Sitting of 20 July 1908

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.: River Wandle Protection Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL [LORDS] (STAND- ING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th day of July, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz:—Post Office Sites Bill [Lords].
Finchley Urban District Council Bill.—Lords Amendments considered; One Lords Amendment amended, and agreed to; Remaining Lords' Amendments] agreed to.
Glyncorrwg Urban District Council Bill; Wishaw Burgh Electricity, etc., Bill; Wolverhampton Corporation Bill.—Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified).—Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Tollemache Estate Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Dover Graving Docks Bill (King's Consent signified).—Bill read the third time, and passed.
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [Lords].—Read a second time and committed.
Falkirk and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Lanark Corporation (Extension of Boundaries, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill.—Considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
Commons Regulation (Towyn Trewan) Provisional Order Bill.—Read a second time, and committed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Lighting Company, Limited, the Notting Hill Electric Lighting Company, Limited, the Saint James' and Pall Mall Electric Light Company, Limited, the Westminster Electric Supply Corporation, Limited, and the Central Electric Supply Company, Limited, with respect to the supply of electrical energy; and for other purposes." [London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon certain of the London Electric Supply Companies." [London Electric Supply Bill [Lords.]
London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [Lords] London Electric Supply Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Codford and other places; London; and North Wales; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Heaton Moor; Horsham; Newport Pagnell; and Witham; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
  Copy presented, of Revised Draft of the Articles of a Charter for the University to have its seat in Belfast [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
Copy presented, of Revised Draft of the Articles of a Charter for the University to have its seat in Dublin [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
Copy presented, of Revised Draft of the Articles of a Charter for the College to have its seat in Dublin [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
Copy presented, of Revised Draft of the Articles of a New Charter for the Constituent College at Cork [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
Copy presented, of the Revised Draft of the Articles of a New Charter for the Constituent College at Galway [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RAILWAY EMPLOYMENT (SAFETY APPLIANCES).
Copies presented, of Third and Fourth Reports of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to examine and, where necessary, to test appliances designed to diminish danger to men employed in Railway Service [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND CORPORATION.
Copy presented, of Fourth Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation

1437
for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CARE AND CONTROL OF THE FEEBLE- MINDED (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire concerning the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded. Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, Vols. I.-VII. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 565 (Surveys of British Africa, Ceylon, and the Federated Malay States, Annual Report of the Colonial Survey Committee, third year, to June, 1908) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Copy presented, of Fifty-second Report of the Commissioners, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
Copy presented, of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1908, of pensions specially granted under Articles 718, 1089, and 1124 of the Pay Warrant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOANS CONTRACTED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th April; Mr. Henry Forster]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 238.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Copy ordered, "of Statement of Particulars of Loans of which the balances outstanding are proposed to be remitted or written off (in whole or in part) from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund,"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 239.]

BUILDING OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING WORKS BILL.
Address for "Return of Memorandum explanatory of the Building Operations and Engineering Works Bill."—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Outrage on Fishing Boat "Paramount."
  CAPTAIN WARING: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now state the result of the inquiries by the legal authorities in Scotland into the outrage committed in the Moray Firth on the fishing boat "Paramount" on 19th February.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) After careful inquiry, and a full consideration of all the facts, the authorities have come to the conclusion that the circumstances do not warrant criminal proceedings.

  Register of Secondary School Teachers.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether a register of teachers in secondary schools, apart from the register of certificated elementary teachers, is to be maintained; and, if not, whether the registration fees paid by the teachers whose names were on column B of the suspended register will be repaid, or what is to be done with the surplus left by the late Registration Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Paper which was recently circulated on the subject [Cd. 4185]. The hon. Member's suggestion for a register for secondary school teachers only, separate from the register for any other teachers, would appear to be inconsistent with the terms of Section 16 (2) of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907. Pending the establishment of the council it would be premature to decide as to the disposal of the balance in hand.

  Shipping Ports.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the names of the first six shipping ports of the world, judged by the tonnage of their shipping entered and cleared; and the

  1439
  amount of tonnage of ships entered and cleared in the case of each port for the latest year for which statistics are available.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I regret that it is not possible to give the information desired, on account of the absence of records of coasting trade in

  Total net tonnage of Vessels which entered and cleared at the six principal shipping ports of the world in 1906:—

  Name of Port.

  Total Tonnage entered and cleared.

  In the Foreign Trade.

  In the Coasting Trade.

  Antwerp

  21,676,118

  Little or none.

  Hamburg

  20,120,198

  1,631,780 (including river traffic)

  Hong Kong

  19,833,666

  None

  London

  19,407,942

  14,716,141

  New York

  20,390,953

  *

  Rotterdam

  15,372,480

  No record.

  * 7,136 vessels arrived coastwise in 1906, but no record of their tonnage is available, nor is any record available as to clearances.

  Note.—(1) The system of computing net tonnage adopted at Antwerp differs materially from that in force at the other ports named, and results in the Antwerp figures being considerably enhanced.
  (2) The above figures do not include vessels which have been entered or cleared from or to places abroad at some other port in the respective countries on the same voyage. If these duplicate entries or clearances could be included the figures for London would probably be increased to a greater extent than those for the other ports mentioned.

  Classification of Post Offices.
  MR J. DEVLIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the volume of work, as computed in units for the purpose of classifying post offices to fix the salary of the staff, comprises in each case the whole of the postal work performed in the district by the established staff at head and branch
  1440
  the case of some of the largest ports, including New York and Rotterdam. The following figures may, however, be of some interest to the noble Lord, but they must be read in connection with the qualifications given in the Notes. The ports, which are selected on account of their large oversea shipping trade, are given in alphabetical order—
  offices, that performed at unestablished post offices, and all telephone work; and whether he will publish the Regulations issued to surveyors for their guidance in obtaining the returns of work for classifying the wages of the staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The volume of work comprises the work of the established staff at head and branch offices and in the rural area, the work done at the head office in connection with all sub-offices, and telephone work in connection with trunk calls. It is not proposed to publish the instructions issued to surveyors in connection with this matter.

  Grants to Universities.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what were the amounts paid out of public funds, other than out of

  1441
  rate, to the several Universities, as such in the United Kingdom during the last, financial year.

  Name of University.

  Amount of Grant.

  Nature of Grant.

  Observations.

  £

  s.

  d.

  University of London

  8,000

  0

  0

  Grant in Aid

  Civil Service Estimates, Class 4, 7

  Victoria University of Manchester

  2,000

  0

  0

  Grant in Aid

  Civil Service Estimates, Class 4, 7

  University of Birmingham

  2,000

  0

  0

  Grant in Aid

  Civil Service Estimates, Class 4, 7

  University of Wales

  4,000

  0

  0

  Grant in Aid

  Civil Service Estimates, Class 4, 7

  University of Liverpool

  2,000

  0

  0

  Grant in Aid

  Civil Service Estimates, Class 4, 7

  Leeds University

  2,000

  0

  0

  Grant in Aid

  Civil Service Estimates, Class 4, 7

  Sheffield University

  2,000

  0

  0

  Grant in Aid

  Civil Service Estimates, Class 4, 7

  Glasgow University

  12,180

  0

  0*

  Share of Annual Grant from Vote of Parliament

  52 and 53 Vic, c. 55, s. 25. Civil Service Estimates Class 4, 7

  Aberdeen University

  8,400

  0

  0*

  Share of Annual Grant from Vote of Parliament

  52 and 53 Vic, c. 55, s. 25. Civil Service Estimates Class 4, 7

  Edinburgh University

  15,120

  0

  0*

  Share of Annual Grant from Vote of Parliament

  52 and 53 Vic, c. 55, s. 25. Civil Service Estimates Class 4, 7

  St. Andrews University

  6,300

  0

  0*

  Share of Annual Grant from Vote of Parliament

  52 and 53 Vic, c. 55, s. 25. Civil Service Estimates Class 4, 7

  University of Oxford

  500

  0

  0

  Annual compensation. Grant for the loss of the privilege of printing and vending almanacs

  44 Geo. 3, c. 98 Civil Service Estimates, Class 6, 2

  University of Cambridge

  500

  0

  0

  Annual compensation. Grant for the loss of the privilege of printing and vending almanacs

  44 Geo. 3, c. 98 Civil Service Estimates, Class 6, 2

  University of Oxford

  93

  4

  2

  Charges transferred to the Consolidated Fund from the Land Revenues of the Crown

  Annual Finance Accounts, p. 55

  University of Cambridge

  97

  8

  2

  Charges transferred to the Consolidated Fund from the Land Revenues of the Crown

  Annual Finance Accounts, p. 55

  * In addition there were paid to these Universities out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account under the Act 55 and 56 Vic. c. 51, 2 (2), the following sums:—Glasgow University, £8,700; Aberdeen University, £6,000; Edinburgh University, £10,800; St. Andrew's University, £4,500.

  The sums stated above are exclusive: (1) or any grants received from the
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The information asked for by my hon. friend is given below:—
  grant-in-aid of University colleges which are paid to certain Universities in respect

  1443
  of their work as colleges; (2) of sums received from the Board of Education in respect of their work as training colleges, evening schools, or technical in situations; and (3) of money received from the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for instruction in agriculture.

  Pay of Enniskillen Telegraphists.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the maximum salary at Enniskillen for telegraphists is to be reduced from 44s. per week to 40s.; whether the record of work, on which the units for classification purposes were computed, did not include 7,000 service messages, delivered registered letters, and forwarded registered letters; and whether he will order a fresh inquiry to be made as to the classification of this office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Returns of work upon which the present classification is based refer to the year ended 31st December, 1907, and the Return showed that the volume of work at Enniskillen only amounted to 81 units. Such a figure of volume of work only warrants Class V. scales for the indoor force, the range of which class is 120 units of work or less. Enniskillen is not regarded as an exceptionally expensive place to live in, and therefore remains in Class V. The Returns of work for Enniskillen were prepared upon the same lines as those for all other towns. Service messages are not taken into account. Delivered and forwarded registered letters are included as letters.

  Forest Gate Post Office (Woodgrange Road).
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postmaster at Forest Gate, Essex, carries on business as a wine and spirit merchant; that the residents calling at the post office for the purpose of using the telephone are sent to the postmaster's premises where liquor is sold; and whether, in view of the fact that a number of the inhabitants have conscientious objections to enter these premises, he will make arrangements for the transference of the telephone to the post office.
  1444
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Presumably the office referred to by the hon. Member is that at Woodgrange Road, Forest Gate. The Post Office business is carried on in a stationer's shop. The sub-postmaster also sells wine and spirits on an off-licence in premises on the opposite side of the road and he has had the National Telephone Company's instrument installed there. I understand he is about to remove his post office and stationery business to other premises still unconnected with his wine and spirit business and that he is willing to transfer the National Telephone Company's instrument to these premises, but I cannot compel him to do so.

  Departmental Committee on Half-Timers.
  MR. NUSSEY: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet appointed the promised Departmental Committee on half-timers; and, if so, will he state the names of the committee and the terms of reference.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Yes, Sir, the Committee will consist of: Mr. T. McKinnon Wood, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education;. Lord Clifford of Chudleigh; Lord Stanley of Alderley; Mr. Walter R. Rea, M.P.;. Mr. H. M. Lindsell, C.B., a Principal Assistant Secretary of the Board of Education; Mr. G. Bellhouse, one of His Majesty's Superintending Inspectors of Factories; Mr. Joseph Cross, of Accrington, Secretary of the Northern Counties Weavers Amalgamation; Mr. Tom Garnett, of Manchester; Mr. Allen Gee, of Huddersfield, General Secretary of the General Union of Weavers and Textile Workers; Mr. Mark Oldroyd, of Dewsbury; with Mr. C. E. Sykes, an Examiner of the Board of Education, as Secretary. The terms of reference are as follows: (1) To inquire into and report upon the extent to which existing enactments, relating to partial exemption form compulsory school attendance are taken advantage of in urban and rural areas in England and Wales; the occupations in which children so exempted are employed; and the effect of such occupations upon the general education and industrial training of the children; (2)

  1445
  to consider the practical effects of legislation providing for the abolition or restriction of half-time employment upon industries and wage-earning, and upon educational organisation and expenditure; (3) to report whether and to what extent in view of these considerations, it is desirable to amend the law by raising the age at which partial exemption from attendance at public elementary schools is to be permitted, or by raising the minimum age for total exemption concurrently with affording facilities for partial exemption.

  Scottish Local Expenditure.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what was the total annual expenditure by local bodies in Scotland in the year ending 1906–7, and also the total of the municipal debt for that year.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) For the information required I would refer the hon. Member to the table at page vii. of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Returns for 1905–6 (H.C. 305 (1907). The corresponding volume for 1906–7 is in course of preparation, and is not likely to be ready for some months. So far as regards the expenditure on education for 1906–7, the information will be found on page xii. of Command Paper 4112.

  Postal Servants Grievances.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether in view of the fact that the discussion on the Post Office Vote has resolved itself to a large extent into a discussion of grievances which it is quite impossible to answer in detail, and that real anomalies and hardships may run the risk of going unredressed, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Standing Committee or Commission, as in New Zealand, to which all such grievances and difficulties can be automatically referred.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Any complaints put forward by my staff will be carefully considered by me. I do not think the Postmaster-General should be relieved of this duty.

  Training Colleges—Temporary Agreement.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the temporary agreement that has recently been arrived at with reference to the conditions of entrance to denominational training colleges has been accepted by the authorities of denominational training colleges other than Church of England training colleges.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have no reason to believe that any college on the grant list fails to comply with the Training College Regulations, 1908.

  Purchase of Lord Gough's Estate.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how far the negotiations for the purchase of Lord Gough's estate, near Gort, in the County Galway, have proceeded; whether the question of reserving the sporting rights by the landlord has been an impediment; and whether, in the interests of peace in the locality, he would have the Estates Commissioners to intervene in the hope of bringing about an amicable arrangement.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are not aware of any recent negotiations for the purchase of Lord Gough's estate. As regards the remainder of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his similar Question on 9th May, 1907. For the reasons therein stated the Commissioners do not think that any useful purpose would be served by renewing their intervention in the matter.

  Recommendations of Belfast Health Commission.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps, if any, are being taken to put into force the recommendations of the Belfast Health Commission; and whether, in view of the time occupied by the Commission and the expense attending it, he will endeavour to see that its work shall not be without any practical result.

  1447
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Since the appointment of the Commission referred to the Local Government Board have had evidence of increased activity in the public health administration of Belfast, and the corporation have already taken steps to remedy some of the sanitary defects which were brought under the notice of the Commission. Many important recommendations were made by the Commission and, as I have already informed the hon. Member, the corporation must be allowed a reasonable time for action before the Local Government Board can take steps in the matter. The hon. Member may rest assured that the matter will not be lost sight of.

  Reinstatement of Mrs. Moroney on Estate of Count Moore.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have several times communicated with Count Moore in connection with the reinstatement of Mrs. Moroney in her evicted farm at Kilross, and with what result; and what further steps the Commissioners contemplate taking.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that, having received no reply from the owner to their offer to make an advance for the purchase of the holding in question, they have decided to take steps to acquire it compulsorily under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907.

  Increased cost of Irish Local Government.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that since the passing of the Loral Government Act, 1898, under which half the landlord's portion of rates was paid, the members of the Local Government Board are forcing boards of guardians to increase their staffs, to expend large sums in alterations in workhouses and hospitals, to increase salaries by imposing new duties, and generally to increase the burden on the ratepayer; whether under the Land Purchase Acts the occupier has to bear the entire burden of increased rates; and whether, as the entire amount of the said increase has to be borne by local
  1448
  contribution, he will see his way to having half the amount contributed, as was the practice prior to the passing of the Local Government Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The general policy of the Local Government Board is quite the opposite of that suggested in the Question. In exceptional cases, in which the existing staff was found to be inadequate to meet the requirements of the sick poor, the action of the Local Government Board may have involved increased expenditure by local authorities, but the great majority of the complaints made against the Board are that they refuse to sanction increased expenditure upon salaries and other matters. The Land Purchase Acts have not affected the incidence of the rates. The hon. Member should bear in mind that a reversion to the system which existed prior to 1898 would involve the withdrawal from Ireland of the Agricultural Grant of over £700,000 a year.

  Orange Disturbances at Portadown.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on Saturday night, the 11th instant, Orange arches were put across William Street or Chapel Street, Portadown, where the Catholic Church and the priests' house are situated, a few yards from the church, to the annoyance of Catholics coming to church on Sunday, although nothing of the kind has been seen in the street for years; that there was yelling and horseplay on the night of the 11th and up till two o'clock the following morning opposite the church and presbytery; and that on Sunday night the mob increased in numbers and violence, cursing the Pope and thumping the doors of the Catholic houses, and breaking in the door of a Catholic widow's house to the terror of the woman and her daughter; whether any police were present on the occasion; will he say whether any arrests were made or any report furnished to the authorities, and whether but for the forbearance of the Catholics a serious riot might have taken place; whether he is also aware that in another Catholic quarter, namely, Marlay Street, on Sunday night, the 12th instant similar misconduct, accompanied with

  1449
  breaking of windows and stone throwing, took place without any provocation or retaliation on the part of the Catholics; whether he will explain why no policemen were to be found in the vicinity of these occurrences; and whether he will direct that the police shall take action to prevent the repetition of such occurrences in future, and especially of the erection of Orange arches beside the Catholic Church or in Catholic quarters.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police authorities inform me that on the night of the 11th instant an Orange arch was erected in William Street, Portadown, in which street the Catholic Church and the priests' house are situated. The majority of the residents in that street are Protestants, and the part of the street where the arch was put up is exclusively occupied by Protestants; and it has been the usual custom to put an arch there. Police patrols were specially placed in the street on the 11th, 12th, and 13th instant. No such conduct as is referred to in the Question came under their notice, nor has any complaint of such conduct been received. It is the fact that on the night of the 12th a few panes of glass of the value of 1s. 6d. were broken in Marley Street, a Catholic quarter, but the police were unable to determine whether this incident was of a party character. No Orange arches were erected in Catholic quarters, and no complaint has been received heretofore respecting the arch usually erected in William Street. The police take all possible measures for preserving the peace on the occasion of these party celebrations, and in this case they appear to have done so with considerable success.

  Purchase of Untenanted Land—Lack of Funds for Improvement.
  MR. KAVANAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board was authorised last April to purchase £420,000 worth of tenanted land, and that the Board is unable to carry out the purchase of these estates on account of the lack of funds to make improvements on them; and, seeing that a serious situation has arisen on
  1450
  these estates on account of the sales not being carried through, whether he will advise that the Board should be provided with the necessary increase to its funds to enable it to complete the purchase of, and carry out the improvements on, these estates which have been already authorised by the Treasury
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is the fact that in April last the Congested Districts Board decided to negotiate for the purchase of eight estates at an estimated cost of about £420,000. The Board did not at once enter upon negotiations for the purchase of these estates, but at their meeting on the 10th instant it was decided to go on with the matter, and the negotiations for purchase will now proceed. Such negotiations in the case of large estates necessarily take time, and it cannot be said that a serious situation has arisen on these estates because the sales have not been carried through. There is no difficulty about the provision of funds for the purchase of estates by means of advances from the Land Commission, and as regards the improvement of the eight estates particularly referred to no immediate difficulty can arise seeing that, even under the most expeditious proceedings a considerable time must elapse before the lands are vested in the Board.

  Extra Police at Ballinaglera.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of extra police stationed in the district of Ballinaglera, County Letrim, to the fact that all causes of disturbance have been removed, the land question in that locality practically settled, and the district perfectly peaceable, he would give instructions to have all extra police withdrawn.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Five extra policemen are stationed in the district referred to. The police authorities inform me that there has been an improvement in the state of the district, but that it would be premature to reduce the strength of the police at present. The force will be reduced as soon as

  1451
  the circumstances warrant the adoption of that course.

  Absconding Members of Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether towards the end of last year a pay-sergeant in the D Division of the Dublin Metropolitan Police absconded with a considerable sum of public money; if a staff-sergeant in the same division also absconded, owing large sums to various traders for goods supplied to the mess; whether any inquiry was held, and with what result, as to the responsibility of Superintendent Dunne for the conduct of the sergeants, both of whom were under his control; if the superintendent was called upon to make good a portion of the money, and how much; and whether, in the event of the Government forcing on the people of Dublin the proposed Commission of Inquiry, he will enlarge its scope so as to make it possible to have the administration of the D Division, by Superintendent Dunne thoroughly investigated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A pay sergeant of the D Division of the Dublin police absconded last year with about £100 of public money. A staff-sergeant of the same division also absconded, but the Chief Commissioner is not aware of any outstanding liabilities for goods supplied to the mess. Superintendent Dunne, who is in charge of the finances of the division, provisionally made good the deficit. The matter was subsequently investigated by the Chief Commissioner, upon whose recommendation the Treasury relieved the superintendent from liability for the loss due to the fraud of his subordinate. I am not aware of any necessity for further investigating the matter.

  Home Role for Ireland.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland having regard to the Resolution passed by this House that the granting to the Irish people of legislative and executive control of all purely Irish affairs is vital to the interests of Ireland, and to the declaration of the Prime
  1452
  Minister that the question of Home Rule for Ireland would be an issue at the next general election, he will consider the advisability of not proceeding with the appointment of the proposed Dublin Metropolitan Police Commission but leave all questions affecting that force to be dealt with by an Irish legislative assembly.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) When undertaking to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the cost of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, I was under the impression that there was a general wish for the appointment of such a Commission. As I have already informed the hon. Member, there has been considerable discussion upon the terms of reference, which have not yet been settled. I am not at present aware of any reason why the proposal to appoint a Commission should be abandoned.

  Distribution of Irish Primary Education Supplementary Grant.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he will be i in a position to state the altered method on which the Supplementary Grant for primary education will be distributed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I hope to be able to make a statement on this subject in the course of a week, but cannot at present name a precise date.

  Extra Police at Cashel.
  MR. CONDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether over 200 police were imported into Cashel on 15th July in connection with a small seizure for rent; whether County Inspector Rogers refused to allow the inhabitants to pass through the streets, though requested to do so by the priest and representative men of the district, including the chairman of the urban council; whether the attitude of the county inspector was likely to lead to a breach of the peace on the occasion; and whether the urban district of Cashel will have to pay for the importation of those police.

  1453
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On 15th July a force of 100 police under County Inspector Rogers was assembled in Cashel to preserve the peace in connection with a sheriff's sale at which disturbance was anticipated. The county inspector refused to allow a crowd of 500 persons, accompanied by three bands, to march past the place of sale, but when the bandsmen put up their instruments he offered no opposition to their free passage. A Catholic clergyman and the chairman of the town commissioners, who accompanied the crowd, protested against the action of the county inspector. It appears to have been the object of the crowd and bands to interfere with the sale, and the inspector general is satisfied that the county inspector acted properly. Fifty of the extra police were brought from an adjoining county, and the county at large will have to bear the charge in respect of that number.

  Woolwich Arsenal—Number of Employees.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of men employed at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, on 31st December, 1905, how many on 31st October, 1906, how many on 30th September, 1907, and at the present time.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The figures are as follows:—

  30th December, 1905

  14,496

  27th October, 1906

  13,543

  28th September, 1907

  11,757

  11th July, 1908

  11,471

  Volunteer Officers' Decoration.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Volunteer decoration will in future be conferred upon officers who have served sixteen years instead of twenty years, as in the case of the long-service medal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The reply is in the negative.

  Mr. Wade of Richmond (Yorks) and the Fair Wage Clause.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary
  1454
  of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Wade, of Richmond, Yorkshire, who is executing work for his Department at Tynemouth Barracks, at Clifford's Port, North Shields, at Frenchman's Battery, South Shields, and at Whitley Bay rifle range, is paying the joiners employed on this work 7d. and 7½d. per hour, the standard wage of joiners in the district being 9½d. per hour; and whether he will take steps to compel this contractor to pay his employees the standard wage.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The case is being inquired into, but the facts have not yet been fully ascertained.

  Government Servants and Territorial Camps.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of Government employees cannot obtain leave to attend camp except by giving up their only annual holiday, by surrendering to a substitute who does their civil work their civil pay during the period of camp, a twenty-fifth of their income, receiving in its stead their military pay of 1s. a day, or by remaining in their offices to work overtime clay after day until they have made up the hours which they have made fitting themselves for the defence of their country; and whether in view of his appeal to private employers of labour to grant fifteen days special leave to their employees, he proposes to take any action to secure similar facilities for Civil servants.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I am disposed to think that the difficulties experienced by Civil servants in attending the camp trainings are not so great as are suggested in the hon. Member's Question; but if will submit to me any actual cases of hardship within his knowledge I will inquire into them.

  Revenue of Nassau, West Indies.
  MR. GLENDINNING: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the amount of revenue Inagua Island, Bahamas, West Indies, contributes to Nassau, and what is Nassau's outlay in Inagua; if he is aware that a private individual

  1455
  has recently repaired the Government wharf at Matthewtown, Nassau, having refused to disburse the amount spent in repairs; and, if so, is there any means of preventing Nassau from using revenue for pleasure resorts and auto roads for the use of visitors.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The Secretary of State is unable to supply information on the points referred to, and before making inquiry of the Governor would be glad of a clearer statement of the particulars desired. I presume that my hon. friend in speaking of Nassau, refers to the central government of the Bahamas, of which Nassau is the capital.

  Canada and the Defence of the Empire.
  MR. CATHCART WASON.: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state what sum in gross or per head the Dominion of Canada pays directly towards the defence of the Empire (not including any local payments for land or lake police).
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The expenditure of Canada on defence, according to the latest completed Returns for the year ending 31st March, 1907, was at the rate of £1,333,000 a year, or about 4s. 6d. per head of the population, while the estimated expenditure for 1907–8 was £1,475,800, or about 5s. per head of the population.

  Importation of Canadian Live Cattle.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Canadian Government had made representation to the British Government with reference to free importation of live cattle; and, if so, if he will lay such representation upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) No representation on this subject has been received from the Canadian Government since the matter was discussed at the Colonial Conference of last year. After the Conference a despatch was sent to the Governor-General conveying the regret of His Majesty's Government that, after the fullest consideration, they
  1456
  were unable to propose to Parliament any amendment of the existing law.

  Sale of Liquor to Natives at Indian Railway Stations.
  MR. GULLAND: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that trade in spirits with the natives is carried on at railway stations on the Government railways in Southern Nigeria; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this practice.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) I am not aware that trade in spirits is carried on at the railway stations, but inquiry will be made of the Governor on the subject.

  Rates for Carriage of Spirits from Lagos to Abeokuta.
  MR. GULLAND: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the rates for the carriage of spirits to Abeokuta and Ibadan by rail from Lagos; and how these compare with the rates for kerosene, methylated spirits, and other such commodities.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The rate for the carriage of trade spirits is 16s. a ton to Abeokuta, up to which place the railway is in competition with canoe transport on the river, and 52s. a ton to Ibadan; the rates for kerosene and methylated spirits are 51s. 2d. a ton. to Abeokuta and 102s. 4d. a ton to Ibadan. There is also a terminal charge of 2s. 6d. a ton, which corresponds to a wharfage due at Iddo, the terminus of the line, in the case of all three commodities. The Governor has, however, under consideration a proposal to reduce the rates in Class 3, in which kerosene and methylated spirits are at present included.

  Imports of Spirits into Southern Nigeria.
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the quantity and value of spirits imported into Southern Nigeria during each of the last ten years; the value of other commodities imported; and the proportion of spirits to the total imports (excluding goods for Government services) in each such year.

  1457
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The complete figures for 1907 are not yet available. The figures for earlier years will be found in the "Statistical Abstract for the several British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates," published by the Board of Trade.

  Sale of Spirits to African Natives.
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in which of the British Possessions in Africa the sale of spirits to natives is prohibited; and what are the import duties in those Colonies where the sale is not prohibited.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The sale of spirits to natives is prohibited in the northern territories of the Gold Coast and Northern Nigeria. It is also prohibited in British Somaliland, the British East Africa Protectorate, Uganda, Nyasaland, and Rhodesia. The import duties in the West African Colonies where the sale is not prohibited are as follows:—

  For spirits of "proof" strength, per imperial gallon.

  s.

  d.

  Gambia

  4

  6

  Sierra Leone

  4

  6

  Gold Coast (West of the Volta)

  5

  6

  Gold Coast (East of the Volta)

  4

  3

  Southern Nigeria

  4

  6

  In all the countries of the South African Customs Union, viz., Cape, Natal, Orange River Colony, Transvaal, Southern Rhodesia, Basutoland, Swaziland, and the Bechuanaland Protectorate, more or less stringent prohibition of sale to natives exists. The duty on imported spirits under the Customs Union of 1906 is on liqueurs, cordials, and mixed spirits, exceeding 3 per cent. of proof spirit, per imperial gallon £1, and on other sorts, exceeding 3 per cent. of proof spirit, per imperial proof gallon 19s.

  Imports into British African Colonies.
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the value of imports into each of the British Colonies of Central Africa
  1458
  last year, showing in each case how much of this value was made up by spirits and how much by other commodities.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) I regret to say that the figures for last year are not yet available.

  Gin and Rum as Medium of Exchange in Southern Nigeria.
  MR. HOWARD: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that trade gin and rum are freely used as a medium of exchange in the Delta districts of Southern Nigeria; and what steps the Government are prepared to take to put an end to this mischievous practice.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) I am aware that in certain districts of Southern Nigeria liquor, as well as many other articles, is used as a medium of exchange where coin does not circulate freely. Every effort is being made by the Government to encourage the use of currency, but to induce the native to abandon his old methods of exchange can only be achieved by degrees. It must be remembered that the native population is very large and that many are in a backward stage of civilisation, while the European residents are few in number and scattered over a large territory.

  Sale of Spirits to Natives—Policy of Foreign Powers.
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what is the policy of Foreign European powers in regard to the sale of spirits to natives in their African possessions.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The policy of Foreign European Powers in regard to the sale of spirits to natives in their African possessions is indicated in Articles XC. to XCV. of the General Act of Brussels of 2nd July, 1890, the Convention respecting the Liquor Traffic in Africa of 8th June, 1899, and the Convention respecting Liquors in Africa of 3rd November, 1906. I can add nothing to the information contained in those Papers, which have all been presented to Parliament.

  Children Tried under Paragraph (b) Section 15 Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will say how many children were tried under Paragraph (b) of the proviso to Section 15 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, and how many were convicted thereunder, in 1905, 1906, and 1907 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) There was no such case in the year 1907. I cannot speak with certainty of the years 1905 and 1906, but I think it is extremely unlikely that any such case occurred.

  Civil Service Appointment—Nomination and Competition.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state in what Departments of the Civil Service appointments are made on the nomination of the head of the Department or that of some other person instead of by open competitive examination; what appointments have been so made in each of the years 1900 to 1907; what were the posts to which such appointments were made and the salaries attaching thereto, and the rank and salaries at the present time of the persons so appointed; and will he also state what methods of selection are employed.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The details as regards appointments filled by nomination followed by qualifying examination are too long to be giver, in an Answer to a Question, but they will all be found set out in the rules and regulations respecting examinations for the Home Civil Service, etc., published by the Civil Service Commissioners. The preparation of a Return of all such appointments made from to 1900 to 1907, and of the rank and salaries at the present time of the persons so appointed, would necessitate the collection of information from a number of Departments, and its value would not, in my opinion, be commensurate with the labour involved. I have no information as to the methods of selection employed.

  Age for Retirement of the Ordnance Survey Staff.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can see his way to extend the age limit for retirement for workers not on the pensionable establishment of the Ordnance Survey in order that on retirement they would come within the scope of the Old-Ago Pension Act.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The reply is in the negative. The arrangement suggested could not be adopted without considerable loss of efficiency and an increase of cost.

  Extension of Deer Forest Areas.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will enable the Crofter's Commission to check the further extension of the deer forest area.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am not able to add anything now to the answers I have given as to the attitude of the Government in regard to legislation, affecting the occupation of land in Scotland.

  Imperial and Local Taxation.
  MR. REES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Montgomery County Council urging upon His Majesty's Government that services of a national character should be paid for very largely out of national funds and less out of local rates, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation in 1901; and whether he proposes to afford local bodies any relief in this respect.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The whole questions of the relations between Imperial and local taxation is under the consideration of the Government, but I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at present.

  Memorial of Mr. C. W. Allan, Indian Forest Service.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for

  1461
  India whether the Secretary of State's attention has been directed to the Memorial addressed to him by Mr. C. W. Allan, an extra Deputy-Conservator of forests in the Burma provincial service; whether Mr. Allan, after passing through the college at Dehra Dun, joined the Indian Forest Service on 1st February, 1887, at a time when it was provided by Section 21 of the then Forest Department Code that, after five years approved service as Sub-Assistant Conservator of Forests, he would be drafted into the upper controlling staff; whether he is aware that in 1891 the Government issued a new Forest Department reorganisation scheme debarring all officers thenceforward appointed in India from promotion to the upper controlling staff, and that, having done four years of admittedly approved service, the new scheme was by ex post facto ruling applied to Mr. Allan's case; whether he is aware that recently the Secretary of State for India has sanctioned the transfer of Mr. Shrish Chandra Chakrabatti from the provincial to the Imperial engineering service on the gromid that, as he had actually entered the Sibpur Engineering College before the issue of the orders closing the Imperial service to students of Indian engineering colleges, he had an equitable right to an appointment in the Imperial service; and will he state on what ground, in an analogous case, Mr. Allan has been refused similar treatment; and whether the Government of India will be directed to remedy the grievance from which Mr. Allan is suffering.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) Mr. Allan's Memorial has been received from India, and is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council. The Secretary of State is not in a position at present to make a statement regarding it.

  Appointment of Nurses at Tipperary.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board is attempting to force the Tipperary Board of Guardians to appoint several trained nurses in the rural districts of the union; and if he can state from what source the salaries of those nurses, if appointed, is to come.
  1462
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The medical officers of certain dispensary districts in the Tipperary Union have represented to the Local Government Board's medical inspector that mid wives are required in those districts. The Local Government Board have called the attention of the guardians to the necessity for making adequate provision for the skilled treatment of maternity cases among the poor, but no definite decision in the matter has yet been arrived at. The salaries of such midwives are borne by the union.

  Erection of Medical Officer's Residence at Emly.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Tipperary Board of Guardians are unable to secure a contractor to erect a medical officer's residence and dispensary house at Emly for the amount sanctioned by the Local Government Board; that the guardians' engineer undertakes to complete the work by direct labour for the amount sanctioned, but the Local Government Board will not consent; and whether he will get the latter to allow the guardians to have the building proceeded with in the manner they consider cheapest and best.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have already intimated to the guardians that they will raise no objection to the execution by direct labour of the works in question, seeing that the guardians have made four unsuccessful attempts to obtain a contractor.

  Carrick National Schools.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what educational advantages the Commissioners of National Education anticipate from the appointment of a female assistant to a school, Roll 1,950, Circuit 9, Section A.; whether he can state 'how many girls' schools in the same circuit are being more efficiently conducted than the school referred to; whether, if the boys' school be made into a girls' school and to the present girls' school a class room were built and the boys transferred school, Roll No. 2,997, would there be

  1463
  space in school, Roll 1,950 for the present, attendance of girls plus the infant boys; whether the withdrawal of the infant boys would mean the probable dismissal of the assistant; whether such contingency constitutes an exemption from Rule 127 (b); whether in enforcing this rule the Commissioners take into account the qualifications and ability of the teaching staff; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Commissioners will re-consider their decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The manager of the Carrick National Schools for boys and girls respectively has applied to the Commissioners of National Education for a grant towards the cost of the enlargement of the present schools, which are contained in the same building. The Commissioners pointed out to him that before they could sanction a grant it was necessary that provision should be made for the transfer to the girls' school of the infant boys at present in the boys' school. The Commissioners further stated that if the manager objected to this condition they might make a grant if he should undertake, on the occurrence of a vacancy, to appoint an assistant mistress to the boys' school to look after the infant boys. The Commissioners are satisfied that infant boys are better instructed and cared for by mistresses than by masters. They could not say without prolonged inquiry how many girls' schools in the same circuit are more efficiently conducted. The existing boys' school would afford sufficient accommodation for all the girls and infant boys. The withdrawal of the infant boys from the present boys' school would make precarious the position of the assistant in that school, and in such circumstances Rule 127 (b) is not enforced. Before enforcing that rule in any case the Commissioners consider all the circumstances of the school and its staff. The Commissioners see no grounds for varying the modified conditions in which they will consider an application for a grant-in-aid, as already notified to the manager.

  Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  1464
  of Ireland whether he is aware that, by the operation of the rules of the National Board which came into force in 1900, most first-class teachers in charge of schools with an average of seventy or over have benefited to the extent of £24 a year, inasmuch as they had reached their maximum salary under the old rules and are eligible for increments under the new; whether he is aware that a teacher appointed for the first time since 1900 to a similar school is in receipt of a salary at least £50 per year less than that to which he would have been entitled under the old rules; and, if so, whether he will differentiate between those two classes of teachers in allocating the Supplementary Estimate for Irish primary education.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that first-class teachers and most other teachers who were in the service prior to 1900 have benefited by the new scale of incomes introduced in that year, but the amount of the benefit has varied with the circumstances of each teacher. The income of a teacher appointed under the old rules depended on a variety of incidental circumstances, but under the existing rules most of these circumstances are absent and incomes are less liable to fluctuation. It would, in the Commissioners' opinion, be impossible to make any comparison, which would be of general application, between the incomes of any class of teachers under the new and old regulations. It is not intended to differentiate between the two classes of teachers mentioned in allocating the supplementary grant.

  Purchase of the Tulrahan Grazing Farm.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether the Congested Districts Board were quite willing to purchase the Tulrahan grazing farm, situate in the County of Mayo, when the owner decided on selling it; whether terms of sale and purchase were discussed by the owner and the chief land inspector of the Board, Mr. Doran; if he will state why the Board was unable to acquire the property; and whether any arrangement was entered into between the chief land inspector of

  1465
  the Board and the person who has now been declared the purchaser, whereby the latter will sell to the Board at any time the Board expresses its willingness to buy.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board were willing to purchase the farm of Tulrahan, and terms were discussed with the Board's inspector, but the owner preferred to deal with the present purchaser, who has since arranged to sell to the Board at the price which he himself paid.

  Irish Poor Law Administration.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have yet been taken to prepare a scheme of Poor Law reform on the lines laid down in the Vice-Regal Commission Report; if not, whether he will see that in the preparation of that scheme the opinion of persons who have practical experience of the working of the Irish Poor Laws and of Poor Law administration will be invited; and whether he will urge the immediate preparation of such a scheme.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board are at present engaged in shaping the general outlines of a scheme; but until the Report of the Royal Commission is before them, and the question of the future areas of rating is definitely determined, it will not be possible to fill in the details of any scheme with sufficient completeness to enable them to submit it to the local authorities.

  Labourers' Cottages for Castlereagh.
  MR. J. DEVLIN.To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statements made at the Local Government Board inquiry held at the Belfast Workhouse on the 15th instant, to consider the scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages in the Castlereagh rural district; whether there are any representatives of the labourers on the district council; whether Captain Maude, the agent for the Marquess of Downshire, was included in the sites committee by resolution of the council; whether it was proposed that only half an acre of land be given to each applicant,
  1466
  although the Act of Parliament provides that every applicant is entitled to an acre; whether representations were made by the labourers of the need for cottages in 1904, and the council passed a resolution that no cottages were needed; whether Colonel M'Cance, J.P., the chairman of the council, admitted that the men were of decent character, but said that half an acre each was sufficient for them; and whether he will advise the Local Government Board to take special care that these labourers are not deprived of their legal rights.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The scheme of the rural district council proposed to provide twenty-two labourers' cottages with garden allotments of a quarter of an acre in each case. The Local Government Board are not aware whether there are any representatives of the labourers on the district council, but they are aware that Captain Maude was a member of the Sites Committee. The Labourers Acts do not make it mandatory on the local authority to provide the maximum allotment of a statute acre. It is the fact that representations for cottages were made by the labourers in 1904, and that the council passed a resolution to the effect stated. The Local Government Board's inspector would not be warranted in refusing to confirm a scheme because the allotment attached to each cottage is less than an acre. The Local Government Board understand that the sites are more valuable than ordinary agricultural holdings, and that some of them are close to the city boundary on land which is of a comparatively high price.

  Grants to Irish Workhouse Teachers.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the distribution of the grant to National teachers in Ireland, he will make provision for increases to the workhouse teachers in Irish unions, as such teachers are under the National Board rules and their salaries are paid by Government grants, and it is well known that in many cases there never has been any improvement in their positions in the way of salaries.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer to the Answer which I gave to a

  1467
  similar Question put by the hon. Member for North Wexford on 9th July.

  Royal Commission on Poor Law—Grants for Preparing Returns.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in a number of Irish unions the boards of guardians have voted some of their officers many grants for performing extra duties in the way of preparing Returns for the Royal Commission on Poor Laws; whether the Local Government Board for Ireland have withheld sanction to the payment of the sums voted, notwithstanding the fact that in a number of cases the Returns so prepared are completed; and whether he will see his way to have the Local Government Board's sanction given in the cases in which the Returns have been found to be complete.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Returns in question are in course of examination by the Local Government Board, and as soon as this work has been completed the Board will consider the proposals of the guardians. The examination has been somewhat retarded by reason of the imperfect manner in which many of the Returns were prepared. The various proposals of the guardians are being formulated in order that the Board may arrange a scale of payments, under which the different classes of officers concerned will be equitably remunerated.

  The Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the statement that the imprisoned Suffragettes are more or less associated with criminals, and that their methods have been encouraged by references to former riots and breaking park railings by a Cabinet Minister, he will see that the ladies shall not associate with or be treated as ordinary criminals.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) This is a Question that should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs.

  Legislation affecting the Occupation of Land in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Prime Minister having regard to the fact that Mr. Hugh Robertson occupied the farm of Milton of Pitcastle, in the parish of Logierait, Perthshire, for a period of twenty-four years, and was evicted because he asked for £1 reduction in his rent as compensation for some acres taken off the farm for feuing purposes, will he state whether the Government propose to introduce legislation to meet cases of this kind.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The case referred to by my hon. friend has been brought unofficially to my notice, but I am not able to add to the Answers I have given as to the attitude of the Government in regard to legislation affecting the occupation of land in Scotland.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Defence of Seaport Towns.
  MR. STANIER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty will the Admiralty furnish a Return showing the state of the defences of seaport towns, not including naval bases.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): It would be contrary to the interests of the public service to publish such a Return.

  British Granite for Rosyth.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in inviting tenders for work in connection with the establishment of a naval base at Rosyth, he will take into consideration the advisability of stipulating that British granite only shall be used.
  MR. MCKENNA: I have arranged that the firms invited to tender shall be asked to submit alternative prices for British and foreign stone.

  Naval Protection of Trade Routes.
  MR. STANIER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the Report of the Treasury

  1469
  Committee upon the subject of national insurance of merchant shipping, and to its conclusion that the latter must depend for protection exclusively on the Navy, and in view of the fact that we have only sixty-seven unarmoured cruisers, most, if not all, of which would be required for service with our battle Fleets, will he say how do the Government propose to maintain the security of our trade routes in time of war, and how many cruisers do they expect to have at liberty for that purpose.
  MR. McKENNA: The hon. Member will, I am sure, understand that it is not in the public interests that information should be given which would disclose the probable strategical disposition of our ships in war time.

  Training of Naval Officers.
  SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the class which provides officers for the Navy is less than one-twentieth part of the total population, and that those families which formerly supplied the engineer officers are now totally debarred from doing so because of their inability to pay the cost of the training and maintenance of their sons at Osborne and Dartmouth; and will he consider the advisability of reducing the charges made to the parents and guardians of naval cadets in order to put a stop to this state of affairs.
  MR. McKENNA: I am not aware of the exact proportion; and an examination of the parentage of the cadets now at Keyham, and also at the Osborne and Dartmouth colleges, shows that the second of my hon. friend's statements is far from correct. With regard to the cost to the parents of education at Osborne and Dartmouth, as I explained in a recent debate, when the early age of entry is taken into account, there is not a very great disparity between the charges which the parents in general, have to bear under the present and under former systems.
  SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of reducing the charges?
  MR. McKENNA: I think it has been stated in the House that the amount of the charges made on the parents is not an Admiralty matter.
  SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: Then who is responsible?
  MR. McKENNA: It is a matter for the whole Government, I take it.
  MR. H. C. LEA: Will the First Lord, as representing what is supposed to be a democratic Government, initiate a system similar to that in the United States of America, so that once a boy gets in his parents should be freed from all charges?
  MR. McKENNA: My hon. friend appears to have overlooked the fact that in the United States secondary education of all kinds is free. In this country it is not.

  Naval Officers and Company Directorships.
  MR. H. C. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Admiral Lord Charles Beresford is chairman of John Henry Andrew and Company, Limited, Toledo Steel Works, Sheffield; whether it is permitted by the Admiralty that naval officers on full pay can engage in any form of business whatever; and will he state whether the firm above mentioned have during the last five years received any contracts from the Admiralty, and, if so, the value of such contracts in each of the five years respectively.
  MR. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative according to the latest published information. Naval officers are not forbidden by the King's Regulations to engage in business, but are forbidden to have any pecuniary interest or personal advantage in contracts for the supply of goods to the naval service There is no record of any contract having been placed by the Admiralty with this firm during the last five years.
  MR. H. C. LEA: Arising out of that astonishing reply, Sir——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to take the

  1471
  opportunity of Questions to make remarks on the replies given. If the hon. Member has another Question to put, let him put it courteously.
  MR. H. C. LEA: In deference to your remarks, Sir, I may say that the reason why I said the reply was astonishing was that I understood that no officer or man on full pay in the British Navy——
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now arguing. He had better put down his Question.

  Royal Marine Pensioners.
  MR. JENKINS: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what number of potty officers and men

  1888.

  1898.

  1908.

  Nos.

  Amount.

  Nos.

  Amount.

  Nos.

  Amount.

  £

  Commissioned officers, Royal Navy

  2,304

  655,769

  2,253

  676,273

  2,404

  771,922

  Commissioned officers, Royal Marines

  Commissioned warrant officers

  226

  26,930

  285

  34,681

  286

  35,720

  Subordinate and warrant officers

  718

  61,619

  719

  59,352

  916

  70,713

  Petty officers and Seamen, Royal Navy

  18,379

  632,200 (Naval).

  21,814

  786,000 (Naval).

  26,432

  978,600 (Naval).

  Non-commissioned officers and men, Royal Marines

  7,573

  100,200 (Greenwich Hospital).

  7,762

  122,100 (Greenwich Hospital).

  8,140

  123,900 (Greenwich Hospital).

  The Special Reserve.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present strength of the Infantry of the Special Reserve in non-commissioned officer's and men; and how many of the men are under twenty years of age.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): On the 1st July the strength of the non-commissioned officers and men of the Infantry Special Reserve (excluding the Permanent Establishment) was 25,528. No statistics as regards the ages are at present available in the War Office,
  from the Royal Navy and the number of non-commissioned officers from the Royal Marines are in receipt of pensions and the total amount of those pensions for the years 1908, 1898, and 1888; and what number of commissioned officers from the Royal Navy and Marines are in receipt of pensions, and the total amount of those pensions for the years 1908, 1898, and 1888.
  MR. McKENNA: Statement showing the number of commissioned officers in receipt of retired pay, warrant and subordinate officers, petty officers, non-commissioned officers and men in receipt of pensions, together with the total amounts relative to each class, for the years 1888, 1898, and 1908:—
  MR. ASHLEY: Then are we to understand that of the 25,528 men the right hon. Gentleman does not know how many are fit for service abroad?
  MR. HALDANE: We shall have the information in due course.
  MR. ASHLEY: What steps are you taking to ascertain it?
  MR. HALDANE: We shall have the ages presently.

  National Defence.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in

  1473
  view of the fact that military reconnaissances of the United Kingdom were stopped two years ago, as it was alleged that they were not suitable for the purposes for which they were intended, he will state what steps are being taken to make a careful survey of the ground by those charged with the defence of particular parts of the country.
  MR. HALDANE: Reconnaissances are being carried out locally under the direction of General Officers Commanding-in-Chief and commanders of coast defences who are charged with the defence of their commands in time of war. Strategic reconnaissances required in connection with the concentration and deployment of larger forces have been and will continue to be undertaken by the General Staff.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of allowing officers of the Territorial Force to assist in these reconnaissances?
  MR. HALDANE: They may take part in the staff rides.

  Officers' Bungalows in South Africa.
  MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to state what reduction in rent, if any, he can grant to officers who are paying rent for bungalows in South Africa far in excess of their present value, rents calculated on the inflated prices charged when they were built, and which do not take into account their depreciation since that date.
  MR. HALDANE: It is hoped that the War Department will be able to render some assistance to officers renting bungalows. As soon as a decision has been reached notification will be sent to South Africa.

  Horses for Army Purposes.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War it he will state how many of the County Associations have agreed to carry out an inquiry as to the number of horses suitable for Army purposes within their boundaries; whether it is to be left to the County Associations to discriminate between those horses which are suitable for Army pur-
  1474
  poses and those which are not; and whether the War Office proposes to appoint officers to assist them in their task.
  M. HALDANE: If the hon. Baronet will kindly refer to Section 2 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act he will find that the matter referred to in the first part of the Question are part of the duties of the Association; no question of agreement can therefore arise. The Deputy Assistant Directors of Remounts have been placed at the service of the Associations to assist them in discriminating between those horses which are suitable for Army purposes and those which are not. It is not proposed to appoint any other officers to assist the Associations.
  EARL WINTERTON: How many Associations have acted on the instructions?
  MR. HALDANE: I have no knowledge.
  EARL WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain before this period of the session closes?
  MR. HALDANE: Perhaps the noble Lord will put down a Question.

  Census of Horses.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state by what method, other than by a complete census of all horses, County Associations will be able to supply satisfactory information respecting the number of horses suitable for Army purposes within their boundaries; whether the cost of making such a census will be defrayed out of Army funds, whether it will be a charge upon the limited funds already at the disposal of County Associations, or whether the Government expect expanses of travelling and inspection of horses to be paid out of the private purse of the person who agrees to carry out these duties.
  MR. HALDANE: It is expected that the arrangements alluded to in the reply to the previous Questions will secure the required information. The question of making a special grant to the Associations in respect of the cost of obtaining this information is under consideration.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Why cannot the Board of Agriculture do its own work and obtain a census of horses in the same way as it does of beasts, sheep and pigs, and other agricultural produce?
  MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman might address that Question to the Board of Agriculture. I can only say that if we can assist in collating this information, which is very important to us, we shall only be too glad to do so.

  Shoeburyness Artillery Ranges.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what title the owners of the 1,760 acres of foreshore purchased by the Crown for artillery practice at Shoeburyness set up against the Crown: whether those owners denied the right of the Crown to fire over or use that part of the foreshore; and whether, and what, legal proceedings were taken to assert the rights of the Crown.
  MR HALDANE: The title rests on a grant to John de Burgh, confirmed by Edward II. In 1900 the owners applied for an injunction restraining the War Department from firing over or using this foreshore. No legal proceedings were taken to assert the rights of the Crown. The Law Officers of the Crown advised the Crown that the action should not be allowed to come to trial, but should be settled on the best terms.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has agreed to pay £5,500 for an estate of 890 acres of foreshore at Shoeburyness, and to whom is the payment to be made; whether the War Department had rented that estate for above forty years from the Office of Woods, as representing the Crown, and used it in whole or part for artillery practice and other military objects; whether, during that period, any private persons alleged ownership in denial of the rights of the Crown to fire over these lands; and whether the price of £5,500 was offered to such persons before they had proved their title in a Court of law.
  MR. HALDANE: As regards the first part of the Question the War Office has
  1476
  paid this sum of £5,500 to the Misses Knapping—the owners of the manor. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. The reply to the third part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the Question the payment was made after evidence of title had been given which satisfied the legal advisers of the War Department.

  Territorial Field Artillery.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many batteries of the Territorial field artillery have been equipped with harness and guns; and whether he can give a date by which all batteries will be fully equipped.
  MR. HALDANE: Ninety-seven converted guns, nine mountain guns and forty-four howitzers have been issued to 125 batteries. The batteries will be fully equiped with guns by the end of the financial year. All the fourteen heavy batteries have been completely equipped with guns. Harness is available and is being issued with the guns.

  Territorials and Politics.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that open-air political meetings at Brecon have been subjected to disorder and rowdyism by men wearing the uniform of the Territorial Army, and that, upon the police authorities being appealed to to safeguard the peaceful character of the meetings, they refused to interfere; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter with a view to seeming to the people of Brecon the right of holding a peaceful public meeting free from interference by persons wearing His Majesty's uniform.
  MR. HALDANE: It appears that at the meeting in question a woman who was speaking made disparaging remarks concerning the Kings uniform. A few men of the Territorial Force and large numbers of civilians who were present protested, but no active interference was made with the meeting. No notice was given of the meeting, or stops would have been taken to prevent the presence of soldiers in uniform.

