that the increase is unreasonable, may make an order requiring the Company to reduce the charge accordingly, and any such order shall be binding on the Company."—(Mr. Churchill.)
Brought up and read the first time and added to the Bill.
MR. CHURCHILL: The object of this Amendment, together with the consequential Amendments to be proposed on
1370
Clauses 3 and 4 is to enable the promoters of the Bill and the promoters of the London, Westminster and Kensington Electric Supply Companies to link up their systems of supply. This Bill gives the power to one group of companies to link up their supply between themselves and another Bill which is later to be brought forward and considered this evening gives power to another company to link up among themselves. This Amendment gives power to the two groups to link up reciprocally between each other and to unite. The Amendment is desirable in the public interest and in the general interest of an efficient and economical system of electric supply in London, and I recommend its acceptance to the House, although I understand some hon. Gentlemen have some observations to make upon it to which, perhaps, a reply may be made later.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 30, at end, to insert the words 'The expression "specified companies," means "the Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Lighting Company, Limited, the Notting Hill Electric Lighting Company, Limited, the St. James and Pall Mall Electric Light Company, Limited, the Westminster Electric Supply Corporation, Limited, and the Central Electric Supply Company, Limited;" and each of such specified companies is in this Act referred to as a specified company.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. DICKINSONsaid this was an Amendment which had a much more important bearing than would appear on the face of it. The Bill, as it stood, dealt with eight companies out of fourteen in London, and as it was introduced in the House of Lords it proposed to bring into its provisions all the fourteen companies of London, and there by proposed to give them all powers to link up and the advantages which they would possess by such linking up, and it also placed upon them the obligation of becoming liable to purchase by the London County Council, or some other public authority, in consideration for the advantages which were conferred upon them by enabling them to be linked up In the Committee of the House of Lords, the six companies were cut out of the Bill, and it went before a Committee of this House as a Bill dealing only with the eight companies. The Committee enlarged the scope of the Bill by giving the power to link up, not only to the eight companies, but also to the local authorities, and as such it had come down to the House. But as it passed the Committee, it did not provide for the linking up of the six companies which had been left out in the cold, so to speak, by the House of Lords. The Board of Trade, he admitted, with considerable reason, thought some course should be taken now, where by all the fourteen companies should be linked-up, so that the public would have the advantage of all the undertakings being connected, and being able to help each other. But in doing so a result was brought about which was certainly not contemplated at an earlier period of the Bill, and that was that these six companies would have all the advantages of the linking up of the system, and nevertheless were not subjected to the obligation of purchase by the County Council imposed upon the other companies, and therefore, whereas they got the advantages they had asked for, they still remained with the possibility, a very real possibility, of being able to escape purchase altogether owing to the fact that they were only left purchasable by the local authorities. He had
1372
put down Amendments at a later stage of the Bill, which would have applied the purchase clause to the six companies as it was applied to the eight companies, and if that were possible to be done it would bring about what he admitted would be a satisfactory solution, namely, that all the fourteen companies should be linked together and fall into the possession of the London County Council in 1931. But, unfortunately, he understood that although it would be in order to move those Amendments, it would necessitate the recommittal of the Bill, and under those circumtances it could hardly go forward, and the only choice he had was to object to the inclusion of these six companies in the Bill as proposed by the Amendment. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make any suggestion which would obviate the difficulty. If not, he felt certain the House would be making a mistake in admitting the six companies. They should rather leave them to the provisions of their own Bill in a position in which they could link themselves together, and would be subjected to a more or less efficient clause, by which they promised not to oppose any proposal made by the County Council in future years, than admit them to this very valuable privilege, and allow them to escape the liability to purchase.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the position had been correctly stated by the hon. Member and it arose from a difficulty for which he was certainly not responsible. When the Bill was before the House before it went to Committee, he moved an instruction on the London Electric Supply Bill collecting all the powers of purchase possessed by borough councils, and authorising the Committee to vest them in the London County Council. He would have moved a similar instruction in regard to the London and Westminster Company, but he could not do that, because Mr. Speaker, whom he consulted, ruled that it would not be in order on account of notice not having been given. The matter was complicated and very technical in its details, but notice was not given to the parties affected with regard to the second of these two Bills, and,

1373
therefore, what was in order on the instruction in the first would not be in order in regard to the second. That being so, they did the next best thing, and said to the second company: In consideration of our giving you these linking up powers, we will exact from you a pledge that at no future time shall you oppose any Bill which shall be brought in either by the London County Council, or by the Government of the day, to authorise the transference of the purchase rights to the London County Council. To this they agreed. Therefore, the matter now stood that this group of companies with which they were dealing in this Bill were, of course, to have their purchase liabilities transferred. But the second group of companies only bound themselves not to oppose any such scheme in the future. Meanwhile, by this Amendment, the second companies were admitted to the advantages of the first, and without in the same way coming under the whole liability of the first. But let them see where they stood. They still had against them the purchase rights, which were not diminished in any respect, only they would be exercised against them by the individual boroughs instead of by the London County Council, and until a Bill had been introduced, doing for this second group of companies what this Bill did for the first, that position would still continue. He agreed that that period ought to be as short as possible, and so far as it was possible to govern the future he gave the undertaking on behalf of the Government and the Board of Trade that they would, at the earliest possible moment compatible with the procedure of the House in private Bill legislation, produce a Bill in order to transfer the purchase rights operative against the second of those two groups of companies to the London County Council in exactly the same manner as were those rights in regard to the first. That pledge publicly given would, he thought, safeguard the very valuable and proper point to which the hon. Member had drawn attention.
Question put, and agreed to.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved to insert at the end of Clause 3 the following protective section: "If the specified companies, or any of them, exercise any powers under the provisions of this Act they shall, in respect of the exercise of such powers, be subject to the provisions of this Act to which authorised undertakers would be liable in the exercise of similar powers, and for that purpose the expression 'authorised undertakers' in this Act shall mean and include such specified companies or company." He said this was a protective clause which had been agreed upon with the companies. The First Commissioner of Works had exercised the most rigid and zealous supervision in regard to the proposals of the companies, and under the Amendment the Office of Works had inserted that a particular company was not allowed to do anything in its area, but when they were all linked up it would be possible, under certain conditions, for another company to come in and do in another area what it would not be entitled to do in its own area. It was to stop that danger which might perhaps capsize the admirable provision made by his right hon. friend that he ventured to move this protective clause.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 27, at end, to insert the words 'If the specified companies, or any of them, exercise any powers under the provisions of this Act they shall, in respect of the exercise of such powers, be subject to the provisions of this Act to which authorised undertakers would be liable in the exercise of similar powers, and for that purpose the expression 'authorised undertakers' in this Act shall mean and include such specified companies or company.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BARNARDsaid he desired to move a very small Amendment to the Amendment which had just been moved by the President of the Board of Trade, namely, to insert after the word "provisions" the words "or for the purposes."
Amendment to the proposed Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, after the word provisions, to insert the words 'or for the purposes.'"—(Mr. Barnard.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment, as amended agreed to.
Consequentia Amendments agreed to.
MR. WALTER GUINNESS MR. WALTER GUINNESS (Bury St. Edmunds) moved to amend Clause 4 by adding a proviso that the provisions of the sections should extend and apply to the London County Council as if they were a local authority. His object was to give the London County Council concurrent powers with the borough councils in deciding which routes the mains should run. The important part of the clause was contained in subsection (4), which gave the local authority the power to object to any proposed line on the ground that it was going to pass through a busy street, and in that case they could suggest an alternative route which would have to be adopted if the arbitrator thought it was reasonable, practicable, and did not involve unreasonable expenditure. The County Council also desired to have on this point the same power as the local authority to decide which routes should be followed by the new mains. The borough councils claimed to be heard because they were the road authority, but the County Council had an equal claim because they owned the tramways and the large connecting sewers which ran through the principal thoroughfares, and in a considerable number of places they had subways. It was, therefore, obvious that unless they had power to be heard their interests in many cases might suffer. This was no new proposal. In every case where the County Council had claimed this right it had been granted, and as precedents he might mention The Metropolitan Electric Supply Act, 1905, The North Metropolitan Electric Supply Act, 1905, The Central Electric Supply Companies Act, 1899, and in the last three bulk supply Bills. He thought the London County Council had a far greater claim under the present Bill than they had ever had before, because they would be the future owners of the electric
1376
supply companies in London, and they ought to have the right to be heard before the arbitrators as to how these new mains should be laid down and where they should be placed. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would see his way to accept this Amendment.
MR. H. GOOCHformally seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 9, to insert at the end, the words 'and the provisions of this subsection shall extend and apply to the London County Council as if they were a local authority.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR LUKE WHITEsaid that the substance of this proposal was brought before the Committee on behalf of the London County Council, and it was strongly opposed by the borough councils throughout the Metropolis. The Committee were unanimous in their decision that in respect of this linking up system there should not be a dual authority set up in London. The Committee were also opposed to the London County Council having within a borough the same powers as the borough itself, which at present was the road authority. Under this particular Bill the London County Council would be able to purchase the interests of the company in 1931, and if they purchased at that particular period they would then obtain all the powers which the companies at present possessed with regard to the roads and streets of the Metropolis. In the meantime and until 1931 the Committee were unanimously of opinion that the borough council should remain the road authority, and that any proposals with regard to their streets and the manner in which those streets should be broken up should remain vested in the borough councils as at the present time. He trusted that the House would support the Committee in the decision they had come to after considering all the circumstances with regard to the Metropolis, and the interests not only of the London County Council, but of the boroughs as well. The Committee were unanimous that the borough councils

1377
should remain the sole authority in regard to the breaking up of their streets. Supposing they passed the proposed provision in all similar, Bills proposed to the House of Commons by such bodies as the Metropolitan Water Board, the gas companies, and various other companies, the County Council would have equal claim to be constituted the road authority, and there would be confusion worse than existed, at the present time.
SIR EDWIN CORNWALLsaid they had before them an object lesson of the extraordinary position of London with regard to local government, the breaking up of the street, and other similar questions. They had the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds moving on behalf of the London County Council, a proposal which was not in sympathy with the Bills promoted by a past London County Council, and on behalf of the present London County Council the hon. Member was asking the House to recognise the London County Council as being responsible for the matters raised in his proposal. On the other hand they had the Chairman of the Committee asking the House to resist the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member on behalf of the London County Council. How was London to bring itself into some system of unification when both sides in municipal politics came to the House and agreed to join hands in recognising the London County Council as the authority in matters of this kind. In the face of this fact they had hon. Members great interested no doubt in doing the best they could for London but representing other parts of the country without having all the responsibilities which many of them had had for a large number of years of advising the House, in these matters. They all knew that the London County Council, whatever party might dominate it, had to bear the responsibility of many of the ills that London suffered from from time to time. A cartoon appeared in a well-known weekly paper issued in London as to the County Council being responsible for the breaking up of the streets. The London County Council was not responsible for that, but they asked that the Council should be put in a position
1378
to be able to control important matters of that kind. He supported the Amendment and hoped it would be passed.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he did not know that the House would be willing to follow the advice of the hon. Member for the Buckrose division, who was Chairman of the Committtee which investigated these Bills. While this was not a matter on which he desired to force a Ministerial opinion on the House, after careful reflection he should certainly be disposed to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Member had put down the Amendment in a form which he thought was rather a duplication of the Amendment to Clause 15. He should be prepared to support the Amendment to Clause 15 when reached. He thought if the words now proposed were inserted at the end of sub-clause 4, that would be a better form and a more convenient place. The addition which the hon. Member now proposed and the Amendment which he would move to Clause 15 would together achieve his object. What was that object? He thought it was a very innocent one. All it was proposed to do was to give the County Council the same power of revision in regard to the laying down of linking-up mains which they already possessed in regard to distribution mains; and he thought they were entitled to that power, not only, as the authority over the streets of London, but as the authority which one day, he hoped, would possess the unified system. Without in any degree wishing to traverse the very vaulable and important opinion expressed by the hon. Member for the Buckrose division or impugning the view he had put forward, he himself would vote in favour of the Amendment.
LORD R. CECIL, on behalf of the borough council of St. Marylebone, hoped the House would uphold the decision of the Committee and not accept the Amendment. If there were two authorities there would be great addition to the complications and expenditure. From the point of view of roads the County Council had no jurisdiction. [Cries of: "They ought to have."] That was a totally different proposition and an irrevelant interruption. As the law stood

1379
there was reason why the County Council should be consulted any more than the owners of other pipes or mains under the street.
MR. FLETCHERquite admitted that sooner or later the London County Council would have larger powers in this connection as a sort of appeal court; but as matters now stood it was an unfortunate phrase to associate the Council with the powers of a local authority. There certainly was no intention on the part of promoters of the Bill to transfer powers from the local authority to the Council. He moved the addition of the words: "Without prejudice to the rights, powers, and privileges of any local authority."
MR. CLAUDE HAYseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment.
"At the end, to add the words 'without prejudice to the rights, powers, and privileges of any local authority.'"—(Mr. Fletcher)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment."
SIR LUKE WHITEsaid this would simply be to state the existing position.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he could hot accept that. It seemed to him that these words would reduce the drafting of the clause to mere verbiage, so far as it operated at all. The Amendment would leave the local authority possessed of exactly the same privileges as they possessed at the present time.
MR. BOWLESsaid the incident which they had just witnessed might be taken as a real indication of the effect of the clause. The hon. Member did not move his Amendment in the form in which it stood on the Paper. In the form in which it appeared on the Paper the words proposed by the hon. Member for Hampstead were included, and yet it was suggested that the insertion of the words would reduce the Amendment to nonsense. The real truth, of course, was that this clause invaded the rights,
1380
powers, and privileges of every local authority concerned. That was a very serious thing, and one which he submitted ought not to be done without the greatest consideration of all the complicated questions which were concerned, or which might be concerned as a result of this alteration, and certainly not under the present circumstances in the direct face of the unanimous Report of a Committee, composed without distinction of party. The real effect of the Amendment, as it stood, appeared to be doubtful. He could not help thinking that if they were to decide on this matter now they should have the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. It was quite clear that the effect of the Amendment would have very far-reaching consequences. Although he was no lawyer he could not understand how the House of Commons or any reasonable man could say that such a system as this clause proposed could be accepted or could work, for they were setting up a system of dual control. They were superseding one authority for dealing with the roads for one particular purpose by other authority for dealing with them for another purpose. It might Well be that Parliament had chosen the wrong authority for dealing with the roads of London. He quite understood hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that they had. He himself was of opinion that all the roads in London ought to be under the control of the London County Council. But Parliament had, rightly or wrongly, decided that in dealing with the roads of London the London County Council was not the only authority, but that certain bodies which they had set up, viz., the Metropolitan borough councils, should have the control. It was an extraordinary thing that in relatively small matters an exception should be made to that general rule and that they should refuse to trust the great local representative bodies to whom Parliament had already committed these matters. He regarded the proposal in the Bill as a perfectly gratuitous and unnecessary restriction upon the powers of the Metropolitan borough councils. In the second place, he was afraid of this aspect of the case—that many of these proposals were the outcome of an extraordinary spirit, which

1381
he could only describe as a megalomania that affected otherwise reasonable persons who had at any time occupied a seat on the London County Council. He was bound on every consideration to support the Amendment.
MR. WATERLOWthought that there was some confusion in the minds of hon. Members as to the effect of the Amendment. With the Amendment as it now stood, he was in entire sympathy. Some hon. Members who had spoken did not seem to realise that in many of the streets of London there was already dual control; viz., in the great bulk of the lines of streets where the electric-lighting companies' mains were laid. There, the London County Council had control. Then, the London County Council had control on all lines of streets where the main sewers ran. The London County Council in that respect required to have a say on those lines of streets where new electric lighting mains were to be laid. Again, on all main roads where London County Council tramways ran, the cost of two-thirds of the road was contributed at the present time both as to maintenance and keeping them in proper repair. For these reasons, he thought the London County Council should have a right to say where those electric mains were to be laid.
MR. H. GOOCHsaid that whatever might be said of the London Country Council it could not be alleged that they suffered from lack of employment.

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Ambrose, Robert

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hunt, Rowland

Stanier, Beville

Carlile, E. Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

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

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Courthope, G. Loyd

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Claude Hay.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Fell, Arthur

Nannetti, Joseph P.

No one wished that their employment should be seriously increased in any respect. The point of the Amendment was simply that the London County Council had considerable interests underground and it was only fair that they should be able to look after, to the best of their ability the interests of London as a whole. The London County Council was the only body which could look after or speak for London as a whole.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid he thought that it would be better to settle first the Amendment to the Amendment, and then go on to the discussion of the principal Amendment.
MR. WALTER GUINNESSsaid the hon. Member for Norwood seemed to assume that the words were put down to protect the rights and interests of the borough councils and that those rights and interests were being invaded. There was, however, another alternative, viz., that the words were unnecessary. He could not, however, see any possible harm in accepting them so as to make it quite plain that there was no intention to invade the rights and powers of the Metropolitan borough councils. If they did that they could get on with the discussion on the main issue.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 43; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 454.)

NOES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hedges, A. Paget

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

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Helme, Norval Watson

Radford, G. H.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Henry, Charles S.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Renwick, George

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Higham, John Sharp

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barnard, E. B.

Horniman, Emslie John

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barnes, G. N.

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Beale, W. P.

Hyde, Clarendon

Robinson, S.

Beck, A. Cecil

Idris, T. H. W.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bell, Richard

Jackson, R. S.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Jenkins, J.

Rowlands, J.

Boland, John

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Bowerman, C. W.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Brigg, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Sears, J. E.

Brodie, H. C.

Joyce, Michael

Seaverns, J. H.

Brooke, Stopford

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Seddon, J.

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Seely, Colonel

Bryce, J. Annan

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Lambert, George

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Byles, William Pollard

Lamont, Norman

Snowden, P.

Cameron, Robert

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lehmann, R. C.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Levy, Sir Maurice

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Summerbell, T.

Clive, Percy Archer

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Clough, William

Lupton, Arnold

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lynch, H. B.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Maclean, Donald

Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tomkinson, James

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

Toulmin, George

Cowan, W. H.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crosfield, A. H.

M'Crae, Sir George

Ure, Alexander

Curran, Peter Francis

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

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Vivian, Henry

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

Magnus, Sir Philip

Walsh, Stephen

Dobson, Thomas W.

Mallet, Charles E.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Duckworth, Sir James

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Waring, Walter

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Marnham, F. J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Waterlow, D. S.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Watt, Henry A.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Everett, R. Lacey

Mond, A.

Whitbread, Howard

Fenwick, Charles

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Field, William

Morse, L. L.

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Gill, A. H.

Napier, T. B.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Glendinning, R. G.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Wilkie, Alexander

Glover, Thomas

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Williamson, A.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Gulland, John W.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Nuttall, Harry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hall, Frederick

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Winfrey, R.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Parker, James (Halifax)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Stephen Collins and Mr. Wiles.

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Pease, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Saffron Walden

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pollard, Dr.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Original Question, "That those words be their inserted," again proposed.
MR. RUPERT GUINNESShoped the members of

1385
borough councils who took part in the division on the Amendment would appreciate that the County Council did not want to take away any of their powers, because those who represented the County Council voted for the last Amendment. All they wanted was that the County Council should be represented before the arbitrator, and it seemed to be necessary and important that they should have some voice in the route which mains followed, especially as they had a large number of sewers and all the tramways and would eventually own the property. He should like to press that this Amendment should form part of the Bill, because they would want very considerable powers in order to take over the undertakings when 1931 arrived.
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
MR. B. S. STRAUS*MR. B. S. STRAUS (Tower Hamlets, Mile End) moved to substitute £4 10s. for £6 15s. as the limit which might be charged per kilowatt by the company. He said he moved this because it was the limit inserted in the original Bill of the company, and he could not, for the life of him, understand why it should have been increased from £4 10s. to £6 15s. He thought it was due to the House to explain the position. When this Bill went to the Lords numerous clauses were left out because that House only considered the question of linking up, and this clause went out with many others. When the measure came before the Committee of the House of Commons, which was ably presided over by the Chairman sitting on his left, it appeared that the Committee insisted quite rightly on the company inserting in the Bill a maximum. Then the company, he could not understand why, inserted the amount of £6 15s. instead of the amount in the original Bill which appeared on page 23, line 15, as £4 10s. per kilowatt. There were also measured maximum tolls for all energy supplied in the original Bill only instead of ½d. for every unit they had 5 of a penny, which he approved of as he supported the decimal system. It was the bounden duty of Members of the House to consider in what way consumers would be affected
1386
in this matter, and there was no question that even £4 10s. was such a price that it would not pay people to use electricity in bulk to any great extent. The higher the maximum the greater the leverage upon the company to get a larger amount from the users of current. The consequence was that he thought the best thing was to put the maximum as low as possible, and there was no reason why they should not adopt the proposal of the promoters and make it £4 10s. as his Amendment would do. He would point out that the railway companies all had maximum rates, and they continued to use the existence of those rates as an argument for their charges. They pointed out how low their charge was as compared with the maximum and they used the latter for the purpose of extorting a higher rate from their customers. [Cries of "Oh!"] He would withdraw the word "extorting" which he did not use offensively and say the companies used the maximum to get higher rates from their customers. He hoped the House would adopt the Amendment, as it was the only chance they would have to look after not the interests of the County Council or the borough councils but of the public. They were there for the purpose of looking after the interests of the people. [Cries of "Oh!"] His hon. friends opposite said "Oh," and perhaps they were there to represent the companies, but he was not. This matter was so important that even if the companies said they could not go on with the Bill, as he was only adopting their own figures he maintained that the House should carry it through, because it so materially affected the consumers. He did not wish to detain the House at that late hour, but he hoped hon. Members would see the importance of the case, and he was sure that those who looked at the question from an unbiassed point of view would have regard to the interests of the consumers. He, therefore, hoped his proposal would be adopted.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 32, to leave out the words 'six pounds and fifteen,' and to insert the words 'four pounds and ten.'"—(Mr. B. S. Straus.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. LEVERTON HARRISsaid the hon. Member who had spoken had so absolutely misinformed the House, that, being connected with one of the electric companies, he felt bound to contradict one or two statements that he made. The Bill introduced into the House of Lords did, it was quite true, give the figure of £4 10s. as a maximum, but that was an entirely different Bill from that of the present one now before the House of Commons. The Bill before the House of Lords was one for forty-two years, enabled the companies to link up together, and provided that any capital expenditure spent on sending out their own supply should be repaid by a sinking fund. This Bill was only going to continue for twenty-three years the rights of the company, and they were fettered in their interest, because when the twenty-three years came to an end the existing Electric Lighting Acts came into force, and the company had to sell their undertaking under the terms of those Acts. He thought there was very great difference between the Bill introduced into the House of Lords and the present Bill, and he hoped the House, in justice to the alterations made in the terms of the Bill, would not accept the Amendment.
SIR LUKE WHITEthought it was fair that he should state that when the Committee considered the Bill no maximum price was included in its terms, and the Committee had to consider what the maximum price should be. After considering the matter the Committee came to the conclusion that it was a question for experts more particularly to consider, and to take into consideration the facts of the case. There was no doubt an absolute necessity that a considerable reduction in the maximum prices put forward should take place, and ultimately on behalf of the promoters, on behalf of the London County Council, and other parties interested, a conference was agreed upon to go into the maximum charge, the engineers to give a decision, and they agreed on £6 10s. as a compromise.
1388
The following day the counsel for the promoters with the sanction of the London County Council said that a decision had been come to that £6 15s. should be inserted as a maximum price, and with the consent of all parties the Committee agreed to put that sum in. There was no objection whatever on the part of those interested to see a very large reduction. That was the maximum price, and he hoped the Committee would support the decision of the Committee, and insert the words as they stood.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that great as was the economy in charges which would be effected by the Bill, much greater economy was expected under the Bill as originally introduced, and, therefore, the promoters were able to guarantee a maximum charge of £4 10s. But he was advised that in the altered conditions the Amendment, if accepted, would inflict such a hardship on the promoters that they would not be justified in going on with the Bill. He would point out, however, that while the charge per kilowatt was £4 10s. in the original Bill and £6 15s. in the present Bill, the charge of a halfpenny per unit remained constant in the two propositiors; and the charge per unit was the more important of the two. Before the Bill was introduced, and if it did not pass they would revert to the old price, the price of electricity was 8d. a unit. That was not comparable altogether because there was then no charge per kilowatt, which represented the charge for the horse power of the engine, whilst the unit represented the charge for the amount consumed. Moreover, the price mentioned in the Bill was the statutory maximum, and while there was no question of the promoters charging the full price, the Board of Trade had power on the application of the county council or the local authority to revise the maximum price every seven years.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WALTER GUINNESS MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved an Amendment which he said was really a consequential Amendment to that moved by the President of the Board of Trade.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13, line 25, after the word 'undertakers,' to insert the words 'or a specified company.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was advised that the words were not necessary; that the Amendment he had inserted was sufficient to carry out the object, and that it was not necessary to insert the words in every clause.
MR. WALTER GUINNESSsaid that if the Amendment at page 4, line 27, covered the whole point he would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman had inserted these words in about ten other places.
SIR H. KEARLEYpointed out that Clauses 3 and 4 were the operative clauses of the Bill, and that no useful purpose would be served by constantly inserting this Amendment in others.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 13, line 35, after the word 'ground,' to insert the words 'within the administrative County of London.'"
"In page 14, line 4, after the word 'undertaker,' to insert the words 'or a specified company.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'under the provisions of Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888.'"—(Mr. Guinness.)
SIR H. KEARLEY: I agree.
MR. JOHN WARDdesired to elicit some explanation of what the clause meant. His remembrance of the Committee proceedings on Electricity Bills led him to regard the Act of 1888 as the most important part of the electrical law.
MR WALTER GUINNESSexplained that it was a simple matter. The clause
1390
transferred powers from borough councils to the London County Council, and if these words were left in it would be quite possible that companies who were not under the Act of 1888 (Section 2) might not be included, some of the companies had a longer run.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that was the explanation of the Amendment. The words would limit the effect in regard to purchase rights of the London County Council inherited from the borough councils. It had nothing to do with the terms in the Act of 1888, upon which he agreed with his hon. friend it was necessary to keep a sharp eye.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. WALTER GUINNESS MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved a proviso to Clause 22, which he said was made necessary by one which had been inserted by the right hon. Gentleman. The subsection provided that under certain conditions the Council could purchase the bulk undertaking of the Metropolitan Electricity Supply Company. Subsection (2) of the clause provided that the Council should not purchase any undertaking or any part of the undertaking of the said company unless they gave notice, etc. In pursuance of Section 22 they would be empowered to purchase, if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was accepted, the bulk part of the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company; and he moved his Amendment to make it quite clear that their failure to purchase this bulk supply would not vitiate their power to purchase the rest of the companies throughout the County of London.
MR. H. GOOCHseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 39, after the word 'purchase,' to insert the words 'Provided that this subsection shall not apply in respect of any part of the undertaking of the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company which may not in pursuance of this section be purchasable by the Council upon the terms specified in Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILLthought he might accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he now had to ask the House to consider the most important of the Amendments submitted by the Board of Trade. It referred to the re-modelling, or rather the restoration of the purchase terms. When the Bill came from the Committee before the House he put to the company this proposition: The Government desired to consolidate the purchase liabilities against the company and vest them in the County Council. They represented to him that they would lose considerably by that, because the purchase prices were ineffective prices while they were held by all the separate boroughs, but consolidated and vested in the County Council they would become effective and there would be great or considerable loss on account of the possibility of severance which would inevitably arise in the course of a piecemeal purchase. That being so, he agreed to insert in the instruction he moved—the instruction vesting the rights of purchase in the London County Council—the words "on equitable terms." It was perfectly understood that those words were only inserted to enable the question of purchase terms to be raised before the Committee for the purpose of providing, if necessary and desirable, a clearer definition of certain points which the promoters urged were obscure and uncertain in regard to the operation of the purchase terms as they stood. It was clearly stated by him at the time that the Board of Trade did not contemplate any improvement of the purchase terms at all. They were willing to give a clearer and more precise definition if that were necessary, and they were anxious that the matter should be discussed before the Committee, but they certainly never intended making—and he certainly should not support—any proposal for improving the conditions of purchase. He held that the companies were, to a very large extent, compensated for the extra efficiency of the purchase rights operating against them by the facilities for linking up which they
1392
were asking for under the present Bill. When the company went before the Committee a very long and careful examination of their case was made and the very able counsel whom they were able to engage induced the Committee—and he was certainly not condemning the Committee for their action in any way—to insert the words "on equitable terms" in the text of the Bill. It was quite true the Committee never intended, he understood, by that to give the companies power to be compensated in 1931 for goodwill or for expectation of future profits or anything of that kind; but he was advised that the clause might very easily have been construed in that manner by an arbitrator. He was advised it was quite possible that an arbitrator might give to the company terms substantially better than those under the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, under which they were liable to be purchased in 1931. That being so, he thought it was his duty—and he trusted the House would support him—to submit to the promoters that unless they were able to modify the conditions which were granted by the companies so as to make quite sure the terms were the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, terms, and no other, it would be his duty, on behalf of the Government, to oppose the Bill when it came back to the House on Report. He was very glad to be able to inform the House that after considerable negotiations, which on more than one occasion very nearly jeopardised the Bill, the promoters had accepted the clause in the form in which he now moved it. The companies, therefore, would be purchasable on Electric Lighting Act, 1888, terms as they originally would have been without any improvement at all. There were, however, to the general statement two exceptions. There were two companies which had a longer run than 1931, one the Charing Cross and the other the City Company. One was purchasable in 1932 and the other not till 1940. They thought it absolutely wrong that those companies should have any improvement in their purchase terms as granted by Parliament; but they thought the two companies, in giving up the extra period they had to run, were entitled to special consideration. In that respect they got value received, viz

