Sitting of 18 December 1908

Preamble
The House met at Twelve Noon of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, considered, read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Thames Conservancy Bill.—Order [10th February], "That the Thames Conservancy Bill be committed," read and discharged. Bill withdrawn.—(The Deputy Chairman.

PETITIONS.
  ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  Petitions for legislation: From Cam-berwell; Cardiff; Hurstpierpoint; and, Newcastle upon Tyne; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4174 and 4175 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1907.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th July; Mr. Churchill]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 375.]

  IRON AND STEEL, 1907.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th July; Mr. Churchill]; to

  2219
  lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 376.]

  COAL TABLES, 1907.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th July; Mr. Churchill]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 377.]
  TEA AND COFFEE, 1908.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th July; Mr. Churchill]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 378.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 34, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and France, renewing for a further period of five years the Arbitration Agreements signed at London, 14th October, 1903 (Treaty Series, No. 18, 1903, 14th October, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (ADVISORY AND LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS, ETC.).
  Copy presented, of Vol. II., Part I. Replies of the Local Governments, etc. Enclosures I. to XX., to Letter from the Government of India, No. 21, dated 1st October, 1908; Vol. II., Part II. Replies of the Local Governments etc. Enclosures XXI. to XXX., to Letter from the Government of India, No. 31, dated 1st October, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 11th December; Mr. Sinclair]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 379.]
  INEBRIATES ACTS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the Law relating to Inebriates, and to their detention in Reformatories and Retreats. Report, Minutes of Evidence, with Appendices and Indexes [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Draft of Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Prisons Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to the constitution, of the Visiting Committee of Carmarthen Prison [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 380.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Reports from Universities and University Colleges in Great Britain participating in the Parliamentary Grant in the year 1906–7 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HIGHER EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 11th July, 1907; Mr. McKenna]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 381.]
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 590 (Grenada, Annual Report for 1907) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Copy ordered, "of Handbook to the Reports from the Committees of Public Accounts, Volume IV. (1901 to 1907, with Index comprehending the four Volumes (1857 to 1907)."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 382.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Royal Naval Reserve—Engineers and Engine Room Artificers.
    MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the numbers of the Royal Naval Reserve warrant engineers and engine-room artificers.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The numbers borne on 1st December, 1908, were ninety warrant engineers, 616 engine-room artificers.
    MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his Board contemplate enrolling the number of Naval Reserve artificers and warrant engineers as recommended by the Naval Reserve Committee.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) It is not contemplated working to the numbers recommended by the Committee, as those numbers are not now considered necessary.

    Admiralty Contracts—Standard Wages.
    SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the present procedure of the Admiralty to secure a reasonable standard of wages, hours, and conditions of employment in respect of unorganised labour indirectly employed by sub-contracting of any portion of work to carry out Admiralty contracts; whether he has considered the principle adopted in a Standing Order made by the Sheffield City Council, on 10th April, 1907, that, in municipal contracts ill respect of organised trades, the standard wages, hours, and conditions as generally recognised by the trade unions and the employers should be enforced, but that in respect of unorganised workers, where there are no such recognised standards, the council will itself prescribe reasonable standards of wages, hours, and conditions of employment in respect of any such subcontracted work under the municipal contracts; and whether the Admiralty, in offering contracts in the carrying out of which unorganised labour is employed by sub-contracting or otherwise, will adopt this principle and prescribe the rates of wages, hours of labour, and conditions of employment.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The whole subject has recently been under the investigation of the Fair Wages Committee, whose Report will shortly be in the hands of hon. Members and will receive the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government.

    Training of Unemployed with the Navy.
    MR. PRETYMAN: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that
    2222
    there are a large number of skilled artisan Naval Volunteers out of work and in great distress, that application was made to the Admiralty for permission for them to train with the Navy, and that this was refused; and whether, as the War Office grant permission to the unemployed to perform military training and receive pay for the same, he will state on what grounds a similar privilege has been denied to the unemployed Naval Volunteers.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Such an application was made to the Admiralty, but it was considered that there was no sufficient reason of naval requirement to justify the proposal, the winter months not being suitable for the embarkation of Naval Volunteers in the Fleet.

    Grant to Charles Phelan, Evicted Tenant.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Charles Phelan, of Clopook, was evicted by Lord Lans-downe from his farm in Fallowbeg, Luggacurran, Queen's County; whether Charles Phelan has been reinstated in a farm considerably less than his former holding; whether the Estates Commissioners, acting on the report of their inspector, Mr. Pattison, sanctioned a free grant of £100 to Phelan to build a house on condition that he spent at least £150 on the building, and that the first advance of £50 would be made when he had work done to the value of £75; whether it is impossible for Phelan to carry out this condition; and can he say why Charles Phelan has been treated differently to the other reinstated tenants for whom houses were built.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that Charles Phelan was evicted from a holding of forty-three acres, now in the occupation of a tenant purchaser, the yearly rent of which was £47. The Comissioners have provided him with a holding of twenty-six acres, subject to an annuity of £14 8s. 8d. Charles Phelan lives in another holding on the estate, of which his brother, an Excise officer, is the

    2223
    tenant purchaser, and the Commissioners are not prepared to make an advance to him for the building of a house on his own holding unless he contributes to the cost in the manner stated in the Question.

    Grant to Catherine Mackey, Evicted Tenant.
    MR. P. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware if Catherine Mackey, a reinstated evicted tenant on the Lansdowne estate, Luggacurran, Queen's County, appears in the list of advances made by the Estates Commissioners as having received £200 to buy stock for her farm; whether this money was issued by the Commissioners by cheque or cash; whether he is aware that, although this advance was sanctioned and advanced nearly two years ago, Catherine Mackey has not jet received any portion of the money; if he is aware who was the inspector in charge of this case; and whether the accounts in which this grant appears as being paid have been audited.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that by a clerical error the £200 in question was included in the column of the Return headed "stock" instead of appearing in the preceding column headed "buildings." All payments sanctioned for buildings on this estate have been made.

    Pension of Mrs. Brook of Pudsey.
    CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mrs. M. A. Brook, of Pudsey, who has until now received a pension of 7s. a week for nursing services rendered by her in the Crimean "War from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, has received notice that she must relinquish that pension on 1st January in favour of an old-age pension, which she has not asked for; and whether she will be paid the difference between the two pensions.
    (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I am informed that Mrs. Brook, of Pudsey, was not in receipt of a pension from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation issued to her as hers as a matter
    2224
    of right, but was granted in 1900 as a charitable allowance as widow of Private John Brook, 7th Fusiliers, who had served through the war with Russia, 1854–6, and who had died on 30th August, 189L Mrs. Brook, as being over seventy rears of age, has been told by the Corporation to apply for an old-age pension, and has, it is understood, been successful in obtaining such pension. I understand that her case will receive further consideration for an allowance in supplement of her old-age pension, and, following the ordinary rule in these cases, such allowance with the old-age pension would equal the allowance hitherto issued by the Corporation, if the circumstances of the widow as they now are should, in the opinion of the Corporation, justify the issue of such supplementary allowance. The matter appears to be one which is within the discretion of the Corporation.

    Division of "Untenanted Land at Cahirdown.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the untenanted lands at Cahirdown, near Listowel, have been offered to the Estates Commissioners by Miss Brown, the owner, for division amongst the poor people of the district; and whether the lands have been inspected and reported upon; and, if so, with what result.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the owner has accepted their formal proposal to purchase this estate, and that they have referred the papers in connection with the matter to one of their inspectors to prepare a scheme for the division of the lands.

    Division of Untenanted Land on the Blacker-Douglas Estate.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the untenanted lands, on the Blacker-Douglas estate at Tulli-hinal, North Kerry, have been bought by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, when will they be divided amongst the poor people of the district.

    2225
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) These lands have not been bought by the Estates Commissioners, but are being sold by the vendor to persons coming within Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, who will sign purchase agreements at prices estimated by the Commissioners.

    Delay in Issue of Rules for the Irish National Education Board.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that it is only within the past week or so that the rules and regulations of the National Education Board, for the year commencing 1st July last, were issued; and if he can state the reason for the delay of this publication supposed to have been operative during the past five months.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the order for the publication of these rules was held over in the hope of including a statement as to the mode of distribution of the grant of £114,000. Owing to necessary delays in making arrangements for the distribution of the first issue of the grant the rules had ultimately to be published without this information. So far as the Commissioners are aware little or no inconvenience has been caused by the delay.

    Moonlighting Outrage at Kilmanihan.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that recently a moonlighting raid took place at Kilmanihan, between Brosna and Knocknagoshee, East Kerry, when the houses of Andrew Mulcahy, Thomas W. O'Connor, Michael O'Connor, David Murphy, and Daniel Murphy, were fired into, and notices posted on their doors warning them to give up their land or they would suffer death at the hands of Captain Moonlight; whether the five men named had only recently been allocated their farms by the Congested Districts Board; what arrests have been made; and what sentences passed on the perpetrators of the outrages.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On the 4th instant, at about 12.30 a.m., notices
    2226
    were posted as stated, and shots were fired into the houses of four of the five persons named. When the Collis Sandes estate was purchased by the Congested Districts Board portion of a grazing farm was divided, among these men, and the notices warned them to give up this land. The police have not up to the present been able to make any arrests.

    Reinstatement of Michael Tiernan.
    MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any likelihood of Michael Tiernan,. Woodmill, Townley Hall, Drogheda, being reinstated in his own or an equivalent holding; and what is the cause of the delay.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have referred the papers in this case to one of their inspectors with a view to providing Tiernan with a holding.

    Government Tugs at Portsmouth.
    MR. BRAMSDON: To-ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many Government tugs there are at Portsmouth, and what are their names; have they all been regularly at work during the past twenty-eight days; if not, which ones have been off duty and the cause; to what extent have double boats been at work; is it contemplated to lay up any boats in dockyard hands; if so, what arrangements are being made to-take their place, having regard to the congested state of the work; is it also contemplated dispensing with any existing tugs and when; have any new ones been arranged for; and, if so, when will they commence work.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Six tugs are attached to Portsmouth Dock-yard for general service, viz., "Malta,'" "Dromedary," "Volcano," "Camel," "Enterprise", and "Manly"; they have all been regularly at work during the past twenty-eight days except the "Dromedary," which was laid up for boiler test, etc., from 16th November to-7th December. Two tugs have been detailed for concurrent night duty

    2227
    i.e., "standing by" for emergencies, on six nights during spring tides. It is contemplated to lay up two tugs in dockyard hands shortly. No special arrangements have been made to take the place of these two vessels. It is anticipated that the work can be carried out by the remaining tugs. A new tug is being completed for Portsmouth, and is expected to take up her duties there early next year, but it has not yet been decided whether one of the existing tugs shall then be dispensed with.
    MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the average number of hours per day the men have been on duty in the Government tugs at Portsmouth during the past twenty-eight days; whether in doing so six or seven days per week are reckoned; what is the number of men employed in each boat; and what men have been sick during the time mentioned.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The average number of hours the crews of tugs at Portsmouth Dockyard have been on duty during the past twenty-eight days is slightly less than ten per day, including time vessels were lying alongs yard; seven days a week are reckoned; the numbers of men employed in each vessel are: seventeen as regards two vessels; fourteen as regards two vessels; eleven as regards one vessel; and nine as regards the remaining vessel. During the time mentioned one engineer was sick for twelve days; one engineer for three days; one stoker for six days and one boy for four days.

    Naval Discipline.
    MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what are the particular matters the Departmental Committee the Admiralty have recently appointed in connection with naval discipline are to inquire into, and will the subjects of disrating, the stopping of men's leave automatically on their being put in the Report, and the other punishments referred to in the loyal appeal from the lower deck form subjects for the Committee's consideration and Report.
    2228
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) A Committee has been appointed to consider the possibility of a scheme for adopting in naval prisons a system similar to that in force in military detention barracks; and the matters referred to by my hon. friend are not germane to the inquiry.

    Petitions from Dockyard Workmen.
    MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give instructions that the time for presenting petitions from dockyard workmen be extended from 1st January, 1909, to 1st March, 1909, in order to give time to workmen in the royal dockyards to consider the replies they may receive to their petitions for 1908 before having to submit their petitions for 1909.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Instructions have already been issued that the time for presenting new petitions by dockyard employees is to be extended to four weeks after the announcement of the decisions on the petitions presented this year.

    Apprentices at Welsh Dockyards.
    MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can see his way to increase the number of apprentices to be entered at the Welsh dockyards in 1909 to at least twenty-six so as to bring up the total number of apprentices entered for the four years 1906 to 1909, inclusive, to the general average of the other five royal dockyards, namely, 72 per cent. of the average number of men employed.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The number of apprentices to be entered at the several dockyards next year has not been settled. The numbers are fixed with regard to what are considered to be the reasonable requirements at the time, and, whilst the numbers of apprentices already serving are always kept in view, no undertaking can be given that the number to be entered at Pembroke Dock next year will be increased on the grounds indicated in the Question.

    Repairs at Deptford Yard.
    MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is the intention of the Admiralty to allocate a sum of money to the works department in the Deptford Victualling Yard for the purpose of providing employment by way of undertaking necessary repairs to the compass-house, at present covered by tarpaulins to keep out rain, mending the roadways, and in other directions.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Money has been allocated for necessary repairs at Deptford to the end of the financial year, including work on roadways, etc., but no additional men can be taken on. The compass-house roof was tarred and sanded last year, and the building is not in need of repair.

    Compensation under the Licensing Act, 1904.
    MR. CAVE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what applications have been received from compensation authorities for his sanction to the borrowing of money under the Licensing Act, 1904, for the purpose of accelerating the reduction of licences under that Act; in what cases such sanction has been refused or deferred; in what cases sanction has been granted; and what periods have been allowed for repayment of the loans sanctioned.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) On 26th February last, in a printed Answer to the hon. Member for Kidder minister, I gave details of twenty-one loam sanctioned under the Act of 1904 up to the end of January in the present year. Since that date I have sanctioned two loans, namely, Hertfordshire, £2,000 for the term of a year, and Dudley, £1,500 for six months. In three cases I have refused sanction, namely, Devonport, £150; Ripon, £600; and Bolton, £700.

    Workmen's Compensation.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the word "applicant" on page 4 of the Blue-book giving statistics of proceedings under the Workmen's
    2230
    Compensation Acts, 1897, 1900, and 1906, and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1907 implies the applicant for compensation or the applicant in the arbitration proceedings; and, if the latter, whether he can give particulars of the aggregate number of cases out of the 1,375 cases in which the workman was the applicant and the aggregate number of cases out of the 271 in which the applicant was the workman.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The paragraph referred to by the hon. Member deals only with cases in which the subject of the arbitration proceedings was a claim by a workman or his representatives for compensation. In all such cases, therefore, the applicant in the arbitration is a workman or his representatives.

    Early Payment of Income Tax.
    MR. YOUNGER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount of income-tax due on 1st January, 1908, which was paid before that date, and what part of the amount was paid under the discount allowed under the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, s. 141, as amended by 52 & 52 Vict. c. 42, s. 10; whether the fact that discount is allowed is clearly stated on the notices demanding payment; and, if not, whether he will see that this is done in future.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The amount of income-tax due under the assessments for 1907–8 which was paid before 1st January, 1908, was approximately £3,966,755. Of this sum only £23,679 3s. 3d. was paid under discount under the Acts referred to by the hon. Member. The Answer to the third part of the Question is in the negative. I shall be glad to consider the concluding suggestion.

    Import Duty on Cattle Feeding Cake.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that 500 bags of cattle-feeding cake, imported at Grangemouth, are at present stopped by the Customs officers, who demand an import duty of £2 per ton; whether he is aware that

    2231
    this duty is claimed (although previous lots were passed without question) under the Customs tariff which provides a duty upon cocoa husks or shells of £2 per ton; and, seeing that these 500 bags of feeding cake cannot possibly be described as cocoa husks or shells, nor applied to any other purpose except the purpose of feeding cattle, nor used for anything at all in which the Revenue is concerned, will he order the immediate release of the cake to the owners.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am informed that 500 bags of cattle-feeding cake, recently imported at Grangemouth and declared by the importer's agent to be free of duty, have been delivered out of Customs charge on a deposit of £55 to cover the import duty and any fine which the Board of Customs may decide to impose in respect of inaccurate description. Analysis of samples of this feeding cake disclosed the fact that it consisted of ground and compressed cocoa husks and shells, together with a certain amount of cocoa which had not been removed prior to

    1907.

    1908.

    Laid down.

    Struck off.

    Laid down.

    Struck off.

    Battleships

    3

    —

    2

    1

    Coast-defence vessels

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Armoured cruisers

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Protected cruisers

    1

    3

    1

    3 (1 lost)

    Destroyers

    2

    1 (lost)

    5

    2 (lost)

    No alteration is contemplated in this list prior to 1st January, 1909.

    Papuan Labour Ordinance.
    MR. MOLTENO: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Ordinance recently passed by the Legislative Council of the territory of Papua containing the following provision: that a native who, after being called upon to work for the Government under this Ordinance, without
    grinding. Under the Customs Tariff Act, 1876, cocoa husks and shells are liable to a duty of 2s. a cwt. (£2 a ton), and there is no legal authority for admitting cocoa husks and shells free of duty, whether intended for use as cattle-food or otherwise. I am causing full inquiry to be made in regard to the statement in the hon. Member's Question that previous lots of similar cake have been passed without question.

    Navy—Ships Struck off the Effective List.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state, in continuation of the Answer given in the House on 9th April, 1907, the number of battleships, coast-defence vessels, armoured cruisers, protected cruisers, and destroyers laid down, and the number struck off the list of efficient ships in each class for the years 1907 and 1908, stating whether any alteration is contemplated in the list before 1st January, 1909.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.)
    reasonable excuse, fails or neglects to commence work at the time and place appointed, or who, without reasonable excuse, fails or neglects to perform his task in a proper manner, or who, without leave, absents himself from his work, or fails to complete his period of service, shall be liable on summary conviction to be imprisoned with hard labour for a period not exceeding six months; and whether this Ordinance has received the assent of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

    2233
    (Answered by Colonel Seely.) I would refer my lion, friend to the reply to the subsequent Question which stands in his name.
    MR. MOLTENO: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an Ordinance was passed by the legislative Council of the territory of Papua on 29th May last the object of which was stated to be to encourage the natives of Papua in habits of industry; if so, whether it contains a clause to the effect that every male native between the prescribed ages shall, when called upon, be liable to work, under the direction and control of the Government, on a Government plantation, public road, or native reserve in the division in which he resides, for the Government, without pay, for a period of one month in every twelve; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter.
    (Answered by Colonel Seely.) My hon. friend is no doubt aware that the administration of Papua is directly under the control of the Commonwealth of Australia. I understand that the Ordinance referred to was not passed, but only read a second time, in the Legislative Council of Papau on 29th May last. So far as I am aware it has not since been proceeded with. If it is hereafter passed the Lieutenant-Governor will no doubt reserve it for the consideration of the Governor-General in Council.