  Reduction of the South African Garrison.
  Major RENTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what cavalry regiments and what infantry battalions it is proposed to remove from South Africa, and when; and at what stations these units are at present quartered.
  MR. ASHLEY: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the names of the cavalry regiment and of the four infantry battalions which will be withdrawn from the South African garrison between the 7th September, 1908, and the 6th February, 1909?
  MR. HALDANE: The names and stations of the regiments are as follows:—4th Dragoon Guards, Middleburg, Cape Colony; 2nd East Kent, Harrismith, Orange River Colony; 2nd Norfolk, Pietermaritzburg; 2nd Yorkshire, Middleburg, Cape Colony; 3rd Worcestershire, Wynberg, Cape Colony.
  LORD BALCARRES: Is this step being taken with a view to the ultimate disbandment of any of these battalions?
  MR. HALDANE: That does not in the least arise out of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the number of cavalry regiments and infantry battalions at Home and Abroad, respectively, when the reduction of the South African garrison by one cavalry regiment and four battalions of infantry has been carried out.
  MR. HALDANE: There will be fourteen cavalry regiments at home and fourteen abroad, and seventy-four infantry battalions at home and seventy-four abroad.

  Forage for Yeomanry Horses.
  MAJOR RENTON: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether, if Yeomanry commanding officers are able to purchase forage locally, at no additional cost to the public, from farmers who lend fields for drill or who
  1478
  otherwise assist the Territorial Army, they may be permitted to do so.
  MR. HALDANE: All cases where forage can be purchased locally from farmers at a price not exceeding that ordinarily obtainable under contract in the district, if submitted to this Office by the General Officer Commanding, would be specially considered.

  Militia Officers and the Third Battalions
  MR. W. NICHOLSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many commissions, if any, have been offered to Militia officers who desire to come in as part of the 220 additional Regular officers required in the new third battalions.
  MR. HALDANE: No such commissions have been offered to Militia officers in place of the proportion of Regular officers allocated to the new third battalions, nor was this at any time contemplated. As the outcome of a conference with the representatives of Militia commanding officers the Army Council have arranged to employ Special Reserve officers both with Regular units and at the depots, in the latter case where the number of recruits at the depots exceeds a certain number. Special Reserve officers will be employed with Regular units when, as often happens, there is a temporary shortage of Regular officers, or when Regular officers are seconded. I may add that to enable Special Reserve units to obtain junior officers pending the machinery of the new training corps becoming fully operative the Army Council have decided, as an interim arrangement, to allow candidates for commissions in the Special Reserve to qualify by serving with a Regular unit for four months provided that they apply for commissions before the 18th of next December, instead of the full probationary period of twelve months.

  Discharges from the Territorial Force.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the custom for officers of the Territorial Force to discharge, without any reason being given, members of the Territorials who have very good characters and who have passed the medical examination satisfactorily; whether such

  1479
  discharges ought to be coupled with the reason for such when the discharged person demands that reason; and whether he will make inquiries from Captain Denton, Royal Army Medical Corps, Territorial Force, Wolverhampton, if anything of this kind has been done in his command.
  MR. HALDANE: As the bearing of the Question depends on the specific case referred to in the last sentence, I have directed that inquiry shall be made into the matter.

  Transvaal Gold Law.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have received a reply to their communication to the Governor of the Transvaal on the subject of the draft Gold Law of that Colony, especially in respect of Sections 127 and 128 thereof, under which special disabilities are to be imposed upon coloured persons, including British Indians.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,: No, Sir, not yet. We telegraphed recently to inquire when the reply might be expected, but it has not yet been received.
  *MR. REES: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman has received a resolution from the Johannesburg Association of Trade Unions objecting to the interference of the British Government in matters affecting the labour of the Colony?
  Colonel SEELY:I am not aware of it.
  *MR. REES: But was not a telegram on the subject published long ago, and has not the hon. Gentleman had time to got the information?
  Colonel SEELYasked for notice.

  Forced Labour in British East Africa.
  SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the feeling expressed by the non-official community of British East
  1480
  Africa at the suggestion of the possibility that forced black labour was desired by them; and has he any official information substantiating the statement made in the presence of the governor of the Colony at the Nairobi labour meeting by a Mr. Swift, of Foot Hall, to the effect that Mr. Swift's need of labour had been communicated to the chiefs by the Provincial Commissioner, and that Mr. Swift was subsequently able to secure labour but that it was practically forced, and at first distasteful to the labourers concerned.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has received through the Governor of the East Africa Protectorate a telegram from the Colonists' Association stating that they contradict the view said to be held in England that Lord Delamere and Mr. Baillie advocate forced labour and record their emphatic denial of such a suggestion. Mr. Swift's statement is too long to quote in full, but will be found printed at page 11 of the volume of correspondence relating to affairs in the East Africa Protectorate which has just been presented to Parliament.
  SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say whether natives who came looking for voluntary work were commandeered by the Government Labour Board of British East Africa to work on the roads; whether Government officials sent armed policemen at night into villages in order to seize and force natives to carry loads, because those natives had declined to give their labour voluntarily; and whether the Government of the Colony intends to force a large number of the Kisii, the majority of whom are declared to be innocent of any crime, to labour in building roads in return for the handing back to them of part of their recently captured cattle.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has no information regarding the matters referred to in the first two portions of my hon. friend's Question, but is calling for a report from the Governor. With regard to the last part of my hon. friend's Question, he is aware from the answer which was given to him in the House on 20th February last of the expedition which, in consequence of

  1481
  several acts of murder and outrage, it was necessary to take against the Kisii tribe. During the operations a considerable number of cattle were captured, of which about one-fourth were sold and the proceeds employed partly to meet the cost of the expedition and partly to meet claims on account of cattle stolen by the Kisii from the Kavirondo. It was decided to restore the remainder of the cattle gradually as the pacification of the country proceeded. To require labour for road-making was considered by the Government of the Protectorate to be the most humane form of punishment which could be inflicted on the tribe, while the development of the country was also thereby promoted.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask if the Government have yet come to any conclusion on this important matter?
  COLONEL SEELY: I am not yet in a position to make any statement. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down before the Colonial Vote is taken.

  South African Customs Conference.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Basutoland and the other South African Protectorates were represented at the late Customs Conference of the South African Colonies; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any correspondence which has passed upon the subject.
  COLONEL SEELY: The South African Protectorates wore not represented at the recent Customs Conference. The Conference, however, has not led to any material change in the tariff. As I stated in the House on the 7th of May, it is not intended to lay any correspondence.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: In view of the importance of this matter to the South African Protectorates will the Government not reconsider the question of laying correspondence?
  COLONEL SEELY: The Government are fully alive to the importance of this matter as affecting the Protectorates, but do not consider it either desirable or necessary to publish the correspondence
  1482
  for reasons I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman if he puts down a further Question.

  Imperial Conference.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies with respect to the official to whom, in pursuance of the promise given by Lord Elgin at the last Imperial Conference, the duty has been assigned of carrying on the work of that conference and communicating with the other Governments of the Empire, whether any staff has been provided to assist him in carrying out his duties; whether he is able to give his time exclusively to such duties, or if not, what other duties he is expected to perform; have any communications passed between the Governments of the Empire since the Imperial Conference and on what subjects; and will the same be laid.
  COLONEL SEELY: In Lord Elgin's despatch of 21st September, 1907, which has been laid before the House, it was stated that the Secretariat of the Imperial Conference would be linked to the Dominions department of the Colonial Office, without being entirely merged in it, and that the Secretary would be a member of the Department, but would also have his own special and separate duties. This has been carried into effect. The Secretary is provided with such assistance as he requires from the staff of the Dominions department and, in I addition to his special duties as Secretary, which may be expected to grow, he is associated with the general work of the Dominions department, especially on the South African side. Since the Imperial Conference, correspondence has passed: between the Governments of the Empire on various subjects raised at the Conference, but it would be premature to lay papers at present.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Does the hon. Gentleman use the words "at present" advisedly? Is there any chance in the near future of this correspondence being laid?
  COLONEL SEELY: I think we shall be glad to lay some correspondence later on.
  SIR GILBEET PARKER: Are we to assume that a permanent Secretary has been appointed to carry on the work?
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, I have stated so.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the name of the Secretary?
  COLONEL SEELY: Oh yes; it is Mr. Just, the head of the South African Department.

  Germany and the Patents Act.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the exact terms of the declaration which has been made by His Majesty's Government in respect of Section 27 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, and which the German Imperial Secretary of State for the Interior states has placed the situation for German patentees in a somewhat better light.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,; for Sir Edward Grey): The terms were as follows:—"Section 27 does not require that every patent should be worked in this country. It merely provides that if it can be shown that after the liberal interval allowed by the Act, a British patent is worked mainly or exclusively abroad, any person can call on the patentee to show why his patent is not worked to an adequate extent in this country. If the patentee can give an explanation satisfactory to the Comptroller and the Court, his patent will not be revoked. If he can show that further time is required to enable him to work his patent to an adequate extent, the necessary time may be allowed by the Comptroller, or, if the Comptroller refuses it, by the Court."

  Restriction on Importation of Cattle.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is any record of any foreign Power haying remonstrated with the British Government on questions of a purely domestic nature, such as restriction of importation of live cattle.
  MR J. A. PEASE: Yes, Sir. Foreign Powers have frequently objected to restrictions imposed here on the the importation of live cattle, and on matters of a similar nature.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Was the objection raised on the ground of quarantine, or on what ground?
  MR. J. A. PEASEasked for notice of any Question as to the particular grounds.

  County Councils—Collection of Duties through the Post Office.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to arrange that county councils may use the post offices in their various counties in connection with the collection of the duties referred to in Clause 6 of the Finance Bill, 1908.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George,): Yes, it is the intention that post offices should be available for the sale of the licences in question on behalf of county councils in England and and Wales.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Will the notices go out through the Post Office or will the county councils have to send them?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The county councils will send the notices out and the Post Office will receive the money.
  Sir F. DIXON-HARTLAND: But previously the notices were sent out by the Post Office?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh, no!

  Old Age Pensions—Veterans of Industry.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether James Walker, aged fifty-five, who was recently charged with bigamy at the Huddersfield Police Court, and who is alleged to have gone through the form of marriage with eleven women, will be entitled on attaining the age of seventy to an old-age pension; and, if not, under what provisions of the Bill will he be excluded from the reward intended for veterans of industry.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know whether my hon. friend means to imply that the circumstances of the case to which he alludes amount to an irrefutable proof of industry. If, as I understand, the case is still under the consideration of the Court, I do not think it would be proper for me to say anything on the subject in this place.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any record of a man after marrying eleven wives attaining the age of seventy?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Old-age Pensions—Reduction of Income.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Clause 4, Section 3, of the Old-Age Pensions Bill, will render nugatory arrangements entered into before the passing of the Bill for a reduction of income in order to obtain a larger pension, such as the reduction of a compensation award recently made in a case before Judge Ruegg.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The object of subsection (3) of Clause 4 of the Bill is to render nugatory such collusive arrangements for the reduction of a pensioners' income as those to which my hon. friend refers. With reference to the latter portion of the Question, my hon, friend appears to have been misinformed as to the action of Judge Ruegg. Since answering the Question put by my hon. friend on the 15th inst., I have received the following telegram from Judge Ruegg:—"With reference to Question asked by Mr. Harold Cox in House yesterday as to my action at Tunstall County Court, facts incorrectly stated. Man was not receiving compensation at all, but £100 was paid into Court in respect of death of his son. I had under the Act to apportion this. I was asked to give him £20 down to clear his debts and 12s. 6d. a week out of balance. I thought this too much and said so, and then 9s. 6d. was suggested and some remark made that this would not prejudice his rights if Old-Age Pensions Bill passed. I allowed 9s. 6d. solely because I thought it was maximum sum I could allow, having regard to the sum remaining in Court. Will you correct."
  MR. HAROLD COX: Does the Judge deny that the man asked for a lower sum so that he might get the old-age pension?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEI think not.

  Saturday Afternoon Arrests.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home. Department whether he will consider the desirableness of inserting in the Bail Bill a clause forbidding the execution of warrants for arrests on Saturday afternoons, except in such cases as, in the opinion of the officer entrusted with the warrant, delay would defeat the ends of justice.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): The Secretary of State does not think such a clause would be desirable, nor would it be within the scope of the Bill; but he considers that the Bill, by giving magistrates the opportunity of providing for release on bail in such eases, will go as far as is practicable or desirable to effect the purpose the hon. Member has in view.

  The Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the ladies sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in connection with the agitation for woman suffrage are not merely compelled to wear clothes in prison which have been worn previously by ordinary women convicts, but am likewise deprived of their boots and shoes and compelled to wear boots worn many times by ordinary women convicts, which, of course, cannot be boiled or washed, like the clothes, and the inside of which is at times in a filthy condition; whether he is aware that these boots and shoes are frequently too largo or too small for the wearers, and in both cases entail extreme discomfort, resulting in corns and blisters on the feet, followed by abrasion of the skin, bleeding, and sores, and that at times the feet of the prisoners have been pierced by nails sticking up in these boots and shoes; and whether, having regard to the fact that the enforced wearing of the prison dress secures the infliction of indignity, these ladies may be allowed, having regard

  1487
  to the pain and discomfort caused by the wearing of prison boots and shoes, to wear their own boots and shoes during their imprisonment.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: All the clothing issued to the ladies who are undergoing imprisonment was either new or clean, and new shoes were issued in every case. If one of them complains that her shoes do not fit, or that they cause blisters, the shoes will be immediately changed, but no such complaint has been made.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these ladies make no complaint?
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I fail to see how grievances can be remedied unless they are brought to the notice of the authorities.

  Unemployment in London.
  Mr. MYER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether having regard to the fact that the latest available statistics with regard to unemployment showed a percentage of 7·9 of unemployed workmen in London, and that on the 22nd ultimo at a conference of metropolitan guardians, held in the parish of St. Mary, Islington, a resolution was unanimously passed that His Majesty's Government should at the earliest possible date initiate legislation to provide productive labour to moot the wants of those who become workless through no fault of their own, and in view of the approaching winter, the Government will initiate a scheme based upon sound economic principles dealing with the question before the end of the year.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I have received a copy of the resolution referred to, and I have stated in reply that I shall be happy to consider any practical suggestions which the conference may wish to make on the subject of the relief of the unemployed. I cannot, however, undertake to comply with the suggestion contained in the last part of the Question.
  MR. MYER: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that unemployment has now
  1488
  increased to 8·2 per cent., as compared with 3·6 per cent. at the corresponding period last year? Seeing that when the harvest and hop-picking is over there will be a great influx of population into the Metropolis, does not the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any action with regard to unemployment?
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he did not anticipate any inrush into London to the extent suggested by the hon. Gentleman. He was dealing with the other aspect of the question in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Tottenham.

  Speed of Motor Cars.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board, if he will consider the advisability of addressing a warning to manufacturers of motor vehicles that after a certain day no car will be registered capable of exceeding a speed limit of twenty miles under ordinary circumstances.
  MR. HAROLD COX: At the same time may I ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that motor cars, when driven at a high speed, cause annoyance and damage by stirring up dust and by destroying the surface of roads; and whether he will consider the advisability of prohibiting the use upon the public highway of any motor vehicle which is capable of being driven by its own engines at a greater speed than fifteen miles an hour on the level.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware that high speed is one of the factors in the production of dust and the wear of the surface of the highway. The Royal Commission on Motor Cars considered the proposal that there should be a compulsory mechanical limitation of the speed capacity of motor cars. They inquired in detail into the practicability of such a scheme, and came to a conclusion adverse to it. Hence I am afraid I could not adopt the suggestions made in the Questions.
  *M. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of the more dangerous and, until the last moment, invisible bicycle, which cuts down

  1489
  passengers who have escaped the more obvious motor car?
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel bound by every suggestion made by the Royal Commission on Motor Cars?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: On the contrary, since I have been in office I have had sixty-nine applications from local authorities to mitigate the speed of motor cars, and in many cases in congested or narrow thoroughfares to reduce it from the maximum of twenty miles to ten, five, and in one case even two miles. In the majority of cases I have taken the side of reason and moderation, and have complied with the request.
  MR. WATT: Dealing with the question of dust, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that it is impossible to do away with motor cars entirely, if he will issue a circular to the local authorities advising them to tar all the roads?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Every reasonable facility which the Local Government Board can grant to local authorities for mitigating the dust nuisance will be given. The department invariably gives sympathetic consideration to each application.
  MR. MOLTENO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a mechanical governor, worked automatically, which reduces the speed of motor cars to any desired limit, and will he make its adoption compulsory?
  *Mr. SPEAKER: That Question was asked and answered the other day.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: As an engineer I may say that I know how governors can be tampered with.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether, in view of the increasing number of motor vehicles and the speed at which they are driven, he will issue a circular to local authorities pointing out the action open to them under the Motor Act, 1903.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The matter to which my hon. friend refers has engaged my attention for some time past. I have caused statements to be prepared in relation to the applications which have been made to me for regulations reducing the speed limit, and as a preliminary to the issue of a circular I am obtaining a Report from the inspector who has held most of the local inquiries on the subject.

  Settlement of Insane Paupers.
  Sir J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a person named Robert Ridley, being apprehended in the parish of Cavers, in the county of Roxburgh, on a charge of attempted rape, and found by the sheriff to be insane and committed to the Melrose asylum, is a native of Bellingham, in Northumberland, born there and having a settlement there and no settlement in Scotland; whether he is aware that the guardians of the poor of Bellingham parish agreed to pay the parish of Cavers for his keep in Melrose asylum and asked for an account, which was rendered to them and amounted to £23 12s. 2d.; whether the Local Government Board has since informed the guardians of Bellingham that they have no power to pay this sum, and, if so, on what grounds the guardians were overruled by the Local Government Board; and whether the future charges incurred for keep in the Melrose asylum will be paid by the guardians of Bellingham in the first instance direct.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the facts of this case. I may say that the Local Government Board have not overruled the decision of the guardians in the matter. They were asked by the guardians if it was legal for them to refund the cost of the maintenance of the man in the Scottish asylum, and it was in answer to this inquiry that they informed the guardians to the effect stated in the Question. I have since received further communications on the subject, and I am taking steps which I hope may bring about a satisfactory settlement of the matter.

  Unemployment.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the

  1491
  percentage of the unemployed for the month of June and how it compares with the same month in 1907; whether he has been able to form any estimate of the number of unskilled men at present out of employment; and whether, in view of the almost unprecedented scarcity of employment at this time of the year, he proposes to take any immediate steps to mitigate the consequent distress.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Returns made by trade unions to the Board of Trade show 8·2 per cent. of the members as unemployed at the end of June last. The percentage for June, 1907, was 3·6. I do not think it is possible to give any accurate estimate of the total number of unskilled men at present out of employment. As my hon. friend is aware, the Government propose to renew the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, for another year. Moreover, a sum of £200,000 in aid of the expenses under the Act is included in the Supplementary Estimate just issued.
  MR. ALDEN: May I ask whether any of the local authorities are engaged in this work?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Very few of the local authorities who received grants out of last year's fund are actually engaged at this moment in relief work, and many of them still have a small balance in hand.
  MR. MYER: May I ask my right hon. friend whether he does not intend to initiate some new policy? We have now waited two years and a half for some new policy with regard to the unemployed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech when putting a Question.
  EARL WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement in the question as to the unprecedented scarcity of employment?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not altogether.

  Protection of Cables.
  MR. BEAUCHAMP: I beg to ask the Postmaster-
  1492
  General whether his attention has been called to the fact that a notice has been issued by the Commercial Cable Company to the owners of certain trawlers warning them to avoid trawling within the area of 51° 15' and 52° 20' North latitude and 10° 20' and 14° West longitude; and whether the Cable Company has any authority to issue such warning and to attempt to close a fishing ground of about 15,000 square miles.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): My attention has been called to the notice in question and to the reply of the trawler owners concerned. As my hon. friend may be aware, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade I have appointed a Committees to inquire into the whole question of injuries to cables believed by the cable companies to be due to trawlers, and the correspondence has been laid before the Committee, which is now taking evidence. The Committee consists of:—Sir J. C. Lamb, C.B., C.M.G., formerly Second Secretary to the Post Office, Chairman; Mr. W. R. Culley, I.S.O., Submarine Superintendent in the Engineering Department of the Post Office; Commander G. C. Frederick, R.N., Professional member of the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade; Mr. C. E. Fryer, I.S.O., Superintending Inspector of English Fisheries; Mr. W. S. Green, C.B., Chief Inspector of Irish Fisheries; Commander G. M. Marston, R.N., of the Hydrographic Department of the Admiralty.

  Post Office Assistants.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General at what date will the Post Office assistants at head offices and others receive the benefits of the recommendations of the Hobhouse Commission.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The revision of the pay of assistants is proceeding at the present time. The benefits date back to 1st January, 1908.

  Llangollen School.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to a letter from the managers of the Llangollen Church of England School

  1493
  to the Board, complaining of the conversion of the boys and girls departments of the school into a mixed department, and claiming that such conversion was illegal; whether further letters asking for a reply to their complaint were written by the managers on the 17th March, the 23rd April, and the 15th June; and whether the Board is now in a position to deal with the matter, and, if so, in what way.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): The letters referred to raise legal questions of some importance, upon which the Board are taking advice. I am not able at present to announce the decision of the Board, but I hope to be in a position to do so very shortly.
  LORD R. CECIL: From whom is the right hon. Gentleman seeking advice? Is it the Law Officers of the Crown? Are they responsible for this long delay of four or five months?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: There has been no delay in the matter.

  Willesden Education Prosecutions.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the Willesden Education Committee in ordering William Barnard of that place to be summoned every fortnight before the local magistrates until he consents to inflict what he holds to be a grave injury upon his son by forcing him to renew his attendance at a certain school for mentally-deficient children in that district; whether he is aware that doctors have constantly stated in evidence before the Bench that fresh air and manual labour are better for this boy than the compulsory companionship of weak-minded children; that the boy has recently been attending an ordinary school in Essex with good results; that since his return to Willesden, his father, who earns 25s. a week and has five other children, has already been fined over £4 since last May; whether education committees are under any, and, if so, what, direct statutory obligation to undertake fortnightly prosecutions in such cases; and, if not, whether he will take steps to ensure that the system shall now cease in this particular case.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have no information as to the case other than that contained in the hon. Member's Question. Under Section 4 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, it is the duty of a parent to cause his child to receive efficient elementary instruction, and under Section 4 (1) of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, that duty extends to children who are defective within the meaning of the Act if a certified special class or school is within reach. The local education authority are required by Section 23 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, to enforce the bye laws as to school attendance. I do not understand from the Question whether the parent objects to his child receiving education at all or only to his being instructed in a school for defective children. In the latter case I may point out that under Section 2 (5) of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, it is open to him to claim that his child should be medically examined in order to ascertain whether he has attained such a mental and physical condition as to be fit to attend an ordinary public elementary school, provided that this claim shall not be made within less than six months after the child has been previously examined.
  MR. BOWLES: In view of the fact that this man is being slowly ruined by the action of the Education Committee, which I understand is not obligatory action, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry into the matter?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

  Medical Inspection of Schools.
  MR. GARDNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether it is implied by the provisions of Article 25 (c) of the Code of 1908, that grants may be entirely withheld from all the schools under a local education authority, if that authority does not provide for medical inspection under the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907; and whether, instead of receiving any grant for their new work, the education authorities will be liable to lose grants altogether if they fail to perform that additional work to

  1495
  the satisfaction of the Board of Education.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Section 13 (2) of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, imposes upon local education authorities the duty of providing for the medical inspection of children. Article 25 (c) of the Code makes compliance with this statutory duty a condition of the receipt of the Parliamentary grants. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I can only repeat what I and my predecessor have already stated, that the Government are unable to hold out any hope of a special grant in anticipation of the additional sum to be provided in connection with the Education Bill.

  Pensions of Ex-Naval and Military Civil Servants.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury has had under consideration the question of the pensions of ex-naval and ex-military Civil servants; and whether, in view of the recommendations of Sir Edward Ward's Committee, the Treasury is prepared to reckon the ex-naval and ex-military service of these civil servants towards pension.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): I have nothing to add to the numerous replies which have been given by my predecessor and myself on this subject during the session.

  Beef Supplies.
  MR. McARTHUR: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the diminished supplies of native and foreign animals for slaughter and the enhanced price of beef to the consumer, also of the difficulty in the replacing of cows for the supply of pure milk, he will consider the advisability of removing the embargo on Canadian cattle.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The Board have no evidence of any decrease in the number of native cattle, and inasmuch as there has been an increase in the number of milking cows in recent years there does not appear to
  1496
  have been any difficulty in replacing them. There is no present intention of proposing legislation in the direction suggested.
  MR. McARTHUR: Is the matter now under the special consideration of the Government?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYasked for notice of that.
  MR. EVERETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of beef to the producer in England has been considerably lower this year?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The price of beef has been falling lately.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is not the fall in price due to the attention that has been drawn in this House to the operations of the American trust?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Daily Mail says so, but I have no reason to suppose that that has had anything to do with it.

  Cattle Disease in the United States and Canada.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state the number and variety of cattle diseases existent in Canada and the United States by the last Reports from those countries.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: It would appear that anthrax, contagious abortion, Texas fever and tuberculosis exist in the United States. In Canada, anthrax, tuberculosis, and parasitic mange are present.

  Canadian Cattle.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state if free importation of live cattle is allowed into Canada from the United States or elsewhere; if any quarantine regulations are existent in Canada, and their nature; and how the line is preserved over the 3,000 odd miles of frontier.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Live cattle are admitted into Canada from the United States and elsewhere subject to the conditions prescribed in the Regulation relating to Animals' Quarantine which were issued by the Canadian Government last year. A quarantine of from sixty to ninety days is enforced on all cattle imported except from the United States, Newfoundland and Mexico. The Board are not in a position to reply to the last part of the Question.

  Deptford Foreign Cattle Market.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether a single case of disease amongst British cattle or sheep has been traced to cattle or sheep which have been hitherto slaughtered in the Deptford Foreign Cattle Market.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: There is no direct evidence of any such case, but I may add that in the opinion of the Chief Veterinary Officer to the Privy Council the outbreaks of Foot and Mouth disease, which occurred in London, Bedfordshire, and Kent in 1880, were traceable to foreign cattle landed at Deptford.
  MR. ASHLEY: Do these regulations in any way restrict the food supplies of the people of this country?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Not in my opinion.

  Roads in Skye.
  SIR J. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has received a numerously-signed petition from the district of Staffin and Eastside, in Skye, requesting a grant from the Congested Districts Board to help in the formation of a new road from Staffin to Portree; is he aware that this road will shorten the distance between Portree and the thickly-populated crofting districts of Staffin, Valtos, etc., by about twelve miles and will be of very great service to a large crofting population in the movement of their stock to market and for other purposes; that the road will traverse and open up one of the most fertile districts in the island; that
  1498
  Lord MacDonald, the proprietor, has given wayleave free of charge, and that the district committee has undertaken to contribute 25 per cent. of the cost and maintain the road on completion; is he also aware that on a former occasion the Congested Districts Board led the people of the district to believe that on these conditions being fulfilled the Board would contribute the remainder of the cost; that the Board now declines or delays to carry this promise into effect, and that this delay is causing dissatisfaction in the district; and will he take steps to induce the Congested Districts Board to carry out the promise they made with the least possible delay.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The petition has been received and considered by the Congested Districts Board. I am unable to accept the narrative of my hon. friend's Question in all its particulars, especially as to the promise alleged to have been made by the Congested Districts Board. The district clerk was informed in December, 1904, that the Board made no promise; and they have resolved to take no action. In the meantime the Board have offered a grant on the usual terms for an access road to Staffin Pier.

  Traction Engine Traffic Regulations.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to say how much longer the tradesmen in the county of Roxburgh will have to wait before he introduces a measure to abolish the statutable obligation of a traction engine owner in Scotland to keep a third man to walk with the engine.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I hope to be able at an early date to introduce a Local Government Amendment Bill and to include in it a clause dealing with the question raised by my hon. friend.
  MR. BENNETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the absolute necessity of all traction engines being accompanied by a third man for the protection of people in charge of horses?
  MR. SINCLAIR'Sreply was inaudible.

  Glasgow Distress Committee.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware of the serious financial position of the Glasgow Distress Committee; and, having regard to the promise twice repeated, that time would be given which would include time for discussion of the question of the allocation of moneys granted by Parliament for the purpose of unemployed relief, and also having regard to the fact that no opportunity for such discussion has been afforded, will he now state the intentions of the Government in regard to a further grant of money.
  MR. CLELAND: At the same time may I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the distress at present existing in Glasgow; and whether, having regard to the fact that the money at the disposal of the Distress Committee will be exhausted in the course of the next few weeks, the Government intend to take any steps, and, if so, what, to prevent the imminent closing down of the relief works at Palacerigg, and the consequent addition to the already large number of unemployed in Glasgow.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am fully aware of the position referred to by my hon. friend and the question of a grant to Glasgow will engage my immediate attention in the event of the Supplementary Estimate for the unemployed which has lately been laid on the Table being accepted by the House.
  MR. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the reason that Glasgow got so little is the largeness of the citizens' subscriptions?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No Sir, that has nothing whatever to do with the case.

  Edinburgh Distress Committee.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the differences which have arisen between the Local Government Board on the one hand, and the town council and the distress committee of the city of Edinburgh on the other, regarding the expenditure of certain funds by the distress committee; and whether, he will give an opportunity
  1500
  for considering the subject upon the Vote for the Local Government Board in Scotland, and when?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am making inquiries with regard to the first part of my hon. friend's Question; the second part has been already dealt with by the Prime Minister's reply to my right hon. friend the Member for Clackmannan and Kinross.

  Scottish Traction Engine Regulation.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he is aware of the number of official prosecutions of owners of traction engines for not employing a third man to walk in front of the engine in the county of Roxburgh; and whether, as a similar obligation imposed on the people of England and Wales by statute was repealed eight years ago, he will explain why the people of Scotland should still be prosecuted in the criminal courts where no injury or negligence is alleged against the accused?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): The prosecutions in Roxburghshire on this subject for three years past are only ten in number, and apply to only three parties. As to the remainder of the question there are misapprehensions. The difference between the statutory provisions in the two countries is simply this, that in England a third person must accompany the engine, and in Scotland the third person must do so on foot. I have represented to my right hon. friend, the Secretary for Scotland, that in any amending Bill as to local government he might without disadvantage equate the Scottish with the English law in this particular.

  Private Prosecutions in Ireland.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland can he explain why it is that the Crown has refused to prosecute in the case of Patrick M'Dermott, of Knoxalassa, near Riverstown, county Sligo, who was returned for trial at the recent assizes in Sligo on the charge of having discharged firearms at several persons in May last on the public road with intent to kill; whether it was as a result of an inquiry before two resident magistrates that M'Dermott was returned for trial; and,

  1501
  if so, what further steps, if any, the Crown intend to take in this matter.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,for Mr. CHERRY): The prosecution in this case was not instituted by the police, or by the directions of the Attorney-General. It was commenced by a man named Leonard on his own responsibility. The case was heard at Riverstown Petty Sessions on 4th June last by a bench of nine magistrates, including two resident magistrates, and M'Dermott was returned for trial co the assizes recently held at Sligo. Leonard, the prosecutor, did not proceed with the case at the assizes, and it consequently dropped. The Crown have not taken, and do not intend to take, any action in the matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are not private prosecutions absolutely unknown in Ireland?
  MR. BIRRELL: This was begun anyhow.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why was it not continued?
  MR. BIRRELL: Because it was dropped.

  Clooneen Evicted Tenant.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Bryan Campbell, of Clooneen, Drumkeerin, county Leitrim, made application to the Estates Commissioners to be reinstated in his holding from which he was evicted on the Marshall estate; whether the Estates Commissioners, having sent an inspector on the farm, are taking any action to have Campbell reinstated; and, if so, can he say when the Estates Commissioners will reinstate him.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have considered the application of Bryan Campbell for reinstatement in the holding from which he was evicted in 1907, and have decided to take no action thereon.

  Kilroosk Evicted Tenant.
  MR. F. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  1502
  of Ireland whether he is aware that James Rooney, of Kilroosk, who was evicted from his farm on the Clements estate, situated near Manorhamilton. county Leitrim, on the 19th of June last, became a judicial tenant under agreement and under rather adverse circumstances; whether before being evicted Rooney offered twenty years purchase and one half-year's rent to the landlord, which was refused, the latter demanding twenty-three years purchase and one year's rent; whether an application for reinstatement has been received by the Estates Commissioners from the evicted tenant; and, if so, what steps are being taken to have him reinstated.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received an application from James Rooney on the 6th instant, and will consider it when dealing with the estate on which the evicted holding is situate.

  Delivery of Irish Mails—Sligo Prosecution.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the Sligo Assizes, on Thursday 9th July, ten men were charged with having assembled to disturb the public peace and prevented a postman from delivering His Majesty's mails, that the Judge told the jury that there was no room for doubt, and that the jury disagreed; and whether it is the intention of the executive to allow these persons to escape punishment.
  MR. BIRRELL: The jury disagreed in the case referred to, and the defendants entered into recognisances to appear at the next Assizes. It will be for my right hon. friend the Attorney-General to decide in due course whether the prosecution is to be continued. The matter has not yet come before him for consideration.

  Boycotting at Multyfarnham.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the facts with regard to boycotting and intimidation disclosed at the petty sessions of Multyfarnham on Saturday 11th July; and whether the police authorities intend to take action

  1503
  against the publicans and others who have refused to supply boycotted persons with food and other necessaries.
  MR. BIRRELL: At the petty sessions referred to, Joseph Carolan was summond for assault by a man named Tynan, and the defence was that Tynan had taken part in boycotting him. In the course of the hearing it was stated that certain publicans had refused to supply boycotted persons with goods. The police authorities are watching the matter, and, when the proper time arrives, they will consider whether the evidence is sufficient to justify their opposing the renewal of the publicans' licences.

  Cattle-Driving Funds.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at Ballynacargy petty sessions on Friday the 10th July the paintiff in an action stated on oath that he had subscribed to a fund which was raised for the driving of cattle; that the magistrates said it appeared some parties had been engaged in a criminal conspiracy, and it was for the Crown to act as it thought proper; and whether it is intended to institute proceedings in reference to this matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that this matter has been brought to the notice of my right hon. friend the Attorney-General, who will consider whether the facts of the case are such as to warrant a prosecution. In the circumstances it is not at present desirable to make any statement as to the facts.

  Crime in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Mr. Justice Kenny, on opening the Assizes for the County of Roscommon, on Saturday, 11th July said the county was in a state of extreme lawlessness; that there had been four cases of incendiary fires and four of threatening letter writing, and only one person had been made amenable; that cattle driving was prevalent, and those charged with the maintenance of the peace were unable to make persons amenable; that those responsible for these outrages could be brought before
  1504
  two resident magistrates, and if their guilt was proved they could be sentenced to not less than six months imprisonment; and whether it is intended to take the course indicated by the learned Judge; and, if not, will he explain why this course is not to be adopted.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no information as to Mr. Justice Kenny's remarks beyond that which may be gathered from newspaper reports. I have repeatedly stated that the fullest possible measures are being taken for the preservation of the peace and the punishment of offenders under the ordinary law, and that it is not the intention of the Government to put the Criminal Law and Procedure Act into force. In the cases of four incendiary fires and four threatening letters to which reference was made, it was only possible to proceed against one person because evidence was only forthcoming in one case, and I do not see how any Act of Parliament can secure a man's punishment unless and until some evidence of his possible guilt is forthcoming. The learned Judge in question was informed by the proper authority that since the middle of May the condition of County Leitrim had very much improved with the exception of the area lying round Elphin.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not the case that the official criminal statistics for Ireland for the last twelve months which have just been published show a decrease in all classes of serious offences in the country?
  MR. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard outrage and boycotting as evidence of a cheerful spirit on the part of the people of Ireland?
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not the fact that a very large proportion of the cattle-driving outrages are not included in the returns?
  SIR E. CARSON: What is the right hon. Gentleman's definition of serious crime?
  MR. BIRRELL: I cannot enter into all the Questions that are put to me on this occasion. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is correct in saying that recent statistics show a

  1505
  happy decrease in what is called serious crime in Ireland, and I should imagine that would be a subject for congratulation even to an Irishman.
  MR. ASHLEY: Are cattle - drives included among the serious outrages?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, if accompanied by riot and violence.

  Irish Arterial Drainage.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet considered the scheme of Messrs. Glover and White for the drainage of the River Barrow; whether the same was submitted to the Board of Works; and, if so, has it reported thereon, and what is the opinion of the said Board upon that scheme; and is he now in a position to say what the intention of the Government is in respect to the said scheme or any other for the drainage of the River Barrow.
  MR. BIRRELL: The scheme of Messrs. Glover and White for the drainage of the Barrow was referred to the Board of Works, who reported that it did not contain sufficient information to enable them to judge what result might be anticipated from the expenditure recommended. I have been in communication with the Treasury on the subject, and regret to say that, apart from the merits of the particular scheme, there is no prospect of obtaining a grant from Parliament for the purpose in question, regard being had to the many other projects now afoot for expenditure in Ireland.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: On the Motion for the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill I will call attention to the whole question of arterial drainage in Ireland.

  Ballymena Postal Facilities.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Ballymena Urban Council condemning the postal accomodation at Ballymena as totally inadequate for the proper and efficient transaction of business; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing Ballymena with a post office building and staff
  1506
  suitable to a town of its size and importance.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 14th to a similar Question. I regret that I am not yet in a position to furnish him with a reply.

  Electoral Reform.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will state when he proposes to introduce the Electoral Reform Bill; and whether it will be printed in sufficient time to circulate during the recess.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): The Bill in question will not be introduced during the present session.

  Scottish Estimates.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he could provide some opportunity for the discussion of the Estimates of the Local Government Board (Scotland) before the adjournment of the House.
  MR. ASQUITH: I regret to say that it is impossible to allot any additional time for the discussion of Scottish Estimates; but no doubt an opportunity can be found to raise the matter to which my right hon. friend refers on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

  Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, which expires next month.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Government, as already announced, propose to renew the Act for another year.

  Irish Universities Bill.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will now state the decision he has arrived at as the result of the representations made to him on behalf of the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland in

  1507
  regard to the possible effects upon their medical school of the passing into law of the Irish Universities Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is proposed that there shall be in the Charter of the new University no clause restricting the Senate from giving full recognition, if it is deemed fit, to the work done in the Royal College of Surgeons. I believe that in these circumstances the Royal College of Surgeons will find no difficulty in future in continuing the work that it has done so effectively in the past; but, if in the working of the new system it should prove that the Royal College of Surgeons has suffered injury, I hope (without giving any pledge) that the Treasury may be found not indisposed to consider favourably an application for putting the college in a position to continue its work.

  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 240.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 240.]
  Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 327.]

UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 241.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 241.]
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 328.]

HANDLOOM WEAVING (IRELAND) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 242.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 242.]
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 329.]

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 330.]
HOUSE OF LORDS (MANUSCRIPTS).
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House a Copy of the Manuscripts of the House of Lords, Volume IV. (New Series).—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had discharged Sir Francis Channing from being Chairman of Standing Committee A, and had appointed Mr. Eugene Wason to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A, in his place.
That they had discharged Sir David Brynmor Jones from being Chairman of Standing Committee B, and had appointed Sir Francis Channing to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B, in his place.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  "To continue various expiring Laws," presented by Mr. Hobhouse; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 331.]

  POLITICAL OFFENDERS PUNISHMENT BILL.
  "To limit the punishment consequent on certain offences of a political character

  1509
  to imprisonment as first-class misdemeanants," presented by Mr. Robert Pearce; supported by Mr. Burt, Mr. Cobbold, Mr. Charles Corbett, Mr. Gulland, Mr. Kettle, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Stanger, and Mr. Osmond Williams; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 332.]

  DEATHS REGISTRATION AND BURIALS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Registration of Deaths and to Burials," presented by Mr. George Greenwood; supported by Sir Walter Foster, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. Smeaton, Dr. Rutherford, Mr. Hart-Davies, Dr. Ship-man, and Mr. Atherley-Jones: to be read a second time upon Friday 31st July, and to be printed. [Bill 333.]
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  "To grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund; and for other purposes relating to Local Loans," presented by Mr. Hobhouse; to be read a second time to-morrow; and to be printed. [Bill 334.]

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
*THE CHAIRMANruled out of order Motions standing in the names of the hon. Members for Hythe, York and Clapham, to postpone the clause, and also an Amendment standing first on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division of Birmingham to insert after (1) "If it be shown to the satisfaction of the licensing justices in any district that the number of on-licences in that district is excessive having regard to the needs of the population the." He stated that this should be moved at a later period of the clause.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEsubmitted that his Amendment came in better and more grammatically at
1510
the beginning of the clause and he could not quite see why it should be out of order at that stage.
*THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member had two Amendments, and if the two were connected——
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid that he proposed to take each Amendment separately on its own merits.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Then if the first Amendment is taken alone it must come on later in the clause.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWE: Is there not a danger that it may be anticipated? I fancy that it will be if it is postponed.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I have given my ruling.
*MR. YOUNGER*MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs) moved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Walton Division to provide that the authority to reduce the number of licences should be Quarter Sessions on a reference from licensing justices. He said the existing law was practically embraced in this Amendment, and the Government should show some reason for departing from it. They had a scheme for the reduction of licences under the Act of 1904, under which Quarter Sessions were the ruling authority. That had worked extremely well, and, therefore, the House ought to consider seriously before they made a departure whether there was any justification for it. He knew there had always been more or less of a quarrel between the temperance party and the trade with regard to Quarter Sessions. The matter was threshed out before the Royal Commission, and the mere fact that the Quarter Sessions had been placed by the law in their present position showed that their administration had been satisfactory, and that they continued to be the responsible authority under the Act of 1904 was very good ground for proposing that they should still occupy that position. They would be regarded as being more unbiassed than the licensing justices.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, at the beginning, to insert the words 'Quarter Sessions on a reference from.'"—(Mr. Younger.)
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(Mr. ASQUITH,): The Government cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. It proposes, in fact, to continue under the conditions laid down in this Bill the machinery set up for the first time under the Act of 1904. This is a clause which imposes a statutory duty. It does not give a discretion except in regard to the selection of the particular houses which, when the scheme has been approved, will become subject to its operation. There is no reason for bringing in Quarter Sessions there. It is far better left with the licensing justices, who know the local conditions and circumstances. The main ground for setting up Quarter Sessions as an authority of this kind is that the compensation fund under the Act of 1904 was a county fund, separated into watertight compartments. Under the scheme of this Bill there is to be a national fund—one for the whole country, and the ground for bringing in Quarter Sessions no longer exists. Again to bring in Quarter Sessions would be to bring in a third authority between the licensing justices and the Licensing Commission, which will occasion additional delay and expense. Finally, it is important that the area should be small and not large. In no other way can you carry out a scheme which will have regard to local exigencies. On all these grounds I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MORPETHconsidered it undesirable that in local administration there should be a constant changing and chopping of the authorities. The right hon. Gentleman proposed later on that the proportion of houses should be a proportion over parishes and wards. Obviously the parish was an undesirable area over which to take the proportion, and a public-house might be, although at the edge of a parish, in reality a house serving an entirely different population. That would make the task of the licensing justices almost impossible. The Prime Minister realised that because in the schedule he had put in so many exceptions to the ratio that it was reduced to a pious opinion of the thinnest kind. It was most desirable that the work should be dons by the Quarter Sessions, not
1512
because they were friendly or unfriendly to the temperance cause or trade, but because they controlled the area. In small areas there was much greater room for great variations in administration, owing to the idiosyncracies of some powerful member of the local Bench, whereas, if the matter was left to the Quarter Sessions, the considerations of a larger number of minds would be brought to bear on the matter.
*MR. EVELYN CECILalso supported the Amendment. What were the reasons advanced by the Prime Minister? The right hon. Gentleman said Quarter Sessions were not so desirable an authority for deciding these matters as the local justices, first, because the licensing justices knew the local conditions so well. But surely Quarter Sessions knew them equally well. He had never heard it suggested that they did not know thoroughly the local conditions throughout the county. It was adopting a very narrow point of view to say that the licensing justices were the only people who could properly judge these questions, and that the Quarter Sessions could not do it equally as well. He did not think there was sufficient ground for stating that the licensing justices knew local conditions better than the Quarter Sessions. The Prime Minister said that the compensation fund was to be a national fund, but that under the Licensing Act of 1904 it was a county fund. He was not aware that the licensing justices were specially the people to look after the matter, because it was a national fund. He did not understand that they had that much greater breadth of view which would enable them to administer a national fund better than the Quarter Sessions. He would have thought that the wider and the more national the fund was made, the wider and broader ought to be the authority that dealt with it. Surely it was wiser to leave it to Quarter Sessions rather than hand it over to the licensing justices. The Prime Minister said that the area should be a small area. He did not think that county areas were very wide areas, and if they were going to have so many different kinds of areas for different kinds of administration all over the country, he thought they would get into great confusion. He would prefer

1513
that they should not have a different system of administration all over the country, but they ought to have, as far as possible, the same system; and if Quarter Sessions had worked perfectly well up to now—at least he had never heard anybody suggest that they had not—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Did hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that they had done their work badly? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Yes," and OPPOSITION cries of "Name."] Could they suggest what particular Quarter Sessions had failed in their duties? He would like to hear evidence of that, because it was quite a new light to him that there was any fault to be found with Quarter Sessions. If grievances existed, he would have thought that the grievances were much greater from the decisions of the local justices than from those of Quarter Sessions; and he believed that there would be far more grievances arising from the decisions of the licensing justices than from the decisions of the Quarter Sessions. If licensing justices were to be put in authority, as now proposed under the Bill, he did not understand that there was to be any appeal from them except in so far as the new Licensing Commission was to supervise matters in general. He gathered that their decision was to be final to all intents and purposes, and that he looked upon with very considerable apprehension. The House in many matters recently, notably in criminal matters, had decided in favour of a power or Court of Appeal. But in matters with regard to licences, which some hon. Gentleman opposite thought it necessary to characterise as almost criminal in their tendencies, was there to be no Court of Appeal? He would have thought it was desirable rather than put the decision of matters of that kind in the hands of the licensing justices, to allow the parties to have a Court of Appeal; and no better Court of Appeal could be found than Quarter Sessions. He could not help feeling that the licensing bench was not the best bench to decide matters of that kind at all, because although they might be useful for summary purposes to come to some rough and ready decision, it must be remembered that in many of these cases where the interests were fairly balanced and local prejudices ran
1514
high, the licensing justices were not the proper people to whom to submit the matter. It was well known that on licensing benches persons connected with the trade could not sit in their own or in adjoining districts; whereas, in some areas at any rate, it was equally well known that those opposed to the trade might be and usually were extremely well represented. He thought that where such circumstances existed it could not be just or fair on the part of the House to make the licensing justices the only people to decide those cases. To suggest otherwise was to him a very astonishing proposition. He thought, therefore, there was every reason to adopt his hon. friend's Amendment, partly because not one of the Prime Minister's reasons against it was convincing; partly because it was most iniquitous to have a Court possessing such jurisdiction without appeal; and partly because the licensing justices were the very party specially open to local prejudices.
*MR. TALBOTsaid he was sorry at the interruption to his hon. friend's speech from hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite, although it only assumed an inarticulate form. He gathered from it, however, that some hon. Gentleman had an objection to make to the fairness with which the licensing committees of the Quarter Sessions had discharged their very responsible duties. As one who had sat continuously as the Chairman of such a licensing committee, he must say that he had never heard a single murmur against the justice, fairness, and consideration given by those committees to these matters. The licensing committee had gone very carefully not only into the merits of individual cases of the licences submitted to them, but into the balance to be held between one part and another of the county which they represented. They had acquired a very great deal of information which could not be at the disposal of the licensing benches, and from that point of view he thought that the Prime Minister would be well advised to continue the same confidence now felt in those licensing committees of the Quarter Sessions, rather than place the work in the hands of local benches.

