Sitting of 6 May 1908

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

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for extending and varying the powers of the Great Western Railway Company in respect of certain authorised railways and works; and for other purposes." [Great Western Railway Bill] [Lords.]
  Great Western Railway Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition in favour; From Broadstairs; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.

  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Bersham; Broomhouse; Chapel; Clifton Hall; Garwood; Garwood Hall; Gilfach

  219
  Goch; Hanley (No. 5); Tollcross; Vauxhall; and Wynnstay; to lie upon the Table.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Brenton; Lincolnshire; Pensilva; Ripponden; and Lancashire (South-West); to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petition from Gosforth, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Abingdon; Aston (two); Birmingham; Chichester; Ganton; Gloucester; Gosport; Havant; Houghton le Spring; Hull; King's Heath; Nottingham; Oldbury; Ottringham; Portsmouth (nine); Ross; Stone; Tonbridge; and Whitehaven; to lie upon the Table.
  LECENSING BILL.
  Three Petitions from London, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Aberdare; Acrefair; Ady's Clawr; Amlwch; Ansty; Ashton-under-Lyne; Atherstone; Bangor (two); Barnard Castle; Beaumaris; Beccles; Berw Gaerwen; Bexley Heath; Blackburn (two); Bodedern; Bodorgan; Bolton(two); Boultham; Bradford (three); Brecon; Broadstairs; Brotton; Brymbo (two); Burton Latimer; Bute; Caelusham; Carmarthen; Carnarvon; Castleton; Cefn (three); Chard; Chink; Clapham; Cleckheaton; Coedpoeth (two); Crickadarn; Crieff; Crook (two); Dalmuir; Dalston; Dartford; Denholm; Dennistown; Dowlais; Dulwich; Egremont; Eye; Falkirk; Fetterangus; Fodwick; Four Lanes; Glasgow; (thirteen); Glastonbury; Gloucester; Golborne; Gomersall; Grantham (three); Grays; Greenwich (two); Gwenddwr; Gwersyllt; Hallfield; Hanley; Harrow; Heckmondwike; Heywood; Hexham; High Wycombe (two); Holmbush; Hounslow; Huddersfield; Hundon (two); Islay (two); Kennington; Kilmarnock; Kingsbridge; King's
  220
  Health; Kislingbury; Leeds (two); Levenshulme; Lincoln (four); Llanbedrog; Llandegfan; Llanelly (three); Llanerchymedd; Llangollen; Llannon; Llanwrtyd; Llanwyrtyd; Llwynhendy; Lockerley; Lockwood; Lowestoft (three); Luton; Macclesfield (five); Manaton; Manchester; Marylebone; Middlesbrough; Milnathort; Montrose; Moorland Road; Mynytho; Nantmel; Newland; North Shields (two); Norwich (three); Nunthorpe; Oswestry; Parkstone; Peasedown; Pencoed; Penrhos Feilio; Pitlochry; Reading; Rhos; Rhosllaerchrugog; Rhosllanerchrugog; Rhosymedil; Rothwell; Ruabon; Rushden; Ruskington; St. Mary Cray; Sawtry; Seacombe; Shettleston; Shirebrook; Skelton in Cleveland; Shrewsbury (seven); Sleaford (two); Southsea; South west Ham; Stanhope; Stockport (four); Stonehaven; Stowmarket; Strathavon; Summerhill; Sunbury; Sunningdale; Thetford; Tiree; Tow Law (two); Troedrhiwdalar; Vaynoz; Watton; West Kensington; West Wycombe; Whitehaven; Wigton; Wimborne; Wishaw; Wrexham; Wyke; and Yatton; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHTS ON VEHICLES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Renfrewshire, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against: from East Lothian; Girvan; Johnstone; and St.Andrews; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Ayr; Border District; Conon Bridge; Glasgow; Gorbals (two); Grand Lodge of Scotland of the International Order of Good Templars; Islay; Ringford; and Shettleston; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Filey and Whitehaven; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DEATHS FROM ALCOHOL (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 4th May] to be printed. [No. 135.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PRO CEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of February 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MILITARY PRISONS.
  Copy presented, of Rules for Military Prisons in the Field, made by the Secretary of State for War [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the Bankruptcy Law and its Amendment, Report, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
  Copy presented, of Preliminary 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 the Preliminary 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 Preliminary Draft of the Articles of a New Charter for the Constituent College at Galway [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing: (a) The number of cottages and allotments provided under the Labourers Acts by each district council in Ireland; (b) the rents reserved in letting under those Acts; (c) the number of cottages or allotments unoccupied within each district council area; (d) the number of cottages or allotments the rent whereof is in arrear, and the total amount of such arrears within said area; (e) the number
  222
  of cottages applied for in each rural district under the last completed scheme under the Labourers Acts, together with the number of applications for extra half-acres to cottages already built under the said scheme, the number of applications for cottages and extra half-acres sanctioned, the amount of the official, legal, engineering, clerical, and other expenses incurred in connection with the preparation and confirmation of every such scheme and the particulars thereof; and (f) the number of cases where advances have been made under section two of the Irish Land Act, 1903, as amended by the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, to agricultural labourers."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)