1393
the public acquirement at an earlier date. He thought it only right to make this exception in the case of companies which had given up their statutory right to run. There was sub-clause 4 which he was also moving. That was a very small, but a very peculiar point. The transference they were now effecting was the individual purchase rights of a number of boroughs in a consolidated purchase right to the London County Council. There were some things, such as some mains and a generating station at Willesden, which would not be purchasable under the terms of piecemeal purchase, but which would be purchasable under the new system of consolidated purchase. The company said they should be allowed to have special terms in regard to that part of their plant, and the Board of Trade found it impossible to deny the justice of that claim. If, however, they had allowed the company to have that special licence in regard to that small outstanding piece of their plant, and at the same time allowed them to insist on the London County Council buying it all at one moment, it was possible the London County Council might have had no opportunity of refusing to pay an excessive price for one portion of the property without giving up their option over the whole of the rest for which they would know within small limits what they would have to pay. The Board of Trade, therefore, said that if the company had the right to except those particular mains and the Willesden station from the general operation of the existing purchase clause, they would also be excepted from the obligation of the London County Council "to purchase them all or none." If in purchase negotiations high prices were named for these outstanding properties it would, therefore, be optional for the London County Council to refuse to buy them, and they would be left on the hands of the promoters. That was an arrangement which, after careful negotiation, they found to be satisfactory to the representatives of the London County Council, and it was also accepted by the companies. He had dwelt on it at considerable length, because, although it figured to a small extent in the proposals, he wanted the House to see it had been carefully and narrowly
1394
considered. He commended the subsection to the House because it enforced against the companies substantially the same purchase terms as those under the Electric Light Act, 1888.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 19, to leave out lines 1 to 17 (inclusive,' and to insert the words '(3) The undertakings of the several London Electric Supply Companies within the county, including any lands, buildings, works, materials, and plant provided or constructed under the powers of this Act shall, if purchased by the Council, be paid for upon the terms specified in Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, provided that if the Council give notice for purchase at the twenty-sixth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one—(a) That part of the undertaking of the Charing Cross, West End, and City Electricity Supply Company, Limited, which is authorised by the City of London Electric Lighting Order, 1899, shall be purchased only upon the terms set forth in the said Order; and (b) the City of London Electric Lighting Company, Limited, shall be entitled to such additional compensation as may be agreed upon, or as such agreement being arrived at, the Council or such local authority may appeal to the Board of Trade, who may make such Order as having regard to all the circumstances of the case may appear to them to be expedient. (7) In the event of any purchase under the provisions of this section taking place the Board of Trade may, by Order, modify or adjust the powers exercisable by the Council or any local authority in such manner as may appear expedient, and do anything which appears to them to be necessary to enable the provisions of this section to be carried into effect, and any such Order may modify the provisions of any Act or Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he gathered that an arrangement entered into in Committee was going to be upset by the right hon. Gentleman on the Report stage. He had been many years in the House, but he never remembered such a case. The Bill had been before a Committee, and apparently the whole of it was going to be rediscussed at half-past ten at night by a House in which there were not three Members who were not on the Committee who knew anything about it.
MR. W. THORNE: Speak for yourself.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid if the hon. Member was a member of the Committee—he was not referring to him personally—of course, he did not include him in the remarks he made, but if he was not a member of the Committee he did include him, because, however able he might be, if he had not been at the Committee, and heard the evidence, he could know nothing whatever about it.
MR. W. THORNE: I have read it.
SIR F. BANBURYasked what was the use of having a Committee if this principle was to obtain. They left it all to the hon. Member below the gangway who had read the case, and thought he knew all about it, and they ignored the long sittings upstairs. That was a very important point, and one which would deal a blow at the work of Private Bill Committees, which had hitherto always been considered to have gone into their work carefully, and it was on very rare occasions that the House ever interfered with the decisions at which they had arrived. The right hon. Gentleman had told them, putting it in a very terse phrase, that he had levied blackmail on the companies. The Committee arrived at a decision, and the right hon. Gentleman said he was going to reverse that decision, because the Government was all powerful in the House, unless they altered their terms, and took a smaller advantage. If that was not blackmail he did not know what was. He had risen to speak, because he felt certain if such things were to be done no one would ever put his money into any of these enter prises. This sort of thing was growing day by day, money was going abroad, and hon. Gentlemen below the gangway who lived upon the money of the investor—
MR. W. THORNE: They do not get much of yours anyhow.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid they would get none of it, if he could avoid it. The result would be detrimental to the interests and the commercial prosperity of the country.
MR. DICKINSONsaid there were a great many more than four Members who knew a good deal about the subject. He rose merely to express, on behalf of London generally, their great appreciation for the successful work that had been undertaken in regard to this matter by the President of the Board of Trade. After having watched these proceedings through both Committees, without bringing any reflection to bear upon the action of the Committee upstairs he said that if this clause had been presented to the House as it left the Committee the Bill could not possibly have passed. That being so, it was in the interest both of the Company and of London generally that the right hon. Gentleman intervened and with great wisdom and tact persuaded the Company to accept the terms which were embodied in this clause. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman very much for what he had done.
MR. ESSLEMONT, speaking as one of the members of the Committee who had devoted very laborious days to the question, said the Board of Trade suggested that the members of the Committee had been induced by the persuasive eloquence of counsel to put a construction on his instruction which they were not justified in doing, and he thought it would have been for the convenience of the Committee if the Board of Trade had at an earlier stage explained more fully what their intention was when the instruction was moved. It left them in this position—that it was quite impossible for them on the instruction which they had before them to report to the House such a clause. He really did not think it was their desire to have anything but reasonable terms.
MR. W. GUINNESSsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London rather suggested that the Board of Trade had dealt harshly with the companies. It was well to point out that the companies had, he believed, assented to the clause.
SIR F. BANBURY: Very reluctantly.
MR. W. GUINNESSsaid it might be that they had assented reluctantly, but of

1397
course, the Committee gave them what he thought they could hardly have expected, and he really believed the right hon. Gentleman in moving the clause was only carrying out what the Committee really intended. Reading the evidence, and so far as one could judge, the Committee did not intend the companies to get anything more than Electric Lighting Section 2 terms, except in the two special case of the City Company and the Charing Cross Company, and all that the Board of Trade had done was to redraft the clause to carry out the objects of the Committee, and to secure that when the time came for the assessment of compensation the arbitrator would not be compelled, by the ambiguous wording of the clause, to give something over and above electric lighting terms for the severance, which would not, in point of fact, ever arise, but which might have arisen if the borough councils had been the purchasers instead of the County Council. He believed if this clause had been moved in its original form the London County Council might have been mulcted in an enormous sum, and on behalf of the County Council, who had devoted a considerable amount of time and labour to this matter, he should like to express their gratitude for what the right hon. Gentleman had done in re-drafting the clause.
MR. JAMES PARKERsaid he associated himself with the hon. Member opposite with regard to instructions given by the House to Committees. The instruction was that the Committee should consider that something more was required than merely the terms of the Electric Lighting Act. He did not consider that more was required. As a Member of the Committee he had voted quite conscientiously with his colleagues for the clause as put into the Bill, and the reason for it was this. He had sat on two of these Committees, the one in 1906, and the Bulk Supply Bill which the Committee threw out on the preamble, and upon these two later Bills, and anyone who considered the condition of the consumer of electricity in London and the conditions as they prevailed with the various borough councils would be prepared to go a long way to get a
1398
united bulk supply of electricity under the control of the London County Council. When instructions were given they should be given by the Board of Trade, in terms which the Committee could understand, and when the House gave an instruction he took it to be the business of the Committee to endeavour to carry it out.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was quite willing to admit some blame attached to him for not having had an opportunity when moving the instruction of more clearly explaining the historical circumstances, which were only known to himself, which led to the insertion of the words "on equitable terms" in the instruction. That misled the Committee as to the intent and wishes of the House upon the subject, and it was through that that the Bill came down to them in its present form. He thought the House would recognise how very complicated this question was, with all sorts of small points, and how much compromise and negotiation was necessary. He was sure the House would not, in accepting his Amendment, desire in the slightest way to reflect at all upon the zeal, ability, and industry, with which the Committee had done their work. That would be most ungrateful towards Members who discharged a most severe and laborious and, in some respects, thankless portion of Parliamentary work.
SIR LUKE WHITEsaid the Committee felt that under the instruction of his right hon. friend, with regard to equitable terms, they had to consider that question from the point of view of the powers given by the present Bill, and if it had been the intention of the Board of Trade that the purchase under the terms of this Bill should have been the exact terms of Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, as this Amendment proposed, it would have been a very easy matter for the Committee to have placed such a clause in the Bill. But the Bill had to deal with a very complicated question. They never intended, under the clause which now stood in the Bill, to give anything whatever in relation to goodwill or future profits. What they intended to give to the promoters of the Bill was

1399
fair and equitable terms, taking into consideration the capital expenditure which they would have to incur under the provisions of the Bill. He held that the Amendment would carry out what was the intention of the Committee, and accordingly the Committee would support the clause as amended.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. WALTER GUINNESSsaid he moved his subsection down to the end of sub-head (a) because sub-head (b) dealt with quite a different question, and he hoped even if he was not successful in inducing the Government to accept the first part, they might anyhow accept the second. Sub-head (a) proposed that after the London County Council purchased the undertakings supplying electricity throughout the county, after they had done what the borough councils could not do, owing to the difficulty of severance, they might then be entitled to sell back to the borough councils so much of the undertaking as was concerned with the distribution of electricity within the area of that local authority. The London County Council were anxious that this Amendment should be accepted, because they did not think that the distribution of electrical supply for London would be so well forwarded in the hands of one authority as if it was divided up into a bulk supply and a distributive supply. The actual work ought obviously to be in the hands of a body in touch with the district. The borough councils were in a far better position to say whether a man was entitled to a certain amount of credit or should be made to pay cash down for the supply which he had. In distinguishing between the bulk and the distribution supplies of electricity the Government would only be earning out the same principle as had been applied in other parts of London. They felt that the London County Council was overworked, and it would be impossible for it to run a bulk supply and at the same time to distribute electricity to every single consumer. He felt that this proposal was only doing common justice to the local authorities. They ought to include the local authority on equitable terms, not only between the
1400
companies and the council but also between the borough councils and the London County Council. The borough councils in many places felt that they had a fairly valuable prospective reversion in these electric undertakings. He was anxious that they should have this reversion, and he asked the House to allow the County Council to sell that reversion to the local authorities in the year 1931. The Council could not administer the distributing work so well as the local authority, and, therefore, the power was asked for that the County Council should be able to resell the distributing part of an undertaking to the local authority desiring to acquire it.
MR. H. GOOCHseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 19, line 30, at end, to insert the words '(6) In the event of the Council purchasing an undertaking (or part of an undertaking) in pursuance of powers transferred to or conferred upon them under this section the following provisions shall have effect: (a) The Council and any local authority who, before the passing of this Act, were empowered to purchase such undertaking (or part of an undertaking) may, with the approval of the Board of Trade, enter into and carry into effect an agreement or agreements for the purchase by such local authority from the Council of so much of the distributing system comprised in such undertaking (or part of an undertaking) as may be situate within and used for the supply of the district of such local authority, and as from the date of the purchase effected under any such agreement all such powers as may have been vested in the Council with regard to such system (or part of a system), and the distribution of electrical energy there by shall be vested in such local authority and shall be exercisable by them in lieu of and in substitution for the Council, and shall cease to be exercisable by the Council.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he had found himself so often in agreement with the hon. Member opposite in the course of this Bill, that he was sorry to differ from him directly. The policy the Government were pursuing was for the unification of the electrical supply for London, but the adoption, of this proposal would have the effect of dividing it up again. Out of unity would proceed economy in generation, management, and distribution, and though economy

1401
in generation would remain, the economy in management would be largely impaired by distribution being in another hand. It was evident from the expression "valuable prospective reversion" that local authorities expected to make a middleman's profit; but that was not the policy of the Government. Again, inasmuch as not all the local authorities would purchase the right of distribution, the Council would be left with a lop-sided system of distribution without the means of making up the loss in one district from gain in another.
MR. WALTER GUINNESSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WALTER GUINNESS MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved a further Amendment to provide that where a local authority was in competition with the County Council, the County Council should have the power to acquire the undertaking of the local authority. There were only two cases in London where that state of things was likely to arise, namely, Bermondsey and Southwark, the borough councils of which had each got undertakings in the area that would be supplied by the companies included in this Bill. It was manifestly undesirable that two different sections of ratepayers should be in competition in the supply of electricity, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment.
MR. H. GOOCHseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 19, line 30, at end, to insert the words 'The Council and any local authority having an electrical undertaking which is being carried on in competition with the undertaking (or part of an undertaking) purchased by the Council as aforesaid may, with the approval of the Board of Trade, enter into and carry into effect an agreement or agreements for the purchase by the Council of the electrical undertaking of such local authority, or any part thereof, and upon any such agreement being entered into, all such powers as may have been exercisable by such local authority in regard to their electrical undertaking or so much thereof as may be purchased by the Council shall be vested in the Council, and shall be exercisable by them in lieu of and in substitution for such local authority, and shall cease to be exercisable by such local authority.
1402
In the event of no such agreement being arrived at, the Council or such local authority may appeal to the Board of Trade, who may make such order as, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may appear to them to be expedient.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid there was no great objection to the object of the Amendment, but he did not think this was the occasion when they need consider the danger to which the hon. Member had referred. The date of purchase was, unfortunately, very distant, and he was quite certain that further legislation would be necessary before that date was reached. He agreed that they ought to avoid anything like competition between the London County Council and the borough councils, but he did not think that the scheme for the unification of the electrical supply of London could be completed if they stopped where they were carried by this Bill. It was evident that further legislation would be necessary before London possessed a perfectly complete and comprehensive scheme, and when that legislation was proposed, the hon. Member's subsection, which was unobjectionable in itself, but would be dangerous if introduced into the present Bill, might very properly be considered.
MR. WALTER GUINNESSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WALTER GUINNESS MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved subsection (7) of his Amendment, which he said was intended to prevent the necessity of any further legislation when purchase rights took effect. He was advised that unless the Board of Trade had power to modify and adjust the powers exercisable by the council owing to the different expressions in various Provisional Orders in force throughout London administered by the London County Council it was certain that fresh legislation would be necessary and that might be avoided by his proposal.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 19, line 20, at the end, to insert the words '(7) In the event of any purchase under

1403
the provisions of this section taking place the Board of Trade may, by order, modify or adjust the powers exercisable by the Council or any local authority in such manner as may appear expedient, and do anything which appears to them to be necessary to enable the provisions of this section to be carried into effect, and any such order may modify the provisions of any Act or Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he had on a number of occasions heard hon. Members express the opinion that they thought a good deal too much power was given to the Board of Trade, and he had had to defend his Department against that charge. But never in his most enthusiastic moments had he conceived it possible that Parliament would be asked to confer upon the Board of Trade or any public Department the powers which the hon. Member desired to give them in this Amendment, which would confer upon the Board of Trade almost illimitable power. It was an absolute and uncontrolled power which on the grounds of modesty he felt compelled to decline.
MR. WALTER GUINNESSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 19, line 31, after the word 'The,' to insert the words 'London County.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. WALTER GUINNESS MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved an Amendment providing that three-fourths of the purchase money instead of one-half as proposed by the Bill should be paid in stock. It was obvious that the London County Council might have very great difficulty in raising the enormous sum of ready money which would be necessary to pay off the interests on the capital of those companies it half of it had to be satisfied in cash. The capital of those companies was already over £13,000,000, and he thought it was most desirable in the interests of the credit of London that a huge amount of stock should not suddenly be floated on the market. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would see his way to accept his Amendment.
MR. H. GOOCHseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 19, line 32, to leave out the word 'one-half,' and to insert the word 'three-fourths.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he quite agreed with the hon. Member that they should do everything they could to render the purchase of these undertakings in 1931 by the London County Council easy and convenient, and he agreed that it would be an advantage that the larger portion of the purchase price should be payable in stock instead of in cash. This matter was examined before the Committee upstairs, and the Committee came to an agreement with the parties concerned that the proportion should be one-half. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment asked that that proportion should be three-fourths. That was asking for a greater concession from the companies than was thought proper by the Committee. He was, however, anxious to facilitate in every way the operation of purchase, and he had had some negotiations with the companies upon this subject. He was glad to announce that they had been successful, and he was, therefore, in a position to accept the Amendment which bad been moved by his hon. friend.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 20, line 7, after the words 'when the,' to insert the words 'London County.'"
"In page 21, line 2, after the word 'accordingly,' to insert the words 'Provided any supply company requiring the Council to advance money under this section shall satisfy the Council that any money so advanced will be or has been properly expended for the purposes for which the same was advanced.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved to add a subsection to Clause 24, which he said had been the result of considerable negotiation, conducted through the medium of the Board of Trade, between

1405
the London County Council and the promoters of the Bill. Under the Bill the London County Council could, if it chose, exercise the option of purchase by giving three years notice before 1931 of its intention to purchase. The operation of all purchase clauses in the past had been very carefully watched, because it was found that unless provision was made for the support of the private enterprise during its last years of life it was often exploited, neglected or starved, that it was allowed to deteriorate, and that when the public authority acquired it, it was not acquired in the most economical, efficient, and satisfactory condition. Therefore, it was necessary that there should be a time when the new authority should come in and exercise a certain amount of control, taking a certain amount of responsibility, and consequently contributing a certain amount to the support of the enterprise. Under this Bill it was proposed to make it obligatory on the County Council, if it desired to exercise the option of purchase, to provide under very carefully fenced about limitations sums of money which were necessary for the carrying on and for the proper upkeep of the company's undertaking during the last three years. The subsection which he proposed to insert safeguarded the County Council on a point on which they were anxious, namely, the assurance that they would not be obliged to advance sums of money unless they had security for the payment of the sums and the interest. The County Council put this forward, but the promoters had not completely agreed to it as a right and proper safeguard. On the other hand he saw no reason, reviewing the circumstances of the Bill, and the general possibility of its passing through this House, why they should not insert it. He hoped its insertion would not seriously compromise the fortunes of the Bill. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 21, line 19, at the end, to insert the words '(d) The Council shall not be obliged to advance any sum to a company under this section unless they are satisfied that there is adequate security for the repayment to them of the sum to be advanced and for the payment of the interest thereon.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 21, line 19, at end of clause, to add the words 'It shall be lawful for the Council and any of the London Electric Supply Companies to enter into and carry into effect any agreement or agreements with regard to matters dealt with in this section, and any such agreement may contain any provision for the repayment to the Council of any sum which they may advance to a supply company in pursuance of this section, notwithstanding the provisions contained in this section.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was willing to accept this.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he understood that if the London County Council advanced money to companies it was to be a prior charge on the undertakings. Was it intended by this clause that a loan made by the County Council, which the mortgagees and debenture-holders could know nothing about, was to rank in front of the mortgages and debentures? If so, he should certainly oppose the Amendment.
MR. WALTER GUINNESSsaid this Amendment would only give enabling power to a company to agree to such a proposal. There was a precedent for it. Obviously it was not equitable that the County Council should have to pay twice over, and without this clause they might have to do so. If the debenture-holders did not agree, the provision would not take effect.
LORD R. CECILsaid the effect of the Amendment would be to enable a company to prefer the County Council to other creditors of the company. If that was what was meant, it was a startling proposition. He agreed that the situation was exceedingly difficult under the terms proposed. He did not think that tramway terms were the best for the public in the long run, because they were a direct incitement to a company not to keep up plant in a proper condition at the end of the term, and the result was that there was always a danger that the purchasing party

1407
would not get value for what they paid. He shared the apprehension of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in regard to the giving of power to prefer the County Council to other creditors.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid the position was not so bad as suggested by the noble Lord. As a rule, a company's articles of association determined whether or not a prior lien charge should be made, and in almost all cases it could only be made by getting the assent of the whole of the debenture-holders or a large portion of them. If by any chance the effect of this would be to give a prior lien charge on these properties without the knowledge and consent of the debenture-holders, it would be obviously a thing which the House ought not to do, and it would be necessary to put the matter right either here or in another place.
MR. CHURCHILL: It will certainly not have that effect. It is only an enabling clause to empower the London County Council to make special arrangements with other companies who are not in acknowledged conflict with the ordinary law.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not the point. The point is whether there is power on the part of the company and the London County Council, without the consent of the debenture-holders, to rank such a loan of money in front of the debenture-holders and mortgagees of the company. Now, as I understand it, that turns upon the articles of association. Certain companies are so framed that proceedings cannot take place, and on the other
1408
hand, other companies' rules are so framed that such tranasctions can take place. What the House wants to know is whether the company in question under this Bill belongs to one class or the other. Everybody agrees that the provisions of the Bill would be a very serious invasion of their rights if the consent of the debenture-holders were not to be obtained, and if this information had not been given to them.
SIR LUKE WHITEsaid that this question had been before the Committee, and if this Amendment were carried without some qualification, so far from saving the rights of the debenture-holders and the mortgagees was concerned, it would have the effect of over-riding the articles of the association. He quite agreed that there might be some doubt on the point, and he hoped that his right hon. friend would consider that point, because he himself thought that these Words were necessary to safeguard the rights of the mortgagees and the debenture-holders.
MR. CHURCHILL: Nothing in this clause enables the company or the London County Council to over-ride the articles of association, or do anything in violation of the existing law, or of the existing equities between the existing company shareholders and the debenture shareholders. Under this Bill as now proposed the London County Council will have power to make advances during the last two years, subject to the security being satisfactory. But there are many cases in which security may not be satisfactory as against the advances made. This clause only permits elasticity in regard to the articles

1409
of association where an agreement has been come to between all the parties.
MR. BOWLESsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was nothing in the clause which could possibly impair the rights of the debenture holders. He had two observations to make upon that. Was the right hon. Gentleman quite certain that the words in the second half of the clause secured that that was really the case? Here they were giving statutory powers to the London County Council to enter into agreements. Did the right hon. Gentleman say that they were going to give direct statutory powers to the London County Council to over-ride the provisions of the articles of association? If the hon. and learned Solicitor-General would give the House direction on this point of law it would be of great advantage. He understood that they were all agreed. Would not the situation really be met if the right hon. Gentleman would accept some such proviso as this: "Provided that no such agreement shall be entered into to the prejudice of the rights of the debenture-holders without their consent?" That would, he thought, meet what they all wanted, and it would get them out of the difficulty. If the right hon. Gentleman could not agree to that, it would be of great advantage to the House if the Solicitor-General, or somebody else, would give the House the benefit of their advice.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): There is no Law Officer here, and my opinion on a point of law is not of much value. But I
1410
give it for what it is worth. In my opinion, it is perfectly clear that if this clause is enacted in the form proposed it would not give any power whatever to enter into agreements which would over-ride existing rights or interfere with existing obligations. It is a purely enabling clause, giving a power which is consistent with and not inconsistent with existing rights which are secured by contract or in any other way. I do not believe that there is any necessity whatever, speaking as a lawyer, to insert the safe-guarding words; but the matter will be considered, and if it is necessary we shall put in the words.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. WALTER GUINNESS MR. WALTER GUINNESS moved to add to the same clause the words: "Trustees, executors, administrators, and all other holders in any representative or fiduciary capacity of any of the mortgages, debentures or debenture stock of a supply company are hereby expressly authorised to give and shall incur no liability whatsoever for giving or having given their consent or consents to any such agreement or agreements as may be entered into under this section." The effect of that would be entirely to prevent the necessity of further legislation because it would enable trustees to alter the articles of association or to alter their trust deeds. There was a precedent for this clause in Clause 12 of the Metropolitan Districts Railways Act, 1908, where the words were almost identically the same. He begged to move.
MR. H. GOOCHseconded.
Amendment proposed—
After the words last inserted, to insert the words 'Trustees, executors, administrators, and all other holders in any representative or fiduciary capacity of any of the mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock of a supply company, are hereby expressly authorised to give, and shall incur no liability whatsoever for giving or having given, their consent or consents to any such agreement or agreements as may be entered into under this section.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the Government could not be expected to accept Amendments of so complicated a character without seeing them on the Paper. This was the first he had heard of it. He did not know that it was objectionable; he would consider it, but at this moment he would recommend the House not to accept it.
MR. WALTER GUINNESSsaid it had been shown to the promoters, who saw no objection to it.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was not quite sure that he understood his hon. friend. The Amendment filled him with amazement. He really did not know what was going on. His hon. friend was advocating that the County Council should lend money to different councils, which loans should rank in front of debentures, and the unfortunate trustees who held any of the stock were to be made to consent to it. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman would not accept it, but he certainly hoped he would not consider it.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 21, line 20, after the word 'The,' to insert the words 'London County.'"
1412
"In page 21, line 21, after the word 'purchase,' to insert the words 'or loan.'"—(Mr. Walter Guinness.)
Amendments agreed to.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Prince of Wales' Consent signified.
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LONDON (WESTMINSTER AND KENSINGTON) ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANIES BILL [LORDS] (By ORDER).
As amended, considered.
New clause—
"If the Admiralty are of opinion that the generation or use of electrical energy under or for the purposes of this Act by the companies injuriously affects, or is likely injuriously to affect, any instrument or apparatus in or adjacent to the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, including the Magnetic Pavilion, or the efficient working of such instrument or apparatus, the Admiralty may, after such inspection and inquiry as they think proper, require that the companies shall use such precautions, including insulated returns, as the Admiralty may deem necessary for the prevention of such injurious affection, and the companies shall forthwith comply with such requisition. For the purpose of this section any person authorised in writing by the Admiralty shall have access at all reasonable times to the works and apparatus of the companies, who shall give all due facilities for the inspection. Provided always, that in the event of any instrument or apparatus hereafter used in the said Observatory which may be of a different character and of materially greater delicacy than those used therein at the passing of this Act, the Admiralty shall consider, and may in their discretion determine, to what extent the powers of this section should be exercised, regard being had to the interests of the public as well as to the purposes of the instruments or apparatus, as the case may be. The Admiralty Suits Act, 1868, shall apply for the purposes of proceedings in regard to any breach of the provisions of this section or for injurious affection of the said Observatory or instruments or apparatus.'—(Mr. Lambert.)
Brought up and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 6, line 6, at end, to insert the words 'In respect of all electric mains to be laid down under the provisions of this section, the London County Council shall (without prejudice to the rights, powers, and privileges of any local authority) have for the purposes of this subsection the same rights, powers, and privileges as if they were the local authority for the district in which such electric lines are to be laid down.'"
"In page 13, line 35, at end, to insert the words '(7) For the purposes of Section 14 of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, the Council shall have, in addition to any other power, rights, and privileges possessed by them under the said section, the same rights, powers, and privileges as if they were the local authority for the administrative County of London.'"—(Mr. R. Guinness.)
Amendments agreed to.
Ordered, that Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By ORDER).
Read the third time, and passed.