1515
The Prime Minister said that the local licensing justices knew more about the matter than Quarter Sessions. That statement could not have been made by anyone who had had experience. Each bench in its own particular district knew best what were the wants of its own district. [MINISTERIAL ironical cheers.] But that was not the whole point. Each individual constituency in the kingdom knew its own affairs best, but the Imperial Parliament knew what was best for the whole country. What he said was that the licensing committee of the Quarter Sessions had a wider and a more comprehensive view of the needs of the district they represented than the local bench. There seemed to be a jealousy of Quarter Sessions on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He wished they would say what were the grounds for that jealousy. Would they say that harm had followed the exercise of their functions? So far as his opinion went, and it was based on many years experience, he could say that there was no fairer, more equitable body of men than those who sat on the licensing committees of the Quarter Sessions. They did a great deal of hard work without remuneration and exercised their functions with justice. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to carry this Bill in a shape which could and would work, then he should have regard to the commonsense doctrine of giving to those people who knew, the power of carrying out its provisions.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORadjured the Prime Minister to enable the House to show confidence in those who worked the existing licensing system. If he read aright the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman its effect would be in Liverpool to take away from those who had the task of reducing licences the work hitherto put upon them and placing it in the hands of Quarter Sessions. He thought that that would be a retrograde step so far as Liverpool was concerned. In that city it was to the licensing justices that the effective reduction of the excessive number of licences was due.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWE,rising to a point of order, said that in the county
1516
boroughs the whole of the licensing justices were the licensing authority.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that as he understood it, the effect of the Amendment would be to change in all county boroughs the licensing authority.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid that if the Government really wished to have this reduction of licences carried out in a just and fair manner, and in accordance with the wishes and needs of the districts affected, they could not in the least object to the Amendment. They would have the assistance of two authorities instead of one. The local justices would have first to consider the matter, and the Quarter Sessions would only be brought into operation on reference of the matter to them by the local justices. That would be simply a continuance of the state of things that now existed. The Amendment did not alter the existing law, which, notwithstanding the disparaging remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, had worked extremely well. During the three and a half years that the Act of 1904 had been in operation there had been an average annual reduction of 1,500 licences, so that by the end of the time limit provided by the present Bill, the total reduction would, at the same rate, amount to somewhere about 23,000 licences. That was the number which the Government estimated would be extinguished under this Bill if it passed into law. These statistics got rid of the inarticulate objections of hon. Gentlemen on the other side to the Courts of Quarter Sessions. The real fact of the matter was that the Government did not want either the local justices or Quarter Sessions to have any voice in the matter. Under the clause as it stood, they had constituted themselves the sole authority for deciding how many licences were required in every urban or rural district in the country. They had left no option whatever to the local authorities. He was trying to show that the licensing justices were a very proper body for this function and he submitted he was in order in so doing.
THE CHAIRMANsaid it was precisely because the hon. Gentleman was not addressing himself to the point, that he called him to order.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEbowed to the ruling of the Chairman and submitted in conclusion that the Prime Minister had shown no reason why the Government should be substituted for the licensing authority in this matter.
MR. ASHLEYexpressed the opinion that it was extremely unfair that this insinuation should be made against the impartiality of the licensing justices, and that no hon. Gentlemen opposite should get up and give their reason for distrusting these bodies. They wore certainly carrying out the ideas of hon. Members opposite in the debate on the Licensing Bill of 1904, when they constantly urged that absolute discretion should be left with the licensing justices and no discretion to Quarter Sessions. But the result of this clause was that neither the licensing justices nor the Quarter Sessions would have anything to do with the matter at all. It would be laid down by the clause that a certain number of licences were to be allocated to each locality, and it did not matter whether there were any licensing justices or Quarter Sessions. It certainly showed very little trust in the people.
*SIR THOMAS WHITTAKERsaid that if the statement of the hon. Member who had just sat down was correct there was no reason for the Amendment. One of the great objections to the Act of 1904 was that it so largely destroyed and crippled the power of the justices. It was only tolerable that it should be done because under the arrangement of the Act, the compensation fund was under the control of Quarter Sessions. It was a limited fund, and they alone could allocate the whole of that fund. Under this Bill there would be no allocation of any fund by the justices over a number of districts. It was a national fund, and those who made this decision would only have to decide for the locality with which they were concerned. The chief reason which justified taking the power away from the local justices and putting it into the hands of Quarter Sessions ceased to exist under this Bill. If they read the evidence given before the Peel Commission they would find
1518
that from one end of the country to the other there was complaint that Quarter Sessions hung like a millstone round the neck of the administration of the licensing law by the local licensing justices. They found in almost every town in the country complaints that Quarter Sessions, which knew nothing of the localities or the houses, constantly overruled the decisions of those who had that local knowledge. That was one of the great objections to the administration of the law. The local justices frequently decided that a house was unnecessary, and ought to be abolished, and they continually had their decisions reversed. There was no more forcible complaint made before the Peel Commission than that. This Bill was to select the houses only whose licences should be taken away. That was a local matter, where local knowledge was required. It was an administrative matter. The amount of reduction would be fixed, and it would be for the justices to settle which houses should go. This involved no insinuation against Quarter Sessions or any reflection upon that body. It merely involved the opinion that the local justices on the spot had a closer, more accurate and intimate knowledge than Quarter Sessions could have. There was no reflection upon their honour or capacity. The local people must necessarily have the best knowledge.
MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has dealt with Quarter Sessions and local justices directly, and no one would suspect him of making any direct charge against the honour of the Quarter Sessions or the local licensing Bench. But I wish to remind the House that when reference was made on this side to Quarter Sessions suggestions came from the other side, not that Quarter Sessions were incompetent, but that they performed their duties in some ways unsatisfactorily. Those who cheered that statement have never had the courage to specify one single charge against any Quarter Sessions Court in the country. If those charges are to be lightly made as they were just now, and cheered, to the credit of the courage of hon. Gentlemen who cheered, quite apart from the

1519
foundations of those charges, they ought to get up and substantiate them. Pending that let me point out that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is under a strange misconception. He told us that in the country at large there were considerable towns which had no practical representation on Quarter Sessions.
SIR THOMAS WHITAKERdissented.
MR. WALTER LONG: If he denies that what becomes of the suggestion that Quarter Sessions have no local knowledge? Under the licensing law as it now stands, a decision of the licensing Bench is subject to appeal to Quarter Sessions. Not only would this Amendment carry out the existing law, but if it is not accepted you are reversing the present law. You are putting the local Bench in regard to the selection it has to make in the revision of licences in a position superior to Quarter Sessions, and in a different position from that which they occupy at the present time. The hon. Gentleman has said that Quarter Sessions hung like a millstone round the neck of the local justices. Will he go a little further? If it be a true charge it involves not only the honour but the credit of the Quarter Sessions. Why have Quarter Sessions hung like a millstone round the neck of licensing justices? Because where the local Benches have made recommendations those recommendations from the point of view of justice could not be affirmed by Quarter Sessions who stepped in and considered the whole case. That is the only justification for the charge he makes. But I come back to the law as it stands. The law makes Quarter Sessions the appellate body. Here you are taking away these licences eventually without any compensation at all. You are imposing powers which enable compensation to be paid. Where there is compensation under the Act of 1904 the decision of the local Bench is subject to appeal to Quarter Sessions. The actual proposal here is to give to the local justices a power that they do not hold at present and to take away that right of appeal. The Amendment is a just and proper one, not only if you are to make the Bill workable, but if you are to make it work with any measure of justice. I hope before this debate comes to an end
1520
we shall have made in Parliament by a responsible Member in an articulate form those charges against Quarter Sessions which up to the present moment have only been made indirectly. If they are made, and the names of the respective Quarter Sessions Courts given, there will be an answer to every one of them. Whatever the Committee may think of this Amendment they will say that Quarter Sessions have done their work not only justly and fairly, but as this House and the country would desire it to be done.
*MR. CAVEdisagreed with the statement of the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley that the Act of 1904 had crippled or destroyed the powers of the local justices; the very opposite was the case. The local authorities had far more voice in the decisions of Quarter Sessions than they had before the Act of 1904. The object of this Amendment was to provide that in those decisions which vitally affected private interests the final voice should not be with those who had local interest, and possibly local bias, but with those who were far removed from influences of that kind, and who would give an impartial decision. Again and again the view taken by the Quarter Sessions when they first saw the report of the local justices against the renewal of licences had been modified or reversed upon a careful hearing of the case and of the evidence given before them. That was what they could not get from a local Bench. He thought it was a great pity that the Government had decided to reverse the whole system of the Act of 1904, under which the decision of the local licensing Bench was subject to appeal. The present system had worked successfully and exceedingly well. He wanted to give some part of the credit of that result to a gentleman who was never named, namely, the draftsman by whom the rules under the Act of 1904 had been framed. He believed that a very great deal of the credit for the smooth and successful working of that Act was due to those rules. They had been very carefully framed, and they provided what was not in the Act—that there should be a consultation between the county committee and the local

1521
Bench. They provided for a series of meetings. At the first there was a preliminary consideration of the justices' reports, then at a later meeting, a careful consideration of the whole case, and at the third meeting the shares of the persons interested were finally determined. That system had worked extremely well; but he was afraid that under the somewhat hasty procedure of the local benches they would not get the same consideration given to the facts. He did not think that anyone on the other side of the House, who knew the circumstances, would deny that Quarter Sessions under the Act of 1904 had done their work well. Certainly no one on the Treasury Bench had denied that; nor could it be said that the Act had not been fully taken advantage of. The figures showed that nearly 95 per cent, of the funds it was possible to raise had been employed for the reduction of licences. He did not think that more could have been done by any tribunal than had been done by Quarter Sessions. It was a thousand pities that the system was to be done away with. The proposal could not be defended on the ground of restoring freedom to the local Benches, because although they would be taken from the control of the Quarter Sessions they would be put under the control of the Licensing Commission. Instead of having their decisions considered by a body of gentlemen in their own county, they would be subject to reversal by a body of gentlemen in London, who had no knowledge of the facts of the county, and who would simply act upon an arithmetical consideration and without regard to local and special circumstances which ought to be taken into account. He regretted that the Government had come to such a decision, and he hoped before the Bill passed into law, if it ever became law, further consideration would be given to the question whether the whole system under the Act of 1904 had not worked fairly well, and whether they could not still provide machinery for carrying this Act into effect so that the Administration of the Act might remain in the hands of those Courts which had already shown their capacity for dealing with the whole of this matter.
EARL WINTERTONsaid he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had made clear his interruption of his hon. friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Birmingham. His hon. friend, as he understood, had stated clearly that in his view the system of Quarter Sessions since the Act of 1904, had discharged their duties well; and he understood that the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends was a distinct insinuation against the work of Quarter Sessions, and meant that Quarter Sessions had acted improperly and had not done their work efficiently since the passing of the Act of 1904. He thought, at this early stage of the Bill, and on this clause, that they should get absolutely clearly what was the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the work of the Quarter Sessions under the Act of 1904. Did they really assert that Quarter Sessions had done their work improperly? If they did, then he thought they ought to bring forward some evidence in support of their view. He did not think at this early stage of the Bill they ought to have this species of legislation by innuendo, for that was what it meant. The right hon. Gentleman had made an innuendo against the work of Quarter Sessions. Did he withdraw?
SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: No; I distinctly stated that I made no insinuation. The noble Lord wants me to withdraw a statement I never made.
EARL WINTERTONsaid that he and his friends were very anxious to get the point cleared up. Then they were to understand, he presumed, that the reference to a millstone round the neck of the justices had reference to what took place before the passing of the Act of 1904, and that the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with everything that had taken place since. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman and his friends supported the Opposition as against the Government on this Amendment. If the insinuation was not against the work of Quarter Sessions since the passing of the Act, but referred to what took place before, then what had taken place before could not really be compared

1523
with what had taken place since, because the duties of Quarter Sessions had been so altered that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends could have no objection to his hon. friend's proposal that the power should be in the hands of Quarter Sessions.
MR. H. C. LEAsaid hon. Members opposite had complained for some time of inarticulate interruptions. On a point of order, he wished to say that there had been a cause for that. His hon. friend on his right was ready to take part in the debate, and immediately the hon. Member for West Wiltshire had turned round and inquired "Who is rising on this side of the House?" and told the hon. Member to sit down. He thought the time allowed for the discussion of this Bill was limited enough as it was, and for any hon. Member of that House, whether he was Prime Minister or Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, or anything else, to tell another hon. Member that he was not to take part in the debate, was, to his mind, a piece of insufferable impertinence. [Cries of "Order."]
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has just concluded his speech by making use of an unparliamentary expression. I call upon him to withdraw it.
MR. H. C. LEA: If you ask me, Sir, to withdraw it, I will do so, but I consider it true nevertheless.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he only desired on this Amendment to add a very few observations to those which had already been made. It was one which he had placed on the Paper, and he greatly regretted that he had not been present to move it, and that he had not had the advantage of hearing the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. He had himself had some experience in the last few years, and since the Bill of his right hon. friend was passed into law, both of the conduct of the justices in the Court below and of the conduct of Quarter Sessions, and he desired to make no reflection of any kind upon the manner in which the justices in the Court below had performed their duties. But he would venture to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that in the Amend-
1524
ment now before them they were dealing with the very much broader question of whether or not there was to be any Court of Appeal at all in respect of these proposals, which affected very valuable interests on the part of those whose licences were to be taken away. The only other suggested Court of Appeal was the Committee sitting in London, which he did not think would be seriously put forward as an appellate tribunal in any shape or form. It had merely to go into the question for the purpose of coercion; it was not a tribunal to review the decision of the justices where they might have gone too far, but to stimulate them where it was thought that they had not gone far enough. While they were dealing with this point surely they were entitled to ask whether the whole tendency of our legislation had not been rather to widen the area of appeal, even under the criminal laws. The right of appeal was given in dealing with small proprietary rights in the County Court, which enabled an appeal, in certain circumstances, to be taken right to the House of Lords. And, in this instance, they were dealing with proprietary rights which, though somewhat truncated, were still of considerable value. None the less, the proposal was now put forward under the Bill that Quarter Sessions were to be excluded from an appellate jurisdiction, which, it was universally admitted, they had exercised with much efficiency during the past few years. His hon. friend beside him had asked whether or not it was the view of the Government and of hon. Members opposite that Quarter Sessions had efficiently discharged their functions in the past few years. Surely, in the absence of any hon. Members getting up and saying that Quarter Sessions had performed their duties either inefficiently or unfairly, he was entitled to say that there was a universal consensus of opinion that Quarter Sessions had discharged their duties both efficiently and fairly in the past few years. What had been the extent of interference by Quarter Sessions with the decisions of the Benches below? That was a very important point in deciding whether their functions should be continued. In the year 1905, 891 licences were referred to the various Quarter Sessions of the country. Of

1525
those 891, there were 519 refused, so that in about 400 cases Quarter Sessions were unable to take the view which had been taken by the justices in the Court below, and in those 400 cases a longer lease of life was given to the licences affected. If they took 1906, the number of licences referred was 2,045. Of those 1,575 were refused by Quarter Sessions, so that in about 500 cases the appeal was allowed. In 1907, the number of licences referred was 1,825, and in 1,219 cases the licence was refused. So that in 1907 there were about 600 cases in which appeal from the lower Court was successful. What was the proposition which was advanced on the other side of the House as justifying the destruction of an appellate body, which during these last three years in so many cases had shown a discretion which had not been impeached by argument in the course of the discussion which had taken place on the Amendment? He ventured to submit to the Committee the view that the Quarter Sessions were a very much better tribunal for the purpose of dealing with these matters than the justices of the Court below. It was felt to be a very great anomaly indeed that while, quite properly, persons interested directly or indirectly in the liquor trade were debarred from sitting on the licensing Benches, it very frequently happened that teetotallers, who had the strongest possible view as to the propriety of granting licences, were members of the Bench. It was extremely unlikely that magistrates who belonged to vigilance committees, and who shared the views which were embodied in this Bill, who would introduce local option or absolute prohibition to-morrow if they had the power, would bring to bear on the specific cases that came before them that judicial temper which Lord Halsbury, in the case of "Sharpe and Wakefield," said it was the duty of licensing justices to display. In Quarter Sessions, representing a wider area, they were likely to bring to bear a far less prejudiced judgment than in the case of the ordinary justices, and that was the explanation why in so many cases I the discretion of the justices in the Court below had been interfered with by Quarter Sessions. It was far easier to destroy than to build
1526
up. They had at present an efficient tribunal in the Court below, and an efficient appellate tribunal. They had chosen, for no adequate reason which had been stated or which by any argument could be defended, to destroy at once the appellate tribunal, and that destruction would be construed by those who would be affected by it as a deliberate design to prevent them enjoying what almost all litigants, however small the amount in dispute, enjoyed as a right.
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid he was sorry that every Member opposite who had spoken had felt it necessary to suppose that in taking one side or the other they were passing judgment on the respective merits, as an administrative or judicial body, of Quarter Sessions or licensing justices. He did not think there was any reflection on Quarter Sessions in the proposal which the Government had made. The functions which the local licensing Benches would have to perform were quite different from those which Quarter Sessions performed under the Act of 1904, and he supposed everyone would admit that for some purposes Quarter Sessions were best and for the others local licensing justices were the best. He really could not conceive how anyone considering the system apart from all the controversies that had raged about it could doubt that for the purposes of the local reduction which was to be carried out, the licensing justices, with full knowledge of the local conditions, were a better body than Quarter Sessions could possibly be. Hon. Members opposite forgot the history of the licensing question. By an Act of George II. licensing justices were appointed to act locally expressly on the ground that the Quarter Sessions justices, acting at a distance, were ignorant of local conditions. The Government were simply doing what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University said they ought to do and giving those who knew control in the matter. The essential principles of the licensing system were carried out by giving to the local justices full power in this, which was after all an administrative matter.
SIR E. CARSONsaid one observation made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Spen Valley was entirely inaccurate, and he rather gathered that the Prime Minister's mind ran in something of the same groove. The observation was that the only reason that Quarter Sessions were retained as the licensing authority under the Bill of 1904 was for the purpose of the distribution of compensation.
SIR THOMAS WHITTAKER: I did not make that observation. I said "the only reason that made it tolerable"; I did not say it was the only reason for appointing them.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the right hon. Baronet went on to say that the reason now was not going to exist. Quarter Sessions were retained for the simple reason that up to 1904 there had always been an appeal to Quarter Sessions in every case in which a licence was refused. They saw no reason, cither then or now, for taking away that appeal, and up to the present none had been suggested. Why on earth should they, in extinguishing a man's property, take away the right of appeal, and leave it when taking away property under the Act of 1870, because that was what they were doing? They were allowing the right of appeal to continue if the property was being taken away for misconduct and were allowing no right of appeal to exist if a licence had been taken away without any misconduct. Surely there never was a more ridiculous proposition.
MR. LEIF JONES: He receives compensation.
SIR E. CARSONasked if that was a reason why he ought not to have a right of appeal. Did the hon. Gentleman think he was going to get adequate compensation? Did the hon. Gentleman think it made no difference to him whether his licence was taken away or not? Of course he did not, and that was rather an ill-considered interruption. They were not going to give a man an equivalent for what they were taking away from him, which was the only kind of compensation that he understood. Where public-houses were taken for
1528
public purposes—and this was a pretence of taking it for a public purpose—there was an award and an appeal from the award to a jury. If they set up a tribunal of that kind they might talk of compensation. But under this Bill the whole thing was a sham. It was not the magistrates or Quarter Sessions who were the ultimate tribunal, but the paid officers of the Government. Let them put away cant and face thereat matter. What was the justification for abolishing the right of appeal? What they really wanted to do was to hurry the matter up, and get rid of these fellows as quickly as possible, and to have no millstones round their necks. They were quite willing at the commencement of the debate to interject cheers and inarticulate observations about Quarter Sessions, but when challenged they went back and said Quarter Sessions were the most respectable people in the whole world, and they could not criticise them. Then why were they taking away the appeal from Quarter Sessions if it was not for the purpose of hurrying the matter up, and doing the thing in a perfunctory kind of way, and getting rid of these people's property at the lowest possible price? The hon. Member talked of the value of local knowledge, but Quarter Sessions would have the report of the local justices and would have representatives of the local justices on the Bench. All this pretence of the great superiority of the local justices had nothing to do with the case. The truth was that they were taking away the appeal, and that was what he objected to. He had not had much experience of these appeals since the Act of 1904, but he had had one painful one, where but for the appeal an injustice of the greatest enormity would have been done. But the whole bench of forty-six magistrates unanimously reversed what had been most deliberately and wilfully done. The existence of such a state of affairs as that, if they wanted to deal fairly with the trade they were going to destroy, ought to be a sufficient argument to prevent them in this haphazard, easygoing fashion, taking this right away. No case was made out for this drastic change in the whole procedure of the licensing law of the

1529
country, and he hoped some real substantial reason would be given.
MR. ASQUITH: The only purpose for which I rise is to point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to appreciate what is the real question before the Committee. He has talked about the right of appeal and about compensation. He has vindicated Quarter Sessions from charges which certainly I have never made against them, and in making that vindication he has attacked the local justices, who, to the best of my belief, like Quarter Sessions, perform their duty in the matter admirably, and on the whole efficiently. But none of these things have any relevance whatever to the question before the Committee: What does the clause do? I think I had better read it.
"Licensing justices shall, in accordance with this Act, reduce the number of on-licences in their district so that, at the end of a certain time, the number shall bear a certain correspondence to the population."
That is the clause. In other words, Parliament here is imposing a mandatory duty upon a particular body. There is no question of discretion of any sort or kind. They have to carry out what Parliament requires them to do. I should have thought it would have been regarded rather as a compliment to the Quarter Sessions than otherwise that this purely administrative function should be imposed upon the licensing justices of the district. Under the Act of 1904 it was totally different. I agree under that Act Quarter Sessions had a very real and delicate discretion, because it rested with them whether or not a particular reduction should take place. Under this Bill the reduction is compulsory and made by Act of Parliament, and the whole function of a discretionary kind which the licensing justices will have to discharge is whether this or that house should prevail. It is the question whether the "Red Lion" or the "Black Bull" should be a victim. Are not the people who are on the spot and know all the circumstances a more convenient and on the whole a more equitable tribunal? I ask 1he Committee to decide in the way suggested by the Government.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that he really has not met the particular point or two points which we have raised, and which really are material to the decision of this question. The first is a point of justice, the second is a point of administration. With regard to the point of justice the right hon. Gentleman lays it down as an almost self-evident proposition that if there is a statutory requirement for any body, be it Quarter Sessions or the local licensing benches, to make a reduction of a certain number of licences in a certain district, no question of individual rights can arise, that no individual wrongs can be performed, and that therefore there is no real reason for having an appeal to another tribunal at all. Is that the fact? The right hon. Gentleman says it does not matter whether the "Black Bull" or the "Red Lion" is in question. It matters very much to the licensee.
MR. ASQUITH: I never said anything of the kind. I said that in determining the question whether one or other of these houses has to go, the licensing justices were better and more equitable.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman's contention is that no right of jurisdiction so given to the licensing justices involves questions of personal right. If he does not hold that view, if he thinks there is a question of personal rights and property involved, why is he going to refuse in these questions the privilege of an appeal which is given in every other case in which the question of property or personal rights are involved? Of course, if it is merely an administrative point that no injustice can be done by the licensing justices, I agree that there is no need for an appeal. But, quite clearly, where there is a choice between depriving "A." or "B." of some of their rights, and where there may be prejudices in the exercise of the judgment of the licensing magistrates, then you ought to give "A." or "B." the right of appeal to some superior tribunal. What answer has the right hon. Gentleman given to that contention? The argument put forward that under all the series of statutes

1531
which regulate our licensing laws, when you take a man's property away hitherto you have always given him the right of appeal. In this Bill and for the first time you are allowing the local people to deprive a man of his property, and you are giving that man no appeal. I think both sides of the House will agree, whether that argument be a good one or a bad one, no answer has been given. No attempt has been made to meet the point. But there is another point, which I call the administrative point, on which I do not think quite enough has been said in the course of this debate. The whole plan of your Bill is to diminish the number of licences until they bear a certain proportion to the total population. What are to be the, areas taken into account when that diminution is made? The right hon. Gentleman in his speech laid it down that it was quite clear that the small area, and not the large area is the proper one to be dealt with; and that, therefore, it is not Quarter Sessions who ought to deal with it, but the magistrates who live in the smaller areas. In my opinion, it is the larger area that ought to be taken into account, and from that point of view alone—leaving out the question of judicial equity—Quarter Sessions ought to have the say in the matter. I do not think I should be in order in discussing whether the proportion of licences to population should be estimated in the small area or the big area. That will come up on a subsequent Amendment. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that the proportion is to be maintained in each small area, making up a Quarter Sessions district. I think it is a bad plan. I will assume for the moment it is the right plan, and I will say, even if it is the right plan, it is the Quarter Sessions, who know the larger area, and not the licensing justices, who know the smaller area, who ought to determine which public-house ought to be destroyed. Clearly the justices in the small area merely consider the needs of the small area and the public-house in the small area. They do not consider the public-houses on the borders of their area. It is only Quarter Sessions who can take a general view of all the small areas that should decide,
1532
having in view not merely what happens in each area, but what is going to happen in each area, taken in connection with what is happening in the neighbouring areas. How are you to distribute the public-houses which are to be preserved? The right hon. Gentleman I do not think has dealt with that at all. Surely it is a point that ought to weigh with every Member in the House who wishes that the public-houses which are left should be so arranged in the area as to meet the needs of the people. If you want to consult the convenience of the country districts I think the Government arrangement is very foolish. I think, putting aside altogether the question of equity, leaving wholly apart the question of whether it is right for the first time to allow a man's property to be taken away from him without appeal—I would ask the Prime Minister, as responsible for the framing of an administrative Bill, whether he does not think his own object would be far better served by allowing the elimination of public-houses to be dealt with by an authority which has under its conspectus and control all the smaller areas in which the proportion of licences is to be reduced on some uniform rate between population and licences. These are two arguments upon which I rest the vote which I will certainly give without the smallest hesitation. I think the arguments are entirely on the side of the change we recommend. When I remember that after the discussion upon the position of the magistrates in relation to Quarter Sessions had gone on for, I think, two or three days on the Bill of 1904, the present Prime Minister declared that the subject was not half exhausted, I cannot help thinking that a little further discussion on this point would really prove, what I think hon. Gentlemen opposite are beginning to see, that the change we recommend does not touch the substance of the Bill, on points that may be regarded as vital by the authors of the Bill, but does, undoubtedly, conduce to a maintenance of those ordinary principles of justice and equity which this House ought to maintain, and will most unquestionably make the administrative work of the Bill far fairer to the populations whose needs

1533
are to be served by the public-houses to be left than the rather crude patchwork system the Government are proposing.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid the Committee would remember what took place before 1904. The licensing justices all over the county were taking licences away simply because they were redundant, and not because of misconduct. What happened? The licence-holders appealed to Quarter Sessions, and Quarter Sessions in almost every case, after hearing the evidence, reversed the decision, and restored the licence to the licence-holder. If it had not been for that appeal these licence-holders would have been deprived of their property without compensation. Quarter Sessions had done justice in the past, and if their jurisdiction was maintained they would do justice in the future.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid there was one point which, seemed to have been forgotten. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley, who said that Quarter Sessions hung like a millstone round the neck of temperance reformers, forgot that he was dealing with past years, before the justices were entitled to give compensation, whereby they could reduce licences without doing injustice. The Prime Minister had given as his reason for refusing to accept the Amendment that he desired to have more local knowledge. Then why did he set up as a court of appeal in certain matters, though not in this, a tribunal which had no local knowledge whatever? A second reason the Prime Minister gave was that it was desirable to keep to small areas. In small areas it was quite conceivable that in one there would be an excessive number of licences in proportion to the population, while in an adjoining area there might be considerably less than the proportion sanctioned under the Bill. Was there not a stronger reason operating in the mind of the Government? There was no doubt that these small bodies of licensing justices would be very much more easily dealt with by the Licensing Commission than would Quarter Sessions with all the authority which lay behind them, which would not be so easily brought to book as the smaller body of
1534
men who constituted the licensing justices. That, he believed, was the reason why the Government would not accept the Amendment. The Prime Minister said it was absolutely necessary that they should have local knowledge. He would like to remind hon. Members who so loudly condemned Quarter Sessions that the licensing committee which dealt with these cases was composed of representatives of every petty sessional area in the district. Such a committee had not only local knowledge, but local knowledge combined with broad views. He hoped the Government would be able to give some stronger and better reasons before they asked the Committee to reject the Amendment.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid the Prime Minister had stated that the duties to be performed by the licensing justices would be purely ministerial. Was that the view of the hon. Member for Westmoreland, who, when addressing the United Kingdom Alliance last October, said—
"Let us restore the power to the licensing justices. When we have done that we can go forward, and give the people the right to deal with this question for themselves. Under the Act of 1904 discretion was taken away from the licensing justices."
Surely, in view of these words, the hon. Member could not hold that the licensing justices were to perform a merely ministerial office. The real power behind the throne were apparently to be the gentleman named in Clause 1.
*THR CHAIRMAN: This is really not relevant to the Amendment.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid the Prime Minister based his argument in favour of these duties being placed upon the licensing justices rather than Quarter Sessions upon the fact that the duties would be purely ministerial. If that view were correct it was against everything that had been said by the Radical Party in the country. He thought the Prime Minister was wrong—it was not going to be a purely ministerial function that the local justices would have to perform. It was perfectly true that they would have to reduce a certain number of licenses in a certain number

1535
of years. As far as that went it was merely ministerial, but they would have to decide which houses were to be taken away, and which were to be left—"Some shall be taken and others left." It struck him that that made all the difference in the world; that was by no means a purely ministerial function. It would rest with the local justices to decide whether a house was to receive what the Government called compensation during fourteen years, or whether it should be allowed to exist until the end of fourteen years, and then be annihilated. It was not merely the question whether the "White Lion" or the "Blue Bear" should be taken away—they had to consider the question of the living of the man who was in the house and the convenience of the parties who used the houses—matters of vital importance. Surely it was desirable that questions of this kind should be dealt with on reference, by a larger tribunal. Quarter Sessions, who would be outside the sphere of local prejudice. The Amendment affirmed that the local justices should collect all the intelligence and that then the matter should be referred to the Quarter Sessions for determination. That seemed to him a course based on common-sense and on justice. He hoped the Prime Minister would see his way to accept the Amendment.
SIR JOHN RANDLESsaid the Prime Minister had stated that the question whether the "Blue Lion" or the "Red Bull" should be the victim should be left to the people on the spot, who had knowledge of the locality, and the circumstances. But the point of the objection to that procedure consisted largely in the fact that it was not the animal itself which would be treated, but the house, and it was the colour of the animal which would cause difficulty to the local magistrates. It often happened that in the country districts, public-houses were called by the names of blue and red animals, and each of these colours was favoured by people of certain political parties. The "Red Bull" was very often the Radical public-house, and it might be that the bench which would not be a Radical bench in that particular area,
1536
might decide that it should be abolished. In that way a grievance would be set up on account of the "Red Bull" being disestablished, while the "Blue Lion" got all the customers. That would be a difficult position for the magistrates, and in the interest of the districts themselves he thought if the Prime Minister took into account the real feeling of the local magistrates, he would see that, in view of this difficulty, there was reason for accepting the Amendment. It might be that the local magistrates, having prejudices, would try to please all the licence holders in one part of their area, while their action in other parts would give rise to grievances. There might be all kinds of difficulties present to the minds of the magistrates, and, therefore, he thought the Amendment should be accepted, so that they might be relieved in some measure of the responsibility of deciding on the relative merits of licensed houses.
MR. BOWLESsaid the Prime Minister had told the Committee that it was quite unnecessary to put in Quarter Sessions because the local justices would have to carry out an express direction given to them by this House to reduce licences in their districts, until they bore a certain fixed proportion to the population. He was rather led to fear that the Prime Minister had not read the schedule in the Bill. If he had read it, he would have known that the licensing justices had not merely to carry out an express direction, but that they would exercise most difficult and wide discretion. Under this schedule it would be the duty of the local justices not merely woodenly to reduce the licences in accordance with population, but to decide whether the strict application of the scale was or was not expedient owing to the isolated position of any licensed premises, or to the fact that the premises or any of them were constructed, fitted, or intended to be used in good faith for any purpose to which the holding of an on-licence was merely auxiliary. The justices would have to decide whether the population of any place within their district as shown by the Census did or did not represent the population for whom on-licences might be required, by reason of the resort thereto

1537
of a larger number of persons than that shown in the Census during special seasons of the year, or special times of the day, or for any other reason. It was not really the case, as the right hon. Gentleman said it was, that the justices were to carry out a hard and fast mandatory duty. It was a discretion; and that discretion would have to be supervised to some extent. Who was to supervise them? Who was to say whether the local justices were doing their duty under this Bill, unless it were those three great men in London? But surely on questions of that kind the proper authority was not three gentlemen sitting in London, but the licensing committee of the county. It was not true to say that they had not local knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman said that the licensing justices consisted almost universally of gentlemen appointed from the various districts of the county; but inasmuch as the local justices had to administer questions of discretion, unless that discretion was to be left entirely to them, it was ridiculous to say that they had to appeal to those three gentlemen in London, and that that was equally good as an appeal to Quarter Sessions of the county in which the licences existed. Apart from all other considerations, as a pure matter of administration, Quarter Sessions ought to have the final decision.
CAPTAIN FABERsupported the Amendment because he thought it was better to go to Quarter Sessions for a final appeal on this matter. Every social and personal pressure that could be brought to bear on the local justices would be brought to bear on them. He was one of those who did not think it desirable that those connected with breweries or the trade should sit on the licensing Bench, but he was also of opinion that those who were ardent teetotallers should not sit on the licensing Bench either. It was a position for moderate men. In his own part of the world he had seen justices committed up to the hilt to teetotal principles—and he had many good friends amongst them—but he objected to their sitting as licensing justices. They all knew that the Prime Minister was possessed of a judicial mind, and believed him to have a just mind, and he asked him
1538
why there should not be an appeal from the local Bench to Quarter Sessions?
MR. H. C. LEAsaid that so far as he had heard no mention had been yet made of the ante-1869 beer-houses. Suppose one or two licenses in a district were to be extinguished, and among them was an ante-1869 beerhouse, it would, in his opinion, be well within the functions of a Court of Appeal to decide whether the beerhouse should be the first to be extinguished in order that the keeper might secure compensation under the Act of 1904. It was well known that prior to that Act the ante-1869 beerhouses were freeholds, and the magistrates had no jurisdiction over them as to renewal. He should support the Amendment in order to secure an appeal in the event of an unfair decision in such a case.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORwanted to know what the exact effect of the Amendment would be in county boroughs where the functions of Quarter Sessions were now exercised by the whole body of justices. Did the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment propose to transfer to the whole bench in Quarter Sessions the powers now possessed in county boroughs? Why did he propose to take away the jurisdiction from the county boroughs now exercised by them?
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he understood tint the effect of the Amendment would be that the decision now given by the local justices would have to be confirmed by Quarter Sessions; but in county boroughs the County Quarter Sessions would not come in. That disposed of the argument of the hon. Member for East Toxteth. He asked the Prime Minister why the decision of the local justices should not require confirmation? So far as he knew, in practically every case any decision given by the local justices was liable to be appealed. Now, in this particular case, when local justices were going to take away a man's livelihood from him, why was no confirmation of their decision to be required? The Prime Minister said he had nothing whatever to say against Quarter Sessions, but he declared that the local justices

1539
were better acquainted with the merits of the "Black Bull" or the "Red Lion," because they had better opportunities of seeing them. The right hon. Gentleman was in error. The vast majority of the local justices were not in daily or hourly attendance at the "Black Bull" or "Red Lion." There might be one or two of them who had particular knowledge of the public-houses in their own village, but the local justices had to consider the public-houses in various villages outside their own particular area. Therefore, he contended, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. The argument of the hon. Member for Appleby had been completely demolished by his hon. friend, and he need not say anything further about it. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley said that this matter should be left to the local justices, because there was a national fluid to compensate for the extinguished licences. But the fund came not from the nation, but from the trade. This was the first time that he had heard a fund provided by the trade being described as a national fund. If the teetotal people were to have their tea shops taken away from them and they were compensated for that, would they call it a national fund if the money was derived from the other tea-shops? Hence, he maintained that this was not a national fund. But granted that it was a national fund, the administration of it should go to the higher Court of Quarter Sessions, and not to a small petty local Court. Therefore, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect had no weight. Now they came to the "millstone" argument, which had some weight in it, at any rate. The right hon. Gentleman said that those local justices who shared his extreme opinions would not have a fair and impartial tribunal to revise their decisions, but he thought that they should not be able to exercise their partiality in a way that was not right in the public interest, or for the benefit of those unfortunate people who had invested their money in a legal and justifiable occupation. Therefore, under all these circumstances, as they had heard no argument worth listening to from hon. Gentlemen opposite in con-
1540
travention of the Amendment, he should have great pleasure in voting for it.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that the answer to the hon. Member for Toxteth was to be found in the provision of Section 8 of the Act of 1904. The point of that section was that where they were dealing with county boroughs the whole body of the local justices would discharge the functions discharged in other cases by Quarter Sessions. Should the sense of the Committee be against this Amendment, of course, it would be idle to put down substantive Amendments to deal with the county boroughs, but should the sense of the Committee be in favour of this Amendment, then it would be necessary to do so.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORthanked the hon. Member for his explanation.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSthought that the Amendment and the debate upon it had shown how completely the Prime Minister and the Government had given themselves into the hands of the extreme teetotallers. It was lamentable to see the manner in which they had surrendered themselves to a fraction of a fraction of the 18,000,000 adults of England and Wales. That small but well organised fraction of the people were, it seemed, to rule the comforts and liberties of the nation. Although the discussion in the House was very one-sided owing to the determination, or the order that had gone forth to hon. Gentlemen opposite, to be silent, he would remind the Committee that the matter would have to be discussed in the constituencies. This discussion was good, because it revealed one strong instance of the many instances of injustice with which the Bill was associated. What was to be the composition of the licensing committees? They all knew that in the past members of the extreme temperance party, as they called themselves, tried and tried successfully to get on these licensing committees, and this was very germane to the question because the publicans whose property

1541
was to be taken away could not be represented on those committees at all. The people whose desire was to take away this property were represented, and so partial were they in some cases that in the case of the Birmingham Licensing Committee its indiscretions were so great that the magistrates had to meet and change the chairman and reconstitute the committee. What help could license-holders expect from committees composed in that way to help them to retain their property and to see that it should not be unjustly dealt with? He thought the Prime Minister would do well to accept this Amendment, because it would be difficult to justify his refusal of it either to the House or to the country.
*MR. GRETTONin answering the question put by an hon. Member with regard to the position of Quarter Session in county boroughs, said the Act of 1904 as regarded reductions and compensation set up the whole body of the justices of the borough to perform that duty. The licensing justices were controlled by the Quarter Sessions in the counties, but not in the towns. That section he understood would still hold good. Supposing the Amendment were carried, there would be no change in the appeal to Quarter Sessions in the matter of
compensation. He thought there was a good case made with regard to the exercise of discretion on the part of licensing magistrates, and a strong case for appeals when necessary. Not so long ago the right hon. Member for Spen Valley and his friends pointed out how partially in their opinion the licensing magistrates acted in the administration of the law, and some Members actually accused the licensing benches of corruption in their administration. Apparently they had now forgotten those tirades and charges, and said the licensing justices could now be entrusted to carry out this scheme fairly. The licensing magistrates would be very pliable bodies, easily bent to the will of the Commission, and they were to say who was to go and who to remain without there being any appeal whatever. While the Government and their friends by this conspiracy of silence failed to show any reason why this change was to be made in the law, the people outside would know and understand what was meant by it, and would rightly suspect that the Government and their friends kept silence because they had no adequate or reasonable arguments to adduce.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 299. (Division List No. 202.)

AYES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Clark, George Smith

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ashley, W. W.

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Balcarres, Lord

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

Heaton, John Henniker

Baldwin, Stanley

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Hill, Sir Clement

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craik, Sir Henry

Hills, J. W.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Cross, Alexander

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Houston, Robert Paterson

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hunt, Rowland

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Joynson-Hicks, William

Bertram, Julius

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Kimber, Sir Henry

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

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

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Fardell, Sir T. George

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

Bull, Sir William James

Fell, Arthur

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Forster, Henry William

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

Carlile. E. Hildred

Gardner, Ernest

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Castlereagh, Viscount

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Cave, George

Gretton, John

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Guinness, Walter Edward

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Haddock, George B.

M'Arthur, Charles

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

Hamilton, Marquess of

M'Iver, Sir Lewis

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Worc.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

M'Killop, W.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Magnus, Sir Philip

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Renton, Leslie

Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Whitbread, Howard

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Morpeth, Viscount

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

Nolan, Joseph

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Winterton, Earl

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

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

O'Dowd, John

Stanier, Beville

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Young, Samuel

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Starkey, John R.

Younger, George

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Percy, Earl

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

Viscount Valentia.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Thornton, Percy M.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Cleland, J. W.

Gulland, John W.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Clough, William

Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hall, Frederick

Agnew, George William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Alden, Percy

Cooper, G. J.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Ambrose, Robert

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Armitage, R.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Cowan, W. H.

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

Astbury, John Meir

Cox, Harold

Harwood, George

Atherley-Jones, L.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynomouth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Crooks, William

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crossley, William J.

Hazleton, Richard

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dalziel, James Henry

Hedges, A. Paget

Barker, John

Davies, David (Montgomery Co)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

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

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Henry, Charles S.

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

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

Beale, W. P.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Beauchamp, E.

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

Higham, John Sharp

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

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

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hodge, John

Bennett, E. N.

Duckworth, James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Berridge, T. H. D.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Horniman, Emslie John

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Hudson, Walter

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Boulton, A. C. F.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Jackson, R. S.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Erskine, David C.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Branch, James

Essex, R. W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Brodie, H. C.

Everett, R. Lacey

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Brooke, Stopford

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Jowett, F. W.

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

Fenwick, Charles

Joyce, Michael

Bryce, J. Annan

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Kekewich, Sir George

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Kilbride, Denis

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Fuller, John Michael F.

Laidlaw, Robert

Byles, William Pollard

Fullerton, Hugh

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Cameron, Robert

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lamont, Norman

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gill, A. H.

Langley, Batty

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Glendinning, R. G.

Lehmann, R. C.

Chance, Frederick William

Glover, Thomas

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lewis, John Herbert

Cheetham, John Frederick

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

1544

1545

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lundon, W.

Pollard, Dr.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Lupton, Arnold

Ponsonby, Arthur A.W.H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Power, Patrick Joseph

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lynch, H. B.

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

Summerbell, T.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Pullar, Sir Robert

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Radford, G. H.

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Maclean, Donald

Rainy, A. Rolland

Teannnt, H. J. (Berwickshire)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Thomasson, Franklin

M'Callum, John M.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'

Tomkinson, James

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Reddy, M.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

Redmond, William (Clare)

Toulmin, George

M'Micking, Major G.

Rees, J. D.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Maddison, Frederick

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

Ure, Alexander

Mallet, Charles E.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Verney, F. W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wadsworth, J.

Marnham, F. J.

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

Walsh, Stephen

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Walton, Joseph

Massie, J.

Robinson, S.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (C'lackmannan

Meagher, Michael

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Menzies, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Waterlow, D. S.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Watt, Henry A.

Mond, A.

Russell, T. W.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Weir, James Galloway

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Samuel, S. M.(Whitechapel)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Moorrell, Philip

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Whitehead, Rowland

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Myer, Horatio

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P

Napier, T. B.

Sears, J. E.

Wiles, Thomas

Nicholls, George

Seaverns, J. H.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Seddon, J.

Williamson, A.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Seely, Colonel

Wills, Arthur Walters

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Nuttall, Harry

Shipman, Dr. John John.

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

O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Snowden, P.

Winfrey, R.

Partington, Oswald

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Paulton, James Mellor

Soares, Ernest J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Steadman, W. C.

LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.) moved the first of a series of Amendments designed to provide that the duties imposed by the clause should be discharged by a committee selected by the justices of a licensing district from their own number, provided that no justice shall be qualified to act on such committee who is a member or subscriber to any society or organisation having among its objects the suppression or prohibition of the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, or who has publicly stated or professed his desire that licences for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquor should not continue to exist." [MINISTERIAL laughter, and
1546
OPPOSITION cries of "Order."] He gathered from the inarticulate sounds on the opposite side of the House that some hon. Members regarded that as an Amendment that in itself was not possible, but he moved it in a most serious spirit, in order to do something to mitigate, although it would not altogether remove, a grievance which was very seriously felt all over the country. The present state of the law was that if a justice had any pecuniary interest, however slight or remote, in the continued existence of a licence, he was not allowed to sit on the licensing Bench. Indeed, it

1547
has been carried to such, a point—he believed he was right, though he had not looked into the cases—that it had been held that a shareholder in a railway company could, not sit in a case where the licence of a railway refreshment room was in question. [An HON. MEMBER: That is changed.]. His hon. friend reminded him that that was changed in 1902. He ventured to say that it was an utterly absurd and ridiculous condition of the law. In dealing with such a subject as this, was it really supposed by any hon. Member opposite that a trifling pecuniary interest in the licensed trade unfitted a man to judge impartially when the question of a licence came up, and that a gentleman holding the view, he would not say of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, but a view compared with which his was moderation itself, was perfectly entitled to sit and judge of this very question? It was manifest that such a condition of affairs would produce the grossest injustice, the grossest infringement of the rule in favour of impartiality that could possibly be imagined. Why, at that very moment, he understood that a case was in process of appeal where the facts were, he believed, that members of a vigilance committee who themselves had promoted the objection to a licence subsequently sat on the Bench and adjudicated upon that licence. In the present condition of the law, it was very doubtful whether the decision of the Bench under those circumstances was good or bad. He did not propose to make any general alteration of the law, but he did say that in reference to these new powers which were to be given to the justices by Section 1, and which were explained by a later section, it was right that the House of Commons should say that only those should be entrusted with those powers who had not pledged themselves to be partial. It had been said in the debate that afternoon that very little was entrusted to the discretion of the justices under the Bill. He did not think that was true. If hon. Members turned to Clause 6 of the Bill, they would see what a very large measure of discretion was entrusted to the justices under that clause, because it was provided that justices were to be subject, of course, to the control of the Committee of Three,
1548
who sat in London. They were to provide a scheme, and each scheme—
"Shall show as respects each rural parish and urban area in the district the effect of the scheduled scale as applied to the parish or area, and provide for the statutory reduction being distributed reasonably over the reduction period, having regard to the circumstances of the district, and show the manner in which the reduction is to be so distributed."
Then they were to revise that scheme, and generally control the whole administration of the scheme. If hon. Members would consider for a moment, they would see what a tremendous power that gave to the justices. They were entitled to say about any licensed house that it should cease to exist, and that with a compensation which was always admitted to be ridiculously unfair. That was a tremendous power to give to any body of men. To entrust to men the power of fining their fellow-subjects large sums of money, not for any misdeed of theirs, but because the trade which they carried on did not meet with the approval of the majority of the present House of Commons, was a strong order, and it became essentially necessary to take such precautions as they could against the undue exercise of that power. It might be said that his Amendment as a novel proposal, but it was not so. It existed in Australia, and, he believed, in Canada. They had been constantly, on the Old-Age Pensions Bill, referred by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to the example of the Colonies, and he invited them, on this occasion, to follow the example of the Colonies, as they did in regard to the example which they thought so admirable in the case of old-age pensions. Even if it were a novel proposal, he would not be frightened by such an argument as that. The truth of this licensing question was that they had to deal with a very exceptional state of circumstances. There was no part of our administrative machinery which excited more violent party passions. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members must indeed be sunk in self-deception if they thought otherwise. Everybody knew that the licensing question did excite violent party passions, which existed in every quarter of the House, and in every part of the kingdom. Therefore it was quite right even if there were no precedent

1549
to adopt that novel principle in order to guard against a novel and exceptional danger. He appealed to the Committee and the Government to consider favourably his suggestion, which was made in perfect seriousness, honesty and straightforwardness, and with a desire to make the provisions of the Bill as little burdensome and intolerable as from their nature it was possible they should be.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, at beginning, to insert the words 'A committee of the.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKENNA,): I regret that the Government cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment. What is it that the noble Lord asks for? He suggests that a new test should be instituted, not on the appointment of magistrates, but on the permission for a magistrate to exercise particular functions under Clause 1 of the Bill. If the test were of any value at all it ought to apply to magistrates on all occasions when sitting as licensing justices.
LORD R. CECIL: As soon as the principle has been established in this case it would be no doubt extended.
MR. McKENNA: The noble Lord does not do that here, because it would not be in order, and. instead of waiting until it would be in order, he proposes now to institute this test on the exercise Of the magistrate's functions in this particular case only. All the magistrates have to do is to decide which of a certain number of houses are to be taken, and they prepare a scheme, which must go before the Licensing Commission for confirmation. That of all functions, I should suggest, is the one occasion when any bias which the magistrate might feel would not be exercised. The noble Lord did not suggest that magistrates had personal bias against particular licensed victuallers, but a general bias against all licensed victuallers. In this case the suggested bias would have no
1550
influence and the test that he suggests would be entirely illusory. If the magistrate subscribes or openly professes certain opinions, he is to be debarred from acting on the committee, but if he is strong but silent and thrifty he is not to be debarred from acting. If he does not subscribe because he is thrifty and does not express his opinions because he is silent, but is nevertheless very determined to be biassed, the noble Lord does not touch him. Therefore this, like so many other tests, would prove in practice to be altogether illusory. For these reasons the Government recommend the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman had paid the hon. Member for Norwood the compliment of listening to his observations on the last Amendment he would have known that there was a very wide and important area within which the freedom from bias of these justices was of the very first importance. Let him recommend the right hon. Gentleman once again to give his attention to the first schedule of the Bill and the modifications which were of the very first importance—which were entirely in the hands of the justices. The modifications might be made on the direct application of the scale as followed—
"Where the number of on-licences in any such parish or area does not exceed two, and it appears inexpedient to reduce the number below two."
That, he agreed, was not one of the more important instances. The next was—
"Where the strict application of the scale appears in the special circumstances of the case to be inexpedient owing to the isolated position of any licensed premises in the parish or area."
The third was the most important of all—
"Where it appears that the population of any place, being a rural parish or urban area, or part of an urban parish or urban area as shown by the Census does not represent the population for whom on-licences may be required by reason of the resort thereto of a larger number of persons than that shown in the Census during special seasons of the year, or special times of the day, or for any other reason."
Could the House conceive a wider discretion committed to licensing justices than the right to decide whether for any other reason modifications should be

1551
introduced in other cases than those mentioned in the schedule? He desired to speak with profound respect of the three Members of the House whom he would name, and he invited the Committee to consider for instance what view the Members for Spen Valley, Westmoreland, and Lincolnshire would be likely to take sitting as licensing justices if this particular modification was brought before them. He should insult them—he should ruin their unsullied reputation as moral reformers—if he suggested for a moment that they would permit one of these modifications. They were men who were notoriously poisoned by their views. [Cries of "Oh."] He said deliberately that a man who was a prohibitionist and pretended that he was going to consider on its merits a proposal which was made to him and which was inconsistent with the theory of prohibition so far as that particular application was concerned was poisoned by his views. He was utterly unable to bring a fair and judicial mind to hear on the consideration, whether or not an application should be granted. Let the Committee make up their minds as to what were the broad principles upon which disqualifications for magistrates were to be based. At least upon one side the House had previously in many similar discussions made up its mind with all imaginable clearness as to what the principle was and it was this. If they were interested in any shares of a licensed company however remote that interest the presumption was that they were not in a position to bring to bear upon the consideration of a particular case that absolute impartiality of mind which the State had a right to demand of those who were discharging quasi-judicial duties. Did the Committee pretend that men who held that all licences ought to end and that no new licences under ally circumstances should be granted, could bring a judicial mind to bear on the specific proposals before them? The thing was a farce. If it was indeed the desire of the Committee that licensed victuallers should have justice, let them see that those who were the bitter and avowed enemies of licensed victuallers were excluded from the Bench. If it was the intention of the Committee to destroy
1552
licensed victuallers, unless they happened to be destroyed first, then by all means reject this Amendment and keep on the Bench as many men as they could possibly collect together who were pledged under all circumstances and whatever the argument might be to grant no licences. Let them do this if they liked, but let them cease to describe the process as justice and to describe the officials who would administer it as judicial in their character.
*SIR GEORGE WHITEsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was one of the best illustrations they could take of the unfair way in which such an Amendment would act. He supposed no one could say that the hon. Gentleman had not at least an indirect interest in the trade they were discussing, and yet unless he was a shareholder and an advocate of the trade he was no doubt one who could not be excluded from the Bench. Yet he desired to exclude those who had no pecuniary interest whatever in the question, but took it up on the ground of morals. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen would define on what other ground they could take it up. If this Amendment meant anything, it meant that the magistrates-who did not habitually take strong drink were incapable of exercising a judicial mind upon any question which affected the interests of the drink trade in the community, and that after having taken the oath to administer the law, they were either unwilling or incapable of administering the law, because of their personal habits. To apply such a test as this was absolutely unknown, and he ventured to say that, by the majority of the community it would be received with ridicule. Were they to presume in this age that a glass of beer was necessary to a judicial mind? That was the outcome of the Amendment. He thought it was a legitimate inference to draw that unless one was in practice the consumer of a certain amount of strong drink, he was not able to form an opinion and not able, indeed, to carry out the law which he had taken the oath to administer. A short time ago, in discussing a previous Amendment, it was said that the bulk of the local justices were teetotallers and the bulk of county

1553
justices were drinkers, but he thought it would be found that the teetotallers were not confined to one class of magistrates or the other. He was quite sure he could produce many advocates before local and county benches who would say that they would rather present those oases to a mixed bench, containing amongst others those who were abstainers, than they would to a bench who were all moderate drinkers. The question as to whether a man was opposed to the existence of the drink trade in its present conditions was not one which should bias his judgment in deciding on those cases which came before the bench. He could bring abundant evidence to show that many barristers who practised before the benches were willing to testify to the judicial character and bearing of those who had very strong views upon this drink business. He could give the noble Lord a testimonial in regard to himself from the leading Conservative paper of his district as to the way in which he had exercised his judicial functions in regard to the licensing question. His own was not an isolated case, and he was quite sure that whatever were their views upon the drink custom of society, when they took their position on the magistrates' Bench they never allowed their personal views to influence their judgment against the trade, and they gave their judgment according to the law. To assume for a moment that it was necessary that they should abstain from subscribing to temperance societies or to a society which had for its foundation the prohibition of the drink traffic was a doctrine which it was too late to advocate in the twentieth century. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment by a large majority, otherwise they would have to have a test applied to the other side. He did not mean so much those who had a direct pecuniary interest in the trade, but they would have to see how far those who sat on the Bench were qualified in of her ways, and inquire whether their habits had led them to excess upon any occasion. [Cries of "Name."] Of course, one test was quite as fair as the other, and if the Opposition were going to begin tests the one which they proposed would not be the only one which would have
1554
to be applied to the qualification for those gentlemen who would be called upon to exercise judicial functions in this matter. Those who sat upon licensing Benches and expressed their views freely upon the temperance question outside were always extremely careful in this matter, and they were quite as competent to form a judgment as those who, perhaps from one cause or another, attempted to build up the drink traffic and maintain it in its present position. He submitted that this Amendment was not necessary, and the House ought to indignantly reject it.
*MR. GOULDINGsaid he rose to support the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. friend. This was no new question. There was art obligation on Parliament to remove all doubts as to the impartial administration of the law. There should be absolute and complete confidence by the public in regard to the tribunal, and also by the individual whose case had to be adjudicated upon. Rightly those who had pecuniary interest in the liquor trade were excluded from the licensing Bench. He asked the Prime Minister how could he possibly expect a magistrate who believed that the drink traffic was wrong, and who spent most of his time in advocating the aims of a society to suppress the liquor trade, who believed that most of the crime of the country was the result of the sale of intoxicating liquor, to adjudicate on the licensing Bench without bias. They were going to reduce the number of justices. They might all be of the same way of thinking, and, therefore, to ask a publican to go into court and appeal to individuals saturated with such opinions would be a mockery. An individual so biassed put himself in such a position that discretion with him was an absolute impossibility. It was not asked that an ordinary temperance man should be excluded from the bench, but those who advocated the suppression of the liquor traffic. In Australia and Canada such men were precluded from sitting on the licensing Bench; and surely it was in the interests of the party opposite that they should accept reasonable Amendments. In Australia no justice being an officer or an agent in any society