    Naval Officers' Pay—Remittance to Banks.
    MR. BROOKE: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the numerous complaints made by naval officers with regard to their present inability to have their pay remitted direct from the Admiralty to a bank; and whether, seeing that this is permissible in the case of Army officers, he can allow naval officers to enjoy the same convenience.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) No complaints have reached the Admiralty. Under the King's Regulations (Article 1636) an officer can remit, month by month, the whole or any part of his pay and allowances to a bank or to any person
    2234
    whom he may nominate. In such a case the officer expresses his wish on each occasion to the accountant officer of his ship, and has no trouble beyond that of signing the remittance list. If the officer prefers, a monthly allotment can be made from his pay (within a limit of about two-thirds of the gross amount due) and paid over to a bank or any other nominee. Under this system the officer signifies his wishes at the outset, and the stoppage is made month by month without any further action on his part. No further facilities appear to be called for.

    Naval Orders for Birkenhead.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any orders have been given to Birkenhead, where unemployment is very severe; and, if so, whether the orders are being executed there.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) An order has been provisionally placed for three torpedo-boat destroyers with Messrs. Cammell, Laird, and Company, of Birkenhead, where these vessels will be built. This firm also are completing there a torpedo boat destroyer ordered from them some time ago.

    Teachers' Superannuation.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the number of headmasters and mistresses who received superannuation, and the number who received breakdown allowance for the year 1907; and the number of assistant male and female teachers who received superannuation, and the number who received breakdown allowance for the same year.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.)—

    Men.

    Women.

    —

    —

    Number of superannuation allowances granted during the year ending 31st March, 1908

    184

    144

    Number of disablement allowances granted during the vear ending 31st March, 1908

    66

    175

    The number of head teachers and assistant teachers cannot be shown separately.

    Old-Age Pensions in London.
    MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give the number of persons entitled to an old-age pension in London, showing how many there are in each of the parliamentary divisions.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The number of persons entitled to old-age pensions in the administrative county of London has not at present been ascertained, but I may state that up to the 5th instant 40,578 claims had been received by the pension officers in London. The records do not show the claims received in respect of the several parliamentary divisions;; but I can give some particulars as regards the City and Metropolitan boroughs. They are as follows—

    Area

    Number of Claims

    City of London

    135

    Metropolitan Boroughs—

    Battersea

    1,717

    Bermondsey

    1,054

    Bethnal Green

    1,336

    Camberwell

    2,544

    Chelsea

    698

    Deptford

    934

    Finsbury

    706

    Fulham

    1,389

    Greenwich

    2,034

    Woolwich

    Hackney

    2,159

    Hammersmith

    1,284

    Hampstead

    575

    Holborn

    344

    Islington

    3,063

    Kensington

    1,480

    Lambeth

    3,227

    Lewisham

    1,307

    Paddington

    1,455

    Poplar

    2,907

    Stepney

    Saint Marylebone

    1,162

    Saint Pancras

    2,202

    Shoreditch

    1,047

    Southwark

    1,732

    Stoke Newington

    528

    Wandsworth

    2,444

    Westminster

    1,115

    Total

    40,578

    Gateshead Unemployed Register.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the register for the unemployed at Gateshead under the Unemployed Workmen Act is kept at the union offices; and whether: he will make representations with a view to having the register removed to a place where it will have no appearance of I association with the Poor Law.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am not informed where the register is kept, but, as the clerk to the guardians is clerk to the distress committee, it is probable that it is kept at the union offices. I will communicate with the distress committee on the subject.

    Pensions of Civil Service Copyists and Writers.
    SIR HENRY KIMBER To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the old departmental writers and also the pre-1871 registered copyists who served prior to 19th August, 1871, are allowed to count all their continuous temporary service towards pension; and if so, whether, in consideration of the Treasury having allowed the few senior abstractors all the service rendered by them as temporary certificated clerks prior to 19th August, 1871, to count as copyists' service towards bonus, they can likewise allow all such service to count as copyists' service for pension purposes, under Clause 3 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, or any other empowering authority.
    (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The rule which has been in force for nearly twenty years is that copyists or writers placed on the permanent establishment are allowed to count one-half of their previous service for pension. It is true that, under a special concession made many years ago, writers employed before 19th August, 1871, and afterwards, without interruption of service, transferred to the establishment, are allowed to reckon their whole service for pension; but I see no sufficient ground for extending this concession to other cases than those which it was intended to meet. The fact that the service as a temporary clerk may have been allowed to count for copyist's

    2237
    bonus is an independent concession which does not affect the claim to superannuation.

    Horse Breeding.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether it is the intention of the Government to take any further steps to encourage the breeding of horses in Great Britain and Ireland; and, if so, what.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strackey.) The matter is still under consideration, and I am not at present able to make any statement on the subject.

    Provision of Third Gate on North Side of Hyde Park.
    MR. H. GOOCH: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will keep in mind the question of providing a third gate for carriage traffic on the north side of Hyde Park, at the south end of Albion Street, Paddington; and whether the expense of providing a park-keeper's lodge and a park-keeper could be obviated by stationing a policeman on point at the gate in question.
    (Answered by Mr. L. Harcourt.) I regret that I am unable to make provision for this gate in the Estimates for the coming year. The cost of stationing a police constable at this point would be out of proportion to the advantages of a third gate.

    Deaths from Anæsthesia.
    MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will endeavour to obtain, by means of an additional column in the next Coroners' Annual Return, the number of deaths of all persons throughout the country from anæsthesia, and upon which inquests have been held; and whether he will endeavour also to obtain the number of similar deaths reported to the coroner, and in respect of which no inquests have been held.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The forms for the next Return have already been issued, but I will consider
    2238
    whether a special Return can be called for.

    Civil Service—Unestablished Service to count towards Pension.
    MR. CROOKS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will be prepared to allow those civil servants to count their unestablished service for pensions in those cases where such unestablished service was continuous with, and of a similar character to, the pensionable service which followed it.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am afraid I am unable to add anything to my previous replies on this subject. Each case has, as I have said, to be treated on its merits with regard to the special circumstances and more particularly to the conditions upon which the promotion to the establishment is made. As I have already stated, I am not prepared further, to extend the very liberal concession which have been made during recent years with regard to counting unestablished service for pension purposes.

    Old-Age Pensions Regulation.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether instructions have been given to pension officers that persons who have been admitted for a period to a union infirmary are to be disqualified for an old-age pension; and that the provision as to medical or surgical relief does not cover a sojourn in the infirmary; whether he is aware that in Ireland it has been the custom for persons of small means suffering from illness or accident which required nursing not otherwise available to go to the union infirmary, the only hospital within reach, for treatment, and that such treatment has not been counted as poor relief disqualifying for a vote; and whether, in these circumstances, he will issue revised instructions to pension officers as will prevent the exclusion from the benefits of the Old-Age Pensions Act of a large number of unfortunate deserving persons.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) No general instructions have been issued to pension officers on the point referred to in the Question; but pension officers who have made inquiry have been informed,

    2239
    in accordance with legal advice, that disqualification arises in the circumstances specified, and they have no doubt reported in that sense to the committees. The decision rests with the committee, subject to appeal to the Local Government Board, and, if it should appear as the result of such appeals that pension officers have been wrongly advised, they will be instructed accordingly.

    Portadown Pensions Committee and Calculation of Incomes.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the old-age pensions committee for Portadown and Lurgan have decided to calculate the income of small farmers at two-and-a-half times the valuation of their holdings; whether, in doing so, they have acted on any instructions issued from any Government Department; if so, whether he will state what the instructions are; and, if not, under what authority they decided on that course; and whether every separate claim should be decided on its merits.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have no information as to the method of calculating means arising from the occupation of land adopted by the committees referred to. The matter is governed by Section 4 of the Act, and the Treasury has not issued, nor has it any power to issue, any instructions to pension committees on the subject. Subject to the provisions of the section to which I have referred, the committee is at liberty to adopt any method of calculation which may in their opinion be likely to produce a correct result, but their decision is of course subject to appeal to the Local Government Board, either by the claimant or by the pension officer.

    Irish Old-Age Pension Regulations.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Law provides that in Ireland a person is eligible for the franchise even though he his received medical relief in a workhouse hospital; and whether he will, for the guidance of pension officers in Ireland, state That claims for old-age pensions should not be
    2240
    opposed on the ground that he has received relief of that character.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I am giving to-day to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh, from which he will understand that, in view of the advice to which I have referred, I cannot issue such instructions as he suggests.

    Payment of Income Tax on Municipal Undertakings.
    MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exhequer if corporations and other municipal authorities are all charged income-tax on revenue derived from gas, tramways, electric lighting, and other undertakings; if so is payment enforced in all cases; and, if not, will he furnish a Return of the corporations and other public bodies who are in arrears for such taxes, and the reason or reasons why payment is not enforced.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Answers to the first and second parts of the Question are in the affirmative.

    Culture of Wild Silk in Bombay.
    MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps, if any, has the Government of Bombay taken to encourage the new industry of the culture of the silk of the Tassar and other wild silks in the province of Gujarat, to which their attention has been called by the Secretary of State for India; and will he say if the Director of Agriculture in Bombay some time ago officially denied the existence of the Tassar worm in that province, which has been proved by the importation of the cocoons of that species into England and the manufacture of their silk into yarn, of which a specimen has been sent to Bombay.
    (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Bombay Government have reported that, having investigated the subject, they do not consider the prospects of establishing the industry to be such as would justify any action on their part at present. The Secretary of State is not aware that the Director of Agriculture, Bombay,

    2241
    has denied the existence of the Tassar worm in that province.

    The Kathiawar Succession.
    MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government can take any action upon the memorial of the Chief of Jasdan, calculated to remove a feeling that his rights under the system of succession obtaining in Kathiawar have been prejudiced by action taken by the Government of India.
    (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on the subject on 16th October last. No memorial from the present Chief of Jasdan has been received by the Secretary of State in Council.

    Erection of Cottages at Hillsborough, County Down.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many cottages have been elected within the area of the Hillsborough Rural council, County Down, under each of the Labourers Acts; how many applications have been made, how many claims have been sanctioned, and what steps the Local Government Board is taking to expedite matters.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Eighteen cottages were provided in the Hillsborough rural district before the Act of 1906 came into operation. Since then the rural district council have promoted a scheme for fifty-nine cottages, which has been finally confirmed in respect of fifty-eight cottages. The Local Government Board now await the application of the council for the appointment of an arbitrator and for sanction to the loan required to carry out the scheme.

    Reinstatement of James Boyle, of Laurencetown.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an evicted tenant named James Boyle, Laurencetown, County Down, applied for reinstatement in November, 1905, but as yet without result; and whether
    2242
    the Estates Commissioners will at once reconsider the case.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) James Boyle has applied to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement in a holding of less than six acres now in the occupation of his uncle. The Commissioners do not see their way to depart from their decision not to take any action in the matter.

    Payment of the Hanging Gale on the Cope Estate, County Armagh.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the agent for the Cope estate, Loughgall, County Armagh, is pressing for payment of the hanging gale those tenants who refused to sign purchase agreements; and whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners will be directed to the fact in order that the circumstances may be considered before the purchase is allowed to be completed.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) When this estate is being inspected, in its proper turn, the Estates Commissioners' inspector will inquire and report as to the reasonableness or otherwise of the action of any tenants who have not signed purchase agreements. The Commissioners have no power to interfere in any legal proceedings which the owner may institute for the recovery of rent due to him.

    Purchase of Lands of Mr. S. E. Collis, at East Tarmons.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are buying or have bought the lands of Mr. S. E. Collis, Shanaway, East Tarmons, North Kerry; and whether he is aware that the Listowel Rural District Council have unanimously passed a resolution praying that the said lands, when bought, should be divided amongst the small holders of the district, which is congested.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have published a notice in the Dublin Gazette with a view to the compulsory acquisition of these lands

    2243
    under the Evicted Tenants Acts, and intend to use the lands, if acquired, for the purposes of that Act.

    Purchase of the Estate of Walter Morrogh, at Killahan.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the estate of Walter Morrogh, at Killahan, North Kerry, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners; whether any agreements have been lodged by the landlord or his solicitor with the Estates Commissioners; and whether the Estates Commissioners will send an inspector on the holdings of a number of the tenants, who will not buy at the price demanded by the landlord, before a sale is sanctioned.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The owner has instituted proceedings for the sale of this estate to the tenants, and has lodged purchase agreements signed by some of them. When the estate is being inspected in its proper turn, the inspector will inquire into the cases of those tenants who have not signed purchase agreements.

    Holding for Peter Connor.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Stoughten estate in North Kerry is being sold; and what steps, if any, have the Estates Commissioners taken to provide a holding for Peter Connor, an evicted tenant of this estate.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate is being sold by the owner to his tenants. Connor's former holding is in the occupation of another tenant who has signed a purchase agreement. The Commissioners have taken no steps in reference to Connor's application for reinstatement.

    Reinstatement of Edmond Dillane.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when Edmond Dillane, an evicted tenant on the estate of Captain R. R. Chute, North Kerry, will
    2244
    be reinstated in his evicted farm or one equivalent to it.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have decided to take no action in this case. The farm in question is at present in the occupation of Edmond Dillane's brother.

    Payment of Arrears of Rent on the Trieneragh Estate.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the solicitor to the Congested Districts Board has written, by direction of the Board, to tenants on the Trieneragh portion of the Collis Sandes estate calling up, under threat of a writ, arrears of rent of over fifteen years standing, and never demanded by the late owner; whether the object of these threats is to force the tenants to buy their holdings from the Board at terms much higher than those paid by tenants on adjoining properties; and, seeing that the Congested Districts Board has spent no money on improvements in the district and in view of all the circumstances of the district, the Board will wipe out these old arrears of a rack rent.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Only one tenant on Trieneragh has been written to by the solicitor to the Congested Districts Board. He declined to sign a purchase agreement on the basis arranged with the other tenants, and consequently remains in the position of a tenant. He has therefore been asked to repay the sum of £49 14s. 3d. paid by the Board to Mr. Collis Sandes for arrears on his two holdings, the united rents of which amount to £42 9s. The terms of resale arranged with the other tenants were eighteen and five-eighths years purchase of first-term rents, with the addition of a sum not exceeding in any case one year's rent for arrears.

    Execution of Committal Warrants on Sundays.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Royal Irish Constabulary have received instructions not to execute committal warrants on Sunday;

    2245
    and, if so, whether he will state by what authority has such order been given.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer is in the negative.

    Fines or Imprisonment in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether powers have been given to governors of gaols in Ireland to remit a portion of a period of imprisonment awarded in default of paying a certain fine when a portion of such fine has been paid; and, if so, by whose order has this been done, and by what authority has such order been made.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This matter is regulated by the Fine or Imprisonment (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1899, which extends to Scotland and Ireland the powers already given in England by the Prisons Act, 1898.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether fines paid to the police under 22 and 23 Vict., c. 92, s. 19, are paid to a common fund and not given to the individual constable who is the means of bringing an offender to justice; and, if so, whether he will state by what authority does the Inspector-General require these fines to be paid to the credit of a common fund.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Under Section 49 of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1830, all penalties awarded by justices to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary must be paid into the Constabulary Force Fund, formerly called the Reward Fund.

    Cost of Teaching Irish in Primary Schools.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the Commissioners of National Education whether the extra expenditure charged to imperial funds, which in the past year amounted to £17,500, for the teaching of Irish in primary schools will, in the course of two or three years, amount to £50,000 or more, and thereafter still further increase by leaps and bounds unless steps are taken to
    2246
    curtail the expenditure under the scale of fees at present payable; and whether he will consider the advisability of arranging that Irish shall be taught as an optional subject during school hours and as part of the ordinary school curriculum, but without payment of a special fee.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the payment for the teaching of Irish as an extra subject and in the bilingual schools for the forthcoming year 1909–10 is estimated at £19,300, exclusive of administrative charges. They cannot say what the future expenditure may be. They are not prepared to recommend the withdrawal of the special fees for the teaching of Irish, and, as I have already informed the hon. Member, I am not at present; aware of any reason why the existing arrangements with respect to these fees should be reconsidered.

    Jurors objected to at Cork and Limerick Assizes.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the Crown solicitors concerned the number of distinct cases tried at the recent Cork and Limerick Assizes in which jurors were ordered by the Crown to stand aside without cause assigned, the number of jurors so challenged, and the result of the trial in each case.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) It would not be possible to reply to this Question without obtaining reports from the Crown solicitor of every county included in the Munster and Connaught Winter Assizes. This could not be done within the time available.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the result of the cases from County Sligo tried at the late Limerick Winter Assizes, and what was the number of jurors ordered to stand by without cause assigned in each case.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I presume the hon. Member refers to what are known as the Geevagh cases, in which a number of persons were charged with riot. There

    2247
    were three of these. In one case the jury convicted and in two others they disagreed. The number of jurors ordered to stand by was, in the first case, thirty; in the second case, fifteen; and in the third case, nineteen. There were I believe, other cases from County Sligo tried at these Assizes, but I have no information as to these.

    Impannelling of Irish Jurors.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the rules at present in force for the guidance of Crown solicitors in Ireland in relation to the impanelling of jurors in criminal trials are in any respect different from the rules that were in operation prior to the year 1906; if so, will he state to what extent the latter were amended; and will he explain why the practice of ordering numbers of jurors to stand by without cause assigned in several cases tried at the late Winter Assizes was as freely resorted to as in former years.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. For an Answer to the latter part of the Question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the very full Answer which I gave to three Questions on the same subject put by the hon. Member for North Sligo to me on the 14th instant.

    County Louth Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the. Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received the Resolution of the Dundalk Rural District Council respecting the action of the County Court Judge in dealing with labourers schemes in County Louth; if he will inquire into the allegation that on the hearing of the Ardee petitions the County Court Judge stated that it was a scandal to put a labourers' cottage on any man's land against his will; whether, at the subsequent hearing of petitions against the Dundalk scheme, the County Court Judge, out of eighty-eight contested cases, rejected eighty cottages; whether the district council allege that in many instances this was done without their witnesses being heard, the judge being of the opinion that an appeal lay from his decision, and that in other cases he refused
    2248
    to act on the definition of agricultural labourer in the Labourers Act; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have received the Resolution referred to, but I have no means of knowing whether the County Court Judge expressed the opinion attributed to him. The grounds of the orders made by County Courts on appeals under the Labourers Acts are not communicated to the Local Government Board. Those orders are final, and I have no control over the County Court Judge, and no power to interfere with his judicial action.

    Residences for Assistant Teachers— Ireland.
    MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many residences have been built for assistant teachers in Ireland under the Teachers' Residences Act, 1875, and are the Commissioners of National Education prepared to receive applications on behalf of assistant teachers for such residences; how many national schools in Ireland have an average attendance of fifty pupils or over, and of the principal teachers in these schools how many received between £12 10s. and £15 as residential capitation grant, and how many received over £15; and, of the assistant teachers in these same schools, how many received less than £3 of this grant or received no capitation payment.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that it will not be possible to furnish the particulars asked for before the close of the present session. I will communicate the information to the hon. Member when I receive it.