CROFTERS COMMONS GRAZINGS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'without' to the word 'Act' in line 13."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)was understood to say his advisers considered that these words, which the hon. Member proposed to leave out, were necessary, and that they were operative under
1414
certain powers of procedure. Another procedure was laid down by this Bill which they desired to see brought into operation for the purpose of carrying it out.
MR. COCHRANEdid not want to press the Amendment, but he thought it was undesirable to have two procedures for one offence, and that the right hon. Gentleman had met the proposal in a very unsatisfactory manner.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (PUBLIC TRUSTEE) (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR F. BANBURYthought they ought to have some explanation of the measure which it appeared enabled the Public Trustee to put funds which were at his disposal in the Post Office Savings Bank. The Government, at twenty-five minutes to twelve, moved the Bill, and there was nobody there to tell them what it was about. The Bill had only two clauses, but it repealed the provisions of a great number of sections of the Post Office Savings Bank Acts, and it altered the declaration to be made by depositors. It said that the provisions repealed were not to apply to the Public Trustee, and unless the object of that was to allow that official to deposit large sums of money in the Post Office he did not know what it meant. He had, however, understood that that was not the case. Unless he got a satisfactory answer he should certainly oppose the Bill.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)said the general provisions of the Bill had been come to in agreement with those representing bankers who were the only persons interested in it. It was in no sense compulsory, and only enabled the Public Trustee in regard to a small estate, which at the present moment had no banking account, or had some money in the Post Office Savings Bank, to open or continue an account there. Each estate was subject to the limit of the savings bank, but the Public Trustee could open several separate accounts which no private individual would be able to do. It was obvious, and in the case of the Public Trustee who had to deal with a large number of estates the whole amount of which was already in the Savings Bank, that it very much hampered his powers if he could only open one account, and was limited in the ordinary way. His powers were, however, strictly limited, and he would not be able to deal with estates already in the hands of bankers. He hoped this House would allow the Bill to have a Second Reading.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERwas glad that the Bill did not enable the Public Trustee to transfer money from bankers, because there was a distinct promise when the Public Trustee Bill was passed that there should be no interference with the rights of bankers. Of course, if, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the limitations of the Post Office Savings Bank applied, and if it was only intended to place this power in the hands of the Trustee in regard to some small estates which had already deposits in the bank, he should not object, though he still had a feeling that it would give the
1416
Trustee power to deal with large sums of money eventually.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

POST OFFICE SITES (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [LORDS].
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

LUNACY BILL [LORDS].
Read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

STATUTORY LAW REVISION BILL.
Order for Second Reading road.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODasked for some explanation of the Bill.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. RORSON,)said the object of the Bill was simply to bring the revised tatute law down to the latest date possible.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at sixteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.

PETITIONS.

  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petitions to be heard by Counsel against: Of London Waterside Manufacturers Association; Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Richmond (Surrey); William Cory and Son, Limited; Persons signing. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Petitions against: Of Corporation of West Ham; London Direct Short Sea Traders Association. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions against: Of persons signing (2); Brompton and Kensington Electricity Supply Company, Limited, and other electric lighting companies. Read and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 33 (1908).
  Convention between the United Kingdom and France respecting the exchange of Post Office money orders between France and the Transvaal; signed at London, 25th January, 1908. (Ratifications exchanged at London, 30th November, 1908.)

COLONIES: ANNUAL.
No. 589. British Guiana (Report for 1907–1908).
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

Territorial Force.—Further regulations for.
Army Reserve.—Further regulations for (including Special Reserve).

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
Rules made by the Board of Trade, CCVI.—CCXVI.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

HOME DEFENCE.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War: (1) The number and headquarters of the division organised for Home Defence; (2) the composition of the said divisions; (3) the number of each arm composing each division; (4) the armament of each division; (5) the number of youths under twenty years of age in each division, specifying the branch of the Service to which they belong; (6) within what period of time, after the order given, could the respective divisions be embodied, complete and ready in all respects for field service; (7) if all the divisions are not fully organised, specify those that are in all respects complete, and when the other divisions will be ready; (8) how many Territorials in each division have enlisted for one year only.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence while I say a few words with reference to the Questions standing in my name on the Paper. I think it would be well that, in asking them, I should recall your Lordships' action in the last few years on the question of Home Defence. I will take you back to 1883. In that year a very important Resolution was passed regarding the Militia. I need not tell your Lordships that the Militia was the foundation-stone of our military system, that everything circled round it as long as it existed, and that it rested on the principle that the Crown had an absolute right to call upon its subjects to stand forward in defence of hearth and home. That power existed in the Militia ballot. The Resolution which your Lordships passed in 1883 ran as follows—
"That, having regard to the present defective military organisation and to the great importance of the Militia force, it is essential that the Militia be forthwith recruited up to the established strength, and that the Militia Reserve should, as intended by its originator, and as regulated by the Militia Committee of 1877, be borne in excess of the Militia establishment."
That was the Resolution which your Lordships passed. But how did you pass it? Was it accepted by the front benches? So far from being accepted, it was resisted by them to the utmost and was carried by the independent action of the House of Lords in the

1103
teeth of the opposition of the two front benches. And why was it objected to by the front benches? It was objected to by them because it savoured of compulsion. Indeed, it was an understood thing that the only way in which this could be brought about was by enforcing the existing law, which rested on the question of compulsion.
Recently there has been secured a new advocate of the principle of compulsion—Lord Rosebery, speaking in Scotland the other day, went in for compulsion in a new form. He advocated what is called the Swiss military system. I, for one, very much object to the Swiss military system. I do not think we want it. If we were a Continental Power with nothing but a line of colour on the map to mark our boundaries, we should be compelled to have a system similar to that of our neighbours; but, happily for us, we have what Cromwell called "our ditch." I maintain that that makes all the difference, and that, having that, the system of the Militia ballot was the soundest and best adapted to our needs. At any rate, it was a system, which satisfied all statesmen from Pitt down to Palmerston and all soldiers from Wellington to Wolseley. It is said that the ballot is unfair. How is it unfair? If those who take that line were condemned to be shot, would they object; to decimation? I rather think not. And that is what the ballot is—alleviation of the burden of universal service. I think it is the right system, for this country.
After that Resolution, did the Government act? No; they muddled through the Boer War, and in 1904, finding a difficulty in getting Reserves for the Army, began to tamper with the Militia. Foreign service in regard to the Militia was voluntary, and the Government proceeded to tamper with this. Again your Lordships came to the rescue and passed a Resolution, this time unanimously, to the following effect—
"That, in the opinion of this House, any scheme of Army organisation that does away with the Militia force is contrary to sound policy, destroying, as it does, the ancient constitutional foundation of our existing military system."
That was the answer which your Lordships gave to the action of the Government in tampering with the Militia and
1104
altering its terms of service. With this Resolution both front benches concurred. Well, what action did the Government take? About a year or two afterwards the Government tore up our military system root and branch and gave us, instead, the Territorial Army, the Militia being practically destroyed. I have kept my tongue very silent regarding the Territorial Army, and when it was before your Lordships I took no part in the debates; but I entered my protest on the Journals of this House against the Territorial system, and two other noble Lords, Lords Cathcart and Musketry added their names to that protest. And what is the defensive Home Army you have now got?
I see Lord Roberts in his place. The noble and gallant Field Marshal the other night, with extraordinary moral courage, put before the House the present state of our defence. He showed that in its present state, when only two-thirds grown, the Territorial Army is entirely worthless, and that, even if it had its full strength of 300,000 men, it would be absolutely worthless for the duties it might have to perform. Even if it were a full grown force, the men you could put into the field, making allowances for the requirements of Ireland and for garrisoning seaport fortified towns and other necessary duties, would not be more than from 40,000 to 60,000 men. Lord Wolseley, when he spoke on this matter, said he would never be satisfied as to the defence of this country until we had 150,000 of the best troops, not "Terriers," not Yeomen, not Volunteers. That was Lord Wolseley's estimate. While Lord Roberts declared the other day that we required 1,000,000 men for the proper defence of the country and to meet other necessary requirements.
As regards the force we might have to meet, I may mention that since tie debate ill your Lordships' House I have had a conversation with a friend of mine, a general in the Army, and be told me that some years ago he had a talk at some manœuvres abroad with a distinguished general of the foreign army. He asked: "Have you any plan for the invasion of England?" "Yes," replied the foreign general "we have at least twenty." "Well,

1105
of those twenty plans, which do you think the best?" my friend asked. The reply was—
"I think the best plan is that we should send 300,000 men, 100,000 in each army, and that they should go to three different parts of the country with the certainty that one of them would land, and if that army did land it would get to London."
Therefore I maintain that Lord Roberts is more than justified in all he said as to our defenceless state and as to the necessity that exists for a much larger Army. The Secretary of State for War, who is now nominally satisfied with 300,000 men, began by praying—he is always on his knees—that the country would give him 900,000 men for his scheme. As a matter of fact, we are in a very pitiful state as regards home defence. It is no exaggeration to say that Britannia is left naked and unarmed, with the possibility at any moment of having to fight for hearth, home, and Empire against a steel-clad knight.
Is there any way of getting out of our present position? I think there is. Consider what you might have got in the way of men if you had had the moral courage to follow the recommendations in the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Committee in favour of compulsion for home defence and impose the then existing law of the Militia ballot. My proposal was that the ballot should be applied once in a man's life at the age of twenty, unless he was serving as a Volunteer or in some other form, and not again except in the event of some great national emergency. Then he was to be trained for six months during the first year, and, after that, only for ten days or a week in the year. Sir Joseph Whitworth, that great mcha i ian and employer of labour, told me in 1851 he would give considerably more wages to a trained than he would to an untrained man. I asked why, and he replied that trained men had learnt obedience and to act in combination, and were, therefore, worth more. Consequently, I maintain that the application of the ballot end military training would be a benefit to working men, and weigh lightly upon the nation. If the Government had had the moral courage to adopt the Militia ballot and not annually suspend it, they would have got a total of 1,240,000 Militia, Yeomanry, Volunteers
1106
and emeriti Volunteers of fighting age. This, as Lord Lansdowne will recollect, I suggested to him at the time of the Boer War, and the experiment of calling out the men who had served in his regiment and retired occurred to Colonel Cunningham, commanding a battalion in the nor h-west of England, and they turned out 5,000 strong without extra cost. That, I think, would satisfy Lord Roberts.
It may be asked, How can this now be done? There is only one way, and that is by acting as I suggested, in the few words I spoke in the debate on Lord Roberts' Motion that, instead of opposing it, the two front benches should shake hands across the Table and endeavour to come to some agreement in regard to what ought to be done, and support each other in the doing of it. If the two front benches were patriotic enough thus to take this question of home defence, which is the most vital question affecting this country, out of the domain of Party politics—the curse from which the nation suffers—and agree to stand by each other continuously, coute qui coute, in pursuing whatever course they might decide to be necessary, all would be well.
Two years ago I addressed a meeting in the Market Hall at Haddington, where I advocated, just as I have done to-night, compulsion for the Militia, and there was not a whisper of dissent. The meeting passed a Resolution declaring that it was essential that our land forces should always be in such a state that no nation would ever dream of attempting—and that is the question—to make a hostile landing on our shores. The Resolution ended by approving of the adoption of compulsory service in the Militia in the modified form which I have suggested and expressing the opinion that a matter so vital as Home Defence should never be made a Party question. I am surprised that such a sentiment as that receives no approval from your Lordships, for that is the only way in which you can make the nation safe and the Empire secure.
I now come to the Questions on the Paper. I have nothing to say upon them particularly, but I will say, generally, that I hope my noble friend

1107
the Under-Secretary will not give the usual stereotyped reply—namely, that it is contrary to public policy and to the public interest that an answer should be given. I am only asking for information which every foreign attache in this country knows better than you do yourselves, and which every foreign country also knows. I hope, therefore, we shall not have the stereotyped answer from my noble friend to-night, but that he will give us a clear and distinct reply, even though it should take the gilt off the Territorial gingerbread and we should thus know the value of our Army.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord LUCAS): My Lords, the Answers to the Questions put by the noble Earl are as follow. There are twenty divisions organised for home defence, six of them Regular and fourteen Territorial. Of the Regular divisions two have their headquarters at Aldershot, one at Bulford, one at Woolwich, one at Curragh, and one at Cork. The numbers of all arms composing each Regular division are 601 officers and 18,962 of other ranks, making a total of 19,563; and in each Territorial division there are 589 officers and 16,438 of other ranks, making a total of 17,027. The armament of the Regular divisions is: Infantry and cavalry, the short M.L.E. rifle; Horse Artillery, 13-pounder q.f.; Field Artillery, 18-pounder q.f.; field howitzer, 5-inch b.l. howitzer; heavy batteries, 60-pounder b.l.; and in the Territorial divisions the infantry are armed with long M.L.E. rifles, but the issue of a converted long M.L.E. rifle will begin shortly; the cavalry are armed with long M.L.E. rifles, but the issue of a short M.L.E. rifle will begin shortly; the Horse Artillery have Impounder converted guns; the Field Artillery, 15-pounder converted; the field howitzer, 5-inch b.l. howitzer; and the heavy batteries, 4·7-inch q.f. Youths under twenty years of age number in the Regular Army, 36,476; in the Special Reserve, 16,244; and in the Territorial Force, 62,221. With reference to the sixth Question it is not considered advisable to make public the mobilisation arrangements of the Military forces. As to the seventh Question, the six divisions of the Regular
1108
Army are fully organised for home defence and the organisation of eleven of the fourteen Territorial Force divisions is complete, the exceptions being the North Midland, the East Anglian, and the 2nd London. The numbers of Territorials shown in unit returns as having enlisted for one year in divisions and divisional troops only up to 1st October, 1908, are: Highland, 6,553; Lowland, 5,795; West Lancashire, 6,549; East Lancashire, 6,344; Welsh, 5,582; Northumbrian, 6,462; West Riding, 5,147; North Midland, 5,752; South Midland, 5,512; Wessex, 7,371; East Anglian, 6,472; Home Counties, 5,947; 1st London, 5,024; 2nd London, 5,172; making a total of 83,682 out of rather more than 200,000.

WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES PROHIBITION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendments. Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3 To-morrow.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, in rising to propose the Second Reading of this Bill, which deals with very large financial interests and with matters of the greatest importance to the trade of London, I feel that I must ask for the indulgence of the House to one who is very far from being an expert either in finance or in Parliamentary practice. The Bill deals with a question which has been repeatedly before Parliament during the last eight yearn. It is a very much longer period than that since a feeling of uneasiness was first manifested amongst those who carry on their business in the Port of London, and a fear was first expressed that the trade of the Port was in far from a satisfactory condition.
In the year 1900, as your Lordships are aware, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the conditions of the Port, under the chairmanship of a Member of your Lordships' House,

1109
the noble Earl, Lord Egerton of Tatton. Lord Egerton was, unfortunately, obliged to resign his position on the Commission early in the following year, and his place was taken by my noble friend Lord Revelstoke. The Royal Commission reported in the summer of 1902, and their Report contains a most elaborate and most painstaking inquiry into the many difficult and intricate questions connected with the Port of London. It also contains a series of recommendations of which I think their principle features are these—first, that a new public authority should be appointed which should have control of the whole of the tidal portion of the Thames, and that that authority should be given sufficient revenue and borrowing powers to enable it to carry out improvements in the channel of the river, and any extension of the docks which might be considered necessary; secondly, that this authority should acquire the docks.
Since the appearance of that Report, Bills dealing with the Port of London have been presented to Parliament almost every year. Two have been presented by the London and India Dock Company, one by the Thames Conservancy, and one by the London County Council. None of these Bills, however, have become law with the exception of the Bill of the Thames Conservancy, which was passed after considerable amendment, and in a form which allowed the Thames Conservancy to carry out a useful but not very extensive scheme of dredging, and which also allowed them to double their tonnage dues for that purpose for a period of three years. But, in 1903, a much more important Bill was introduced, and a Bill showing the great urgency which this question possessed in the opinion of the late Government. That was the Bill introduced by Mr. Gerald Balfour, he being then President of the Board of Trade. That Bill followed very closely the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and under it the new public authority was given power to purchase the docks. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, was chairman, and after an exhaustive inquiry the Committee reported in favour of the Bill with certain Amendments.
1110
That Bill was not, however, further proceeded with.
The effect of all this inquiry, which has not resulted in any legislation, has been most unfortunate, for it has created a feeling of uncertainty and unrest in the docks which has put a stop to all expenditure of capital during the last six or eight years. Indeed, I believe I am not overstating the case when I say that the only important work which has been carried out in the Port of London during the last eight years has been the opening of the Greenland Dock of the Surrey Commercial Company. That dock, which was a very large and useful work, was carried out at a cost of £1,500,000, but that work was undoubtedly decided upon long before the appearance of the Report in question. And while London has been standing still her rivals, both at home and abroad, have been forging ahead very rapidly. I will give your Lordships a few figures which show this. Liverpool has spent £5,000,000 on her port recently, Bristol has spent £2,500,000, and Southampton, £2,000,000, while, if we look abroad, the figures are even more striking. Hamburg, Antwerp, and Rotterdam, London's great rivals in the entrepot trade of Europe, have spent enormous sums on their ports. Hamburg has recently spent £15,000,000, and contemplates an expenditure of another £1,250,000, and at Antwerp it is proposed to spend £7,000,000 on docks and £4,500,000 on a canal. I quote these figures in order to show the extreme severity of the competition to which London is being subjected. And it should be remembered that, in the case of these foreign ports, very large subsidies have been received both from municipal and from State sources. Nothing of that kind is possible in the case of the Port of London, which must, I think, work out its own salvation, because, as your Lordships will see, it would be impossible for the Government to spend a large sum of money, or advocate its expenditure, in the Thames if it was not prepared to do the same in the case of all London's rivals round the coast; further, the present London County Council do not see their way to give any financial assistance, either by grant or guarantee.

1111
That was the position of affairs when Mr. Lloyd-George took the matter up last year. He saw the extreme urgency of the case, and determined, in following the recommendations of the Royal Commission, to profit by the experience of his predecessors, and, if possible, avoid the rocks on which the 1903 Bill had been Wrecked. His policy throughout has been based on this, that the prime necessity of any scheme for the settlement of the Port of London was that it should bind together into one body all the divergent interests at present existing in the Port; and he has seen that the surest way of doing that was to secure that the terms of settlement should be as near as possible absolutely fair and just as between those different interests. With that object in view, Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Churchill have entered into negotiation with, I believe, every trade and interest in the Port of London. Those negotiations have gone on till a very recent date, and the result of that labour is to be found in the Bill now before the House.
The Bill Was referred to a Joint Committee, of which I had the honour of being a member. That Committee was very ably presided over by Mr. Russell Rea, who had been a member of the Committee on the 1903 Bill. We also had the advantage of the presence of several Members of both Houses of Parliament having an intimate knowledge of docks and of the shipping interest generally, and we also had the advantage of the presence of a most distinguished Member of your Lordships' House in the noble Viscount on the cross benches. The Joint Committee amended the Bill in certain particulars, and finally reported in favour of it. I had hoped until recently that I might have said that that Report was a unanimous one, and I had been encouraged in that hope by the very generous support given to this Bill in another place by the members of the Joint Committee, irrespective of party. But, my Lords, the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Richie, of course, shows that our Report cannot be considered as being unanimous. I would like to say this with regard to Lord Richie's opposition. He made it
1112
clear at an early stage of our proceedings that he objected to certain important provisions in the Bill; but he, none the less on that account, devoted himself most strenuously to the consideration of every detail of the Bill at a subsequent date, and I am quite sure that, much as I regret his decision, it has been arrived at on conscientious grounds and after mature consideration.
I have said that the proposals of the Bill are very similar to those of the Bill of 1903—they were both founded on the Report of the Royal Commission. The main features of the Bill, and of that Report, are the establishment of a public authority and the purchase of the docks. Those points are very intimately connected, as I will attempt to show your Lordships. In doing so, I must refer again to the Report of the Royal Commission. I hope your Lordships will excuse my doing so on several occasions, but I think any one who has studied this question must have found, as I have done, that the ground is so completely covered by that Report that no matter in what direction you may investigate you will invariably find that my noble friend Lord Revelstoke has been there before you. In paragraph 253 of the Report the opinion of the Royal Commission with regard to the condition of the docks is very clearly expressed. They say—
"It has, in our opinion, been proved that the Port of London is in danger of losing part of its existing trade, and certainly part of the trade which might otherwise go to it, by reason of the river, channels, and docks being inadequate to meet the increased and increasing requirements of modern commerce."
That is a very strong statement, and, having come to that conclusion, the Royal Commission proceeded to sketch out a scheme for the improvement of the Port.
The difficulties of doing this are very much increased by the peculiar conditions existing in the Port of London. In the first pi ice, we have the fact that part of the trade is carried on in the river and part in the docks; and, in the second place, we have the fact that of the cargo using the docks only a small proportion contributes anything whatever towards the revenue of the dock companies. That is brought about by the operation of the principle which is known as free

1113
water. That principle I believe to be peculiar to the Port of London. Under it the dock companies are only allowed to charge rates upon the goods actually using their quays, and are bound to allow barges and lighters to have free access to the ships lying in their docks for the purpose of the loading and unloading of cargo. That principle was established by Parliament more than 100 years ago, when the first docks were opened on the Thames, and I believe it his been continued in the case of every subsequent dock which has been constructed.
The results of this system were very clearly brought out before the Joint Committee this year by one of the witnesses. I refer to Mr. Collier, who was called by Messrs. Cory and Sons, the great coal merchants. Mr. Collier, I believe, had been a former manager of the Manchester Ship Canal. He gave us some very interesting figures. He told us that in the year 1906 the total goods imported into and exported from the Port of London amounted to 29,400,000 tons, and that of that amount 18,400,000 tons were dealt with in the river and 11,000,000 in the docks. Those are not figures for which the Board of Trade is responsible. They are figures which were given before the Joint Committee by a hostile witness. This witness went on to tell us that, of this total of 11,000,000 using the docks, only 2,500,000 contributed anything whatever towards the income of the dock companies. I remember thinking when I heard these figures, though they were given with quite a different object, that they were far the strongest argument that we had yet heard in favour of the changes proposed by the Bill. If the Report of the Royal Commission is further studied, it will be found that the Royal Commissioners were amply satisfied that a very large expenditure on the docks was necessary if London was not to fall behind her trade rivals; but they were also satisfied that the revenue of the dock companies did not justify them in embarking on that expenditure.
The question then arose as to how those two difficult factors were to be brought together. It was clearly not possible to place higher rates on the already heavily
1114
burdened goods using the quays of the docks, without incurring a grave risk of driving trade away altogether. The remedy suggested by the dock companies was that they should be allowed to charge rates upon the goods loaded and unloaded overside in the docks; in other words, their suggestion was that the principle of free water should be varied to their advantage. This proposal was, of course, received with very keen opposition from the wharfingers and other river interests, whose trade had been built up on the understanding that free water was to be maintained. The argument which seems to have weighed with the Royal Commissioners, is to be found on page 90 of their Report. There it is said that—
"The vital need for financial strength would be better met by the creation of a new body responsible to the public than by strengthening, as against other interests, companies responsible to shareholders."
That, my Lords, is really the argument in favour of the establishment of a Port Authority and the purchase of the docks by that authority. I hope I have made that clear. Those are the two difficulties which exist with regard to the London docks—first, that the docks are so hampered by the restrictions which Parliament has placed upon them with regard to free water that it is impossible for them to earn sufficient revenue to improve and extend their docks as they should, in their own interests and in that of the Port; and, secondly, that any proposal to remove those restrictions is invariably met by most strenuous opposition—and, from their point of view, perfectly justifiable opposition—from the wharfingers and other river interests. The investigations of the Royal Commission led them to the conclusion that the only possible remedy was the creation of a public authority and the purchase of the docks. Mr. Lloyd-George's investigations, carried on on quite independent lines, led him to an absolutely similar result. I must apologise for having detained the House so long over those two points, but they are really the two main Second Reading points in the Bill. Although those two principles have been twice accepted by the other House of Parliament, in 1903 and again this year, this is the first

1115
time, I believe, that they have been discussed in your Lordships' House, and I therefore thought it my duty to place them fully before you.
The Bill, as your Lordships will have seen, has been prefixed by a rather full, and, I am afraid, rather long Memorandum. I hope the existence of that Memorandum will excuse me if I run rather rapidly over the various heads of the Bill. First of all, there is the constitution of the new Port Authority. That is to consist of twenty-eight members, eighteen elected and ten nominated. By means of this division the preponderating voice in the management of the Port is given to those who have the greatest interest in maintaining it in as efficient a condition as possible—that is to say, those who actually carry on their business in the Port. Of the eighteen elected members seventeen are to be elected on a general register by wharfingers, payers of dues, and owners of river craft, and one is to be elected by wharfingers alone. The registers of electors are to be found in the Fourth Part of the First Schedule of the Bill. All payers of dues of £10 a year or upwards are entitled to a vote, and the more they pay in dues the more votes they will get up to a maximum of fifty. The wharfingers will be entitled to votes in proportion to the rateable value of their premises, up to a maximum of ten votes. The owners of river craft will be entitled to votes according to the number of river craft which they own, up to a maximum also of ten. The remainder of the body is to consist of the ten appointed members. I do not think it is necessary for me to read that list to your Lordships.
There are one or two points with regard to the appointment of the first body which I think I ought to explain. In the first place, it will be clearly impossible to hold an election on the register of payers of dues until those dues have been in force for at least a year, and as it is hoped this body may come into existence very shortly after the passing of the Bill, it is proposed that for the formation of the first authority the Board of Trade are to have the nomination of the members who will ordinarily be elected after consultation with the interests in whose hands the
1116
election will lie. On the same principle the Board of Trade are to be allowed to appoint the first Chairman of the Board. Then the Port Authority is to take over and exercise the powers and duties of the Thames Conservancy so far as those powers and duties are at present exercised in the tidal portion of the river. It is also to take over the powers of the Watermen's Company, as regards the registration and control of barges and boats within the limits of the Port.
The revenue of the new authority will fall under two principal heads. In the first place, there will be the revenue now enjoyed by the Thames Conservancy derived from tonnage dues on the ships using the Port. Those dues may be continued on the higher scale recently authorised. In the second place, the Port Authority is to be allowed to charge rates upon the goods using the Port. This proposal to charge rates on goods has caused a certain amount of uneasiness in certain quarters, and, in order to allay the anxiety which has been displayed, my right hon friend during the passage of the Bill through the other House inserted a provision that that rate was not to exceed in amount one-thousandth part of the total value of goods imported into or exported from the Port overseas in one year. That is a rather complicated phrase, but what it means is that the average rate on goods is not to exceed 2s. in £100. That is not a very heavy contribution, even supposing that the maximum rate is charged. Then the maximum rates are to be fixed by the Port Authority, and one of their first duties will be to draw up a scale of maximum rates which will have to be submitted to Parliament in the form of a Provisional Order.
As regards purchase, the docks of London are to be bought—that is to say, the property of the London and India Dock Company, the Milwall Dock Company, and the Surrey Commercial Dock Company. The price is a price which has been agreed between the directors of those dock companies and the President of the Board of Trade, subject, of course, to confirmation by Parliament. The basis on which that purchase is to be made is to be a revenue basis. The price has been arrived at in this way. The dock companies placed