1555
interested in the prevention of the sale of liquor could be appointed on the magistrates Bench. In Canada the same state of things existed, and no person who was known by public statement to be connected with temperance societies whose conduct stamped them as positive opponents of the liquor trade could sit as a justice. He did not know how far his noble friend desired to go, but he did ask the Prime Minister to consider whether it was right to allow those individuals who were saturated with such opinions to adjudicate on on licensing questions. This Bill was likely to create a good deal of feeling in the country, and it was even in the interests of the Party opposite to show that they were willing to accept reasonable Amendments, and thus remove all grounds of suspicion in the administration of the law in regard to licensing.
MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Gentleman has made a special appeal to me. Let me point out to him that the precedents of Australia and Canada are much more restricted than the proposal before the House. They do not come within the Barrie category as this. The Amendment prohibits the justices from taking any part in the administration of the licensing laws, but would only disqualify them from discharging that function which most nearly approached a purely ministerial function. It would still be open to them to sit on the licensing Bench for judicial duties such as the granting or refusal of new licences. That would be anomalous and ridiculous. I am not talking about drunkenness, but about those who subscribe to licensed victuallers' protection leagues and societies of that kind. We have in this country recognised in the discharge of a purely judicial function no disqualification unless it rests on a pecuniary basis. A Judge, sitting on the Bench and exercising the most solemn and sacred duties, cannot be impeached unless he has a pecuniary interest in the matter, directly or indirectly. The proposal before the Committee, if adopted, would establish a new precedent, and a precedent of a most detrimental kind, and on that ground alone I ask the House to reject it.
SIR E. CARSON: The Prime Minister regards the question as most impor-
1556
tant. We have to consider decency in the administration of justice, and it is often as important as absolute impartiality. The right hon. Gentleman nays the remedy is only a partial remedy. Even a partial remedy is something, and when we get an opportunity we ought to do something to remove the grievance which undoubtedly exists.
MR. ASQUITHwas understood to say that the Party opposite did not challenge the position formerly.
SIR E. CARSON: It is quite sufficient that we have the opportunity now. If a grievance exists and we can only have a partial remedy, let us have a partial remedy. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it would be anomalous that those justices should be allowed to adjudicate in certain cases and not in others. After the last Amendment I do not think it comes well from the Prime Minister to talk of anomalies. Why, in cases under this clause, are there to be no appeals? In all other cases there are to be appeals. What about anomalies? Is that any answer? No. If there is an anomaly, it is the anomaly we created by the division on the last Amendment, and I think the fact that this is to be the only and ultimate tribunal raises a strong reason why that tribunal should be above all suspicion. If ever there was a case in which a partial remedy ought to be given, it is a case in which for the first time by the action of this House we take away the right of appeal in relation to the property of a particular trade. Just let us see what the question really is that comes before us on this Amendment. The First Lord of the Admiralty asked—What is the use of this test? We have tests already. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that if you have even the most remote share in a hotel which happens to be licensed, you are not allowed to adjudicate in these eases. But if you are an active exponent of the principle of prohibition, and of the putting down of the liquor traffic altogether, or even if you are a paid advocate of prohibition, you are allowed to adjudicate. What about anomalies again? Is it no anomaly that a mail who, in all respects would be an upright magistrate in the

1557
adjudication of cases, because he happens to have a share in a hotel in some other place—[MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]—Certainly, in some other place—in an adjoining district. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Hon. Gentlemen need not say "No." If a man happens to have a share in that hotel, he is not allowed to adjudicate, however high his character may be; but if he happens to be a paid lecturer of one of those prohibition societies, which have such large funds at their disposal and which can distribute large quantities of literature throughout the country, he can adjudicate. Does anybody suppose for a moment that persons who have to go before that tribunal, and whose property is going to be taken away from them, will imagine that they are going to get justice from such a tribunal as that when you have taken away the only safeguard they had, namely, the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions? I venture to say that anything more ridiculous it is impossible to conceive. The First Lord of the Admiralty asks—What is the use of this test? He says that a man may have very strong opinions even though he may not have expressed them. That is perfectly true, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to go before a Bench of magistrates if their opinions had not been expressed, rather than before a Bench who shortly before he had made his application had strongly expressed their opinions in regard to the matter in which he was applying. The whole thing comes back to doing our best to take care that the tribunal set up is an impartial tribunal, as far as we can make it so, and that it will have the confidence of the litigants who go before it. I cannot see how one-sided proposals can ever lead to any litigant—at all events litigants whose property is going to be confiscated—being satisfied with the tribunal which is to be set up. The Prime Minister said that Judges were never excluded except for pecuniary reasons. The magistrates are a very peculiar kind of judicial tribunal. The Judges of the High Court are excluded from taking part in then e public matters, in political matters, and in matters of this kind. They are purposely prevented from coming into this House and from taking any, active part whatsoever in politics, when they are put
1558
on the judicial Bench, so that there may not be the appearance of any bias towards one person or another.
AN HON. MEMBER: Grantham.
SIR E. CARSON: I would rather that the hon. Gentleman did not make an insulting remark about a Judge who is not here to defend himself.
EARL WINTERTONasked whether it was in order, by way of an interruption, to make an insulting insinuation against one of His Majesty's Judges?
*THE CHAIRMAN: Of course it is not in order to make an insulting insinuation against one of His Majesty's Judges. The only way of dealing with a Judge in this House is to bring forward a substantive Motion after notice. I did not see who made the interjection. I do not think the hon. Member ought to interject the name of a Judge. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
SIR E. CARSON: I do not think I need take any more notice of what is the very lowest form of cowardice—to attack a man who is not here to defend himself. I appeal to the Government, as they are now setting up the local justices as the sole tribunal in this particular matter—a matter involving so much to the parties who come before them—to make some effort to remedy the grievance under which those parties undoubtedly suffer.
*MR. LEIF JONESthought the right hon. Gentleman opposite had treated the noble Lord's little joke with somewhat ponderous gravity. The whole essence of a good joke was to deliver it with a grave face and in a serious spirit. The Amendment was ridiculous, and he would, prove it. The test it proposed to apply was not to be applied to the justices as such but to certain justices acting under this clause. It proposed to exclude front licensing matters magistrates who had expressed opinions of the kind referred to in the Amendment. He took it that under the Amendment practically all members of temperance societies would be excluded from acting on the Bench in those cases. It was not at all the case, as had

1559
been said by some hon. Members, that the Amendment was narrowly confined to members of prohibition societies who were interested in the reduction of licences. It would exclude all who had publicly stated their desire that the liquor trade should not exist. [Cries of "No."] He admitted that a lawyer might argue against that, but there would be substantial ground for excluding from the Bench any man who might be called an aggressive teetotaller. Did the noble Lord not desire to exclude such persons?
LORD R. CECILsaid he desired to discuss this on the question of principle, and if the Prime Minister was prepared to bring in a general disqualification for those extreme temperance advocates he would be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. ASQUITH: I would like to quote the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, and which express my own views admirably. He said he strongly deprecated the practice of magistrates who have expressed strong temperance views acting on such cases. There was no other course, but to leave it to the good feeling and sense of justice of those magistrates. That is the language of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House.
SIR E. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, was there an appeal at that time?
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid the noble Lord had declined to define exactly what he did mean, and, therefore, he was left to interpret his Amendment as best he could. Under the Amendment he thought that a person who was an aggressive teetotaller would be excluded from the bench in certain licensing cases. How was the noble Lord going to find out who were to act? Were those who drank to be allowed to adjudicate, while those who refused to drink should not be allowed to adjudicate. He seemed to think that those who did not drink were biassed against public-houses, while men who did drink were not biassed in favour of them. There
1560
was as much bias in one direction as in the other, and he could only interpret the Amendment as meaning that the noble Lord would exclude those who did not partake of alcohol. He ventured to say that teetotallers had a cooler judgment than those who drank. [OPPOSITION laughter and. cries of "No."] He was willing to submit the question to any scientific man in this country. The verdict of the medical profession would be for the teetotaller rather than fir those who consumed alcohol; because alcohol was a brain poison which affected the judgment. He said that without any feeling against hon. Gentlemen opposite. The results of recent five bye-elections had rejoiced the breasts of hon. Members opposite. He was told that the victors in these five by-elections were all more aggressive teetotallers than he was; that the hon. Member for Hastings had publically declared his adhesion to teetotalism; that the hon. Member for Peckham was a well-known temperance advocate; and that the hon. Member for Manchester had long associated himself with the Church of England Temperance Society. These were men of clear and unbiassed judgment; as hon. Members opposite would admit. Of course, he could not vouch for these gentlemen. It was hard to know who were teetotallers and who were not. The noble Lord might exclude by his Amendment a man giving vent to the fiercest sentiments against drink, and in secret visiting the public-house of his village by night. But to comfort the noble Lord he would remind him that the function to be discharged under the clause was not to decide whether or not there should be opportunities for drinking. What they had to determine was whether, it having been settled by the House of Commons that a certain number of houses were to be closed in their licensing districts, the people who were abstainers were less fit judges of witch houses ought to be closed, than those who took drink. He could not suppose the noble Lord thought they were less fit on that account, unless he maintained that when a man judged on a particular house he ought to go to that house and taste the quality of the liquor sold there. He did not believe that the

1561
noble Lord suggested that, but only that in the discharge of his functions a magistrate should have a clear and unbiassed judgment. A teetotaller could be quite as unprejudiced as any drinker in arriving at a decision on the matter committed to the justices by this clause.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he thought the Opposition ought to be very glad that the Amendment had called forth answers which served as a sort of mask or screen on the real defence of the Government proposals. It had been said the Amendment was ridiculous. That was what men said when they had nothing else to say. Then they had the dilatory plea that the Amendment did not cover the whole field. If the Amendment was accepted, he assured hon. Members it would not be long before the whole field was covered. In all their speeches hon. Members opposite had failed, as of course they must fail. But they had a man of penetrating instinct in that House, and that was the Prime Minister. The real defence was that there was no precedent for this Amendment, because, forsooth, this Parliament had never forced on any judicial authority any such disqualification as a pecuniary disqualification. He believed that to be historically true, but to be historically unsound. The Prime Minister asked them to remain hide-bound by a tradition which did not exist. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to let the Committee know exactly what kind of motive it was on which the disqualification from sitting in the High Court of Justice rested. The Amendment could not be defeated by laughing at it, or by advancing dilatory pleas, but only by trying to ignore the deep resentment which existed among Unionists when the 1904 Act went through the House, and which they knew to exist among large classes among His Majesty's subjects.
*SIR THOMAS WHITTAKERsaid that the real point of the disqualification at present was one of direct personal, financial interest. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had indicated that brewers, publicans, and shareholders in liquor trading concerns were as such debarred from sitting on the Bench. That was
1562
not correct. They were only debarred if they went to sit on a Bench in the immediate locality in which their interest prevailed. But the largest Burton brewer, if he lived in London, and was a magistrate, could sit on the London Bench. That was a very different law from the law indicated by the Opposition. Under the Act of 1828 every brewer and publican in the country was debarred, but that disqualification was removed. If they were going to carry the Amendment they would have to go a little further. Every man who sat on the Bench had an opinion, and if they debarred because of opinion they would have to debar all. But, further, it had to be remembered that men with something like an interest in trade did sit on the Bench. There were solicitors to brewers advising the brewers and then sitting on the Bench. When the Royal Commission sat they had a solicitor to five breweries who sat on the Bench and adjudicated on their licences when they came before the Bench. Then they had cases of persons interested in what were called the allied trades who sat on the Bench. Were they not more likely to be biassed than temperance men? It was a very big step if they introduced opinion as a test, apart from direct, local, and financial interest. They had justices who were in favour of free trade in licences, and that no licence should be taken away except for misconduct. An Amendment similar to this was moved when the Act of 1904 was under discussion, and the Leader of the Opposition refused to accept it on the ground which he thought the Committee would do well to refuse this Amendment.
*MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he agreed that this Amendment was not free from difficulty, inasmuch as it did not cover the point; but it did not follow that some effort should not be made to deal with cases which had caused a positive scandal. Sir Henry Poland, in his examination before the Royal Commission on Liquor Licensing Laws, said—
"If a man has proclaimed to the world that he intends to vote against every licence, whatever its merits may be, he cannot be qualified to sit as a judge exercising the powers given to him by the Act of Parliament. It is like a man proclaiming that he meant to vote for every

1563
licence in spite of whatever may be said against it. He is bound to come into the Court with an impartial mind, and to exercise his judgment on the facts of the particular case."
Hon. Members who were in the last Parliament would remember the late Sir Wilfrid Lawson, who was generally admired, and almost beloved, for the courage and consistency of his opinions, and who went out of his way to say that he had never pretended to go on a Bench fur licensing purposes in anything like a judicial frame of mind. In the Alliance News for 8th June, 1894, Sir Wilfrid said—
"I object to anybody selling drink, whether he be a fool or a philosopher, a saint or a sinner, a blackguard or a bishop. They are all one to me.… Anybody who sells drink is doing an evil to the public, and let us tar them all with the same stick; and make up our minds that we will sweep away the whole boiling as soon as we can."
A particular instance where bias was shown by a justice on a licensing Bench was brought before the Court in the case Regina v. Fraser, the Report of which stated—
"A justice was a member of a voluntary association, one of whose objects was to oppose all licences. He was present at a meeting of the association (though he left before the Resolution was carried) at which it was resolved to instruct a solicitor to oppose a certain application for the transfer of a licence. The solicitor was instructed by the association, and appeared at Special Sessions and opposed the transfer of the licence. The justice in question was present at the Special Sessions, and sat on the bench and adjudicated on the application, which was refused. It was held that the justice was disqualified by bias (as being identified with the opposition to the transfer) and the proceedings were quashed."
What was held there in the case of an individual licence, the Amendment of his noble friend wished to extend to those who had opinions about the transfer or the granting of all licences. He thought it was hardly right for hon. Gentlemen opposite to taunt the Opposition with want of logic in seeking to remedy what they held should he cured. As a matter of fact they thought it could not he done by this clause, but that it could only be carried out by a new clause. However, under the guillotine Motion there would not be time to consider new clauses. As to the Amendment, he denied there were considerable difficulties, and he suggested that a declaratory test should be substituted for the words of the
1564
Amendment. He could give two examples of a declaratory test. Hon. Members who served on Private Bills Committees had to make a declaratory test. They said: "I have no personal interest in this Bill." And then they went on to say: "My constituency has no interest in this Bill." That was really a test of opinion. What was meant by that was that those who sat on private Bills were exercising judicial functions and that they must submit to a test. It meant that hon. Members had a natural bias to do something to please their constituents. The same thing applied to licensing justices. Another precedent was that we imposed a test of opinion on the Sovereign when he came to the Throne. He had put down a schedule containing a declaratory test, and if they got to it he would be able to defend his words. In the meantime, as this was the only opportunity of asserting the principle, let them carry the Amendment before them. He would make one more quotation from Sir Wilfrid Lawson, who sent the following metrical epistle to Mr. Hall, one of the Derby Justices of the Peace, and a prominent member of the temperance party in that town—
"Dear Mr. Hall,—I'm delighted to see
That they've had the good sense to make you a J.P.
Long, long, may you live to do justice and right,
The poor to protect, and the publicans fight.
Temper justice with mercy wherever you go,
And that's the advice from me and from Roe.
"P.S.—If e'er on the Bench for a licence you vote,
T'will be a sad witness that Hall's changed his coat;
But no, I am sure that you never will do;
And whatever betide, you will give Bung his due."
MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid that if the hon. Gentleman, who had evidently referred to him and said he was poisoned with venom, whilst another hon. Member had stated that the temperance party were saturated with injustice, had known his licensing work they would not have made those charges. There was, he thought, still considerable misconception in the Committee as to what the law was on this point. A man could still he on a licensing Bench if he was pecuniarily interested in the liquor

1565
trade, but he was disqualified from acting so far as the district was concerned in which the brewery or distillery in which he was interested was situated and also in the adjoining district. But he could act in any other district on a licensing authority, and a brewer or distiller could act in any district providing his brewery or distillery had no houses in the district which he administered. A licence holder could act on the licensing body in respect to all the houses in the district except the one in which he was interested, and he could act judicially in spite of the disqualification. Therefore the pecuniary disqualification was extremely partial. He congratulated the noble Lord in having gone in this Amendment even further than the brewers before the Licensing Commission, as would be seen from both the majority and minority Reports.
EARL WINTERTONsaid he desired to put a Question to one of the hon. Members for Norfolk, who had made the only attempt. to reply to the Amendment, but first of all he would like to call attention to a remark made by another hon. Member, who said that in his opinion one of the great difficulties in applying the Amendment would he to discover what was the meaning of bias. That really was a most extraordinary admission. Did he mean to contend that those who attended the Lobby bar had a bias in favour of it?
*MR. LEIF JONES: I only mean that a man who goes into a public-house to drink has a bias in favour of finding drink there.
EARL WINTERTONsaid that that was a very different thing from what the hon. Member said originally. He said that a man who visited a public-house was necessarily biassed in favour of a public-house, and not that he was biassed in favour of finding intoxicants there. That was evident on the face of it. The main point in connection with this Amendment was not so much the difficulties which might arise in carrying it out; those difficulties could be got over by subsequent amendment. The point was whether hon. Gentlemen opposite accepted the principle of the Amendment, and he would like to ask
1566
the hon. Member for Norfolk whether he believed, as they believed, that this tribunal should be absolutely unbiassed and altogether above the suspicion of bias. Did he think we had freedom from bias now? If they could get answers to those two points, it was within the bounds of possibility that an arrangement might be come to, and they might be able to arrive at an Amendment which would prevent those on either side of the House saying there was any bias in the matter. He certainly did not think we had freedom from bias now. He had in his hand a remark made by Sir Wilfrid Lawson which showed that at any rate he had no delusions as to the opportunities which being upon this tribunal gave. He said in a letter to the Carlisle Journal—
"I consider licences for the sale of drink are not required for the public convenience; on the contrary, I hold they cause very great public inconvenience, and shall act on my conviction until the publican can succeed in getting my name struck off the roll of magistrates."
There was an absolute instance of a sincere advocate of temperance who was actually in favour of his views controlling his action on the licensing Bench. The point of the Amendment had never really been met. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite accept the principle they put forward that these tribunals should be above all breath of suspicion? It would be an absolute farce if the hon. Member for Appleby was on a licensing Bench. They might as well make a member of the Little Navy Party the First Lord of the Admiralty. They appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept the principle of this Amendment, and attempt to make these tribunals as far as possible free from bias.
Mr. ASHLEYthought that before the division was taken the Committee ought to be perfectly clear as to what it was upon which they were going to vote. It seemed to him that hon. Members thought if the Amendment were carried that what the hon. Member for Appleby called the earnest temperance reformers would be excluded front the licensing Benches, but if they read the Amendment they would see that that was not the case. If it was he could not support the Amendment for a moment. The question on which the vote would shortly be taken

1567
was whether a man who supported the total prohibition of the sale of liquor in this country should be allowed to sit on any of these licensing Benches. That was a clear issue and was not at all mixed up with earnest temperance reform views or anything of that sort. He was surprised to hear the Prime Minister earlier in the discussion say that the discretion given to the licensing magistrates was very narrow. On the contrary, in some cases, it seemed to him of the widest possible character. If hon. Members referred to Clause 3 of the Schedule they would see that discretion was given to them to increase the number of licensed houses where large numbers of people resorted to a district at certain seasons of the year or at particular times of the day. Did anybody suppose that, at any of the great seaside towns, with the number of people who went there, the discretion of the licensing magistrates was narrow under the Bill? Were they to keep the licences down to what they should be for the normal population of the town and take no notice of the thousands who came in during the summer months? At Blackpool, 150,000 people sometimes came in in one day, and he suggested that to say the licensing body should have regard to the normal needs of the 50,000 inhabitants and not provide for the 150,000 or 200,000 visitors who came there in a day was treating this Amendment with scant courtesy. Let them take again a country town where the licensed houses were far more than was sufficient to meet the needs of the town on the ordinary days, when the market day came and farmers and others came in from all parts it was a very different matter. The Committee must remember that in voting for this Amendment it only aimed at keeping from the licensing bench those who believed in total prohibition.
*MR. NIELDsaid he only desired to intervene in the debate for the purpose of giving to the Committee two instances from his personal experience which bore on this question. The first was that of a gentleman connected with a brewery who had taken part, whether inadvertently or not he could not say, but he thought so—not in determining whether a licence
1568
should be granted, but in the selection of the borough licensing committee, he being a magistrate for the borough in question. For that error, he was brought up to the King's Bench Division and fined £500. In the second instance, he himself was a member of the Middlesex Bench, and a reverend gentleman, who was also a member of the Bench, and whose interest in the work of the Bench always showed increased activity, and a marked one on the days set apart for licensing, before ever the Court was opened, and before ever a scintilla of evidence was given, went through every one of the applications and indicated his intention of refusing them all, and at the same time canvassing his colleagues, including the speaker, to support him, and for their concurrence in that view. There were two illustrations. In the one the justice who had an interest in a brewery was fined for more or less inadvertently taking part in the selection of the licensing committee, while in the other the justice was able to indicate his intention of refusing all applications because he had a bias in that direction. The latter was a very strong argument in favour of the Amendment, which was directed to render Benches really impartial and free from prejudice either way, so that the discretion which the House of Lords had held existed might be exercised in a judicial spirit after hearing evidence, as they the highest tribunal had directed they should do.
MR. MARKHAMwas understand to say that the hon. Member who had just spoken had referred to the jurisdiction to refuse applications. [Cries of "Speak up."] He ventured to say that there was no judicial refusal at all by the Bench, as was shown in the case before the House of Lords in which the Kent parties were concerned. He was an advocate of temperance, and be thought that all in that House were advocates of temperance, and desired to put down drunkenness. He lived in a place near his constituency where there was perhaps more drunkenness than in any part of the United Kingdom, and he contended that, as regarded such a place,

1569
acting on this decision of the House of Lords, a justice could always refuse applications for licences. If the Amendment of the noble Lord were carried, he would still be entitled to refuse an application.
LORD R. CECIL: Not now.
MR. MARKHAM: Not now, perhaps, after what he had said in the debate. But in the present state of the law, the justice did not act judicially, and he could vote against the granting of licences if, in his knowledge and belief, the district had an undue number of them. It was a waste of time to go on discussing these points for now nearly three hours, when after all the law was clear. He looped the Committee would
come to a decision, in order that they might be enabled to reach more important questions.
*CAPTAIN FABERsaid he wanted to defend Members of the front bench opposite front the imputation of the hon. Member for Appleby that he had a clearer judgment on these matters than they possessed. He was quite sure that he could defend his own front bench. He felt sorry for hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had not been able to get up and defend their front bench from the imputation nude by the hon. Member for Appleby.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122: Noes, 315. (Division List No. 203.)

AYES.

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

Forster, Henry William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gardner, Ernest

Oddy, John James

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G, A. (Bristol, West)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Ashley, W. W.

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbort Pike (Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, Walter Edward

Percy, Earl

Baldwin, Stanley

Haddock, George B.

Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Remnant, James Farquharson

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renton, Leslie

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Heaton, John Henniker

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bertram, Julius

Hill, Sir Clement

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hills, J. W.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Houston, Robert Paterson

Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

Bull, Sir William James

Hunt, Rowland

Stonier, Beville

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cave, George

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Thornton. Percy M.

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

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

Valentia, Viscount

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Whitbread, Howard

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

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Craig, Captain, James (Down, E.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

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

Craik, Sir Henry

McIver, Sir Lewis

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cross, Alexander

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Winterton, Earl

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Middlemore, John Throgtmorton

Wyndham., Rt. Hon. George

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Young, Samuel

Duncan, Robert (Lanark Govan

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Younger, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

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

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Henry Gooch.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nolan, Joseph

Fell, Arthur

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hyde, Clarendon

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S

Illingworth, Percy H.

Agnew, George William

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

Jackson, R. S.

Alden, Percy

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jardine, Sir J.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Armitage, R.

Donelan, Captain A.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Duckworth, James

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Duffy, William J.

Joyce, Michael

Astbury, John Meir

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Kekewich, Sir George

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kilbride, Denis

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Laidlaw, Robert

Barker, John

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lamont, Norman

Barnard, E. B.

Erskine, David C.

Langley, Batty

Barnes, G. N.

Essex, R. W.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Beale, W. P.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lehmann, R. C.

Beauchamp, E.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Bell, Richard

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Fenwick, Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bennett, E. N.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lundon, W.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lupton, Arnold

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fullerton, Hugh

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Black, Arthur W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lynch, H. B.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bowerman, C. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert Jn.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Bramsdon, T. A.

Glendinning, R. G.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Branch, James

Glover, Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Brigg, John

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gooch, George Peabody(Bath)

M'Callam, John M.

Brooke, Stopford

Greenwood, G.(Peterborough)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T.(Cheshire

Gulland, John W.

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

Bryce, J. Annan

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

M'Micking, Major G.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Maddison, Frederick

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hall, Frederick

Mallet, Charles E.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harcourt, Rt. Hn L. (Rossendale

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Byles, William Pollard

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Marks, C. Croydon (Launceston)

Cameron, Robert

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Marnham, F. J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Massie, J.

Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

Harvey, A.G.C.(Rochdale)

Meagher, Michael

Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

Menzies, Walter

Chance, Frederick William

Harwood, George

Micklem, Nathaniel

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cheetham, John Frederick

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mond, A.

Cleland, J. W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Clough, William

Hazelton, Richard

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hedges, A. Paget

Montgomery, H. G.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

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

Morrell, Philip

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Henry, Charles S.

Morse, L. L.

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hobart, Sir Robert

Napier, T. B.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Cowan, W. H.

Hodge, John

Nicholls, George

Cox, Harold

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Crooks, William

Hope, John Deans(Fife, West)

Norman, Sir Henry

Crossley, William J.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Dalziel, James Henry

Horniman, Emslie John

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Howard, Hon, Geoffrey

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hudson, Walter

Nuttall, Harry

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Kelley, Conor (Mayo, N.)

1572

1573

Parker, James (Halifax)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Verney, F. W.

Partington, Oswald

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Vivian, Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Wadsworth, J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Pearce, William (Limcho se)

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Walsh, Stephen

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

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Walton, Joseph

Perks, Sir Robert William

Sears, J. E.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Seaverns, J. H.

Wardle, George J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Seddon, J.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Pollard, Dr.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Waterlow, D. S.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Watt, Henry A.

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

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Weir, James Galloway

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

Simon, John Allsebrook

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Rainy, A. Rolland.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Snowden, P.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Soares, Ernest J.

Whitehead, Rowland

Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Reddy, M.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N.W.)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wiles, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

Steadman, W. C.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Rendall, Athelstan

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wills, Arthur Walters

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

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Richardson, A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilson, J. H.(Middlesbrough)

Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Summerbell, T.

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

Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.

Sutherland, J. E.

Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Braf'rd

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Winfrey, R.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Robinson, S.

Thomasson, Franklin

Yoxall, James Henry

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampt'n

Roche, John (Galway, East).

Tomkinson, James.

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

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Rowlands, J.

Toulmin, George

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Russell, T. W.

Ure, Alexander

*THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord is not in the right place.
EARL WINTERTONsaid the Amendment proposed to do something different from the one already disposed of.
*THE CHAIRMAN: It would not come here. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston is already disposed of.
MR. YOUNGERasked if that was so. It proposed to substitute quarter sessions for the licensing justices. In the other case the quarter sessions were only introduced as an appellate Court.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the subject of the debate was not only as to an Appeal Court, but also as to which was the better tribunal.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I respectfully ask whether any speaker in favour of the first Amendment suggested that
1574
Quarter Sessions was a better Court of first instance?
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University certainly advocated it, and other Members also. He had taken particular notice of the debate. The next Amendment in order was that of the hon. Member for Edgbaston.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWE*SIR FRANCIS LOWE moved to insert after licensing justices the words "if it be shown to their satisfaction that the number of on-licenses in any district is excessive, having regard to the needs of the population." He said the object of his Amendment was not in any way to interfere with the number of existing licences being redacted to any extent which, after due inquiry, might he found to be necessary in the interests of true temperance reform. The object he wished to achieve was to ensure that these reductions, whenever and wherever they might be found to be necessary, should be carried out by

1575
some competent and proper tribunal in something like a fair and equitable manner, and on something like a rational and intelligible basis. Under the clause as it stood it would appear that the Government had constituted themselves the sole authority for deciding what licences were required, how many of them should be done away with, and how many of them should be allowed to continue in every urban and rural district, and they had practically left to the local licensing justices no discretion in the matter. They had transformed them into a sort of automatic penny in the slot machine, to register the decrees which the Government sought to impose upon them. They were allowed to make certain modifications in some cases, but it was not at all obligatory upon them to do so, and they need not allow themselves to be guided by any local considerations, nor take into account in any way the wishes of the locality or the needs of the district. But they must, whether they liked it or not, proceed to make reductions blindfold in accordance with the arbitrary standard of population laid down in the schedule. How and by whom that cast-iron schedule of reductions was arrived at goodness only knew. He would not be at all surprised, when its secret history came to be known, if its authorship were traced to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, so that after all it was probably he who would be the sole arbiter and the final Court of Appeal to decide how many licences were to be allowed to continue, not only in Yorkshire, with which he was acquainted, but in every other part of the country. They all had the greatest respect for the character and ability of the right hon. Gentleman, but he would hardly regard himself as altogether an unprejudiced and unbiassed judge on a question of this kind. However, the Government had adopted the scheme and were responsible for it, and he would be very curious indeed to hear how they proposed to explain or to justify it on any ground of reason, justice, or common sense. There was no doubt that the number and density of the population in any given locality were quite important factors in deciding the number
1576
of licences required to supply the needs of the district, but there were many other considerations which ought to be borne in mind as well. For instance, there were the questions of the nature and habits of the population. There was the question of the fixed and permanent or the moveable and fluctuating nature of the population. Then, there was the question as to whether people were likely to go out of the district or coins into it at certain periods of the day or seasons of the year. There was the question whether more houses were likely to be built or not, and whether the population was likely to increase or decrease; there was also the question of the existence or non-existence of clubs and places other than licensed houses where drink might be obtained. There were also a large number of other considerations which could only properly be inquired into and adjudicated upon by those who were acquainted with the locality and its probable needs and requirements. He would like to ask any sensible person in the world to say whether all these questions could be best decided by the Government, sitting in a room in London, with ordnance maps and census returns before them, or whether they could not be much better decided by the local licensing justices, who knew well the district that they had to deal with and had all the facts and figures at their fingers' ends. He would have thought himself that the Act of 1904 was working uncommonly well, and that everything which the Government were seeking to accomplish under the kill could be accomplished quite as effectually and in a more equitable manner under that Act if they would only give it a further trial. During the three and a half years it had been in operation the average yearly reduction of licences had been about 1,500. If that process were allowed to go on something like 23,000 or 24,000 licences would be extinguished under the present law at the expiration of the fourteen years which had been fixed. That came to very nearly the estimate which the Government made of the number of licences they wanted to extinguish during that period, that number being 30,000. If they would only leave the present law alone very nearly the

1577
number they estimated under this Bill would be extinguished under the existing law. If, as the Prime Minister said in introducing this Bill, the reduction was not going on fast enough and it was necessary that its operation should be accelerated, he respectfully submitted that that could be done under this Amendment and a consequential Amendment standing in his name. If this method was adopted by the Government the machinery which already existed for making these reductions would not in any way be interfered with, for if it was shown to the satisfaction of the licensing justices that further reductions on any large scale were needed in any district, all they would have to do would be to submit a scheme to Quarter Sessions who would be able to make the necessary reductions to carry out the scheme at once, under the powers they already possessed under the Act of 1904, and there would be this manifest and overwhelming advantage over the method which the Government proposed? The licensing justices and the Court of Quarter Sessions would be well acquainted with, and they would be obliged to take into their consideration, all the local circumstances of the case and the needs and requirements of the district, before they adopted or put any scheme into operation. They would also be obliged to pay to those licence holders who would be deprived of their licences in order that this scheme of reduction might be carried out, the fair, equitable, and adequate amount of compensation which they were now entitled to receive under the present law, instead of the miserable pittance allowed to them under this Bill. In conclusion, he would very much like to know whether the main and primary object of the Government in bringing forward this Bill was to promote the cause of temperance? If that was their object then he, said without fear of contradiction that it could be accomplished under the Amendment which he proposed just as well as. under the clause as it stood. But there was this difference between the two. Under the clause of the Government they were bound to inflict a serious wrong and injustice on a very large number of unoffending people, whereas, under hi. Amendment, no injustice or wrong could
1578
possibly be inflicted upon any single individual. If, on the other hand, their object was not to promote temperance but to obtain a financial advantage to the State by dishonest means, if in point of fact, they had found another hen roost which they meant to rob and plunder, by all means let them frankly admit it, let them adhere rigidly to their clause, and then this veil of hypocrisy would be stripped from their faces and they would all know, and. the country would know, what their real motive was in bringing forward a confiscatory measure of this character. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 8, after the words 'Licensing Justices,' to insert the words 'If it be shown to their satisfaction that the number of on-licences in any district is excessive, having regard to the needs of the population."—(Sir Francis Lowe.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"
*THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): I do not complain of the hon. Gentleman in regard to his later observations or in reference to the Amendment which he has moved, because we realise fully that he is an opponent of the Bill. He will not expect that the Government will show any sympathy or give any quarter to the Amendment which he has just moved. His Amendment, in fact, would defeat the whole object of this clause and consequently would defeat the whole object of the Bill. To state our object quite frankly, what we wish to do is to compel backward justices all over the country to bring the licences down to a certain proportion of the population which in our opinion is just and sufficient. The hon. Member by this Amendment would leave a complete option to the licensing justices to reduce or not to reduce at their own sweet will. I am a little surprised that he should be prepared to leave so large a discretion to the justices whose qualifications we have heard described with such frankness today, and who were accused by one of the hon. Members for Liverpool of being "poisoned with venom." If that be so, the less discretion you leave to these

1579
gentlemen the better. The Government are not leaving them a large discretion. In fact we are leaving them none as to the statutory number to which licences are to be reduced, although we give them a power of modification under Schedule I to make many of the arrangements which the hon. Member thinks are not included in the Bill. We will justify the proportion of population to licences in its proper place when we come to it, which will, be later in the year. The justices have power with certain modification to provide for the different needs of different populations and to deal especially with areas containing larger day than night populations. As the hon. Member will see in Clause 6, Section 3, they have power at any time to revise their scheme according to the alteration which may occur in the habits of the people and the distribution of the population in then area. It is unnecessary for me to explain further why the Government cannot possibly accept an Amendment which strikes at the whole root of this Bill.
MR. LUPTONsaid he was sorry that the Government could not accept this Amendment, because he thought it was a very needful one. At the present time the discretion of the magistrates was a very valuable asset in deciding these questions. An Amendment of this kind would be more likely to produce temperance in the way of the reduction of licences than the cast-iron reduction provided for in the schedule. The hon. Member for Mansfield said he always voted against the granting of new licences, but this schedule would not affect the number of licences in the district which he referred to, was one of the most drunken districts in England. He knew another district where this schedule would not reduce a single licence. It was a pity that the licensing justices should be compelled to apply this provision in districts where there was hardly any drunkenness and thus prejudice the action of the Bill. This would happen in districts where hardly such a thing as a drunken man was seen from year's end to year's end. He thought the Amendment would make the acceptance of the schedule optional, and in that way it would operate in the right direction. The Amendment
1580
would not interfere in any way with the vital part of the Bill, or with the time-limit, which would come into operation where the magistrates adopted the schedule. Therefore, he thought the Amendment was a good thing, because it made the first clause of the Bill more consistent with the second clause than it was at the, present time. The second clause gave a certain amount of local option, and the Amendment gave a certain amount of option to the magistrates in regard to the reduction of licences. He did not think the schedule would affect the reduction intended, and it would be a great disappointment and cause dissatisfaction in the country where there was really very little need for any action of the kind proposed in the Bill. From entirely different motives from those which had prompted the hon. Member to move the Amendment, because he was thinking more of the protection of certain financial interests, which although he respected them he did not care twopence halfpenny about, while he wanted to promote temperance, he would be very glad if the Government could see their way, if not to adopt this Amendment, at least to indicate that they proposed to adopt some Amendment in the direction of giving the justices some discretion.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the Amendment moved by his hon. friend opened really a very wide question of principle as between those in favour of the present licensing proposals and those who were not. The Amendment proposed that if it were shown to the satisfaction of the licensing justices that the number of on-licences was not excessive having regard to the needs of the population, the obligation upon the justices should up to that extent be qualified. The Government thought that whatever view the licensing justices might hold as to the desirability in their own areas of dealing with the licensing problem and the reduction of licences, a cast-iron automatic scheme should be imposed upon them. He was not so sure that the case attempted to be made by the First Commissioner of Works was an extremely happy one having regard to the antecedents of the

1581
Government on the licensing question. The right hon. Gentleman said that the justices would have the power of destroying the whole object of the Bill, and he claimed that the Amendment of his hon. friend would leave an unduly large discretion in the hands of the local justices. He was not in the House some years ago when the discussions took place on the Licensing Bill of his right hon. friend, but he had read the debates and nothing was more striking than the insistence with which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite claimed that inadequate discretion was left to the licensing justices or the emphasis with which they laid stress on the competence of the licensing justices to perform any functions put upon them. They argued that it would be a misfortune to the whole licensing administration if their discretion was in any way restricted. In the present proposals, the Government were cutting themselves adrift from all that local knowledge on the part of the magistrates, which one would have supposed, a few years ago, to be the whole of their reforming stock-in-trade, and they preferred the alternative course of imposing upon the justices an alternative scheme prepared by themselves. One would have imagined that in taking that course, they would at least have obtained some actuarial calculations in order to commend their scheme to the House. But in the answer of the Prime Minister to his hon. friend, the scheme of the Government was shown not to depend upon a scientific or actuarial calculation, but represented the idea of somebody undisclosed as to what would be a convenient scale and rare of reduction. The Committee were not privileged to be informed of the stages of reasoning by which the Government arrived at the conclusion or of the information that was before them or of the pressure exercised upon them before proposing it. What did the scheme of the Government depend upon? It depended, of course, upon the view that if the local justices were compelled to reduce the number of licences in the area under their jurisdiction on the scale which was provided in the schedule, drunkenness would be diminished in that area; but the Government refused to the justices themselves the right of saying whether
1582
in their particular areas, hiving regard to the circumstances, they believed that result would be obtained. The scheme of the Government depended upon the assumption which had no warrant whatever in any figures ever produced as to the extent of the growth of drunkenness in this country. If the schedule of the Government could not, be defended on the ground that the scale imposed on the justices—whether they desired it or not, was one which would have the effect of reducing intemperance, it was quite obvious it could not be defended upon any ground at all. How far did recent statistics published by a Government Department lend countenance to the view that under this scheme intemperance would be reduced. One thing which the licensing statistics of the present year conclusively established was that the number of licensed premises in a particular urea bore no relation whatever to the extent of drunkenness in that area.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the Government scheme on this Amendment.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that his hon. friend had moved an Amendment which would have the effect of leaving justices a discretion as to whether or not the Government scale should be applied. The alternative proposal was the proposal of the Government that a. hard and fast scale of reduction should be applied. His argument was founded upon the fact that recent licensing statistics showed that there was no such relation between the reduction proposed by the Government and the amount of intemperance.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member must not go into the merits of the Government scheme. He cannot go into a detailed examination of that scheme on this Amendment.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he did not wish to pursue the point if he was not in order. He was not going into the details of the Government scheme, but what he was proposing to do if he was in order was to show that the Government scheme was inferior to the proposal of his hon. friend

1583
for this reason, that judging by experience such reductions had not been found to produce an effect upon intemperance in given areas. Taking it in the most general way possible it would be found on an examination of the latest licensing statistics that if they took four counties in England in which the convictions for drunkenness——
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is going outside of the Amendment and into details of the Government scheme, the discussion of which would come later.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that what he had said was not in order and he was not to be permitted to enter into the subject of the needs of the population by showing what the official Statistics had shown to be the need, he would venture to say that no calculation had ever been adduced by any of the hon. Members opposite who were familiar with the statistics on this subject, which had ever shown or tended to show that the reduction of the number of licences had any connection at all with the state of intemperance in the areas in which those licences were reduced. He reminded the Committee that Mr. Gladstone's attention was directed to a proposal very closely resembling that of the Government and he said that if a reduction in the number of public-houses pretended to the dignity of a remedy it was nothing more than a sham. Under those circumstances he would prefer that the justices in each district should be able to deal with the problems which presented themselves for treatment in their particular areas. He would illustrate this by a case which had come under his own notice. It was a county borough, where, in point of fact, cases of drunkenness were far fewer than almost any other county borough in England. There were very few at any rate which could show better results. He did not pretend to explain it sociologically, but in that borough the number of convictions for drunkenness was extraordinarily small, while at the same time the number of licences per 10,000 of the population was extraordinarily large. In such a case was it to be suggested that the local justices, finding themselves in the position of exercising jurisdiction
1584
in a borough of almost unexampled sobriety, so far as the population were concerned, were to be compelled to bring about the very great pecuniary hardship which by universal admission would be occasioned by this Bill, not only without the certainty of effecting any moral reform, but with the certainty that no moral reform would be brought about, because the statistics of sobriety stood higher there at present than in any other town in the kingdom? To lay down that doctrine and to say that the justices would be made merely the automatic mouthpieces of what was suggested by another department in London, and to say that if these gentlemen did not carry out the instructions they received from London, they were then to be subjected to the jurisdiction of a committee of three who were to deal with them for their administrative failure; that might be right or wrong, but it was certainly a very big step from what had been deemed the discretion of the justices.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid he was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite talking about compelling the local justices to move forward. The conclusion they arrived at on the last division was that the local justices were to be trusted and the Quarter Sessions were to be swept away altogether. Now the right hon. Gentleman got up and said that the local justices were so little to be held in confidence that they were to be compelled to take a certain line by a committee of three sitting in London. That was a very extraordinary position for the Government to put themselves in. It contradicted the whole attitude taken up by the supporters of the Government in regard to the licensing justices since 1904. In Parliament and on every platform in the country Radical candidates had said: "Restore the power of the local justices," and on the first opportunity they got of putting that great principle into practice they went away in a contrary direction. The right hon. Gentleman said that they could not trust the local justices; that they must have some power in the background to compel them to move forward. The question raised by this Amendment was a very large one. It was which system was the best of the two. Were they to

1585
have hard and fast machinery as laid down by the Government clause, extinguishing, by Act of Parliament a certain number of licences in a certain number of years? He had the high authority of the late Mr. Gladstone for stating that a limitation of the number of licences if intended as a remedy for intemperance was little better than a sham. The right hon. Gentleman disagreed with the prediction of that great man—a man who had studied the temperance question deeply. He was afraid that in these degenerate Radical days the Radical party had travelled a long way, not only from that dictum but many others of Mr. Gladstone's. The Government would no doubt found themselves upon the Minority Report as to fixing licences according to population. They always relied on the Minority Report if and when it happened to suit their views. But the Majority Report, after all, was signed by men of independent minds, and that said that there was no correlation between the number of licensed houses and. the amount of drunkenness. Why should the House of Commons found itself on this matter on the Minority Report and not on the Majority Report? This cast-iron system would not work. The Government's proposal had not even the merits of the bed of Procrustes.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the Amendment.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid he was going to show that the Government wished to prevent the local justices from extending the number of licences in an area, when new licences were less than the statutory limit. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Certainly they did; because if the way in which the areas were apportioned was examined it would be found perfectly possible for a whole borough to have less than the number of licences provided under the Bill. Therefore, he said that this clause was not even a Procrustean clause. Procrustes shortened his victim's bodies to suit his bed, but he also extended the length of his victims' bodies if they were too short for the bed, until they were long enough; whereas the Government
1586
were giving the power to cut down the redundant licences, but not to extend them where they were insufficient. He wished to point out that their action was contradictory, and that if they did not accept the Amendment they would go back on everything they had said for nearly five years.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order' order. The hon. Gentleman is going over the same ground again.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid that this matter was so important that it could hardly be emphasised too often. Of course, the Government action was contradictory and the Amendment was consonant with all the professions of the Radical Party during the past five years.
*MR. NIELDsaid he did not think that during the whole time he had been in the House he had ever seen such an illustration of inconsistency as had been given that night. They had reached one of the most important points of the Bill and yet the enthusiasts on the other side who had put pressure on the Government to press forward the Bill were conspicuously absent. The policy of the Government was grossly inconsistent with the utterances of the Radical Party on every platform since 1904. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had spoken of the New Commission pressing forward the backward justices to do their duty in extinguishing licences. Such language was in keeping with the talk of the President of the Board of Trade, when the English Land Act was about to be introduced, about "gingering" the county councils to carry out the provisions of that measure whether or no those councils (the most democratic and recently constituted bodies) considered there was a demand for small holdings and allotments in their county. This was what the Radical party called "trusting the people." It was proposed by this Bill to fetter the discretion of the licensing magistrates by a hard and fast rule, which provided that they should take upon themselves the role of prophets and determine what in certain places would be the population at a certain period,

1587
in order to determine upon a scheme which should at the end of that period leave just so many licensed houses per head of population as was provided for in the schedule. The whole thing was absurd. They all knew that there were districts where in the old days licences were granted freely, and where in the inner Metropolitan area licences were far too thick. But in suburban districts, where licences had been moderately granted having regard to the wants of the neighbourhood at the time, was the growing population not to be taken into account? In districts like the old parish of St. Pancras, the possibilities of building and growth of population had been reached, and the justices could say, having all the facts and figures to go upon, what would be the needs of the population at the end of fourteen years. But they could not do that with other neighbourhoods, where houses would be turned into tenements; and where within fourteen years the whole character of the population might be changed. He maintained that the provision in the Bill was without justification and contrary to the declarations and professions of the Radical Party, and was one of the best illustrations which could be imagined, of the organised hypocrisy which lay behind this measure.
MR. PATRICK WHITEsaid that this clause was so unjust and so unfair that he felt it his duty to protest against it. The Government first of all denied the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions on the ground that the licensing justices were quite competent to deal with applications for licences, but they were denied the right or opportunity of forecasting accurately what the population of a district would be in the future, and of saying whether the licences in that district were sufficient. He considered that the proposal of the Government was antagonistic to and subversive of every principle of local government. Upon a subject where there should be some regard for local opinion and local knowledge of facts, the Government were arrogantly setting up an automatic machine under their own control, and, right or wrong, the local justices were required to work this machine for reducing licences. If the object of the
1588
Government was to bring the number of licences into conformity with the needs of the people in the locality, they should have some regard to local opinion and pay some attention to the facts of the case. They should not arrogantly override their opinions and say: "Here are a certain number of licences to be reduced, and you must carry out this law whether you think it right or wrong. Local opinion is to have no voice in the matter. It is a cast-iron law, and it is for you to carry it out."
*MR. L. HARCOURTpointed out that under the first schedule the licensing justices were empowered to vary the application of the Bill according to the special needs of the district. Clause 6, subsection 3, provided that the licensing justices might as occasion required revise their scheme with reference to any alteration in the circumstances of their district. The system of the Bill was not a cast-iron one. A very large discretion in these matters was allowed to the justices. With regard to the Act of 1904, he observed that the magistrates were then being deprived of the discretion they possessed. The Act was a measure to fetter their freedom of action.
MR. STUART WORTLEY, on a point of order, asked whether, if the right hon. Gentleman discussed the Act of 1904, the Opposition would be allowed to do so.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that obviously there could be no discussion on the Act of 1904. He understood in this case it was merely being referred to. The reference, however, could not be carried further.
MR. L. HARCOURTsaid that he only wished to show that as the Act was an Act to fetter their freedom of action this was a Bill to fetter their freedom of inaction. The fact that in a place there were a number of licences and an absence of convictions for drunkenness was no proof that drunkenness did not exist. Absence of convictions was consistent with a large amount of drunkenness if the police were encouraged to be supine by the Bench.
*MR. YOUNGERthought that everyone would admit

1589
that this portion of the Bill was extremely difficult to deal with. He complained that the Government had dumped upon the House a proposal to abolish a number of licensed houses by a certain method without attempting to see how that method would act. In answer to a Question of his on the 9th of March last the Prime Minister admitted that he had had no information from his advisors as to how this method would act in the various rural and urban districts. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with some sample cases, no doubt drawn by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley, and not such cases perhaps as he himself would have drawn it he had been asked to perform that operation. The Licensing Commission considered this matter with great care, and came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible to suggest any scheme of this kind which would not operate adversely in some districts. In many towns the licensing justices had confined the licensed houses to certain areas in order to have a more complete police control over them, and had refused to scatter them over the town. And no doubt by that means they had secured better control. One of the difficulties of this case was, for example, that of a town which ought to have 110 or 120 licences according to the scale, but where the existing licences were so distributed that if this scheme were carried out as it stood the town would be left with only fifty licences. That was a thing which nobody could defend. This was a very important Amendment which would, he hoped, receive the careful consideration of hon. Gentlemen opposite and their support in the division lobby. It was certain that this was one of the greatest changes proposed by the Bill, and one that would operate more seriously in reducing licences than hon. Members thought. The number of licences to be reduced in fourteen years would be far greater than the right hon. Gentleman intended if this scheme was allowed to go through. Because, although there was no power under the Bill to increase the number of licences, the obligation to decrease them would be greatly enlarged. It would be an invidious task for licensing justices, because the so-called compensation allowed was not
1590
even a proper solatium to the people whose houses were taken away.
*MR. REMNANTsaid the further the debate proceeded the more hon. Gentlemen opposite showed discredit to their common sense and injustice to those with whom they were dealing. No hon. Member opposite, with the exception of the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley, had attempted to answer the points raised by the Amendment. No one had attempted to defend the Government's position. Neither the Home Secretary nor his Under-Secretary had taken part in the discussion of a matter in which of all the Government Departments concerned theirs was the most affected. This Amendment showed the extraordinary attitude of the Government. At one moment they said they trusted implicitly the licensing justices, and at the next they did not trust them at all. The licensing justices were to have nothing to do but administer the Bill according to the Prime Minister, while the First Commissioner said that under subsection 3 of Section 6 they might be called upon, as occasion required, to revise the whole scheme in relation to their district. He did not understand the position taken up by the Government. They all desired to produce a Bill that would work smoothly in practice, but under the guillotine they were to be called upon to pass clauses which could not be carried out in practice or with justice. Whatever happened, everything was going to be worked and ordered by a Commission sitting so London and wholly out of touch with local requirements and perhaps composed of hon. Gentlemen like the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley and the hon. Member for Appleby and the hon. Member for Lincoln. If that was so, he could only inform the right hon. Gentleman that in his opinion and the opinion of the country the whole thing was a farce from beginning to end.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERthought it was admitted by all those who had fairly considered the Bill that the point which they were now considering was to a great extent a leap in the dark. It was really impossible

1591
to say how the reduction would work out in practice either in regard to the country as a whole or in any particular part. That being so, the Amendment was a reasonable attempt to minimise that uncertainty by availing them selves of that which surely was greatly relied upon by Liberals in all other matters, viz., the elasticity and safety which was attained by having recourse to local knowledge on local needs. In answer to that, it was pointed out by the First Commissioner of Works that they must turn to Clause 6. He based his argument upon a power which was given there. Clause 6 was headed "Schemes for Statutory Reduction," and subsection 3 to which the right hon. Gentle man referred related to a power given to licensing justices to revise schemes which they were to prepare. They had to prepare a scheme showing that they would reduce here in this proportion and there in that proportion, this year to this extent and that year to that extent, and they might if they thought fit, and quite rightly, alter these details from time to time. The scheme, however, was after all one to carry out the statutory reduction required by the Act. It was therefore idle of the right hon. Gentleman to refer them to Section 6, subsection 3, as an argument that any sort of discretion was given by the Bill to justices in any way to alter or amend or modify the hard and fast minimum of reduction which the Act forced upon them, whether they desired it or not.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid that to his mind one of the great blots on the scheme of the Bill was that it would set up a hard and fast rule and standard as to the number of licences and did not in the least distinguish between varieties in the amount of trade done or the number of people who frequented the house. The local justices would know the needs of the population and the extent to which a house was used; and in that way there would be far better administration under the Amendment than under the Government's scheme. The schedule was particularly hard and fast on this point. It dealt with the number of licences and not at all with the particular class of the house or the quality of the trade done.
1592
That was a matter in which local discretion was strictly needed.
MR. ASHLEYsaid the First Commissioner of Works, in answer to the mover of the Amendment, made great play with the fact that under the schedule of the Bill discretion was left to the licensing justices to meet the necessities of various places under various circumstances. He would invite the Committee to look at the beginning of the schedule. They would there see that modifications might be made in the strict application of the scale, but it did not seem to meet the case of his constituency, for instance, which had every day of the week a large population coming in quadrupling the normal population of the borough. A. modification in the strict application of the scale to the 50,000 inhabitants of Blackpool would not in the least meet the needs of the case, and on that ground alone he strongly supported the Amendment to give the local justices, the people who knew the town and its needs and what was likely to be the needs of its visitors, the power to decide what should be the number of licences to be granted. The Committee of the House of Commons knew no more about the local circumstances of each individual area than it probably knew about astronomy. Surely they would at any rate have the support in this matter of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley. He hoped he would be consistent, and act up to his declarations. A few years ago he said the full discretion of the licensing authority was absolutely necessary to the proper supervision of the liquor trade, and he went on to say that for seventy years the policy of his side of the House had been to give greater power to the local justices. Full discretion was the keynote of their party. Could the right hon. Gentleman, if he voted against this Amendment, get up and say he was carrying out the declarations he made in 1904? Would the Liberal Party as a whole be acting up to their professions of two or three years ago if they voted against the Amendment?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Member to order, stating that what the Liberal Party did several years ago had nothing to do with the Amendment.
MR. ASHLEYsaid they would agree that the Liberal Party had broken their pledges upon this matter, and that there was no more to be said about it. He urged the Committee to consider very earnestly whether the Amendment should not be carried. As an illustration of the working of the scheme he took a Bench of licensing justices who had to reduce the number of licences in a small town by three. They went carefully into each case and found that all the licensed holders were well conducted and that all three houses, in their opinion, were necessary for the needs of the town and district. What could they do? They could only take away the three licences according to the scale as laid down in the schedule, although in their opinion it was not necessary and would do harm to the town. Surely, it would be better to leave them full discretion to deal with the matter.
*MR. MONTAGUsaid the debate had convinced him of the superlative excellence of the measure and had discovered to him new charms in it. Hon. Members opposite were much exercised as to the consistency of the Government with regard to trusting to the discretion of the justices, but, if it was inconsistent for the Government to prefer the local justices in one case and not in another, it was equally inconsistent of hon. Gentlemen opposite not to prefer them in one case and to prefer them in the other. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash had objected to the clause because it dealt with the number of public-houses and not with their quality; but discretion was left to the justices to prepare a scheme to carry out the statutory reduction and with full local knowledge at their disposal to select those houses most fitted to remain and those which they most desired to see closed. The hon. Member for Blackpool was concerned about the strict application of the schedule to his constituency, but modifications were provided for, and subsection 3 of the schedule was designed precisely to meet cases like the hon. Member's constituency.
MR. ASHLEY: Am I to understand that it will be made clear that this is to be a large exception and not a small exception?
*MR. MONTAGUsaid that, if the hon. Member had any doubt that Blackpool was satisfactorily included in the provision, when they came to the schedule would be the time to insert Amendments. It seemed to him that hon. Members had again and again misread the Bill. They alleged that it was not competent for justices to grant new licences, but there were many rural districts in England—in Cornwall for example— where there were less public-houses than were provided for under the statutory scale, and justices would have every power to grant new licences, providing they did not grant them to bring the total above the statutory scheme. There was a clause which allowed local option with regard to new licences, and, under Clause 4, subsection 1, there was power given to the justices not to stop at the statutory scale of reduction, but to go beyond it where the people in the district desired it. It seemed to him, therefore, that under the provisions of the Bill the discretion of the justices was so large that it was no wonder the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs failed to obtain any declaration from the Government as to the exact results of the application of the schedule.
*MR. CAVEasked whether the scale should be compulsory on all benches or whether the benches should not have some discretion in reference to local needs. The first element which the local benches ought to take into account in considering the granting or renewal of a licence was that of population. Under the Bill some regard was paid to population, but not to the population at the time when the applicant went for renewal, but to the population at the date of the last census, which might be five, six or nine years previously, and no regard could be had to growth of population since that date. That did not seem to him common sense. Secondly, they should have regard to