    The New Bayonet.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what troops have been armed with the new bayonet; and whether the Reports on it are unanimously favourable.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Brigade of Guards have been armed

    2249
    with the new bayonet. No further Reports have been called for.

    Supply of Army Horses.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that a sufficient number of horses would be forthcoming, both for Regular and Territorial Forces, in case of War; and whether, in view of the increase of automobile traction and the decrease of horse-drawn vehicles, further steps are to be taken to secure an adequate supply; and, if so, What does he propose to do in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) From the information at the disposal of the War Office there appears to be a sufficient number of horses in the United Kingdom both for Regular and Territorial Forces in case of War. As I have already explained in the House, the question of horse supply is engaging my close attention.

    The New Cavalry Sword.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what troops have been armed with the new pattern of cavalry sword; and whether the Reports upon it are unanimous in its favour.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No troops have as yet been armed with the new cavalry sword.

    Billeting of the 4th Battalion Bedfordshire Regiment.
    MR. BARNARD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances attending the billeting or lodging of men of the 4th battalion of the Bedfordshire Regiment on licensed victuallers in the city of Hertford for military training during seven weeks in the months of March and April, 1908; whether, if they were billeted under the Billeting Act, the payments due to the licensed victuallers under the Army Acts, as recited in Army Form B 55, and according to the schedule set out in such form should be paid to them, less rations and beer omitted, estimated at 8d. per day per man;
    2250
    whether, when men are not intended to be billeted but to be lodged, he will prohibit the use of the billeting notices; Whether it is the duty of the police to serve the billeting notices when it is not the intention to billet, but to invite licensed victuallers to enter into contracts for lodging; whether such contracts ought to be approved by the director of contracts prior to acceptance; whether he will consider the desirability, in view of the changes in Army organisation and the abolition of the Militia, of issuing regulations showing licensed victuallers whether they are being invited to enter into contracts for lodging or being required to accept billeting under the statute, and of increasing the scale of payments, in view of the fact that recruits are not able to dress and cook their own food, and are not accompanied by orderly men, and have no time available from drill, etc., with a view to increasing the scale of payment accordingly; and that the substitution of lodging contracts for billeting notices not only deprives licensed victuallers of a portion of the remuneration voted annually for this purpose, but also deprives the troops of the sustenance allowed by the Army Act of 1881, namely, meat, bread, bacon, cheese, and beer, or the equivalent of beer.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) General instructions have been issued that Special Reservists while undergoing their training, and for whom accommodation does not exist in barracks, are during the winter months to be placed on the lodging list. Nothing is known of the circumstances of the particular case referred to.

    Territorial Army—Regiments Combined —Position of Officers.
    MR. BOULTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, under the Territorial Army scheme by which the Huntingdonshire Regiment was merged into the Bedfordshire Regiment, an officer with senior service in the Huntingdonshire Regiment would be preferred in the ordinary course to an officer with less service in the Bedfordshire Regiment for an appointment in the united battalion; if he is aware that Lieutenant

    2251
    and Quartermaster C. N. White, of the Huntingdonshire Regiment, was senior in service to Captain Plummer, of the Bedfordshire Regiment, and that Captain Hummer's superior rank to Lieutenant White's was an honorary rank; and will he say if Lieutenant White acted as quartermaster for the united regiment this year at camp, and performed his duties in a satisfactory way; and, if so, why is it that the Army Council has now passed over Lieutenant C. N. White and appointed Captain Plummer to the post of quartermaster of the 5th Bedfordshire Regiment.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The appointment in question was carried out on the recommendation of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command, and I do not propose to question that recommendation.

    The New Session.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Prime Minister whether he can furnish any information as to the duration of the forthcoming Recess.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) It is anticipated that the House will meet on 16th February.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Lords' Amendments considered.
Lords' Amendment—
'In page 2, line 2, to leave out the word 'ten' and insert the word 'twelve.'"
Read a second time.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY, Devonport) moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment. He said the main argument used in another place for giving Kent and Essex representation on the Port Authority rested on the fact that the river flowed between those two counties for a considerable distance within the jurisdiction of the authority, and that within that area there were great industrial centres of population dependent for their prosperity upon the proper working of the Port, and it was claimed that those interests without adequate representation
2252
were not properly protected. They were perfectly familiar—he might add painfully familiar—with all those arguments which had been put forward by those representing Kent and Essex as to the necessity for special representation for those two riparian counties. With regard to the counties of Middlesex and Surrey the same arguments had been used, and it was quite evident that if they gave sectional representation to one of those counties they could not deny it to the whole of them. Undoubtedly the strongest claim was that put forward by the county borough of West Ham. It was one of the governing principles of the Bill to establish a body which should not be unduly large, and in consequence should be a workable and businesslike body, and, in order to ensure that, they gave to the commercial representatives (that was, the representatives of those who used the river and paid the dues) the majority of the representation. Attempts had been made without cessation to force upon them sectional representation. If they were prepared to review the situation—which, of course, they were not—it could be easily shown that Kent and Essex had not priority of claim, but rather Middlesex and Surrey, and that the strongest case of all was that of West-Ham. If they admitted one they could not deny the rest, and that would destroy the balance entirely between the commercial representatives and the appointed members. Not only did the Joint Committee resist those demands, but they increased the representative element, and stated their opinion that the proportion of appointed members was-unduly large, as compared with the proportion of representative members. In 1903, when the late Government introduced a Port of London Bill, no recognition was given to these riparian counties. When the Bill went before the Joint Committee over which Lord Cross presided a large array of evidence was produced but it failed to convince that Committee and they refused to give recognition to the claims of those riparian counties In the Bill of 1903 the governing body consisted of forty members, and if representation was denied to those counties under the circumstances, what justification was there for recognising those claims for sectional representation now? It was asked why should they not be represented? His reply to that

2253
question was that the majority of this new body would consist of payers of dues, and the representation would be uniform. The argument that because representation was not given to geographical areas they would not be represented was not maintainable. Those who paid dues would have representation through the members kept on the general register of payers of dues, and, therefore, it was not accurate to say that this largo district would be excluded from representation on the Port Authority. Everybody know how successful the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board had been and that it was a model for other authorities, yet Liverpool was not geographically represented on it. There was nothing to justify the Port of London dealing with the matter in a different way. It could not be urged that geographical representation of Kent and Essex had not been fully considered. The debate in that House occupied several hours, and the House came to the decision that this representation could not be given. On the Report stage in the House of Lords further Amendments were brought forward with the view of giving Middlesex and Surrey geographical representation. The decision of the Lords, however, was that representation to these two counties could not be accorded, and the Lords must place Kent and Essex on the same footing as they had placed Middlesex and Surrey.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir Hudson Kearley.)
MR. ROWLANDSsaid he had listened with much attention to the speech delivered by the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and he deeply regretted that the Government had decided not to accept the Lords Amendment. The hon. Gentleman said he had heard over and over again the case in favour of giving representation to Kent and Essex. The House had heard also over and over again the official reply just given, and it failed entirely to meet the case put before the House by the representatives of the riparian counties. They had been told that the payers of dues were in a majority on the Board, but no one contested that principle. If the Government wanted a small body,
2254
they should have created a small body, but in drafting this Bill they had mixed up the two principles of geographical and commercial representation. Seeing they had already introduced sectional geographical representation to the extent of ten members, it was outside the bounds of logic for the Government to turn round and to say now they would not have sectional geographical representation. It was said that a larger body than was now proposed was provided for by the Bill of 1903, and that even then sectional representation was not given to the riparian counties. But surely there was a fundamental difference between that measure and the one they were now discussing with regard to the representation given to London. Was it not an absolute fact that under the Bill of 1903 London undertook directly the responsibility of providing any moneys necessary to meet the requirements of, the new authority? In this Bill London took no more responsibility financially than Kent and Essex, and, therefore, those counties had as much right to have representation on the Port Authority as the London County Council. That was the crux of the question as to why representation was refused to those riparian counties in 1903 by the Committee upstairs. Up to the present time none of the arguments they had put forward in favour of representation of those counties had been met. He did not think any one could say that Trinity House, the Board of Trade, or the London County Council represented directly the commercial interests of the river. The Parliamentary Secretary had told them that a much stronger case could be made out for the other counties affected than for the Counties of Kent and Essex They had heard all that before, but he contended that position had not been justified. All he was asking was that the interests of those counties should be properly dealt with. He regretted that the Government had not seen their way to accept this Amendment, and he intended to vote against the Government on the question.
MR. RUSSELL REAsaid he was speaking, he thought, for the whole of the Joint Committee in desiring

2255
the House not to accept the Lords Amendment. It would be perfectly impossible with any degree of logic or consistency to admit representation of Kent and Essex and to refuse it to Middlesex and Surrey. The Committee felt that sectional representation would weaken the Port Authority. Their opinion was that sectional representation was already too strong upon the Board, and they reduced its relative power by increasing the number of elective members. It was not a democratic principle that the representatives of one body of ratepayers should sit upon a different body altogether and spend the money of that other body. The Joint Committee carefully considered the case presented for Kent and Essex. The representatives of those two counties presented their case in its strongest form, and the Committee came to the conclusion that these interests of various kinds, which it was sought to serve, constituted the very strongest reasons for excluding Kent and Essex, because the only object of desiring representation was to promote those sectional interests. If any county were to be represented he would sooner have Kilkenny than Kent, because Kilkenny could have no local interests to serve on a body which ought to be purely commercial. The Royal Commission recommended that the London County Council should have representation. The late Government provided for representation in their Bill and the present Government had put it in this Bill. The Committee came to the conclusion that if there was such a consensus of opinion that some kind of municipal representation should be given on the board, it was better to confine it within as narrow limits as possible. Therefore, they refused to add any other body than the London County Council. They went so far as slightly to reduce the representation proposed to be given to that body. When they looked to other places they found that the most success-full bodies of this kind were those which had entirely excluded all extraneous geographical interests from representation. Even the City of Liverpool had not one representative on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and that was, as he thought everybody would
2256
admit, the most successful Port Authority in these islands. For these reasons he expressed the hope—and he believed he was expressing the opinion of the Joint Committee—that the House would not accept this Amendment.
MR. WHITEHEADsaid he had listened with considerable surprise to the hon. Member for Gloucester, when he said he spoke on behalf of the Joint Committee, for this reason. When representations were made to the House on behalf of that Committee he thought they were bound to consider the constitution of the Committee. What were the facts? So far as this House was concerned there were five Members on the Committee. It was a Committee to adjudicate on the claims of the various interests seeking representation upon this Authority, Those interests were partly geographical, partly commercial, and partly shipowning. On that Committee there were two shipowners, and also one representative of London. Under these circumstances it was not surprising that on the register of electors based upon the democratic principle to which the hon. Member had referred, there was such a franchise that the large shipowners would have an overwhelming preponderance on the new Authority. It was also not surpising to find that, although the Committee were not in favour of geographical representation, London emerged from the ordeal with six representatives on a body of twenty-eight. He thought these facts entitled the House to consider very carefully even at that late stage the constitution of the Authority. The hon. Member had said that it would be only logical to give Middlesex and Surrey representation on the Port Authority if Essex and Kent were to be accorded members. What he would say in regard to that was that neither he nor any representative of Essex or Kent had any objection to that principle at all. They had never contested the right of Middlesex and Surrey to representation, but that was not now the question. There was no means before the House now by which that could be obtained. But when they came to apply that principle they were bound to look at the interests which would be affected by it. When they

2257
considered that Surrey had a river frontage of not more than eight miles so far as the Port Authority was concerned, whereas Essex had a frontage of forty-three miles, he thought that difference constituted a substantial consideration when they came to decide whether the principle should be applied or not. Even if Essex and Kent were each accorded a representative, that would not necessarily be a reason why counties with smaller interests should also have representatives. He was indeed surprised to hear the hon. Member for Gloucester undertake to explain to the House what were the claims of Essex to representation. What were the facts? The Committee on whose behalf the hon. Member claimed to speak absolutely declined to hear either counsel or witnesses for the county of Essex. The Committee never heard a single word on behalf of the county of Essex, and therefore the hon. Member was not warranted in claiming to explain the views of that county to the House. Another reason which the hon. Member gave for refusing representation to Essex was that it would on Intend to promote sectional interests. The people of Essex had very great interests indeed along the shores of the Thames. Not only had they this large frontage, but in the hinterland there were important industrial interests which were growing year by year. These facts entitled the county to consideration in the formation of the Port Authority. The right to use the River Thames was not vested in big shipowners, or in the inhabitants of London. The men who carried on business in Kent and Essex had a primary right in its waters. It was for that reason that the two counties now claimed to be heard, and he could not help thinking that those interests ought to have been heard by the Joint Committee. He believed if they had been heard, the House very likely on the Report stage would have granted the representation for which he now pleaded. Those who were familiar with the facts knew that the industrial conditions of the Mersey and the Thames were entirely different. The shores of the river within the Port of London formed a great manufacturing centre, and as time went on the interests of those
2258
carrying on business as manufacturers in Kent and Essex would undoubtedly increase, whereas on the Mersey the dock system was concentrated within a few miles on each side of the river. The circumstances on the Mersey in no way corresponded to those existing on the Thames. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had said that the Port Authority ought not to be unduly large. It was now proposed that the body should consist of twenty-eight members. With a body of that size, if the work was to be done in a businesslike way, there must necessarily be a large devolution of business to committees, and, therefore, unless they had a body sufficiently large to supply members for these committees, a heavy burden would be cast on the individual members of the authority, and in that way injury rather than benefit would be done to the administration of the Port, He believed that by adding two members to represent Kent and Essex they would add to the efficiency of the authority in quality as well as quantity, for the men who would be sent from these counties would necessarily know the conditions along the Thames much better than gentlemen representing London, or even the large shipowners. It would be of immense advantage to the Port Authority to have such men who were familiar with the facts of the riverside.
MR. PRETYMANsaid it was with great diffidence he interposed, as he was not a member of the House when the subject-matter had been under discussion. There was one point which he desired to lay before the House, and that was that this new authority would have to deal with enormous interests, not only in the present, but in the years to come. Anybody who had studied the history of shipping and trade during the last century must see that the tendency was to get lower down the rivers into deeper waters; and, therefore, the interests that were growing interests were the lower interests of the river. That being so, he thought the position of Kent and Essex was differentiated from that of Surrey and Middlesex where the interests were already developed. Those interests which were

2259
developed had already representation on the body which governed the river. Had the new Port Authority been a body like the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board—a body but slightly representative of the riverside interests—there would have been very little to say, but when six representatives were given to London on geographical considerations he thought that the enormous present interests of Kent and Essex, and their still greater future interests, might fairly have been considered. He felt that the House would be acting wisely if they carefully considered the Amendments inserted by the Lords, giving the representation asked for.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Let me first of all congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his return to this House, and on his first intervention in debate. I have very carefully thought over the position created by the action of the House of Lords on this Amendment, and I regret to say that with every desire—every disposition to deal in a reasonable and accommodating spirit with the other House of Parliament, I must ask the House to disagree with the Amendment which they have inserted in the Bill. It is quite true that a very strong case can be made out for the representation of Kent and Essex and that that case differs in some respects, though not in all respects, from the strong case that can be made out for Surrey and Middlesex, and from the even stronger case that might be nude out for West Ham, the great working-class district in which these docks are. Under such circumstances the hardship, if any there be, of not including Surrey and Middlesex and West Ham will be increased and not diminished if Essex and Kent are included. The House should stand fair and square to the principle that this is a body in which a territorial and geographical representation is not to have its place, and the only representation shall be of the persons who are directly interested, as payers of dues in the welfare of the Port, or else those general public interests which are represented by the London County Council, by the City of London, by the Board of Trade, by the Trinity House—by those other bodies.
2260
Once you depart from the principle that the payers of dues and the general interests from a public point of view should be recognised, and come down to local and geographical interests being represented, if you let in any must let in all.
MR. PRETYMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the interest of the London County Council is more of a general interest than that of the Essex County Council?
MR. CHURCHILL: I should think that that was a question which was scarcely necessary. The London County Council is a great municipal authority, its fortunes are involved in the success of the whole of London and the Port of London, and to say that their view is not a general and central view is to my mind a statement to which this House will not be at all inclined to give any agreement.
MR. JOHN WARD: On both sides of the river.
MR. CHURCHILL: You may put it as representing 4,000,000 of people, whereas the Essex point of view, although a very valuable one, is purely an Essex point of view, and has nothing to do with the general and large interests which we are trying to have represented on this body. And let me say that these bodies are protected by elaborate provisions in the Bill with which I will not burden the House—they are protected, and have all their rights unimpaired at law, and consequently I do not believe there is any great hardship, but if there is any it will not be diminished but increased by this picking and choosing. There is another reason that can be shown for not picking out counties for special favour and excluding others. If you were to include them all, what would be the result? We are putting up this great commercial authority to deal with the interests of the Port of London as a whole, to enable that great Port to compete successfully with ports like Hamburg and Antwerp; we are placing on them enormous duties and responsibilities, and we ought to make sure that they have a fair chance of being able to

2261
discharge those duties, and it does seem to me that to put upon a Port Authority of this character, four, or five, or six, members from outside—because that is what it has to come to—who are thinking of the interest of their own locality and not of the interests of the Port of London as a whole—to intrude this extraneous, unsympathetic element would be to hamper the action of the Port Authority, and perhaps lead to some kind of financial catastrophe. Under these circumstances, while I have every reason to acknowledge the spirit of reasonable discussion which prevailed in both Houses of Parliament during the debates on this important Bill, I must respectfully ask the House of Commons to disagree with the Lords in the Amendment they have proposed.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the interests of Kent and Essex were very much greater than had been represented by the hon. Member for Devonport, because a great part of the Port of London and the dock;.; were in Essex at the present moment. London was, rightly or wrongly, given a representation, but Essex, where the new and growing part of the Port was, would have no representation. The growth of the Port would be down the river, and new docks and anything which was done for improving dock accommodation would be in Essex or in Kent—he believed almost entirely in Essex—outside the administrative area of the London County Council. In future, however, these two counties were not to be represented, and he thought it would be an injury to the work of the Port Authority that they were not represented. Nobody had asked that they should have power on the Port Authority to start doing any mischief there, but they were asking for one representative to voice their views on any question, and he thought it would be an immense advantage in greasing the wheels of the machinery, that there should be a representative of Essex with which every new scheme would have to deal. This was really the case, and there would be a great amount of negotiation to be conducted, and no possible injury to the work of the Port Authority could result, because one or two men would not be able to do much harm, but they might
2262
render Service by preventing bodies likely to compete with each other coming into conflict. He regretted the position which the Board of Trade had taken up, and he should be compelled to vote against it, although he was very loth to do anything to interfere with this improvement in the way of the management of the Port of London.
MR. ADKINSwished to express his regret that he was unable to support the Government on this point. He thought from the statements which had been made, it was perfectly clear that the interests of Essex and Kent were so very specially and so organically related to the subject matter of this Bill that the distinction made by the President of the Board of Trade between the general interests of the London County Council and the sectional interests was really not an adequate description of the case. This matter had been considered by the County Councils Association, whose chairman, Lord Belper, supported this Amendment in another place, and from the point of view that the county councils should have a real representation of the interests they stood for, they were in favour of the Lords' Amendments. A very similar case arose last year with regard to a measure dealing with the Humber and the lower reaches of the Trent, and then after a most friendly discussion his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade gave representation to the counties of Lincoln and Nottingham. That representation had had the effect of greasing the wheels and working the machinery, and because of that precedent and of the very large interests of the county of Essex, he should without hesitation vote for the Amendment.
MR. W. THORNEsaid he would not detain the House long, because it was obvious that hon. Members had already made up their minds as to how they should vote. If the Government had accepted the Amendments proposed by Members on both sides of the House, giving separate representation to the different local authorities, it would have prevented the Lords making the Amendments which had been sent down for their consideration.