  ULTIMUS HÆRES (SCOTLAND) (ACCOUNT AND LIST OF ESTATES).
  Return ordered, "of Abstract Account of the receipts and payments of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Scotland, in the year ended the 31st day of December 1907, in the administration of Estates and Treasure Trove on behalf of the Crown."
  "And of Alphabetical List of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, in the same year."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Clerks to Justices of the Peace—Extra Outlay involved by passing of New Acts.
  MR. BARKER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in various counties in England and Wales, the clerks to county justices have been, and are being, put to additional expense in providing the books and forms required in connection with the administration of justice caused by the passing of various Acts of Parliament, among others the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, the Lights on Vehicles Act, 1907, the Dogs Act, 1906, and the Licensing Acts, 1902–1904, without any corresponding allowance or increase of

  223
  remuneration being granted to defray the extra outlay imposed upon the clerks; and whether he will communicate with the local authorities concerned setting forth the manner in which such outlay, both present and future, should be borne.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have no reason to suppose that the local authorities are not fully aware of the increase in work and expenses which statutes of the nature indicated by my hon. friend may cause to justices' clerks. Where the increase so caused is substantial I am always prepared to consider a recommendation from the responsible local authority for an increase of salary, but I do not think I should be justified in suggesting that such recommendations should be made generally.

  Notice of Application for Marriage Licences in Ireland.
  MR. HUGH BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the provisions of Section 25, cap. 49, of the Act 34 and 35 Vict., respecting notice to be given of application for marriage licences, are very commonly disregarded in Ireland; whose duty is it to enforce the giving of such notice; and will he take steps to see that the law is observed by proceeding against persons who disobey it.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Registrar-General for Ireland informs me that he is not aware that the provisions of the section quoted are very commonly disregarded in Ireland, though complaints have reached him from time to time of alleged failure in particular cases to send copies of the notices of marriage required by the section. The Act makes no provision for enforcing the sending of such copies of notices.

  Roughfort National School—Average Attendance.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what has been the average attendance at Roughfort national school, county Antrim, during each of the last two quarters; and can he say why the National Commissioners
  224
  continue a grant to a school with so small an attendance, seeing that two other schools exist only a mile distant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The average attendance during the last two quarters was 27 and 24 respectively. The Commissioners of National Education understand that the recent decline in the attendance is but temporary, and is due to local circumstances of an exceptional character. The average attendance for the year 1907 was 60, and the average number on the rolls was 95. If the school were closed this number could not be accommodated at the two other schools in the locality.

  Gorton (Lancashire) Licensing Statistics.
  MR. HODGE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences have been remitted for compensation under the Licensing Act, 1904, by the licensing authorities in the Gorton (South-East Lancashire) Parliamentary Division, the amount of compensation paid in each case, and how distributed between the parties interested in such licences; can he state how many licences have been given up by brewers by way of barter in the division above referred to, and separately for the district covered by such licensing authority of the county borough of Manchester, for full licences in the same districts covered by such licensing authorities or for rebuilding of unsuitable premises with extended drinking or other facilities, and how much compensation, if any, was paid to the licence-holder of such licences so given up in barter, or what compensation, if any, was given to the owners of the property in which such licences existed; and will he state in how many cases the magistrates in the districts named, being dissatisfied with the suitability of the premises in which licences existed, gave opportunity of improvement, to the licence-holder or owner, interfered for the protection of adjoining tenants warned out so that such premises could be utilised for such improvements, if the magistrates had not so interfered would compensation have been paid, and did the notice given except in the case of a lease never exceed four weeks.