1595
change of population—migration from one parish to another which had begun and appeared likely to continue. They should also surely have some regard to the question whether the licensed house served, not only the ward or parish in which it was, but some neighbouring parish or ward. They must have some regard to the boundary question, but under this clause they had no regard to it at all. Unless the Amendment was accepted, magistrates were bound to adhere to the statutory scale, subject to exceptions which might not apply in the cases he had put. Further, different places differed in their habits and in the manner in which they lived, and in their occupations. Some required more houses or houses nearer the actual habitations of the people than other parishes, but under the Bill no kind of regard would be had to these facts. The magistrates must not have regard to local circumstances. They must simply keep their eye on the scale and conform to it whatever the facts might be with which they had to deal. Surely there was something to be said for an Amendment giving some kind of discretion to justices. The charm which the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire saw in the Bill was that the justices had discretion to refuse but no discretion to renew, if by so doing they slightly infringed the scale. If they were going to force benches to refuse licences which they thought to be required, the effect would be to reduce the houses, but not to reduce drunkenness. It would lead to the opening out of new sources of supply not under proper supervision and not so legitimate as those which they were suppressing. Instead of reducing drunkenness they would be increasing it. He felt very strongly that if they wanted to deal with matters in a common sense way they ought to leave the local benches some greater latitude than that which was given by the fixed statutory scale. He strongly supported the Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member who had last spoken on the Ministerial side had said Members on his own side and also Members of the
1596
Opposition were inconsistent. But it did not improve matters for the pot to call the kettle black. Two wrongs did not make a right. The charge of inconsistency against the Opposition, however, was a mistaken one. The point of the hon. Member's remarks was that they had said earlier in the evening that the local justices were not the proper tribunal to which to refer matters. But they had never said that. They said on the contrary that they were the proper authorities, but that there should be confirmation of their acts by another authority. They were the proper people to be called first into requisition, but there should be either an appeal or confirmation by some other authority. He was sorry the Prime Minister was not in his place, because he thought he would support the Amendment even if his Party refused to accept it. The right hon. Gentleman was at all events consistent and had in eloquent phrases informed the House that the local justices knew all about the "Black Bull" and the "Red Lion" and were, the proper people to decide what houses should be maintained and what should not. He regretted that more hon. Members opposite were not present because he believed, on the whole, they would themselves agree that the proper course to be pursued was to accept the Amendment and allow the local justices some discretion in the matter. After all, that was local option because the local justices were supposed to represent the feelings of the locality according to hon. Members opposite, and if they did that, why on earth should they not be allowed to say how many public-houses were necessary? The hon. Member for Mansfield had told them he was a local justice and when he went to the justice room to consider the question, he made up his mind that there were too many licences and he was going to reduce them. There was an instance. Did hon. Gentlemen object to the hon. Member for Mansfield deciding whether or not the number of licences in a given area should be fifty-one or fifty-two, or did they prefer that a body sitting in London, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley as chairman, should decide? He had a great opinion of the, right hon. Gentleman and had heard some of the best reasoned and

1597
argued speeches from him that he had ever heard, but he did not credit him with all knowledge. He knew a great deal about Spen Valley, but he did not know everything about every other part of England.
*MR. BERTRAMsaid he only rose to ask a Question arising out of one of the defences that had been made of the Government policy in resisting the Amendment for which he intended to vote. It had been alleged on the part of the Government that there would be a great power of modification reserved to licensing justices and that they were not to be bound by the hard and fast rule set out in the schedule. But it appeared to him that the whole of the powers of the licensing justices in relation to the schemes of reduction were to be subject to an over-riding power vested in the Commissioners. How far was the Government defence a real one? Was there any reality in this power which they alleged resided in the licensing justices, or was it merely an illusory power entirely over-ridden and controlled by the Licensing Commission?
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he was not altogether satisfied with the Amendment as it stood and he wished to amend it by inserting after "if" the words "on the presentation of a requisition signed by not less than one-tenth of the parochial electors in the district." He thought there should be evidence of some local feeling before proceedings under this clause were started. The impetus to reform should come not from above but from below, and the justices should have the body of public opinion behind them. It was their business as occupying a judicial position to check and regulate popular movements but not to initiate them.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked if it was in order to move an Amendment raising a completely different point. The point they had been discussing was whether the justices should have a discretion. The point the hon. Member now wished to raise was whether reduction should take place on the initiative of a certain number of electors.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment may be put although
1598
hon. Members must recognise that the debate has altogether been very prolonged.
*MR. JAMES HOPEsubmitted that there were certain precedents for the procedure which he advocated. He believed that in the Companies Acts there was a precedent for a requisition of one-tenth of the shareholders or of the interests represented. In the Allotments Act there was also a provision that certain machinery should be set in motion on the initiative of a certain number of parochial electors, and in this Bill itself subsection 2 of Clause 2 said—
"The licensing justices shall cause a poll to be taken on the question of a prohibitory Resolution if a requisition signed by not less than one-tenth of the parochial electors in the district is presented to them requiring such a poll to be taken."
What was valid in one case was valid in the other. If the machinery of this Bill was to be set in motion upon popular requisition the same principle should be applied in regard to the reduction of licences. The popular impulse ought to be the deciding factor in both cases and discretion should not be allowed in the one case and denied in the other. The justices should be allowed to act upon their own discretion, but upon their own initiative they should not be allowed to start a reduction scheme for which there was no popular demand. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"After the word 'if,' to insert the words 'on the presentation of a requisition signed by not less than one-tenth of the parochial electors in the district.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
EARL WINTERTONsaid he agreed with his hon. friend that something was needed to round off this Amendment. The Government had recognised by their qualifications that there was need in some cases at any rate for guidance by the experience of the local justices, but they had immediately, by making those qualifications subject to the approval of a Commission, of which no one in the House except the Government seemed

1599
to be particularly fond, practically sterilised the discretion thus placed in the hands of justices. In this Amendment they were really proceeding along the same line as the Government, apart from the fact that the discretion given by the Government in their scheduled qualifications was not a real one. In his opinion the Amendment really made the system perfectly symmetrical. It had been pointed out several times that the qualifications in the Schedule were really very wide, although they were rendered largely of no avail by the fact that the appeal was subject to the approval of the Commission; still, the fact that the Government put in these qualifications showed that they themselves realised the need in certain circumstances for getting the opinion of the local justices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Manchester last year and referring to the coming Licensing Bill, said that in a Bill which aimed at reducing excessive drinking the moderate drinker must feel that he was safeguarded. He did not agree with the contention put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite that there could, be any real relation between the number of public houses and the amount of drunkenness, but he and his friends did say that there might be isolated instances in which there was that relationship, and if there was anyone who could judge as to whether that relationship existed it could only be the local justices. Therefore, he thought the Government should adopt the Amendment, if only for the reason that they themselves had admitted by the qualification as to licences in rural parishes and health or pleasure resorts, that the justices must be left some discretion.
MR. LAMBTONthought that this Amendment was a most valuable one. He had had some personal experience in regard to these difficulties. On the last occasion when he sat upon the Licensing Bench it was proposed to reduce the number of licences by three. That was not the wish of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and they presented a requisition to that effect. The desire to reduce the number of public-houses in a district might not come from the inhabitants but from some rich man who did not want a public-house near his
1600
garden or lodge gate. A similar request might come from the squire of the parish or even from the parson or the attorney, in fact it might come from anybody but the people concerned. He had known public-houses situated miles away from any town, used perhaps chiefly by carters and travellers and a few agricultural labourers, and how could these people get their views represented before the magistrates? If they insisted upon a requisition being signed by one-tenth of the electors as was proposed by this Amendment, that would be some indication to the justices as to whether the public-houses concerned were wanted or not. He thought the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Birmingham would be an improvement upon the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield. They had been asked whether the authority of the justices was to be a real or an illusory one. Of course he could not expect an answer to that question from the Government in view of the fact that they had refused to answer a similar question from cue of their own supporters. All they wanted to know was what the real position of the justices would be under this Bill.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,)said the Government did not mind whether the Amendment was amended or not. All the argument opposite on the original Amendment had been in favour of granting the fullest discretion to justices. This Amendment would restrict that discretion, and it would not be possible for them to act at all unless on the requisition of a certain proportion of the inhabitants. The Government's objection was that it went against their own proposals that there must be a reduction of licences according to the schedule. They would oppose both Amendments.
MR. JAMES HOPE: My Amendment is purely democratic.
SIR S. EVANSsaid the Government proposed that there should be a compulsory reduction, according to the modifications in the schedule, by the licensing justices, and, therefore, they opposed the Amendment as they would also oppose the Amendment if amended.
MR. WALTER LONG: I have listened to the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman with amazement, because in his reply he has entirely ignored the fact that a Member on his own side of the House has directly addressed a question to the Government to which no answer whatever has been given. The hon. Member opposite put a question as to the power to be exercised by the licensing justices. Are those justices to act under the shadow of the Licensing Commission? The question of the hon. Member is: "Are we discussing a sham or a reality? Are the magistrates to do real work, or are they to prepare a sham return to enable the Commissioners to act subsequently?" The Solicitor-General has given no answer to that. He simply says that the Government object to the Amendment because it goes contrary to the way they want to go. I should like to ask how many men on the Government Bench or behind it have sat with a Bench of licensing magistrates. I wonder whether the First Lord of the Admiralty, who treats these matters with great condescension, ever sat as a licensing justice either in a county district or at Quarter Sessions. I venture to say that anyone who has done so with regularity will feel that the discharge of the duty thrown upon him under this Bill will involve the greatest difficulty. I have consulted a great many who have sat, and I have not found one yet who knows how they will have to proceed. I do not like local option at all, and I have never voted in favour of it in any form. I know that circumstances alter cases, but in the difficulties in which some of us find ourselves at the present moment I do not know that local option would not be better than what the Government are proposing. I do not like local option at all, I have never voted in favour of it, but in the difficulties in which the proposed legislation of the Government puts us I confess I have great fellow feeling with my brother magistrates. I protest against casting upon the justices the duty of effecting the reduction of licences without any indication from the locality as to what they desire to be done. In the circumstances the justices would have nobody to depend upon for information except the clerk to the licensing bench. What occurs now? An application is
1602
made for the renewal of a licence, or the granting of a new licence, and when opposition is offered by people who object either to the renewal or the granting of a licence the magistrates have something to proceed upon when they are hearing an application, and they sit simply as a judicial body to inquire into the case; but here you are going to throw upon them an entirely new duty. They will have to have present to their minds the whole circumstances in regard to every public-house in their area, and they are not to decide between the comparative claims of different public-houses. How will they decide what particular house they should go for first? Where are they to begin? An application from a locality will be most useful, just as applications are in respect to small holdings and allotments. All that is asked here is not that there should be local option to decide the question, but that there should be, at all events, the right given to the locality to move the bench of magistrates, and to prove that there is a prima facie case. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept some Amendment which will define the duty which those unfortunate magistrates will have to perform. If they do not the magistrates will be apt to fail, and the real work will have to be done by the Commission, who will descend upon the locality and override local government and local opinion. If the clause passes without some such Amendment it will be a most extraordinary step for a Liberal and democratic Government to have taken.
MR. ASHLEYopposed the Amendment to the Amendment because it would limit the discretion of the justices. He had already endeavoured to get unfettered discretion for the licensing justices. If the Amendment to the Amendment were accepted it would mean that they would not be able to move a step until one-tenth of the parochial electors had sent them a memorial asking them to move. What possible means had that number of local electors of ascertaining what were the real needs of the locality? His hon. friend's Amendment would be as the Bill of the Government.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid the justices would be able to go on reducing licences, even if no requisition was sent to them.
MR. ASHLEYsaid they would not be able to do anything until one-tenth of the parochial electors asked them to reduce licences. What the Government said was that they should be reduced on a certain principle which was outlined in the schedule.
MR. BELLOCsaid his constituency considered that the great blot on the Bill was that the power was given to the licensing magistrates, and not to the electors. Heaven forbid that he should say that one-tenth of the votes of the parochial electors on this subject should compensate for a popular vote. It did not compensate for the democratic principle that the locality should have the power of saying how many more, or how many less, public-houses there should be, or whether there should be none at all. But the Amendment would be a very small step in that direction, and he should have thought it incumbent on everyone who approved of popular control to vote for the Amendment to the Amendment.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid that this was undoubtedly a local option Amendment, and he could not understand any hon. Member opposite doing other than vote for it. If one-tenth of the parochial electors were prepared to suggest reduction, and the justices were of the same mind, that local initiative would greatly strengthen their hands. If, on the other hand, one-tenth of the electors could not be found who were prepared to suggest reduction, how could any man in his senses say it was right to make a reduction?
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Amendment had been advocated by hon. Members below the gangway opposite as a democratic Amendment. He was not sure he knew what they meant. He would certainly support an Amendment that would give freedom to everybody, but he was afraid that "democratic Amendment" meant one by which a number of people would be able to dictate to the rest whether they should have a
1604
glass of beer or not. Such an Amendment he could not support. It was the thin end of the wedge. If the Amendment were carried, how could they consistently refuse to support local option hereafter? And he was sure all his hon. friends wished to be consistent. He presumed the Solicitor-General was going to vote in the same lobby with him.
SIR S. EVANS: I am not going to vote at all.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had always voted in one lobby or the other. One ought to have the courage of his opinions.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid he did not see his way to accept the Amendment to the Amendment. He very much preferred his own Amendment as it stood, because it would give the justices power to act if it was shown to their satisfaction that the number of on-licences in any district was excessive, without reference to the number of people who had first called their attention to the matter.
MR. JAMES HOPEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. JAMES HOPE,in moving to insert "full" before "on-licenses," said his object was to except the beer-houses of 1869 from the operation of the Amendment, on the ground that they should not be considered in this scheme of reduction, because they stood in a different position from full on-licences. The owners of beer-houses give up their Parliamentary title to their licence in 1904 on condition that these were put on the compensation provision, and, therefore, it was not fair that they should be included in the general number of licences which were to be dealt with. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, before the word 'on-licences' to insert the word 'full.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On a point of order, I wish to know whether the acceptance or rejection of this Amendment

1605
would at all affect the specific Amendment in regard to beer-houses which comes on later, put down on the Paper by the hon. Member for Liverpool. It is a very important point, and should be dealt with separately and adequately. I, therefore, wish to know whether the insertion of this word will prejudice the later discussion.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that he had on the Paper an Amendment which dealt with the 1869 beer-houses, which appeared to raise precisely the same point made by his hon. friend the Member for Sheffield.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not quite grasp whether the hon. Member wanted to move an Amendment to the Amendment or to amend the Bill.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that his Amendment was an Amendment to the Amendment.
MR. ASQUITH: I understand that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman is to insert in the Amendment the word "full," after the words "the number of."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My only point is evidently a question as to whether this Bill should apply to all licences or only to full on-licences. That is a very important point, and I want to know at what stage it should be raised.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 310. (Division List No. 204.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.Sir Alex.F.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Arkwright, Sohn Stanhope

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Ashley, W. W.

Fardell, Sir T, George

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm.G. (Petersfield)

Baldwin, Stanley

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

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

Gardner, Ernest

Nolan, Joseph

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G, A. (Bristol, West)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Banner, John S. Harmood

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Oddy, John James

Baring,Capt.Hn.G(Winchester)

Gretton, John

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Barnard, E. B.

Guinness, Walter Edward

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

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

Haddock, George B.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beach,Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Remnant, James Farqharson

Bertram, Julius

Hill, Sir Clement

Renton, Leslie

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hills, J. W.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall).

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bull, Sir William James

Joynson-Hicks, William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Keswick, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sheffield,Sir Berkeley George D.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

Cave, George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Smith, F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham

Starkey, John R.

Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. A. Wore

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

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Clark, George Smith

Lupton, Arnold

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clive, Percy Arther

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

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

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Craig,Captain James(Down,E.)

Mac Veigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Arthur, Charles

Valentia, Viscount

Dalrymple, Viscount

M'Iver, Sir Lewis

Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

White, Patrick (Meath, North).

Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

1607

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Francis Lowe and Mr. Lane-Fox.

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

Young, Samuel

Winterton, Earl

Younger, George

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Crooks, William

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Crosfield, A. H.

Hope,W.Bateman (Somerset,N

Agnew, George William

Crossley, William J.

Horniman, Emslie John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dalziel, James Henry

Hudson, Walter

Alden, Percy

Davies,David (Montgomery Co.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hyde, Clarendon

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Armitage, R.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jackson,R. S.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Davies,Sir W.Howell(Bristol,S

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Astbury, John Meir

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

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Dickson, Poynder, Sir John P.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Duckworth, James

Joyce, Michael

Barker, John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Kekewich, Sir George

Barnes, G. N.

Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Laidlaw, Robert

Beale, W. P.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Beauchamp, E.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lamont, Norman

Bell, Richard

Erskine, David C.

Langley, Batty

Bellairs, Carlyon

Essex, R. W.

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

Bennett, E. N.

Everett, R. Lacey

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Fenwick, Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Ferens, T. R.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lundon, W.

Black, Arthur W.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Boulton, A. C. F.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bowerman, C. W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brace, William

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gill, A. H.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Branch, James

Gladstone,Rt Hn.Herbert John

Maclean, Donald

Brigg, John

Glendinning, R. G.

M'Callum, John M.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Glover, Thomas

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Brodie, H. C.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Micking, Major G.

Brooke, Stopford

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Maddison, Frederick

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mallet, Charles E.

Brunner,Rt HnSir.J.T(Cheshire

Gulland, John W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gurdon,Rt Hn.Sir W. Brampton

Markham, Arthur Basil

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hall, Frederick

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Buxton,Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles

Harcourt,Rt.Hn.L.(Rossendale

Marnham, F. J.

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Cameron, Robert

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Massic, J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Meagher, Michael

Causton,Rt.Hn.Richard Knight

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

Menzies, Walter

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Chance, Frederick William

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harwood, George

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Cheetham, John Frederick

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Montgomery, H. G.

Cleland, J. W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Clough, William

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morrell, Philip

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hedges, A. Paget

Morse, L. L.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Helme, Norval Watson

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hemmerde. Edward George

Myer, Horatio

Cooper, G. J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Napier, T. B.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

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

Nicholls, George

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nicholson,Charles N. (Doncast'r

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Higham, John Sharp

Norman, Sir Henry

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Capt, Cecil William

Cowan, W. H.

Hodge, John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cox, Harold

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nuttall, Harry

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

1608

1609

Parker, James (Halifax)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Paulton, James Mellor

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Ure, Alexander

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Verney, F. W.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Vivian, Henry

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

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Wadsworth, J.

Perks, Sir Robert William

Scott,A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Seaverns, J. H.

Walsh, Stephen

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Seddon, J.

Walton, Joseph

Pollard, Dr.

Seely, Colonel

Wardle, George J.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

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

Wason,Rt.Hn.E. (Clackmannan

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Watt, Henry A.

Radford, G. H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Snowden, P.

Weir, James Galloway

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Soares, Ernest J.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Spicer, Sir Albert

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Rees, J. D.

Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Rendall, Athelstan

Steadman, W. C.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Whittaker,RtHn.Sir Thomas P.

Richardson, A.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wiles, Thomas

Ridsdale, E. A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williamson, A.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

Roberts,Sir John H.(Denbighs.)

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'rd

Sutherland, J. E.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

Robinson, S.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Winfrey, R.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Yoxall, James Henry

Rose, Charles Day

Thomasson, Franklin

Rowlands, J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Tomkinson, James

Russell, T. W.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Toulmin, George

EARL WINTERTON EARL WINTERTON moved to insert after "justices" the words, "Unless they certify to the Secretary of State that it is unnecessary to do so." His object, he said, was to give the Government one other chance of adopting the principle of local option and trusting the justices, and under those circumstances he hoped the Amendment would be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. He would not detain the Committee in enlarging upon the matter, but would content himself with saying that he objected altogether to a scheme which reduced the licences in this harsh and arbitrary fashion. But if such a scheme was adopted at all, it was the local justices on whom the duty should fall.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'justices' to insert the words 'unless they certify to the Secretary of State that it is unnecessary to do so.'"—(Earl Winterton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. ASQUITHsaid the noble Lord's Amendment raised very neatly the question whether reduction should be discretionary or compulsory. In the opinion of the Government, the House decided on the Second Reading that it should be compulsory. They could not accept the Amendment, and he hoped the House would decide the question now, once for all.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the House decided on the Second Reading that it would go on to the Committee stage and discuss the details of the Bill. How it could be said to have decided the important question whether reduction should be dealt with by the justices or by some other authority passed his comprehension. He hoped the discussion would not be continued on this Amendment, but he must say the Prime Minister's answer ran totally counter to all the traditions of the House, and would practically make the Committee stage of a Bill perfectly illusory.
MR. F. E. SMITHdrew attention to the statistics available in order to assist the Committee in coming to a decision as to whether it was better that this should be compulsory or discretionary. The licensing statistics of last year showed that where the number of licensed houses per 10,000 of the population was larger there was a greater proportion of convictions for drunkenness. He would take the three counties Northumberland, Durham, and Glamorgan. In Northumberland in 1907 there were 146 convictions per 10,000 of population, and in Durham 101. On the other hand, in the two counties in England in which there was the largest number of licences, there was the fewest number of convictions, viz., 15 convictions of drunkenness per 10,000 of population in Norfolk, and 19 per 10,000 of population in Bucks. There were 60 licences per 10,000 of population in Norfolk and Bucks as against 20 per 10,000 in Northumberland. The four counties in which there was the largest percentage of convictions had the smallest number of licences. Was the Government in face of these facts going to close the door upon discretion, and say to the justices, who, for years, were their own creatures and pets, that to-day they preferred the view of a bureaucracy and triumvirate sitting in London? There was no object at all in the Government's proposal except that they did not trust the local justices. If they trusted them, they would infinitely prefer men of the localities deciding whether the scheme was for the benefit of their districts than men who had no local knowledge at all. When the question whether there was to be any appeal was raised they were told that there was no occasion for it, because the justices had a much better local knowledge than the Quarter Sessions. Yet they would not give them any discretion here, because they preferred the views of a number of doctrinaire bureaucrats in London to those of the men on the spot.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On a point of order, I said just now I rather hoped this discussion would not go on, but that was under the impression that the matter might be more conveniently raised under
1612
"shall" and "may." I should like to know whether it will be possible to discuss "shall" and "may" if a vote is taken upon this Amendment or if this Amendment be put from the Chair and negatived. If "shall" and "may" cannot come in under those circumstances it is manifest that the discussion which would legitimately be raised on "shall" and "may" must be taken out.
MR. ASQUITH: I submit that upon the Amendment we shall already have discussed the whole question of discretion throughout.
*THE CHAIRMAN: In reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I certainly do not think that if the present Amendment is negatived we can discuss the question on "shall" and "may." This Amendment seems to me to dispose of it.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid his hon. and learned friend the Member for Liverpool was not, he thought, quite as sharp as usual. He had asked what the answer was to the Amendment. There was no answer, and that was why the Prime Minister made the extraordinary statement he made a few moments ago. He had been sixteen years in the House, and he was a fairly regular attendant, but he had never before heard a Member say that an Amendment in Committee could not be discussed because the principle had been accepted by the Second Reading. He would suggest most humbly that if this was to be the new principle which was to govern the House of Commons there would be no need for a guillotine Motion. They only decided by divisions, arguments were not to be put forward, and the House of Commons was to be reduced to an automatic machine for registering the decisions of the Government. He would like to know what was the real objection to the Amendment. It seemed to him wise and useful. It would give power to the local justices to consider whether or not the needs of the locality demanded fifty public-houses or forty-nine, and, under those circumstances, he failed to see why hon. Members opposite could not accept it. It seemed to him to contain a principle which had been advocated throughout the whole of the discussion.

1613
He hoped it would be supported, and, if his noble friend went to a division, he should certainly vote with him.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Having regard to your ruling, Mr. Emmott, I think this Amendment becomes one of the most important we have to consider in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill, I am sorry that we have to enter upon it so late in the evening. Its importance is not a matter of dispute. Hon. Gentlemen opposite attach as much importance to refusing all discretion to local justices as we attach to giving it them. They attach as much importance to laying down arbitrarily a scale dependent upon population as we attach importance to having a scale varying with the necessities and character of the locality. The Prime Minister in the course of the earlier debate attempted to stop us from raising the contention that such an arbitrary reduction of licensed houses as he proposed would not lead to the promotion of temperance by saying that that was the basis of the Act of 1904, and that those who voted for the reduction contemplated by that Act were logically at any rate prevented from contending that there was no connection between the number of houses and the amount of drunkenness. That is a position I rise to challenge. I entirely dispute the justice of the parallel which the Prime Minister attempted to draw between the procedure under the Act of 1904 and the procedure under this Bill. The essence of the Act of 1904 was that those who were locally cognisant of the circumstances should inquire and decide whether reduction was necessary, and, if so, what houses should be closed. The essence of this Bill is that Parliament, which does not happen to be cognisant of the circumstances of any particular locality and which neither has any local knowledge nor is capable of receiving, nor has the means of collecting, any evidence which would put it into possession of local circumstances, shall arbitrarily declare for the whole country that the number of licensed houses shall bear a certain proportion in each locality to the population. Instead of this Bill being founded on the Act of 1904 it is the very contradiction of the whole principle and spirit of the Act. Consider for a moment
1614
what the position is in regard to the numbers of public-houses compared to the density of the population in the area as a test of how many licensed houses are required. Take a country village with a small population. It is quite conceivable that one house of the requisite size may serve the whole population, and according to the scale which you have laid down one house may be all that is allowed. [Cries of "No."] Where is the provision in the Bill which says no village should have less than two public-houses?
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Bill does not require the number ever to be reduced below two.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member, I think, is talking of something different from what I am. He is talking of the number of houses in a licensing district—
"Where the number of on-licences in any such parish or area does not exceed two, and it appears inexpedient to reduce the number below two."
That is an exception engrafted on their scheme. I really think it is intolerable that the Prime Minister and the Undersecretary, who refuse to discuss the Amendment in speech themselves, and who, when they do speak, are very intolerant of any interruption, even reasoned interruption, from this side, should continue to give interruption across the floor of the House.
MR. ASQUITH: We only ask that before the right hon. Gentleman criticises our Bill he should read it.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Prime Minister's interruption is scarcely courteous. We have not been accustomed, in whatever part of the House we sat, to be discourteously interrupted by the Leader of the House, who, by his position, ought to be more careful——
*THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt. The question on which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, though it was a matter of opinion, was not a matter in which he was transgressing the rules of order.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was saying that the Prime Minister ought

1615
to be more careful than any other Member of the courtesies of debate. I have read the right hon. Gentleman's Bill and I am attempting to discuss it under such limitations as the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to allow. I was saying that the section in the schedule to which the hon. Gentleman called my attention is a modification engrafted on the scheme of the Bill. It says—
"Modifications may be made in the strict application of this scale where the number of on-licences in any such parish or area does not exceed two, and where it is inexpedient to reduce the number below two."
I do not think that as it stands it carries the Government case very much further. It does not seem germane to the argument which I was originally stating, which was that in a particular village, which need not in itself comprise a parish, there might be two public-houses, that one of these houses might be all that was allowed under the schedule, and if it were big enough and in all other respects suitable, it might be sufficient for the needs of the place. What guarantee have you that it is big enough, or that it is a legitimate place of business, or that the business which has hitherto been done in two houses may be compressed into one, and what justification have you for depriving people of all choice as to what house they will go to? I am tired of listening to declamation from that side of the House about the hardship which is inflicted upon those who frequent public-houses by having to go to places which are tied, and where they can only get one particular class of liquor. Have you ever considered how much by this Bill you are limiting their choice, how much you are adding to their difficulty of making a selection, and if they do not like the treatment or the liquor they get at one place, of going to another to get it? Now I invite the hon. Gentlemen who interrupted me to follow the advice of their Leader and read the Bill and the Amendment, and compare the two. But it is not merely a question of accommodation. It is a question of suitability in other respects. The public-house is subject to the springing into existence of the class of club which none of us wish to encourage, and it is and must remain the club of a great portion of our popula-
1616
tion. Consider for a moment the case of public-houses regarded as clubs. They are not merely places where a man goes for drink, but where he goes to meet congenial society and to discuss the public questions of his locality or of the nation. That is the way we use our clubs to a large extent in London. I have not the least doubt that if the Government lays down a scale of clubs necessary to the population they will find that Pall Mall, Piccadilly, and St. James's are very much overcrowded, and that all members of the Turf Club can be accommodated at the Athenæum. On the other hand, it might be that the Athenæum might be closed, and the Bishops and Cabinet Ministers would wish the use of the Turf Club instead. As long as you put it that way you will see that there are two different societies, and it does not follow that those at the Athenæum want to associate with those at the Turf Club or those at the Turf Club with those at the Athenæum. It is exactly the same with the public-houses. The right hon. Gentleman said that it did not matter whether you close the "Red Lion" or the "Black Bull," but I should like to point out that the society which frequent two public-houses may be entirely different and distinct. There may be no excessive drinking in either of the public-houses, and yet you may inflict quite an unnecessary and unmerited hardship by forcing all those people to use one public-house irrespective altogether of their desire to have decent accommodation. When you say that by applying an arbitrary rule of that sort you are promoting temperance, I say that you are doing nothing of the kind. In particular where you have an excess of public-houses you may by an arbitrary reduction secure some amelioration of the difficulties, but in the great mass of cases where there is not that gross excess where each house suits a particular trade, then I say that by an arbitrary reduction you do not promote temperance at all, but you inflict a great hardship upon individuals, and that hardship falls not merely upon the licence holders, but also upon those who have been in the habit of frequenting the houses and have in fact used them as their clubs. If you attempted to put any such regulations to the facilities

1617
which are offered to hon. Members in this House, I am sure you would not get this Bill through at all. That fact alone shows, if anything is needed to show it, that the procedure under this Bill is class legislation of the most arbitrary kind, applying restrictions and conditions to the poor man's life and legislative interference which would not be tolerated by hon. Members in circumstances of their own.
SIR S. EVANSsaid they had just listened to a very extraordinary speech from the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of which he had discoursed upon every topic which might be properly discussed in the Second Reading debate. From the commencement to the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech he had been wondering whether he had actually read the Amendment before the Committee. They had had a discussion upon the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edgbaston as to whether the justices should have a discretion or whether they should be compelled to make the reduction provided for in the schedule. It might be that the right hon. Gentleman's speech had been prepared for delivery upon another Amendment, but at any rate there was not a single word in it which showed that he had even looked at the Amendment on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to class legislation and he very nearly went the length of saying that they were proposing to rob the poor man of his beer. He had also introduced the Turf Club and the Athenæum Club and the "Red Lion" and the "Black Bull." He would remind him that the Amendment was—
"Unless they notify to the Secretary of State that it is unnecessary to do so."
He asked the Committee whether any argument the right hon. Gentleman had used had any reference to that point. He contended that it had not. The Amendment in itself was a very small one, and raised very neatly the point of the discretion which had already been sufficiently discussed and determined in the division on the preceding Amendment. He hardly needed to say that under the circumstances the Amendment was one which the Government could not accept.
LORD R. CECILsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman began his speech with a gibe fashioned upon the model furnished by the Prime Minister, and he trusted that the Prime Minister would now see how dangerous his lapse from manners had proved. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."] It was to him a matter of profound indifference how much hon. Members opposite cried out "Withdraw." [Renewed MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw" and OPPOSITION cries of "Chair, Chair."]
*THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt. [Cries of "Name."] I hope they will not continue to cry out "Withdraw." [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Because the noble Lord had not said anything that I can call upon him to withdraw. At the same time I may say that I should deprecate any continued discussion of the question of manners.
LORD R. CECILsaid that, of course, he would not pursue the subject, in deference to the suggestion made from the Chair. All he desired to say on that point was that he thought the Opposition had been treated with the greatest possible provocation that evening. The Solicitor-General in dealing with his right hon. friend had stated that his speech had no bearing on the Amendment at all. He could not imagine why the hon. and learned Gentleman said that. He had listened as closely as possible to his right hon. friend, and, in spite of the interruptions to which he was subjected by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he had argued that the desirable plan of giving discretion to the justices should be adopted instead of the plan of fixing a hard and fast limit in the Bill itself. He had illustrated that by the reference to the clubs in Pall Mall. It appeared to him, with all respect to the Solicitor-General, that what his right hon. friend said was absolutely germane to the Amendment. The Prime Minister himself had laid down in the single sentence which he had contributed to the debate, that the whole point of the Amendment was that it raised the question whether it was desirable to leave discretion to the justices, or to fix a limit by the Bill

1619
itself. He confessed on that question it did not appear to him to be open to doubt that it was far better to leave it to the discretion of the justices. He did not think that anyone who read the Bill and the schedule could fail to see how exceedingly clumsy and difficult it would be to work the opposite plan. The Bill proceeded on the theory of fixing a hard and fast limit, and then when the Government found that that would work profound and obvious injustice, they inserted in the schedule a number of far-reaching exceptions to make it workable. He could not imagine why hon. Members opposite, believing as they did in the local justices, should not be willing to give them full discretion to enable them to do real justice between one public-house and another, and between one public-house and the population. That appeared to him to be the true way in which legislation should proceed, and, believing that, he should certainly support the Amendment.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that hon. Members opposite talked about reading the Bill, but it appeared to him that, so far as the representatives of county constituencies were concerned, they could not have read the Bill. Otherwise they would not consent to such an injustice to the labouring population of the rural districts as they would inflict by voting against this Amendment. If hon. Members would look at the first schedule of the Bill, and then consider the areas over which the population was spread, and the number of licences allowed, and further if they would remember, that taking the rural districts alone, there were a large number of counties in England and Wales in which there were only 200 to the square mile, in other counties only 100 to the square mile, and a few with only fifty to the square mile; and if they would work that out and see the distances which the heads of families would have to walk for a glass of beer, they would see that it would be impossible for these men to have it. [Laughter.] Yes, that would please the prohibitionists, and he had no doubt it would please some hon. Members opposite; but would it please the rural population to have public-houses closed in this wholesale manner? He was aware that
1620
there were certain modifications, but if they examined them they amounted to nothing in the way of doing away with the evils against which the Bill was directed. At present there were a number of public-houses scattered over an area where men could get not only their glass of beer, but an evening chat, and have all the advantages which others enjoyed in their clubs, within easy distance of their homes. He challenged any hon. Member opposite to dispute the statement that if this Bill passed as it stood without giving the justices discretion, they would practically put it out of the reach of rural labourers in sparsely populated places to have any enjoyment whatever. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed at the idea of the enjoyment of labourers in the rural districts. He contended that they had not many enjoyments, but the principal one was to go in the evening and sit down with their fellows over a glass of beer. The events of the day were talked over at these meetings by men who knew what they wore talking about. It would be difficult for those who knew the rural districts to say that these poor fellows had many enjoyments except the evening talk over these matters in the public-house. As for getting drunk, first of all they could not afford it, and in the next place he did not know that they had any particular propensity that way. The amount of excessive drinking in public-houses which they were about to abolish was very small. The men in the rural districts went to the public-house not for drink but for social enjoyment. Although hon. Members opposite were silent, they should bear in mind that what they were going to vote for in the division on this Amendment—and he was prepared to prove it—was the depriving, practically, of the rural labourer of the enjoyment which he had at present. It would be utterly impossible for a man when he had done his day's work to walk three or four miles to meet his fellows and have a glass of beer with them. To get his pipe and glass to which he had been accustomed, it was evident that the distance would be too great for him to walk. What right had they in the House of Commons, a large proportion of whom had cellars and servants and had only to

1621
ring a bell and have what they wanted at their own time, to destroy the occasions for enjoyment which people in the rural districts now had? That might not be the idea of enjoyment which the right hon. Member for Spen Valley had; but perhaps he had some little enjoyment of his own which he would not like to have taken away. There never was such a tyrannous proposition made under the name of temperance and democracy. An hon. Member had said that it was almost a crime to take a drink. Well, if that were so, do not let him take it. Perhaps he would be a better man if he did take it. At any rate this introduction of religion into the question was anti-Biblical, because all through the Scriptures they were taught how good it was to take something to drink. The good Samaritan when he found the stricken Jew by the wayside poured wine and oil into his wounds. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley and the Member for Appleby would in this case pour in ginger-beer or some stuff, of that sort. But instead of paying the 2d. for the poor man's treatment in the inn out of their own pocket, they would take it out of the publican's pocket to discharge the debt. [Interruption and cries of "Vote."] But the question did not seem to meet with favourable discussion in this House. It would, however, be discussed in the rural districts where the clause would bear most hardly. If he represented a rural district, and if he voted for the rejection of the Amendment he should find it tremendously difficult when he met a dozen or so of labourers in the neighbourhood who were in the habit of enjoying themselves in a public-house—legitimately enjoying themselves with their pipe and their glass—to explain to them why he had cast his vote to destroy the possibility, in a large number of eases, of their having such enjoyment. What did this Amendment mean? It meant that the licensing committee should have some discretion. They knew very well—or if they did not, nobody else knew; certainly no body in London—whether it was well to have a public-house in a certain district, and they knew—they were the best people to know—exactly the number suited,
1622
not only to the population but to the situation of that population. In the districts of which he spoke there might be 100 to 200 people to the square mile; and that was the case in the rural districts of above forty counties in England. But there were counties where instead of 200 there would not be fifty people to the square mile, and what a distance they would have to travel for a glass of beer. The matter was not regulated by the number of adult men; but by the number of the population all told, so that the men who wanted a public-house would be a fifth of the whole number or less, and this sparseness intensified the hardship. Therefore, it would be seen how utterly impossible it would be under this Bill for them to have this enjoyment. He called it enjoyment, and hon. Members opposite had no right to take it away. If hon. Members opposite who represented rural districts—he knew that their motives were all right, and that they did not wish to inflict on others that which they would not stand if inflicted upon themselves—were to go to their constituents and explain to them—not perhaps in a public-house, but in a meeting called for the purpose—what this Bill did without the Amendment, they would see what answer they would get. There was a class of public-house which as a licensed house did not pay but the holder of which had some other occupation. By means of that additional occupation he was able to have a licence, and perhaps in the evenings he would have in half-a-dozen of the poor people who lived in the neighbourhood who could enjoy their glass of beer or cider, and use the house as a club, in fact. Were not these people, who had their troubles and anxieties, and perhaps a large family of ten or twelve children, to have some enjoyment, somewhere to go and smoke their pipes? This was in many cases the only pleasure and recreation they had, and those who were going to vote against this Amendment were going to deprive them of that enjoyment which now existed. He appealed to the Prime Minister to accept the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman would not he would recommend him to adopt a Resolution which

1623
would save a great deal of time, namely, that the Bill should now pass. He could carry that with the closure, would be done.
MR. ASQUITHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
EARL WINTERTON: Why do not you put the whole Bill?
CAPTAIN CRAIGon a point of order asked whether in view of the Government having applied the closure it would be in order for them to discuss the words "may" or "shall."
*THE CHAIRMAN: I will answer the point of order, but it really should not have been put until after the division is finished. It will not be in order now to discuss "may" and "shall." I have already given my decision on that point.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 298; Noes, 122. (Division List No. 205.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Agnew, George William

Cooper, G. J.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

Gulland, John W.

Alden, Percy

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gurdon, RtHn. Sir W. Brampton

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hall, Frederick

Armitage, R.

Cowan, W. H.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Crooks, William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Astbury, John Meir

Crosfield, A. H.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crossley, William J.

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dalziel, James Henry

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Barker, John

Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.

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

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Beale, W. P.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Beauchamp, E.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Bell, Richard

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hazleton, Richard

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Helme, Norval Watson

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hemmerde, Edward George

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

Duckworth, James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Bennett, E. N.

Duffy, William J.

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

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

Black, Arthur W.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Bowerman, C. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Higham, John Sharp

Brace, William

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Hobart, Sir Robert

Bramsdon, T. A.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Branch, James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hodge, John

Brigg, John

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Bright, J. A.

Erskine, David C.

Holt, Richard Burning

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Essex, R. W.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Brodie, H. C.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

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

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Horniman, Emslie John

Brunner, RtHn Sir J.T. (Cheshire

Everett, R. Lacey

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Bryce, J. Annan

Fenwick, Charles

Hudson, Walter

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ferens, T. R.

Hyde, Clarendon

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Illingworth, Percy H.

Byles, William Pollard

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Jackson, R. S.

Cameron, Robert

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fuller, John Michael F

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Fullerton, Hugh

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Chance, Frederick William

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Gill, A. H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Joyce, Michael

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Glendinning, R. G.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Cleland, J. W.

Glover, Thomas

Kekewich, Sir George

Clough, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Laidlaw, Robert

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

1625

Lamont, Norman

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Langley, Batty

Perks, Sir Robert William

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lehmann, R. C.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Pollard, Dr.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Summerbell, T.

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Lyell, Charles Henry

Radford, G. H.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Thomasson, Franklin

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Maclean, Donald

Redmond, William (Clare)

Tomkinson, James

M'Callum, John M.

Rendall, Athelstan

Toulmin, George

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Richardson, A.

Ure, Alexander

M'Micking, Major G.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Verney, F. W.

Maddison, Frederick

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Vivian, Henry

Mallet, Charles E.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wadsworth, J.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs)

Walsh, Stephen

Markham, Arthur Basil

Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradf'rd

Walton, Joseph

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Marnham, F. J.

Robinson, S.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Massie, J.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Menzies, Walter

Roe, Sir Thomas

Waterlow, D. S.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Watt, Henry A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rose, Charles Day

Weir, James Galloway

Mond, A.

Rowlands, J.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Russell, T. W.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Montgomery, H. G.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Whitehead, Rowland

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Morrell, Philip

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn Sir Thomas P

Morse, L. L.

Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wiles, Thomas

Morton, Alphcus Cleophas

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Myer, Horatio

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Williamson, A.

Napier, T. B.

Seddon, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Seely, Colonel

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

Nicholls, George

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Donecast'r

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

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

Norman, Sir Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Norton, Capt, Cecil William

Sileock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Simon, John Allsebrook

Winfrey, R.

Nussey, Thomas Willams

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Nuttall, Harry

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Parker, James (Halifax)

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Partington, Oswald

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Steadman, W. C.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Ashley, W. W.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Balcarres, Lord

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Cross, Alexander

Baldwin, Stanley

Carlile, E. Hildred

Dalrymple, Viscount

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Castlereagh, Viscount

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cave, George

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Barnard, E. B.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Fell, Arthur

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

Forster, Henry William

Beckett, Hon. Gervase,

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gardner, Ernest

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Clark, George Smith

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Bertram, Julius

Clive, Percy Archer

Goulding, Edward Alfred;

Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

Gretton, John

Bowles, G. Stewart

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

Guinness, Walter Edward

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S)

Haddock, George B.

1626

1627

Hamilton, Marquess of

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Smith, F.E.(Liverpool,Walton

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Morpeth, Viscount

Stanier, Beville

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Starkey, John R.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Helmsley, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hill, Sir Clement

Nolan, Joseph

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hills, J. W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

Oddy, John James

Thomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Thornton, Percy M.

Hunt, Rowland

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Kerry, Earl of

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Whitbread, Howard

Keswick, William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Renton, Leslie

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall

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

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

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Winterton, Earl

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

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

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Young, Samuel

Lupton, Arnold

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Younger, George

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

M'Arthur, Charles

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 290. (Division List No. 206.)

AYES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Duncan, Robt.(Lanark, Govan)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ashley, W. W.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morpeth, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

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

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Baldwin, Stanley

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

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

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gardner, Ernest

Nolan, Joseph

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Baring, Capt. Hn.G(Winchester

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Barnard, E. B.

Gretton, John

Oddy, John James

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

Guinness, Walter Edward

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Haddock, George B.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hamilton, Marquess of

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Belloc,Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Bertram, Julius

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Renton, Leslie

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts, S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hill, Sir Clement

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hope, James Fitzalan(Sheffield)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hunt, Rowland

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Castlereagh, Viscount

Joynson-Hicks, William

Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berekley George D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Keswiek, William

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Smith, F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Smith, Hon. W. F.D.(Strand)

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Wore.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Stanier, Beville

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

Starkey, John R.

Clark, George Smith

Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

Stavely-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Clive, Percy Archer

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

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

Lupton, Arnold

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Talbot, RtHn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

MacCaw,William J. MacGeagh

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Craik, Sir Henry

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cross, Alexander

M'Arthur, Charles

Walker, Col.W.H.(Lancashire)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Whitbread, Howard

Du Cros, Arthur Philip.

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

White, Patrick (Meath,North

1629

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

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

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Young, Samuel

Winterton, Earl

Younger, George

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cowan, W. H.

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

Agnew, George William

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Crooks, William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Alden, Percy

Crosfield, A. H.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Crossley, William J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dalziel, James Henry

Hazelton, Richard

Armitage, R.

Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

Helme, Norval Watson

Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Astbury, John Meir

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, Sir W.Howell(Bristol,S

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

Barker, John

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Barnes, G. N.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Higham, John Sharp

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Beale, W. P.

Duckworth, James

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Beauchamp, E.

Daffy, William J.

Hodge, John

Bell, Richard

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Holland, Sir William Henry

Bellairs, Carlyon

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Holt, Richard Durning

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall

Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N

Bennett, E. N.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Horniman, Emslie John

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hudson, Walter

Bowerman, C. W.

Erskine, David C.

Hyde, Clarendon

Brace, William

Essex, R. W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jackson, R. S.

Branch, James

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Brigg, John

Everett, R. Lacey

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Bright, J. A.

Fenwick, Charles

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Ferens, T. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Brodie, H. C.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Jones William (Carnarvonshire

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

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Joyce, Michael

Brunner,RtHnSir J.T(Cheshire

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Bryce, J. Annan

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kekewich, Sir George

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fullerton, Hugh

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Laidlaw, Robert

Byles, William Pollard

Gill, A. H.

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John

Lamont, Norman

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Glendinning, R. G.

Langley, Batty

Chance, Frederick William

Glover, Thomas

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lehmann, R. C.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lever, A.Levy (Essex,Harwich

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Cleland, J. W.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lewis, John Herbert

Clough, William

Gulland, John W.

Lloyd-George,Rt. Hon. David

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Guldon,RtHn. Sir W Brampton

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

Hall, Frederick

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cooper, G. J.

Harcourt, Rt.Hn. L. (Rossendale

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Harcourt,Robert V.(Montrose)

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk Bg'hs

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore.)

M'Callum, John M.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

1630

1631

M'Micking, Major G.

Rendall, Athelstan

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Maddison, Frederick

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Mallet, Charles E.

Richardson, A.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Manfield, Harry (Northant s)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thomasson, Franklin

Marnham, F. J.

Roberts,Sir John H.(Denbighs.)

Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton)

Massie, J.

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

Tomkinson, James

Menzies, Walter

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Toulmin, George

Micklem, Nathaniel

Robinson, S.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Ure, Alexander

Mond, A.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Verney, F. W.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Vivian, Henry

Montgomery, H. G.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wadsworth, J.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Rose, Charles Day

Walsh, Stephen

Morrell, Philip

Rowlands, J.

Walton. Joseph

Morse, L. L.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Russell, T. W.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Myer, Horatio

Samuel,Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Wason, Rt.Hn.E. (Clackmannan

Napier, T. B.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Newnes, F.(Notts, Bassetlaw)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Waterlow, D. S.

Nicholls, George

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Weir, James Galloway

Nicholson,Charles N. (Doncast'r

Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Norman, Sir Henry

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Seddon, J.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Seely, Colonel

Whitehead, Rowland

Nuttall, Harry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Whittaker,Rt.Hn.Sir Thomas P.

Partington, Oswald

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wiles, Thomas

Paulton, James Mellor

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Williamson, A.

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

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wills, Arthur Walters

Philipps, Owen C.(Pembroke)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Soares, Ernest J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Pollard, Dr.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

Ponsonby, Arthur A.W.H.

Stanley,Hn.A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

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

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

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Winfrey, R.

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

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wood, T. McKinnon

Radford, G. H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Raphael, Herbert H.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Summerbell, T.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Sutherland, J. E.

MR. ASQUITH: I beg to move that you do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
MR. BALFOUR: I suppose it is understood that we do nothing else to-night?
MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir.
Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

BUILDING OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING WORKS BILL.
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 20th July; Mr. Secretary Gladstone]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 243]
Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The Right Honourable George Whiteley, having been created Baron Marchamley of Hawkestone in the county of Salop, was (in the usual manner), introduced.
The Earl Ferrers took the oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Tyne Improvement Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Central Ireland Electric Power Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (No. 2) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 25th of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly.
London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [H.L.]; London Electric Supply Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Liverpool Corporation (General Powers) Bill; Widnes Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Dover Graving Docks Bill. Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Taff Vale Railway Bill [H.L.]; Northern Assurance Company Bill [H.L.];
1330
Commercial Union Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Bill [H.L.]; Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Leeds Corporation Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill. Committed for To-morrow.
Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill; London United Tramways Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill (Bradfield Rural Order); Holderness Water Bill. Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee adjourned on Friday last at half-past One o'clock; read, and ordered to lie upon the Table.
London United Tramways Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill (Bradfield Rural Order); Holderness Water Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Powis and the Lord Langford be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Dunboyne and the Lord Hindlip; read, and agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cornwall, &c.) Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read To-morrow.
Galashiels Drainage and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PETITION.

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to present a petition signed by, I am informed, two thousand bankers and

  1331
  merchants, chairmen of railway companies and insurance companies, and a large number of members of Lloyd's; and the prayer is that, in view of the statement of facts which they make, your honourable House should postpone the consideration of the Old-Age Pensions Bill until such time as the Report of the Commission on the Poor Law has been issued, and until an opportunity has been given to Parliament to consider the said Bill in the light of that Report. They add that, by refusing to proceed beyond the Second Reading of the Bill until such Report has been received, your Lordships will give proof that you are determined not to acquiesce in legislative measures which are not based on the fullest information and the best advice obtainable.
  Petition presented and ordered to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  IRELAND (CONSTABULARY IN PRO- CLAIMED COUNTIES).
  Return showing in the case of each proclaimed county in Ireland: The number of officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary actually in each county at the end of March, 1905; the number of men and officers wholly chargeable out of the Consolidated Fund for each county; the number of officers and men extra of the establishment in each county and their expenses for each half-year from the end of March, 1905, to the end of March, 1908; the sums demanded in these counties for the expense of conveying prisoners in each half-year from the end of March, 1905, to the end of March, 1908; the amount of compensation for malicious injuries granted in these counties in each half year from March, 1905, to March, 1908.
  Ordered to be laid before the House. — (The Lord Killanin.)