2263
He felt in rather an awkward position at the present time, in consequence of being impelled to vote for the Amendment which had been sent down from another place, because on principle he absolutely denied the right of that other House to interfere with the business done in the House of Commons. But, nevertheless, the Lords were there, and he felt himself undoubtedly bound to vote for the Amendment, giving one representative to Kent and Essex. Of course, he should have liked to have seen the Government accept one representative for West Ham, which was more affected than any of the other local authorities in consequence of their having the whole of the Victoria Docks situated in the borough, also a part of the Albert Docks, I and whose rating qualification was a very heavy one, but notwithstanding the fact that West Ham would not be directly represented he had made up his mind to vote against the Government. As a Socialist he would be told that he was a "whole hogger," but in this case he was prepared to accept half a loaf, but they were prepared to accept it in regard to this matter, because, I although West Ham would not have the same representation as Essex, the West Ham Council could communicate with the representative of Essex. He should vote for the Amendment.
SIR A. SPICERsaid I that as a member of the Commit tee he I did not like to give a silent vote on this I subject, but as an old Essex man he confessed he should have been very glad
to have seen some representation given to that county. But, after all, the House must bear in mind that as a Committee they had a very difficult task to perform, the principle having been adopted that the Port was to be managed by London and that London was to bear the cost. After all, the cost would fall upon the traders of London, and, as had been said in that debate, they were not responsible for the representation of sectional interests, but they had increased the commercial representation. He believed they had struck a fair balance between the various interests, and the counties of Essex and Kent were almost sure to have representation on the Port Authority in, he ventured to think, a much more satisfactory way than they would have by being represented merely as sectional interests. [Cries of "No."] Some hon. Members said "No," but, after all, they were speaking without knowledge. They could not tell that they would not have representation on the first Port Authority, and he was quite sure that the Board of Trade would do their best to make that body, upon whom so much depended, as representative as possible. Under these circumstances, although he had a great deal of sympathy with his old county of Essex, he believed that the Government had taken the right line, and therefore he should vote in their favour.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 32. (Division List No. 461.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Essex, R. W.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Everett, R. Lacey

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Clough, William

Fenwick, Charles

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ferens, T. R.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Boland, John

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Glendinning, R. G.

Bowerman, C. W.

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

Glover, Thomas

Brace, William

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Brigg, John

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Bryce, J. Annan

Cox, Harold

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crooks, William

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Crosfield, A. H.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

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

Hall, Frederick

Byles, William Pollard

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Cameron, Robert

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Erskine, David C.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Hart-Davies, T.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

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

M'Laren, Rt. Hn. Sir C. B. (Leices.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mallett, Charles E.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East).

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton).

Hemmerde, Edward George

Marnham, F. J.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Montague, Hon. E. S.

Stanger, H. Y.

Higham, John Sharp

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Hodge, John

Mooney, J. J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hooper, A. G.

Myer, Horatio

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hudson, Walter

Nicholls, George

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Idris, T. H. W.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Verney, F. W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wadsworth, J.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Malley, William

Walsh, Stephen

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Walton, Joseph

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Waring, Walter

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rees, J. D.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Kekewich, Sir George

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lupton, Arnold

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs)

Seely, Colonel

Joseph Pease and Master

M'Crae, Sir George

Shackleton, David James

of Elibank.

NOES.

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

Gretton, John

Pretyman, Ernest George

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tvdvil)

Renwick, George

Balcarres, Lord

Hill, Sir Clement

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffsh.)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Baring, Godfery (Isle of Wight)

Hunt, Rowland

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Valentia, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Jowett, F. W.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kerry, Earl of

Whitbread, Howard

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Forster, Henry William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Rowlands and Mr. Whitehead.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mason James F. (Windsor)

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—
"In page 2, after line 13, to insert, by the Kent County Council, 1. By the Essex County Council, 1."—
Disagreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 6, line 29, agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 6, line 29, after the word 'requisite' to insert as a new subsection '(c) nothing in this Act shall authorise the appropriation or the utilisation for the purposes of this Act of any common or commonable land or any recreation ground, village green, or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any disused burial ground, fuel, or other allotments, or any land held on trusts which prohibit building thereon."
Read a second time.
SIR H. KEARLEYsaid though the Government accepted the principle of this Amendment he was bound to move formally to disagree with it. There had been some misunderstanding in another place with regard to the Amendment they really did accept. As it appeared on the Paper it was in the form in which it was moved by the noble Lord and the Government intimated in Committee that on Report they would be prepared to bring up an Amendment in another form which the noble Lord said he would accept. He moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment and would afterwards move it in the modified form.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 29, after the word 'requisite' to insert the words '(c) Nothing in this section shall without the consent of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries authorise the acquisition of any common or commonable land or any recreation ground, village green or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any disused burial ground.'"—(Sir H. Kearley.)
SIR J. JARDINE, as a Member of the Commons' Preservation Society, expressed satisfaction at the acceptance of the Amendment in the amended form. It merely followed beneficent legislation as regarded the preservation of commons in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis for the last sixty years, and it would make a precedent of the same sort which would be of great value in the future.
Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 6, lines 30 to 37, to leave out subsection (2)"—
Agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 6, line 39; after the word 'person, to insert the words not in the employment of any Government Department."
Read a second time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
LORD R. CECILsaid he understood the Government proposed to move to agree with the Lords' Amendment, and he did not desire to oppose that. The clause had been very considerably modified, and if he might say so very much for the better, since it left the House. In its present form it would be a useful precedent to extend to other bodies of a similar character. The only thing he desired to press upon the Government was this. They provided for an inquiry before an impartial and now an independent person, and that was all to the good, but if the Government would look forward, as he hoped they would, to a general application of some such principle as this, he thought it would be
2268
a desirable thing to have a permanent tribunal of the nature of the Light Railways Commission, to which all such applications should be referred. A permanent tribunal had great advantages from the point of view of having a regular course of procedure, and from the point of view of independence of any Government interest. He trusted the Government would consider some such suggestion with a view possibly of introducing a general Bill next session dealing with the whole subject.
SIR H. KEARLEYsaid the noble Lord would not expect him at that moment to make any definite pledge as regarded legislation, but they were very glad to recognise that in all parts of the House there was a growing feeling that some sort of permanent tribunal should be brought into existence in order to save promoters and others from the expenditure of time and money which was now most wasteful to all the interests involved. He asked the noble Lord to accept his statement—a sympathetic one—but he could not commit himself to any definite undertaking in regard to the future.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
Committee nominated of, Mr. Burns, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Churchill, Sir Hudson Kearley, and Mr. Frederick Edwin Smith.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—(Sir Hudson Kearley.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Children Bill.—That they agree to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Children Bill, and agree to one other of the said Amendments, with Amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; they agree

2269
to the consequential Amendments made by the Commons to the Bill, and do not insist on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved, "That this House do meet To-morrow at Twelve of the Clock."—(Mr. J. A. Pease.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Coal Mines (Eight Hours) (No. 2) Bill, with Amendments.
Law of Distress Amendment Bill. That they agree to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Law of Distress Amendment Bill, without Amendment, and disagree to one of the said Amendments, but propose an Amendment in lieu thereof, to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be a great convenience to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would give a survey of the Amendments before the House, as we have no Paper, and cannot, therefore, see what they are. Of course, no one is to blame, but under the circumstances, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will survey the Amendments to be dealt with.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Practically there are three points for the consideration of the House. The first deals with the period of five years during which, under the Bill as it stood, the second windings were to be excluded. The second point deals with
2270
the penalties—in what was Clause 6 of the Bill as it left this House. With regard to that the Amendments are complicated and somewhat lengthy, but the upshot is a new clause upon which an agreement has been reached, and in regard to which I do not think any exception or objection can be taken. Explanations will be given upon those Amendments when that point is reached. The third point is in regard to the date. Those are the three main points which this House has to consider.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 1, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'during the five years after the commencement of this Act.'"
Read a second time.
MR. GLADSTONE: In rising for the purpose of asking the House to agree with this Amendment, I have to express my regret that the Amendment has been—I will not say imposed upon this House—but sent down to this House for its consideration and practically for its acceptance. The Bill as it was introduced was not an eight-hours bank to bank Bill which, as I may remind hon. and right hon. Members opposite, was the demand put forward by the miners of the country. The Bill as it was introduced really provided for an eight-and-a-half-hour bank to bank day. There was on the average half an hour more per day than under the scheme first proposed by the Miners Federation. That was one concession which the miners were asked to make and they made it, and made it cheerfully. Then a further concession was made by the Government, to which again the Miners Federation agreed, in the exclusion of two windings for a period of five years. Now I must remind the House that over and above these concessions, the Bill provided that upon sixty days in every year an hour's overtime was to be allowed in every colliery. So that the House will see that the miners themselves had advanced in the point of concessions a very considerable distance. Now we are asked to assent to the further concession of eliminating the period of five years, and by so doing make the exclusion

2271
of both windings permanent, I am not going to waste any words on this occasion. We are met here for the purpose of business, and I will only say that the Government accept this Amendment under strong protest; that we do so in the hope, first of all, that that acceptance will conduce to the mineowners loyally co-operating in carrying out the purposes and objects of this Bill. We make this further concession, making it perfectly clear at the same time that we do not surrender our position. We do not admit that the Act was either dangerous or wrong as it stood when it left this House, and we hold that at the end of the five years period we shall be fully entitled to reconsider the position and take any constitutional measures that we think fit for the restoration of the position to that proposed in the Bill in the shape in which it left this House. I confidently believe that the country by that time will have seen the error into which the prophets of evil have fallen. I regret that we have to accept this Amendment, but we do accept it in the hope that it will lead to conciliation, to peace, and, as I have said, to the loyal co-opera ion of those who have pressed this Amendment upon us so that we may ensure that the fullest benefits shall be obtained from the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—Mr. Gladstone.
MR. KEIR HARDIEregretted exceedingly that the Government had, apparently without protest—[Cries of "No, no."]—without effective protest, agreed to consent to this permanent mutilation of the Eight Hours Bill. He had read somewhat carefully the reports of the debates in another place on the Second Reading and Committee stages of the measure, and was convinced that if the Government had made it a condition o* carrying this Bill through that the five years period should remain, the Leaders of the Opposition in the other House would have given way. So far as he could gather no negotiations had taken place, no attempt had been made to save the Bill. The hope indulged in by the Home Secretary that to accept this
2272
Amendment would make for peace and for conciliation was in the very nature of things doomed to bitter disappointment. Had the Bill remained the question would have been settled once and for all. With this Amendment it remained open, and during the next five years there would be constant uncertainty as to what was going to happen at the end of that period, agitations on the part of the miners with the probability that if a proper Bill was not introduced there would be a big dislocation in the coal trade to secure what the Bill would have secured for the miners if it had remained as it left this House. Was not this a good beginning to the campaign for the overthrow of the House of Lords? What his hon. friends opposite, the leaders of the Federation, were going to do was for them to say. They, after all, were the responsible parties in connection with the matter. He hoped for their own sake and for the sake of the Bill they would carry the matter to a division. If, on the other hand, they agreed to accept the decision of the Government, they on those benches would not take the responsibility of pressing a division in opposition to their wishes. He felt very strongly that if the House even now disagreed with this Amendment, the Lords, rather than run the risk of a conflict between themselves and the organised workers, of the country, would climb down as gracefully as they could. What they were asked to receive was only the remains of the Eight Hours Bill. The trouble all through this matter had been too much concession. If there had been less concession on the part of his hon. friends opposite and on the part of the Government the Lords would not have dared to make this Amendment. But the mischief was done, and he hoped his hon. friends would still show their opinion of the action taken in another place by carrying the matter to a division.
MR. E. EDWARDSwas with the hon. Member for Merthyr in his regret that this clause had been put into the Bill in another, place. They regarded the extension from three to five years as a substantial concession to carry the Bill through. The Miners'

2273
Federation, who had been working for years to get eight hours from bank to bank, had always realised that there might be some difficulty in securing it at once, but when the measure was in Committee of this House, the Bill as drafted met with the general approval of the miners throughout the country. They regretted that in another place where no representatives of working men had an opportunity of stating their views, where no member of the Miners' Federation was permitted to put their case, they should have thought fit to omit the five years and exclude the two windings. The Miners' Federation had had their annual conference that day, and had carefully considered this matter, and did not share to the full the views of his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr. The Miners' Federation realised the responsibility of the position they had taken up, and while they were as anxious as the hon. Member for Merthyr to carry an Eight Hours Bill, and while they were satisfied that at present they had a Bill which gave them eight hours underground, they, at the same time, most energetically protested against the action taken in another place. Whatever the Miners' Federation might do with the Members in another place was not for him to say, but one thing was certain, namely, that they would not let this question rest where it was. Having secured, at any rate, the machinery of this Bill, and that there should be no double-shift working with the men and overtime—having laid down that principle in this Bill—they would seek to secure what had been the goal of the Miners' Federation in the near future, an eight hours day from bank to bank. While they protested they did not feel as a Federation called upon to destroy the Bill, and having said that they would support the Government in their efforts to carry the Bill through.
MR. PONSONBYsaid he rose to support what fell from his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and he would go one step farther than he did, and, if necessary, divide the House on this question. It was late in the year, and they were all agitated by one common feeling, which
2274
was to get away from this place; their bags were packed, and they desired to go, but such was the Constitution that the most important matters happened just at the end of the session. The result of accepting that particular Amendment of the House of Lords meant that they were not passing an Eight Hours Bill. It meant that the question was not settled, and that there would be an agitation for fresh legislation in the near future. If it were to be a compromise for the sake of a settlement, he would be the first to vote for it and to acquiesce in it, because, after all, their political life to a great extent depended upon compromise. This, however, was not a compromise for a settlement, but a concession which prevented a settlement. He hoped his hon. friends the Members for the Miners' Federation would not consider it presumptuous on his part to take this action. He had no desire to dictate to any man or to any Party, but he thought it would be better for them to listen to the advice of a friend than to submit to the dictation of their enemies. He did not believe that peace could come of any settlement of this sort. It was not as if they did not know very well the motives why the Lords had forced this Amendment upon them. The basis upon which they built their edifice in this matter was profits and prices, and not principle. He thought they were coming to a hasty decision which they would very much regret in the future. If they had had time for more calm deliberation, he felt sure the Miners' Federation would not have come to this decision, nor would the Government. They were forced up against Christmas, they were forced up against the desire of Members to go away, and in a weak moment, instead of showing some sort of moral courage, the Government had given in. He supposed they ought to be thankful that the Bill was discussed in Committee by their Lordships, and not disposed of in some private house in Mayfair; but in the great campaign against the Lords was their first step to be on their knees? Were they to show this timidity and allow themselves to be dictated to, not only submitting to have their Bills rejected in their faces before they were read a

2275
second time, but, if they were given a second reading, having the details altered so that they came back to them in a form which prevented their being efficacious or being the policy which the Government originally laid down? He had done his best during the autumn session to support the Government by keeping his mouth shut, but there was a moment when he could no longer do that. He felt very strongly on this point. He felt that they were making a great mistake. They were spoiling a very valuable Bill, and all for the want of keeping up till the last moment—at the end of a very exacting session, he acknowledged—their moral courage and strenuous desire to fight for the liberties for which they as a Party cared. He should certainly divide the House if no one else did.
MR. BRACEsaid he had not intended to intervene in this debate, but as a miners' Member, he felt that they could not be expected to sit down under the rather severe strictures upon what after all had called for very mature and careful consideration on the part of the leaders of the organisation. It was all very well to talk about dividing the House and about fighting the House of Lords. If there was a body of men in this country who had displayed fighting capacity of a first-class character it was the miners, but, side by side with that fighting capacity, they had displayed some sagacity too. When they were going to fight they were going to select ground that would not be disastrous to themselves. Upon this occasion, what had they facing them? They had an Amendment from the House of Lords, an Amendment which they all deplored, an Amendment which they thought ought never to have been put in the Bill, an Amendment that would demand from them continuous agitation and ultimately again to demand that Parliament should give them what after all the miners had a right to ask. They were told in that Amendment that they were wrong. He associated himself with his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil when he said that the mistake in tactics that they made in this House was to compromise too much.
2276
But they were now face to face with either accepting their Lordships' Amendment or standing the risk of having their Bill rejected altogether. If they thought that their Bill would not be rejected altogether, their attitude would be entirely different, but he asked the House to take it from him, as speaking with his friend and colleague the hon. Member for Hanley on behalf of the Miners' Federation, that they had spent too much time working, waiting, almost despairing for this Bill to take that risk, and rather than risk dividing the House—and, after all, what was the value of dividing the House of Commons unless with the intention and the determination to carry the House against the Amendment—it was because they felt that, when their President was put up in their name to enter their protest they entered their protest there on the floor of the House of Commons, and they would enter their protest against the House of Lords in all the ballot boxes, they could command in the country.
LORD R. CECILsaid he could not help thinking that some hon. Members regarded this Amendment as of more serious importance than it appeared to be. After all, it would leave the Bill precisely as it was when it left this House; the only effect would be that it would make a change five years hence unless some other Bill was passed. The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs had made an impassioned speech against the House of Lords. It was not the first time that they had heard such speeches against the House of Lords. [An HON. MEMBER: It will not be the last.] He had no doubt they would hear many more, and with precisely the same result. The hon. Member seemed to think the Government were in earnest in the matter, but surely the hon. Member should be convinced by the history of the past few years that that was an absurd hypothesis. Of course, this was merely part of the ordinary Parliamentary stock-in-trade of the Liberal Government. When anything went wrong they abused the House of Lords, and threatened all the terrible things they were going to do to them, without in any way compromising the length of their existence. The hon. Member had his sincere sympathy