1117
their accounts and their property at the disposal of the Board of Trade for the purposes of investigation, and a distinguished accountant as well as a distinguished engineer made an examination. As a result they reported to the Board of Trade that a net maintainable revenue of £809,000 a year was to be derived from the docks. The purchase is to take place on the basis of handing over to the shareholders of the companies Port Stock which will impose a charge of £800,000 a year on the Port Authority.
The Government claim that the bargain is a fair one. We do not claim that it is mere than fair. My right hon. friend does not claim that he is driving a hard bargain, but he claims that as nearly as possible he has made a bargain which is fair as between the dock companies and the trade of the Port of London as represented by the new authority. The two gentlemen—the accountant and the engineer—who made the examination of the dock companies' accounts and property were both called as witnesses before the Joint Committee and were subjected to a most rigorous cross-examination. Their figures, however, were not shaken, and the Joint Committee decided, by a very large majority, to report in favour of the bargain which has been concluded. In the 1103 Bill the bargain was to be carried out on an arbitration basis. In departing from this we have also departed from the recommendation of the Royal Commission in that detail, but we claim that by doing so we have saved the Port Authority a very large sum of money. The stock which is to be issued is to consist of two classes—A Stock bearing interest at 3 per cent. and forming a first charge on the revenue of the Port Authority, and B Stock bearing interest of 4 per cent. and ranking after A. Those two classes of stock are to be exchanged, according to a scale set out in one of the Schedules of the Bill, for the shareholdings of the different dock companies The total amount of stock to be issued for this purpose amounts, roughly, to £22,500,000. Besides that, the Port Authority have power to issue further stock to a value not exceeding £5,000,000.
The only other point in the Bill with which I need trouble your Lordships is
1118
the reconstitution of the Thames Conservancy. That is made necessary by the fact that the Port Authority is to carry out the duties at present performed by the Thames Conservancy in the tidal portion of the Thames. That fact also accounts for a new Thames Conservancy, consisting of ten fewer members than the old one. Besides the old members who will serve on the new body a few have been added representing up-river urban districts and boroughs which were not formerly represented, and, in addition two extra nominations are given to the Board of Trade, who will now have four nominations. One of those is to be chosen after consultation with the persons carrying on the barge traffic in the Thames, and two after consultation with persons using the river for purposes of recreation. These, my Lords, are the leading features of the Bill.
I have only a few words to say in conclusion. I see there are Notices on the Paper urging your Lordships to reject this Bill. I venture to hope that the House will not adopt that course. There is another proposal, of which we have heard rumours, and which would be equally fatal to the Bill. I refer to the proposal to carry the Bill over to next session. The Government cannot possibly accede to that proposal. Surely, my Lords, it is time that this matter was settled. It is more than six years since the appearance of the Report of the Royal Commission, and the condition of the Port is, if anything, worse than it was when that Report was issued. The recommendations of the Commission have now been endorsed by both the great parties in the State. There can surely be no further reason for delay. The Bill was treated as a non-party measure in the other House of Parliament, and the Government received most generous and most useful support from many Members of the Party of noble Lords opposite. In particular, I should mention the assistance which was given by Mr. Bonar Law. If, as I hope may be the case, the Bill becomes law this year, the two right hon. Gentlemen who are jointly responsible for it will, I have no doubt, be very proud to have been the means of settling this question; but I am sure they will never forget that

1119
they share any credit which may be due with successive Presidents of the Board of Trade, commencing with the late Lord Ritchie, who was responsible for the appointment of the Royal Commission, and that they share that credit in no ordinary degree with the permanent officials of the Department, who have devoted years of labour and of study to the solution of this very difficult question. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE, who had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months, said: My Lords, I do not anticipate that those with whom I was associated on the Joint Committee which considered this Bill last summer were surprised when they saw this Amendment standing in my name on the Paper. They will remember that when we came to consider that provision of the Bill which deals with the transfer of the docks to the Port Authority—a provision which the Board of Trade told us was I vital to the existence of the Bill—I ex-pressed my strong disapproval of the terms of transfer, and went so far as to divide the Committee on those terms, knowing that if I had been successful the Bill would have been killed.
The Bill came to the Joint Committee with an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that he was prepared to justify up to the hilt every detail of the terms on which the docks were to be transferred to the new Port authority, and it came also with an assurance from Mr. Lloyd-George that he was confident, not only that the income from the ordinary business of the dock companies would be sufficient to meet the interest charges on the new stock to be created under this Bill, but that there would be a margin over and above which might be devoted to the general benefit of the Port. I naturally supposed that we should have received overwhelming evidence in support of this assurance. As a matter of fact, two expert witnesses were put in—an accountant and an engineer. The
1120
accountant examined the books of the dock companies and said in effect—
"I am satisfied with the books, provided the engineer is satisfied with the physical condition of the docks."
Thereupon, the engineer went down to examine the docks, and in twelve days, with one assistant, he performed the incredible feat of examining 438 acres of docks, 14,000,000 square feet of ware-houses, and innumerable cranes and other machinery, and reported that he was satisfied. They are, therefore, both satisfied; the Board of Trade is satisfied, the dock companies are satisfied, and the Joint Committee has to be satisfied.
A question was raised as to the condition of the dock walls, but the engineer, although he admits he has not had them examined, claims to be so expert that he can tell they are all right by simply looking at the quays. No evidence is given as to the amount or the value of the machinery and equipment of the docks. We are told that such and such a sum has been spent annually on the maintenance of the machinery and equipment. I forget what the sum was. It is of no importance. It might have been £5,000, or £50,000, or £500,000. It is a mere mockery to tell us what sum has been spent annually in the maintenance of machinery and equipment if we do not know at the same time what is the value of the machinery and equipment. There is a secret Report—a Report which the dock companies refuse to produce. Of course, it must be a very favourable Report, otherwise the Board of Trade would not have gone on with the bargain. Then why is it not produced? I will be charitable and suppose it is modesty on the part of the dock companies, modesty lest Parliament should be so favourably impressed by the Report as to insist on giving a few millions more for the docks than the Bill gives.
With this mutual satisfaction on the part of the accountant and the engineer, it might be supposed that the figures submitted by the accountant would have given overwhelming justification of the terms of the transfer. The transfer is on a revenue basis, and we are told that the amount of interest required on the new stock to be created under the

1121
Bill is £800,000 a year. The accountant takes the average income of the dock companies for the last six years, and adds to that average a certain sum which he anticipates will be saved under management by the Port Authority as compared with management by the dock companies. He estimates a saving of £18,000 a year. This is an estimate which is unlike all other estimates in that it is certain not to be exceeded. He adds this estimated saving of £18,000 to the average income of the dock companies during the last six years, and arrives at a total of just over £800,000. But, unfortunately, the income of the dock companies is a diminishing income. If we take individual years, we find that the incomes in the years 1907, 1906, and 1905 would have been insufficient to meet the interest charges on the new stock. It is necessary to go back to 1904 to find a year in which the income of the dock companies would be sufficient to meet the interest changes on the new stock. Yet the Board of Trade is still quite confident that the income will not only be sufficient to meet these interest charges, but that there will be a surplus which can be devoted to the general benefit of the Port.
The accountant and the engineer had to prove two things—first, that the income of the dock companies, not four years ago but at the present time, is sufficient to meet the interest charges on the new stock; and, secondly, that that income is maintainable. They have not proved either. If they have proved anything at all, they have proved exactly the reverse. The dock directors are not so confident as the Board of Trade that the income is to be sufficient to meet the interest charges on the new stock. They are so fearful lest the income will not be sufficient that they have made it an essential condition of the bargain that a tax should be levied upon all goods that enter and leave the Port, and that that tax should be specifically allotted to the payment of any deficiency that there may be on the interest on the stock. The Report of the Royal Commission has been frequently referred to and quoted by the Board of Trade when it served their purpose, but I should like to read to your Lordships a paragraph
1122
to which they have never made reference. The Royal Commission dealing with the question of additional dues say—
"We entirely concur with the view that, having regard to the existing and increasing competition with the Thames of other, and especially of certain foreign ports, such additiona charge should be confined to the provision of such improvements as are strictly necessary, and which may be expected to be productive."
The dock companies say they must have this tax to protect their now stockholders. It is not likely to be productive if it is to be devoted to this purpose. I should like to explain to those of your Lordships who are not familiar with the peculiarities that exist in the Port of London, that less than half the shipping which enters and leaves the Port uses the docks at all. The larger portion uses wharves or jetties along the banks of the river or tiers in mid-stream. A large portion of the trade actually competes with the docks. Therefore it is manifestly unfair that they should be taxed in order to support their competitors. I admit that the Amendment which the noble Lord referred to and which was carried during the Committee stage of the Bill in the other House has improved the Bill to a certain extent. I refer to the Amendment by which this tax is limited to the thousandth part of the whole trade of the Port; but there is no provision for distributing the one-thousandth part over the whole trade. We know that transhipment trade is to be exempted; we know that part of the coastwise trade is to be exempted—
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: Only a very limited part.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: At any rate, some part of that has been exempted. We know that the coal trade may probably be exempted. There is nothing to prevent the concentration of this tax of one-thousandth part on, say, a tenth part of the trade; that would be a tax of 1 per cent. and a tax of 1 per cent. would be a very serious thing, but whether the tax is 1 per cent. or one per mille the principle is the same. It is a bad principle, and it is grossly unfair that those who do not use the docks at all, those who are actually competing with the docks, should

1123
have to contribute towards their maintenance. My Lords, beware lest history repeats itself. A horrid vision of passive resistance passes before the eye, followed by a melancholy and endless procession of Presidents of the Board of Trade, each burdened with the corpse of a Port of London Bill mutilated and dishonoured. Consider the guile of the dock directors and contrast it with the simplicity of the Board of Trade. The dock directors first of all persuade the Board of Trade that though their income for the years 1905, 1906 and 1907 would be insufficient to meet the interest charge under the Bill, yet that in the year 1909 and the years that follow it is not only going to be sufficient for that purpose, but there is going to be a margin over and above for the general benefit of the Port, and then, by a sort of confidence trick, they cajole the Board of Trade into giving them a protective tax upon goods. A thousandth part of the trade of the Port of London does not sound a very dreadful thing, but on the basis of last year's figures it amounts to £330,000. I know that some people are sanguine enough to suppose that this Bill is going to make the Port of London cheaper. But it seems to me a trifle odd that the first step in that direction is to raise a tax on goods. I have been closely associated for some twenty years with the mercantile and manufacturing interests in the City of London. I have had personal experience of the comparative advantages of the Port of London and the Port of Hamburg, and I know that there is constant and keen competition going on between those two Ports. I have seen even in my comparatively short experience a great deal of trade diverted from the Port of London to the Port of Hamburg. I know that every 1d. additional rate that is levied on the trade of the Port of London means the diversion of more trade from the port of London to Hamburg or to some other Port. See what different methods are adopted in Hamburg. I should like to refer again to the Report of the Royal Commission. Paragraph 231, says—
"It appears that at Hamburg the Port is not worked at a profit, and that the expenditure exceeds the receipts; the Government, however, consider that the benefit due to the influx
1124
of trade compensates the city for the specific loss, and they look to the future for an increase of shipping parallel to the increase of expenditure."
In Hamburg, the Government encourages trade at the expense of the docks. In London the Board of Trade protects the stock holders in a languishing concern at the expense of trade. I do not advocate similar methods in London. I think that trade ought to pay its own way, but I do say that we ought to hesitate long and seriously before we do anything which is likely to make it still more difficult for London to compete with Hamburg.
I understand that during the last few days there has been considerable agitation on the Stock Exchange as to the fate of this Bill, not that the Stock Exchange cares a brass farthing about the Port of London, but because certain large profits will disappear if the Bill does not pass into law. Since the Bill has been introduced, some of the stock of the London and India Dock Company has risen enormously; so vastly superior is the security of this tax upon goods to the security of the ordinary revenue of the Dock company that some of the London and India Dock stock has advanced something like 25 per cent. since this Bill was introduced. The stock-holders in the London and India Dock Company conceal their joy at this unexpected piece of good fortune when in public; they throw up their hands and say: "We are the victims of misfortune; we cannot, help ourselves, we must bow to the inevitable" and all the rest of it; they conceal their joy in public, but they rejoice exceedingly in private. I can give an instance of that. A friend of mine who is the fortunate possessor of some of the London and India stock, bought before the Bill was introduced, and, therefore, showing a very handsome profit to-day, said to me recently: "If you do anything calculated to spoil the chance of this Bill becoming law, I will kill you." Out of respect to my skin rather than out of consideration for his pocket, I advised him to sell and secure his profit. "No," he said, "we think that the Dock Company made such a good bargain that the stock will appreciate still further," and he was perfectly right. He spoke to

1125
me before the Bill went through Committee in the other House, and after it emerged successfully through the Committee the stock did advance a few more points, and I have no doubt that if your Lordships pass the Bill to-night it will advance still more; perhaps considerably more. On the other hand, if your Lordships were to reject the measure there is not the least doubt that the price of the stock would revert to something like where it stood before the Bill was introduced.
It would almost seem that the main object of this Bill is to rescue the dock companies from an unfortunate situation. It is a sort of Old-Age Pensions Bill. Many of the arguments that were put forward so pathetically in favour of the Old-Age Pensions Bill in the earlier part of the year could be applied with equal pathos in support of this measure. Some of the docks are very old, far older than seventy. Some of them are very decrepit. They have served their country well in the past. They have been honest in their dealings I believe, with one unfortunate exception; shall their country desert them in their old age? No, my Lords; in the name of humanity we will support them, and in order to support them we will tax somebody else. If you pass this Bill, it will launch the new Port Authority on its career with a horrible burden of debt round its neck, bound hand and foot to an antiquated system of dock accommodation which cannot compete with many of the great ports of the Continent; unable to undertake any large and comprehensive scheme of new docks; because by doing that the old docks will be robbed of the trade on which they depend to supply the interest on their stock, and finally if you pass this measure, you will deal a deathblow to private enterprise.
I have only touched upon those provisions of the Bill which appear to me to be most unjust. There are other provisions which are uncertain in their operation. The Bill is full of uncertainties, and when we appealed to the representatives of the Board of Trade for guidance when the Bill was before Joint Committee, we were met with a
1126
reply which, towards the end of our inquiry became almost stereotyped: "Oh, you must trust the new Port Authority; you must put your trust in the Board of Trade; it will be all right in the end." My Lords, I am afraid it will be all wrong in the end, and I should be sorry to put my trust in any Board of Trade which is capable of producing such a measure as this. Sir Hudson Kearley, during the course of our inquiry, himself admitted that in some respects the Bill was a speculation. The whole Bill is a speculation, it speculates on the sudden conversion of a diminishing revenue into an expanding revenue; it speculates upon getting men capable of managing the affairs of the dock companies without paying them anything for their time and trouble; it speculates on the various interests in the Port getting their proper representation on the new Port Authority, although many of them say that they will not only not get that representation, but that they will be practically disfranchised. It is a speculation in which the counters to be used are the trade and prosperity of the Port of London. It is a speculation out of which only one result is absolutely certain to follow, and that is to make the Port of London dearer than it has been hitherto, and to render it more difficult for our merchants and manufacturers to compete with their foreign rivals. My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out the word 'now,' in order to insert the words 'this day three months.'"—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I trust you will permit me to say a few words as to the merits of this Bill from the point of view of City men. After the remarks made by the noble Lord opposite, and as I am going to vote for the Bill, I may be allowed to say that I hold no stock, neither does my firm hold any stock, nor am I in any degree interested personally in the matter. A prominent shipowner assured me that almost all the London shipowners were in favour of the Bill; they considered it a fair Bill and one which

1127
was favourable to the interests of all concerned. He considered that it was useless to expect any reduction in the dues, but he thought, and his colleagues thought, that it was better to pass this Bill as it was agreed to by the contracting parties. He said that the present companies have very small resources for making any extensions, with the exception, of the Surrey Dock Company, which is prospering. The companies are doing well at the present time as regards rent because of the inactivity of trade and their warehouses are full of goods awaiting a market. The last effort failed because the wharfingers wanted to be bought out, and also because there was no price agreed upon, and arbitration, as we know, goes very generally against the purchaser. Also in the former effort they had not provided the cash with which to pay for this great undertaking, whereas now they pay in Port of London Stock, which, in its nature, will not compete with the stocks of the Government. From other sources I have learnt that the majority of traders and financiers in the City are in favour of the Bill, although those who think they can make better terms are opposing it. The docks are easily adapted to modern requirements, and there is enough land for extensions.
Germany spent in the years 1898 to 1902, £25,000,000 on a few docks, whereas in London we did not spend anything during those years, and yet the Port of London deals with a third of the whole trade of the country, estimated—I cannot vouch for the exactitude of the figures—at £350,000,000 sterling. Surely it would be an advantage to have one central authority controlling all our docks? That is the case with the other great towns in this country, and I should think that their example, and in many cases their successful efforts, we ought to follow. I have read the Bill. It is a very long one and I cannot see anything particularly objectionable in it. I was greatly pleased to see that in Clause 29 there was a provision for establishing receiving houses for alien immigrants, thus removing a scandal which obtains and hardships which are inflicted upon innocent people when they land in this country. While their cases are being considered, they are stranded in what
1128
is to them a strange country; their resources are soon exhausted, and they have, perhaps for the first time in their lives, to appeal for charity. It is not for me to enter into the details which are contained in the Reports of the several Commissions, but I believe that this is a great opportunity to acquire, without any burden to the country, the great undertaking which the Port of London controls, and I feel sure that your Lordships will not refuse the Bill a Second Reading, because the arguments of the noble Lord who has moved its rejection are based almost entirely on the question of the estimated value of the purchase. The potential value probably is exceedingly great; it is the only part of London in which docks could be created, and this long controversy may be ended by this Bill. I trust your Lordships therefore will give it a Second Reading.
LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: My Lords, I had the honour of being appointed, as representing your Lordships' House, a Member of the Joint Committee. I was at the first meeting of the Committee, and there came up a question as to whether as a Committee we were to accept the Second Reading of the House of Commons. I objected to that for the simple reason that I was not au fait with what had been done with the previous Bill, and, therefore, I wanted to hear it in your Lordships' House thoroughly discussed and thoroughly considered. I therefore objected to that principle of accepting the House of Commons Second Reading, but it was understood that values and all other particulars should be thoroughly open to the Committee and investigated. The first act of the Joint Committee was to pass a resolution. I was not present, but I thought that the wording was entirely satisfactory in that respect. It was to accept the principle of purchase, which I must confess I do not yet understand, and that all values and all questions were to be thoroughly opened out and ventilated and investigated. As we went on in the investigation of the case it was very evident from the decision of the Chairman of the Committee that it was impossible for the minority representatives to get a hearing. I remonstrated by letter and also by word in the

1129
Committee against this policy, because I thought it was not at all wise, just, or equitable; but it was pursued, and it was pursued up to the time that I left the Committee. I hold that this question of the principle of purchase must be as well by valuation, and arbitration as it is by negotiation, and when we came to investigate, I was surprised, as one of your Lordships' Committee, to be met with the argument that the contract as between buyer and seller was sealed, and could not possibly be opened up to your Lordships' Committee or to the Joint Committee. We also, on investigating with the experts were met by the engineer's statement that his report even was not open to the Joint Committee. We had before us the experience of the Royal Commission and the experts they employed, who distinctly in detail warned the Royal Commission against the docks being taken as they were, and we asked about that, but everything was shut down, everything was stopped. I tried to get information from the engineer as to what the particulars of the investigation were, and in that cross-examination it came out that he had been from ten to twelve days with one assistant going round the docks. At last he admitted that he could not tell me what his instructions were from the promoters, but he admitted that what he did and what his assistant assisted him to do, was to check the reports of the engineers of the dock company, the sellers. Now uothing could be more unreasonable than for a Committee to consider the engineer's reports, for many years perhaps, on the property that the sellers were proposing to sell. I therefore remonstrated very strongly on that point, but I was met with the argument from the promoters that they could not show contracts; that it would be a breach of faith with the sellers—a perfectly unreasonable method in a negotiation of any kind, one which would be unreasonable even if this were not a Corporate Act, which of course it is, because it is promoted by the Government, and immediately the Government promotes it all liability ceases on the part of the Government; there is not a penny that the Government will stand by the poor stock holders of
1130
the dock company to protect them. They make rules and regulations as to the present condition of the authority and up to that point they are the power. The values of these docks were, as the expert accountants gave them, checked upon the basis of a six years business, which the noble Lord introducing the Bill, and also the noble Lord objecting to the Bill, admitted. As a business man, I object to a proposition being put to reasonable men that it is a good purchase to buy property on the basis of an income which, by the figures I hold in my hand, represents the highest income they had ever had in the history of their business, and which also represents an estimate of the accountants of a possible speculative saving of £18,000 per annum by this transaction, all of which, under any consideration of Corporate Acts, would have been scratched out and not allowed in promotion by the Corporate Law which we passed last year.
Then, my Lords, with regard to the margin which I am sure you would say ought to be a conservative one, in this case it is certainly less than one-tenth of 1 per cent., and yet the basis of the valuation is based on the full maximum. That is certainly a warning to anyone investigating. Of course, I had a judicial position on the Committee, and when it came to a question for the Committee to decide whether it would pass the stocks as proposed in the Bill, my noble friend Lord Ritchie and myself, two in a quorum of six out of ten, voted against the B Stock. I then moved an Amendment which you will find in the Committee's Report which would have simplified the matter as regards the direct liability on that stock from year to year. My Amendment was based on a very usual practice in all reorganisations, that where you are estimating and speculating on future values you should not make the commitment a fixed charge—in other words, in this case there is a fixed charge for the total amount. My Amendment was that you should make the whole of B Stock, or certainly an amount equivalent to the amount of the present deferred stocks in these dock companies which it is proposed to buy—there is something over 6,000,000 of those deferred stocks, some of them bearing no

1131
dividend, and some of them, like the Surrey Dock, bearing a dividend of 5 per cent. very steadily; whereas in the case of the East India Dock Company their stock in the last of the six years on which the estimates were based only paid a 3 per cent. dividend, their dividends during the years on which these valuations are based commencing at 1¼ and working up to 4 per cent., and yet it is said that it is fair to put it at the maximum rate that they have ever paid. I again say it should be on a stock that was not chargeable on the rates, or, at any rate, that it should be only on net dividends. My Amendment was a case of swopping one stock for another on the same basis as the original stock. But I was in a minority, and being in such a minority and finding myself having to go on with a business to which I was absolutely opposed—because I did not consider that the methods were honest, and that to continue with the values as they were proposed was distinctly dishonest—I went to Lord Onslow and asked him if he would relieve me from that Committee. That, as your Lordships know, was done by appointing another Member of this House to take my place.
The principal points in this Bill as I have considered them are these; if you carry the Bill to a Second Reading and attempt to amend it you will find what we found on the Committee, that you must not touch this in any way, because if you touch it you will spoil it; if you scratch this baby the baby will die at once; and it is not a question of amending it in any way. The only practicable Amendment possible in the very short time your Lordships have before the end of this session would be to appoint the authority, give it the necessary power of appointment of managers, and let those managers get to work and get into the saddle; then when they have had experience of the necessities of the Port of London they should be allowed to draw up a scheme, having regard to the principle of the thing as admitted by all the Royal Commissions and everybody else doing business in the Port of London, for the necessity financial requirements of the future. In the Bill they have allowed that at £5,000,000, but there is not in
1132
the Bill a scrap of security left; they have skinned the whole thing into the present stocks that they have promised to give away. They have not allowed any security on which to borrow money; the only thing they can find as a security to borrow money on is a rate on goods, a thing that has never been done in the Port of London yet.
My Lords, in passing this Bill, you will assume the responsibility for doing something that has never been done before; you will make the Port of London, from being a cheap port, the dearest port of all, and you will gradually see it go down in the face of the competition of every other port. I can refer to every other port in the kingdom; the Clyde, the Mersey, the Humber, and all of them are looking forward to this Bill becoming law, because, in their opinion, if it is passed in its present shape, London will immediately lose 16,000,000 tons of coal. Coal merchants will tell you that 1d. on the ton will turn the balance. If you go to other merchants, those engaged in the wool business, for example, they will tell you that it takes only an infinitesimal amount to turn it, and that anyone giving facilities for handling wool will get the business. I am not opposed to the scheme, but I am in every way opposed to so mortgaging it before-hand, and so slipping a mill-stone round the neck of this proposed authority that it will be impossible for it to do anything. The consequence is that you will get second-class and third-class men to manage this enormous Port of London. Not only that, but there has already been considered as a possibility, the introducing of municipal progressive methods into the Port of London. What will that mean? It will mean the repetition of what went on in the London County Council in the matter of municipal trading; it will be a repetition of Poplar in their methods, because it is unquestionably based on unbusinesslike irresponsible methods; they will spend the money first and then find out what the trade is really wanting.
My Lords, I will not detain you longer. There are several other business points about it, but they are ones that come up, or would come up, in Committee.