  225
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I regret that the information at my disposal does not enable me to answer any part of this Question. All the available particulars as to the operation of the Licensing Acts, including compensation proceedings under the Act of 1904, are given in the annual volumes of Licensing Statistics; but those particulars are necessarily compiled according to licensing districts. The Gorton Parliamentary Division comprises small parts of three licensing districts; and it is not possible, without great and totally disproportionate labour, if at all, to rearrange the particulars of those licensing districts so as to show how much of them relates to the Parliamentary division. So far as the Question relates to the circumstances in which occupiers of premises, whether licensed or not, may be dispossessed otherwise than in direct pursuance of the powers of the justices under the Licensing Acts, the matter is outside my jurisdiction, and I regret that I have no information on the subject.

  Stamping of Glass and Earthenware Measures.
  MR. J. JOHNSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Regulation 21 of the new Regulations recently issued by his Department prevents an inspector of weights and measures from stamping glass and earthenware measures on the premises of the manufacturer without the sanction of the Board of Trade, and that no such sanction is necessary for inspectors to stamp weights, scales, or even pewter measures on manufacturers' premises; whether he can give any reasons for that distinction, which is resented in the glass and earthenware manufacturing districts; and whether he will give instructions to have the regulation deleted.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The stamping on manufacturers' premises of glass and earthenware measures is on a different footing from that of other measures or of weights or weighing instruments, inasmuch as in the case of the former measures alone an allowance may be made to the manufacturer, under Section 13 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, for assistance rendered by him or
  226
  for the use of tools, premises, machinery, or instruments. This allowance is expressly subject to the consent of the Board of Trade, and in order to prevent, as far as possible, allowances being improperly given without such consent, the stamping of the measures in question on manufacturers' premises without the sanction of the Department being obtained has been prohibited by the regulation referred to. There seems no reason why the regulation, which was framed to secure uniformity of practice, should be deleted.

  Introduction of American Shad into British Waters.
  MR. HOLT: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what were the reasons which led the Board of Agriculture to discourage the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee from attempting to introduce the American shad into British waters; and whether it was thought that any, and, if so, which, British fish would be injured if the introduction proved successful.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We consulted the various boards of conservators of rivers discharging into the sea within the limits of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries district with regard to the proposed introduction of the American shad into British waters, but it did not receive any support. Apprehensions were expressed that it might prove dangerous both to salmon and trout. In these circumstances, and in view of the impossibility of limiting the area within which experiments could be carried on, the Board did not feel themselves justified in affording any encouragement to the proposal.

  Rents Chargeable on Small Holdings.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERTo ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that on 21st June 1898, the President of the Local Government Board stated that the law officers of the Crown advised that the amount of rent charged by a county council under

  227
  the Small Holdings Act should be limited to the sum required for interest, with a margin for eventualities, and that the funds for the repayment of the principal of the loan should be obtained from the county rate within the limits specified in Section 18, subsection 2, of the Small Holdings Act, 1892; and whether he will point out the section in the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, indicating the intention of Parliament as stated in the letter from the Board of Agriculture to the Norfolk County Council that the rents of small holdings created under the Act should be sufficient to include the payments to the sinking fund in respect of any capital expenditure for the purchase of land.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The reply to the first inquiry of my right hon. friend is in the affirmative. The question is not affected by the Act of last session, but depends on the proper interpretation of Section 18 (1) of the Small Holdings Act, 1892, and on this point the law officers of the Crown in a recent opinion dissented from the view expressed in 1898. The Board propose, in these circumstances, to offer no objection to the exclusion of sinking fund charges in the calculation of rents where a county council is itself willing to defray them.

  Preservatives in Foodstuffs.
  MR. STUART SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is taking any steps by Order in Council under the Public Health (Regulation of Foods) Act, 1907, for the regulation of the proportion of boracic acid that may be employed in articles of food; and, if so, can he give some definite statement on the subject at an early date in order to allay confusion in the public mind and to assist the local authorities in deciding what line of action they should take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am giving attention to this matter and have directed inquiries to be made with regard to the present position of preservatives in certain foodstuffs. The matter is one which requires careful investigation, and I am not at present
  228
  in a position to make any definite statement with respect to it.