2277
but he thought he was more ingenuous than he used to believe him to be.
MR. LUPTONasked if he might say one word on behalf of the Government. It had been stated that this was not an Eight Hours Bill, and that was quite right. It was a seven-hours Bill, or a six-and-a-half hours Bill. The Miners' Federation had sent up Resolutions to the Committee relating to the hours of work underground, all under the impression that it was fixing eight-hours work underground. The Bill fixed practically not more than seven hours work underground as the maximum possible under the terms of the Bill as it now stood. Therefore, for people in favour of an Eight Hours Bill to object to this Amendment on the ground that it allowed too much time underground was inconsistent. If they did not wish the miners to work seven hours, let them say so, but let them not kick up a row because the Bill only allowed seven hours maximum work underground.
Read a second time.
Agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 3, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words 'during five years after the commencement of this Act.'"
Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment, iR page 3, line 19.
MR, KEIR HARDIEsaid this was an Amendment to which he wished to raise objection. It was not necessarily a consequential Amendment following upon the one already accepted. It would be remembered that under the Bill firemen, examiners, and deputies during five years were to be allowed to remain in the mines nine and a half hours a day, and thereafter nine hours a day. The effect of the Amendment made by the Lords was that the nine and a half hours per day would be stereotyped so long as the Bill remained the law. Everyone of his friends and colleagues agreed that thet was a very serious matter. He did not know whether
2278
the Government had considered it. At any rate it was not a consequential Amendment on the one already agreed to. The effect of it would be that firemen, examiners, and deputies would have nine and a half hours a day, and he was sure the House of Commons would not desire such a result. These men held responsible and very often onerous positions, and he thought this was a point on which the Government might reasonably expect opponents of the Bill in another place to give way. The Amendment could be rejected without in any way endangering the Bill or interfering with further Amendments of any kind, while at the same time ensuring that the hours of these men whom he had specified should not be fixed at nine and a half but at nine hours per day. He therefore moved to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,): I hope that the hon. Member will not persist in his opposition to this Amendment, which is a consequential Amendment. The proviso in the Bill as it left this House was that in the case of firemen, examiners, and deputies, the maximum period below ground should—
"During the five years after the commencement of this Act be nine and a half hours, and thereafter nine hours."
Nine and a half hours was the maximum we laid down during the five years, and nine hours afterwards. But the House has already accepted the Lords' Amendment to strike out the five years in the first clause, the effect of which was to make the conditions which we laid down for those years, applicable generally, until the law would be altered; and the Lords by this Amendment have struck out the words "During the five years after the commencement of this Act and thereafter nine hours," so as again to make the provisions laid down by us for the firemen and deputies for the first five years, applicable generally, subject to future alteration by Parliament. I think

2279
this Amendment, therefore, is clearly consequential. The hon. Member for Merthyr twice in the course of his speech said that if we agreed to this Amendment we should be stereotyping and fixing the hours at nine and a half hours a day once and for all. The Amendmant does nothing of the kind; it does something very different. When this matter was in Committee, and again on Report, I urged that we could not really fix the hours of firemen and others who are mainly and primarily responsibl for the safety of the mine to be the same as for those who ordinarly work in the mine, and who, shough responsible as in-dividuol workmen, are not responsible as officials. The firemen who are mainly responsible for the safety of the mine are not regulated by a particular shift. The firemen have to go down a considerable time before the shifts, but it does not necessarily follow that they remain down nine and half hours. I urged the desirability of such arrangements being made between these men and the employers as would enable them to work the mine efficiently and safely, and I believe that will be done by arrangement between the masters, the officials, and the men. It is quite clear that we are not increasing the hours; in many cases the Act will greatly diminish them; nor are we fixing or stereotyping the hours at nine and ahalf hours a day; what we say is that that nine and a half hours would be the maximum period beyond which it would not be possible for them to remain underground. They have to go underground, as I have said, before the miners, and therefore they cannot be in the same shift as the miners at all, and really they are in a separate and different category. Far be it from me as representing, not only the Government, but a mining constituency, to urge that these men should be kept underground longer than others; and it cannot be in the interest of the owners or of themselves that their hours of work should be such as to slacken their energies or to weaken their efficiency; but circumstances may arise out of the obligations resting upon them which may require, apart from questions of sudden or unforeseen emergency, that they shall be allowed in soms cases to remain underground somewhat longer than the ordinary miner. I have had no representation
2280
myself from the firemen to show that they cannot trust these matters to be regulated between themselves and their employers. If they thought it necessary that they should come within the hard and fast rules applied to the miners engaged underground, I think they would have made a representation to me on the subject, or to me they would have made a representation indirectly through their special representatives. I think the reason that they have not made such representation is, as I have said, that there is a difference in their position, and that they recognise that difference. The whole of these men form only some 3½ per cent. of all those engaged in the mining industry, and they may fairly look for a limitation of hours, not to an Act of Parliament framed for the benefit of those who are not able to take care of themselves, but to arrangements made between themselves and their employers in view of their joint and respective obligations to look after the safety of the colliery.
Question put, and negatived.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 5, line 35, agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 5, line 35, to leave out subsection 2.'"
Read a second time.
SIR S. EVANS: This Amendment is the last of a series, which makes a considerable difference in the form of the clause from what it was when it left this House, but I can assure hon. Members that there is really no difference at all in substance. As the clause now stands there will be a substantive obligation on the employer and his representative to make that regulation, and to provide the necessary facilities for raising the men out of the pit in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The only other alteration made is this. If failure to

2281
comply with the Act is proved or if there is any contravention on the part of anyone directly concerned, or if there is indirectly connivance at contravention, there will be an offence committed on the part of the owner, agent or manager of the mine. There is considerable difference in form, but really little, if any, in substance, and I beg to move to agree with the Lords Amendment.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 6, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words 'as respects mines in the Counties of Northumberland and Durham.'"
Read a second time.
MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to move that the House disagree with this Amendment. It will be necessary to detain the House two or three minutes because the point is an important one, and it is necessary to state the reasons for our disagreement. Two points emerge quite clearly from the debates which have taken place here and elsewhere. First there is a general agreement apart from those who may be specially interested in the trade of a particular district that a summer date for the commencement of the Act is desirable. In the second place it is also clear that any date which may be proposed is open to serious objection from one district or another—possibly from several districts. The House knows what has happened. The date in the Bill when it left the House was 1st July, 1909, and the date now is 1st July, 1910. I understand that in another place there is a full disposition to acquiesce in the views of the Government, provided, and it is a proper condition, the Government takes full responsibility upon itself for the date. The Government never has desired to avoid this responsibility, and, assuming that it has a perfectly free hand, naturally that responsibility must rest upon it, and I therefore frankly say that we do accept full responsibility for the date which we are going to propose. What are our reasons for reverting to the date as it was in the Bill when it left the House? We say as regards 1st July, 1910,
2282
in the first place it is far too distant a date, and in the second place I would suggest that, looking at it from the general point of view of the consumer, it may be that the conditions of trade under which the Bill would begin to operate in 1910 would not be nearly so favourable as they are at an earlier date. I pass to the date of 1st January, 1910, which has also been proposed. As regards that I say emphatically after full consideration that we cannot take the responsibility of bringing this Bill into operation in mid-winter all over the country. As regards 1st April, 1910, or 1st October, 1909, no serious arguments have been brought forward as alternatives. I come by a process of elimination to 1st July, 1909. Then the question turns upon the concession which we have made with regard to Durham and Northumberland. I agree that that is a matter which may fairly provoke discussion. We proposed that an extension of the preparatory time should be given to Durham and Northumberland of six months, so that the Bill should begin to operate in those counties on 1st January, 1910. It has been urged that the Committee presided over by my hon. friend behind me found in its conclusions that, as regards the probable economic effect, more serious consequences were likely to ensue in South Wales and parts of Lancashire than elsewhere, and that has been used as an argument against this concession. But I do not argue that because the ground of our concession is a practical one. Is the reorganisation possible by 1st July? I would say this, that no representation has reached the Government either from South Wales or Lancashire with regard to the difficulty of making sufficient preparation by 1st July, and the reason is this, that though the Committee may be right in regard to their conclusion on economic grounds, yet the problem of reorganisation in those districts is far simpler than it is in Durham and Northumberland. Why? Because it seems that in South Wales and Lancashire hours will have to be knocked off, so as to bring them within the operation of the Act, and then economies of time in various respects will have to be made, and, where necessary, multiple shifts may be introduced. But, as regards Durham and

2283
Northumberland, the case is quite different. Through the past year my Department has had constant representations from Durham and Northumberland from both masters and men as to the necessity for giving more than six months, and we found in our judgment that, as the present system of working in Durham and Northumberland is incompatible with the provisions of this Bill, more time will, in fact, be necessary. It is not a question of reorganisation only in Durham and Northumberland. It does mean undoubtedly reconstruction from top to bottom. There will be the difficulty of providing a full equivalent shift of hands for the hewing shift. There will be the difficulty of finding men and boys sufficient by the time the new arrangements have to be made. We have never denied this. New conditions of work and pay will have to be arranged. All these difficulties exist, I maintain, so far as reconstruction and reorganisation go, to a greater degree in Durham and Northumberland than elsewere. We propose to give Durham and Northumland not so much preferential treatment, but, broadly speaking, equalisation of conditions in starting the operation of the Bill. I should like to quote in no critical or hostile way some words spoken by the Leader of the Opposition, because on 9th December he put this question to the House, and he addressed it in particular to the representatives of the miners, both in Durham and Northumberland and elsewhere. He said—
"How is the industry in Northumberland and Durham to be remodelled by July so as to be brought in accordance with the scheme of this Bill? The House will see that I am trying to confine myself to a very practical issue. I am not going on theory at all. The practical issue is of the first importance."
2284
And then he put his question to the practical men in the House as to how this proposed change could be effected in Durham and Northumberland, and I imagined from that that the right hon. Gentleman was possessed with the difficulty of the question in Durham and Northumberland rather than elsewhere. The question was answered, and my hon. friend, who represents the Miners' Federation in this House, supported the proposal of the Government, which, after the right hon. Gentleman had spoken, I made to the House, that this concession should be made to these two counties. There remains for consideration whether that concession involves preferential treatment which is unfair to other parts of the country. From the first I had in mind the possibility of that. For that reason more than three weeks ago in the Standing Committee, in answer to a very powerful appeal by my hon. friend the Member for Mid-Durham, I said I would see if the Government could meet the special claim of Durham and Northumberland to an extension. I did not commit myself, but I said that advisedly, so that it might be known what the Government were thinking of, and that if any special representation could be made by those concerned it might be made before the Government committed itself to that plan. There were no protests in the Standing Committee—
MR. MARKHAM: I protested.
MR. GLADSTONE: I thought the only protest came from the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil. However, I quite accept the statement that two hon. friends behind me made a protest. But no other protest reached my Department, except one or two from individual

2285
mine owners who wrote and said there would be difficulty caused by competition. The first day on Report stage the right hon. Gentleman opposite dealt with this question, and I said I proposed to make this alteration, and I did so make it two days later. As I said even then, no protest from the trade had reached me; the hon. Member for Mansfield did protest strongly, but the House accepted the Amendment without a division. I agree there may be something in the argument of my hon. friend in regard to the possibility of some advantage to Durham from this concession. But surely this concession is a small thing. It is not as if Durham and Northumberland were to have six months full advantage. They will have to make their preparations, and the whole of their reorganisation and reconstruction will have to come into force on 1st January 1910. Therefore in the last months of the extension they will have to be making their preparations. I maintain that it hardly lies at any rate on the mine owners all over the country, who for twenty years have said that this change would cause special loss to Durham and Northumberland, to say now that if this small concession is made it will have a disorganising effect on other parts of the country. These very mine owners themselves propose that a local option clause should be put in any such Bill to enable Durham and Northumberland to contract themselves out of the Act. I cannot but think, having regard to the fact that the coal owners have not made any representation to the Government or to my Department against this clause, that we may safely propose to disagree. I understand that in another place the disagreement here will not be opposed, and, therefore, I move to disagree.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have nothing to criticise or complain of either in the tone or in the substance of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered. I think the question of date is an extremely difficult and delicate one, and I do not think any arrangement of date would altogether avoid grave objection, and I think in these circumstances the responsibility for settling the date must rest upon His Majesty's Government. At any rate, that is my view. As the House will remember, as the Bill came from Grand Committee it was coming universally into operation next July, and as it left this House it was coming into operation next July except in Northumberland and Durham, where it was coming into operation in a year's time. The House of Lords—I am not surprised at it—saw the very great inconvenience that arose etfrom having two dates. It was pointed out to them, I think by the Government, that a winter date had most serious Objections inevitably attached to it, and, therefore, they suggested that a summer date should be chosen, but a summer date which would give ample time to Northumberland and Durham to come into the Bill. Therefore, they suggested that it should be July year, and I think there is a good deal to be said for it. But let it be noticed that it has this very serious disadvantage. I cannot believe that it is for the interests of either employers or employed that this thing should be hanging over them for a year and a half, and what moves me even more than

2287
the question of employers and employed is the fact that no human being can tell what will be the condition of the coal market a year and a half hence. We cannot be certain what it will be next July, but we cannot bring in the Bill before next July, and we have much better means of forecasting the future for six months than for eighteen. In these circumstances I am bound to say that if I were in the place of the Government I should feel the responsibility of deferring the whole date for a year and a half to be so great that I should hesitate to take it on my shoulders. But the Government have gone further than that. They have clearly laid down that in their view out of all the possible solutions the one, which is not indeed unobjectionable, but which is open to the least objection, is that which brings in the general operation of the Bill in July and in Durham and Northumberland in a year's time, and if they take that view upon their responsibility I for one should certainly support them.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that on the last occasion when the question came up for discussion he was unable to find anyone to second the proposition that he made, and he was not able to take a vote of the House. The Home Secretary had stated that he had received no communication from any coal owners with reference to the extension it was proposed to give in the North of England.
MR. GLADSTONE: I said we had received a few protests from individuals.
MR. MARKHAMasked how it was possible for the trade to communicate with the Government when they had been chopping and
2288
altering the Bill about as they had done. When it came down on the Report stage there was no extension in the Bill for Northumberland and Durham. The Mining Association of Great Britain had met to discuss this matter, and they were unanimously of opinion that a preference ought not to be given to Durham and Northumberland. He was authorised by the Yorkshire Coal Owners Association and the Derbyshire Coal Owners Association to say that in their opinion the giving of this preference would have the very gravest consequences to the counties of Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Derbyshire. The position of the coal trade at the present time was one of great depression. They had just passed through a period of inflated prices. During the last three weeks, although they were told the passing of this Bill was going to cause a great increase in the price of coal, contracts had been made by all the large collieries over next year at a reduction of no less than 2s. 6d. to 3s. a ton. It would mean that they were going by legislation to increase the cost to the Midland Counties by at least 6d. per ton, and to leave Durham and Northumberland during that period without any addition to their cost. He could assure the House, speaking with some knowledge of the coal trade, that a difference of 2d. or 3d., so keen was the competition, would mean a loss of contracts to the Midland districts. He hoped the House would acquit him of any selfish motive in raising this question. He said that chiefly for this reason. After the debate on Monday night he went to Yorkshire, and he found in Yorkshire the pits were working three days, three and a half, and in some districts two days a week, and

2289
the complaints he heard from the men at the collieries with which he was connected were of short trade. He pointed out that the Liberal Government were going to give them less trade, because they were going to give a preference to the North of England which was bound to dislocate the trade and make them work short time, whereas the trade with ordinary competition and without the Bill would have been equally divided between the North of England and the Midland district. He strongly dissented from the view of the Home Secretary that it would take twelve months for Northumberland and Durham to change their system of organisation. If Northumberland and Durham, with the very able Members who represented the mining industry in those counties in that House, together with all those gentlemen who had made so much money in Durham and Northumberland, and who were experts on these questions of mining, could not settle this question in six months he was quite certain they could not settle it in twelve. Speaking again with some long experience of mining work, it was ridiculous from a practical standpoint for coal owners to come to the House and attempt to persuade the Home Secretary that this reorganisation could not take place under twelve months. He understood, and it had been formally notified to him by representatives of the Mining Association of Great Britain, that protests against this preference were made in another place by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, speaking for Scotland, by Lord Dunraven, speaking for South Wales, and by other noble Lords, speaking on behalf of other districts. It was amazing that after Lord Lansdowne had stated that they had decided to
2290
abandon preferential treatment for Durham and Northumberland, and make the Act begin on the same day for all the collieries, they had nothing more to say. He thought the arguments advanced by Lord Lansdowne were not only most cogent, but were based on solid foundations of fact. They were such as would, he was sure, in the long run prove true, and if this preference was given it would cause dislocation to the trade which hon. Members who had no knowledge of the coal trade little understood or appreciated. All the Coal Owners Associations had had urgency meetings in connection with the matter, and had passed Resolutions, but they had not sent them to the Home Secretary. They had sent them to the miners' leaders, to himself, and to others who were speaking on behalf of equal treatment for all interested in the trade. He hoped the argument of six months was not one which would commend itself to the House. The Home Secretary had the best motives, but he had been squeezed by the coal owners and the miners' agents in this matter, and had given way to them, whereas he never ought to have given way. This preference would inflict a great injury on his constituents and on all those associated with the trade, and, therefore, he should certainly vote against it and divide the House as a protest against this unequal contracting-out clause. He was not going to speak for South Wales, because the hon. Baronet who was largely interested in the trade in South Wales would lay before the House, he was sure, in an able manner, the position in that, district, which again was in keen competition with the North of England.
SIR C. J. CORYsaid he was very disappointed that the Home Secretary had not seen his way at least to make the clause read that it should come into operation in the whole country on 1st January 1910, even though he did not agree to the Amendment made in another place. He would beg to point out to him that in Committee he had an Amendment down that it should not come into operation before 1st January, 1910. He strongly urged also that the whole of the country should be treated alike, and that if any preference should be given to any particular coal field South Wales and Monmouthshire had the most need of a preference. He also urged the same thing on Report stage and on Third Reading. He could quite confirm what the hon. Member for Mansfield had said that the Mining Association of Great Britain had all along urged that no preference should be given to any district. He had also had numerous telegrams and letters from the South Wales and Monmouthshire Coal Owners Association, the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce, and numerous traders, urging that the Bill should not come into operation so far as South Wales was concerned before January 1st 1910. Although some large companies in South Wales had declined to make contracts bayond 30th June, 1909, other companies to a very large extent had made numerous contracts over the whole of next year. Whether it would be a loss or not they had been bound to make their contracts so as not to lose customers, and if the Bill came into operation in the middle of next year it might mean a very heavy loss to them. Further, the agreement with the miners did not end until the end of next year, and if the Bill came into operation in July it would possibly
2292
cause a dispute and even a strike. That did away, to his mind, with a great deal of the winter argument—that if it was brought in in the winter they might have high prices—because if the miners of the South Wales coal field went on strike when the Act came into force in July and remained out for some time that would send the prices up in the winter. He was sure it was to the advantage of the country generally that the Bill should not be brought into operation until 1st January, 1910, and he appealed, even at that late hour, to the right hon. Gentleman to agree to that.
MR. FENWICKsaid that Northumberland had never asked for any preference, nor did they want any preference. All that they were asking for, and what they had always asked for, had been time in order that they might carry out a complete transition from one organised condition of things to another. All those hon. Members who had sat in previous Parliaments and had heard what they had to say on this subject would bear him out when he said the essence of their objection to the Miners' Eight Hours Bill had been the want of time necessary in order to reorganise the districts concerned, but the Federation would not grant that time. They rigidly adhered to the time limit which was far too short to reorganise the whole industry in the North of England. They had protested against the Bill on principle from the very first. All that they asked for was that they should have time allowed to them to be able thoroughly to reorganise the industry as they would dt veha from top to bottom. The condition of things in the two counties of Durham