1133
All I wish to do now, is very earnestly to warn your Lordships that you will do a most dangerous thing if you pass this Bill. I refer you to anyone doing business in the Port of London, if you need confirmation of what I say. You will reduce labour and increase the unemployed. You are bound to do that whatever is done. I have asked those who are doing large business in the Port of London to speak out and say if they are in favour of this Bill, but I have not got one single interest to speak in favour of it since the Bill has been before your Lordships' House until this afternoon, when there was the telegram that Lord Ritchie got from the Beefeaters Association. I do not know what they are nor does anybody else. They are not in the Directory anyhow. That is the only corporate thing in any shape or form that has come before us. The whole City of London has been canvassed to find somebody who will say a word in favour of the Bill, and naturally, as a business man, I cannot appreciate how your Lordships can possibly pass a Bill into law when it is opposed by the whole of the interests of the Port of London.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I intervene in this debate, merely to draw your Lordships' attention to the stages which this measure has gone through and to the position which it now occupies. I confess I read with considerable surprise that my noble friend Lord Ritchie intended to move the rejection of this Bill, and for this reason: that my noble friend was upon the Joint Committee to which the Bill was referred, and I should naturally have supposed that he would have taken some opportunity during the progress of the proceedings of that Committee to place on record his entire dissent to the whole principle of the Bill. But I have looked through the proceedings of that Committee from end to end, and I find a paragraph to the effect that the preamble was declared to be proved. The only difficulty about that is that there is not any preamble to the Bill at all. Therefore, I do not find great fault with my noble friend for not protesting against a preamble which had no existence. But, at any rate, there were other methods open to the noble
1134
Lord, and he might at any time during the progress of the inquiry have placed on record his dissent to the Bill as a whole.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: May I interrupt the noble Lord. I do not know whether he was in the House when I spoke.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: I pointed out that when we came to consider the provision of the Bill which deals with the transfer of the docks to the Port Authority, I opposed it as strongly as I could. I opposed it with the full knowledge that if I had been successful in my opposition the Bill would have been dropped, because we received an intimation from the Board of Trade, or it was generally understood at any rate, that unless that particular clause dealing with the transfer of the docks to the Authority was accepted as it stood, the Bill could not proceed. I opposed that provision of the Bill then, and I oppose the Bill now, and I maintain that my action in both cases was entirely consistent.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I entirely endorse what the noble Lord has said. I am thoroughly aware that the noble Lord did oppose Clause 3 of the Bill. But there is something more than Clause 3 in the Bill; there is the question of whether it is right or whether it is not right that the docks should be purchased. That is the first and most important point in the Bill. It is quite true that the Committee at its earlier meeting, I think at its first meeting, decided to accept the principle of purchase while they reserved to themselves the right to investigate every detail of the Bill, and I think my noble friend was a party to that decision.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: I am extremely sorry to interrupt again, but I would like to remind the noble Lord that it was on his advice that the principle of purchase in the Bill was accepted; indeed I have a letter from the noble Lord himself in which he says that he thinks probably on the whole it would

1135
be advisable to recognise the principle of purchase.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If I may be allowed to correct my noble friend, I think the point was that while it was within the competence of your Lordships' House to reject the Second Reading, that is to say, to object altogether to the principle of the Bill, I thought for convenience of procedure it would be well for the Members of your Lordships' House on the Joint Committee to fall into line with what undoubtedly was the position upon which the Members of the other House went into Committee, namely, that the question of principle was one which had been decided by the House of Commons, in consequence of the Second Reading of the Bill in that House; but that in no way prevents this House from dissenting from that position, and if your Lordships are prepared, as perhaps you may be, to decide against the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1902, that there should be a single public authority to regulate the docks, that the transfer of the powers of the Dock Companies should be made to some authority in the nature of a Port authority, and that there should be a transfer of the powers of the Conservators of the River Thames, it is quite within the competence of your Lordships to do so. You will, of course, in that case be taking a different line from what was taken by the Government of 1903 and by the findings of Lord Cross' Committee, and you will be taking a course which is in opposition to that of the Resolution of the House of Commons in March, 1906, when they declared that the time had come for playing the Port of London under one authority. I venture to think that your Lordships can only reject the Bill upon those grounds or upon two other grounds, that the price is excessive, and that the new authority will be unable to pay its way, or that the representation of the various interests in the Port of London and in the River Thames have not due and proper representation on the Port Authority.
Now as to those two points I would venture to put it to your Lordships whether you really are in a position to exercise a mature judgment. Both those matters were most carefully gone into by the
1136
Committee, and I was very glad indeed to hear that my noble friend Lord Ritchie, though he was not convinced, clearly admitted that the whole case as to the price to be given was put before the Committee, and that by a majority, a large majority I think I may even say, the Committee decided to recommend Parliament to report the Bill containing both those propositions to the House. The price is named in the Bill, and, although the contracts may not be disposed, it is open to everyone of your Lordships to see exactly how much is to be paid for these dock undertakings. There was more than one division, I think, in the Committee, but there was one in which there were five on the one side and two on the other, the division to which my noble friend Lord Leith has referred, and your Lordships, no doubt, before the conclusion of this debate will hear something from other noble Lords, Lord Milner and Lord Clinton, both of whom were members of the Committee, with regard to it. I venture to think that your Lordships will incur considerable responsibility if you reject this Bill upon Second Reading after it has been exhaustively examined by a Joint Committee.
And, my Lords, who are the people who are petitioning your Lordships to reject this Bill? I have a letter here which I dare say has been sent to a great number of other Members of your Lordships' House from the Port of London and River Thames Defence Committee. That Committee consists of the Corporation of London, the Thames Conservancy, the London Waterside Manufacturers' Association, the Association of Master Lightermen and Bargeowners, the London Direct Short Sea Traders' Association, William Cory, Limited, and the Councils of Middlesex and Kent and the West Ham Corporation. I have spoken to the noble Lords who served on that Committee, and I think I am right in saying that every one of those authorities petitioned and was represented by counsel and proposed Amendments, most of which were not accepted by the Joint Committee. Therefore, your Lordships will see that the opposition which is put forward in your Lordships' House, whatever

1137
may be the value and the weight of it, at any rate is not new opposition which has not been carefully considered already by the Joint Committee. Therefore, unless your Lordships are prepared to say that the Committee is a Committee in which you do not think you can place confidence, and that the whole matter ought to be re-opened, I venture to think that, in accordance with the usual practice of your Lordships' House, you ought to trust to the judgment of the majority of that Committee.
LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: Might I interrupt Lord Onslow for a moment? I would like to put this to him. You say that the Committee allowed these petitioners to be heard. Will you allow me to refer to the Report in which the Chairman of the Joint Committee says—
"We have ruled out the principle of the purchase of the docks and the principle of these agreements for purchasing the docks. It is not open to this Committee to vary these agreements."
I only served on this Committee up to a certain point, but I heard that said day after day by the Chairman of the Joint Committee to the counsel of these petitioners.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am really sorry, but I am afraid, after what has been said by the noble Lord, that I must ask your Lordships to look at what did actually take place on the question of the purchase price of the docks. I am reading at page 289. The Chairman said—
"The position that the Committee take up is simply this. We have ruled out the principle of the purchase of the docks and the principle of these agreements for purchasing the docks. It is not open to this Committee to vary these agreements; we are not arbitrators; but it is open to this Committee to reject every one of these bargains and substitute an arbitration if we like. If you move that sub-clause (a) or (b) or (c)—"
—those are the clauses having regard to the terms of purchase—
"should be struck out, we shall be bound to hear you."
Upon that there was moved on behalf, I think, of the Shortsea Traders to leave out in Clause 3 the words from "the first authority," to the end of the subsection. That is to say, to leave out the whole of the clause which embodied these terms
1138
of purchase. Then witnesses were called and finally counsel addressed the Committee, and the late Sir Ralph Littler said—
"Surely the Committee will pause before they say that subsection (a) of this clause shall be passed."
And he went on to say that if his arguments were right subsection (a) must go, and—
"If you find no other resource then the only other resource is arbitration."
That is to say, the principle of purchase by agreement as against the principle of purchase by arbitration was placed before the Committee, and I think I am entitled to say distinctly rejected by them.
May I call your Lordships' attention to the composition of that Committee? The Committee consisted in part of Members of your Lordships' House, and also of Mr. Russell Rea, a large shipowner of Liverpool, who I am told has no interest in the docks or the Port of London, Sir Albert Spicer, a member of the London Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Williamson, a member of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, Sir William Bull, Member for Hammersmith—who, I think, said in another place, that he went into the Committee greatly prejudiced against the Bill, but came out strongly in favour of it—and Lord Castlereagh, the son of my noble friend Lord Londonderry, who usually sits on this bench. I venture to say that is a strong Committee, and I hope your Lordships will pause before you throw over its recommendations. When the time comes I shall have something to say about some of the clauses in the Bill, some of which I agree with, but only in part, especially those which deal with the taking of land compulsorily otherwise than in the usual way by promoting a Bill in Parliament. But those are matters of detail for consideration in Committee.
There is another point, and one that has been, I think, somewhat strongly urged, that we have arrived now at a time of the session when it is extremely difficult for your Lordships' House to consider carefully the Amendments put down for the Committee stage, and it has been suggested that the procedure might be adopted which was adopted in the

1139
Bill of 1903, of carrying it over to the next session of Parliament. But, my Lords, there was no reason why the Bill of 1903 should not be carried over. That was a Bill of an ordinary character, and the terms of purchase were by arbitration and not by agreement. But in this particular Bill, I am given to understand—the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will correct me if I am wrong—that the agreements which have been entered into by the Board of Trade for the purchase of the dock undertaking will last only until 31st December in this year, and that, therefore, if your Lordships should decide to carry the Bill over, the risk will be run of losing the advantages of those agreements, although it is, of course, quite possible that those who entered into them in 1908 may be equally willing to enter into them in 1909.
I have said all that I have to say upon this subject. I am not going to enter into the merits or the demerits of the Bill. I only want to point out that it has been referred to a very strong Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and to urge upon your Lordships that you should consider carefully before you decide to reject the Bill the principle of which has been affirmed by the majority of that Committee.
EARL CROMER: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships but a very few minutes, for I am not going to deal at any length with the general merits or demerits of this Bill. For myself I may must say that, although the Bill is possibly capable of being amended in Committee, it appears to be an honest and praiseworthy endeavour to deal with an extremely difficult subject; therefore, if we go to a division I shall certainly vote in favour of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Leith of Fyvie, said that the City of London had been canvassed in vain to get supporters of this Bill. I have no sort of authority to state what the opinion of the City of London is, but it did occur to me that it might be of some use to ask Lord Revelstoke, as he was Chairman of the Commission, what he thought of this Bill. He is at this moment in America,
1140
but I had some conversation with him about it before he left, and I telegraphed to him this morning and asked him what his opinion was. I received his reply during the course of this debate; he says—
"I should sincerely regret the rejection of the Port of London Bill."
I think, as Lord Revelstoke was the Chairman of the Commission, that perhaps your Lordships will attach some weight to his opinion.
But it was not to make this statement that I rose. I should like to deal with one point which has not yet attracted attention. It is really, strictly speaking, more a point for the Committee Stage, but inasmuch as a very important question of principle is involved, and inasmuch as I think also that perhaps the noble Lord opposite in charge of the Bill may like to consider the suggestion I have to make before the Committee Stage comes on, I claim your Lordships' indulgence while I speak on that point for a very few minutes. I allude to the question raised in the sixth clause of the Bill. I need not read the clause, it is a very long one; it will be sufficient for my purpose if I say that under that clause certain subjects, notably the acquisition of land, which up to the time have been dealt with by Private Bill legislation, may in future be dealt with by the Board of Trade without any legislation, at all, though any Order, other than a Provisional Order that is made, has to lie on the Table of both Houses for thirty days with a view to giving an opportunity for any objection being raised. This is a very important question, and I think it ought to be very fully considered before anything is done.
I am able to speak with some little experience of this question of Private Bill legislation, because during the last year the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, seems to have got into the habit whenever he is looking out for a Chairman of a Committee to pounce upon me. The result is that I have spent about three out of the last nine months in the Committee rooms of your Lordships' House listening to speeches of counsel at all times interesting, but sometimes rather prolix.

1141
The conclusion I have come to is that this question of Private Bill legislation is one which will, sooner or later, demand the serious and earnest attention of Parliament. I assure your Lordships that as far as I have been able to see, the waste of time and of money is really almost beyond description. I know how very difficult it is to apply a remedy, and I am certainly not going into the general question now; but as this clause has been the subject of a good deal of discussion I do wish to say something on the question of principle. Let me give your Lordships a case in point. A few months ago I was the Chairman of the Committee appointed to deal with the question of the supply of electricity in bulk to London. We sat for two and a half months. I see three of my colleagues, Lord Sanderson, Lord Welby, and Lord Lamington, present, and I think they will confirm what I say. Our inquiry was preceded by an inquiry held under Lord Camperdown's chairmanship in 1906, and I know I am under-stating the fact when I say that the total expenditure on those Committees was over £100,000, Thats a gigantic figure as it appears to me. We sat for two and a half months. The Bill then went to the House of Commons, and it was there wrecked for reasons which I need not go into now. The result was that the whole of that money was wasted. Of course, anybody who goes to law must expect to spend some money, but I really do not suppose that such a case has ever been heard of, people spending £100,000 in an ordinary civil suit, and the difference is that in an ordinary civil suit one does have the satisfaction of getting something decided. The peculiarity in the case of this Committee, and it is often the case in other Committees also, is that after spending all that money nothing was decided: it goes on, and the same thing begins again in another session. That is not a satisfactory state of things, and on those grounds I very warmly approve of the general principle embodied in this clause, which is to allow the Board of Trade and the Government Departments to have greater freedom in dealing with these matters. I mention
1142
it because I repeat it has been a good deal discussed and criticised.
But although I agree with the general principle, there are some points which I should like to allude to, because I think perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill may like to consider them before we get to the Committee stage. Your Lordships will observe, if you look at the Bill, that the Board of Trade before they deal with the question are to appoint an impartial person to hold a public inquiry. If we are going to withdraw from the public the guarantees of safety which ere now derived from being able to appear before these Parliamentary Committees, we ought to take as much care as we possibly can to provide other guarantees in order that the public inquiry should command confidence. Nothing has struck me so much as the great confidence that has been displayed by those who come before us in Committee, both on the part of lawyers and on the part of witnesses, in the thorough impartiality of the inquiries conducted by your Lordships' House, and I have no doubt the same applies to the other House, although as I have never been a Member of that House I cannot speak with authority on the subject.
There is nothing said in this clause as to whether the individual who holds the inquiry is to call witnesses or not. I understood from what was said in another place by the President of the Board of Trade that witnesses would be called. I think it is worth considering whether something specific should not be laid down in the Bill on that point. Then again nothing is said about whether counsel are to be heard. That is also a point worth considering. I do not want to express any opinion on the point now, but I think it is one that deserves consideration. There is one further point which I think is of still greater importance; it is said that the inquiry should be conducted by an impartial person. That is a very vague term. I suppose there is no man living who does not think that he is impartial; we all think that we are impartial, but there are a great many standards of impartiality. For instance, there is the standard of impartiality

1143
which is adopted by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and by the other learned law Lords when they sit in their judicial capacity. That is probably the highest standard of impartiality to which fallible human beings can attain. Then there is the standard of impartiality of the party politician; that has generally, by the outside world, been considered not quite so high a standard. Then there is the standard of impartiality of a person concerned in matters connected with Government who is not a Government official; and there is also the standard of impartiality of the Government official who may, perhaps, even unconsciously, be somewhat biassed by the fact that his advancement and promotion depend upon his employers. The importance of this point has been forcibly brought to my mind recently, because I am at this moment dealing with an investigation as to the desirability of the amalgamation of certain towns in what are known as the Staffordshire Potteries. The President of the Local Government Board went down to the Potteries and made a strong speech in favour of amalgamation. Subsequently an inspector of the Local Government Board was sent down to inquire, and I know that several of my colleagues will confirm me when I say that there were a good many complaints that that inquiry was not an impartial one. I do not for one moment mean to say that I am expressing any opinion with regard to those complaints, but certainly many complaints were made, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will confirm me when I say that when it comes to anything in the nature of a judicial inquiry it is not only necessary that the Judge should be impartial, but almost equally necessary that everyone concerned should be convinced of his impartially. I venture to suggest that it would be very well worth while to consider whether it should not be provided that the impartial person should be somebody not connected with the Government at all, or at all events not connected with the special Department concerned. I do not say that I am prepared to move any Amendment, but I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider the point
1144
before we get to the Committee stage, because, in my opinion, it is really one of considerable importance.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down quoted a telegram from Lord Revelstoke who, no doubt, speaks with very high authority on any subject connected with the commerce of London. We all know that Lord Revelstoke has paid a great deal of attention to this subject, and that he is in favour of a strong Port Authority for the Port of London. So am I, but I am not in favour of a Port Authority which is brought into life with a millstone round its neck, and I very much doubt whether Lord Revelstoke who, of course, has not seen, this Bill in its present form, would, if he had done so, have given it his support. The only noble Lords who have spoken besides myself who have any experience of the business in the Port of London, Lord Ritchie and Lord Leith, have spoken very strongly against this Bill, and I desire to give them my earnest support. Lord Swaythling, who addressed your Lordships from the other side of the Horse, said that he spoke for financiers. No doubt some financiers have a great interest, as Lord Ritchie has pointed out, in seeing this Bill pass into law, but we speak for another class. I represent the Corporation of London, the Short Sea Traders, the London Manufacturers' Association, the Lightermen and Bargeowners, the Thames Conservancy, my own County of Kent, and the County of Essex. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has tried to throw some discredit on their opposition because he says they were heard before the Committee. But they were not heard before the Committee on the most important point of all, the great question in this Bill, whether you are going to invest twenty odd millions of money in buying up the docks of London. That is one of the great questions in this Bill, and that was from the beginning ruled out of order by the Chairman. Who are these people whom I represent? The Short Sea Traders represent most of the shipping and pay half the dues that are paid in the Port of London, and they are most strongly against this Bill; the London Manufacturers' Association have invested £70,000,000 to £80,000,000 along the

1145
river in their manufactories, and they are very much against this Bill too, both on the ground that the Bill will inevitably make London a dear port, and on the ground that it will drive away our trade and commerce. Then there is the Thames Conservancy and the counties of Kent and Essex, who are, I believe, mainly interested in that vital part of the Bill, the constitution of the Port Authority. Those whose views I am representing held a meeting a short time ago at which they unanimously passed this resolution—
"That this Conference of representatives of industrial, trading and carrying associations and public bodies interested in the Port of London, and specially convened to consider the Port of London Bill as amended in Committee, hereby records its conviction that the provisions of the Bill, more especially those providing for the transfer of the docks to a public authority, and determining the financial basis of that transfer will, if passed into law, disastrously affect the industrial, trading, and carrying interests of the Port of London."
These are the people whose livelihood depends on the Port of London, and they are all opposing this Bill, and they have asked me to oppose it in your Lordships' House. I challenge your Lordships, can any business interest in the Port of London be brought before you who approve this Bill; and I ask your Lordships, when we have now, at the end of the session, had no opportunity of thoroughly considering it, are you going to pass a Bill which is opposed by practically the great majority of those who are interested in the trade of the Port of London?
With regard to one of the remarks made by the noble Lord (Lord Swaythling), we are not against a Port Authority. We are in favour of a Port Authority, but we are against this Port Authority, and against the saddling of it with this immense responsibility. There are two main objections that we feel to the Bill. We oppose this Bill first, because it is an interference with, and another nail in the coffin of, private enterprise and another step in the direction of Socialism; and secondly, because it will inevitably make the Port of London more expensive, and thus drive away trade. As regards the first consideration, the essence of Socialism is twofold; the first principle is to take away property from those who own it, and give it to others; the second is to
1146
destroy private enterprise, to municipalise it and substitute for it public undertakings. As regards the first head, I make no complaint against the Bill. We quite recognise that the Board of Trade have endeavoured to treat the dock shareholders, and indeed my noble friends who have spoken on this side of the House consider that the Government have done rather too much justice to the docks. I have no objection, therefore, on that score; our objection comes under the second head, and we do say that bit by bit, year by year, and step by step, we are undermining private enterprise, that private enterprise on which the prosperity of the country so much depends. One year it was the telegraphs. We have lost several millions by taking over the telegraphs. Another year it is the telephones; we shall lose a great deal by taking over the telephones. Two or three years ago we took over the water companies, and at the present moment four of the districts in the Metropolis out of the eight supplied by the Water Board are paying more dearly for water than they would have done if the water companies had been left alone. Another year it was the London steamers. The disastrous result of the abolition of the water companies and the experience we had of the Thames steamboats is an experience which makes us feel very strongly against this Bill. Public management is always more expensive than private management. As Lord Ritchie has told you, the sum involved in this Bill is over £22,000,000; the annual expenditure is £800,000; and there is a trumpery margin of £9,000. This supposed surplus of £9,000 is arrived at, even assuming that all the estimates of the engineer and the accountant are perfectly correct, because he imagines that the Port Authority will save £18,000 on the expenditure of the docks. That is contrary to the whole of our experience. Public management is always more expensive than private management, and it is just as certain as I am standing here, that you will find the expense of the docks under public management will be greater than it has ever been up to the present time.
We none of us object, in fact, we all of us, I think, are in favour of a considerable expenditure upon the river

1147
and I believe that those who use the river are quite prepared to bear their share of any expenditure that may be necessary in order to improve the river, but why should they bear a share of expenditure which is merely for the purpose of paying interest upon this Dock Stock? I have alluded to many bodies in the City who are opposed to this Bill. The London Chamber of Commerce has been referred to. The only resolution passed by the London Chamber of Commerce is as follows:—
"That, in the opinion of this Council, the President of the Board of Trade should be informed, in reply to his request: That, from the commercial point of view, the compulsory purchase of the docks is regarded as inexpedient; also, that the imposition of heavy dues on goods is opposed to the general feeling and action of the Chamber; but, subject as above, the Council confirms its previous resolutions in favour of the constitution of a representative Port Authority for London, with adequate powers and financial resources, the latter of which should be aided by State guarantees and contributions."
This Bill contravenes everything in that resolution. There are no State guarantees or contributions. I feel the force of what was said by the noble Lord in introducing the Bill against any such guarantee, but that was one of the conditions on which the Chamber of Commerce based its consent to the Bill. I do not know whether I shall be told that this is not a compulsory purchase. It is not a compulsory sale, at any rate, because the docks are selling willingly, but the Port Authority is saddled with this purchase, whether it wishes it or not, and I venture to say, therefore, that the present Bill entirely contravenes that resolution.
Then my noble friend, Lord Onslow, attaches great importance to the action of the Joint Committee. But, my Lords, the Joint Committee never considered what is really the principle of the Bill, they took it for granted that the docks were to be purchased, and the first ground on which we object to this Bill is because that has been done. At the very first meeting, I think it was, the Chairman of the Committee said—
"We have decided to exclude from the discussion before this Committee the question of the principle of the purchase of the docks."
1148
And, therefore, it is not open to anybody to say that the Committee were in favour of the purchase of the docks; they never considered the question, they never heard the arguments against it, they took it for granted that that was to be done, and the only thing they went into was the question of price.
Now, my Lords, why should not this Bill be carried over? It is a Bill which vitally affects the City of London, and we have really had no time in which to consider it. The noble Lord, Lord Onslow, says that it cannot be carried over, because if it is carried over these arrangements with the docks will fall through. We suggest that the docks will be only too glad to make those arrangements over again. Just consider what it means. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, gave you the evidence of what the effect has been upon the price of Dock Stock, and when the effect on the price of Dock Stock has been so great is it not perfectly clear that if you do carry the Bill over the directors of the docks, as sensible men, will be very pleased to make again the same arrangement? No noble Lord has given us any reason why the docks should be purchased? venture to say that the noble Lord introducing the Bill gave us no reason whatever why these docks should be purchased. There are miles of other wharves and warehouses along the river which you are not going to buy. Why should you buy those belonging to the Dock Company and not the others? It is surely very undesirable that the Port Authority should own some warehouses, and thus come into competition with the others. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that the trade of London was going down, and that it was necessary that something should be done. Would you believe it that in the last four years the trade and commerce of London has gone up £64,000,000, and yet it is said that this Bill is absolutely necessary, because the trade and commerce of London is going down.
Now I come to the next most important part of the Bill, that is the question of what the Port Authority is to be. There is no port in this country which has a Port Authority at all resembling that which is proposed

1149
in this Bill. In the other House oh 11th November, when the Bill was under discussion, both Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Balfour made some remarks on the Port Authority as proposed in this Bill. Mr. Bonar Law said that—
"You could not possibly have a worse system from the point of view of dealing fairly with existing interests than the system in the Bill."
That was Mr. Bonar Law's opinion as regards the constitution of the Port Authority urged in the Bill. Then the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that this Bill gave—
"A sectional representation with this great disadvantage, that only one section would be represented, that was the section which dealt with the docks and not with those great interests which were involved in the use of the river outside the docks."
He went on to say that—
"That was the fundamental and essential difficulty, and that in reality the effect would be that the electors who had it in their power to control the management of the whole Port of London would be the owners of the docks, and the owners of the docks alone."
That is one reason why Kent and Essex and West Ham and the Corporation of London and these other bodies whom I am representing are opposing this Bill, and with the high authority both of Mr. Bonar Law and of Mr. Balfour, that this proposed authority is a radically bad authority, I most earnestly appeal to the House not to pass the Second Reading of the Bill.
May I give your Lordships one other authority, that of the London Chamber of Commerce itself. Mr. Pillman, who represented the London Chamber of Commerce, said that they felt very strongly—
"That the elected members of the Port Authority as proposed in the Bill were too small a number to enable the difficult and complicated business of dock management to be successfully carried out."
And then he was asked—
"Whether in saying that he was Baying it from a ripe judgment and knowledge of the complicated nature of dock business and trading business in the Port of London,"
and he said—
"Yes, not only would they not be sufficient in number but that you would not get a knowledge of the interests of the various trades in the management of the dock business which is so very essential, the dock business being essentially a business which required a considerable amount of technical knowledge which only those who were versed in the trade
1150
were properly qualified to exercise in the administration."
There you have really the highest possible authorities showing you that the constitution of this Port Authority is eminently unsatisfactory and is almost certain to lead to disaster.
Then we are sometimes told that a trust of this kind works very well in Liverpool, so why should it not work in London. The supporters of the Bill brought up before the Committee Mr. Thorne, a very able man, solicitor to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, to give evidence in favour of the Bill, but he was obliged to point out that the Liverpool Dock Board was a totally different Board from that which is proposed in this Bill. There is no municipal representation on the Dock Board of Liverpool; it is entirely composed of these who have an interest in the trade and commerce of Liverpool; and when he was asked about the constitution of this Port Authority he said he—
"Was bound to answer that he considered the Liverpool Board was a much better Board than the one which is proposed in this Bill,"
and we think he was perfectly right. What is the weight of authority on the two sides—what is the weight of authority in support of the Bill and against it? Several noble Lords have spoken in favour of this Bill, but there has been no noble Lord who has been connected with the trade and commerce of London, and I do not think there will be. Those who are interested in the trade and commerce of London are, as far as I know, or at any rate most of them, against the Bill, and I represent here, as I said before, the Corporation of London, the London Manufacturers' Association, who have invested £70,000,000 or £80,000,000 along the river; I represent the Short Sea Traders, who pay one-half of the dues of the Port of London; I represent the Thames Conservancy, and the Lightermen and Barge Owners' Association, the members of which body obtain their livelihood on the Thames, and whose livelihood depends on the prosperity of the Port. I ask who is there on the other side connected with the Port and the trade and the commerce of London who is in favour of this Bill? Is it not a very remarkable thing that we should be asked at the fag end of