  Suggested Co-ordination of the Work of Local Government Board, Board of Trade, and Home Office.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has in view any modification of the existing arrangements in connection with the administrative work of the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, and the Home Office; whether he would consider the practicability of co-ordinating the work of these Departments in respect of unemployment and child life; and whether he would also consider the formation of subordinate Departments especially designed to deal with these questions.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have nothing at present to add to the Answer which I gave on Monday to my hon. friend the Member for Preston; but the suggestions made by my hon. friend will be considered by the Committee.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Recent Naval Disasters.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state what would have been the full complement of officers and men in each case of the following ships at the times of their disasters, and what the actual crews were at these times, viz., the "Tiger," "Berwick," "Gladiator," "Gala," and "Attentive."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The full seagoing complement of officers and men were as follows:—

  Officers.

  Men.

  Total.

  "Tiger"

  4

  59

  63

  "Berwick"

  47*

  631

  678

  "Gladiator"

  23

  424

  47

  "Gala"

  4

  66

  70

  "Attentive"

  15

  270

  285

  * Includes 14 Midshipmen.

  229

  The numbers on board at the times of the disasters were:—

  Officers.

  Men.

  Total.

  "Tiger"

  3

  54

  57

  "Berwick"

  24

  425

  449

  "Gladiator"

  13

  244

  257

  "Gala"

  4

  55

  59

  "Attentive"

  14

  261

  275

  CAPTAIN FABER: May I ask a question of which I have given private notice, i.e., is it a fact that in the Home Fleet where these accidents have occurred odds and ends of crews have been put on the ships to make up numbers and that the crews in consequence have not been properly organised and trained and that probably was the cause of the accident, specially in the case of the "Tiger" and the "Gala."
  *MR. SPEAKER: That Question should be put on the Paper.

  Naval Manœuvres at Night.
  MR. MENZIES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the experience gained during recent years by his naval advisers in regard to night manœuvrings without lights will have a tendency to diminish or increase this practice; or whether the country is to look upon this as a normal method of training for naval officers and men, and should not therefore look for its cessation.
  MR. MCKENNA: The experience gained by the Board of Admiralty from this practice during recent years has been too valuable to admit of its being abandoned. For some time past the Board have had under close consideration the question of devising rules calculated to reduce risks.
  MR. MENZIES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of men who have lost their lives or been injured, as well as the cost to the country of the ships sunk or disabled, during 1907 and this year, which
  230
  can be attributed solely to mimic night warfare without lights.
  MR. MCKENNA: The information desired by my hon. friend will take a little time to ascertain, and I propose, if he will permit me, to circulate the Answer with the printed papers as soon as it is ready.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the statement the number of occasions on which night manœuvres have taken place, in order that the House may see the percentage of accidents.
  MR.MCKENNA: I will do my best.
  EARL WINTERTON: And the number of ships that have taken part in them?
  MR. MCKENNA: Yes.

  Shipbuilding Delays.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the reason for the delay in the completion of the three armoured cruisers of the "Invincible" class which were to have been finished in thirty months.
  MR. MCKENNA: The contract date of the completion of the three ships of the "Invincible" class has not yet been reached; but there has undoubtedly been delay in their construction, principally due to the fitting of magazine cooling apparatus, and, in the case of the "Invincible" and "Inflexible," labour troubles.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the cause of the delay in the construction of the battleships "Lord Nelson" and "Agamemnon," and will he take steps to ensure that such delays shall not occur again.
  MR. MCKENNA: The delay in the completion of these vessels is due in the main to the fitting of magazine cooling apparatus and other alterations considered necessary during the construction of the ship—and in the case of the "Lord Nelson," to labour troubles, and of the "Agamemnon," to an accident to her

  231
  rudder which necessitated a new one being made and fitted. All possible steps are being taken to prevent delays.