2293
and Northumberland was absolutely and totally dissimilar to the condition of things existing in any other part of the mining community throughout the United Kingdom. The contracts in humberland—the county which he knew best—were fixed for the whole of next year, and his hon. friend would have them fix the period for this Act coming into operation as 1st July, the same date as in other parts of the country. The hon. Member would have them further adhere to all the contracts which they had made, and fulfil those contracts at the risk of having to pay for the breaking of the contracts if they were not carried out. He would have them reorganise the whole of their industry in six months. He knew that his hon. friend the Member for Mansfield possessed great organising capacity, but he assured him that with all his ingenuity and all his organising capacity if he were to go down to Northumberland and Durham he could not reorganise the industry in the way it would have to be done in a less period than twelve months. He had simply risen to thank the Government for having moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and for their intention to reinsert the language of the Bill as it stood when it left this House. He and his friends had no desire for a preference. If his hon. friend and the Federation had come to ask for twelve months, they would not have been parties to opposing their getting that period.
Remaining Lords' Amendments disagreed to.
A consequential Amendment made to the Bill.
Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
Committee nominated of, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Herbert Samuel, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Lord Edmund Talbot.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
Lords' Amendments to Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith.
Motioe made, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment."—(Mr. Herbert.)
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDexpressed regret that his hon. friend had accepted the Amendment. The Bill had been whittled down very considerably. He understood that the effect of the Amendment now before the House was to exempt existing leases. There were, he was informed, a very large number of sub-tenants paying rent to intermediate landlords, who in turn paid rent to the superior landlords. The effect of the Amendment was that these inferior tenants who had paid rent to an intermediate landlord might be distrained if the intermediate landlord had not paid his rent to the superior landlord. The Bill, therefore, might result in very grave injustice to subtenants.
MR. HERBERT, who was indistinctly heard, said the hon. Member was under a misapprehension as to the effect of

2295
the Bill. He did not think there was any real substance in the Amendment made by the Lords. He hoped the House would agree to the Amendment.
MR. CROOKS sd he would like to hear the opinion of the Attorney-General on the subject. Supposing a man had paid his rent to an intermediate landlord, what would happen if the superior landlord came in and seized his goods?
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said he regarded the Amendment a sserious inroad on the value of the Bill. It was for the House to say whether it was worth fighting.
MR. CROOKS: It is worth fighting.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Buxton Charity Bill; Long Ashton Charity Bill; Abbots Bromley Charity Bill; Post Office Savings Bank (Public Trustee) (No. 2) Bill; East India Loans Bill; Crofters' Commons Grazings Regulation Bill; Constabulary (Ireland) Bill; Water of Leith Purification and Sewerage Order Confirmation Bill; North British Railway Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill; Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Bill; Local Government (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to:—Post Office Sites Bill [Lords]; Companies Consolidation Bill [Lords]; Poisons and Pharmacy Bill [Lords]; Appellate Jurisdiction Bill [Lords]; London Electric Supply Bill [Lords]; London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [Lords].
Amendment to:—Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; Assizes and Quarter Sessions Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the Enactments relating to Agricultural Holdings in Scotland." [Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 412.]

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(Mr. Churchill.)

COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July adjourned the House without Quesion, put.
Adjourned at sixteen minutes after Seven o'clock.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments last made by the Lords agreed to, and with the Commons' disagreement to the Lords' Amendment not insisted upon.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  EDINBURGH AND LEITH CORPORATIONS GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions against: Of Caledonian Railway Company; Ipswich Chamber a of Commerce and Shipping; Persons signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition for amendment of: Of school board of the parish of Dunfermline; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  INDIA (ADVISORY AND LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS, ETC).
  Vol. II. Part I.—Replies of the Local Governments, etc., Enclosures I. to XX., to letter from the Government of India, No. 21, dated 1st October, 1908.
  Vol. II. Part II.—Replies of the Local Governments, etc., Enclosures XXI. to XXX. to letter from the Government of India, No. 21, dated 1st October, 1908.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Reports from those Universities and University Colleges in Great Britain which participated in the Parliamentary Grant for University Colleges in the year, 1906–1907.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4174. Norway (Trade for 1907 (Supplementary Report)).
  No. 4175. Italy: (Foreign Trade for 1907).

  TREATY SERIES, No. 34 (1908).
  Exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and France renewing for a further period of five years, the Arbitration Agreement; signed at London, 14th October, 1903 (Treaty Series, No. 18, 1903, 14th October, 1908).
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 590: Grenada (Report for 1907).

  INEBRIATES ACTS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the law relating to inebriates and to their detention in reformatories and retreats (Report, Minutes of Evidence, with Appendices and Indexes).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (VISITING COMMITTEES).
  Draft of Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Prison Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to the constitution of the Visiting Committee of Carmarthen Prison.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and suspended for the remainder of the session.

  A DELAY IN PRINTING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, I understand that it will be convenient to your Lordships if those Bills are taken which we have at this moment before us in print. Owing to the period of the session a certain amount of delay has, I understand, taken place in the printing, with the result that the Coal

  2179
  Mines Bill, as amended, is not yet in your Lordships' possession. I therefore think it would be convenient if we proceed with the other Orders and take the Coal Mines Bill as soon as it is possible to do so.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: May I ask your Lordships' attention for a moment to the extraordinary position in which we are placed. The proceedings of this House terminated before nine o'clock last night, and the printing might have been done for this morning's sitting long before noon. My experience of another place is that it is constantly done there. We might have had the Coal Mines Bill two or three hours ago if the printers had done their duty. The question I should like to ask is, whose business it is to attend to these matters in your Lordships' House, and why the printers cannot be compelled either to give up the task of printing for this House or to deliver Bills at the proper time.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I need hardly tell your Lordships that the control of the Government over the printing from day to day depends more on the general practice and rule of the House than on the initiative of the Government with regard to particular Bills. Having had the same experience as the noble Viscount in the House of Commons, and knowing the great and admirable rapidity with which the printers in the other House, especially at the end of the session, deliver printed matter at very short notice, I quite appreciate and understand what has just fallen from the noble Viscount. I am sure I can say that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, who is unavoidably absent at this moment, will make it his object to do what he can to obtain a remedy for such delays as have occurred, which are equally as inconvenient to His Majesty's Government as they are to noble Lords opposite.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, at times I have had a suspicion that the difficulty in the printing in connection with this House arises from differences in the printing contracts of the two Houses between the printers and the Treasury. I am not certain that I am right, so I put it tentatively.
  2180
  My belief is that the Treasury do not care to spend quite as much on the printing in this House as they spend on the printing in the other House, which has more control over the Treasury than we have. If the noble Lord conducts his inquiries in that direction, he will, I think, find some useful information.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: Although undoubtedly the Government are responsible for everything which entails public expenditure, immediate responsibility in this matter rests not so much with the Government as with what is generally known as the authorities of the House. But I am sure I can, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, promise that the matter shall receive attention.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (PUBLIC TRUSTEE) (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order.) Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), Bill read 3a and passed.

  COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the consideration of the Commons' Amendments, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I propose to give your Lordships a few words of explanation with regard to this Bill. It was taken before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, where it underwent a very careful examination extending over two or three days, and I was able to assure the House that it was strictly a Consolidation Bill. There now appear certain Amendments from the House of Commons. These Amendments are to remedy a small mistake that has been discovered in the wording, to incorporate an Act relating to the Colonies which has been passed since the

  2181
  Committee sat in July, and to exclude certain clauses of the Consolidation Act which have been spent since the deliberations of the Committee. I have thought it necessary to see the officer responsible at the Board of Trade and satisfy myself that these Amendments are as stated. I propose to ask your Lordships to take the Amendments together, with the exception of the one which corrects a small mistake upon which I will say a few words in a moment.
  Moved, "That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments down to Clause 101."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I gather that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has satisfied himself that the Amendments made by the Commons are in entire harmony with this being a Consolidation Bill, and so recommends them to the House.
  LORD LOREBURN: That is so.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  LORD LOREBURN: With regard to the other Amendment — in Clause 102—the matter stands in this way. In the clause as it was sent down to the House of Commons it was provided that certain copies of documents and also the register of mortgages should be open for the inspection of the public. It was not intended that copies of the documents, but only the register of mortgages, should be open to inspection by the public, but by the omission of two or three words in the former Act a different effect is produced. The Amendment of the Commons is, I am satisfied, to make the law what it was intended to be before consolidation.
  Moved, "That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to Clause 102."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  EAST INDIA LOANS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Secretary of State for India I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is an enabling Bill, and I do not think the character of the measure necessitates any further explanation. The Bill does not raise any large question of controverted policy, and, in the circumstances, I hope your Lordships will be ready to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Fitzmaurice.)
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I only propose to trouble your Lordships with one observation on this Bill. I believe that there will be a unanimous feeling of approval at the introduction of this Bill, and also that the Secretary of State has taken so considerable a sum that he will not be hampered by the conditions of the money market or otherwise in pushing forward the railways proposed under the Bill. If the noble Viscount the Secretary of State had been present, I would have urged him not to restrict his programme in the near future. For some years past larger amounts could have been profitably expended on railways in India, but the condition of the money market has made the Indian Council shrink from raising money at somewhat higher rates to meet the expenditure. Every mile of railway which has been laid in India has more than paid the interest on the money expended on it, and the effect of railway extension on India, commercially and in other respects, has been incalculable. I therefore hope the noble Viscount will not hesitate to come to Parliament even for further sums, if necessary.
  On Question, Bill read 2a. Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3, and passed.

  TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to prevent the spread and

  2183
  to provide for the treatment of tuberculosis in Ireland. Your Lordships are no doubt aware of the terrible ravages of this disease in Ireland in recent years, and of the attempts which have been made to check it. I may mention that deaths from tuberculosis form 16·7 per cent. of the total mortality in Ireland. The Bill is divided into three parts. Part I. deals with notification and disinfection, and may be adopted by any rural or urban sanitary authority. When this Part is adopted it will be necessary for medical practitioners to notify certain cases of tuberculosis which occur in the course of their practice. It is not desirable or necessary that every case should be so notified, but only cases where there is danger of infection spreading. Part II. confers on county councils the necessary powers enabling them, if they think fit, to establish hospitals, sanatoria, and dispensaries for the treatment of tuberculosis. There is no compulsion upon those local authorities to establish such institutions, but it is left to them if they feel that the necessity exists in their counties for dealing with the disease in this manner to take steps for the purpose. Part III. deals with sanitary matters, and contains a number of provisions which may be availed of by local authorities for the purpose of combating the disease in some of its aspects. I may add that it has been my business now, I think, for three sessions to take some part in the arrangements at the end of the session as to the business of the two Houses. I think I am able, therefore, to form some idea of what it is reasonable to expect this House to consider at a late period of the session, and although my own ideas of what is reasonable may differ slightly from those of noble Lords opposite, more especially when they are in opposition, I confess it is with some misgivings that I move a Bill of this magnitude at this period of the session. Therefore I will only say that if there is any considerable opposition to it in any quarter I should not think of pressing the Bill at this period of the session. But if the Amendments are not numerous and the Bill does not meet with opposition after your Lordships have examined its provisions, I think it would not be unreasonable on my part
  2184
  to ask that it may be passed through all its stages to-day in order that it may become law before the prorogation.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Denman.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill has indulged in language rather conveying that he was giving a lecture to the House as to how Bills should be approached and considered at this period of the session. Each Bill, of course, has to be taken on its own merits, and there has been no desire in reference to this Bill, so far as I know, not to treat it with the sympathetic consideration which a measure dealing with this prevalent disease may require. The Bill is undoubtedly an important one, and I should have been glad if it had come up earlier so that it could have been gone through in some detail. I am aware of the spread of this dread disease in Ireland, and of the great efforts that have been made, notably with the sympathetic aid of Lady Aberdeen, to cope with it, and I would be extremely sorry if anything interfered to prevent this Bill passing into law. Experience may show the necessity for change, and the Bill may require to be supplemented as time goes on. When the Bill was first brought in a considerable amount of alarm was excited owing to the generality of the provisions for notification, and it was thought that there would be great anxiety if in every case where a person was seized with any form of this disease the doctor was bound to notify it, thus placing the person in a very painful and distressing position. This led to a modification in the Bill which I think has removed, to a large degree, the necessity for alarm. The Bill has attracted a good deal of attention and been discussed at length in another place, and it is not my desire to offer the slightest opposition to it. I hope it will become law, and that it will be attended by all the results anticipated by those who have so benevolently applied themselves to the examination and study of this question. With these remarks I readily accord, with every sympathy, my support to the Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I should not have intervened but for an observation made by the noble lord in charge of the Bill with reference to the state of mind of those who are in Opposition. I think what he said is absolutely without foundation. I believe no harsher testimony has ever been borne against the practice of introducing Bills at a late period of the session than by those who sit on the same side as the Minister who introduced this Bill, and I do not think there is the least foundation for saying that there is any accentuation of the objection entertained to the late introduction of Bills according to the side on which noble Lords sit.
  LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I fully sympathise with the intentions of the Bill and desire to express my admiration for the extraordinary devotion, unselfishness, and energy which Lady Aberdeen has shown in endeavouring to cope with the terrible ravages of consumption to which the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading referred. But I should not like the occasion to pass without saying that, in my opinion, the measure will accomplish very little. It will possibly prevent a certain amount of infection, and, so far as hospitals are founded, will relieve those persons who go to the hospitals, but, speaking as one who lives in Ireland, I do not believe that the extent to which tuberculosis exists there is due to causes with which the Bill deals. The reason why the number of cases of the disease is so large in proportion to the population of Ireland is that the healthy young people are emigrating month, after month, while unhealthy persons who seek to emigrate are sent back by the medical inspectors in Ireland or in America. This summer I had the greatest trouble in reference to the daughter of a peasant woman in my own neighbourhood. This woman had sent her daughter, eighteen years of age, who was apparently in the best of health, to America, and instead of hearing in a fortnight's time of her safe arrival she received a notification from some union in a suburb of Glasgow to the effect that her daughter was shut up in a lunatic asylum there. This girl had left Ireland in apparently the best of health, but, as a result of the voyage and the
  2186
  change of scene, had became more or less insane, with the result that when she arrived in America, she was sent back. Therefore you constantly have emigration of the healthy, while the unhealthy remain and become the parents of the next generation. There is another side to this question. None of the healthy emigrants come back to their native land; but the most appalling cases of consumption return to Ireland to die. I know of cases in my own neighbourhood where men have returned from America to spend the few remaining months of their lives hovering over the fireplaces in their old homes or in the homes of relatives who give them shelter, reading Yankee newspapers sent to them by their old pals in America, and actually expectorating consumption all over the floors of those houses. Those are, to my mind, the real causes of the terrible statistics of consumption in Ireland. Not alone is the emigration of the healthy and the return of the unhealthy the cause of the spread of tuberculosis in Ireland; it is also the cause of the terrible statistics with reference to madness. While the population of my comity is dwindling we are constantly having to add new wings to the lunatic asylum, which is the only thing that is thriving in the county. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred the other day to the enormous number of old people in Ireland. That is due to the fact that the young and middle aged who are healthy leave the country. Thus we are left in Ireland with an extraordinary and abnormal number of sick people, of mad people, and of old people.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to both noble Lords from Ireland who have spoken for their references to the efforts of Lady Aberdeen and others to combat this disease, and I desire to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, for the friendly and sympathetic reception he has accorded to the Bill. I regret that I should have given him the impression that I was endeavouring to read a lecture to noble Lords opposite upon what they should or should not consider at this period of the session. I am afraid I must have expressed myself very badly, because all I was trying to point out was that I

  2187
  thought I had no right whatever even to ask noble Lords opposite to consider a Bill of this magnitude at the end of the session, and that it was only by the favour of the House that I could do so.
  On Question, Bill read 2a.
  Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended, committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12:
  LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN moved to amend this clause, which provided that—
  "A person shall not suffer any disqualification or any loss of franchise or other right or privilege by reason of his or any member of his family being admitted into and maintained in any hospital or workhouse hospital provided under this Part of this Act, or being treated in any dispensary so provided,"
  by omitting the words "or workhouse hospital." He explained that this part of the Bill was not concerned with workhouse hospitals, and that the words were retained in the clause by an oversight.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 8, line 24, to leave out the words 'or workhouse hospital.'"—(Lord Denman.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 13 to 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20:
  LORD KILLANIN LORD KILLANIN moved to omit Clause 20, which ran—
  "Any urban authority being a sanitary authority shall have power to provide that all meat killed outside the town and brought into the town for sale shall on the same day, before being exposed for sale, be brought into the abattoir or other place to be appointed by the council for inspection between the hours of eight o'clock a.m. and eleven forenoon, and shall not be sold or exposed for sale until after same has been inspected and passed as fit for human food, but no person shall be appointed or act as an inspector under this section who
  2188
  does not possess a certificate as a meat inspector."
  The clause would enable urban authorities to lay down conditions which, in his opinion, would render it impossible, probably, for people who carried on the meat trade outside a town to continue their business at all. The clause was only inserted in the Bill late on Wednesday night in another place, and there had, therefore, been no opportunity for its consideration by those who would be most affected by its provisions. Neither had the clause been considered by the meat-consuming public, who, of course, would be affected. It might be said that, though the clause was not previously in the Bill, it was cognate to the other provisions, and therefore, might have been anticipated by those interested; but of the twenty-five clauses in the Bill, not one dealt with the meat trade in any shape or form. He submitted that the clause was an unfair and improper one, and would be most injurious, possibly, to a number of people who quite innocently and correctly followed this business in the country districts of Ireland. Could the noble Lord in charge of the Bill state that he had any evidence that any real injury had been done in the past by diseased meat sold in this way? He believed there were no statistics to prove that. Moreover, if diseased meat was, as a matter of fact, sold, there were the usual methods of punishment by fines and imprisonment. Some of the greatest scientific authorities differed as to whether human beings could contract tuberculosis from meat, and he therefore submitted that, without further evidence, Parliament ought not to cripple and injure, in the manner proposed, those persons who lawfully carried on an innocent trade.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, to leave out Clause 20."—(Lord Killanin.)
  LORD ATKINSONsaid he was in entire sympathy with the Bill, because, although it might nor succeed in grappling satisfactorily with the terrible disease of tuberculosis, no possible harm could result, and it might effect a great improvement. He regretted t Bill

  2189
  conceived with that object should be disfigured by a clause like this, introduced at the last moment, and introduced, he thought there was more than a suspicion, in the interests more of butchers resident in an urban authority than of the suppression of this disease. He had no objection to the inspection of meat, but he thought it was evident, from the provisions of the clause, that it had been introduced in order to make impossible the importation of dead meat from the country into any urban authority.
  LORD DENMANsaid he understood this clause met with the approval of Irish Members in the other House, and he was also informed that a regulation, similar to this clause, was in force in the city of Belfast and had been found to work perfectly well. But, apparently, it had no friends in this House, and, having regard to the circumstances in which the Bill was being considered, he should certainly not oppose its omission at this stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am very glad to hear that His Majesty's Government do not intend to persevere with this clause. It is evidently a very drastic clause indeed, and we understand it formed no part of the original scheme of the Bill, and was inserted at the last moment. The danger of all legislation of this kind, however well meant, is that, if we make it too drastic and too inquisitorial, we set up a feeling of irritation and lose that public support and sympathy upon which the success of Bills of this character so largely depend. The Bill already contains some large and stringent proposals, and I am sure it is wise not to hamper it with this particular provision. The noble Lord mentioned that a somewhat analogous regulation was in force in Belfast. It would be instructive to know whether there is any rule of the same kind in any parts of the United Kingdom. So far as I am aware, there is not.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. Amendments reported. Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to Commons.