1151
the session without having had any time in which properly to consider this Bill and without your Lordships having any opportunity of making inquiries outside this House, to pass a measure which is certainly of vital importance to the trade and commerce of London against the opinion of those who are engaged in that trade and commerce, who have worked at it all their lives? My Lords, on their behalf I appeal to this House not to pass a measure which in the words of the resolution which was unanimously passed by those whom I represent, will, in their opinion make the Port more expensive and thus disastrously affect the trade and commerce of London.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I think that I am the fourth member of the Joint Committee who has risen to address your Lordships, and I fear you may think, from the very unanimous disagreement of the members of that Committee, that we must have had a very inharmonious gathering. I can assure you, my Lords, that nothing is further from the facts. Although I disagree entirely with two of the members of that Committee who have spoken, yet I can assure your Lordships that we spent a most happy eight weeks in listening to some of the most tedious and oft-repeated evidence that it has ever been my unfortunate lot to endure. I do not wish to follow my noble friend Lord Leith, in his terrible foreboding as to what is going to happen to the Port of London and to the British Empire if this Bill should unfortunately pass, but I do wish to say that I listened with something like great interest to him when he described himself as an oppressed minority on that Committee. It is a curious fact, but I do not think that either I or any other member of that Committee would have discovered that fact unless the noble Lord had told us so himself. I believe if your Lordships will look into the print of the Report of that Committee you will find that the time taken up by the noble Lord during the period that he was a member of the Committee was at least ten times as much as that taken by any other member, and I think
1152
he had a full opportunity of relieving himself of that position of being an oppressed minority; I am quite certain that other noble Lords on that Committee will agree with me when I say that our Chairman, Mr. Russell Rea, treated every member of the Committee and every interest on that Committee with great impartiality, and there was no excuse for anyone being in an oppressed position.
I disagree with those members of the Committee who have spoken so strongly against this measure, because I believe that the Port of London is most urgently in need of a remedial measure of this kind. The evidence which was placed before the Committee proved perfectly conclusively to my mind, that unless there was a vast improvement in the management, and in the maintenance of the docks, and in the waterways of London, it was quite impossible for the Port ever to regain that position that it once held as the first Port of the Empire, and I do not believe that it is possible that those absolutely necessary improvements in the channel docks, and other things can be carried out as long as the management and maintenance of the Port remains in so many different hands. I believe the first essential of improving the Port of London is to do what every other port in this country does, to put the management into the hands of one authority, the Port Authority. When the noble Lord who introduced this measure spoke, he laid before us a most interesting historical summary of what had been going on in the Port, and the Report of the Royal Commission issued in 1902 states absolutely clearly that there is very serious danger of the Port losing its trade unless some measures are taken to prevent it. What was true then can, I am quite certain, be argued with vastly additional force at the present moment, because although six or eight years have elapsed since that Royal Commission sat, although everyone, we believe, is alive to the fact that the danger of losing trade not only exists, but really is likely to increase, yet little or nothing can be done to prevent that loss of trade, and you cannot; I think, expect that it should, because it cannot be expected

1153
that private authorities will expend their own capital as long as Bills of this kind are impending. The Report of the Commission goes on to show that the Port has actually been losing, not only actually, but relatively to its competitors, a vast amount of trade.
I believe that this is a sufficiently alarming state of things for Parliament to take serious notice of. Several attempts, as we know, have been made to put it right, and although most of those attempts. Bills and Reports and otherwise, have been favourably received by the House of Commons, yet no proceedings have so far been taken upon them. Believing, as I do, that the need for alteration and improvement is really urgent, I find it somewhat difficult to understand why people who are acquainted, and I have no doubt thoroughly acquainted with the City of London, should urge objections to this Bill upon what I must describe as minor points. I believe this is a Bill which it is essential that we should look at in the broadest possible way; we should not be led away by Amendments or by suggestions dealing with relatively small matters, because we have the main principle before us that the Port of London at the present moment is badly managed and is in a bad state. We have had plenty of evidence before us that it is having a very bad effect upon the trade of London, and we also have it plainly recommended to us by every Committee that has sat that something in the nature of this Bill is absolutely necessary for the improvement of the Port. The chief of the major objections which have been taken against the Bill are naturally financial ones. They are objections which, no doubt, there are grounds for suggesting, but at the same time they are objections which it will be difficult for even those who make them to prove, provided they wish to keep this Bill in any form, because it is naturally based on financial foundations. Those financial arrangements are the outcome of delicate negotiations, of private agreement, and they are so closely connected with the frame-work of the measure, that it is almost impossible to deal with them unless you destroy the frame-work of the scheme altogether.
1154
The objection raised is that the price paid for the docks is too high. The figures which Lord Ritchie gave your Lordships seemed to me to be not quite accurate in some respects. He told you that the purchase price of the docks was based upon a diminishing revenue. I think that that is not actually the case. I think the revenue of the docks at this moment is an increasing one. But I suppose docks, more than any other business, are liable to great and serious fluctuations, and in the six years period contemplated under this Bill, there have been very remarkable fluctuations in the income of the docks. They were at their highest in 1902, which year showed a net income of £873,000, and they were at their lowest in 1905, which year showed a net income of £732,000. Since then the income from the docks has not, as Lord Ritchie told us, been diminishing, but has been steadily increasing, and at the present moment it has risen up to £763,000 which is £31,000 above the lowest income.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: What I intended to say was that during the six years which were taken as the average, the income of the docks has been a diminishing income. The noble Lord has himself just read out the highest figure in 1902, which was the first of the six years.
LORD CLINTON: I agree with the noble Lord. I thought what he meant was that the income was diminishing straight on up to this moment.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: No.
LORD CLINTON: Whereas, of course, at this moment it is increasing. The price at all events is fixed by agreement between the parties on a valuation by professional accountants of very high standing, who have certified that the existing revenue is a proper and sufficient one upon which to base such a valuation. There is also the report of the engineer, who is satisfied that the equipment and the position of the docks is sufficient to maintain the present revenue. The noble Lord (Lord Leith) com-plained to your Lordships that the

1155
engineer has not taken the trouble to go down and examine the foundations of the docks, and that he could not tell you whether the dock walls were in a proper state of repair or not. There was certainly no report furnished for that purpose, neither was there any occasion for such a report, because in taking over docks or any business that is going on, you want to know something more than the value of the bricks and mortar; you want to know exactly what we were told in this Committee—that they were in such a position as to maintenance and equipment as would enable them to maintain their existing revenue, and it was upon that existing revenue that the basis of purchase was made.
Another serious objection, not the most important one, brought before us in Committee was that the basis upon which this transaction was done was a wrong one, that the valuation ought to have been arrived at not by mutual agreement but by a process of arbitration. I am quite aware that the Royal Commission six or eight years ago reported that arbitration should be resorted to as a basis for purchase, but I am given to understand that the opinion of many people in that respect has very largely changed, and that they are now of opinion that arbitration is not the better course. I know very often when in other matters one has asked for arbitration in this House, in matters connected with land, small holdings and other things, one has always been told that on account of its great expense it should never be resorted to, and I think that is a fair argument in this respect. Arbitration in this case would have been a particularly expensive matter, because you could not arbitrate here with one single authority; you would be bound to arbitrate with three different authorities, each of the different docks requiring an arbitration to themselves. Also, I do not think it is the custom to resort to arbitration as long as peaceful methods are possible, and I believe that the Board of Trade adopted a perfectly right course in deciding, when they found that they had come to a satisfactory conclusion with the dock authorities as to price, that it was quite unnecessary
1156
to recommend the country to go to arbitration on the matter.
There is one other point upon which I should like to say one word to your Lordships. I think those who sat on the Committee will agree that one of the chief matters upon which the opponents of the Bill founded their objections was the constitution of the new Port Authority. As your Lordships are aware, it is partly elective, the elected members being elected on a general register of all those who pay dock dues, wharfingers, or owners of river property; and the contention of the objectors was that there should be elective members forming a sectional representation representing each section of the river. I certainly was very strongly in favour of the whole body being represented from a general register, believing that with a larger constituency of that kind you would be much more likely to get the best men available, that you would not, in such a case, have upon your Board men who were there for the purpose of representing one particular interest, probably at the expense of others, and also because it is obvious that if you admit one section to representation you are almost bound to admit the whole of them, and in that way you would have a Board very cumbrous and unwieldy, and unsuitable for the work it has to do. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, just now, challenged your Lordships to show him anybody connected with the City of London who had expressed themselves in favour of this Bill. One of the opponents of the Bill opposed this measure very strongly upon the ground of sectional representation alone, and that was the Chamber of Commerce. I presume they may be regarded as a body connected with the commerce of the City of London. Their counsel in speaking for them used these words—
"I wish to say in case there has been any misapprehension that the London Chamber of Commerce are not here as opponents of this Bill. On the contrary, and so far as the question of the purchase of the docks is concerned, and many of the provisions of the Bill, the London Chamber of Commerce are strongly supporting the Bill and are firm believers in it. The only point we are interested in primarily is the question of the constitution of the future authority to govern the Port."
LORD AVEBURY: The only resolution which has been passed by the London Chamber of Commerce is the one I read to the House, and I showed that the Bill did not carry out the provisions of that recommendation.
LORD CLINTON: I am sorry I did not hear the noble Lord read out that particular resolution. What I am reading from is the statement made by Mr. Erskine Pollock, the leader for the Chamber of Commerce, on that Bill.
LORD AVEBURY: The resolution I read was the resolution adopted by the Chamber of Commerce itself.
LORD CLINTON: I presume their leading counsel had instructions to speak for the Chamber of Commerce. But, my Lords, that at all events shows that a large amount of opposition to this Bill was on a minor point, that of sectional representation, and not against the Bill on its merits. I believe that this measure carries out the general lines laid down by the Royal Commission, in the Bill of the Unionist Government, and in both the Joint Committees which have deliberated upon the matter. They have all approved of the levying of dues. Those are the principal points of this measure, and I do not think that your Lordships have heard any good arguments to-night why we should not approve of those principles.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I have had some experience of the Port of London, and having seen a great many of the representatives of the enormous interests carried on in that Port, perhaps it is almost my duty to say a few words on this Motion. Few people seem to realise the enormous trade that is carried on in the Port of London. The trade amounts year in and year out to a sum which reaches the gigantic figure of no less than £486,000,000. It is, therefore, evident that any Bill which will vitally affect the interests of the Port of London, which is now and has been for 200 years past by far the largest Port of the world, should be looked at with the greatest care and consideration. I think it has been borne in upon
1158
almost everyone that the time has arrived when this question should be dealt with and if possible settled. We have had a Royal Commission, we have had Bills brought in by two Governments, we have had these Bills considered by two Joint Committees of the Houses of Parliament, and, therefore, it is absolutely impossible to say that the subject, great though it is, has not been adequately considered; and there stands out, at all events, one point, which is the vital point of the Bill, on which there has been a unanimity and consensus of opinion expressed by a Royal Commission, by two Government Bills, and by the two Committees which inquired into those Bills, and that is that the docks of the Port of London should be taken over by a public authority. I venture to think that this question of the acquisition of the docks by a public authority is the important point, and constitutes the crux of the Bill. I am quite aware that a great deal might be said, with the greatest truth and justice, against the principle of buying out the docks and placing them under the authority which is going to be the ruling and governing authority of the Port of London. I am quite aware that it might be said with justice that on the whole the trade of the Port of London has been built up by private enterprise, and that, as far as the river is concerned, as distinct from the docks, the Port of London as regards that trade is by far the cheapest Port in the world. The ships that come into the Port of London pay small dues. The dues which are paid to the Thames Conservancy are, compared with the work they have to carry out, infinitesimal—1½d. a ton in and out and ½d. coastwise. They have to do the whole of the harbour management, there are two harbour masters, an upper and a lower, they have also to do the whole of the surveying and dredging, and I may say that at the present time they are carrying out a scheme of some magnitude by making a deep water channel of thirty feet at low water under the Bill which I had the honour of introducing to the House of Commons myself and which had the good fortune to go through. £200,000 have been spent upon those improvements, and they will in due time be

1159
handed over to the new Port authority. But if that is the case, and if the prosperity of the Port of London is so largely due to private enterprise which has not been helped by any Port Authority, which has equipped its jetties and piers and made them unaided, and the Port Authority has only assessed them on what they have done—if they have carried on their huge business as they have done up to the present without any assistance, it should be unnecessary to subsidise any particular portion of the Port and so allow that portion to become practically a competitor of theirs. But we have been faced with a most difficult question. I admit that a great deal could be said on either side, both for the acquisition of the docks by a public authority, and against it. But when we consider that the Royal Commission and the two Governments, assisted by the Board of Trade, who for ten years have been considering this question, have come to the conclusion that it is impossible for the trade of the Port of London to be carried out in a proper manner without something being done for the docks, I think that your Lordships would be ill-advised to refuse a Second Reading to a Bill which, after all, is an honest attempt to solve a most difficult question.
I think there are two methods by which the docks might have been dealt with. One is the present method, a new authority, the Port Authority, to acquire the docks and to manage them as part of the public authority. The other method, which I was, and am even now, very much inclined to support, would be this: to have an independent river authority, which would treat all parties on an equality, raise dues on goods and ships to improve the facilities of the Port, but giving to the docks which must be continued such a sum of money as would enable them to equip themselves properly and provide the necessary capital. This sum of money, if that system had been adopted, would have been spent under the control of the Board of Trade, who would have seen that certain improvements required by the Board were carried out. I have received many deputations on this subject from many different interests connected with the Port, and when that scheme
1160
was broached great objections were raised by the river-side manufacturers, who represent a capital of something like £100,000,000, and by the short-sea traders, on the ground that it would be impossible, or, at all events, that they would never consent to public money, that is to say, dues, raised on goods and ships being devoted to private enterprise. I must say that that converted me to the view that the only alternative must be that the public authority should take over the whole concern, as they do on the Mersey, and manage the river-side properties, the quays, and the docks as well.
But I am not blind to many objections to this schema. It may be the knell of private enterprise on the river. I only hope that that will not be the case, and that the precautions which have been taken by the Board of Trade will prevent such an eventuality. But we must remember that private enterprise in the river in times past has made the river what it is, and this new authority, the first of whose obligations must be to provide £800,000 a year interest for the shareholders, whose whole idea must be to make the docks pay, and who will be judged eventually by the success or the failure which they make of their management of the docks, can hardly be regarded as an absolutely fair arbiter of the private enterprise on the Thames, unless the Board of Trade, to whom there is an appeal on almost every part of this Bill, see that private enterprise on the river is encouraged to the utmost. From my experience of the River Thames, I feel most strongly that the Board of Trade, and I should like to make a very earnest appeal to them, should keep this possible failure of the new body most sternly in view, and maintain most careful watch over what may happen to private enterprise on the river. At the present time the Thames Conservancy, which is the highway authority for the river, when any new scheme comes along considers it on its merits. The first step taken is to submit the scheme to the harbour master of the upper or the lower portion of the river, who draws up a report as to whether the new scheme will interfere with the navigation of the river; if his report

1161
is satisfactory the scheme is sent on to the engineer, who makes his report upon it as to whether it will interfere in any way with the rise or fall of the tide, and whether there are any engineering difficulties and objections to it. But supposing there is some scheme on foot for making a great deep-water jetty—and there is a large portion of the mercantile community who consider that the future of the trade lies in the river and not in the docks, that there is no limit to the size to which ships may go, and that therefore money spent on the riverside jetties and in deepening the river alongside those jetties will be a better precaution for the future than money spent on docks, which limit the size of the ships that can enter into them by their depth. Supposing a new scheme of this kind were brought forward—and as I say many of them come before the Thames Conservancy—it will have in future to come before a body the first of whose considerations is to make this £800,000 a year which they have to earn in order to pay the interest on the purchase of the docks and on the stock. Unless there is a very sharp lookout kept by the Board of Trade, who have a paternal hand over every movement of this new body, as to how private enterprise on the river is being treated, I am afraid it is almost impossible to expect that a Board whose interests are so bound up in the docks will view, I will not say in a friendly manner, but in an impartial manner, any schemes, which may eventually compete with the docks.
But on the other hand I must say that this question has gone on too long. It would be a misfortune if something were not done for the docks at the present moment, and I do not believe for one single moment that a better scheme than this has been proposed. I have already shown what the objections to a scheme of subsidising are, which scheme has almost the same objections to my mind as a scheme of purchase. But at the same time it is absolutely essential that private enterprise in the river should not receive any check which it is possible it may receive, and I think that the
1162
Government should give some assurance that they intend to see that the new Port Authority should not be so engrossed in the securing of dividends because of the large sum of money for which it is responsible, as to be blind to the just claims of private enterprise in the river. I think if that is done it will be a satisfaction to those large trading communities, the riverside manufacturers with a capital of something like £100,000,000, and the short sea traders, and others, not one of whom use a dock, and a great many of whom will have to pay money for docks which they do not use, and which they do not want, but who at the same time, are, I believe, willing to contribute a certain amount to enable the Port of London to maintain the supremacy which it has held for 200 years, and which I hope it will maintain in the future. I believe it would be almost a national misfortune if this Bill were thrown out. It takes five years to build a new dock, and five years to make it pay, and if this Bill is even postponed, I do not see how anything could take place for another year; there would have to be at least a year lost before anything is done. I do not believe that a better solution of this great question will be found, and if the Government give some assurance that they will be watchful and active guardians of private enterprise on the river, I believe that this Bill when it is passed will do good and not harm to the Port of London.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I think your Lordships must have heard about enough of the differences of that happy family party, the Joint Committee, but it seems to me that it would hardly be respectful to your Lordships' House if I were to be the only Member of that body who did not give some reason for his action either in supporting the Bill before the Committee or in supporting it as I intend to do by my vote in the House to-night. I feel all the more compelled to do so because the Bill has been attacked in your Lordships' House by another Member of that Committee in a speech which I think made a decided impression, and very rightly and naturally so, by its lucidity of argument, and force of expression—I mean the speech of the

1163
noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill. Might I be allowed to say that as his attitude on the Committee and subsequently in this House has been criticised, I do not myself feel that there was any inconsistency at all in his line of action? On the contrary, I think that the course which he has taken here to-night in moving the rejection of the Bill is perfectly consistent with the line he took in the Committee. I greatly regret the view he takes, but I do not think that anybody can complain of any inconsistency in his action, and I quite agree with the noble Lord who introduced the Bill that the other Members of the Committee have reason to be grateful to him because, although he was separated from the rest of us, or most of us, on the capital question of principle, he nevertheless remained a Member of the Committee and gave us to the end the benefit of his advice, very valuable advice, as I need not tell your Lordships after having listened to him to-night.
But, having said that, I am afraid I must go on and say that I differ from him in toto, both as to the reasonableness of this agreement, and also with regard to the assumption which seems to mo to underlie his whole argument, that there is some necessary antagonism between the interests of the docks and other riverside interests. That is a view which he carries to what seems to me the extreme length of maintaining that there would be something unjust if general river revenues, revenues derived from the taxation of all the users of the river, were to be applied even to the smallest extent, to the extent of a few thousands of pounds a year, for purposes connected with the docks. For reasons which I shall presently try to explain to your Lordships, I hold that that is a narrow and a one-sided view, and I do not believe, if we were approaching this great question from that or any similar point of view, we could ever arrive at a solution. Before dealing with those two points to which I shall confine myself, I mean the merits of the agreement itself, and the supposed antagonism between dock interests and other riverside interests, I wish to make one personal observation with regard to the
1164
Committee. Stress has been laid by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, upon the importance of the findings of that Joint Committee and the weight which they ought to carry with your Lordships' House. Speaking with all humility (I was after all only one out of ten) I do think that the long labours of that Committee are entitled to weigh considerably with your Lordships' House. I will not say too much about its composition, but I can say without fear of exaggeration or boastfulness that it was a most laborious and conscientious body. Two arguments have been put forward to shake the authority—as I think, the rightful authority—that the decisions of that Committee ought to possess in this House. One is that the points that have been brought forward here to-night were not considered by the Committee, and the other is that it was not composed of experts. As regards the argument which was strongly urged by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the objections of those bodies to which he referred, and of which he gave us a long list, had not been properly considered by the Committee, I assure your Lordships that he is labouring under a complete delusion. It is not for me to say whether the consideration which we gave to them was proper, wise, or sufficient; all I can say is we did consider them at great length. There has been a constant and a hopeless confusion arising out of the fact that the question of the principle of the purchase of the docks was held to be excluded from the consideration of the Committee. That is so. Inasmuch as the principle that the Port Authority should acquire the docks had been laid down by the Royal Commission, had been the main object of the Bill of 1903 which had a Second Reading in the House of Commons, and was again the main object of this Bill, which had also passed its Second Reading in that House, the Joint Committee or at least the majority of that body, held that the question of the principle of the purchase of the docks was one which we should be wasting our time in considering. But it was never suggested, that the question whether the terms on which the purchase was

1165
to be carried out were fair and reasonable, was not entirely within the competence of the Committee, and, in fact, I think at least half the argument addressed to us during the eight weeks that we sat, turned on that very point. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill contended that the evidence produced on that point by the Board of Trade was insufficient, and that it did not support the conclusions we were asked to draw. Personally, I differ from him, and I shall have a word to say on that directly. But that is not the point at issue now. The question is: Did we or did we not consider this matter of the sufficiency and the wisdom of the agreement? All I can say is that, during the time I sat on that Committee, half the hours we spent, I am sure, or very nearly half, were spent in listening to arguments which either directly or indirectly bore upon this one central point, whether too much was being given for the docks or not. Therefore, this matter did have the fullest consideration.
Now, my Lords, as to the contention that the Committee were not experts. Of the five Members of the House of Commons who sat upon it, certainly three, and I believe four, are intimately connected with the shipping trade, and one of them has a peculiarly intimate acquaintance with the conditions of the River Thames and represents one of the constituencies on its banks. No doubt it may be true that noble Lords on that Committee, With the exception of the noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill were not experts in the same degree. I plead guilty myself to having entered that Committee with perhaps an exceptional ignorance of the matters which it had to decide. For that very reason I felt called upon not only to give my most careful attention to the evidence, but to read up all that had passed on this subject before—the Report of the Royal Commission, the evidence on which it was based, and the evidence which Was given before the Committee which sat on the previous Bill. All I can say is that the more I studied the question the more I became convinced that this Bill, if not a perfect Bill, is yet the best way out of a very difficult
1166
and complicated situation. I do not believe that anybody can judge fairly of this Bill unless he has made himself thoroughly acquainted with all the difficulties which have been found to beset and to defeat all the previous alternative attempts at solving the problem. The findings of the Royal Commission have been quoted by speaker after speaker, but there are one or two things in those findings which have not been quoted, and which are so germane to the main point of discussion that, sorry as I am to detain your Lordships, I think I must just refer to them. Of course what results from the Report of that Commission and from the study of the whole of the literature of the subject, if I may use that rather pedantic expression, is this, that there is an overwhelming body of opinion in favour of the establishment of one Port Authority, and of that one Port Authority becoming by one means or another the owner and controller of the docks.
"The docks,"
says the Report of the Royal Commission
"are as essential to the working of the Port as the river itself."
And again—I call especial attention to this—
"The interdependence of proposals for improving the river and of those for improving the docks and the peculiar conditions under which the trade of London, is carried on render it highly desirable that these two closely connected elements of a Port"
not antagonistic elements, according to the Royal Commission,—"should be no longer controlled by independent authorities." The Royal Commission therefore recommended—
"The creation of a single public authority for the control and improvement of the Port in which all the powers and property of the London and India, the Surrey Commercial and the Millwall Dock Company should be vested."
And they added these words—
"Apart from the opinion which we have formed as to the Port of London, the weight of evidence with regard both to home and foreign ports is in favour of a consolidation of all docks in a Port in the hands of a Port Authority."
It may be said, of course, and it is said, that it is right that the Port Authority should acquire the docks, but that it is wrong that they should acquire them on the terms given in this Bill. It seems to me in reading the Report of the

1167
Royal Commission that the Royal Commissioners hardly hoped for anything so fortunate is that the public should be able to get these docks by agreement. What they said was that "in default of agreement" they recommended that the value of the docks should be determined by a Court of arbitration. In their eyes agreement was evidently a preferable method, and certainly it is contrary to all experience of arbitration that it should be a more favourable way of a public authority acquiring private property than the method of agreements It is a remarkable fact that, before agreement was arrived at or mooted, many of those interests which are now raising so loud a clamour against agreement, were equally clamorous at the thought that there might have to be arbitration, and they contended—and I think with a great deal more reason than they object to the present agreement—that arbitration would lead to the Port Authority being saddled with an excessive sum paid for the docks. I think I agree much more with their argument then than I do with their argument now. But now that, contrary to expectation, agreement has been arrived at, these same persons are opposing the method of agreement.
Now on what grounds is it argued that under this agreement much too high a sum is being given for the docks? I say much too high a sum, because I suppose as reasonable men we would not let this great measure, so long deferred, so necessary, so urgent, be wrecked because a trifling sum too much were given for the purchase of the docks. Mind you, I am not admitting that a penny too much is being given; but even if it were, you must consider what would be the consequence of the alternative, the cost of further delay in a matter in which there has been already too long delay. It seems to me it is hopeless to argue on a question of this kind with absolute certainty about £1,000,000 or £500,000. There may be an error to that extent. I say frankly, if we were giving £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 too much, it would be much better worth our while to do so than to allow this Bill to be lost with the possibility of five more years elapsing before Parliament was again asked to deal
1168
with the matter. There are objections to every course, but the most objectionable course of all seems to me to allow the delay which has already continued too long, to continue any longer. I am making that concession against myself, because I am prepared to argue that the agreement is not open to these objections Let us see what are the arguments, directed against the agreement, looking at it upon the strictest grounds of £ s. d., and assuming for the moment that if it can be proved we are giving £100,000 too much the whole thing should be thrown into the waste-paper basket. I am prepared to argue it on that ground, although I do not think it should be so argued. We ought to have a certain amount of latitude. Well, it is said that we are giving too much for these docks, because the stocks of the companies have risen since the terms of purchase were announced. I do not pretend to be very well versed in the habits of the Stock Exchange, but I have often found in my own limited experience of City business that when any purchase or amalgamation was in the air, the immediate effect was to send up the stocks of the companies which happened to be amalgamating or undergoing purchase. Very often they fell again when the thing had been accomplished. But, at any rate, they rose for the moment. I do not think we ought to attach too much importance to a rise of that kind, and, as a matter of fact, if some of the stocks have risen others have fallen. I would like to ask this question: Here is a provisional agreement, and in order that that provisional agreement may be accomplished, it has to be accepted by both parties. If we, as representing the public, are to reject this agreement because stocks have risen, then if these stocks had not risen I think it is highly probable that the other party would have rejected the agreement. The shareholders of the companies have to be considered, and the view that they were likely to take. But, reverting back to the question of the value of those stocks, I do not think it is fair to test it by the Stock Exchange operations of the moment. What I think would be a fair test to take would be the average value of these stocks for a certain number of years before this