AGRICULTURAL (EDUCATION).
Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to inquire into and report upon the subject of agricultural education in England and Wales, with the minutes appointing the Committee and appendices; Minutes of evidence and index.
COLONIES: ANNUAL.
No. 565. (The Surreys of British Africa, Ceylon, and the Federated Malay States)—Annual Report of the Colonial Survey Committee. Third year, to June, 1908.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL, 1908.
Revised draft of the articles of a charter for the University to have its seat, (i.) in Dublin; (ii.) in Belfast; revised draft of the articles of a charter for the college to have its seat in Dublin; revised draft of the articles of a new charter for the constituent college at (i.) Cork; (ii.) Galway.

TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
No. 4052. Uruguay (Trade and Finance).
No. 4053. Germany (Consular District of Dusseldorf (Westphalia and Rhenish Provinces)).
No. 4054. China (Pakhoi).
No. 4055. Turkey (Vilayets of Aleppo and Adana).
No. 4056. Austria-Hungary (Foreign Trade).
No. 4057. France (Havre).
No. 4058. Argentine Republic (Buenos Ayres).
No. 4059. China (Wuchow).

IRISH RAILWAYS (VICEREGAL COM- MISSION).
Fourth Report of the Commissioners; Appendix.
RAILWAY EMPLOYMENT SAFETY APPLIANCES.
Third and Fourth Reports of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to examine and, where necessary, to test appliances designed to diminish danger to men employed in railway service (in continuation of [Cd. 3638]).
ARMY.
Return for the year ended the 31st March, 1908, of pensions specially granted under Article 718, 1089, and 1124 of the Pay Warrant.
Fourth Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, for the year 1907.
CARE AND CONTROL OF THE FEEBLE-MINDED (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Report of Commissioners appointed to inquire concerning the care and control of feeble-minded; minutes of evidence and appendices, Volumes I. to VII.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Fifty-second Report of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners; with appendices.
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION ACT, 1906.
Rules made by the Board of Trade.

SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (COUNTY BOROUGH OF NEWPORT).
Order made by the council of the county borough of Newport, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the county borough.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Denman.) (No. 158.)

REDUCTIONS IN THE REGULAR ARMY.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private notice, and which I understand it will be convenient to him to answer to-day—namely, whether His Majesty's Government adhere to the declaration recently made by the Secretary of State for War in the House of Commons that no further reductions of the Regular Army are in contemplation.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for having given me private notice of his intention to ask this Question. The statement made by my right hon. friend in another place to which I imagine the noble Viscount alludes, was as follows, A Question
1334
was put to my right hon. friend in the following terms—
"I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to make any further reduction in the establishment or strength of the Infantry of the Line, and, if so, whether it is proposed that such reduction shall be effected by destroying additional units or by reducing the number of officers and men in existing units";
to which my right hon. friend replied—
"No, Sir."
My reply to the noble Viscount is in the affirmative, but at the same time the circumstances under which the Question is asked I think make it desirable that I should say a few words in explanation. The noble Viscount's Question is in itself a somewhat unusual one, because it has relation to the Army Estimates for the year 1909, and is asked on 20th July of this year. I conceive that his reason for asking it is the existence of certain rumours and talk which have to some extent reached the newspapers, and which have been prevalent of late. Now political small talk and what Lord Beaconsfield called coffee house babble, are very apt to concentrate on one office at a particular time. The noble Viscount himself has had some experience of that. At one time it may be the India Office. At another time it may be the Admiralty. At this moment it happens to be the War Office. Sometimes there is foundation for talk of that kind; sometimes there is not much foundation. I think it would be desirable in the public interest that I should state to-day what actually has happened in this case. What has been going on has simply been an ordinary inquiry into general expenditure, not confined to one Department, such as all Governments are bound to make from time to time. There is an especial reason why, in view of the autumn session, which, as noble Lords have so often said, with our agreement, makes concentration on anything except the session itself difficult in the autumn months, an inquiry of that kind should begin this year earlier than usual. That is all that has occurred. Therefore I am not able to say anything further on the subject. But I would like to add, in conclusion, that we are as alive as noble Lords opposite to the needs of the defence of the country, and I think

1335
that it will be found that we have devoted quite as much attention to that subject as, if not more than, any Government which has existed before our time. It is perfectly true that we are bound in the matter of the spending services to study economy as far as we can; but we certainly do not intend to sacrifice efficiency for that economy.

OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Viscount WOLVERHAMPTON): My Lords, the measure which I have to ask your Lordships to read a second time to-day has undergone, both in its principle and in the machinery of its administration, greater and more exhaustive inquiry than almost any measure which for many years past has been brought up to your Lordships' House. It is a subject which has occupied the attention of Governments of various shades of politics—Governments which have represented at one time one section of the community, and at another time a totally different section; and it has a history of its own with which I shall not trouble your Lordships at any length, but I think it is worth while to recall to your memories what has been done, what inquiries have been made, and what steps have been taken before this measure passed its final stage in the House of Commons.
It is rather singular that so far back as the year 1772 a measure passed the House of Commons for a voluntary scheme of annuities for workmen, to be guaranteed and assisted out of the poor rates. That measure passed the House of Commons, but did not pass the House of Lords. There were various schemes for old-age relief from private individuals, notably from Canon Blackley, who, as your Lordships will remember, was a distinguished clergyman of the Church of England who took great interest in the whole question of Poor Law relief. In 1891 there was an informal Parliamentary Committee to consider the whole question. That Com-
1336
mittee consisted of between sixty and seventy Members of both Houses, and it was presided over by that distinguished statesman whose removal from public life, (we hope only for a temporary period), I think is regretted alike by his opponents as well as by his political friends. Mr. Chamberlain occupied the chair of that Committee, and no doubt was a very important leader in the opinions at which they arrived. I think it is true to say that of all the living statesmen who have taken a great interest in this question of old-age pensions the man who stands out most distinctly as having popularised the question is Mr. Chamberlain.
That Committee, of course, had no Parliamentary authority; it discussed the variety of schemes which were eventually submitted, but shortly after that Committee concluded its sittings Parliament was dissolved and a new Government came into power. It was my duty and my privilege, as President of the Local Government Board in that Government, to advise the Crown to issue a Royal Commission to investigate the whole question of relieving the aged poor, and also indirectly of dealing with the Poor Law. In 1893 that Commission was appointed, and in 1895 it presented its Report. It was a Commission constituted of singularly able and distinguished men. His present Majesty was a very active member of that, Commission, and several well-known and distinguished politicians took a prominent part in it, aided and assisted by Members of Parliament who had an intimate personal acquaintance with the conditions and necessities of the poor. But it was not unanimous. There was a Minority Report. In fact, the differences of opinion which appeared in the whole history of that Commission showed that practically they were not in a position to recommend any scheme which had any chance of acceptance. In 1896 a Committee was appointed by the Treasury, presided over by Lord Rothschild, to look into the question from the financial point of view, and their inquiry was rather wide. It was for—
"encouraging our industrial population by State or other aid to make provision for old age";

1337
I believe that upwards of 100 separate schemes were submitted for the consideration of that Committee, which I think may at once prepare your Lordships to agree with me in the opinion that there cannot be anything fresh now to be said on that question. That was a complete and exhaustive inquiry into the whole position of Poor Law pensions. The Committee did not make a unanimous Report. In the year 1899 a Committee was appointed, over which Mr. Chaplin presided, and which made a thorough and exhaustive inquiry into the whole question. No doubt there has been a greater concentration of agreement upon the scheme which Mr. Chaplin's Committee proposed than perhaps upon any other scheme down to the present time. At all events, the then Government thought so highly of that scheme that they appointed a Finance Committee from the Treasury, under the presidency of Sir Edward Hamilton, to investigate its financial side. The result of that investigation was that the finance was found to be uncertain, and, I think I am justified in saying, unsound. In 1903 the last Bill was introduced and referred to a Select Committee, which also dealt with the principle of the measure and with its machinery.
Now we come to the present day. In March, 1906, which your Lordships will remember was within two months of the last general election, the House of Commons unanimously agreed to this Resolution—
"That a measure is urgently needed in order that out of funds provided by taxation provision can be made for the payment of a pension to all the aged subjects of His Majesty in the United Kingdom."
The Government assented to that Resolution, but it must not be forgotten that the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, intimated that it was a very wide question so far as its detail was concerned, and that, while he accepted the principle, be reserved to himself and to his colleagues the fullest freedom of action with reference to the mode and the extent of any legislation which should follow the passing of that Resolution. It has been stated, in that mode of
1338
gossip or guessing to which my noble friend behind me just now alluded, that the Government took very little further interest in the matter, and that they only, so to speak, hurriedly and without due consideration prepared a measure which they threw upon the Table of the House of Commons, and which had not had the consideration to which such an. important change in the law as they suggested was entitled.
To that statement I venture to give the strongest contradiction of which the English language is capable. I know something of the matter upon which I am speaking, and I say that for more than twelve months prior to the date on which I am speaking now the most anxious attention of the whole Cabinet, aided, of course, as it was in its detailed inquiries by a Committee, was devoted to the consideration of this question. The Government were aided by the various Departments specially interested—the Local Government Board, the Home Office, the Treasury, and the Post Office. I think noble Lords who have been in previous Governments will not contradict me when I say that the permanent Civil servants at the disposal of the various heads of those Departments are men of the highest standing and the greatest experience and are the soundest advisers which the Government could possess. We had the advantage of that assistance, and we ventured to submit to the House of Commons the measure which I will detail to your Lordships in a minute or two.
There is another peculiarity about this Bill—not only the exhaustive dissection to which it was subjected by the various instruments which I have mentioned, but the fact that, whether it be a good Bill or a bad Bill, it comes to your Lordships' House with this strong recommendation, that the Second Reading was agreed to in the House of Commons with only twenty-five dissentients; and, after it had undergone what was a very keen testing during the Committee stage, when the Third Reading was proposed there were only ten Members of the other House who voted against. If you bear in mind the facts I have cited—the Resolution which the House of Commons unanimously passed

1339
within two months of the general election, the smallness of the number of those who differ conscientiously from the whole scheme, coupled with the fact that not even the organised official Opposition voted against either the Second or the Third Reading—then if these facts are to be disregarded there really must be an end to talking of public opinion as represented in this country being recognised in this House.
I now pass to the Bill itself. I will deal with these matters as shortly as I can, but I must go somewhat into detail in order that the Bill, which is a complicated one and not very clear, perhaps, in some of its phraseology, may be more fully considered. First let me state who are to be entitled to those old-age pensions. I will deal with the numbers when I come to a subsequent part of my remarks. The class who are to be entitled to pensions, if this Bill passes into law, are persons of seventy years of age and upwards. They are to be British subjects resident in the United Kingdom for twenty years previously, which, of course, practically makes the provision for British subjects in every sense of the word. The amount of the pension they are to receive is subject to the amount of their private income, about which there has been great controversy. There have been those who have maintained that everybody should be entitled to the pension, and those who have maintained, and maintained successfully, the theory that the proper and fair mode of adjusting the relationships which ought to exist between the pension and the private means of those who are to receive it should be on the principle of a sliding scale.
Where the private income in any shape or form amounts to £21, then the pension is to be 5s. a week; if it amounts to £23 12s. 6d., the pension is to be 4s. a week; if it amounts to £26 5s., the pension is to be 3s. a week; if it amounts to £28 17s. 6d., the pension is to be 2s. a week, and if the private income is £31 10s. the pension is to be 1s. a week. Above £31 10s. there is to be no pension paid at all. Of course that is on the principle of levelling down the pension in proportion to the levelling up of the private means. The maximum pension, as I have said, is 5s. a week and that
1340
sum has the sanction of high authorities in the various inquiries to which I have referred.
There are certain disqualifications. The first disqualification is the receiving of Poor Law relief since 1st January, 1908. Your Lordships will see that the reason for limiting this to a certain period is that if this disqualification were not introduced there would be a large transfer immediately from outdoor relief and possibly indoor relief on to the pensions, and it would throw a very heavy charge upon the Pension Fund. The next disqualification—one on which, perhaps, your Lordships will entertain some strong opinions, and with regard to which you will perhaps not be satisfied with the exact wording which the House of I Commons has, after much discussion, agreed to—is one directed against the I man who—
"Has habitually failed to work according to his ability, opportunity, and need for the maintenance or benefit of himself and those legally dependent upon him."
The object of that is to exclude the wastrels—the gentlemen who live on writing begging letters, and the class who have not done an honest day's work in their lives and never intend to. I think there would be, generally, a very strong feeling against that class being pensioned off by the State; and whether those words are sufficient, or whether they are too wide, is a question for further consideration; it in no way affects the principle of the measure or its machinery. I think this House will be agreed that there should be no encouragement of the wastrel and the idle man in regard to this pension.
Then there is the provision, introduced after a good deal of discussion, that—
"A person shall not be disqualified if he has continuously for ten years up to attaining the age of sixty, by means of payments to friendly, provident, or other societies, or trade unions, or other approved steps, made such provision against old age, sickness, infirmity, or want or loss of employment as may be recognised as proper provision for the purpose by regulations under this Act."
In that case a man will not be disqualified by the test that he must have been an industrious man. If he has done that—I admit it is a difficult inquiry to carry on—he has given practical proof that he

1341
is a thrifty man and has desired to do according to the best of his ability for his family. There is another disqualification—
"While he is detained in any asylum within the meaning of the Lunacy Act, 1890, or while he is being maintained in any place as a pauper or criminal lunatic."
And, further—
"Where a person has been, before the passing of this Act, or is after the passing of this Act, convicted of any offence, and ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine or to suffer any greater punishment, he shall be disqualified for receiving or continuing to receive an old-age pension under this Act, while he is detained in prison in consequence of the order and for a further period of ten years after the date on which he is released from prison."
There are other provisions in regard to administration, with which I need not trouble your Lordships.
These, pensions are to be inalienable. There is to be no power to charge them or to attempt to borrow money upon them. Any attempt to alienate the pension kills the pension. The machinery by which the Bill is to be carried into effect is as follows. The Treasury are to appoint pension officers and also to fix the areas in which they will work. An arrangement has been come to between the Treasury and the Post Office by which Inland Revenue officers will be able to do this pension work without adding very greatly to the cost of administration. I need hardly say that inasmuch as the Treasury is to find the money the Treasury must be able to have a very effective control over the expenditure. The pension officer is the representative of the Treasury. The next stage in the administration is what is called the local pension committee, and upon that committee will practically depend the working of this Act and its administration. In boroughs or urban districts, where the borough or urban district has a population of 20,000, their councils, municipal or district, as the case may be, will have the appointment of a pension committee; but there is a provision in the Bill that they must not necessarily be members of the municipal or urban authority which is appointing them. That is to enable the local body to choose competent men, whether they are or are not members of those municipal authorities. In the
1342
areas outside these authorities the county councils are to appoint the pension committees.
All claims for pensions, all questions of disqualification, and a great many other questions which must necessarily arise in the administration are to be defined by regulations; and in all these matters the Pension Committee are to be the final authority, subject to an appeal to the central pension authority, which will be the Local Government Board. Therefore the three stages of the hierarchy are the pension officer, the local pension committee, and the Local Government Board, and I feel perfectly satisfied that with these checks and that administration, there will be a general desire—and I think the desire will be carried out both with justice and with care—to make this Act a complete and satisfactory success. Then there is a provision with reference to false statements. The making of false statements will kill the pension, and the matter is dealt with accordingly. The pensions are to be paid through the Post Office and are to commence on the first Friday after the claim is allowed, and all pensions will be paid weekly. Your Lordships will gather from what I have said that Parliament, and Parliament alone, is to find the money for this expenditure.
I shall next be asked how many pensioners we expect to have. That has been a question which has been subjected to every sort of test by many qualified statisticians, and the Government have come to the conclusion that at the present time and dealing with the present state of the population they are safe in assuming that there will be somewhere between 500,000 and 550,000 persons duly qualified. The cost of the pensions to that extent for the next year is put down at about £1,250,000. The charge on the current financial year which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already provided for, and which will be voted in Committee of Supply in the course of the present week in a Supplementary Estimate, is £1,250,000 and that will defray the expenses of the scheme up to the end of the financial year. What will be required during the next financial year it is, of course, impossible to say,

1343
and therefore it would be absurd for anyone to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where he expects to get it from. We cannot embark upon, and we shall not embark upon the Budget of 1909 in the summer of 1908. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a remark the other day which I thought was very correct. He said that it really was ridiculous to suppose that any body of Britishers would make proposals to Parliament to carry out a great scheme without knowing pretty clearly where the funds were to come from out of which the cost of that scheme was to be defrayed.
Two great points have been raised in this controversy as to whether it would not be wiser that these schemes should be universal and that they should partake of a contributory character. I note your Lordships cheer that. It is a very singular thing that everybody of authority who has gone into this question, from Mr. Chamberlain downwards, have all been fascinated with the idea of contribution, but when they have attempted to apply it and see how it is to work one by one the advocates of contribution have been obliged to admit that the thing is unjust and, therefore, impossible. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to read two or three words from Mr. Chamberlain's speech in the House of Commons on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"My own belief is that the only way to solve this question of old-age pensions is by approaching it by sections, and that we shall never be able to deal with it as a whole. I think it is a mistake to confine assistance entirely to those who have themselves directly contributed to the pensions, because there are indirect methods and tests of thrift and providence which are just as good as direct contributions. The man who has brought up a family without having recourse to Poor Law relief, the man who has invested a little money in a house, is not necessarily leas deserving of sympathy and assistance than the man who has contributed so much a year in order to provide a pension at sixty-five. I think it is agreed that we must put aside at once any further attempt to secure compulsory contributions from the working classes. That is a Continental system, but I do not think it has been such a success in Germany that a scheme of that kind can possibly be adopted here. I think it may also be laid down that the working classes are at present either unable or unwilling to purchase deferred annuities by payments over a long period of years. The one fatal objection to such a scheme is this: that if the benefit to be received air sixty-five is to
1344
depend upon the continuance of the payments, a very large proportion of the persons who subscribe will, by some temporary misfortune, some inability to provide the payments, be thrown out of the benefits; for a failure to pay a single payment may deprive a man, not only of the pension, but also of the contributions he has already made."
Mr. Booth has said that of the people who come on the Poor Law at sixty-five, five-sixths have never applied for relief up to the age of sixty. It would be unfair and unwise to attempt to extract anything more from the wages of a man who had maintained himself up to sixty. Mr. Burt said the other day in the House of Commons that there were 1,750,000 male workers in this country who were not earning more than 20s. a week. That is not Mr. Burt's own statement; it is on the authority of Sir Robert Giffen. When we remember their rents, cost of food and clothing, and, in a very large number of cases, their contributions to friendly, provident, and building societies, the bulk of the working population have not much margin left for any further saving.
There are two Amendments down for discussion this evening. The first, in the name of Lord Wemyss, maintains that pending the Report of the Royal Commission now inquiring into the principles and working of the existing Poor Law it would be unwise to enter upon the consideration of the Bill. In the first instance, that is an attractive Amendment and it deserves to be fairly and fully considered. The great Poor Law Act of 1834 was one of the wisest Acts that Parliament ever passed, and it practically saved this country from insolvency. But in 1834 the poor of the country were, to a very great extent, confined to the agricultural section of the community. The great manufactories and industries which have mainly produced to an enormous degree the wealth of the country did not then exist. The country in which we live to-day is a totally different one. The class of people liable to come upon the Poor Law has enormously increased, the mode and cost of living have also increased, and we are saddled with a scheme of workhouses in which there is no classification. There is no distinction between old and young, between the thrifty and industrious and the criminal, and, while the feeling of the

1345
country has rightly improved the condition of the inhabitants of the poor-houses, it has not taken sufficient steps to relieve them from the associations of the workhouse and the companions by which they are surrounded. You ought not to put in one union the old and young, the aged and infirm, those who have led good honest lives, and those whose lives have been the contrary.
The inquiry is a very complicated one. I have every confidence in Lord George Hamilton, who, in addition to his many public services, has rendered another in presiding over the Commission, and I am convinced that its Report will be a great and statesmanlike proposal. But it cannot be presented much before the end of the year—the Government hope in the autumn—and it will require an amount of attention that will occupy a long time by the Government of the day, whoever they may be. To wait until this Report has been presented and considered would be to delay the real working of this scheme for four or five years. The Government are not prepared to assent to such a proposal. They see their way clear to dealing to a practical extent with this gigantic evil, and are determined to do so as soon, as they possibly can.
The Amendment in the name of Lord Heneage, which states that there is no reliable information as to cost, deals with another question, and is not one that the Government could accept. What your Lordships have to consider is whether you will pass the Bill or throw it out. Of the people of the age of seventy and upwards the class deserving the greatest sympathy is that of the working woman. Her life is a very hard one. She occupies perhaps, a more influential and certainly a more exhausting sphere than her husband. She has no opportunity of saving for her old age, and the spectacle of a widow of that class with no prospect before her save the workhouse is not worthy of a wealthy country like ours. One half of the beneficiaries under the Bill will be women over 70 years of age, and the other half of the beneficiaries under the Bill will be men over seventy years of age who have done their duty. I do not think the indebtedness of this country to its
1346
working men, the enormous trust which is reposed in them, and the faithfulness with which it is discharged, are often realised. The whole machinery of progressive civilised life depends upon our working classes; to thorn is entrusted the working of our great factories, industries, and mines, from which from time to time come stories showing that among the workmen are heroes and martyrs of the truest type; and to the activity, good conduct, and skill of working men the whole 6f our railway organisation is confided. Working men are a great national asset of which the country ought to be proud, and I trust I shall not appeal in vain to your Lordships to pass a measure which will redound to the prosperity and glory of the country.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
*THE Earl OF WEMYSS,*THE Earl OF WEMYSS, who had given notice of an Amendment—
"That pending the Report of the Royal Commission now inquiring into the principles and working of the existing Poor La wit would be unwise to enter upon the consideration of a Bill establishing the far-reaching principle of State Old-Age Pensions"—
said: My Lords, I labour under the disadvantage of not having heard a Word of the speech of the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of the Bill. Indeed, I wondered what he was talking about, because I was not aware that he, instead of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, was to move the Second Reading of the Bill. But a friend behind me wrote on a piece of paper that the noble Viscount had said that the adoption of my Amendment would defer legislation on the subject for four or five years. I think it would be better to put off legislation for forty years rather than have bad legislation.
Last Thursday The Times, in a leading article, recommended your Lordships to pass the Second and even the Third Reading of the Bill, not on account of any merit it has, but for your own sake, and for the good of your Lordships' House. In the same article, however, there was a sentence which blew all this to smithereens, and I commend it to the notice of your Lordships' House. The sentence ran—
"But the real objection to the Bill is that it is fundamentally on wrong lines, and is, in

1347
fact, not a pension but a Bill giving indefinite extension of outdoor relief."
It is on that ground that I venture to ask your Lordships whether it is wise to go on with the Bill. I want your Lordships to consider, supposing this to be right, what indefinite extension of outdoor relief means.
I should like to take your Lordships back seventy years. In 1834 the Poor Law, which had existed from the time of Elizabeth, had, by mismanagement and lax administration, produced such a state of things that it was given in evidence before the Poor Law Commission of that date that labourers said—
"Damn work! Blast work! Why should I work when I can get 10s. from the rates for doing nothing."
The Commission, on which the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Carlisle sat, reported that all this was due to lax administration, and that stringency in administering the law was necessary. There may be people who say that the law has been too stringent and too harsh, but those two Bishops evidently did not think so. What has happened since then? From that time better administration has prevailed, outdoor relief has been restricted, and the independence of the people has been restored. If, from sentimental motives, Parliament passes this Bill, I hold that you will establish a system of demoralisation amongst the working classes, that you will do away with thrift, that families will cease to regard it as an obligation to maintain those of their members whose working days are passed, and that self-reliance will be diminished.
I see in his place my noble friend Lord Rosebery. He, as Chancellor of the University of Glasgow, delivered the other day a most admirable speech, in the course of which he spoke strongly of the need of self-reliance. What he said is so much to the point that I will, with your Lordships permission, read it. The noble Earl said—
"The State invites us every day to lean upon it. I seem to hear the wheedling and alluring whisper, 'Sound you may be, we bid you be a cripple. Do you see? Be blind. Do you hear? Be deaf. Do you walk? Be not so venturesome. Here is a crutch for one arm, when you get accustomed to it, you will get accustomed to it, you will soon want another—the sooner the better.' The strongest man if encouraged may soon accustom himself to the methods of an invalid; he may train
1348
himself to totter, or to be fed with a spoon.… Every day the area for initiative is being narrowed, every day the standing ground for self-reliance is being undermined; every day the public infringes—with the best intentions, no doubt—on the individual; the nation is being taken into custody by the State."
And at the end the noble Earl said—
"It was self-reliance that built the Empire; it is by self-reliance, and all that that implies, that it must be welded and continued."
Those are wise words, which I humbly recommend to the attention of your-Lordships.
Now I come to my Amendment. What does that Amendment say? Does it ask you not to deal with this question? Nothing of the kind. All that my Amendment says is that, pending the Report of the Royal Commission now inquiring into the principles and working of the existing poor law, it would be unwise to enter upon the consideration of a Bill establishing the far-reaching principle of State old-age pensions. Petitions have been presented against the Bill, but it is admitted that the Second Reading is to pass. I have always understood that everything in principle depends upon the Second Reading, and that when you adopt the Second Reading of a measure you have to go on with the line of that Bill; therefore, it is best to meet the thing in limine, and not to deal with it until you have the Report of the Commission. The Commission must soon report, and I have no doubt their Report will touch on the question of old-age pensions, and with that information before it Parliament will be in a much better position to deal with this subject than it is at the present time. That is the common sense view; it seems to me like political madness to act otherwise. That is all I ask. In no other relation of life would men act as Ministers are doing in regard to this Bill; they would wait for information before they acted, and by my Amendment I ask them to do so in this case.
I could, if I wished to detain your Lordships, give you unlimited quotations against this Bill. All those who have given their lives to the care of the poor and are interested in thrift and other societies are all hostile to the Bill, as it at present stands. I will not quote those authorities, but will be satisfied by reading to your Lordships an extract

1349
from a circular issued by the Charity Organisation Society, of which many of your Lordships are members, and which has done excellent work during the last thirty years. That society has issued a circular against the Bill in which they assert that—
"Neither the Bill, nor anything like the Bill, has ever been demanded by, or received the sanction of, the electors. To delay the passing of the Bill can do no serious injury to the country and will enable the nation to consider calmly the policy of a measure which, for good or bad, produces a social revolution."
That is an accurate description of the Bill, and I think it would be wise if your Lordships were to postpone consideration of it until all possible information is obtained. For what are you doing? You will be tying a millstone round the neck of the country and involving it in an expenditure in the end of nearly £30,000,000 a year.
On the very day last week when this Bill passed through the other House there was in France a Commission of the Senate sitting considering a Pension Bill, and that Commission, in spite of the wish of the French Government that the Bill should proceed and that they should report upon it, declined to do so until all the information that could possibly be obtained was before them. My Lords, we are told, "Fas est ab hoste doceri," but I venture to suggest that your Lordships might also learn from a friend. I should like to see the entente cordiale of Shepherd's Bush carried to your Lordships' House; and that you should act as wisely, as moderately, and as reasonably as the French Commission are doing. Let me further remind your Lordships of that splendid French maxim "Fais ce que doit advienne que pourra," and urge your Lordships to act upon it. I have nothing more to add. I intend to stick to my guns and to divide your Lordships if I can get a teller, and I have secured one. What success we shall have in the division lobbies I do not know, but, at any rate, whatever the result may be, one thing is certain—that all the common-sense and the sense of what is right and reasonable in dealing with such a question as this will be found with the minority. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' in order to insert these words 'pending the Report of the Royal Commission now inquiring into the principles and working of the existing Poor Law it would be unwise to enter upon the consideration of a Bill establishing the far-reaching principle of State Old-Age Pensions.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
*EARL CROMER: My Lords, I am sure the feeling which is uppermost in your Lordships' minds at this moment is one of pleasure that no advance of years in any way diminishes the force and eloquence of the noble Earl who has just addressed the House. I am aware that disclaimers of party spirit are often received with some degree of scepticism; yet the line of conduct I have persistently followed throughout the short period during which I have occasionally taken part in the debates in this House justifies me in expressing a hope that noble Lords opposite will believe me when I say that in criticising the measure now brought forward by His Majesty's Government, I am expressing opinions which, whether they are right or wrong, are based solely on sincere and honest conviction.
What was the position of this question when the present Government came into power? The matter had, it is true, been for long under consideration. There was a universal desire that some better provision than exists at present should be made for the aged poor. But the immediate treatment of the question was not one of the somewhat numerous mandates which it has from time to time been stated were conferred on the Government at the last general election. The statement of the Prime Minister on this point is quite explicit. He said—
"His Majesty's present Government came into power and went through the last general election entirely unpledged in regard to this matter."
The Government were, however, in a position which is fraught with much political danger. They thought that something must be done, and when politicians act on this principle, without having a clear idea of what should be done, they not infrequently end by doing a number of things which, as subsequent events prove, had much better have been left undone. The Government did not

1351
act at once. They very naturally required time to consider the question. Above all—I again quote the words of the Prime Minister—
"What was most important was to lay a solid financial foundation for any future structure it might be possible to raise,"
Nothing could be more commendable than the assertion of this very sound principle; but, my Lords, I look in vain for any solidity in the financial foundations of the structure laid by the Bill now before us. It appears to me that those foundations are eminently wanting in solidity and stability.
In the first place, no one can state with any degree of precision what the scheme will cost. The original estimate was £6,000,000; the estimate then crept up to £8,000,000. By the abandonment of the poor relief disqualification in 1910, the cost will, I believe, be raised by another two or three millions. Nor is this all. I do not generally attach much importance to what is known as the thin end of the wedge argument, but certainly, if ever that argument applied, it is in the present case. The pressure to extend the operation of the Act in a liberal direction will be irresistible. Let us be under no delusion as to the true facts of the case. This Bill practically mortgages all the future resources of the country for an indefinite time and renders an increase of burdensome taxation of one sort or another, not only probable, but almost certain. We are indeed told that the administration of the Poor Law will be reformed, and that there will be a large saving of local rates in respect to poor relief. But surely it would have been wiser to have awaited the Report of Lord George Hamilton's Commission, and to have reformed the Poor Law before bringing forward a scheme of such vast importance as that contained in the Bill now under consideration.
My Lords, we have already in this session of Parliament had one object-lesson which proves the unwisdom of putting the cart before the horse in matters of this sort. Consider what has happened in connection with Army reform. The scheme brought forward by the Secretary of State for War divided itself into two parts. There was the easy part, which consisted in reducing the Regular Army, and the
1352
more difficult part, which consisted in raising a new Territorial Army. Sound policy would, I think, have dictated the adjournment of the first part of the programme whilst the latter part was in an experimental stage, even although this process would have involved some temporary increase of expenditure. But this was not done. Destruction was allowed to come first. Construction came limping on painfully afterwards, with the result that, in spite of the ability, energy and perseverance displayed by the Secretary of State for War, which are universally recognised, the success of the somewhat hazardous experiment which is being tried is still doubtful. It would seem that the same process is to be repeated in another administrative field. It is one which certainly appears to me to be tainted with a very impolitic degree of rashness.
But, my Lords, if nothing certain can be predicted about the expenditure which lies before us, a still greater uncertainty hangs over the moans for meeting that expenditure, which, under any showing, will certainly be large, for in this case we have to think, not only in millions, but more probably in tens of millions. The idea that any considerable sum can be provided by economies in other directions may be at once dismissed as impracticable, although some ominous rumours, which I was glad to hear contradicted by the noble Earl (Lord Crewe) have been afloat that still further reductions in the Army are contemplated. There then only remain therefore three possible expedients. One is to suspend the whole or a part of the Sinking Fund, a point as to which I shall have something further to say immediately. The second is to increase direct, and the third to increase indirect taxation. It is notorious that many of the followers of the present Government warmly favour the idea of resorting to a large increase of direct taxation. My Lords, I am not on the present occasion going to make a speech on the financial position in general. I wish, however, to point out that the disproportion which at one time existed between the revenue raised from direct and indirect taxes has been now wholly redressed. The question of the incidence of taxation has been very carefully examined by some of the most able economists and statisticians of the day, and I believe I am correct in saying that

1353
the existence of any great inequality in the incidence cannot be maintained in argument. In any case, if any inequality exists it is almost certainly to the advantage of the payer of indirect rather than of direct taxes. I am, moreover, sufficiently old-fashioned to deprecate these attempts to shift all the burden of taxation from one class of the community to the other. I greatly prefer the principle advocated by Mr. Gladstone, who likened direct and indirect taxation to two damsels equally attractive to the eye of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, neither of whom should be favoured at the expense of the other.
Look, however, at the matter in any way we like, it seems to me extremely doubtful whether, if this Bill passes into law, it will be found possible for long to balance the national revenue and expenditure by a resort to direct taxation only. There is a limit beyond which even the most extreme advocates of a graduated income-tax will be unable to go without killing the goose with the golden egg, and when that limit is reached, a resort to indirect taxation will be inevitable. Will the additional revenue required then be raised by increasing the taxes on beer and tobacco? I doubt it, in view of the great unpopularity which would accrue to any Government which resorted to these expedients. No, my Lords, the form which will, under the supposed circumstances, prove the path of least resistance, will, unless I am much mistaken, be that indicated by the tariff reformers. I alluded just now to the mandates which were conferred, or which have been at times supposed to have been conferred, on the present Government at the last general election. The main mandate was, I think, clear enough. It was to defend the free trade camp, but what sort of a defence is it when the general in command does not, indeed, surrender to the enemy, but deliberately makes so large a breach in the walls as to facilitate his entry? The way I interpret the mandate of the last general election is that not merely were the Government to adopt a free trade policy during the period—always uncertain and fleeting in democratic countries—that they would remain in office, but that they would do nothing to imperil the cause at any future time.
1354
It is related that on the occasion of one of Frederic the Great's battles, when he saw his troops disinclined to advance against a hot fire, he shouted out to them:
"Rascals, do you expect to live for ever?"
Omitting the somewhat uncomplimentary epithet of this plain-spoken monarch, I am tempted to ask this same question of the present Government. What do they expect will happen to the cause which they are pledged to defend when they resign their seals of office to others who are under no such pledges, and who have, indeed, given pledges of a very opposite description? My Lords, if the policy of free trade is doomed to die, future historians will, unless I am much mistaken, write something of this sort over its grave, "Here lies a noble policy, which gave prosperity to the country for 60 years; it was stabbed in the back by those who were by way of being its best friends."
But if the policy set forth in this Bill is viewed askance by free traders, neither do I see how it can commend itself to tariff reformers, whether of the moderate or extreme type. I conceive that the moderate tariff reformers, who, I trust, form the majority of the party, scout the absurd fallacy that a nation can be taxed into prosperity. They look on high taxation, whether of a direct or indirect type, as bad in itself, although possibly inevitable. They will not in this case, I conceive, say—
"We rejoice in an enormous increase of expenditure, because it will oblige us to impose fresh indirect taxes."
Rather will they say—
"We must provide for this increase of expenditure, and the least objectionable method of doing so is to adopt the policy of tariff reform."
They may be right or wrong in their methods, but the position is at all events perfectly logical and comprehensible. And how, my Lords, should the policy set forth in this Bill be regarded by the extreme tariff reformers, namely, those who are avowedly protectionists? Scarcely, I venture to think, with more favour than by the free traders and the moderate tariff reformers, for, in order to accomplish the objects of this Bill, additional revenue will be required, and

1355
the aim of the protectionist in imposing indirect taxes is not to increase the revenue, but to protect native industries. If the revenue is increased, it will show that, in spite of the new taxes, the foreigner has been able to jump over the tariff wall, and the protectionist will have failed to attain his object.
I know very well that in framing a Budget it is sometimes necessary to have faith in the future and to rely on rather doubtful estimates. But I can confidently assert that in the course of my experience—and I think that I have been more or loss responsible for some couple of dozen or more State Budgets—I have never known a case of such reckless finance as that with which we now have to deal. I can apply no other term but reckless to a plan which involves an enormous increase of expenditure without any adequate provision being made for meeting liabilities when they fall due. I see sitting on the bench opposite, my noble friend Lord Welby. It would be interesting to know what he really thinks of this scheme. For many years the noble Lord was one of the most efficient and trusted guardians of the public purse. I think the noble Lord's economical, as also his economic soul must be wrung with anguish at the manner in which latter day authorities have discarded the practice and principles of the many illustrious and statesmanlike financiers under whom the noble Lord has served. I think that he must invoke the shades of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone, which still, perhaps, hover round the Treasury, and that he must congratulate himself that it will devolve on other permanent officials and not on himself to bring home to party politicians in a difficulty the homely principle that a nation, like an individual, has to cut its coat according to its cloth, and that if they do not do so they are liable to have the bailiffs upon them.
And now, my Lords, let me turn to another financial point of even greater importance than any of those to which I have so far alluded. What, I would ask, in the present condition of Europe is the main duty which devolves on the Government of this country? For my own part, I have no sort of hesitation in replying to this question. Their main duty is to make provision betimes for the European conflict which may not improbably be forced
1356
on us before many years have elapsed. I am aware that the mass of the people of this country, who do not follow foreign affairs with any very close attention, are not alive to the possibility of any such conflict taking place. I say it is the duty of a Government, gifted with both patriotism and foresight, who have means of information at their disposal which is not available to the general public, to provide betimes for that danger—a danger of which I, in common, I believe, with most people who can speak with real authority on foreign affairs, am very firmly convinced. I am now treading on delicate ground. It is neither necessary nor desirable that I should state at length my reasons for holding this opinion. I will only say that in order to justify it, it is quite unnecessary to impugn the good faith of those high authorities abroad who constantly reiterate their peaceful intentions. Neither is it necessary to hold that any deliberate intentions hostile to this country exist.
We are, however, living in times when the influence of individuals, however highly placed, is limited. When national interests are involved, and race passions are excited, there is always a risk, and more than a risk, that a collision between rival nations will take place, however pacific may be the intentions of their rulers. Let me add that if, as I believe will be the case, the enactment of this law imperils the cause of free trade, the chances of a collision will be materially increased. I have sometimes seen it stated in reference to this argument, that it would be unjust and unreasonable of foreign nations to take offence at us if we follow the example—as, I think, the bad example—that most of them have set. I fully agree, but I think that those who reason after this fashion can have had but little practical experience in the treatment of international questions. When once national interests point, or seem to point, in the direction of falling on a rival, it is quite within the resources of an adroit diplomacy to find some means for casting a veil of justice and reasonableness over the real cause. But, my Lords, is the fact that we may give offence any valid reason for discarding a policy of tariff reform? Not at all. I dislike that policy on other grounds, but I should be the first to maintain that if the Parliament and

1357
people of this country deliberately came to the conclusion that the policy should be adopted, they should most vehemently resent any foreign interference to prevent its adoption. But whilst affording no reason for discarding the policy, the fact that it may, and probably will, widen the breach between us and some foreign nations affords a very valid reason for being so strong that we can assert, if needs be by force of arms, our unquestionable right to manage our own affairs in our own way.
It is clear that if my diagnosis of the situation is correct, as I firmly believe it to be, the fact is of such vital importance as to cast all other subjects into insignificance. Our main duty, to my mind, is to husband our financial resources and to organise, not only our naval, but also our military forces in such a manner as to meet whatever the future may bring forth, and, in estimating the need of preparation, my Lords, it should be borne in mind that troubles may possibly not come alone. Can anyone assort that the condition either of India or Ireland is altogether satisfactory?
Tried by the test which I have applied, what does this Bill do? I say that it will cripple us to a dangerous extent under all the three heads, financial, military, and naval, in respect of which preparedness for national defence has to be considered. Finance is certainly the most important of the three, and, indeed, may be said to embrace the other two, for money provides the sinews for war. Look first at the case of the Sinking Fund. I, of course, fully admit that under ordinary circumstances the question of what portion of the revenue should be applied to the reduction of debt and what to a remission of taxation admits of discussion. It is quite possible to carry reduction of debt too far. But I submit that present circumstances are not ordinary. I hold that now that we are at peace we should, by reducing debt, endeavour to strengthen our financial position in order to be better able to bear the strain which may be imposed on us by war. I look, therefore, askance at the very clear hint which has been given to us that a raid on the Sinking Fund is contemplated, and I most earnestly hope that the inroads on that fund will not be carried too far.
1358
Then, my Lords, I conceive that one of the first duties of a wise financier, especially if a very uncertain and perhaps somewhat gloomy future lies before him, is to provide for an adequate fiscal reserve to be used in time of national emergency. Now if, as I hold, the consequences of this measure will be to necessitate the imposition of fresh taxes, every hundred pounds which is imposed, whether in a direct or indirect form, will by so much weaken our ability to cope with the emergency when it arises. Notably, if the rather wild schemes for a graduated and highly oppressive income tax, which are at times discussed, are adopted, a deadly blow will be struck at the most important fiscal reserve we now possess. The efficiency of the reserve is already impaired by keeping the income-tax at its present high rate in time of peace. To increase that rate, save to meet a temporary emergency, would certainly appear to me to be an act of grave imprudence. Yet I observe that, a short time ago, in another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, apparently with approval, of the Japanese system which, he said, involved an income tax graduated up to as much as five shillings in the pound.
My Lords, the Bill admits of criticism on grounds other than those to which I have alluded. It may be argued with great force that all the evils which existed under the old Poor Law will be reintroduced, but I confine myself to the financial aspect of the case, both because I think that aspect is of predominating importance and because it is one to which I have devoted special attention. If the Bill becomes law we shall all await next spring with the greatest interest to know, in language which was, I think, used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on what hen-roost his burglarious hand will descend. The practical question, however, is what is to be done about this Bill now? At a later period of this debate your Lordships will, without doubt, hear the views entertained on this subject by the noble Marquess who is the Leader of the Opposition, and whom I may perhaps be permitted to say, in spite of the slight tariff reform rift within the lute, I consider my leader, and whom I shall certainly follow on the present occasion.

1359
Speaking, however, as an individual Member of this House, I have no hesitation in stating what, in my humble opinion, would be the course most conducive to the true interests of the nation if the question would be considered exclusively on its own merits. It would be to decline to consider this momentous question until such time as the Poor Law Commission has reported, and until the Government had produced its scheme of poor law reform. I am, however, aware of the very weighty objections which may be urged against the adoption of this course. Hopes have been excited amongst a number of poor people, with whom, I venture to assert, your Lordships sympathise quite as much as those who have been the chief promoters of this measure, Moreover, the fact cannot be ignored that the main principles embodied in this Bill have been approved by both the great parties represented in the other House. We are bound to believe that the divisions which have taken place in that House truly represent the opinions of those who have been elected to represent the people of this country, yet it is perhaps permissible to make what casuists call a mental reserve on this subject. It would be interesting to place everyone who, whether in or outside Parliament, has expressed an opinion on this Bill in a political confessional, and invite him to state what lies in the inmost recesses of his heart. Under such a process some interesting confessions would, I make bold to say, be elicited, not only amongst the Members of the Opposition, but amongst the supporters of the present Government. It is not a very far-fetched conjecture to surmise that the predominating sentiment in the minds of many would be one of alarm at what they have done or contributed to do. However this may be, I am reluctantly obliged to admit that there are great objections to the adoption of the course which, as I have said, would, in my opinion, be most conducive to the highest interests of the nation.
My Lords, I will only conclude by saying that whatever may be the ultimate fate of this Bill, it will be some poor consolation to me, if it passes into law, that I have been able to raise a voice, however feeble, against a measure which I cannot but regard as rash in the highest degree, and opposed
1360
to those principles of sound finance on which the material prosperity of every civilised country should rest. When the burden of the fresh taxation which is inevitable begins to be felt, and when in times of national emergency all patriotic men cry out for these lost millions, lot it be known, at all events, on whom rests the true responsibility for the creation of so sombre a situation, and for the introduction of the financial revolution—for such it really is—which will be inaugurated by this Bill. That responsibility will not rest with your Lordships' House, but with the House of Commons, and I think that any impartial man must add that it must be shared, though perhaps not in equal degree, by the two great political parties represented in that House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long, but the matter is one which touches so very materially the common interests of the people of this country that I feel it would be wrong if the occasion passed without a few words from those who sit on this bench. It is true that the question before us is in a largo measure an economic one, and on that side of the subject I have no qualification for addressing your Lordships, and I should be the less inclined to do so after listening to one so expert in this subject as the noble Earl who has just sat down But the question is one which may almost be called a moral one, cutting right down, as it does, into the ordinary life and responsibilities of the homes of this country, and those who specially represent the Church and moral interests in this House have a duty laid upon them to say something.
This question seems to bear directly upon the whole fabric of our social and domestic life. It is interesting to notice how many of the investigators of our social problems in recent years have found themselves thrown back upon this question as lying behind and dominating a very large number of other kindred problems. The question of our prosperity and social progress has been found to be closely concerned with the question of how we were dealing with our aged poor.
There is one whose name has, I think, had but scant justice done to

1361
it in the course of the debates on this Bill—I refer to Mr. Charles Booth. Beyond all question Mr. Charles Booth stands at the head of those who have investigated problems of this kind, and foremost of all at the head of those who have investigated this particular question. Some fifteen years have passed since Mr. Charles Booth published his great work— I can call it nothing less—upon the "Condition of the Aged Poor." The 500 pages or so of that book contain so many facts and figures marshalled in a manner so intelligible and, of course, so readable that no book of the same dimensions written upon any subject is comparable to it. Now everybody is tired of having the matter discussed, and considers the time has arrived for doing something. Each party in the State is practically pledged to do something in this matter, and I for one am glad we have come to the point of practical action.
I should like, however, to say just one word of caution about the simple, easy figures which are constantly being quoted in connection with this question in its general aspect. It is a commonplace in almost every speech introducing this subject that of the whole population over seventy years of age there are now more than 30 per cent. in receipt of poor relief. It is sometimes more sensationally expressed by saying that there are more than 30 per cent. of the aged who have nothing but the workhouse as a refuge in their declining years. That statement requires to be received with a little care and thought. There are a large number of our aged poor who after threescore years of honest work find themselves faced by no other prospect save one which is alike depressing to them and, I venture to think, discreditable to our social system. The noble Viscount who introduced the measure to-night dwelt upon that subject, and I agree with every word he said upon that branch of the question. All candid observers admit that where outdoor relief is now being given to the aged poor it is far too often miserably and utterly inadequate to meet the needs of the case, and boards of guardians have been increasingly tempted to fall back upon, and to trust to, what is known as "undiscovered sources of income." This is very often not forthcoming, and there
1362
is consequent distress. When we use the expression that there is no refuge for aged persons except the workhouse, it is, I think, in many cases a misleading phrase, and it would be a very great mistake if we were to accept it in its darkest significance.
Reference has been made by the noble Viscount to the action taken in 1899, to the circular then issued by Mr. Chaplin, and the recommendations it contained for special provision for the aged poor. When we hoar the phrase that 30 per cent. of the aged poor have no refuge but the workhouse, it is but fair to remember that many boards of guardians have dealt with this subject in a manner which makes their action no small step. In the Poor Law Union of Bradford there are homes for the aged poor on lines which I believe bring the cost out at 14s. 6d. per head per week. Again, within a few miles of your Lordships' House, there is at Lewisham a board of guardians which is making provision for their aged and deserving poor at a cost of 19s. 6d. per head per week. Those facts have to be taken into account, because we have been asked what will be the action of these boards of guardians when this Bill becomes law. One wonders what will these aged poor do, who are now the recipients of that kind of aid, if we ask them to accept as an alternative a pension on the scale under this Bill.
But the points I wish specially to make are three. The first is that the community has now accepted responsibility for these old people, and we must discharge it. The second is that the cost of this Bill must inevitably be very great, both in its direct incidence and also as regards that which it will ultimately involve. My third point is that, as we have been reminded that what we are doing now is only an experimental stage, we are entitled to watch very carefully to see how far it escapes certain perils. First of all the community as a whole has, it seems to me, by the decision of the House of Commons on this Bill, frankly accepted responsibility for dealing as a nation with the aged poor who are in destitution. I am glad that we have the Bill, and that we have reached the particular stage before us. Whatever be said for or against, it does distinctly accept

1363
on behalf of the nation a responsibility which we are now to endeavour in some mode or other to discharge.
My Lords, of course we have always accepted to some extent the responsibility for all our feeblest and most, helpless people—the very young, or the very sick, or the very old, we have all along said we must do something for them. As regards the very young I do not think I need remind your Lordships in this House, after some of the debates of the last two or three years, that we have not been backward in seeing that we have a considerable responsibility as regards their welfare. As regards the sick I think the country hardly realises how great are the changes, the reforms, which have taken place in the last few years, both as regards our workhouse infirmaries, and as regards infectious hospitals, und in a hundred other ways in which, out of public funds, money is now being expended for the benefit of those who are not always in the extremest possible need, but are practically in very real need, because of the sickness which has fallen upon them.
But as regards the old, although in abstract theory we have been constantly saying that we accept some responsibility, we have not hitherto got beyond the stage of talking about it. We have had all sorts of schemes devised whereby those who ought to be in some measure specially tended and looked after are to be secure of such attention and care as they are unable to provide for themselves, but for the most part we have not got beyond the stage of discussing and talking about it. We have devised schemes, but have not given effect to them, and that is especially hard on that branch, that division of the people for whom, in their helplessness, we want to care; especially hard for this reason. It is, we ought always to remember, the very things which have of recent years conduced to our commercial prosperity and to our industrial success which have rendered more difficult and more hard the position of the aged poor.
I do not know how many of your Lordships are familiar with a remarkable book written by Sir Frederick Eden more than a hundred years ago, upon "The State of the Poor." He says in
1364
that book that manufactures and commerce are the true parents of our national poverty. This is meant to be a paradox, and he proceeds to explain it, and the explanation which he finds so far as it was true then is a great deal more so in the facts of today. If we remember that our national prosperity, and the things which have contributed to it, press specially hardly upon the aged poor, it is. I venture to say, far more true that the modern conditions of industry do not favour the aged. Work is driven, driven faster and driven harder. It needs more nerve, and these changing methods, the constant changes on a big scale which very rapidly take place as to the manners for doing our work, do press specially hardly upon those who are too old to make new starts and new movements for themselves. Those very things, therefore, which have been the sources of our strength, of our progress and prosperity, have been pressing with exceeding hardness upon the aged poor.
It is even true, my Lords, of a great deal of our modern progressive legislation, which I have welcomed and for which I am exceedingly thankful. Take the Employers' Liability Act. I think there can be no question at all that within a few years it will be found that the ordinary working and incidences of that Act press with special hardness upon the aged poor and aged working men. For all those reasons it is indisputably the case that we are forced now in an exceptional degree to accept the responsibility which lies upon us for, as a nation, taking care of the aged poor throughout the land, both in town and in country. Anyhow, I do not think the fact of our responsibility and our acceptance of it, after what has passed in the House of Parliament which is specially responsible for dealing with our finance, can be any longer set aside. The time for acting has arrived. The Motion of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment tonight is plausible. I venture to think that perhaps in the force of his mature youth he is unable to recognise that a time ever does come when most people find that they cannot work as hard or do as much as in former years. That may be the explanation of the manner in which he has pressed upon us the Motion which he has brought forward.