  Montgomery and Merioneth Regiment.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Montgomery and Merionethshire regiment of the Territorial Army retains the title of Royal; and, if not, why the treatment accorded to it in this respect has been different from that accorded to the Denbighshire regiment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The present titles of the battalion referred to are the 7th (Montgomery and Merionethshire) Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers and the 4th (Denbighshire) Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers. The Montgomery County Association has asked that the former battalion be called simply the "Royal Montgomery and Merioneth Regiment." This application is being considered together with other questions of titles of units of the Territorial Force and decisions will be published in due course.

  Army Instructors' Lodging Allowances.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the shilling a day for lodging previously allowed to cavalry and infantry instructors has been disallowed in respect of these functionaries in the Territorial Army.
  MR. HALDANE: Lodging allowance is not admissable when public quarters are provided. As the Army Council is directly responsible for the rent and repairs, and for the repayment of principal and interest on loans from the buildings held by the County Associations, these buildings must be regarded as public quarters. When, therefore, noncommissioned officers of the permanent staff are housed in such buildings no lodging money can be issued.

  Tidworth Barracks.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the hospital accommodation for Tidworth Barracks is now definitely completed.
  MR. HALDANE: The reply is in the negative.

  Bulford Isolation Hospital.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the material of which the isolation hospital at Bulford is built, seeing that in reply to a Question asked in this House on 30th April, he replied that the scarlet fever cases were in the isolation hospital at that place.
  MR. HALDANE: The isolation hospital is built of corrugated iron lined with match boarding.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: Is it the case that there is only one isolation hospital for six regiments of infantry and ten batteries of artillery?
  MR. HALDANE: I must ask for notice of that.

  Civil Servants and Territorial Camps.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Civil servants serving in the Territorial Force Will be granted special leave of absence, in addition to their ordinary leave, to attend annual training camps with their corps; if so, whether this special leave will be granted for the whole period, or for a proportion only, and in what proportion of the time, that such Civil servants spend in the annual training camps; whether in the event of Civil servants enlisted in the Territorial Force being called upon to serve a course of special training in that force, for six months or thereabouts, the posts they occupy in the Civil Service will be kept open for them on their return from the Special Army training; whether the official pay of Civil servants will be continued during the whole period such Civil servants are called upon to perform special training with the Territorial Force; and whether the promotion of Civil servants in the various branches of the Civil Service will be adversely affected should they be required to undergo special training with the Territorial Force for several months at a time.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE,): Subject to the requirements of the public service special leave, for a period not exceeding fifteen days, will be granted to Civil servants

  233
  attending annual camps. The arrangements to be made on the embodiment of the Territorial Force will be matter for consideration when occasion arises; and I do not think it is necessary to make any statement on the subject at the present time.
  EARL WINTERTON: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the ambiguous phrase "subject to the requirements of the public service?" Are restrictions likely to be often put in force?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I do not think there is anything ambiguous in the words. If the service can spare a Civil servant he will be allowed to go.
  EARL WINTERTON: Will they be spared in times of crisis?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I cannot answer that.
  EARL WINTERTON: Having regard to the fact that considerable doubt exists in the minds of Civil servants, will the hon. Gentleman issue regulations on the subject?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I must ask for notice of that.

  Limerick Technical Instruction Institute.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office authorities have offered the Limerick Technical Instruction Committee certain rights and facilities in connection with the building of a central technical institute at the nominal rent of £1 per annum; have the Limerick Committee accepted the offer; and, if so, when; and, if the offer has been accepted, will the War Office press on the matter and have the agreement perfected so that the Limerick Committee can have the contract for the building entered into at once and thus push on this work.
  MR. HALDANE: It has been decided to offer to the Limerick Technical Instruction Committee certain rights and facilities in connection with the building of a central technical institute on certain terms, one of which is a nominal rent of £1, and instructions have been sent to the General Officer Commanding accord-
  234
  ingly. It will be necessary to have a formal agreement, and while every effort will be made to push the matter forward, as the hon. Member will understand, legal agreements require time for preparation.

  Indian Railway Committee.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the Report of the Departmental Committee on Railways will be presented.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): As I stated on the 28th April, in reply to the hon. Member for Wandsworth, I hope soon to lay it on the Table of the House.