1169
agreement, which is supposed to be so favourable, was mentioned, and, on the other hand, to take the probable value of the stocks which are going to be given in exchange for them. I have made a calculation on that basis. I have taken the A Stock, which is the Preference 3 per cent. Stock of this Port Authority, but which is not going to have a Government guarantee, at 85, and its B Stock, 4 per cent. and also without a Government guarantee, at par. That works out at £20,905,000. And when I look at the average Stock Exchange value during the last six years of the stocks which are going to be converted—and this was before this agreement appeared on the scene which is said to have given them an artificial rise—I find it to have been £20,925,000, or £20,000 more than what I think is a reasonable estimate of what this Port Stock will stand at in the future. Therefore, I do not see on the face of it that we are giving too much for these stocks. That is one way of looking at it—from the standpoint of capital value. But the noble Lord also argued it from the point of view of income. Well, I am prepared to meet him on that ground also. The Port Stock is going to carry interest amounting to £800,000 a year. The average net revenue available for interest or dividends on the stocks which are being converted has been calculated for six years at £808,000. Well, the noble Lord objected to £18,000 of that. Then I say throw it out. I think there is something to be said for that adjustment of £18,000, and there is also something to be said against it. Well, put it out. That will make the sum £790,000. I do not suppose it is disputed that unless the value of these stocks is going to decline greatly in future—a point with which I will deal directly—I do not suppose it can be disputed that it is a fair principle that we should give these people whose property we are going to expropriate, the same income they have enjoyed hitherto. That is the principle on which the agreement is based. On the average, of the past six years there has been available for the owners of these docks as annual income £808,000, or, if the noble Lord insists on the exclusion of the £18,000, £790,000, and in future they
1170
are to have £800,000. Therefore, they will be the gainers by £10,000. But that does not take the whole case into consideration, because no mention has been made here to-day of a point which was very strongly urged on the Committee viz.: that besides their income-yielding property these docks had considerable surplus lands, the value of which does not enter at all into that £790,000 a year. It was difficult to arrive at any good estimate of the value of those lands. Some of the estimates put forward were perhaps excessive, but certainly I think it is a moderate conclusion that they were worth something between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000, and that £1,000,000 is the minimum figure. I think you may well throw these surplus lands into the bargain, and, if you do, then the terms on which the docks are being purchased are, if anything, unfavourable to the docks rather than unfavourable to the public.
But then it is argued: "Oh, yes' but you are taking present values.', The noble Lord has pointed out that the income of the docks in 1902 was higher than it is to-day, and he has said that it is a declining revenue. Whether it is or is not a declining revenue is a point on which I think there may be considerable difference of opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, pointed out that, although the net income of the docks to-day is less than it was in 1902, it is more than it was in 1905. And a good deal of evidence which ought not to be neglected and overlooked was given before the Committee to show that there were special causes affecting some of the docks during the last two or three years which might well account for the difference in their net revenue to-day from what it was in the most favourable years. But there is more to be considered than that. When people are being expropriated, like the owners of this dock property, they are apt to consider, and they are entitled to consider, the possibilities which may increase the value of their property in the future, as well as those which may diminish it. In that connection there are some remarkable words in this often-quoted Report of the Royal Commission. To a great extent what threatens the revenue of

1171
the docks is the reduction in the amount of goods that go into warehouses. Now on that point the Royal Commissioners say—
"Although the extension of free goods and other circumstances have had a tendency to diminish warehousing at the docks, and thereby to diminish the revenue of the docks, yet, on the other hand, an increase in the number of dutiable goods or other circumstances might have the reverse effect."
Is anybody prepared to say, on that point, that an increase in the number of dutiable goods is so wholly out of the question that people whose revenues may be beneficially affected by it are not entitled to take it into consideration to-day? But there is another point which ought not to be overlooked, and it is a most important one in justice to the docks. If their revenue is falling—if it is true that their revenue is threatened, as the noble Lord says, why is it threatened? It has been threatened to a great extent because they are not able to make those improvements which are necessary to keep it up. And why are they not able to make the improvements? They have come time after time before Parliament with schemes to enable them to improve the docks, and Parliament has not given them the power necessary for doing it. I think Parliament was perfectly right, because Parliament was influenced by the consideration that another authority was going soon to be created—a better authority as we think—to deal with the matter. But surely it would be rather hard upon the docks if we were to beat down the price of expropriation to-day because they are threatened with a loss of revenue, due to the fact that Parliament has not allowed them to make the improvements which are necessary to keep up their revenue. That is a most serious consideration. We hear a great deal about justice to other river-side interests, but I think if we were to attempt to expropriate the owners of the docks on the basis of a possible future reduction of revenues, due to the cause to which I have just referred, we should be doing less than justice to them.
May I say in conclusion of this long argument that for my own part I have not the smallest interest, direct or indirect,
1172
of any kind in the docks. But I am perfectly certain that if the method of agreement had not been adopted, and if, neverthelesss, the docks were to be acquired, they would have been acquired on less favourable terms than they are likely to be acquired upon to-day. And now, just one word on the point of the supposed antagonism between the docks and other river-side interests. Even supposing—taking it at its worst—the revenue to be derived from these docks does not cover the interest on the Port stock, and supposing that it has to be supplemented to some extent by duties on goods, I say I do not admit that that would in itself be an injustice to the other users of the river, because I hold that there are indirect advantages to the trade of the river from the docks which are felt by others besides those immediately making use of them. If that is disputed I should like to quote some words which have been written on this subject by a very competent authority. I quote them because they express better than a non-expert such as I can what I feel on this subject. This is a quotation from a letter which appeared in the public Press from a gentleman named Douglas Owen, whose name may be well known to some of your Lordships, and who certainly is a considerable authority on all questions connected with shipping. He says—
"How can it be seriously contended by the short-sea vessels and the traders that the docks are no concern of theirs or no use to them? Why, Sir, close the docks to the big ships and the short - sea shipowners and the traders would be ruined. The traders get three-fourths of their goods from the docks. These goods come in the big ships, and but for the great docks to receive the ships the traders might put up their shutters. It is the big ships that make a modern port.… And where would the short-sea steamers be without the big ships? The short-sea ships assist in the distribution and delivery of cargoes brought by big ships in the docks, and although most of the short-sea steamers do not use the docks they, like the traders, depend on the docks. And so the Bill requires that they shall bear their share in dock maintenance and construction. What is there hard or strange in that?"
Now, in conclusion, I may say that I listened with great interest to the speech just delivered by my friend Lord Desborough, and I fully agree with a great deal that it contained. But I must say that I wholly fail to understand the

1173
ground of his fear that this new Port Authority is likely to sacrifice other riverside interests to the docks. Why on earth should it do anything of the kind? It is going to be elected not by the defunct shareholders of the docks, but by the payers of dues generally. No doubt there is a certain number of members of the Port Authority to be appointed to public bodies, but they will presumably not have any special animus against river-side traders or special affection for the docks. But the bulk of the members of the Port Authority are going to be elected by the very payers of dues whose interests it is supposed they are going so ruthlessly to sacrifice for the maintenance of the docks. Why should they? Their interest will be to get revenue in the best way they can, in order to improve the Port, and thereby to bring credit to themselves. They have no personal pecuniary interest in the matter, and as far as they have a revenue interest at all it will be to raise revenue by the most profitable means they can. They are saddled with this £800,000. The fact that it has been paid for the docks does not make any difference to them. They have got to find it. Why should they find it by developing the docks at the cost of other river-side interests, unless they see that from the point of view of the Port as a whole it is the most paying thing to do? They will want to make the Port as a whole a success. They will want to develop the Port, and the very worst way to do that would be to spend a great deal of money on the docks, if by so doing they were not going to increase the trade of the river and get an increased revenue from the Port. The fact that they are saddled with £800,000 for the docks docs not mean that they will be such fools—if I may use the expression—as to try and get that revenue by forcing all business into the docks, if it is better for the Port, and if it, therefore, pays them better, to adopt some other means for the improvement of the river traffic. My Lords, I am sorry to have intruded so long on your Lordships' House, but all I can say in conclusion is that having, as a non-expert, given my best attention to this matter I am thoroughly satisfied
1174
that the Bill before your Lordships' House is a good one.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if the noble Viscount, with his great position and financial experience, has modestly disclaimed the character of an expert, I wonder with what credentials I may ask your Lordships to listen to me for a few moments. I am afraid I can aspire to no character except that of our old friend, the man-in-the-street, but as he is supposed nowadays to be the best judge of everything, perhaps your Lordships will be inclined to listen to a few hesitating words from myself. I think we may agree that every speaker who has addressed your Lordships in this debate is of opinion that something must be done. That is the principal moral of the debate as it has been brought home to my mind. That was pressed upon your Lordships by almost every speaker, notably by my noble friend Lord Clinton, who, speaking from his experience as a member of the Committee, declared to your Lordships how deeply impressed he had been as he listened to the evidence before that Committee of the absolute necessity of a great change being made in the administration of the docks and of the Port of London. There is also the further fact, dwelt upon by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, that this claim that something should be done has been greatly intensified by the failure of Parliament after it had once touched the subject to deal with, it completely. They undoubtedly put obstacles in the way of the proper administration of the Port, which has very much increased the claim which those interested now have upon Parliament finally to deal with the subject. But that failure of Parliament cannot be laid at the door of the House of Lords. The Bills which have been introduced have been introduced and failed in the House of Commons, and I was very much struck by an observation which fell at the beginning of the evening from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill when he told us that to-night was the first occasion that the House of Lords had had the opportunity of discussing this great subject, although the

1175
matter has been urgent for at least ten years.
What an occasion, my Lords! On 14th December, with a prorogation immediately in sight, we are asked to deal with, this matter of supreme importance, which has taken ten years to get through the other House of Parliament, and which We are to get through in the course of a short Week. My noble friend Lord Desborough told your Lordships what the trade of London was. It was something like, I think, £400,000,000 a year. Well, this stupendous interest has to be dealt with in the House of Lords with only one day between Second Reading and Committee stage. We are supposed to be able to thread our Way through all the intricacies of this problem and to arrive at a just conclusion affecting all these interests in forty-eight hours. And this is what the Government call keeping up the House of Lords as a revising body. They do not like the House of Lords to reject Bills. All they say is that we ought to revise Bills. Then they bring up a Bill concerning interests Worth £400,000,000 a year, and expect us to revise it in forty-eight hours. The only comfort we have is that this measure has been before a Joint Committee. I desire to re-echo everything the noble Viscount has said as to the respect we ought to pay to the findings of the Joint Committee. I confess that, under the circumstances, I cannot help being a little sorry that they did not discuss the whole subject. I quite understand the reason. No doubt it was thought by those who had the control of the deliberations that it was impossible to find time to go into the whole subject over again, but, undoubtedly, there has been an unfortunate impression left behind that one of the most important issues has not been properly investigated by the Joint Committee. I wish it could have been otherwise. As it is, of course, I entirely believe what the noble Viscount said that, although the actual question of purchase was ruled out, the question of price was not ruled out but was thoroughly discussed. The noble Viscount went into the question of whether this price was too high. I am not quite sure whether he thought it was too high or not, but there
1176
was one observation which he made against which I think I might be allowed to enter the mildest kind of protest. He said that even if we were to give £2,000,000 too much it would not matter very much, and that it was better than not to pass the Bill. Who are "we?"
Viscount MILNER: The public Better give £2,000,000 too much by agreement than £5,000,000 too much by arbitration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Who are the "we" under these circumstances? If "we" were the British taxpayer or Parliament, or even the ratepayer, I might have been disposed not to have entered this very mild protest, but "we" are the other traders on the river. I am not going for the moment into the question whether the bargain was a fair one, but I do not think we can treat the other traders in the river as though they were the general public, whom we have a right to tax to any extent we please, and say in the generosity of our hearts that we give rather more to the dock companies, although the persons who pay are not ourselves or those we represent but a very limited class of traders competing on the river.
Now, my Lords, I think the impression which has been left upon the mind of the man-in-the-street is that the price is a little high. I was very much impressed by the speech of Lord Ritchie on that point, and, although the noble Viscount has contested it, the fact that the stock has gone up tremendously in value since the Bill has been introduced does give me the impression prima facie that the price was a little too high. But having said that, I must confess my entire agreement with the noble Viscount that if the matter had gone to arbitration the price would have been a great deal too high and therefore the noble Viscount is perfectly right and the Government were perfectly right to prefer procedure by agreement to that of arbitration, because it is far the more economical of the two.
Let me say one or two words as to the incidence of the burden of the new taxation which is to be levied or might be levied under the operation

1177
of the Bill. Even supposing the price is an absolutely fair one there will be a burden laid for the first time upon persons engaged in trading on the river. Those of your Lordships who have listened to this debate are aware that there is a certain conflict of interests. There are two sets of persons—those who trade in the docks and those who trade outside the docks, and they are to some extent in competition. Certain new taxation is to be levied which falls for the first time upon those in the outside river, and who is going to get the benefit of that taxation? It may be a large sum, or it may be a small sum. The total of the new taxation cannot be more than £300,000, but something will fall upon those interests outside the docks, and who is going to benefit? The noble Viscount says it will benefit everybody if properly administered, and so it will, but there is this difference between the benefit which it confers upon those who trade inside the docks and those who trade outside, that in the one case it is a direct benefit, and in the other it is an indirect benefit. I do not think that can be evaded. This money will be used primarily to make up any deficiency in the interest on the shares of the present shareholders, who will become holders of the new Port Stock, and they will be directly benefited by this burden, which is for the first time thrown, not upon themselves, but upon their competitors in the outside river. But so long as there is an indirect benefit to those persons who use the river outside it is quite clear that they should pay for it. I agree. It becomes, therefore, a question of adjustment, how far the burden is properly imposed, having regard to the benefit which may accrue from it.
And how are we to know how much that burden will be? My Lords, we cannot know. Your Lordships have no means of judging how much that burden will be, because it entirely depends upon the decision which may hereafter be come to by the Board of Trade, and which, in the form of a scale of rates, may hereafter be embodied in a Provisional Order which will come before Parliament. It, therefore, is of the greatest importance how that Provisional Order is drawn. And I
1178
may parenthetically remark that this Bill gives, in many clauses, enormous powers to the Board of Trade. Personally, I do not complain of that. From personal experience I have great confidence in the efficiency and fairness of the Board of Trade, but this scale of rates, which is of importance, which determines the amount of burden which shall be thrown upon those who trade on the outside river, is largely in the hands of the Board of Trade, and whether the result will be fair or unfair largely turns upon the impartiality of that great department. There is, however, one other security which these taxpayers, for they will be taxpayers, might look to, and that is their representation upon the Port Authority. Upon that my noble friend Lord Avebury expressed considerable doubt whether the representation conferred upon those who trade in the outside river is sufficient. I should like to ask any member of the Government who is good enough to speak to-night to tell your Lordships how much representation they expect will be enjoyed by the interests other than the docks. Your Lordships will remember that there are ten nominated members and eighteen representative members. We may assume that the ten nominated members will be impartial persons. There is no reason why the representatives of the County Council should favour one of the competing interests rather than another, nor why the representatives of the Corporation of the City of London, the Admiralty, or Trinity House should show favour either way, so that we may look upon these ten as more or less impartial persons. Then come the eighteen representative members. The franchise under which these eighteen gentlemen are to be elected is of a rather peculiar kind. It is not a case of one man one vote, but there are to be votes according to the amount of dues which the taxpayer pays. There is this curious fact, that although there is at least as much trade carried on outside as there is in the docks yet the voting strength of the docks is infinitely greater than the voting strength of the interests outside. As I understand it the dues which give the franchise are all the dues paid by the traders. Those dues consist of

1179
two classes. There are the dues which are imposed on goods impartially, on the same scale to everybody whether they trade in the docks or out of the docks, and there are also dues which belong to the docks only, and which will be paid only by the users of the docks; dues, that is to say, in respect of wharfage, and I suppose the use of the warehouses. Both sorts of dues give the franchise, and as the number of votes increases according to the amount of dues, and as those who use the docks pay dues on a much higher scale, they will enjoy an enormously larger voting strength than those outside the docks. I am not sure, but I have an impression that out of these eighteen seats the traders outside the docks will not be able to secure more than four or five. I may have given myself away, because if that statement is wrong the noble Lord will be able to correct me, but I have an impression that only about four or five seats will be secured out of the eighteen. As I have said, the amount of trade is almost equal in the two cases, and those outside are to pay a burden for the first time for something which is for the direct benefit of those inside, and only for the indirect benefit of themselves, and yet those others are to have fourteen seats. I hope the Government will either correct me if I am wrong or give me reason why that strange disparity should exist. I confess that upon the face of it the interests outside the docks seem to me to be underrepresented. The matter, no doubt, will be much more properly dealt with in detail when we get to Committee, but I ask the Government whether they cannot reassure your Lordships on that point. Although I have made these criticisms I venture to return at the end of my observations to what I began with, and that is to say that something must be done. This plan holds the field. It is undoubtedly necessary that a great change should take place in the administration of the Port, and, therefore, so far as I am concerned, and I believe so far as those who sit on this bench beside me are concerned, we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE): The Government
1180
have certainly no cause to complain of the manner in which this Bill has been received, nor do I even make any complaint of the one or two rather polemical observations which fell just now from the noble Lord opposite. It was no doubt difficult for him to resist the temptation of making some comment upon the comparative shortness of the time which, owing to the circumstances of the session the Government have, with regret, been able to allow as an interval between the Second Reading and the Committee Stages. But I think that in regard to the present Bill I, at least, have no difficulty in making a reply. This Bill, as is well known to your Lordships, is not an ordinary public Bill. It partakes very largely of the character of a private Bill, although, no doubt, a gigantic private Bill, as evidenced by the procedure which has been necessary in regard to various matters which are not necessary in regard to a public Bill. And the greater part of the work connected with this Bill in its different stages has, in both Houses of Parliament, been taken more or less out of the hands of the Houses as a whole and relegated to Committees. I think I am right in saying that in the House of Commons if you compare the time that was taken up by this Bill in Committee with the time that was taken up with the debate on the Second Reading and the Report Stage, you will find it was exceedingly small. The Committee to which this Bill went was not a Committee of the House of Commons, but, as we all know by this time, a Joint Committee of both Houses; a Committee, that is to say, on which your Lordships were represented.
Therefore, we are not approaching this Bill as if it were a new matter; or as if, on the Committee Stage, it were a Bill of which we, as a House, had never had any previous knowledge; because both on the Joint Committee, and, if I may go farther back, on the Commission which went into this whole matter not so very long ago, I think in 1903, your Lordships' House was fully and ably represented. Nor can it be said that upon the recent Joint Committee the Government, as a Government, made any attempt to obtain a predominant

1181
voice. There were, no doubt, Government representatives, but they did not bear any very large proportion to the total members of the Committee. I do not think I am exaggerating in any way when I say that the Government may claim that before this Bill will have reached the Committee stage in a couple of days it will have been drawn through the sieve of the critical opinion of your Lordships' House to a degree and in a manner which is quite exceptional, and which is not applied to public Bills in general. Therefore, any criticism which, no doubt, would be very natural, and very frequently, I admit, legitimate, as to the late hour at which Bills are sent up to your Lordships' House is not in this case apposite because of the reasons which I have ventured to lay before the House.
It is not, of course, my intention to take up your time at this hour, and when we have other Bills to deal with, by making any attempt to go over the ground which has been so ably covered already by my noble friend who made so clear, and, if I may say so, so admirable a statement to your Lordships. More especially, too, is it unnecessary for me to do so, because, although in the course of the debate a number of points were brought up, some of them new and all of them important if technical points, yet the speech made by the noble Viscount from the cross benches has, in reality, given an effective answer to nearly all the criticisms that were made upon the points of detail in regard to the port charges and other matters of that kind. In any case, these points, even if they were not, in the opinion of any noble Lord, threshed out before the Joint Committee of the two Houses, are essentially points which can be raised in the Committee stage. They are not points which justify a Motion for the rejection of the Bill. And I would remind your Lordships of what, perhaps, we have lost sight of, that what we are discussing consists of two Motions, one of which has been moved and both of which are on the Papers of your Lordships' House, for the rejection of the Bill, and what I really have to reply upon are the speeches of the two noble Lords in whose names
1182
those Motions stand. I express a hope that by this time they have become convinced, from the course of this discussion, that it would not be wise to put your Lordships' House to the trouble of a division.
Putting aside the points of detail to which I have referred, there has been, in reality, a striking unanimity upon the main points of the Bill. There is unanimity in regard to the division of the Thames between two great bodies, instead of its being governed by one body, which, although a single body, was obliged to have a division of accounts and a division of jurisdiction within its own limits. I allude to the division of the waterways, and of the financial arrangements for certain purposes, which exists under the Thames Conservancy at a point near Teddington, and again in regard to certain reaches which are divided by the City Stone at Staines. Everybody is agreed that that complicated arrangement should cease, and that there should be two really separate bodies for the Upper Thames and for the Port of London, the latter of which is practically identical with the lower river. I think if anybody had been likely to take any strong objection on behalf of the upper waters it would have been Lord Desborough, who made a most able and interesting speech. There is nobody who knows the history and arrangements of the Upper Thames better than he does, and although, of course, I am not going to put my own very humble experience alongside his, I think I am capable of looking at the interests of the Upper Thames, because for many years the county with the administration of which I am connected has had a representative, or at least part of a representative with Gloucestershire, upon the Thames Conservancy. Although occasional criticisms have been made in quarters with which I am familiar in regard to the proposed division between the Upper and the Lower Thames they seem to me of late years to have dwindled away, and latterly I have heard practically nothing of them. There is complete and absolute unanimity based upon the Report

1183
of the Commission of 1903, that the docks of London should be put under a public authority.
LORD AVEBURY: No.
LORD FITZMAURICE: My noble friend dissents, but there has really been so little divergence of opinion that although I may be wrong in saying there has been abselute unanimity, yet I think there has been something very like it. I was not alluding to the line taken in these Houses when I spoke of unanimity, but I was alluding to the Reports of Commissions, to the Reports and inquiries of Committees, and to the expressions of the more important public bodies of the Metropolis. Then there is the question as to whether municipal enterprise should or should not be called in to back up any scheme of authority. We know that a few years ago there was a proposal that the ratepayers of London should take the risk, in addition to the already heavy burden of expenditure, of coming forward with a guarantee, greater or less according to the views of different persons and public bodies, in support of a scheme for the acquisition of the docks on the Thames. But that is not a portion of this Bill. I confess that I heard with some little regret the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Leith, who was a member of the Committee for a short time, but who, I believe, retired from it. The noble Lord made some observations in regard to the public body which is to be constituted under this Bill, and then, arguing from some recent controversial matters which have attracted public attention, went out of his way, I think quite unnecessarily, to make some rather uncomplimentary observations on the London County Council, and then proceeded to drag the Poplar guardians, by, if I may say so, the scruff of their necks, into this controversy. To have suggested that there was any connection between the future administration of the great public body which is to be called into existence under this Bill and the sort of things we have recently heard about some of the boards of guardians in London, was, I am bound to say, a most unfortunate observation.
1184
My noble friend who has just sat down, speaking with all the authority of a former President of the Board of Trade, pressed me rather hard to enter into some of those details which have been discussed backwards and forwards in the House in regard to the relative position in respect of finance in this measure of the persons interested in the docks because they used them for the purposes of their trade and those persons who carry on their trade outside the docks and in the river at large. He pressed me rather hard to explain what was likely to happen as between those parties, the parties inside and the parties outside, if I may use the expression, when this Port Authority comes into existence. Well, really, that is to invite me to enter into the region of prophecy. I cannot possibly tell exactly how the relative positions of the persons who constitute those two more or less separate bodies of persons will work out in practice. After hearing the speech of the noble Viscount upon the cross benches, who was a Member of the Committee, and who speaks with such great knowledge and authority on any subject on which he addresses your Lordships, I feel all the more encouraged to have the courage of my own convictions and to say I decline to enter into the region of prophecy. What the noble Viscount said was that after having heard all the evidence on the subject, the tendency would be for all parties, whether inside or outside the docks, to obtain great benefit in future from the arrangements under this Bill, and that, therefore, the tendency on the part of these parties to look upon themselves as rival and conflicting interests would diminish rather than increase. The noble Viscount pointed out that in reality, owing to the far greater value of the property of the dock companies than had previously been admitted by the critics of this Bill, and owing to the fact that the same body that was to govern the docks was to be the Port Authority, and rule all the river in general, it was quite a mistake to suppose that the persons whom I am calling, for the purposes of my argument, the parties outside the docks would not benefit very largely indeed by these new arrangements. If the hopes and aspirations of the framers of

1185
this Bill are fulfilled the whole condition of the river in which they are just as much interested as they are in the docks will tend greatly to improve.
Then I must remind your Lordships of what may seem to be a hardship viz., that port dues are to be levied upon the parties outside for the first time. Taking the fund of the Port Authority as a whole there can be no doubt that it will be greatly benefited by the receipt of these dues and therefore it will be able to borrow on far more advantageous terms, than otherwise would have been the case and the outside traders will benefit by this. And still more important is the fact which I think was mentioned for the first time in this debate by the noble Viscount, that the properties belonging to these dock companies which will come into the possession of the Authority include undeveloped land which, I understand, has an enormous possible increment of value in it. Therefore, everybody, whether an inside or outside man, whether he sends his goods into the docks or whether he unloads in the manner described, which has been called the outside process, will sooner or later, and sooner rather than later, obtain a marked benefit from the value accruing, or likely to accrue, from those great properties, in which at present the outride man has no interest. Therefore he gets value for his money.
Then there was another point which had been mentioned with regard to Clause 6. Here, again, I must say this is essentially a Committee point. It deals with the acquisition of land by a novel machinery. We admit that this machinery is novel in some details. It is not altogether new, because your Lordships are aware that quite recently the necessity of getting a Provisional Order through Parliament in every case where land is taken compulsorily or otherwise, but, especially if taken compulsorily, has gradually begun to be limited. The principle of limitation, as so often happens in matters of English law, began creeping in at a comparatively remote date. There are one or two Acts of Parliament relating, for example, to acquiring land for bridges and even for widening roads which were passed at the beginning of the last
1186
century. There was an Act of Parliament about widening streets in London—an Act known as Michael Angelo Taylor's Act, after the man who passed it—where a very simple process was brought in for acquiring land, and your Lordships, only a year or two ago, allowed that process to be used for the acquisition of land for small holdings in certain cases. The fact is that the machinery for the acquisition of land which requires confirmation by a Provisional Order and allows the whole question to be raised again after the inquiry has become unpopular with the outside public, and I think with Parliament, because of the enormous expense. As the noble Lord, Earl Cromer, pointed out, the Government have in this case taken a considerable step forward. I believe it is a step in the right direction, but at the same time the Government will make no complaint if the details of this new machinery are very closely scanned when we reach the Committee stage.
The absence of a municipal guarantee is something at which every ratepayer in London will probably rejoice. Hardly a Week goes by in your Lordships' House but some complaint is made, generally by my noble friend the Chairman of the County Councils Association, that the burdens and risks of the ratepayer are becoming more and more increased by legislation. In this Bill we come with no proposal to increase the rates of the County of London or of the City, or the rates in any part of the great Metropolitan area.
These are, I am inclined to think, the principal points that have been raised during this debate, with one exception. My noble friend Lord Desborough pressed the Government to give a pledge that they would be very careful to safeguard the representatives of what I have called the outside, interests in the future, having regard to the immediate position at the moment of the passing of the Bill. I am inclined to hope that if my noble friend will look at page 9 of the Bill he will see that in subsection (i) of Clause 7 the Government have very largely anticipated his wishes, because that subsection says that if the Port Authority revoke any licence for any purposes mentioned in Section 103 of the Thames Conservancy