1365
That is a plausible Motion at all events, but I regard as satisfactory the answer that was given to it by the noble Earl, Lord Cromer.
But there is one other point. Is it quite certain that the Royal Commission is going to deal completely with this? I am not in the secrets of the Royal Commission, but it consists of men about whom there is naturally a great deal of human nature. They are perfectly aware that Parliament has been dealing with this particular subject. Are we quite sure—I speak in absolute ignorance—that they, knowing that, are prepared to propound to us a cut-and-dried scheme which will relieve us of that responsibility? It may be so, but I at all events should like not to be too sure of it until I have seen their Report. Anyhow, I personally believe that the time for action in Parliament has come.
The second point that I want to make is that we must face the fact, whether we like it or not, that the cost of doing this thing is going to be very great indeed. So far as this is a Chancellor of the Exchequer question, I naturally leave it entirely alone. What it means in taxation belongs to another place. So far as this House is concerned, I believe that every Member of it is ready perfectly frankly to bear a considerable addition to his financial burdens for the public good, provided it is clear that the public good is going to be effected by a Bill like this, and all the more so because this House is often spoken of as thinking especially of our rural areas, and the questions of our countrysides. It is indisputably the case that the need is the greatest, and the demand in proportion will be largest for those who are the occupants of our rural areas. The population of England is increasingly urban, and in actual figures the larger number of those who will be beneficiaries under a scheme like this, probably belong to the urban areas. But if we take not positively, but relatively, the proportion, we find at once that the number of those who will be beneficiaries under this plan, is very much greater in our rural than in our urban areas. I have no figures as to the number over seventy, but I look to the figures we possess as to the relative position of those over sixty in our towns and rural areas. I find the figures
1366
to be these. In our urban areas there are sixty-five per 1,000 over sixty. In our semi-rural areas seventy-nine per 1,000. In our rural areas there are 111 per 1,000—that is, 111 as against 65. Putting that aside, we must face bravely the fact that the costliness, which I regard as altogether wholesome, will be great.
We hear it sometimes said that we need not be so very much frightened, because the £7,500,000, which we are told at present is the cost, will go in large measure to the relief of what is now expended under the Poor Law. But I imagine that it would be a very frail reed to rest upon to hope that a very large portion of that money will be found to be merely transferred by the authorities from one of those directions to another. This Bill, in my belief—and I want to face it fairly—is only the first step in a long and costly and toilsome road towards doing that to which we are setting our hands. But if the House of Commons, which specially represents in these kinds of matters the interests of the country, is, as now seems to be the case, bent on a non-contributory scheme, I go further and say it will not be long before we shall find that the limit of age will be a lower one than seventy. If you will examine the statistics which are put out by trade unions and by benefit and friendly societies, you will find they have found it necessary to begin pensioning men as incapable at a considerably earlier age than that. I think it is sixty-two or sixty-three at which they begin to feel such help is practically required. That is an object-lesson which it is impossible to ignore and put aside, and it is far better to face the matter now than to imagine that we are voting for something which is going to stop as it is, instead of, as I believe, something which will cost a great deal more than is supposed.
Then comes the whole question of our responsibility for the sick, the helpless, and the feeble. It will be absolutely out of our power if we once begin to regard as our duty the pensioning of the aged over seventy to avoid looking also for the aid which is to be given on what is technically called the invalidity claim. We have not very accurate figures about that in this country, but we have a very remarkable object lesson in that matter in

1367
the figures recently published in Germany. There we know that they began with the old-age pension and subsequently extended it to those who are incapable of work on the ground of sickness. Those figures show the rapidity with which the recipients of what they call infirmity pensions have advanced, as contrasted with the recipients of the old-age pensions. In 1897, in Germany there were 161,000 people receiving infirmity pensions and 203,000 receiving old-age pensions. In 1907 the old-age pensions had fallen to 125,000, but the infirmity recipients had increased to more than 600,000. If anyone will work out those statistics in detail it will be seen how closely the old-age and infirmity pensions are involved with one another. The figures are very full of lessons, in one sense of warning, if you regard it as a warning, to ourselves as to what we are doing now.
If I have dwelt unduly upon the figures it is because it leads up to the last point I want to emphasise. This is in one sense an experimental measure. That is one of the grounds, I suppose, upon which we justify going forward while the report of the Royal Commission is still pending. Let us realise then that it is an experimental stage, and that what we are doing is to have for the present an experimental character. Watch it then most closely and observe what the effect is. If the cost, as I believe will be the case, turns out to be very large indeed, there are obviously two perils by which we are confronted, and it is our bounden duty to take careful hood now lest those perils slip into a disaster. The first will be this, that, if some people have their way, a great deal of the money for old-age pensions will be deducted from one of the other objects for which we are at present expending such large sums. Already we have seen signs, which I for one deprecate, of what I believe to be a most mistaken policy of economy in elementary education in some of our urban and rural areas. We are spending something like £28,000,000 a year upon education—£17,000,000 from the taxes, £10,000,000 from the rates, and £1,000,000 from sundry sources. Will there be an equal readiness to spend all that money if at the other extremity of the scale—the end of life instead of the beginning—we are being called upon to
1368
spend these huge sums? I hope we shall be able to do both, but it will need careful watching to see that the funds for other purposes are not drawn upon and diminished—both those which come from voluntary sources, and those which come in a compulsory way—by reason of the greater drain which is made upon us for meeting these old-age pensions.
Then we have lying immediately ahead of us the Report of the Poor Law Commission and the problem of the able bodied pauper. In whatever way we deal with that after the Royal Commission has reported, it must in some mode or other cost a great deal of money. Do not let us forget that these things are coming upon us at the same time as this other call, and, if we are to make old-age pensions not harmful, but helpful, we must see that the funds are not really being deducted from other funds for matters where our need is greater. We have in England a gigantic network of friendly societies organised either as trade unions or as sick clubs, or as great friendly societies, such as the Manchester Unity, the Foresters, and the rest, and the great co-operative societies. All those great agencies for good, which have a double side, blessing the men who are contributing as well as the men who are getting the advantage, will be placed in a position of increased difficulty when this Bill becomes law.
We have to beware during the experimental stage lest the kind of elements in the national character, which should find expression in those great societies, should be in any way harmed by the acceptance by the State of a responsibility which has not hitherto been laid upon its shoulders. It would be a disastrous thing if men who made provision against sickness, difficulty, and old-age—and made it on the basis of robust self-help, sometimes of self-sacrifice—should be daunted by this Bill in the endeavour which they have hitherto made. It would be a disastrous thing if we undermined that kind of work, either as regards its thrift and insurance side or as being a school of citizenship for our local government. If we did produce that result, it would be disastrous to the morale and fibre of the manhood upon which we rely. Therefore it is our duty during the experimental stage to watch with the

1369
utmost care the manner in which this Bill affects these various interests to which I have referred. I do not for a moment believe that it will affect them so disastrously as to make it undesirable that we should now go forward, but I think the matter needs observation and caution in a high degree. I want this Bill to pass, and if the nation will closely watch the course of its experimental stage, and will profit by whatever lessons emerge in the light of experience in our own and other countries which are making this experiment, I believe the result of this lesson will be such as to conduce in a high degree to the common good of the English people.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: That such a Bill as this should be called an Old-Age Pensions Bill is in itself a proof of the remarkable change which has taken place in the opinion of the country during a time within the recollection of most of us, on the subject to which it relates. Formerly, when we spoke of pensions we merely thought of an annual allowance given by an employer, whether the State, a corporation, or an individual, to someone who had worked for that employer, and had arrived at old age or been smitten with infirmity, an allowance given purely on account of services rendered to that employer. Pensions of that sort were given us a matter of right. They were given practically as deferred pay. They were invariably given in return for services rendered definitely to the individual or body that gave them. I can remember myself when advanced politicians of that day, being also stern individualists and keen economists, objected even to that class of pension, mainly, I think, on the ground of some kind of prejudice from past days in which pensions had led to gross abuses. Now, advanced politicians take quite another view of what the word pension means. The interpretation placed upon that word by one of those Gentlemen in another place is that the veterans of industry have a right to a reward from the State. Who are the veterans of industry? Are they soldiers or sailors or Civil servants who have directly served the State? Not at all. Is it proposed by such persons as those to whom I referred that they should even be proved to be veterans of any kind of industry? No. The idea is that it is invidious
1370
to make any inquiry as to how a man has worked; whether he has worked at all or what work he has done. He is to have a right to a pension whatever his character, whatever his means, simply because he has performed what hitherto has been considered to be the ordinary duty of any citizen, namely, that not being possessed of sufficient private means for his own maintenance he has condescended to work for the benefit of his family and himself. That is the interpretation of the word pensions by the school of politicians to which I have referred. I am, at any rate, thankful that His Majesty's Government have not embodied that interpretation in the Bill now before your Lordships, and I hope it will never be accepted by this country. The Bill now before your Lordships was accurately described by the noble Lord, Lord Wemyss, as a Bill for extending out relief, which now can only be legally given to the destitute, to the comparatively poor, and the sole difference is that this now form of out-relief is to be administered not by the guardians but by the pension committee, and is to be paid not from the rates but from the Exchequer. These proposals are accompanied by what His Majesty's Government, I have no doubt, honestly intend to be safeguards, so as to secure that the undeserving shall not obtain the benefit of this new form of relief but shall be dealt with as now by the ordinary Poor Law. I propose to inquire how far those safeguards wilt effect their object.
But before doing so I wish to admit, so far as I am myself concerned, that in my belief it was necessary for any Government to endeavour to deal with the subject which is dealt with in this Bill. There has been a growing feeling in this country for a good many years past that the system of our Poor Law was harsh to deserving persons who had led industrious and creditable lives in the sight of all their neighbours, and who, arriving at an age which precluded them from working, are treated, so far as the law is concerned on the same footing as the idle and the dissolute. In the administration of the law, as the most reverend Primate has already said, I believe a real difference has been made, and the cases in which such persons as those to whom I have alluded have been left to the tender mercies of the workhouse would be found on inquiry to be

1371
very, few indeed. They have received, as a rule, out-relief, but that out-relief has been as the most reverend Primate has said of a comparatively small amount, and so far, I am glad that this Bill should increase the amount which is given to persons of that class. Some stern economists may say that the whole thing is wrong; that such persons when they are young and healthy should make provision as may enable them to have something to live upon when they are old, and that even agricultural labourers who, as we all know, are poorly paid, are able to make such provision. My Lords, I quite admit that it is possible for persons in that position to make such provision, because many of them have done so, but to do this, especially in the case of a labourer who, say, between the ages of twenty five and thirty-five has to face the charge of a large and young family, certainly involves an amount of self-denial, determination, and thrift which, I am afraid, very few of us would possess if we were placed in similar circumstances. Therefore I feel that there is real ground for the proposition that the State should intervene, at any rate to some extent, in helping such provision to be made.
The first idea that became crystallised on this subject was the idea of contributory pensions. When Lord Salisbury's Government came into office in the year 1895 many schemes had been suggested for proposals of that kind, and it was my duty, as then holding the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, to obtain the assent my colleagues to the appointment of a Committee, not of politicians, but of financial and other experts, ably presided over by Lord Rothschild, with the following reference. They were to consider the schemes which had been suggested for encouraging the industrial population, either by State aid or otherwise, to make provision for old ago, with special reference to the effect of any such schemes on our friendly societies and on the encouragement of thrift among the poor. The reason in favour of contributory pensions in the abstract is a very strong one, because by that means you could automatically discriminate between those who were entitled to a pension and those who were not, which is a very
1372
difficult task if attempted in any other way; and secondly, you would lay down the principle, which surely is a right one, that it is the duty of everyone, so far as he can, to make provision for sickness or old age. That Committee inquired into all those schemes. They also inquired into a scheme prepared by Sir Spencer Walpole, one of their own number, but they were almost unanimous in their Report that none of those contributory schemes could properly be adopted, They gave strong arguments for that opinion. I will not delay the House by quoting those argument, yet I will say this, that at the time when I considered the Report I was convinced that contributory pensions could never be regarded as a complete settlement of this question in this country. I hold that opinion still, and I think that the noble Viscount was right when he said that most of those who, in past years, examined carefully this subject came to the same conclusion. Other Committees followed. One in the following year suggested new proposals which would have involved so enormous a charge upon the Exchequer that certainly I always felt, that as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I never could have advised my colleagues to accept any scheme of that kind. Then the South African War broke out and the whole consideration of the matter had to be deferred, and I venture to say that there never was a time either in the remaining years of the late Lord Salisbury's Government or during the Government presided over by Mr. Balfour when this important matter could practically have been dealt with by the Government of the day.
Now, in their third year of office, His Majesty's present Government have brought this measure before Parliament. I was very much interested by what the noble Viscount so truly and so generously said with regard to Mr. Chamberlain's part in this matter. It has been a commonplace of speakers in the House of Commons and in the country belonging to the party which support His Majesty's Government to refer to Mr. Chamberlain's connection with old-age pensions as a mere bogus connection, and to accuse him of having made promises which he never intended to perform, and of having taken up the subject merely on

1373
political grounds. Nothing is more untrue. To no man is the credit more due, if any satisfactory solution of this question is arrived at by any party, than to Mr. Chamberlain. The noble Viscount referred to Mr. Chamberlain almost as the author of the Bill now before your Lordships, for he based its provisions on Mr. Chamberlain's opinion that contributory pensions in this country were impracticable. But he did not go quite far enough. Mr. Chamberlain, though believing that contributory pensions were impracticable, laid the very greatest stress upon the necessity of proof of real thrift on the part of those who would receive old-age pensions. I wish I could say that I find satisfactory provisions on that subject in this Bill. My Lords, what are its provisions? Let me take first the conditions which are to be fulfilled before pensions can be granted. The claimant must prove that he is seventy years old. I hoped that in his speech the noble Viscount would explain how that proof was to be given. Is it to be a more statement by the claimant that he is seventy years of age? Why, if that was all I think that a very large part of the poor population of the United Kingdom, certainly of Ireland, would be found to be seventy years of ago on the 1st January next. Is it to be required that the claimant shall product a certificate of birth? I am afraid that there are many persons even in Great Britain who do not quite know where they were born, or perhaps have forgotten it and could not find such a certificate on any consideration, and in Ireland, as we know, the complete institution of a system of registration of births is of much later date than seventy years ago. I think we are entitled to some information as to how the proof of seventy years of age is to be afforded. Then, again, the claimant has to say that he is a British subject, and has resided for the last twenty years within the United Kingdom. What does residence mean? Does it mean that soldiers and sailors or those in the mercantile marine and other persons who have been compelled by their duties to leave the United Kingdom for a certain time during that twenty years shall be excluded from those old-age pensions? Does it mean that a man, say, of fifty-one who perhaps, as a domestic servant goes with his master to Paris for a week is to be
1374
excluded on that ground from an old-age pension? I am quite aware that these things are to be dealt with by regulations, but we have heard from the noble Viscount that so far from this being a measure prepared in haste the whole Cabinet has had it under consideration for twelve months, and therefore we have a right, I think, to suppose that these difficulties of practical working have been thought over, and that they could acquaint us if they chose with the solution at which they have arrived. Some of these points were raised in the House of Commons, but others could not be raised at all owing to the suppression of free debate, and to none of them were satisfactory answers given.
Then there is the third provision that a man must show that he has not more than £31 10s. a year. You might conceivably arrive at the means of a poor man who was the inhabitant of a country village by inquiring of his employer what wages were given him, but the poor are very naturally reticent as to any private means that they possess, and certainly with regard to the town population, possibly even with regard to the country population anybody would have the greatest difficulty in finding out whether a claimant had more than the limit provided in the Bill. And let me just mention, in passing, one point that has a real importance in connection with the schedule of this Bill. The schedule provides that if a man has 8s. a week he is to get 5s. a week pension, and if he has more, so much less, until the pension is reduced to 1s. a week. What does that mean? Supposing a man and wife who are claimants for a pension under this Bill each have £1,200 in Consols. They would each be entitled to a pension of 1s. a week. Is not that absurd? Is not that practically almost a swindle on the taxpayer, and is it not an endowment by the taxpayers not of those old people who are claimants for pensions, but of the relations to whom this capital might be left by the pensioners? Take the case of a person who has no property but is in receipt of weekly wages. Supposing, for instance, an old man just seventy, is receiving 13s. a week, and his employer is doubtful whether the man does work enough for him to be able to continue his services at

1375
that rate of pay. What will happen? The employer and the workman will put their heads together, and the employer will say, "I will give you 8s. a week if you will get a pension of 5s." Is not that a revival of that vicious system of relief in aid of wages which was one of the worst evils of the old Poor Law? What I fear is that you will be liable to that kind of thing all over the country, and I defy you to check it under the provisions of this Bill. I turn to what is a more important matter. I have referred to the conditions which have to be fulfilled before the pension can be awarded Let me turn to the disqualifications for a pension. I should have thought that a person claiming a pension would have to show at any rate that he was qualified for it by past industry, and that the onus of proof on such a point as that would rest upon the person applying for a pension. By the provisions of this Bill the onus of proof with regard to disqualifications rests on the pension authority. The pension authority, unless they can prove that a man has been in receipt of poor relief, or has been idle or in prison or in a lunatic asylum or is a confirmed drunkard, are bound to give that man a pension. There is no real proof of past industry whatever required in these qualifications, except that for twenty years before the pension becomes due a man has subscribed to a friendly society or a trade union. Take the disqualifications of pauperism or idleness. In a country village where everybody knows one another I have no doubt that the pension authority could obtain proof of such things; but when you deal with the fluctuating town population the greatest rogue in the world, a man who has been idle, who has been in prison or a confirmed drunkard, by simply changing his name and his residence will defeat all your inquiries and make it absolutely impossible to prove that he comes under any of the disqualifications of this Bill. This will not only lead to gross waste of public money, but to what is very much worse, to the inclusion in the list of pensioners of persons whom His Majesty's Government admits ought to be excluded from it. What I want to ask is how does His Majesty's Government anticipate that these inquiries shall have any effective result, and
1376
why have they put the onus of proof upon the pension authority rather than upon the individual?
My Lords, those are the main safeguards of the Bill. But I do not say that there is no good in it. I admit, as I think the most rev. Primate said, that it will be a great boon to many poor and deserving persons that they should receive pensions under the Bill I admit that there is a very strong feeling in the country in favour of legislation of this kind, and, as I have said, I do not myself see how it is possible to settle the question by a contributory scheme. Therefore, I am not prepared with any alternative measure, but I must say one word upon a matter to which the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, has already referred with great force, the financial aspect of this Bill. I say nothing about the present year. There is money enough for the present financial year, but even with regard to this year there is one point as to administration which ought not to be forgotten. What is the great safeguard in the administration of out-relief under the Poor Law? Surely it is that boards of guardians know very well that if they grant out-relief to an applicant that out-relief comes directly out of the pockets of those whom they represent and perhaps very largely out of their own pockets. That is the safeguard for economical administration in the matter of out-relief under our Poor Law. Is there any such safeguard under this Bill? Well, there is the pension officer. The pension officer is the watchdog of the Treasury. I do not doubt he will do his best, as watchdogs of the Treasury always do, but the pension officer is subordinate to the pension committee. Who are the pension committees? The pension committees throughout the country will be persons who will almost invariably hold the opinion that if they can remove a burden from the rates and put it on the Exchequer it will be a very good thing to do. The inducement offered them is not to economise on administration of these old-age pensions, but to grant pensions freely in order that the applicant may not become chargeable to local rates. I hope they will be superior to the temptation, but human nature being what it is I am afraid that the future is rather dark even in that matter.

1377
But, my Lords, when I come to the future possibilities of legislation it is a much more serious affair. During the progress of this Bill in another place Members belonging to both political Parties vied with one another in attempting to extend it, and His Majesty's Government in meeting those proposals had not the courage to say that they were wrong but merely resisted them because at the moment they had not sufficient money to meet the demands. I fear that this Bill may be only the first letting out of the waters, and no one can tell how high the flood may rise. It is said that this is an experiment. I hope that means that it is not merely an experiment in the way of spending money, but that it is an experiment in the value of the checks devised to secure economical administration, and that His Majesty's Government are perfectly resolved that if any defects are proved they will be remedied.
What about the finance of 1909 in regard to this Bill? The noble Viscount said that this was an absurd inquiry. I quite admit that no Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell you anything about his intentions for the next year. I certainly would not have done it myself, but I never asked Parliament to pass a Bill which imposed burdens of this kind on future years and left them to be paid for in a way which was entirely unexplained. We have had some hints as to how the expenditure under this Bill is to be met. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has hinted at robbing hen roosts. He has hinted at processes of levying money from wealthy persons somewhat akin to those so-called benevolencies of the Middle Ages which, I believe, were often extorted by the extraction of teeth. But the Prime Minister has distinctly suggested what the noble Lord on the cross benches described as a raid on the Sinking Fund. For the past three years, thanks to a shilling income-tax, the Prime Minister has been able to plume himself on a very large reduction of the National Debt. Now it appears to be intended as far as we can judge from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the 1s. income-tax is to be continued ad infinitum in order to provide for old-age pensions. But, my Lords, I should like to call the attention of His Majesty's Government
1378
to certain important words which fell from the Prime Minister in his Budget speech in the House of Commons in the year 1907. He said—
"If we are to have social reform we must be ready to pay for it, and when I say we, I mean the whole nation,—the working and consuming classes as well as the wealthier classes of direct taxpayers."
My Lords, so far that promise has been redeemed by the wanton repeal of £3,500,000 of the sugar duty, a tax specially bearing upon the consuming classes to whom the Prime Minister alluded, at the very moment when His Majesty's Government were imposing this new and great burden on the people in the name of social reform. I can only hope that next year those words which I have quoted may be remembered, and that if additional provision has to be made in the Budget for this burden it may be at least fairly divided between the different classes of the people.
The question of the moment is what course we are to take with regard to the Second Reading of this Bill. So far as my own personal feelings are concerned, I confess I very much sympathise with the Motion which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wemyss, though I am not sanguine that the Royal Commission on the Poor Law will report very soon, or that when they do report, their Report will be unanimous, and we all know that Reports from a divided Commission are not very easily carried out by any Government. But, my Lords, this does not seem to me to be a matter on which our personal feelings only can guide us. We have to think of the wishes of the country. I do not attach undue importance to what has been already more than once referred to, the almost unanimous acceptance by the House of Commons of the Third Reading of this measure. The House of Commons, even when nearly unanimous, may conceivably, though I think it is not likely, misrepresent the opinion of the country, and therefore even a vote of the kind in the House of Commons is no conclusive reason for any action on the part of your Lordships' House. But I firmly believe, that if it were possible under the forms of our constitution to

1379
refer the Bill now before your Lordships for the verdict of the constituencies, that verdict would be given by a decisive majority in its favour. I believe the Bill to be in accordance with the wishes of the country, whatever its faults may be. The responsibility for it rests with the body which is specially responsible for the finances of the country, the House of Commons, and, we who sit on this bench feel that in these circumstances it is impossible for us to support a Motion which would put an end to the further progress of the Bill.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I frankly confess that if I were to consult my own private inclination, I should certainly not break silence on this occasion. I think there is no part so odious or so invidious as seeming in any way to offer objections to a large scheme of universal, or almost universal, benevolence, or one that would probably entail a scheme of almost universal benevolence. Speaking from the bottom of my heart, I believe this is the most important Bill by a long way that has ever been submitted to the House of Lords during the forty years that I have sat in it. I view its consequences as so great, so mystic, so incalculable, so largely affecting the whole scope and fabric of our Empire itself, that I rank it as a measure far more vitally important than even the great Reform Bilk which have come before this House. I confess, to come at once to the Amendment of my noble friend, whom we heard with so much pleasure in such vigour at an age so greatly surpassing the ordinary span of man, that, if you take that Amendment in pure logic, it is extremely difficult to say anything against it. My noble friend says that you should wait for the Report of the Poor Law Commission before coming to a decision upon this Bill. His Majesty's Government have been a little unfortunate, owing to their enthusiasm for legislation, in more than once being unable to await pending inquiries before they proceeded to carry legislation into effect; and I do not know that on any occasion they have been so unfortunate as they have been with regard to this Bill. The most rev. Primate, indeed,
1380
said it was not necessary to wait for the Royal Commission, because who could know that the Report of the Commission would touch on this subject at all? I have a better opinion of the Royal Commission than is expressed by the most rev. Primate. I cannot believe that they would have so grossly ignored all their duty as to leave this subject untouched. But, even if they did fall so far short of our expectations, we have been told over and over again from both sides of the House, from both front benches of the House of Commons, that this question of pensions for the aged is only part of the great problem of the Poor Law, and, therefore, as it is so essential, so vital a part, I cannot conceive that we should be doing wrong, logically speaking, in waiting for the Report of the Commission on the whole. But when. I come to the practical bearings of my noble friend's Amendment I feel much greater doubts, and I must tell him at once that I shall not be able to accompany him and his teller into the lobby which they have projected for themselves. I cannot do so for very clear and obvious reasons. The first is that the Bi l is an almost purely financial measure, coming up from the House of Commons with the almost unanimous support of that House after a division which, I think, only mustered ten against it in its final stage, and which had no division against it at all on its Second Reading. [VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN here I whispered to the noble Earl.] I am I wrong, but at any rate an almost equally insignificant division on the Second Reading.
A financial Bill coming up with this practical unanimity from the House of Commons it may be within your legal prerogative to reject, but I am quite sure it is equally impolitic for you to do so. More than this, it comes with the assent of both political parties. No one can forget—we have been more than once reminded of it to-night—that the question was started by Mr. Chamberlain somewhere about 1894 or 1895, and therefore if you sit on the cross benches and you are not pledged to either party in this matter, you must feel, quite impartially, that this proposal comes as a principle equal to both parties.

1381
It comes, moreover, on the responsibility of one of the strongest Governments of modern times. It comes, we are told, after very careful examination for twelve months. It comes, perhaps, after inadequate inquiry—I think it does—but it comes with the authority of the House of Commons, with the support as a principle of both parties, and it is a financial measure. Therefore, I think your Lordships, if I may say so with all submission, would be acting with great unwisdom if you were to vote for a Resolution, which though in words, would only be a postponement, would yet in affect be the rejection of the Bill, because I know perfectly well that my noble friends opposite would say that if that Resolution were passed they must decline to proceed with the measure. Therefore, I beg your Lordships—I do not think you need my entreaty, because you have come to the same conclusion already—most earnestly, whatever the logic of my noble friend's Amendment may be, not to support it by your votes in the division lobby.
Having said so much, and having expressed a somewhat reluctant support of or assent to the Bill, I hope the House will bear with me for a moment when I express, not hostility to the measure, but the deep, solemn disquietude which that measure and its inevitable consequences produce in me. I will not to-night say a word about its not being on a contributory basis. In the first place, both front benches are practically pledged, I think, by the speech of the noble Viscount behind me, as well as more strongly by the speech of Mr. Chamberlain in 1889, against the contributory basis. In the second place, even if they were not so pledged, it is too late. When you have offered a gratuitous been to the people, you cannot afterwards take it back and offer it with a new condition. Whether a contributory basis be right or wrong, I cannot for myself believe that what is practicable in Germany is impracticable in England. But, whatever the merits of a contributory basis may be, I do not think it enters into the region of practical politics at this moment.
1382
The day may come, when you find the heavy burden you have laid upon yourselves for this purpose, and the almost insupportable burdens that may follow from it, when, warned by the logic of experience and events, you may "desire to return to the contributory basis, but, in my judgment, that time is not yet, Nor will I dwell on the pauperising effects, which have been so frequently dealt with by so many speakers in the House of Commons. There was a time when, certainly in Scotland, and, in less degree, in England, the maintenance of the aged of the family was a privilege that poor families would not surrender to the public or to the State. That time is passed, and I think we may say that, under the provisions of this Bill, it is never likely to return. Some of us may turn, with a somewhat sentimental regret, to those days, and may think, with some regret, of the pauperising effect this Bill must inevitably have.
Again, I will not touch on the Socialistic effect of the Bill. It is, of course, Socialism pure and simple. Do not let us blind our eyes to that, even for a moment. Though I do not accept the rather cryptic utterance of a distinguished friend of mine, who has now passed away, that we are all Socialists now, I am disposed to think that we have advanced to that period of Socialism when some such measure as this is required, and that, though we may object to particular principles and to particular details, we cannot flinch from this Bill simply because it is Socialistic. But is it not an instance of what is going on daily and hourly in this country—the anxiety to lay every burden upon the State, to transfer every responsibility that can possibly be transferred from the individual to the State? I will refer to an instance that occurred only within the last few weeks. His Majesty's Government have set apart, a fund, I do not know of what amount, for the purpose of entertaining strangers at the expense of the State. So far as I know, it has only been drawn upon to the extent of a dinner being given by a Minister which otherwise he would probably have given at his own expense. But surely that is one small

1383
object-lesson of what is constantly going on—the principle that the individual is to do nothing that can by any possibility be shifted on to the shoulders of the State. I do not think this principle is at all likely to be remedied in the future by the operation of this Bill. The money for this Bill must come from some fund or another. There is no gold mine at the disposal of the State to find the money for the Bill. The surplus which will be taken from some people to pay for these pensions for some other people will be the surplus which would be given to charities, and that will probably eventuate in a movement which may not be so remote as some of us think—the handing over the charge of the hospitals to the State.
But of this I am quite certain, that it must deal a mortal blow to all private pension funds, such as those to which, my noble friend behind me only partially alluded. Every one of your Lordships and every estate owner in this country must have a private pension fund of his own. It very often takes the form of men who are quite unfitted to do a day's work being kept on at comparatively high wages, simply in the form of an old-age pension. What will happen to these men when the proprietor is taxed to pay universal pensions? Is it not extremely probable, I will not say certain, that the last state of those labourers, who exist, I venture to say, on every landed estate in the country, will be infinitely worse, by the operation of this Bill, than the first? What will become of the private pension funds of great firms? I see two heads of great firms, recent agreeable additions to this House, on the benches opposite. They probably have large private pension lists, pension funds used on a deliberate plan of their own. Will those funds go on under the operation of this Bill? Perhaps later on they may find an opportunity of telling us.
But, akin to this, there is another question. You have great friendly societies in this country. They have been the nurseries of thrift. They have stimulated thrift. They have stimulated self-respect. Has your plan the approval of the great friendly
1384
societies of the country? I understand that, by a very considerable majority, something like five to two, the friendly societies that have been consulted by the Government on this point are unfavourable to the Bill. Would it not have been better, would it not have been possible, by some association of the State with the work of the friendly societies, to have accomplished your object without the intolerable burden you are going to lay on the taxpayer in the future? I ask this question honestly and in no hostile spirit. I only wish that the Government should reassure us; but there are two more points upon which I must touch.
Your taxation for this purpose, if it does not inevitably lead to protection, will make a great many converts to protection. One great weekly journal has been fighting this Bill with all the courage of an intrepid editor on the ground that it must lead to protection. I myself do not go as far as that, but I am certain of this—that if you screw up direct taxation, as some of your Ministers say that they are going to do, you will make more converts to the doctrines of protection than all the speeches of my noble friends behind me, excellent as they are.
I must also express my deep regret that it has been found necessary to conduct the discussion on a Bill of such vital importance as this under the operation of what is called the guillotine. I am informed by those who have followed the progress of the Bill in the House of Commons that of the twelve clauses of which the Bill consists only four have been discussed at all. I feel that this fact does detract something from the authority with which it comes from a unanimous House of Commons to this House, simply from the feeling that it has practically received little or no adequate discussion at all. The only thing for which I do not regret the operation of the guillotine is this—that it seems to me that almost every day spent on it in Committee there was added a million to its cost.
I wish, however, to make an earnest appeal to the Government on one point,

1385
as to which I wish them to reassure me—I mean its effect on the Empire as a whole. I am beginning to think that this Empire, which has received so new an impulse of inspiration in the last twenty years may be at last destined to be wrecked by its finance. After all, the maintenance of an Empire depends to a large extent on the defence it can extend to all its different parts. But the point which I think must be seriously considered—and I hope it has been seriously considered by the Government—is how far an enterprise or experiment of this kind, whichever you like to call it, can be carried on without serious risk to what is the first task of every Government, of every country, and of every nation—namely, that of national defence.
In the old days which have, unfortunately, long ceased to exist, the days of Gladstone, inherited by tradition from Peel, the policy was to cut your coat according to your cloth when you were acting in behalf of the nation, and that you should not enter into any financial liability without reckoning how much it was to be and how you were to meet it. No one can say that His Majesty's Government have performed either of those functions on this occasion. We have not been given any but the vaguest indication as to what the cost will be, nor any indication—that, perhaps is more natural—as to how the cost is to be met. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a humour which would be more agreeable in another position, spoke of robbing hen-roosts and of an income-tax of 5s. in the £, which he seemed to look at with some avidity. But this can hardly be called an authoritative declaration on the part of the Government as to how the money is to be found.
Have you had any real inquiries as to what the cost is to be? It would not be difficult for the local authorities to arrive at some approximate idea of the number of people of the age of seventy who will receive this pension. Even though approximate it would have been some guidance to Parliament in the enormously important task you have invited it to undertake. Is the cost
1386
going to stop at £8,000,000 or even £10,000,000? Every one in this House and outside of it, who has given the slightest consideration to the subject, knows that there is no chance of stopping the cost at even £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 if it is pursued on the present lines. You have the Prime Minister telling us in the Budget that this was only a beginning, and you have some of his advanced followers telling you with greater frankness, because they have not the responsibility of office, that they mean to use this Bill as a lever to obtain any amount more. But the inevitable course of events, whatever they may say, either from the extreme left or right of the Government bench, is that the measure means an indefinite extension of this principle.
My Lords, we know by a prominent example that looms in our eyes what the pension list is in the custody of a democracy. We have the case of the United States, where the pension list, which I think every friend of the United States believes to be something of a gross scandal, has risen to nearly twenty-eight millions sterling a year—a pension list, too, which does not touch old-age except it is connected with the Army and the. Navy, a pension list, purely military in its operation, which, in the natural demand of the democracy that, when so much money is going, every man shall have his share, has swollen to that figure. What is the inevitable course of events in the party system of this country? Parliament, by the operation of its Septennial Act, will have a general election in due course. I do not wish to say anything which is not strictly courteous to either of the parties represented in this House; but do you mean to say that when the general election comes both parties, bidding for the favour of the democracy, will not emulously knock down every barrier that you have fixed to this pension, and raise every limit fixed by its operation? I said that there was the example of the United States; but the other day the Commonwealth of Australia, by an operation much more summary than our own, raised the old-age pension to 10s. and the age-limit was lowered to sixty-five,

1387
in a sitting which I do not think lasted twenty-four hours. Do you believe that in any general election in this country, when this principle is once introduced, both parties will not be naturally bidding for the favour of the democracy by lowering the age and raising the amount of the pension? It is calculated that this will probably amount to £28,000,000 or £30,000,000.
The most rev. Primate pointed out that there are many other objects for our care. I frankly admit myself that I do not regard the old person of seventy as the hardest case in our humanity. Take the case of the young widow with young babes left, by the sudden death of the breadwinner, without any means of support at all. Is not that a more painful case than that of the man or woman of seventy unable to lay by any of their earnings in a hard and long life? Take again the case of the blind, the people born blind, the people who have become blind. Is not that a case more painful than the old people of seventy? They are disabled by the act of God; they have never been on anything like an equality with the rest of the human race, as the old people of seventy have been. You cannot, when once the State undertakes the operation of charity, limit the sphere of your operations.
The most rev. Primate said it would cost us a great deal of money, and that it should be cheerfully borne. This reminds me of a story of James II.—it happens to be extremely pat—who asked two bishops whether their property did not belong to him. One bishop, prompt as a courtier, replied that it did. The other bishop, more cautious, said—
"I think you may take my brother's property, for he says that it belongs to you."
I do not wish to labour the point, but I must put another aspect of the subject to the most rev. Primate in connection with the cost of the scheme which may touch him even more nearly. When this old-age pension movement first began there was a Conservative Old-Age Pension Association and a Liberal Old-Age Pension Association. The Liberal association was headed by my noble friend Lord Airedale, then Sir James
1388
Kitson, and his association said that there was no difficulty about the funds:
"You have only got to disestablish and disendow the Church of England."
That observation may interest the most rev. Primate.
I do not wish to prolong this discussion; but I do wish that those who listen to me or who may read what we say to-night will bear in mind the enormous liability they are undertaking by this Bill. I myself see no limits to it. You have begun it, so far as I know, without waiting for inquiries, and there hah been very little inquiry of your own. Is your trade so swelling, is your revenue so swelling that you think this to be a ravourable moment to undertake this experiment? We have listened to a war Budget of £153,000,000; you have income-tax at 1s. in the £; I saw some rather gruesome figures this morning as to local debt and local taxation; to the £153,000,000 of Imperial taxation you have to add, for England and Wales alone, £114,000,000 of local taxation, and now at this moment you are going to take upon your shoulders a burden which is at present estimated at £10,000,000, but which, I venture to say, involves, with the greatest certainty in the world, a liability of £30,000,000.
The first responsibility of every country and every nation is national defence. I confess this prospect fills me with despair. I understand that the Government already acknowledge some liability in respect of an increase in the Navy for next year; and I strongly suspect that, in spite of the somewhat ambiguous proceedings of which we have read, they do not expect any material reduction in the Army. Surely the moment is ill-chosen for undertaking this vague experiment, so prodigal of expenditure, and I would ask the Government—I say it in no spirit of hostility, but in a spirit of earnest and deep anxiety—to meet some of the points raised in this debate, and to assure us that, in furthering and not opposing this been which they offer to the old of the United Kingdom, we are not dealing a blow at the Empire which may be almost mortal, and that we are not embarrassing and encumbering our

1389
finances to a degree of which no man now living, however young he may be, will see the limit or the end.
THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON: I think those who listened to the debate this evening must have felt a sort of divided impression as to the general spirit which underlay the remarks and observations which were made on each side of the House. If I read aright what I may describe as the underlying spirit I should say that on one side there was an earnest, and shall I say almost a hearty, welcome given to the measure which is embodied in the Bill, but, at the same time, that there was an undercurrent also of grave apprehension, and if I interpret that spirit aright I should say that it expresses on the one hand the great and humane delight with, which all those who are interested in the welfare of the old and the poor looked at the measure which was designed for their benefit, but, on the other hand, that there was no person who looked forward to the various conditions which might arise in the financial, economic, and perhaps even political, conditions of the Empire who had not somewhat of a grave misgiving as to what the ultimate results would be, not of the immediate Bill, but of those consequential measures which might arise in the future.
Now I suppose if that rightly interprets the mind and the spirit of those who spoke to-night I am not wrong in claiming that the Members of this House do sincerely sympathise with the needs and the vicissitudes of the poor and the aged, and I should like it to be felt in the country that the Members of this House did give to the Bill in this respect a very joyous, hearty welcome, because they were sincerely interested in the welfare of the old and the poor. But may I say this, that when we are looking at this measure we are looking at a measure which is designed to deal with the need; of those who have reached the supreme age of three score years and ten, and I conclude that many of us feel that when we contemplate that portion of the population we are contemplating those who are entitled to the opportunity of a quiet and retired life. So far I would desire to say that I am
1390
perfectly in sympathy with that spirit which, I believe, prevails in the House.
For a long time we have looked forward to this measure, and speaking for myself I had always hoped that I might live to see the day when some scheme of old-age pensions should be initiated in this country, and to that degree I rejoice that the opportunity has been found, and I think it ought to be understood, after the debate which we have heard to-night, that this is a measure which carries with it the consent, the, ready consent of both sides of the House; in other words, that this is a national measure supported by a national spirit. But it would be a very unwise thing for us if we are to be simply content with saying to ourselves: "Here is a measure that we had hoped for, which will mitigate the lot of the poor and the old," and that we should stop at that point and not contemplate, as I feel sure every Member of this House has contemplated, the possibilities of the difficulties of the future. I do not wish for one moment to say any word which will take away from the earnest gladness with which, I feel, this measure has been brought forward, but still I do not think that any one of us should shrink from seeing that the future does require very careful consideration, lest in moving forward, we should take a step which may follow, but I do not think ought logically or necessarily to follow from the measure which has been introduced to-night.
This is the thought which, I am sure, has passed through many minds. Whenever a measure of this sort is brought in which deals with the interests of a large class of people, you may be perfectly sure that the tendency to increase and to develop that measure in other directions is almost irresistible. There is nothing which involves the expenditure of money which does not tend, from my experience, to enlarge before long. Commence, if you will, in allowing one single item of expenditure to grow in a certain direction and there will be every reason given you for that expenditure increasing in another. There is a natural but not a logical tendency, I say, to increase expenditure. Further, I desire

1391
to point out what, from my experience, is almost a necessary difficulty arising in the future. The difficulty and danger of dealing with those who are the working-classes of this country does not lie, I imagine, in the mere question of fixing an age-limit, but in the difficulty of ascertaining at what ages in various occupations the power of self-support ceases.
May I give you something of my experience in conversing with many of those who are interested in the manufactures of the north? Interested at the time in the proposal made for old-age pensions I had resort to those who were employers of labour, and the information I got was this. The age spoken of at that time was sixty-five, but as a matter of fact, no single man that I met could endorse the opinion that a pension beginning at the age of sixty-five would adequately deal with the needs of the great artisan population of the north. For instance, one man said to me that as a matter of fact in one occupation, in the making of what I may describe as the foundation of buttons, no man could earn his place in the shop after he was, say, fifty-five. He may earn good wages up to the time he was forty-five, but from that time his skill begins to decline, and by the time he reaches fifty-five, he is, from the employer's point of view, not worth his place. Now the moment you look at those conditions you see how the tendency to lower the age will commence. There will be circumstances, there will be cases, concerning which naturally, and perhaps rightly, appeals will be made, and therefore I am quite certain that when we contemplate this question of the old-age pensions fixed at seventy we must be prepared for movements which are likely to lower that age to sixty-five and to sixty, and even below that if possible.
Now, that being the case, I am quite certain I interpret rightly the feelings which underlay the expressions of many of those who took part in the debate to-night. It was the apprehension of the future. This experiment has been tried in New Zealand. What has been the result? It was started there, I believe, ten years ago. In the year
1392
1900 the expenditure in old-age pensions amounted to £157,000; in the year 1907 the expenditure had just doubled. It was £314,000. That was due not merely to the increase in the numbers, but it was due to the fact that in the course of those years the amount of the pension increased from £18 a year to £26. I only mention that as an illustration of the tendency of which I have spoken, the tendency to do better. What was said by Lord Rosebery is surely true. The danger of the strife of political parties to bid against each other for the votes of the people is, of course, one of those dangers which I trust all who take a genuine and high-minded interest in the welfare of this country will have in mind in order that they may avoid that temptation.
May I go a step further? It is not merely a question of either the amount of the pensions being increased or the age being lowered. There is another element, and it is to this that I would most earnestly direct the attention of this House. We are living in the presence of a great and grave national danger which I do not think has even yet been fully realised by the people of this country. We are living in the midst of a population which is not increasing as it was wont to do. The birth-rate, which was 36 per 1,000 about twenty-five or thirty years ago, has dropped to from 27 to 26 per 1,000. That means a considerable reduction, remember, in the increase of the rate of population. The effect of that is that if you were to take the population and throw them into groups you would find that the numbers of young had proportionately decreased to the total population. At the other end of the scale you have that very interesting and inspiring feature, the lengthening of life. Through all the circumstances and conditions of modern life the age of man has increased. Four or five years, I believe, has been added to the age of men through the changed conditions and agencies of modern life. But what then? The proportion of the old to the population is far greater than it used to be, and the important feature in the population of this country is that the young are

1393
fewer in proportion and the old are more numerous.
The number of those under fifteen has decreased within the last twenty or thirty years to such an extent that there are 1,200,000 children less than there were, in proportion to the population, but during the same period the numbers of the old have increased, and we have 500,000 people above sixty years of age more than we had in time past. I trust that the Members of this House are earnestly considering the significance of that. Is it true that we are slowly moving on to a period in which the old will be multiplied, and the young will be diminished? Is that a condition of things which we can contemplate with equanimity? My own feeling is that the dangerous decrease in the birth-rate and the increase in the length of life mean that you are face to face with this, that claims for your pensions will be continually increasing, and the number of the productive, workers, the power and energy of the country, will be sensibly diminished. That is my fear. I am not afraid of seven or eight or ten millions of money spent in benevolence in this way; the country in its wealth can well bear it; but when I ask myself whether the nation will always be able to bear it, when I ask myself whether this diminution in the birth-rate means the diminution of the worker, and of the earning power of the country, then I am bound to ask myself whether it is wise for us not to watch carefully lest the scheme which is begun with the best intentions in the world should afterwards be developed in such a shape as might indeed threaten and menace the financial integrity and power of the country.
I have only one other word to add. My Lords, there is something in nations which is of more importance to them than mere financial prosperity. The accumulation of the power of wealth which enables nations to raise a considerable revenue through taxation, gives the stamp, as it were, of prosperity, but the best asset of a nation is a manly, vigorous, and numerous race, and the best asset of the race is that the character of its men and women shall never be impaired. A Frenchman once wrote a book con-
1394
cerning what he called the superiority the Anglo-Saxon race, and in the course of that book he pointed out what he believed to be the one essential factor which contributed to that superiority He said that in all the history of English life one spirit had prevailed, and that was the spirit of self-reliance. He turned to his countrymen and said "The danger which we are in to-day is that we are not rearing our population to self-reliant habits." He drew the picture of the little farmer in Normandy who would stint himself and live in an unclean and even unwholesome dwelling in order that he might leave a sufficient sum to his children. He pointed then to the English farmer who, he said, so far from crippling himself in order that his sons may be well started in the world, takes the strong and independent line and says, "I made my way in the world and I expect my sons to do the same." "In other words," said the French writer, "the race across the Channel has educated its children in the habits of self-reliance, and to this habit is largely due the superiority and the strength of that race."
Now I cannot help asking myself, and I feel sure that is the thought which has been passing through many minds tonight, whether we are not in danger, not now, not to-day, but in the future, of dealing with this question of financial support in such a way that we undermine that spirit of self-reliance out of which the strength and the power of the British race has largely grown. That seems to me to be by far the most important question involved. It is character which makes, as it were, for the generous strength of a race, and it is character alone which can give them the security for true and abiding riches. Therefore it is that I cannot help asking myself whether there may not be a danger of its being weakened in the future.
I speak not of those of seventy years of age who are to receive the benefit of this measure. Their characters are formed, their conditions are settled. We are going forward to-night and saying: "Let us help them, let us give to them something which will ease their later years, and if a few have not deserved, well, we will at any rate with large

1395
heartedness, forget those who were weak and deal largely and generously with this matter before us, for all these men or women of seventy naturally appeal to the pity and sympathy of our hearts." But when I look beyond and ask whether it is conceivable that we may begin so to hold out the thought that men may be able to receive from the State that which in olden days they won by their own strong labours, self-denial, and thrift, then I am apprehensive lest we should, in attempting to do a good, do a great and grievous wrong, robbing ourselves and our children of that which is the best inheritance, the inheritance of a sturdy, strong, self-reliant manhood, that will take upon itself the responsibilities of life and be equal, therefore, to the responsibilities of Empire. I think none of us can shut our eyes to the fact that there are among us people who are very ready to shirk responsibility, and I, for one, would feel that the whole system and condition of English life had lost its meaning and value if once we should act in such a fashion as to remove responsibility, and the sense of responsibility, from the people of this country. We are in this world for responsibility; through responsibility we grow and rise to the height of character which Divine providence intended us to reach. Let us not, by any action of ours, weaken that which is the best thing we can preserve, the character of the population, for out of that, and out of that alone, will spring the strength and the stability of the nation.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I do not rise to offer any observations on the eloquent speech of the right rev. Prelate. I understand him to be in favour of the Bill, and that he thinks the general policy of the measure is a sound and wise one. He has pointed out some difficulties in the present position of the country which I know, from his previous speeches, press hardly upon him, but with them I need not deal on the present occasion.
I come at once to the speech of my noble friend, who I do not see in his place at this moment, Lord Rosebery. My noble friend, as he always does, made
1396
a very forcible and eloquent speech against the whole principles and objects of this Bill, and, carried away with the stream of his eloquence, he ended by tolling us that the passing of this measure would, be held, lead to the ruin of the Empire. I think my noble friend went somewhat beyond the possibilities of the case when he made that lugubrious statement. At all events,. I cannot but feel that the course which my noble friend intends, as I understand him, to take in respect to this Bill to-night, is not the course which ought to be taken by the man who made that speech. I quite agree with my noble friend, Lord Rosebery, and with the noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, if I understood the advice I which he tendered to the House, that it would be in the highest degree inadvisable that your Lordships should, by passing the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Wemyss, practically destroy this Bill. I myself feel that no course could well be more inadvisable for your Lordships to take than that.
The Bill comes up to this House with practically the unanimous support of the House of Commons. It is really part of the Budget of the year, and, if you reject this Bill, you will leave the Finance Bill when it comes before you in a very singular position. Looking to all that has passed upon the question, looking to the fact that both parties in the State agree that it is necessary and right to take a decided, clear, and distinct step in the direction of old-age pensions, I cannot but think that to reject this Bill would be contrary to what I have often heard my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, describe as the proper course to be followed by this House in respect to measures which come up from the House of Commons. I cannot conceive a measure, looking at its purpose and its circumstances, which it would be less desirable and less justifiable that your Lordships should reject. I do not expect that that will be the case.
I must say that I look to the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Wemyss, as undoubtedly equivalent to the rejection of this Bill. My noble friend does not conceal the fact that he dislikes the measure and the principle on which it is founded, but he has availed himself

1397
of the opportunity of asking your Lordships to postpone the Bill upon the plausible ground that a Commission is sitting to consider questions connected with the Poor Law, which in its Report will probably deal with matters cognate to the object of this Bill. The most rev. Primate told us in the earlier part of the evening that he was not sure whether that Commission would touch; upon the question of old-age pensions at all. Upon that point I agree with my noble friend Lord Rosebery. I think it highly unlikely that, after all that has passed and is passing on this question, the Commission will pass over this great subject of old-age pensions and say nothing about it. But I do agree with the most rev. Primate that we do not know when that Commission may report. We hope that it may report before the end of the year, but we do not know.
The Commission are engaged in a very difficult, and very extensive, and very complicated inquiry. I should be the last man to complain that they have devoted too much time to that inquiry, or press them to give us their conclusions before they have fully considered the case and come to deliberate decisions. But after all that has taken place in regard to this question, after both parties in this country have agreed that the time has come when we must take a great step in the direction of making some adequate provision for the old age of the poor of this land, I cannot think that the fact that we have not got the Report of this last of the many Commissions that have been looking into the subject is a reason for postponing to an uncertain date dealing with this question. The adoption of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Wemyss means the rejection of the Bill. That may not be intended, though I do not think my noble friend would shed many tears if that were to be the result of his efforts to-night. But I do say that I think it would be a very grievous misfortune, both for the country and for the true interests of your Lordships' House, if you were to avail yourselves of a sort of side wind set blowing by my noble friend for the purpose practically of rejecting this Bill.
But there is one man in this House who ought to vote, if I may be pardoned for saying so, against the Second Reading of the Bill. That is my noble friend on
1398
the cross benches. He told us that the system that would be established by the Bill would probably lead to the ruin of the Empire. If he really thinks that, if that is his deliberate opinion, grievous as would be in all respects, in my opinion, the rejection of this measure by your Lordships, he should vote for the Amendment. I am bound to say—my noble friend, I hope, will pardon me—that if I entertained the views to which he gave expression to-night I should feel myself compelled to vote for anything which would put an end to a danger so tremendous as that which filled the imagination and stirred the eloquence of my noble friend.
The noble Earl in one part of his speech touched upon a very important question—namely, the views entertained by the friendly societies of the country and the effect which the Bill would have upon their interests. He told us that the majority of those societies were opposed to the Bill. I believe that is a perfectly correct statement, but that is the majority of the individual societies. I believe, on the other hand, that the large majority of the total members of those societies are favourable to the Bill. I cannot doubt it. If you look at what passed in the House of Commons you will see that those who are specially the representatives of the friendly societies are amongst the keenest supporters of the Bill. Many of them do not think that it goes for enough. Many of them would like to see it extended and altered in various ways, but they were all included in the overwhelming majority that passed the Third Reading of the Bill. I observe that the noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, most justly included among the number of friendly societies the trade unions. There cannot be any doubt, if you look at the votes in the House of Commons, that the special representatives of trade unions are altogether in favour of the Bill. Therefore, I do not think it is accurate to say that the Bill is in any way regarded with dissatisfaction by the large majority of members of trade unions. I believe, on the contrary, that it has received, and that it will continue to receive, their cordial support.
The noble Viscount opposite raised certain questions as to the provisions of this Bill in various respects. I quite admit that the clauses of the Bill relating

1399
to the points upon which he touched are very general in their language, but I think the noble Viscount did not give sufficient attention to the fact that it is intended under the Bill—it is the declared intention—that the Local Government Board should issue regulations for extending and explaining more fully the intention of those clauses. These regulations, when they are issued, will be open to the criticism of your Lordships' House and of the other House of Parliament, and if they are inadequate, if they are still obscure, if they do not express sufficiently definitely and clearly the meaning of the provisions, then, I venture to say, will be the time for calling in question the nature of the regulations and requiring their future amendment. I can assure your Lordships, so far as I know, that it is the intention to make those regulations full and satisfactory, and that it is the desire of the Government that they should explain clearly and unmistakedly the full meaning of the clauses to which the noble Viscount alluded.
The noble Viscount—and as I am referring to him so often, perhaps I may be allowed to thank him for the tone and the manner of his speech, and for the character of the criticisms in which he indulged; he treated the Bill and its authors with perfect fairness, and I have nothing but thanks to offer him for his speech—the noble Viscount made some observations with respect to the position of the pension officer, and spoke of the extreme difficulty which the pension committee would experience in deciding on the various questions relating to disqualification. It will be the duty of the pension officer to act, if I may be pardoned for using the expression, as a sort of advocatus diaboli in these cases. It will be his business to discover all the imperfections which he can find in the claim of any person to a pension, and I think that in most districts of the country it will not be beyond the powers of a competent officer, with all the means he will have at his disposal, to discharge that duty, and to place the pension committee in the full possession of all the circumstances of the case.
The committee will then have to consider whether those claimants are, or are not, qualified under the Act and the
1400
regulations which are to be made, and although I daresay mistakes will be made, and that the pensions committees, like many other public bodies, will be subject to error in this matter, yet I believe that generally, with their local knowledge, they will have the means of arriving at a tolerably fair decision in respect of these cases. I should not be surprised if sometimes they were thought to be unduly particular in regard to the questions brought before them. But, if they fail, there is an appeal to the Local Government Board, and I think that in that way we have sufficiently provided for the protection of the public purse, and against pensions being given to persons who are unworthy to receive them. I am far from saying there will be no errors—individual errors, errors of committees, errors of various bodies, particularly at first; but I think when you get the scheme in operation there will not be any great reason to suppose that the persons concerned will not deal adequately with the questions submitted to them.
It has been said over and over again, in the course of this discussion to-night, that this question is largely experimental. The noble Viscount opposite said he hoped—he is a supporter of the principle, as I understand, of old-age pensions—that when reference was made to the experimental character of the measure, it did not mean that the principle, of old-age pensions was to be experimental. This is the true interpretation of our intention. We do not mean the principle to be experimental. We could not make it experimental if we tried. Pass this Bill, and you have established, in one form or another, old-age pensions. But what is experimental, and what must be experimental for a time, and what it would be very unwise and injudicious for any Government not to treat as an experiment, is the mode in which this novel system is to be administered. That I admit to be experimental. Upon that we hope to be able to form better opinions, more sound opinions if you like, as the result of experiment, but the principle that there is to be henceforth established in this country for the benefit of the aged poor a system of pensions founded upon the broad principles of this measure is not with us a matter of experiment.