  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order).
  THE LORD PRIVYSEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, your Lordships will remember that long discussions have taken place in more than one session over this Bill, discussions which, I am glad to say, are now brought to a close by the few Amendments standing on the Paper to this Bill, and which I hope your Lordships will have no difficulty in accepting. They represent the final agreement which has been come to between the different parties—that is to say, the regular chemists on the one hand, and the representatives of drug stores and similar commercial bodies on the other. I do not know that there is any special point on which I need trouble your Lordships, and I will, therefore, proceed to move the Amendments. The Commons' first Amendment is to omit from the first subsection of Clause 2—
  '2. (1) So much of the Pharmacy Aot,'1868, as makes it an offence for any person to sell or keep open shop for the sale of poisons, unless he is a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist and conforms to regulations made under Section one of that Act, shall not apply in the case of poisonous substances containing arsenic, tobacco, or the alkaloids of tobacco, to be used exclusively in agriculture or horticulture for the destruction of insects, fungi, or bacteria, or as sheep dips or weed killers, if the person so selling or keeping open shop is duly licensed for the purpose under this section by a local authority, and conforms to any regulations as to the keeping, transporting, and selling of poisons made under this section, but nothing in this section shall exempt any person so licensed from the requirements of any other provision of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, or of the Arsenic Act, 1851, relating to poisons,"
  the words "containing arsenic, tobacco, or the alkaloids of tobacco," and to insert, after the words "weed killers," the words "which are poisonous by reason of their containing arsenic, tobacco or the alkaloids of tobacco." I move that the Commons' Amendment be agreed to.
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is in paragraph (a) of subsection (3)—
  "(3) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make regulations as to: (a) The granting of licences under this section and the local authorities by which such licences may be granted; and"
  The Commons propose to omit from this paragraph all words after the word "section."
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is to insert, at the end of the clause, the following new subsection—
  "(4) The local authority for the purposes of this section shall, as respects the area of any municipal borough in England having a population of more than ten thousand according to the last published census for the time being, be the council of that borough, and as respects the area of any royal, parliamentary, or police burgh in Scotland, be the town council, and as respects any other place be the council of the county."
  The local authority is defined in this Amendment instead of being left to be settled by regulation. I move that we agree.
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is in subsection (4) of Clause 3. The subsection provides that—
  "A body corporate, and in Scotland a firm or partnership, may carry on the business of a pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, if in every premises where the business is carried on the business is bona fide conducted by a manager or assistant being a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, as the case may be, and if the name and certificate of qualification of the person so qualified is conspicuously exhibited in the shop or other place in which he so conducts the business."
  2192
  The Commons propose to omit from this subsection all words from the first mention of the word "druggist," and to insert: "(a) if the business of the body corporate, firm, or partnership, so far as it relates to the keeping, retailing, and dispensing of poisons, is under the control and management of a superintendent who is a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, whose name has been forwarded to the registrar appointed under the Pharmacy Act, 1852, to be entered by him in a register to be kept for that purpose, and who does not act at the same time in a similar capacity for any other body corporate, firm or partnership; and (b) if in all premises where such business as aforesaid is carried on, and is not personally conducted by the superintendent, such business is bona fide conducted under the direction of the superintendent by a manager or assistant who is a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, and whose certificate of qualification is conspicuously exhibited in the shop or other place in which he so conducts the business." This was the clause round which the controversy raged for so long, and these Amendments in fact represent the compromise which I suggested earlier in the year when I received a deputation on the subject. They have beer, accepted by the Pharmaceutical Society and also by Lord Ebury on behalf of the co-operative stores, and I believe they may be said to represent the final and a very fair arrangement on the question. The real point was as to what ought to be done to prevent the formation of bogus companies, and I think these words, which have been very carefully thought out, meet that point altogether. Therefore, I move that your Lordships agree with this Amendment.
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: As I understand, the governing idea in these subsections is that there shall always be in every establishment, whether it belongs to a company or an individual, a qualified pharmaceutical chemist, and that it

  2193
  will not be possible to get behind that by any regulation.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: That is so.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Commons drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The Commons Amendment to paragraph (b) of Clause 4—
  "(b) Providing for the registration, upon payment of the prescribed fee, as pharmaceutical chemists or chemists and druggists under the Pharmacy Acts, 1852 and 1868, without examination, of any persons holding colonial diplomas or of qualified military dispensers who produce evidence satisfactory to the council of the society that they are persons of sufficient skill and knowledge to be so registered,"
  is to insert, after the word "dispensers," the words "or certified assistants to apothecaries under the Apothecaries Act, 1815." This simply increases, to some extent, the discretion of the Pharmaceutical Society as to the persons they may recognise under their by-laws. It is considered that without the Amendment there would be some hardship.
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Commons verbal Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: In Clause 6—
  "6. This Act may be cited as the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908, and shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nine,"
  the Commons have made an Amendment leaving out the word "January" and inserting the word "April."
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is a new clause—
  "(a) Upon the death of any person registered under the Pharmacy Act (Ireland) (1875)
  2194
  Amendment Act, 1890, as a chemist and druggist or registered druggist and actually in business at the time of his death, it shall be lawful for any executor, administrator, or trustee of his estate to continue such business if and so long only as such business is bona fide conducted by an assistant being a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or licentiate apothecary, or duly registered chemist and druggist, or duly registered druggist."
  This clause deals with what is known as the widows' case—that is, where a business is allowed to be carried on by a successor in the family under certain circumstances. An extension is made to Ireland in this matter.
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The last Amendment is in line 9 of the Schedule—
  "Belladonna, and all preparations or admixtures containing 0·1 or more per cent. of belladonna alkaloids."
  The Commons have inserted, after the word "admixtures," the words "except belladonna plasters." Belladonna plasters are excepted, I believe, by general agreement, but I do not know why.
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The House of Commons have sent up certain Amendments to this Bill, which I think are very desirable. First, they have inserted after Clause 2, the following new clause—
  "(1) Section 1 of the Judicial Committee Amendment Act, 1895, shall have effect as if the persons therein included any person being or having been Chief Justice or a Justice of the High Court of Australia or Chief Justice or Judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. (2) The schedule to the Judicial Committee Amendment Act, 1895, shall be read as if the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony were included therein as South African Colonies."

  2195
  After Clause 3, the Commons propose the insertion of the following new clause—
  "His Majesty may from time to time by Order in Council make a general Order directing that all appeals shall be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council until the Order is rescinded, and Section 9 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1844, shall have effect as if any such general Order for the time being in force were substituted in the first proviso to that section for the annual Order therein referred to, and the time for which the Order remains in force were substituted for the twelve months next after the making of the general Order. The expression 'appeals' in this section means appeals on petitions presented to His Majesty in Council, and includes any complaints in the nature of appeals and any petitions in the matter of appeals."
  The other two Amendments are of a purely verbal character. I move that your Lordships agree.
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.

  LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Commons Amendments to Lords' Amendments considered (according to order).
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that we completely transformed this Bill after it came up from the House of Commons, but I am happy to say that, on its being returned to them, the Commons only made three Amendments. The first Amendment alters the date when the Bill is to come into operation. Your Lordships inserted a clause providing that—
  "This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and nine."
  The Commons propose to amend this clause by leaving out the word "January," and inserting the word "July." Considering how time has elapsed the reason for this is obvious.
  2196
  The next Amendment of the Commons is in the clause which provides that—
  "In cases where the rent of the immediate tenant of the superior landlord is in arrear it shall be lawful for such superior landlord to serve upon any under tenant or lodger a notice (by registered post addressed, whether by name or not, to such under-tenant or lodger upon the premises) stating the amount of such arrears of rent, and requiring all future payments of rent, whether the same has already accrued due or not, by such under-tenant or lodger to be made direct to the superior landlord giving such notice until such arrears shall have been duly paid, and such notice shall operate to transfer to the superior landlord the right to recover, receive, and give a discharge for such rent."
  The Commons propose to amend this clause by leaving out the words "whether by name or not." This alteration is made at the instance of the Postmaster-General and deals with the sending of a registered letter, which, according to the regulations, must be addressed by name to the person for whom it is intended. With both of these Amendments your Lordships will, no doubt, agree. The other Amendment is a more material one. The Bill, as sent down to the House of Commons, provided that—
  "This Act shall not apply to any undertenant where the under-tenancy has been created in breach of any covenant or agreement is writing between the landlord and his immediate tenant, or where the under-tenancy has been created contrary to the wish of the landlord in that behalf, expressed in writing and delivered at the premises within a reasonable time after the circumstances have come, or with due diligence, would have come to his knowledge."
  The Commons propose to amend this clause by leaving out all words after "the landlord and his immediate tenant." I have talked this matter over with the noble and learned Earl opposite. He has not seen his way to consent to the deletion of the whole of the words proposed, but would agree to a limitation. I therefore move to disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in this clause, but in lieu thereof, after the words "or whether the under-tenancy has been created," to insert the words "under a lease existing at the date of the passing of this Act."
  Moved, "That the House doth disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in Clause (e), but in lieu thereof, after the word 'created' in line 4 of the said clause, to insert the words

  2197
  'under a lease existing at the date of the passing of this Act.'"—(Lord Courtney of Peuwith.)
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I understand that the effect of the Amendment is this, that the new provision will only apply to leases made in the future, and that all leases already in existence will not be affected by the new statute?
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: That is so.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: As to the other two Amendments, I move that we agree.
  Moved, "That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments."—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill returned to the Commons.

  THE STRENGTH OF THE ARMY.
  THE EARL OF ERROLL: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for a Return in continuance of Army (213), 27th October: Showing on 1st January, 1909: (1) (a) Strength of Regular Army, officers and other ranks;(b) strength of Army Reserve, officers and other ranks; (c) Strength of Special Reserve, officers and other ranks;(d) strength of Territorial Force, officers and other ranks, distinguishing different arms. Showing also, 1st October, 1905: (2) (a) Strength of Regular Army, Officers and other ranks;(b) strength of Army Reserve, Officers and other ranks; (c) Strength of Militia, Officers and other ranks;(d) strength of Yeomanry and Volunteers, officers and other ranks. Also numbers wanted to complete on mobilisation: (a) Officers;(b) other ranks of the above forces on 1st January, 1909. Also estimated intake and output of Army Reserve annually, 1909–1915. Also estimated cost of 1 and 2 under each sub-head."—(The Earl of Erroll.)
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord LUCAS): We shall be very glad to give the Return.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  WATER OF LEITH PURIFICATION AND SEWERAGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  CROFTERS' COMMON GRAZINGS REGULATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order) and passed.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the Lords' Amendments agreed to; certain other Amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Commons' Amendment to the Lords' Amendments, agreed to.

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
  Moved, "That this Report be now received."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, on the question that the Report be now received I should like to ask His Majesty's Government a question. I will preface it with only a few words. As the Bill was introduced it was to come into effect on 1st January, 1909, but, as a matter of course, when delay took place and an autumn session had to be called, the date was put off until July, 1909. I understand that at a late stage of the Bill, in another place, an alteration was made giving a preference to certain districts in the North-East of England, and making the date in their case 1st January, 1910. Last night a further Amendment was made in your Lordships' House, altering the date for all districts to 1st July, 1910, and of course in that case all are placed on the same level. Some of us ventured to speak very strongly against the preference shown to one district over another, on the ground that in the case of two districts competing, say, for the export of coal, it is radically unfair that one district, such as the East of Scotland, should be put at a great disadvantage as compared with another like the North-East of England. But that is not directly connected with the question of the postponement of the date of the coming into operation of the Act to 1st July, 1910. I felt at the time that decision was come to that it was rather a long postponement. I felt also that it was arrived at without a completely adequate discussion, having regard to the importance of the matter. The noble Marquess who leads this side of the House made a very distinct appeal to His Majesty's Government to give us some help and guidance in the matter, having regard to the fact that the preference, which was the cause really of much of the discussion last night, was almost universally condemned on all sides of the House. Personally I deeply regret that that appeal was not responded to, and I venture to think that even now, at this late period in the discussion of the Bill, it would be only proper if His Majesty's Government would tell us whether some other date earlier than July, 1910—one which would be more generally convenient and would give people time to make arrangements as to their contracts, but would not make any
  2200
  preference between one district and another—might not yet be accepted. As on this stage of the Bill your Lordships have not the right to speak more than once on any particular question, I thought it would, not be inconvenient if I ventured to ask the Government whether, having regard to all that has taken place, they cannot give us some assistance in arriving at a solution that would be generally acceptable and avoid the much vexed question of a preference as between one district and another.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think the question is a very reasonable one for the noble Lord to have asked after the discussion that took place yesterday, but in saying a few words upon it it is impossible for me to avoid the merits or demerits of different dates which the noble Lord himself avoided, partly because the discussion itself depends upon them, and partly because as no Amendment has been, so far as I know, moved to the conclusion which the House reached at our last sitting on this subject, there would be no opportunity except this of going into detail on the matter. The noble Earl, Lord Camper-down, when I last spoke, complained that I had given no very definite opinion on the subject; but when the Government bring in a Bill in a particular form it has to be assumed that, unless they make some definite suggestion to the contrary, that is the proposal which they desire to submit to the House. At the same time thatdoes not, I think, prevent the Government doing what I did on the last occasion, which was to point out, as I hope quite frankly, that there are objections, so far as I can see, and I think we all agree, to every course that can be suggested in this matter. It very often happens in matters of policy, as your Lordships very well know, that there is no course which is entirely free from objection, and I think we are now in one of those situations. The question lies, I think I may say, between three different courses. There is the course which the House ultimately adopted, that of the postponement till July, 1910. The objections to that course I think are obvious. So far as the time of year is concerned, it is probably the best time that could be chosen, but still it is a very serious matter

  2201
  to postpone the operation of a Bill of this kind for a period of eighteen months; and it has to be remembered in this connection that those principally concerned, the coal miners, are not directly represented in this House, and that, therefore, their point of view was not and could not be explicitly stated. Under those circumstances the Government were not able to agree to such a long postponement. The next alternative is to make the Bill come into operation everywhere in January 1910. The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition directed his observations mainly to that point at the last stage of the Bill, and I think it was evident to everybody who listened to what he said that he and, I have no doubt, many who agree with him were most unwilling to take any responsibility whatever for that date. He pointed out, as I ventured to point out, that there might be some very considerable risk in bringing this Bill into operation in mid-winter for the whole country, and, as I say, the noble Marquess very clearly and explicitly announced that he meant to wash his hands of any responsibility that might arise from a panic and consequent rise of price, owing to that date being inserted. If that is the date which your Lordships prefer, I must say that it does not appear to me that you can divest yourselves of responsibility in this matter. Your Lordships take the responsibility sometimes of throwing out our Bills and at other times you will not take the responsibility of passing them. But, if you pass them, it really is not possible to say, being in possession of all the facts, that you at any rate will not, hold yourselves responsible for whatever the consequences may be. The Government also, under those circumstances, are not willing to take that responsibility, and therefore we cannot undertake to agree to the date of January, 1910. Noble Lords will see that I have dismissed two of the alternatives. There only remains, as far as I can see, the alternative of the preference. That we know is strongly objected to on account of its being a preference, but I think it is only reasonable to point out that it was not assented to by the Government on the ground of its giving any preference to the counties of Northumberland and Durham, and the noble
  2202
  Earl on the cross benches warned us that he asked for no preference of the kind. The extension to January in favour of those two counties was given simply and solely on the ground of their statement, which my right hon. friend believes to be correct, that the mere organisation of labour owing to the peculiar system which obtains in these counties would be an exceedingly difficult thing to effect by so early a date as July. Under those circumstances my right hon. friend thinks, and the Government also think, that, although we fully admit the-incidental objections which arise from a preference being given to those two counties for a period of six months and the unpleasant consequences which in some degree occur to other districts in consideration of that, yet on the whole the least objectionable of the three courses which I have indicated lies in the maintenance of the term as stated in the Bill. Therefore, while we do not ask your Lordships to readmit it at this stage, that remains the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, as I proposed the Amendment which was adopted by your Lordships, without any opposition from His Majesty's Government, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the subject. What was the position in which we found ourselves? The Government proposed that the Bill should come into operation for the country generally on 1st July next year, but for the counties of Northumberland and Durham not until six months afterwards. It was the general feeling in the House that it was unfair to give a preference to some districts over others. It was also clear that the Government were pledged to Northumberland and Durham that, so far as those counties were concerned, the Bill should not come into operation until January, 1910. Those seemed to be matters which were practically settled for us. Then came the question whether the date should be 1st January or 1st July, 1910. I think your Lordships were mainly guided in arriving at your decision by the views expressed on behalf of His Majesty's Government. At any rate that was my case. I had no particular preference for the date chosen, but I was muck