1187
Act an appeal shall be given to the Board of Trade, who shall see that justice is done in the matter. The subsection may be, perhaps, a little technical and involved, but substantially it meets, and I understand Was intended to meet, the point raised by my noble friend; that is to say, that the Port Authority is to be careful by its action in any case to avoid destroying, intentionally or unintentionally, those rights and privileges guaranteed by licence, which have been given to the parties who have a very large stake in the river. That also is a further answer to the point raised by my noble friend on the front bench, opposite, when he was pleading the case of the outside traders in the river.
Lastly, I would like to say that I have the authority of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who is also, as your Lordships are aware, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for saying that the provisions of this Bill, which we hope will influence very greatly for good the trade of the great Port of London with foreign countries, and not only with them, but also with our own Colonies, are viewed with great interest and approbation in many of the most important of our Colonies amongst those, who are interested in their trade. Believing, as we do, that after long inquiries by Commissions, by Committees and otherwise, that we are securing, if not the unanimous approval, certainly the approval of the great majority of the important branches of trade and commerce in this country, and bearing in mind also that we have the assurance of Colonial support, I hope I can say with confidence that your Lordships will read this Bill a second time without a division.
On Question, whether the word "now" stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Report of Amendments received.
Verbal Amendments in Clauses 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 22 agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELLsubmitted two Amendments to Clause 23 providing the method of procedure to be followed in the event of any payment made by a school board being disallowed and surcharged. Recalling the circumstances which attended the discussion of this audit clause in Committee, he said it would be remembered that the Government were unable to accept the Amendments moved by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but at the same time did not put the Committee to the trouble of a division. Subsequently, Lord Balfour appealed to the Government that they should do something to provide a better clause, to which he (Lord Herschell) replied that the whole question would be considered between then and the Report stage. The result of the consideration which had since been given to the matter was seen in the two Amendments now standing in his name on the Paper. The first Amendment made it clear that the privilege of exemption from surcharge, so far as the Department was concerned, on a first occurrence of what was considered to be an illegal expenditure, applied only to the first instance of such expenditure by any school board in Scotland—that was to say, it did not mean that each school board would be able to make this illegal expenditure once, in spite of the fact that it had been already disallowed in the case of one school board. He said advisedly "so far as the Department was concerned," because it was never intended that any ratepayer who considered himself aggrieved by any supposedly illegal expenditure on the part of his school board should in any way be deprived of his right to approach a Court of law to obtain a remedy, even on the first occurrence of such an expenditure. The second Amendment standing in his name contained words taken from the Town Councils Act with the object of making assurance doubly sure on this point. Where the Department had refrained from making a surcharge on the ground that it was the first occurrence of the offence although the auditor had declared the expenditure illegal, any aggrieved ratepayer, with this opinion of the auditor behind him, would have every confidence in going to the Court with the practical certainty that he would

1189
win his action and recover his expenses. It was obvious, however, that the position was such that the occasion for his doing so would hardly ever arise. The object, both of this power on the part of the ratepayer and of the power of surcharge on the part of the Department, was not so much to enable proceedings to be taken as to ensure that with these powers in reserve the occasion for the exercise of them would never arise. During the long series of years in which school boards had been in existence the amount which the accountant of the Department would have been prepared to disallow, had he possessed the power, had been almost infinitesimal, yet there was absolutely no power of surcharge. It was not the case that this amount would have been any greater had the accountant been vested with the power of surcharge, for, as a matter of fact, there was recorded year by year in the Blue-book a list of all the instances of what, in the opinion of the accountant, were illegal items, including expenditure which, though not strictly legal, had yet come to be regarded by the Board, and, in fact, by all concerned, as not only justifiable but even extremely desirable. Many of these items of expenditure were expressly sanctioned by the present Bill, and if the provision in Clause 3, Subsection (7), of the Bill had been inserted in previous Acts there was no doubt that an enormous proportion even of the small number of cases of illegal expenditure would not have appeared. He hoped these two Amendments would go far to satisfy Lord Balfour upon the score of what he had termed the "first bite." Apart from this point, there seemed to be, practically speaking, only one other real difference between the noble Lord's proposal and that of the Government, and that was in the method of seeking the intervention of the Court of Session. In the one case the procedure was for a Government Department or its officials to make a surcharge, and then leave the Court to determine on appeal as to the rightfulness of that action. In the other case—the Government proposal—the Department did not take upon itself the exercise of any judicial functions, which, of course, might be reversed on appeal, but merely asked the Court to declare as to the
1190
legality of certain expenditure, and a surcharge followed or did not follow as the case might be according to the decision of the Court. As between the two procedures, it would appear that the latter was certainly more justifiable on the grounds of precedent, and also of public policy. Looking first at the question of precedent, the method proposed in this case was the one prescribed over and over again in Education Acts as the procedure to be followed by the Department when it desired to secure the observance of what it considered the law on the part of school boards. He might refer in this connection to Sections 36 and 49 of the Act of 1872, to Section 13 of the Act of 1883, and to Section 46 of the Education Endowments Act of 1882. In all these cases the Department did not assume the judicial function, but proceeded to put the law into motion on a complaint at the instance of the Lord Advocate, leaving the Courts free to pronounce as to the rightfulness of the course suggested. Then, as regarded public policy, it was, he believed, an unheard-of thing, and it certainly would seem to be undesirable, that a Government Department should be placed in the position of having its decisions appealed against to any other Court than the High Court of Parliament. This was avoided, in the Government proposal, by not investing the Department with any judicial power from the exercise of which there could be an appeal, but by requiring the Department, if a decision as to the legality of any act of a school board was to be pronounced, to invoke the assistance of a Court of Law in the first place. The real difference between Lord Balfour's proposals and those of the Government, as amended by the two Amendments now on the Paper, was not really very great, and he could not help expressing the sincere hope that his noble friend would see his way to withdraw his opposition and so ensure to Scotland the enjoyment of the undoubtedly great benefits which this Bill would confer if passed.
Amendment moved—
"In page 24, line 25, to leave out from the word 'account' to the end of line 11, on page 25, and to insert the words 'and, in the event

1191
of any expenditure of the same nature as any payment so disallowed being incurred in any subsequent year by any school board to whom such disallowance shall have been timeously notified by the Department, the Department, If they should be of opinion that the members authorising such expenditure should be surcharged, may present a petition to either division of the Court of Session craving to have such expenditure declared illegal, and the said members of the school board ordained to refund the amount of such expenditure in the event of it being declared illegal; and the Court shall, before granting or refusing the prayer of such petition, consider any representations made in answer thereto by the members proposed to be surcharged; and the Court shall have power to find that the expenses of the said proceedings shall be payable by the said members personally or out of the school fund as may appear just.'"—(Lord Herschell.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that as between the clause which the Committee inserted on his Motion and the clause as now proposed by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, there were two points conceded in favour of the view which he (Lord Balfour) had Ventured to express. There was no doubt that the Amendment was a considerable strengthening of the law of audit so far as school boards were concerned. It was also the case that the anomaly would now be done away with under which each school board in the country would have been allowed once to offend against the law. The position of affairs would, now be that if a particular item of school board expenditure was once for all declared illegal every school board would, if due notice was given to them, as, of course, would be the case, be bound by that decision. That was a very important concession, and one for which he expressed his gratitude. The other concession was that, even as regarded the first offence, any ratepayer could, if the sum involved was one of any magnitude, take the offending members of the school board to Court and have them surcharged for the illegal expenditure. There remained only the question of the appeal. He ventured to think that when the accountant had found an expenditure to be illegal and when the Department had certified that it was so, it would have been much more appropriate if the persons against whom the strong presumption was made were themselves to appeal to the Court, and not that the
1192
onus of taking an appeal should lie the other Way. I he idea of the dignity of the Department being offended by such an appeal was a little thin. At present the Secretary for Scotland could be made a respondent in an action by a town council if he wrongfully surcharged. But he frankly admitted that, in all the circumstances, the question as to who was to appeal to the Court for the final decision did not seem to him a point of substance on which, after the concession which had been made, they should quarrel. He gladly accepted this as a great advance upon school board audit, but hoped it would not be taken as a precedent for cutting down county council, town council, and parish council audits, which were more stringent. He would have preferred, as a matter of practice, if the present Amendment had been inserted in another place, but he would be satisfied if he received an assurance from the Government that they meant to stand by the Amendment in the other House. If that assurance were forthcoming he would gladly respond to the appeal made by Lord Herschell, and not press his view in the matter further.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): I am very glad to hear that the substance of the Amendment meets with the approval of the noble Lord opposite. It was so clearly explained by my noble friend who represents the Department that I do not propose to touch in any way on its merits. I will merely deal with the point mentioned by the noble Lord at the end of his remarks with regard to the procedure when the Bill goes back to the other House. I have been in communication with my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland on this matter and he assures me that this Amendment will be a Government Amendment in another place, and that he will stand to it. I think that will meet the wishes of the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 26, line 41, after subsection (6) to insert the following new subsection: '(7)

1193
Notwithstanding anything in this section contained, any ratepayer or elector who shall be dissatisfied with the account of a school board or any item therein may complain against the same by petition to the sheriff specifying the grounds of objection, and the sheriff shall hear and determine the matter of complaint, and his decision shall be subject to the same right of appeal as in ordinary actions in the Sheriff Court. Provided always, that it shall not be competent to petition the sheriff after the lapse of three months from the date of publication of the abstract of the accounts in terms of subsection (2) (f) of this section.'"—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL LORD HERSCHELL moved the deletion of subsection (3) of Clause 27. The subsection ran—
"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."
This subsection was, he said, originally inserted when it was proposed to do away with the cumulative vote, and was not now necessary. Apart from this, it conflicted to a certain extent with the provision in Schedule B of the Act of 1872.
Amendment moved—
"In page 28, after line 9, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to amend Clause 30, which provided that—
"When any part of the annual revenue administered under a scheme approved in terms of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882, or under any Provisional Order confirmed by Act of Parliament, is applicable to the granting of bursaries, of to the payment of fees, such part of the revenue, if not on the average exceeding £50 per annum, shall be paid over in each year by the governing body of the endowment to the secondary education committee of the district, to be applied to the granting of bursaries in conformity with the general scheme for the district framed by the said committee, and, if on the average exceeding fifty pounds but not exceeding one thousand pounds per annum, shall, notwithstanding any provision of the scheme hitherto regulating the number, amount, conditions of tenure, or method of award of the bursaries, be applied by the governing body
1194
to the granting of bursaries in conformity with the general scheme for the district as aforesaid."
He moved to insert, after the words "if on the average exceeding £50 but not exceeding," the words "£500 per annum in the case of endowments the revenues of which before the passing of this Act might be applied to purposes in two or more counties, or in any other case not exceeding." This Amendment raised a point of considerable substance. The effect of Clause 30 was, as he thought, to take away from certain governing bodies the autonomous administration of the funds under their control. The clause laid down that whenever a governing body had bursaries under £50 annual value they were absolutely and entirely to be handed over to the district committee, but when they were above £1,000 in value they were to be left entirely in the hands of the governing body. He thought that was rather a wide gap. The latter of those limits could only apply to towns. There were in country districts sums considerably above £50 a year, but under £1,000, which it was unfair to divert from the control of the governing body. He knew of an instance in the county of Banff where the annual amount of bursaries was £600 or £700. That bursary fund was administered under a scheme formed within the last twenty years, and the governing body was fully representative. It seemed hard that in a case where the endowment had been reformed so recently the fund should be merged into the general bursary scheme of the county.
Amendment moved—
"In page 30, line 3, after the second word 'exceeding,' to insert the words 'five hundred pounds per annum in the case of endowments, the revenues of which before the passing of this Act might be applied to purposes in two or more counties, or in any other case not exceeding.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid there were only six endowments which would be exempted by Lord Balfour's Amendment. The governing bodies of three, of those had approached the Government during the earlier stages of the Bill, and fully stated their case. After full discussion they expressed themselves

1195
satisfied with the provisions in the last paragraph of the clause, viz.—
"Provided also that when the governing body of any such endowment are of opinion that this section is inapplicable or is unfair in its application in the case of the endowment administered by them, they may represent their views to the Department, who, after making such inquiry as they may deem fit, may make an order either exempting the revenue of the said endowment from the provisions of the section, or confirming the application of the section to such revenue."
Of the remaining three, two were, he understood, quite acquiescent, and, therefore, there remained only one governing body strongly opposed to the provision. He could assure the noble Lord that any representations made to the Department under the proviso would receive the fullest and fairest consideration. He hoped this assurance would satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH said that, after the assurance given, and the circumstances in which they were placed, he had no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 32, after line 11, to insert the words 'Except in Section 6 of this Act, the expression "parent" includes guardian and any person who is liable to maintain or has the actual custody of the child or young person; and in Section 6 the expression "guardian" includes any person as aforesaid.'"—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELLexplained that the object of his next Amendment was to make the definition include certain schools which were not at present included.
Amendment moved—
"In page 32, line 16, after the word 'Parliament,' to insert the words 'or a school in receipt of any other grant from the Department a condition of which is that the average fee per child shall not exceed ninepence a week or such other sum as may be fixed from time to time by regulations of the Department.'"—(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. [No. 253.]

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (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."—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, who had given notice, on the Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee, to move that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, said: My Lords, before the Question is actually put, the Amendment which stands in my name should be disposed of. I venture to recur to the discussion which took place a few days ago, at the conclusion of which the noble Earl the Leader of the House rather implied that some of us on this side had been unfair to the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture. I do not think that is the case, and I would say, in passing, that I am sure there is no Member of the Government to whom we less desire to be unfair than to the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture. But it is really, I think, a large strain upon our good nature to ask us at this period of the session to pass this Bill. I think it would have been much wiser to have taken the Second Reading earlier, and given longer time for Committee. This really is more than a consolidating Bill. This was pointed out the other day, and there are Amendments on the Paper in the names of Lord Camperdown and Lord Saltoun, showing that there are material points in which it is more than a Consolidation Bill. It imports new matter. Another instance of this was brought to my notice this morning. If a tenant under the existing Act desires a piece of drainage done, the landlord has three alternatives—he may let the tenant do it, he may do it himself, or he may endeavour to agree on the amount of compensation to be awarded on its being done. In this Bill, however, the option of the landlord to do it himself is cut away altogether, and he can only do it himself after he has contended with the tenant and failed to come to an agreement. I hold strongly that when drainage work has to be done it is bad policy

1197
to leave it to the tenant, and that it is very much wiser that the landlord should do the work himself. I venture to think that it is not reasonable, in what professes to be a Consolidation Bill, to cut out that alternative. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will bear me out when I say that during the past session we have had a most successful operation of a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. A long and intricate Companies Bill, a Post Office Consolidation Bill, and a Statute Law Revision Bill have been gone through by that Committee without a single division, and we have made schedules of Amendments of three classes: those which are purely drafting, those which make no material change, and those which make some material change but are extremely desirable on account of judicial decisions and other matters; and I believe every one of those three Bills has a good prospect of being placed on the Statute-book this session. The whole policy of consolidation is difficult, and it will become more so if it is thought that in the guise of consolidation material amendments of the law can be made. It is in the interests of consolidation, which is a most useful work, that I plead, and plead very earnestly, for due consideration of this matter. And I still think, even at this late hour, that it would be wiser if the noble Lord would allow this Bill to go to the Committee I have indicated. I press it for this additional reason, that there are two or three matters in regard to this legislation which require amendment. There is the question of sheep valuation. Everybody knows the difficulties we got into by allowing to be accepted too hurriedly the hasty advice of one of the Law Officers of the Crown. Then there is the question of temporary pasture, as to which a lively correspondence has been going on for weeks in some of the agricultural papers in Scotland. We cannot touch these matters in this Bill when passing through Committee of the Whole House and at this period of the session, but we could do so if the Bill were referred to a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, If my arguments do not prevail I shall not, of course, at this time of the evening, put the House to the trouble of a division, but I do think this is a much less safe method than the method proposed in
1198
my Amendment of proceeding with Consolidation Bills, and one likely to discredit the whole process of consolidation.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'that' for the purpose of inserting the following words, 'the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I very respectfully hope that I may be permitted to have my Bill. It is a very small one. In reference to what the noble Earl said respecting what fell from my noble friend and Leader the other day in his chivalrous defence of myself, it did seem a little hard on me, after the strenuous efforts that I had made to meet noble Lords opposite, that I should not be allowed to have the Bill. The Bill was introduced in the latter part of October, and I gave ample time for its consideration before taking the Second Reading. Of courses, I am entirely in the hands of the House, but on behalf of Scotland, to which nation, unhappily, I do not belong, but for which I have the greatest respect, I would make an appeal to my noble friend to be merciful and not press his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I venture to sympathise with the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture. He has had a great deal of work, and, perhaps, very little assistance in connection with this Bill, and it would, in my opinion, be a great pity if the Bill were not passed. I understand that the noble Earl is prepared to accept the Amendments on the Paper which make the Bill a purely Consolidation Bill, and I would suggest that he might next session bring forward a Bill embodying any desirable Amendments. I think that would be the simpler and better course. In the circumstances, I hope my noble friend Lord Balfour will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to join in the request to Lord Balfour to listen to the pathetic appeal made by the Minister for Agriculture, and let him

1199
have his Bill. As Lord Saltoun has pointed out, the noble Earl is prepared to accept the Amendments which stand in his name and in mine. It is very undesirable to introduce in a Consolidation Bill anything which approaches to new matter, and therefore I think my noble friend Lord Carrington would be well advised if he would accept Lord Saltoun's suggestion and introduce an amending Bill early next session, dealing with points that are in dispute. In the meantime I hope the noble Earl may be allowed to have his Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I shall not proceed with my Motion. I have drafted an Amendment that will cure the point to which I alluded, and I will put it down for a subsequent stage.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I still venture to think the course proposed by Lord Balfour was an eminently reasonable one. This Bill professes to be a Consolidation Bill and nothing more, and it seems to me that the only way in which you can establish satisfactorily that any Bill professing to be a Consolidation Bill does not go beyond consolidation is by having that Bill thoroughly examined before the proper Committee. Therefore I think that would have been the better course to take, but I am bound to say the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has succeeded in producing upon the House a great impression I by the earnestness of his plea, and he achieved a crowning triumph in having softened the often hard heart of my noble friend Lord Camperdown. In the face of that I really will not pursue my opposition further. But I take it it is agreed that the noble Earl is prepared to accept any Amendments which can be shown to be necessary in order to bring the Bill back to the strict shape of a Consolidation Bill?
EARL CARRINGTON: That is my absolute intention and my most earnest desire.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to amend subsection (2), which provided that a claim by the tenant of a holding for compensation in respect of any improvement comprised in the first Schedule should not be made unless notice of intention to make the claim had been given before the determination of the tenancy. He suggested alterations which would make the subsection read—
"A claim by the tenant of a holding for compensation under this Act in respect of any improvement comprised in the First Schedule to this Act shall not be made after the determination of the tenancy."
The section as it at present stood would, he said, make it possible for a tenant to make a claim at any time after he had left the farm, and it might happen that by the time the claim was made the whole of the evidence necessary to rebut the claim might have disappeared by the operations of the new tenant. It was to meet this point, and to avoid unnecessary litigation that he proposed his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 30, to leave out from the word 'made' to the second word 'the' in line 31, and to insert the word 'after.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)
EARL CARRINGTONaccepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 36, to leave out the words 'notice may be given,' and to insert the words 'claim may be made.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved an Amendment requiring that the notice to be given under subsection (3) should be "by registered letter or otherwise." These words were in the 1900 Act, and he moved their insertion here in order that

1201
there should be evidence that the notice had been given.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 5, after the word 'given,' to insert the words 'by registered letter or otherwise.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)
EARL CARRINGTONaccepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved to amend subsection (5)—
"(5)Any person who wilfully and corruptly gives false evidence before an arbiter or oversman in any arbitration under this Act shall be guilty of perjury, and may be dealt with, prosecuted, and punished accordingly,"
by omitting the words "or oversman." He believed "oversman" was Scottish for "umpire," and as the arbitrations under the Bill were before a single arbitrator there could not be either oversman or umpire.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 16, to leave out the words 'or oversman.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD SALTOUNinquired whether the word "oversman" in this connection referred to sheep valuation. If so, under sheep valuation there were two arbitrators, and, therefore, it might be desirable to retain the word.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said the contention of the Government was that, as the words stood, sheep valuation was not touched. Whether that was correct or not was a matter of opinion, but if the Government really meant that sheep valuation was not to be affected he would strongly advise the noble Earl to leave in the word oversman.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON said this was a very vexed question, and if the matter were allowed to stand over until the
1202
Report stage he would in the meantime consult the Law Officers of the Crown.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid it had been his intention to move an Amendment in this clause, but he had since discovered, at the bottom of page 18, this definition—
"Anything which by or under this Act is required or authorised to be done to, by, or in respect of the landlord of a holding may be done to, by, or in respect of any agent of the landlord duly authorised in that behalf."
Therefore, he took it that it was unnecessary to insert words referring to the agent in each case where the landlord was mentioned.
LORD CLINTONsaid the definition of landlord given at the top of page 18 was—
"'Landlord' means any person for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits or to take possession of any holding."
This did not include the agent.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: There is no Amendment before the House upon this clause. Does the noble Lord move any Amendment?
LORD CLINTONthen moved to amend subsection (d)—
"(d) If the landlord makes no such intimation within one month, the lease shall be binding on the landlord and the legatee respectively, as landlord and tenant, as from the date of the death of the deceased tenant,"
by inserting, after the words "If the landlord," the words "or his known agent."
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 6, after the word 'landlord' to insert the words 'or his known agent.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that, in his opinion, the Amendment was rendered unnecessary by the definition at the bottom of page 18 to which he had referred, but he suggested that in any case the matter might stand over until the next stage.
LORD CLINTONagreed to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that he would move it again on Third Reading if necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to leave out the words "notice of removal" in subsection (5) of Clause 20 (tenants' property in fixtures and buildings), in order to insert "such notice." He pointed out that the words "notice of removal" had a limited or technical meaning in agricultural law and in leases and agreements between landlord and tenant in Scotland. The Amendment made no difference in the sense of the clause.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'notice of removal,' and to insert the words 'such notice.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL CARRINGTONaccepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, lines 10 and 17, to leave out the words 'of removal.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 19, to leave out the words 'of removal,' and to insert the words 'given by the tenant as aforesaid.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Drafting Amendment, agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35:
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to leave out the words—
"'Agreement' includes an agreement arrived at by means of valuation or otherwise, and 'agreed' has a corresponding meaning."
He thought the meaning of the word "agreement" was well understood, and hitherto there had been no definition. If the words meant nothing, no purpose was served by inserting them, while if they had a special meaning they introduced something new. As at present advised he could not see their object, as they merely provided that an agreement included an agreement.
Amendment moved—
"In page 18, to leave out lines 28, 29, and 30."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTONaccepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived; the report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 254.]

BUXTON CHARITY BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this Bill and the two following Bills on the Paper are promoted by the Charity Commissioners, and, as the same principle

1205
is involved in each, I trust that at this late hour a very few words of explanation may suffice. Those of your Lordships who have read the Bills will have noticed that the most important part in each case is contained in the Schedules. The main object of the schemes in the Schedules is to authorise a variation in the trusts upon which the respective chapels are settled, so as to bring them in accordance with the doctrines generally held at the present time by the congregation or denomination to which the chapel belongs. In 1907 the Commissioners approved and certified, under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, three schemes which require in each case an Act of Parliament to give effect to them. The three charities are the Buxton Congregational Chapel Charity, the Long Ashton Charity in the county of Somerset, and the Abbots Bromley Congregational Chapel Charity in the county of Stafford. I understand that it is not an unusual thing for the Charity Commissioners to come to Parliament as a matter of course for the ratification of these schemes. If your Lordships desire any further details with regard to any case I shall be happy to give them.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LONG ASHTON CHARITY BILL.
Read 2a (according to order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
ABBOTS BROMLEY CHARITY BILL.
(Read 2a, (according to order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to amend and consolidate the law regulating procedure in summary Criminal Courts in Scotland. At present the procedure in the Sheriff's Summary Criminal Court and in the Justice of Peace Court is regulated by the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts, 1864 and 1881, while the procedure in the Burgh Police Courts is regulated by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and in some of the larger towns—Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and Greenock—by Local Police Acts. The Bill proposes to repeal the Summary Jurisdiction Acts of 1864 and 1881, and the procedure clauses in the Burgh Police Act of 1892, and in the Local Police Acts, and to substitute one common code of summary criminal jurisdiction. The Bill also proposes to repeal, too, the Summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland) Act, 1875, which regulates appeals to the High Court of Justiciary by way of stated case in summary criminal cases. The provisions of that Act are embodied in this Bill in an amended and simplified form. I should perhaps also state that one of the advantages of the measure is to supersede municipal statutes, which deal with procedure in summary causes by a general Act, advantage being at the same time taken of all the steps which the private Acts have proved by experience to be really effective improvements and to work these into the general law of Scotland. This is in entire accord with the feelings of the Judges, and, from the point of view of general administration as well as codification is felt will be extremely helpful.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Herschell.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I think there can be no possible objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. I think that in all probability, after the care which has been taken in regard to this Bill in Scotland, it may pass with very little or no Amendment. It proceeds upon the Report of a Departmental Committee appointed by myself some years ago, of which successive Lords Advocate have been chairmen. People in Scotland are as nearly as possible unanimous about this Bill. The Judges

1207
are in favour of it, as well as the Faculty of Advocates and the Procurators' Society. I know of only one point of difference. There is still an open question as to the prerogative of county councils and municipal councils through their officers to prosecute for certain statutory offences and to get the benefit of the penalty. I think it would be much better if the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland could see that the procurators fiscal prosecuted in these cases, and then all questions about the fines would fall to the ground. I cordially support the Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a., and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this Bill amends the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, which established county councils in Scotland. The Local Government (Scotland) Act of 1894, which set up parish councils, did, as originally introduced, contain several clauses amending the Act of 1889. These clauses were, however, dropped, and since that time those who have had to administer the Act of 1889 have discovered various other points upon which some Amendment of the law is necessary. In 1906, a private Member's Bill incorporating many of these points was introduced in the other House, and the Secretary for Scotland gave an undertaking that the Government would consider legislation on the subject. The present Bill, to a very large extent, follows that private Member's Bill, and has been adjusted in conference with experienced officials and representatives, both of county and burgh authorities. Besides conferring various other powers on county councils the Bill enables them to adopt various provisions of the Burgh Police Acts within special districts of the county. The Bill has been treated through all its stages as an agreed Bill, and I therefore feel that it is not necessary for me
1208
to say more in moving the Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."(Lord Herschell.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee on Wednesday next.

EAST INDIA LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons. Read 1a, and to be printed. [No. 255.]
COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow (The Lord Steward (E. Beauchamp)). [No. 251.]
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to; several others agreed to with Amendments; and several others disagreed to; with reasons for such disagreement. The said Amendments and reasons to be printed. [No. 252.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Before the noble Earl the Leader of the House moves the adjournment I would ask him whether he can give us any idea of the business likely to come before the House in the next few days.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, we propose to take as the first Order to-morrow the Second Reading of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, and I intend, although there are other Motions on the Paper, to move the suspension of the Standing Order with a view to that Bill being taken first. It is impossible to say how long the House may wish to debate the Second Reading, but we shall leave on the Paper the Committee stage of the Prevention of Crime Bill and also the Third Reading of the Scottish Education Bill, which I should think is likely to pas without any debate. On Wednesday

1209
Lord Willoughby has a Question on the Paper on motors. It is a very short Question, and may receive a very brief Answer, but, of course, according to the agreeable practice of this House, it would be possible for noble Lords to raise a debate dealing with the whole question of motor legislation. I hope, however, that that will not be done. We should then desire to proceed with the Committee stage of the Port of London Bill, and, should that be concluded, to take the Commons' Amendments to the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill. On Thursday I hope my noble friend Lord Morley will be sufficiently recovered to be in his place and make the statement on the subject of India which he has unfortunately been obliged to defer. As we hope that that will not be followed by any very lengthy debate, we propose to proceed either with the Committee stage of the Port of London Bill, should that not have been concluded, or with the other business down for Wednesday. But should the rest of the business down for Wednesday have been cleared off the Paper, we should ask your Lordships to take the Committee stage of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill. It is, I think, perfectly evident at any rate that we shall have to sit on Friday, but beyond that I will not at this moment venture to prophesy.
House adjourned at five minutes past Twelve o'clock, a.m., till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.