1401
At this late hour I will not follow the noble Viscount into the financial questions upon which he touched. I am much too unequal in matters of that kind to enter rashly into combat with the noble Viscount. I will only say this. We intend to watch carefully the result of this experiment. We have made it deliberately. We have made it with the overwhelming consent of the other House of Parliament—that House which is the special guardian of the finances of the country. We have made it not hastily, but with great deliberation, as my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy told your Lordships earlier in the evening. We have made it in the conviction that the time has come to confer this been upon the most unhappy and the most suffering people of the country. We have done it in the belief that it is a proposal which has received the sanction of both parties through a long period of years, and that we shall be able to carry it out, not by party effort, but by the combined determination of men of all political parties in this country.
There is one question which has been singularly little touched upon in the course of this discussion. Before the discussion began I confess that from what I heard out of doors, and from the rumours concerning the views of various distinguished and eminent noble Lords in this blouse, I anticipated a considerable discussion on the question of whether these pensions should be on a contributory basis or not. We have heard nothing, or almost nothing, on that. I think my noble friend on the cross benches rather indicated that he would have liked a contributory scheme. That that is impossible is my firm conviction. After what fell from my noble friend Lord Wolverhampton, I need scarcely remind your Lordships that the most complete exposition of this policy of old-age pensions is to be found in the lucid and able speech made by Mr. Chamberlain in 1899. You have the whole thing in that speech. Mr. Chamberlain showed beyond all doubt that you could not in this country establish a system of contributory pension. My noble friend on the cross benches said it was done in Germany, and why could it not be done here. This country is not Germany. There are many things which are done in
1402
Germany which you cannot do here, and there are many more things done in that country which I hope we shall not do here. I do not believe that because there is a contributory scheme in Germany, therefore it is possible that there should be one in this country. I hold Mr. Chamberlain's speech to be absolutely conclusive against any contributory idea. There is one argument against it which in itself is conclusive, and that is that if you established a contributory system you could not bring it into force for a very large number of years—my right hon. friend the Prime Minister the other day put it at twenty years, but Mr. Chamberlain in 1899 put it at forty years. Nine years have elapsed since 1899, and if, therefore, you were to adopt a system of that kind it would be practically thirty or fifty years from the time when this question was first brought forward and hopes were given to the poor that something would be done, before you could give them the advantage of this system. To my mind that is a conclusive argument.
I believe that it is the intention of my noble friend to take your Lordships' opinion by a division. I am sorry to hear it. I can only regard the Motion that he has made as one for the rejection of the Bill, and as made in a spirit of hostility to its proposals; and I hope that when my noble friend the noble Marquess opposite addresses the House he will not abandon the principles which he has sometimes laid down as to the conduct of this House in respect of questions which excite the deepest interest in the House of Commons, and I hope he will advise your Lordships, whether you like this Bill or not, whether you think its provisions the best that could be invented or whether you do not, not to stand between the poor people of this country and the advantages which would be conferred upon them by this Bill.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the importance of the present Bill is by no means to be measured by the addition which it will involve to the burden of our taxation, enormous as that will be. To propose a policy which will involve an expenditure of many millions, without any sufficient provision of funds, seems to many of us to be reckless finance, and yet the effect it will have on I the habits, the well-being, and the

1403
character of our people is even more important.
There have been five Committees or Commissions on this subject; three were of experts, two of politicians; those of experts were all against, those of politicians were in favour, though, to do them justice, not in favour of this particular Bill. It may well be doubted whether this Bill really represents the opinion of the country. Ten days ago The Spectator suggested a form of petition against the Bill, and I had the honour of presenting it this afternoon. Considering that only a week has elapsed since it was drawn up, the response has been extraordinary. It has some 2,000 signatures, and I am informed that of those who have seen it there were scarcely any who did not sign. It is not only a City petition. No doubt it does represent the views of the bankers and merchants, of the insurance offices, of Lloyds, and of other commercial bodies; but it is also largely signed by lawyers and medical men, by many of those engaged in education and charitable work, and last, not least, by working men.
This is a very difficult and complex question. What steps have the Government taken to arrive at a wise decision? There is a Commission sitting on the Poor Law. Have they consulted the Commission? There are the great friendly societies which have done so much for thrift and to promote the well-being of the working classes. Have they consulted the friendly societies? Yes, they were consulted; but the Government have legislated without waiting for their answer. There is the Charity Organisation Society, and their invaluable secretary, Mr. Loch. They give their time and thought to these difficult problems. They are men of great wisdom and experience. They were not consulted, and they are profoundly convinced that the course proposed is a terrible mistake.
I need not enlarge on the inestimable work which friendly societies have done for the elevation of our people. Their opinion is entitled to most serious consideration. And what is their view? Mr. Dempsey, the grand master of the greatest of all—the Manchester Unity of
1404
Oddfellows—in his annual address said that—
"He thought the present old-age pensions of the Government were as unsatisfactory as any proposal could be. In his opinion any non-contributory system of old-age pay was Poor Law relief, by whatever name it might be called, and from that point of view the scheme was objectionable. … It would be more accurately described as an encouragement of improvidence than as an old-age pension. The scheme must be highly detrimental to their own and similar societies."
This is evidently the general opinion of the friendly societies. On the 17th of January, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies issued a Circular to the societies, asking their opinion on the effect the old-age pensions would produce. This was not ordered to be printed till June 15th, and was not issued till too late to influence the debate on the Bill. That it should have been hurried through just before such an important document was Issued seems to me, I confess, very unfair to the House of Commons and the country. Mr. Sim, the Chief Registrar, in his circular letter, said—
"The Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken to introduce this session a Bill to deal with the question of old-age pensions. It appears to me that a non-contributory scheme may in many ways vitally affect the friendly societies, and I desire to obtain the valuable opinion of those who, like yourself, have had a long and intimate experience of the Friendly Society movement as to the effect of such legislation upon friendly societies in general, and in particular as to the membership. I should be obliged, therefore, if you will kindly answer the following questions:—

"(1) Will, in your opinion, the passing of a non-contributory Bill conferring old-age pensions have an injurious effect on friendly societies?

"(2) What will be the effect on the thrift of the classes from which the members of friendly societies are drawn?

"(3) Has the intention of the pissing of such a Bill already affected, in any way, the membership of societies?"

To the main question asked by the Registrar, over eighty friendly societies unhesitatingly say that the Bill will be injurious, while only about half that number approve it. The Tendring Hundred Provident Society of Essex say that the proposal will—
"have a disastrous effect."
The Midland District Miners' Relief Society say that the expectation of the Government Bill—
"has effectually destroyed any chance of its (the proposed superannuation scheme) being adopted."

1405
The Essex Provident Society state that—
"a non-contributory and universal scheme of old-age pensions would bring about the utter collapse of registered societies which provide for the sickness and incapacity of their members daring their life-time."
The Dunmow Friendly Society say that they are now continually met by—
"the objection that it is not now necessary for men to provide pensions for themselves when the State will shortly do it for every one."
The Royal Standard Benefit Society say that they find the feeling of young men is that—
"they do not see why they should trouble to make provision for themselves as the State is going to look after them."
The London Stationers Provident Society have had—
"no applications for membership since the announcement that the Bill was to be introduced."
The United Kingdom Railway Officers' Association say that—
"it will have a disastrous effect, as there will not then be the same inducements for men to join as now."
The Suffolk Provident Society say that—
"conferring old-age pensions without contribution being made will soon lead to discouragement of thrift."
The Bolton United Oddfellows say that—
"A State pension of a non-contributory character will certainly not help the friendly society movement."
The Boston Society say that the Bill will be—
"the death-blow to thrift among the working classes."
The East Suffolk Hand-in-Hand Society says—
"The success attained by societies in the eastern counties which made old-age pensions compulsory for members many years ago among the poorly paid agricultural labourers is evidence that, notwithstanding many declarations to the contrary, the well-paid artisan in the towns could easily afford to contribute to an old-age pension."
A contributory old-age pension would encourage thrift, but this one it is evident will, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge, have exactly the opposite effect. It has other disadvantages. It makes no provision for infirmity. I understand that the experience of the Colonies has already shown that children are beginning to cease to feel any obligation to support their parents. I have shown that in the
1406
opinion of those best qualified to judge, the Bill will be a great discouragement, if not fatal to thrift.
And now I come to the question—cannot our people provide old-age pensions for themselves? They do in Germany, and yet their wages are lower. The Board of Trade in their most interesting "Memoranda" of 1903, taking the wages in Great Britain at 100, estimate those in Paris as eighty-six, in Berlin as fifty-seven, and those in other German cities and towns as sixty-three. We might, they say—
"Without great error, take the average for Germany as two-thirds, and for France three-quarters, of that which prevails in the United Kingdom."
The Memorandum also shows that as regards the cost of necessaries the English workman is much better off than the German workman. Writing on the condition of the working classes in 1886, Sir Robert Giffen, the respected head of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, expressed the conviction, for which he gave conclusive evidence, that the wages of artisans had risen at least 100 per cent. Since then they have gone up some 15 per cent. more. But even this is not all. The hours of labour have fallen to an extent which, I think, may safely be estimated at 20 per cent. Sir Robert continues—
"The great rise of money wages among the labourers of every class, coupled with stationary or even falling prices of commodities on the average, the all but universal shortening of the hours of labour, the decline of pauperism, the enormously increased consumption of the luxuries of the masses, the improvement in the rate of mortality, these and other facts combine to prove that there has been a great general advance in well-being among the masses of the community."
Coming down some years later, the Labour Commission, in their Report of 1894, said that—
"Work people of this class earn better wages, work fewer hours, have secured improved conditions of industrial and domestic life in other respects, and have furnished themselves through trade unions and friendly societies with means of providing against the various contingencies of sickness, accidents, and temporary want of employment. The Classes who compose the lower grades of industry, regarded as a whole, have probably benefited no less than the skilled workers."
The poor have also had the boon of free education, and this alone would be enough to enable them to provide a

1407
pension for themselves. The price of an ounce of tobacco a week put by at and before twenty-five is more than sufficient to provide an old-age pension of 5s. a week at seventy.
The Board of Trade Memorandum of 1903 shows that our working men have the advantage of higher wages, lower prices of necessaries, and shorter hours than those of Germany. Surely, then, what German working men are doing, Englishmen might do. Nay, more they have done in thousands of eases, and but for this Bill would do more and more And yet, as we understand, His Majesty's Government have not thought it worth while even to inquire into the German system.
The estimated cost of the Bill is £7,000,000. That, however, is only the first cost. The ultimate charge will almost to a certainty be much heavier. On whom will this fall? Perhaps I shall be told that this will depend on future Budgets. That, no doubt, is true as regards the first incidence, but the ultimate burden will in any case mainly fall on the working classes. The tendency of the Bill will be to reduce wages. This has been so keenly felt in the Colonies that there have been proposals to make it illegal for pensioners to work for wages. Any such provision would be out of the question here, nor would it be effective. The effect of these pensions on the labour market will be the same as that of the almost indiscriminate outdoor relief before 1834. Practically, then, the poor lived partly on wages and partly on outdoor relief. That will be the case under this Bill. As regards the aged poor, you may call it a pension, but whether you admit it to be outdoor relief or disguise it under the alias of a pension, the effect on wages will be the same. As Lord Morley has truly said—
"I have never disguised my view that the great and central interest of the workman is that he should have good and steady work, Beware of any action which artificially disturbs the basis of work and wages. Be sure of another thing, that the burden of taxation, however spread, however disguised, at last falls heaviest upon the shoulders of the industrial community."
Even in the first instance, consider how the Bill will work. So far as you throw any part of the additional cost on the necessaries of life it is clear that the working man will pay. So far as you throw
1408
it on the income-tax, or on luxuries, the argument is not quite so self-evident, but it is equally true. Whatever amount you take out of pockets of the middle classes or of the richer classes they must provide by diminishing either their savings or their expenditure. But in either case it would have been spent on labour, and if the expenditure is less, the amount spent on labour is less. In every ton of coal which costs 25s., over 24s. is spent on labour; if a house is built, over 90 per cent. of the cost—I might say over 95 per cent. is labour. Even if it is spent on foreign commodities, they are paid for by English commodities and the result is the same. If this Bill costs £7,000,000, to that extent it will diminish the amount which would have been spent on wages. It must, therefore, inevitably lower wages or increase the number of unemployed, or both.
I do not think that working men have realised the inevitable effect which the Bill will have to lower wages. That was the result of the indiscriminate grant of outdoor relief in the first thirty years of the last century, and was one reason for the establishment of the present Poor Law. These pensions will have the same tendency. They are merely general outdoor relief. You may call them pensions, but this does not prevent them from being outdoor relief. It is really a misnomer to call them pensions. A pension is either deferred pay, as in the Civil Service, or it is a benefaction from a generous employer to a good servant. But these so-called pensions are not given by the employer. They are sums taken by the force of an Act of Parliament from one person and given to another. Even if this Bill would add to the comfort of the working classes, which I doubt, we must ask ourselves what effect it will have on character and habits, and remember that, after all, character is more important than comfort.
The question, then, for the thoughtful working man, as it is for us, is—supposing we are going to devote £7,000,000 to ameliorate the condition of the poor, is this the best use to which it can be put? The German system, for instance, provides not only for old age, but for infirmity. One man at seventy may be stronger than another at fifty. But then, my Lords, we are told that whatever your Lordship's opinion may be we

1409
are bound to pass this Bill because it was adopted by a large majority in the other House. But recent elections have clearly shown that the balance of parties in the other House no longer represents that in the country. Let us, however, look at the majority a little closer. It was no doubt large. But it must be remembered that the Bill was by no means adequately discussed, and secondly that the Government have 260 votes in the House of Commons more than they are entitled to by the votes they received in the country. Deducting 260 from 305 reduces the real majority for the Bill to forty-five; no doubt a substantial, but not an overwhelming majority, especially as we know that it was obtained on a variety of questions—free trade, Chinese labour, education, and others which have nothing to do with old age pensions. The number of abstentions was also remarkable and significant. In fact, not half the House voted. It may well, therefore, be doubted whether that majority really represents the opinion of the country.
I omit many other difficulties which will arise in practice. How, for instance, is the age to be ascertained? Will not practically any man who looks old and wishes for 5s. a week be fairly sure to get it? One great function of this House is to lay the facts before the country, and give our countrymen time to make up their minds. That is what we suggest now. If ever there was a case in which this should be done, surely this is one. We plead, then, for delay, because the Bill has not been adequately considered in the country, and has not been fairly discussed in the House of Commons; because it would involve an immense increase of taxation, perpetuate poverty, lower wages, and discourage thrift.
*LORD WELBY: I am afraid I cannot reply to the appeal, which my noble friend Lord Cromer addressed to me, because I rise to give an unhesitating support; to the Bill of His Majesty's Government. I am truly glad that His Majesty's Government have introduced this Bill, because I think it of the very highest importance for the public interest that a promise to the working-classes should not be made lightly, and should not be left for an indefinite time unfulfilled. I believe that to do so in the
1410
present state of public opinion is very dangerous to the body politic, and when once that promise has been given, and when once such general assent has been given, I may say on all sides, to the principle, the time has come when there should be no further delay in dealing with the subject. This promissory note has been drawn a long time, and it is full time it was honoured. The measure that has been brought in now has been spoken of as the greatest social measure since 1834. In one respect I could agree with that saying; that is to say, I think it is part of the greatest social measure which dates from 1834, and that when the Poor Law question is dealt with as a part of and as a supplement to this measure the whole will form the greatest social measure since the year named. But like many noble Lords I have felt considerable disappointment in my own mind that it has not been found possible to find a contributory basis for the scheme. During the long time that this question has been before the public I have thought a great deal about the possibility of finding a contributory basis, and it is only with great reluctance that I find myself in agreement with so many higher and greater authorities that a contributory scheme is impossible so far as old-age pensions are concerned. There are so many difficulties attending it—difficulties connected, for instance, with bringing women under a contributory scheme, the difficulty of the long delay that must happen before a properly constituted contributory scheme could come into force, so far at all events as old-age pensions are concerned, and, lastly, the great difficulty in dealing with anything that sounds like compulsion as applied to the vast number of the labouring classes who earn very small wages. If Sir Robert Giffen is right and there are 1,750,000 workers who receive less than 20s. a week, it appears to me that to enforce in any form a contribution from such wages would be extremely difficult even if it were practicable in this country. I notice that in his very ingenious speech in the House of Commons my friend Mr. Harold Cox said, if I understand him, that thrift should be treated like education and made compulsory. I can understand the gentle compulsion of telling a father that his boy must go to school free of charge, but that is a very different kind of compulsion from the "stand and deliver"

1411
kind of compulsion which makes him take a part of his small wages out of his pocket. But in this case we are only dealing at present with old-age pensions. It is only a branch of the subject, and as Mr. Balfour has said, I think wisely, it is impossible to wait for an all-comprehensive scheme, which would mean practically waiting for ever. Therefore, there are other questions connected with provision for the working classes, as has been said before, which have to come up and come up very soon for decision, and, at all events with regard to them I do not entirely abandon, and I think that a great number of people do not abandon, the idea of some form of contribution towards the charge. I allude to such cases as provision against infirmity and sickness before the age for old-age pensions arrives, and I note, if I may say so, with satisfaction that the Prime Minister in speaking of a contribution expressly debarred himself from being supposed to shut the door against the possibility of contribution in the case of other aspects of the Poor Law question.
But one other great and very grave objection has been taken to this Bill. It is said that the Bill is thoroughly faulty in its finance, or perhaps I might say in its want of finance. The Bill has been spoken of as a post-obit Bill—as a Bill which draws upon the future and provides no asset by which the promise can be defrayed. Even Mr. Balfour, speaking in much more moderate terms, said that it was a question in his mind whether, if there were to be £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 spent for the benefit of the working classes, this was the best way of spending it, and he spoke of such a sum as that as an amount of taxation, which would inflict very considerable hardship perhaps upon the working-classes. Of course, that is a very serious question but I observe that all these objections are based upon the assumption that there must be for the purpose of this Bill—and we are only dealing at present with this Bill—a large increase of taxation. I do not think that that assumption is proved, and I will venture to ask the House to allow me two or three minutes so that I may endeavour to prove my case. I must refer, in endeavouring to prove it, to the arrangements connected with the National Debt. It is now rather more than thirty years ago that the present arrangements were made under which
1412
a fixed sum was set aside to meet the interest and Sinking Fund of the debt. Sir Stafford Northcote, when he introduced that scheme, made what is a dangerous thing for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to do, namely, a prophecy that if the arrangement he then made of £28,000,000 a year was left to work for thirty years untouched, at the end of that period—that would be somewhere about 1905 or 1906—£232,000,000 of the Debt would have been paid off. It is a curious fact that when the thirty years were up, or just about that time, no less than £217,000,000 had been paid off. But that was in spite of the fact that during eight years of that period the Sinking Fund had been suspended, and also that twice during that period the sum set apart had been diminished by two financial authorities of the greatest weight in this country—I mean Lord Goschen and the noble Lord, Viscount St. Aldwyn. Now, my Lords, I venture to think that Lord Goschen and the noble Viscount opposite, when they diminished the sum so set aside, practically laid down the canon of finance, which I should say would be good for all time, that when a large sum was set aside for the extinction of Debt, from time to time the public should have a certain share of the financial benefit arising from the diminution of Debt. How does that stand at the present moment? At the present moment the sum set aside for the charge of the Debt is £28,000,000 a year. I, reckon that next year the charge of interest out of that sum will be £18,000,000. That leaves the Sinking Fund at the present moment—or rather next year—at £10,000,000. Such a sum is beyond anything that has ever been dreamed in dealing with finance in this country. It is to my mind an enormous sum, and it falls distinctly under the noble Viscount's canon, namely, that the public is entitled to a share in such a large economy of the public expenditure as is involved in the Sinking Fund of £10,000,000. When the noble Viscount made his reduction of this sum, and when he took £2,000,000 off the provision made the whole amount applicable to the reduction of debt was under £7,500,000. Therefore, at that time the Sinking Fund had reached nothing like the present sum.

1413
Now, my Lords, I come to this, which I am endeavouring to put before your Lordships as the reason on which I base my belief that for the purpose of this Bill a very large increase of taxation in the immediate future is not involved and is not necessary. A certain sum, as your Lordships are aware, has been provided in Mr. Asquith's Budget this year to meet the charge at the commencement of next year. That sum, again, will be to the good in the following year, and then, according to my humble opinion, it will lie with those responsible for the public finance to consider whether, out of this enormous sum of £10,000,000 applicable to the reduction of Debt, provision may not be made in order to meet a great social problem, they ought not to settle and redeem the promise which has been held out for thirteen years, and has never been dealt with. It will lie with those in authority to consider whether, in order to make a reasonable settlement of this question, it will not be fair to follow the example which has been set in past years, in cases where the Sinking Fund has been trenched upon to meet ordinary expenditure and not to meet a great emergency, whether the time will not have arrived when a large contribution might be made out of this accumulated Sinking Fund, and thus render unnecessary any large addition to taxation. Of course, I do not know the intention of the Government, as I am speaking only of my own impression of the matter, but from some rather nebulous words used by the Prime Minister at the time of the Budget I think that some idea of thus dealing with the Debt may have been in his mind. I do not know, but all I can say is that if that were the case, I can only admire the skill with which during the three years he has held office, he has built up a position which will enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he choose, when the necessity arises, to deal with this great question with very little, if any, addition to taxation. That is the ground upon which, my Lords, I venture to put before you the opinion which I have formed, that in reality the Bill now under your consideration is not so faulty in its finance as has often been stated.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if I rise to say a few words in a regard to this Bill it is mainly because I
1414
feel that unless I say something the noble Earl who leads the House may feel relieved from the necessity of addressing your Lordships. What I have to say matters little, for the arguments I intend to use have boon put before the House with great force by previous speakers. But I venture to express the hope that in the speech to which we shall presently listen from the Leader of the House we shall be vouchsafed more information with regard to this measure than we have yet received from its ministerial apologists I do not think any of the speeches which we have heard from the noble Lords opposite have shown sufficient appreciation of the momentous character of this Bill.
I venture, indeed, to express my concurrence with what was said by the noble Earl on the cross benches, that, in his belief, no more momentous measure had in our time been laid on the Table of the House. Up to the present, I do not think any attempt has been made by noble Lords opposite to take up the points that have been raised in the speeches which have been delivered on this side of the House. We have boon assured by the noble Marquess, Lord Ripon, chat it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to watch the progress of this great experiment. We have not been told how it is intended to control the progress of that experiment. We have not been told how it is hoped to prevent the abuses and to remedy the anomalies with which the Bill bristles, and we have not been vouchsafed a word of information, until the noble Lord on the back bench got up, as to the sources from which this colossal expenditure was intended to be met.
Let me say at once for myself, and I believe for those who sit near me, that it is very far indeed from our intention to show any reluctance to deal more liberally than heretofore with the needs of the meritorious poor. I think it is universally conceded that, at certain points, the present law might be made to work in a manner more considerate and humane so far as certain classes of those who receive relief from the rates are concerned. But this Bill goes a great deal further than an attempt to supplement the shortcomings of the existing Poor Law system. As I understand this Bill, it is

1415
a measure which can have no other effect than that of completely undermining the present Poor Law system. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment said, I think with great force, that the passing of a new Poor Law in 1834 marked a great epoch in the history of the working classes of this country. It was the legislation of 1834 which relieved the people of this country from the incubus of pauperism. It was under the influence of that Bill that, as wages increased, as the prices of the necessaries of life diminished, as greater powers of combination were accorded to the working classes, they began to practise increased thrift, to show a greater amount of independence and of self-respect, and it is, surely, true to say that no class of the community in the recent past has made such rapid and remarkable progress as they have made.
What is going to happen? Just at the time when it might fairly be said that the old taint of pauperism which lingered so long in many parts of the country was finally and entirely disappearing, you bring in this new measure, which, call it what you will, is a vast measure of thinly disguised outdoor relief. I believe this Bill will cut very deeply indeed into the life of the nation. The old lesson which we have been endeavouring all these years to teach our people is that they should shun dependence upon the public purse and that it should be the first fluty of a citizen to make some provision for his own old age, and, if possible, for the old age of those most nearly related to him. That lesson, I am afraid, this Bill is going to unteach, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Avebury in believing that its effects on the country will be profoundly demoralising.
But, my Lords, if this new form of assistance from public funds is demoralising to the recipients, I do not think it will be less demoralising to those who will be allowed to distribute this largesse. We in this country are with every year that passes becoming more and more bureaucratically governed. This Bill is going to create a new and huge bureaucracy, a bureaucracy with a Minister at the apex of the structure, with a great department subservient to him, and with agents and committees all over the country. This bureaucracy will have the distribution of a sum which now stands at £8,000,000 a
1416
year and probably a great deal more—a vast patronage to be distributed under conditions of the most extraordinary elasticity, or rather I should say laxity. I am afraid that Parliament itself is not likely to escape from the same demoralisation. You now render a Member of Parliament liable to severe pains and penalties if he resorts to any practice that may be described as bribing his constituency. But is it not perfectly certain that once this Bill becomes law you will have Members of Parliament going down to their constituents and asking them to vote for "Mr. Smith and old-age pensions at 60?" Is not that a form of bribery of the most dangerous and insidious kind? The pressure will be continuous and irresistible. This Bill is fenced in with so-called limits and restrictions. Many of them are of the most arbitrary, if not the most preposterous, character, and, just as you were driven in the House of Commons from one position after another while the Bill was passing through Committee, so I venture to predict that in future will those who administer this Bill be obliged to do so with ever-increasing laxity. I think that has been made plain in the case of Ireland. Those who know that country can form some idea of the manner in which the loosely-drawn clauses of this Bill are likely to be interpreted by the pension committees who will be entrusted with the task of giving effect to them.
One thing is perfectly certain. You think that you are going to stop at £8,000,000; but the barriers are sham barriers which you cannot trust. The devices to which you resort in the Bill for ascertaining the age of the recipients, their means, their antecedents, are devices which will not stand the test of experience. Is it not the case that already your good resolutions have been forgotten and ignored? Is it not the case that six weeks ago the Prime Minister announced that—
"No Chancellor of the Exchequer in his senses, considering the needs of the country and its taxable resources, would think of adding £3,000,000 to the £6,000,000 which this scheme is going to cost"?
Two millions out of the three millions have however been added within the last six weeks, and, unless we are very much mistaken, the Government are already

1417
committed to modifications of their scheme which will add three or four millions more to the expense.
If we look beyond the limits of the Bill itself, have we not good reason for being alarmed at what I might term the by-products of this Bill? There is one which has been referred to already and which fills me with special apprehension—I mean its effect upon the payment of the Public Debt. I listened to the speech delivered just now by the noble Lord on the cross benches: the noble Lord is an expert and I am not, but the impression left upon my mind was that his proposal—not a proposal made on the authority of the Government, but merely a contribution of his own—certainly involved some departure from the established practice of successive Governments in dealing with the Sinking Fund. If that is so, I venture to doubt whether the remedy of my noble friend may not be worse than the disease.
This Bill will cost the nation as much as a great war would cost. But there will be this difference, that you can pay off your war debt by making sacrifices in order to do so. But this is a liability from which I do not believe the country will ever be able to emancipate itself. There is this further difference—that a war, terrible as are its consequences, has, at any rate, the effect of bracing the moral fibre of the country, whereas this measure, I am much afraid, is one which will weaken the moral fibre of the nation and diminish the self-respect of our people. With the exception of the noble Lord who spoke from the back benches just now, no attempt has been made to show how these colossal sums are to be provided, and I invite the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who is about to address us, to give us at least some indication as to the manner in which this is to be done.
Is the financial situation of the country so satisfactory that you can afford to incur a liability which may be anything from ten to twelve millions with a light heart f You have not yet paid off your war debt. You have paid off only about one-quarter of the 160 millions which were added to the Debt for that purpose. The income-tax still stands at a war level, and the greater part of the indirect taxation levied to defray the expenses of the war still remain. What are your
1418
prospects? Every farthing of your visible resources is, so far as we are able to judge, already mortgaged. And not only is that the case, but you have actually, with your eyes open, postponed liabilities which in the view of many of us properly belong to the year through which we are now passing. And the Chancellor of the Exchequer chooses this moment to boast almost that he has a stunning deficit, a falling revenue, and depressed trade. Those are the circumstances in which this immense addition to the obligations of the country is made.
I desire to associate myself with what was said early in the evening by my noble friend Lord Cromer as to the effect of this increased liability upon the resources and the safety of this country. The drain upon our resources which this Bill necessitates cannot help weakening the ability of the nation to meet a great emergency should such a great emergency occur. Can we dismiss from our minds the idea that such an emergency is possible? My noble friend Lord Cromer and I have both been, if I may so put it, during recent years behind the scenes in European diplomacy, and we both of us know that there have been moments when the political tension was so great that a rash act or an ill-considered word might have created a conflagration in which this country might not improbably have been involved.
When we look around, I do not say in Europe but all over the world — in India, in the Far East, in Persia—are all the indications so propitious that you can dismiss as altogether improbable the idea that this country might be called upon to put forth its strength for its own preservation? Should that moment come we shall want not only that strong Army for which some of us have so often insisted, not only that powerful Navy which I believe both parties desire to maintain, and which we have been lately told is the only effectual means of ensuring the commerce of this country against risk—we want not only those things, but just as much as we want a reserve of men and ships so we want a reserve of national wealth. And if our national resources are drained, as I believe it will be necessary to drain them in order to provide the necessary funds for this

1419
measure, as surely as we stand here we shall, should that emergency ever come, find ourselves infinitely weaker to encounter it. I should like to ask whether any European financier would not tell you that in his eyes this country, after assuming the obligations of this Bill, will stand in a very much weaker position than heretofore among the great nations of the world.
A good deal has been said during the course of this debate with regard to the possibility of a contributory scheme, and I am well aware that high authorities have dwelt upon the difficulty of giving effect to such a scheme. The difficulty which is usually the most insisted upon is that it would involve a great deal of inquisitorial investigation into the antecedents and position of the people of this country. We are told that in this country such an inquisition would not be, tolerated, although it may perhaps be tolerated in foreign countries. I should like to put it to the House whether, if this Bill becomes law, it will be possible to give effect to it without the most inquisitorial inquiries into the means, into the age, into the character of the recipients of these pensions, unless the taxpapers of this country are to be robbed wholesale.
Then the noble Marquess said that in his view a fatal objection to a contributory scheme was this, that it would not be possible to bring it into operation for a great many years. Is it quite clear that it would be beyond our ingenuity to devise some means of bridging over the intervening period and making some arrangement to provide for that period so that a contributory scheme, might come into operation after a certain period of years had passed? I am by no means convinced upon that point, nor am I convinced that arrangements which have been found perfectly workable in Germany and Austria should be so entirely impossible of adoption in this country.
But I wish to notice for one moment an argument which has been often advanced, and which is to this effect, that this is really a contributory scheme, because the working classes of this country already contribute to the taxation of the country and, therefore, to the funds from which these pensions will be provided. I cannot bring myself to believe
1420
that that is an argument which can be sincerely advanced by those who use it I dare say many of your Lordships are familiar with a calculation which has been not infrequently quoted of late, and which shows what is the amount of the annual contribution to the National Exchequer made by a person who does not pay income-tax. I believe the figure—it has not been challenged, so far as I am aware—is £1 6s. 11d., and of that sum in round figures £1 represents the amount paid by the person in question by the taxation of the alcohol and the tobacco which he consumes; so that, if he happens, not to consume alcohol or tobacco, his contribution to the public revenue stands at 6s. 3d. per annum. Is it seriously contended that that is a contribution to the revenue which would justify the grant of au old-age pension to the person who makes it; that for the 6s. 3d. per annum he is to be entitled to an old-age pension of 5s. per week? The argument seems to me to be a grotesque one, and I cannot regard it as serious. I regard it with particular suspicion when I remember that it is advanced by a party which used to have for one of its first principles the doctrine that taxation and representation should go together.
Then, my Lords, we complain of the extraordinary precipitation shown by the Government in pressing this Bill on Parliament. The country is expecting the report of the Commission on the Poor Law as a whole, and the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill announced the other evening that the keystone of the whole position was the reform of the Poor Law. We understand that it is to be reformed, and cannot conceive why you should not have had the patience to consider the question of the reform of the Poor Law, together with old-age pensions, and to present to the country a well-thought-out scheme dealing with both branches of this most important question. I also agree with Lord Avebury that it is a matter for regret that you should not have taken more pains to ascertain the views of those who are directing the affairs of our great friendly societies. It would surely have been worth while to use them as allies, and to endeavour to discover a schema which they would have regarded benevolently, and which, so far as their opportunities admitted, they would have supplemented to some extent.

1421
Well, my Lords, I have recapitulated briefly the reasons why we regard this Bill with great apprehension. There remains the question how, having these feelings, we ought to deal with it this evening. There is a well-established practice which to a great extent precludes this House from dealing with the financial proposals of the Government of the day, but we have never parted with our right to reject a Bill although it may deal with financial questions, and it would be competent to us to reject this Bill. But for the reasons already given by other speakers I for one should certainly hesitate to recommend that course. The arguments seem to me to be conclusive against it. We are confronted, in the first place, with the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons in 1906, which the noble Lord put in the forefront of his argument. Then we have to take into consideration the fact that this Bill, though not strictly speaking a money Bill, is essentially a Bill of a financial complexion. It indeed forms part of the financial arrangements for this year proposed by his Majesty's Government. Then we have also to bear in mind the fact that it has been supported by colossal majorities in the House of Commons, and that when the sense of the House was taken on the Second and Third Readings only a small forlorn hope amongst those who usually act with us were found ready to go into the lobby against it.
In these circumstances, it seems to me that, however much we may dislike the Bill, we should gain nothing by rejecting it or delaying its progress. Were we to do so it is impossible to conceive that his Majesty's Government should not bring the Bill back to this House again next year. But a great deal would happen in the meantime. I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite and their friends would seize with avidity the opportunity of representing your Lordships as having attempted to rob the aged and deserving people of this country of the kind of assistance which most of us would be glad that, in some form or other, they should receive; and the difficulty would be increased for us by the fact that we should be represented, not without some prima facie justice, as having endeavoured to encroach upon that well-established privilege of the
1422
House of Commons which gives to that House almost undisputed control over the finances of the country. In these circumstances, were we to reject or postpone the operation of this Bill I am afraid we should not greatly advance the views which we hold, and we should, on the other hand, very considerably impair the opportunities which this House possesses of making its influence felt in controlling, the legislation presented to us.
For these reasons I express my concurrence with the noble Lords who have spoken from this side, and who, while making no secret of their disapprobation of many of the provisions of the Bill, have stated clearly that it is not their intention to go into the lobby with the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment. I trust that when we arrive at the Committee Stage this Bill will be fully discussed, and I feel sure that the Government will not in any way desire to stifle such discussion. Nor do I believe that, in dealing with a Bill of this kind, they will desire to insist unreasonably on the privilege of the House of Commons. I have always been one of those who believe that, if that privilege was pushed too far, the House of Lords would be deprived of all opportunity of interesting itself in a great deal of our most important legislation. This House is placed in a somewhat embarrassing position. If I believed that any good would come by delaying the progress of this Bill, I should certainly advise your Lordships to delay it. If I had that feeling I should not hesitate to separate myself from those with whom I usually act, and to support my noble friend's Amendment. But, holding the views which I have endeavoured to explain, I have come to the conclusion that the wiser course is to throw upon His Majesty's Government the sole and entire responsibility for a measure which we regard with great apprehension, and which, we fear, may have far-reaching and disastrous effects upon the future of this country.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords the criticism to which this Bill has been subjected on the Second Reading stage is of two distinct kinds. On the one hand, there are those who consider the whole Bill a mistake, who are hostile both to the principle of old-age pensions and to the manner in which it is proposed to

1423
grant them, and are either going to vote against the Second Reading or have expressed their desire to do so but for other reasons which seem to them to carry weight. On the other hand, there have been speakers from the other side of the House who, in varying degrees, have given vent to somewhat ominous prophecies as to the effect of the Bill, and particularly as to its finance, but accept the principle, in some cases even accept the general lines on which the principle is carried out.
Among the uncompromising opponents of the Bill I am sorry to include the noble Marquess who has just sat down. Not for the first time we see something of a rift on the front bench opposite. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, took a very different tone. He made some very pointed and searching criticism of the details of the Bill, but he took it as a chose jugée that there were to be old-age pensions and old-age pensions on a non-contributory basis, whereas the noble Marquess desires to wash his hands of the whole business. I am sorry, also, to include among the opponents of the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, with whom we are sometimes, I am glad to think, found acting in accord. The noble Earl's principal objection is really a domestic matter between himself and this side of the House. His main objection to the Bill, as I understand it, is that he considers its introduction a serious blow to the cause of free trade.
*THE EARL OF CROMER: One of them. There are others.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: One of his main objections, I think I may say—at least the noble Earl devoted a considerable part of his speech to its discussion, and, passing, I most cheerfully recognise the immense assistance which the support of the noble Earl to that cause has been to us on this side of the House. The noble Earl, I think, argues in this way. Here is this great expenditure involved—seven or eight millions—and it would be very easy for the tariff reformers to go to the country and say—"We have a cheap and easy way of finding this money." I should be inclined to agree with the noble Earl's conclusions if I thought his premises were correct, If, of course, it
1424
be true that the country does not really want old-age pensions, then we are undoubtedly committing a folly, and, if you like, also damaging the interests of free trade, in expending this money for that purpose. But is that so? At any rate, many noble Lords on the opposite side of the House would, I think, be found to say that, in principle, both parties are committed to the provision of old-age pensions.
So, then, I ask the noble Earl, from a free trade point of view, if I am right in thinking that old-age pensions are what the country wants—and in my belief, of all the social reforms set before the country this is the one on which the working classes have most set their heart—if I am at all right in thinking this, what, from the free trade point of view, would be the effect of going to the country and saying, We free-traders are bankrupt in this respect; we cannot provide you with old-age pensions, whereas the noble Lords opposite say that they can provide ten millions of taxation on manufactured goods and I know not what else, and that they will set apart this money for old-age pensions? If that is the attitude in which we free traders are to go to the country I confess that we do not go with a very good case, because the noble Viscount (Viscount Ridley) and his friends undoubtedly could provide the money for old-age pensions. It is true that the ten millions have been allocated to a great number of objects. They have first been made to disappear altogether by saying that foreign goods would not come in at all. They have been also formally allotted, I think, to the reduction of the income-tax; still they have been and may be again allotted for old-age pensions.
Reference has been made by Lord Wolverhampton to the care with which this measure has been thought out. I, question whether any measure brought before Parliament in living memory has received so much close attention and such an amount almost of daily care from the Government as were given to this Bill. It is desirable to say this because sometimes it is implied that we have hurled down on the Table of the House an undigested scheme which has received no proper consideration. As a matter of fact I do not believe that there is a side or a possibility connected with

1425
the question which has not been thought out and discussed. We may be right or we may be wrong in accepting some alternatives and rejecting others, but I assure the House that the alternatives have been considered. But, however much you may consider, there must be always in a scheme of this kind some points of uncertainty. No amount of consideration can make uncertainties certain; and that is why we say this, the Bill must necessarily be regarded as a tentative and experimental scheme. That lays us open to criticism, perhaps, as to detail, which we will heartily welcome; and if with regard to those parts of the Bill which your Lordships may think yourselves competent to deal with suggestions are made which are of a practical character, I can only say that my noble friend will be only too pleased to give them every possible consideration.
We have heard something about contributory schemes. I do not desire to dwell upon that side of the question now. The noble Marquess said that, after all, one of the arguments—although it is by no means the only argument—against a contributory scheme is that it would not come into force for a long time, possibly, as Mr. Chamberlain said, for forty years, and it would not be possible to persuade people to subscribe their money, unless the scheme were compulsory, for so long a period ahead. Oh, but that period might be bridged over, says the noble Marquess. The only way I know of bridging it over is by having a non-contributory pension—that is, by doing what we are doing now. There is nothing whatever to prevent the noble Marquess and his friends opposite in the time to come from hitching a contributory scheme on to this scheme. I do not say whether they would be wise in doing so, but I daresay your Lordships saw that letter in The Times of 19th March last, signed by several eminent men, wherein it was proposed that that very thing should be done—namely, that you should begin with a non-contributory scheme, and later on combine a contributory scheme with it.
In regard to the noble Earl's Amendment as to whether this measure ought to be postponed until the Report of the Poor Law Commission has been received, I quite admit that at first sight it appears a somewhat plausible contention, but I
1426
have not heard to-night anyone suggest in what respect or at what point this measure should be modified because of anything that may appear in the Report of that Commission. Noble Lords opposite might have said—"This or that might be altered when you get hold of the Poor Law Commission's Report." No such suggestion has-been made, and, so far as I know, no such suggestion could be successfully made. The subjects are separate, and not inter-dependent. There is no loss of efficiency in dealing with the question of pensions separately.
It is all very well for the noble Marquess and his friends to say that this is only outdoor relief under another name. I do not believe the people of this country regard it, or will regard it, so. It may be hard sometimes to explain the difference with which people regard money they pay by way of rates from money they pay by way of taxes. But payments made from the taxes are, and will be, regarded as something entirely different from a payment out of the rates. You may philosophise about that and say it is not reasonable; but, after all, what really matters is what people believe. There is, I believe, a very great distinction drawn between receiving money which people feel conies from the State as a whole, and that which they know comes out of the pockets of their immediate neighbours whom they see every day.
Various particular criticisms have been made of different points in the Bill. It is necessary to point out that the moment you abandon the universal scheme—the original scheme of Mr. Booth—which by common consent is impossible owing to its cost, and would in many respects be undesirable even if we could afford it, you are necessarily faced with difficulties and anomalies, and your choice lies between meeting those difficulties and anomalies in the best way you can and having no pension scheme at all. I frankly admit that it is not easy to prove that a man is 70 years of age or 68, or 65, or whatever year you take. There must be some cases in which people will try to defraud you, and others in which it may be difficult to arrive at a right conclusion in the matter. But any suggestion that can be made as regards the machinery for meeting that particular difficulty and kindred difficulties, of course, will be most carefully considered.

1427
Equally, when you come to the sliding scale it is perfectly true there is no form of sliding scale which can be made to work without a certain degree of hardship to those who are just on the edge, so to speak, of the sums named.
Then there are such difficulties as those mentioned by the noble Viscount as regards the small investor in Consols. I do not know whether there are many such people. I should have thought the cases of people who had an investment in Consols just sufficient to bring them up to the limit, and no other kind of property of any sort, and who, therefore, became subjects for old-age pensions, were exceedingly few. Then the noble Viscount also spoke of what he called relief in aid of wages—no doubt an objectionable form of public expenditure. I think he will see that that criticism has very much less force when applied at the age of 70 than it would if applied at an earlier age. The number of people over 70 who are earning anything like substantial wages is not really very great. Therefore I cannot think that that is a great difficulty.
My noble friend on the cross benches, Lord Rosebery, spoke of those who have a private pension list—landowners, employers, and others; and he seemed to fear that the effect would be to wipe out those lists altogether. Well, of course, it is difficult to prophesy in a matter of this kind, but I certainly should have thought that where the pension given by a landowner or a private employer was considerably bigger, as it would be in some cases, than the State pension, that the landowner or employer, if he thought it worth his while, might deduct from his pension the amount which the man or woman was in future going to receive from the State. That would be a perfectly legitimate and proper thing to do, supposing the employer thought it worth his while. But I do not see why he should sweep away the pension altogether if it is larger than that given by the State.
Then the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, spoke of what was really the very difficult question of desert. How far, he said, are you going to find out those people who in your Bill are classified as undeserving? This question of desert
1428
has always seemed to me to be one of the most difficult in connection with the question. I think it is Hume who says somewhere that, if one were to go round the world intending to give a good supper to the righteous and a sound drubbing to the wicked he would often be embarrassed in his choice, and would find that the merits and demerits of most men and women did not amount to the value of either. That is perhaps a somewhat cynical view to take. I confess that I am not one of those who have ever believed that it is possible to exact a very close or nice test of desert in this matter of old-age pensions, and consequently we did not lay a heavy burden of proof on the proposed recipient of the pension. What we desire to do and what, I think, will in the result be done is to exclude a certain number who are notoriously unfit, but we do not want to pry meticulously into the lives of these old people, and it is quite possible that here and there some may creep in who, under a very strict interpretation of the word, might not be considered deserving. Still I think, although that may be a misfortune, it would be a less misfortune than the inquisition and hardship which would be involved by too close a system of inspection.
The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in what I can only call his diatribe against this Bill, spoke of it as a demoralising Bill both for the public generally and for those who were receiving the pensions. He spoke of the intense pressure that will be put on public men of all parties to do such things as to lower the age and to raise the amount. I am afraid that public men of all parties very often have considerable pressure put upon them to expend public money, and that is a pressure which they have to learn as best they can to resist. But when the noble Marquess talks of financial laxity and extravagance in this matter, did he hear the speech which was made earlier in the evening in which something was said of the cost of classification under the Poor Law? I think it was the noble Viscount Lord St. Aldwyn, who said that some of the guardians spent as much as 19s. per head upon classification, and another instance of 14s. was given.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: No.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I thought it was the noble Viscount; but I am mistaken.
A NOBLE LORD: It was the most rev. Primate.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I confess the figure is rather startling, and at the same time this humble 5s. to be distributed under strict conditions does not seem to me to offer the same temptations of laxity in public expenditure as those which may be brought about even under the existing law. I have one word to say on the financial question. The noble Marquess put a question to me which was really a rhetorical one when he said he hoped that I would explain the manner in which this money is going to be found. It must be obvious that even if I knew the financial provisions that my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to insert in his next Budget I certainly should not be in a position to announce them to your Lordships to-night. There are various methods, one of which has undoubtedly been indicated by Lord Welby, by which some part of the money may be found. Whether that particular expedient, among others, will be resorted to, I am not in a position to say. Viscount St. Aldwyn said that, although he had been the author of many Budgets, he had never made proposals of this kind involving expenditure without indicating how that expenditure was to be met. No, not of this kind, but the noble Viscount was responsible—it was not his fault, but he was responsible—for very large loans, and he did not indicate how his successor was to find the money required for the interest on them.
Both my noble friend on the cross benches and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, spoke in a highly serious tone of the possibility that this charge might interfere with the proper cost to be set aside for the defence of the country. I ask again, is that an argument with which you can go to the country? Can you tell people to choose between the Empire on the one hand and social reform on the other? If you are going to say that the defence of the Empire is so costly, and will become so much more costly, and that there are all kinds of political contingencies of which they know nothing, so that it is impossible for us to find the
1430
money for the social reforms they demand, I ask, is that the way to spread Imperial ideas in this country? I cannot conceive a worse service to the Empire than to go to the country with empty hands and say that the shipbuilding programme, and strengthening the Army, and this, that, and the other have taken all the money and that we have nothing to expend on such objects as this. I do not believe for a moment that this scheme, or any other expenditure engaged in by the Government, will for a moment be allowed to interfere with the proper defence of the Empire. Opinion may differ on this or that point on which it is necessary to spend money for defence, but I repeat what I have often said, that we are quite as fully alive to the needs of Imperial defence as any noble Lord in this House.
I was relieved to hear, at the close of the noble Marquess's speech, that he did not intend to vote against the Bill. I am bound to say that I almost thought he ought to vote against it if he thinks it worse than a war and quite as expensive, though lacking the agreeable educative effects of a great military campaign. But apart from the noble Marquess, I am pleased to believe that both sides of the House are in favour of this principle. We have had the name of Mr. Chamberlain mentioned, and I am glad to pay my humble tribute to the part which he has taken in the promotion of this cause, which is one, I believe, he really had at heart. I should like also to mention the name of one who is not a party politician, Mr. Charles Booth. To nobody is greater credit due than to him for having brought this question before the country. My Lords, you may like or you may not like the particular provisions in this Bill; but we do make this claim that, after all the Committees and Commissions, the talk and writing, the discussions in and out of Parliament there have been on this subject, we are making a start; and I think, in consideration of that fact, we may claim, at any rate, something like a friendly reception for the Bill as a whole. There are some half a million people in this country anxiously waiting for the passing of this Bill. If they could be brought together on some great plain it would be a pathetic crowd, many of them nearly worn out with lives of long,

1431
poorly remunerated labour. They, as I say—I have heard of many individual cases—are waiting with keen interest for the passing of this Bill. My noble friend behind me has been long in public life, but I believe I am speaking his sentiments when I say that I doubt if there is any occasion on which he has made a speech or given a vote with greater pleasure than he has done one and will do the other to-night. Speaking for myself, I can say the same. I have never had the honour of being associated with any subject in public life on which
it could be said that the benefit is so prompt. I am very glad to know that a very huge majority of your Lordships will be able to. look back, as I believe you will, with a feeling of warm satisfaction that you also have done something to support this cause.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question,"
Their Lordships divided—Contents, 123; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury L. Abp.

Churchill, V.

Herschell, L.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Esher, V.

Hindlip, L.

Falkland, V.

Joicey, L.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Iveagh, V.

Kenyon, L.

Portman, V.

Kesteven, L.

Argyll, D.

Ridley, V.

Killanin, L.

Devonshire, D.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Ailesbury, M.

Selby, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Bath, M.

Tredager, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Wolverhampton, V.

Lamington, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Lawrence, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Leconfield, L.

Aylesford, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Lochee, L.

Carrington, E.

Wakefield, L. Bp.

Lucas, L.

Chichester, E.

Lyveden, L.

Craven, E.

Addington, L.

Macdonnell, L.

Crewe, E.

Airedale, L.

Manners, L.

Cromer, E.

Allendale, L.

Marchamley, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ampthill, L.

Northcliffe, L.

Eldon, E.

Armitstead, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Fitzwilliam, E.

Basing, L.

Pirrie, L.

Haddington, E.

Blyth, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Liverpool, E.

Brassey, L.

Londesborough, E.

Braye, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Lovelace, E.

Burghclere, L.

Reay, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Burton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Mayo, E.

Colebrook, L.

Rendel, L.

Morley, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Nelson, E.

Crawshaw, L.

St. Davids, L.

Onslow, E.

Curzon of Kedleston, L.

St. Levan, L.

Orford, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

St. Oswald, L.

Plymouth, E.

Digby, L.

Sanderson, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Sandhurst, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sandys, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Eversley, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Stanhope, E.

Faber, L.

Tennyson, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Farrer, L.

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Verulam, E.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Glantawe, L.

Waleran, L.

Wicklow, E.

Grandard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

Weardale, L.

Welby, L.

Althorpe, V. (L. Chamberlain).

Haversham, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Headley, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Amherst, E.

Mar, E

Carnwath, E.

Avebury, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Hardwicke, E

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Muskerry, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]

Forester, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray, L.

Stanmore, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

TOBACCO GROWING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE PRO HIBITION BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Second Report from the Select Committee made; to be printed; and to be considered on Thursday next. (No. 159.)
IRELAND (CONSTABULARY IN PROCLAIMED COUNTIES).
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to the Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 160.)
EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Edinburgh and District Water—Was presented by the Lord Herschell (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 161.)

TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907—Was presented by the Earl of Crewe; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 162.)
House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, Ten o'clock.