  2203
  impressed by what was said from the Government bench. The noble Earl the Lord Steward said that—
  "it would be much harder on the consumer if the change took place in January than if it came in July,"
  and my noble friend who has just sat down followed in the same sense. He said it would be—
  "infinitely more serious if the change took place in winter than it would be in the summer."
  Those were very strong words. If this Bill is to come into operation in January it is to be infinitely more serious to the consumer than if it comes into operation in July. Those words impressed me, and I think it was that language on the part of His Majesty's Government which induced your Lordships to take the course you did. If His Majesty's Government think it would be better to adhere to 1st January, 1910, instead of putting it off for another six months, then I submit it is for them to take the responsibility. If the Government consider, on the whole, that the effect of the Act on the consumer will not be so great as the language they used yesterday led us all to suppose, then surely it is for His Majesty's Government to take the responsibility of themselves determining what is the best date upon which the Bill should come into operation, and I have no doubt your Lordships would respectfully take into consideration any opinion that the Government might express. But the responsibility of fixing the date is one which surely ought to rest with them and not with the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Balfour has recurred to the history of this matter. He has renewed the appeal which was made last night for some guidance on the part of noble Lords who occupy the Front Bench opposite. I do not know that that guidance has been of a particularly vigorous or distinct description. Let merecall to your Lordships what happened last night. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill, replying to an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Newton, admitted that in his opinion there were very great objections to bringing the
  2204
  Bill into operation in the winter months, and he also let us see very plainly that to his mind there was also a good deal to be said against granting a preference to one class of collieries against another. His attitude certainly did not show that, so far as he was concerned, His Majesty's Ministers had any very decided or precise views on the subject. Then the noble Lord who leads the House, in reply to a challenge from myself, made his contribution to the debate. He also let us see quite plainly that in his opinion it was a very dangerous thing to give a preference to one part of the country as against other parts and, so far as I was able to gather, he showed a certain preference for accepting the date of 1st January, 1910, for the whole of the collieries. That left us in rather an embarrassed position, and Lord Newton said, I think very truly, that he detected an attempt on the part of the two front benches to bandy responsibility backwards and forwards between them. I think we are quite justified in throwing back the responsibility on the benches opposite. The noble Earl has spoken this evening as if we on this side of the House were responsible for the Bill to exactly the same extent as he and his colleagues. Clearly that is not the case. Responsibility lies with the authors of the measure. Noble Lords opposite declined to accept that responsibility. Thereupon the back benches intervened, and intervened with great effect, and an Amendment was carried which I dare say would not have been carried at all if His Majesty's Government had had the courage of their opinions and had told us frankly what in their opinion was and was not a possible arrangement. To-night I gather from the noble Earl that His Majesty's Government are opposed, in the first place, to a long postponement, which would carry the operation of the Bill to July, 1910. I gather that they are also opposed to taking the midwinter date of January, 1910, and, therefore, the noble Earl is driven, I think rather reluctantly, to the conclusion that there is nothing for it but 1st July, 1909, and the retention of the preference. That is, so far as I was able to follow him, the conclusion which he recommends to the House. If that is so, all I

  2205
  can say is, speaking for myself, that if the Amendment carried last night does not find approval elsewhere, I will not take the responsibility of attempting to force it upon the framers of the Bill. I feel very strongly about, at any rate, one of the Amendments—the Amendment, I mean, which was put down and carried by my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn. To my mind that Amendment is one of vital importance, and I regard it in an entirely different light from that in which I regard the Amendment we are now discussing. The Amendment moved by Lord St. Aldwyn does not in any way interfere with the machinery set up by the Government for working the Bill as soon as it comes into operation. This Amendment, however, would very materially disturb and interfere with a scheme prepared, no doubt, after due reflection by the Government—a scheme to which we now learn that they desire to adhere in its original shape. That being so, I think it my duty to say frankly that I would not go the length of endeavouring to persuade them to accept the Amendment.
  LORD KNARESBOROUGH: My Lords, Lord Balfour has entered a protest on behalf of those interested in the coal trade in the East of Scotland. I cannot let the occasion pass without entering a protest also on behalf of those interested in the coal trade in Yorkshire. Those who are concerned with Yorkshire coal mines and who will have to start a second shift will be confronted with difficulties at least equal to those that would have to be met by the collieries in Durham and Northumberland. They think they will lose considerably in their contracts, both for export and gas coal, in their competition—and the competition is keen—with Durham and Northumberland. I have had communications to the effect that whatever date is fixed, let every one start fair.
  On Question, Report of Amendments received.
  Then (Standing Order No XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, in the year 1901 the late Sir Howard Vincent presided over a Committee appointed to inquire into various matters connected with the pay, allowances, and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Committee came to the conclusion that the emoluments received by that force were in certain respects insufficient, and they recommended that in some cases the pay and allowances should be increased. Owing to the pressure of business in the House of Commons in recent years there has hitherto been no favourable opportunity of introducing a Bill on this subject. This being a money Bill I apprehend that your Lordships will not desire to amend it, at all events, not in any important respect; and bearing in mind the high character for efficiency and devotion to duty, frequently in very trying circumstances, borne by that splendid body of men, the Royal Irish Constabulary, I trust that your Lordships will give no grudging assent to the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Denman.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a. Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

  PUBLIC MEETING BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, your Lordships are probably aware, from painful experience, that attempts are sometimes made to disturb public meetings and to dry up the natural flow of eloquence that we should expect to find at them. Your Lordships are also probably aware that the law provides absolutely no remedy in such a case unless an actual assault takes place

  2207
  or the facts warrant an indictment for conspiracy. The object of this Bill is to make disorderly conduct at a meeting for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business of the meeting an offence. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind your Lordships of recent events. I think it will not be denied that during the last three or four years the general tone of behaviour at public meetings has been of a distinctly lively character, culminating in a great meeting in the Albert Hall some ten days ago which was described to me by an eye-witness as pandemonium, and which has given rise to a rumour that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to address no more public meetings if anything in petticoats is allowed to form part of his audience. I do not know whether the rumour is true; but I cannot help sympathising with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the treatment he has had. Anyhow, I do not think it will be denied that disturbance, as a regular practice, is extremely undesirable. That is the case for this Bill. The Bill, perhaps, concerns Members of jour Lordships' House less intimately than it concerns Members of the other House, but still we are not uninterested. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will approve of the principle of the Bill. The first subsection of Clause 1 provides that any person who, at a lawful public meeting—I understand it is not lawful always to hold meetings in Trafalgar Square, for instance, and meetings of such a character will not come under the Bill—acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together—those words are important because they safeguard the practice of the heckler, whose questions and interruptions are generally a delight to the audience and sometimes to the speaker—shall be guilty of an offence, and, being summarily convicted thereof, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month. I am not actually wedded to the last three lines of the first subsection, and in Committee I will move an Amendment, drafted by the Government, slightly altering those words though not altering the intention of the clause. Subsection
  2208
  (2) makes special provision for Parliamentary elections. At Parliamentary elections, I am given to understand, though I have never had the privilege of going through one myself, feeling rises a great deal higher than at normal public meetings, and therefore it is felt desirable that the penalties of the Corrupt Practices Act, which are more stringent than the £5 fine in subsection (1), should be invoked. His Majesty's Government do not like subsection (3)—
  "(3) Any fine imposed under this Act may be recovered as a civil debt due to the Crown,"
  and I shall ask your Lordships, in Committee, to amend it. I have fully explained the object of the Bill, and I ask your Lordships to pass it on the ground that the right of public meeting is of importance to the enjoyment of constitutional government.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it would obviously be an unfeeling and heartless action on my part if I were to interfere with the progress of a Bill which is urgently required for the protection of Members of the House of Commons, and especially of members of His Majesty's Government. I was given to understand that this was the Bill of a Member of the Opposition, but I rather gather from what has fallen from my noble friend that the Government have taken in under their protection. I suppose no Bill has been ever passed through the other House with greater rapidity than this one, except a Bill dealing with dynamitards, which, about twenty years ago, was passed through all its stages in less than an hour. The noble Earl has endeavoured to persuade us that nobody will be injured by the Bill; but I gather that any person who attends a meeting and shouts "Votes for Women," "Down with the House of Lords," or "Your coal will cost you more," will be liable to a penalty of £5 or imprisonment for a month; and when the noble Earl talks about the necessity of safeguarding free speech I should like to point out that he is interfering with one of the most cherished privileges of the public. It is an immemorial practice in the public life

  2209
  of this country to attend public meetings, not necessarily of one's friends, and the measure is such a startling departure from well-established national habits that I am disposed to suggest that, following the precedent to be established by another Bill which is before Parliament, it should be brought into operation by instalments. The most dangerous class ought to be dealt with first, and I would suggest, thereto re, that in the first instance it should be applicable only to women, and at a subsequent stage it should be brought into operation in regard to adult males, and, at a still later stage, should apply to the rising generation.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I think I need only say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that they will be very glad to co-operate with the noble Earl opposite and afford every facility for the passing of this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a.
  Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that, owing to the delay in printing, his Amendments were not available. He had, however, had three copies of them typewritten, one of which he had handed to the Government and one to the noble Earl in the Chair. The Amendments had been agreed to between those in charge of the Bill and His Majesty's Government, and he hoped they would be accepted. His first Amendment was in page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word "and" to the end of line eleven, and to insert the words "if the offence is committed"; and his next Amendment was to insert, at the end of line 13, the words "within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and in any other case shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding
  2210
  £5, or to imprisonment not exceeding one month."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word 'and' to the end of line 11.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid it was impossible to understand the full bearing of the proposed Amendments without having them before them. Again, what was the penalty under the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883? The Bill would not, he hoped, be susceptible of being applied to cases where members of the audience indulged in what might be regarded as legitimate expressions of opinion owing to the way in which the facts were presented by a particular speaker.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he had been furnished with one of the few copies of the Amendments, and had tried, without success, to follow them. He had pieced them together, but they did not make English at all.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the clause as he proposed to amend it would read—
  "Any person who at a lawful public meeting acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together, shall be guilty of an offence, and if the offence is committed at a political meeting held during the progress of a Parliamentary election he shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and in any other case shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds, or to imprisonment not exceeding one month."
  The rest of the Bill went out.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that the copy of the Amendments furnished to him did not contain the latter half of what the noble Earl had read. Would not the better course be for the noble Earl to write out the clause as it was proposed to amend it, and substitute it for the clauses in the Bill?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the substance of the Amendments might be known to two out of the three fortunate possessors of a copy—the Lord

  2211
  Chancellor appeared not to understand it—but other noble Lords were in complete ignorance on the matter. The House had to meet to-morrow. Could not the Amendments, therefore, be printed and inserted on the following day?
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONexpressed the hope that, if subsection (2)—
  "(2) Any person who commits an offence under this section at a political meeting during the progress of a Parliamentary election shall be guilty of an illegal practice,"—
  were omitted, the proposed new clause which Lord Donoughmore had read should provide for the offence if committed "at a political meeting held during the progress of and in connection with a Parliamentary election."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORagreed that it would be safer to insert the words "and in connection with."
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONhoped also that words would be inserted to cover disturbances occurring at meetings held in connection with municipal elections, especially in the Metropolis.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREwithdrew his Amendment, and said he would draft the Amendments in the form the Lord Chancellor had suggested, and bring them up to-morrow.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW) moved the adoption of the Report, in which the Committee stated inter alia—
  "On the recommendation of the Committee in July last, Mr. Walter was appointed Reporter of the House at a salary of £650 per annum, such salary to cover the whole cost of reporting and all expenses of assistance. Most of the other duties in connection with the Reports have
  2212
  now been assigned to the Stationery Office, but there still remains the important work of receiving and dealing with Peers' corrections and editing the Reports before publication, which could better be performed by the Reporter responsible to the House than by any outside authority. The Committee therefore recommend that Mr. Walter should be appointed editor as well as reporter, at an additional salary of £100 per annum—making, in all, £750."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the adoption of this Report I need only say that it deals chiefly with the reporting of the proceedings in Your Lordships' House. Arrangements have been made in that regard which, I think, are satisfactory, not only to this House, but to the Committee who have been considering the matter bi another place, and who are also making arrangements for the reporting of their debates by an official staff. I beg to move the adoption of the Report.
  Moved, "That the Third Report from the Select Committee be adopted."—(The Earl of Onslow).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Commons reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments considered (on Motion).
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, there are two Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, but they both deal with the same point. The first is in Clause 1, page 2, line 2, where your Lordships struck out the word "ten" and inserted "twelve"; and the second is in line 13, where your Lordships inserted—
  "By the Kent County Council, one; by the Essex County Council, one."
  I beg to move that the House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. This matter occurred so very recently and has twice been under discussion in the House that it must be fresh in the

  2213
  recollection of your Lordships. The Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed were inserted on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Darnley. Your Lordships will remember that two further Amendments were moved, one by the noble Duke opposite, and the other by Lord Desborough, having for their object the inclusion of Surrey and Middlesex and the borough of West Ham amongst the bodies who were to be represented on the Port Authority. I should like to make it clear, which I am afraid I did not do the other day—I have thought since that perhaps your Lordships' action was rather due to that omission on my part—that what the Government are doing in this is not intended in any way as a slight; upon county councils. The Government have the very highest opinion of the value of county councils and of the work they do, and I am perfectly certain that if the constitution of this body had been in any way different these county councils and the borough of West Ham would undoubtedly have been included amongst the bodies who have representation on the Port Authority. The House knows that the intention has always been that this body should be, not of a municipal, but of a commercial character, and it was entirely for that reason that these four counties were omitted. It was stated, in the course of the debate here, that this matter was not considered by the Joint Committee. I do not think that was really the case, and I certainly never thought, during the two long and weary months in which I sat on this Committee, that we should ever be charged with not having given due consideration to any matter. This (indicating volume) is the Report of the Committee. Your Lordships can see that it is a volume of considerable size; and I do not think that any charge of that kind does lie against the Joint Committee. The claims of the two counties which your Lordships did include are entirely of a geographical nature, and the Joint Committee did not think it necessary to hear elaborate reasons for proving those claims. What we considered was this. There were two courses before us. The first course was to give representation to these four
  2214
  counties and to the borough of West Ham, but if we adopted that course we were met by a difficulty. If we wished to maintain the proportion between the elected and the nominated representatives on the Port Authority the inclusion of these extra five nominated representatives would have entailed our allowing nine more elected members in order to balance them. That would have meant that there would have been twenty-seven elected members and fifteen nominated members, making, in all, a body of forty-two members. That we considered would be an unwieldy and unbusinesslike body, and it was on that ground, and that ground alone, that we decided against including these counties. The only other possible course was the one we adopted, leaving out the counties altogether. We never thought for a moment of admitting some and leaving out others, and I think your Lordships will have seen from what took place yesterday that that course was likely to arouse a storm of indignation. The speeches to which we listened from the noble Duke and from Lord Desborough on that subject show how strong the local fueling is against anything of that sort being done; and the Board of Trade have had further proof this morning, if such were necessary, in a most indignant letter which I hold in my hand from the borough of West Ham. They protest, and I think with good reason, that it is unfair that representation should be given to Kent and Essex and should be denied to them. I submit that the course which the Joint Committee recommended, and which was embodied in the Bill as it came from the Commons, was the only course by which the three essential points in this matter could be attained, namely, that we should have a Port Authority of manageable dimensions, that we should maintain the balance of power as between the commercial and the municipal elements on the body, and that we should not do injustice as between the different local bodies. I would appeal very strongly to your Lordships not to insist on these two Amendments. I would ask you to consider that the Board of Trade have used every endeavour to meet all the reasonable objections raised in this

  2215
  House and outside. What we have done in this House may not have been so apparent to the general body of your Lordships, because the Amendments which were accepted were agreed to outside and not on the floor of the House. But these were two very important Amendments agreed to at the instance of members of this House. The first was the Amendment made to Clause 6, where we agreed to strike out of the Bill the power which the Board of Trade asked for to vary the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts. That Amendment will be in the recollection of your Lordships. I would also point to the other very important concession which was made at the instance of a noble Lord who was a member of the Joint Committee, Lord Ritchie, limiting the Port rates on goods to one three-thousandth part of the total. I think we have shown every disposition to meet reasonable opposition in this matter, and I would appeal to your Lordships not to impair the peaceful passage of the Bill at this late stage.
  Moved, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Commons disagree."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
  LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to support the appeal which the noble Lord has just made. I hope your Lordships will recognise that it is with no feeling of hostility to Kent and Essex that I made these remarks. Both of these counties are at the present time represented on the Thames Conservancy Board, and supply good and useful members; but the same thing can be said, with equal truth, of the other two counties whose claims were put forward last night—Middlesex and Surrey—and also of West Ham. I am confident that you would enormously increase the well-founded disappointment of those bodies if you selected only two counties to be represented and disregarded the claims of others having equal right to be represented. There are several ways of creating a new Port Authority, but the system selected by the Government is based on the principle that those who pay the
  2216
  dues should elect the representatives, who, therefore, will be persons well acquainted with the great shipping and trading interests of the port. Wherever we look we see, in connection with ports throughout the country, the municipal element being gradually eliminated in favour of the scientific trading element. It may be objected that although there are eighteen members of the new Port authority who directly represent the trade and commerce of the Port, there are still a large number of nominated members. The nominated members number ten, but these gentlemen will not represent any geographical or sectional interest; they will represent great Authorities whose voices should be heard in a business of the vast importance of the Port of London. Of the ten nominated members the Admiralty will appoint one. It is essential that the Admiralty, which is concerned with Woolwich and the defence of London, should be represented. The Board of Trade will appoint two representatives. The Department takes a paternal interest in this new body, and it is obviously necessary that they should have this representation. Then we come to the municipal element. I do not say whether the London County Council, which will elect two members from their own body and nominate two from outside, are given too many or too few representatives, but I contend that this is not the time to increase the nominated element. Then the Corporation of the City of London are to appoint one representative and nominate another. There is good reason for that, for from time immemorial they have been the Port Authority, and at the present time the Corporation spend £30,000 a year in carrying out the Port sanitary duties. Therefore, I think the Corporation is well worthy of having representation on the Port Authority. Trinity House, again, carry out the duties of buoying and lighting, and, therefore, should have representation. Without the slightest hostility to Kent and Essex I feel that I should not be doing my duty to Surrey and Middlesex and West Ham if I did not attempt to point out that it would occasion a sense of injustice to give to Kent and Essex representation

  2217
  which is denied to the other three, who also have representation on the Thames Conservancy Board at the present time.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I shall not detain the House by re-arguing the question, but I think the remarks of the noble Lord opposite ought not to pass without notice. The noble Lord assured the House that the Joint Committee had fully considered all these questions, and he waved a voluminous Blue-book in order to convince us that that was the fact. No one has accused the Joint Committee of not considering the matter; but we know that they refused to give these local authorities any opportunity of stating their case for the consideration of the Committee. I confess that it is a rather peculiar argument to say that the Joint Committee fully considered a matter which they had never fairly stated to them. The local authorities are spoken of as merely having a geographical interest. I do not know what the noble Lord means by a geographical interest. They have the interests of the inhabitants who live along the river in their charge. The noble Lord said he spoke with great respect of county councils. I am extremely obliged to him for his kind remarks, but it would be more practical if His Majesty's Government would show that respect by giving these authorities credit for having something to say in the interests of their constituents and an opportunity of saying it. I daresay my noble friend Lord Desborough is right, that if all these bodies are not represented then none should be; but I confess I think county councils have very great cause of complaint that a Joint Committee of this kind absolutely refused to hear them when they made an application to be heard before the Committee.
  LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as a Member of the Joint Committee I should like to support the appeal of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I entirely agree with every word he said. We did consider this question, though we did not hear evidence on the subject. I therefore hope the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House may find it possible to
  2218
  give way in regard to these two Amendments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.