  Attempt to Blow up a Train in Bengal.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether information is available as to the source from which proceeded the offer of 12 rupees made to the ringleader of the gang which attempted to blow up the train in which the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal was travelling last December.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject.
  *MR. REES: Have the limits of constitutional agitation ever been laid down in India?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think that arises out of the Question on the Paper.

  Indian Institute of Science.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the difficulties experienced in connection with the creation of the Indian Institute of Science have been overcome, and when the institution will come into being.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has no official information as to the arrangements made, but it is understood that the building of the institute at Bangalore is now to be proceeded with forthwith, and that meantime temporary arrangements for starting work in some of its branches will be made.

  Gun Running in the Persian Gulf.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the

  235
  representatives of the Government of India at the Brussels Conference on traffic in arms in Africa, have instructions to bring before the Conference the prevalence of gun-running through the ports in the Persian Gulf and on the coast of Oman, and to endeavour to prevent this practice.
  MR. BUCHANAN: In accordance with the precedent of the Conference of 1890 there is no separate representation of the Government of India, apart from His Majesty's Government, at the present Conference. But an Indian officer with local knowledge will be attached to the British delegates. It would be contrary to the public interest to state the instructions given to the British representatives, but there is little doubt that the question of the arms traffic on the Oman coast and in the Persian Gulf will be considered.

  Afghan Frontier Troubles.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of recent developments on the Afghan frontier, he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of any correspondence which may have passed between the Government of India and His Majesty the Amir of Afghanistan in connection with the AngloRussian convention; and whether, before undertaking any military operations within Afghan territory, he will place the House in possession of the views of His Majesty the Amir in any differences which he may have with the Indian Government.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The answer to the first Question is in the negative. As regards the second Question, in view of the present condition of affairs on the frontier it would not be in the public interest for me to give a reply.
  MR. LYNCHasked whether any communication had been sent to the Amir requesting his assent to the Anglo-Russian Convention, and if so, on what date.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I recognise on the part of Members how carefully they have abstained during the last ten days from extending Questions which it might be invidious to answer. I hope they will support me on this occasion in declining
  236
  on that ground to give an Answer to the hon. Gentleman.

  Behar Bomb Outrage.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can communicate to the House any information regarding the bomb outrage in Behar; whether this occurrence is due to the sense of impunity in respect of assaults upon Europeans engendered by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of the murder of Mr. Bloomfield by a gang of coolies in the same province; and whether he can give any information regarding the discovery of a bomb manufactory in Calcutta.
  MR. BUCHANAN: As regards the main facts of this deplorable outrage, the Government of India's telegrams to the Secretary of State do not contain any further information than the reports which have appeared in the newspapers. One of the perpetrators of the crime has been arrested and has made a full confession, while another shot himself to avoid arrest. The Secretary of State sees no reason to connect the commission of an outrage of this kind with any feeling or consideration such as the hon. Member mentions. The Government of India have reported that bombs and other explosives have been seized at Calcutta and that numerous arrests have been made, but the Secretary of State is not at present in a position to give detailed information.
  *MR. REES: Is it not a fact that the judgment of the High Court in the Bloomfield case laid it down that no member of a gang of coolies who beat Mr. Bloomfield to death was guilty of murder unless it could be proved against him that his individual blow was sufficient to cause death, and whether such a judgment should not come under the review of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
  MR. LUPTON: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the flogging of students had anything to do with this bomb outrage?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Situation on the North-West Frontier.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of

  237
  State for India whether he has any official information to the effect that many thousands of Afghans have poured over the frontier and have attacked fortified posts on the Khyber Pass; and whether he is in a position to give any information to the House regarding the general situation on the North-West Frontier?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Official reports state that Afghans in considerable numbers took part in the recent attack on Landi Kotal in the Khyber Pass. As regards the general situation in the Khyber, the attack on Landi Kotal failed entirely, and the tribesmen have retired over the Afghan frontier, but it is too soon to make any statement as to the future. The attitude of the Zakka Khel and other Afridi tribes has been loyal and friendly throughout, and the Zakka Khel elders have gone so far as to offer their services—a satisfactory vindication of the policy of the arrangements made in closing the expedition against them. On the Mohmand border the arrival of a representative jirga of the tribes is expected. Our latest reports are that things are quiet on the Malakand side.
  *MR. REES: Is this a convenient occasion for giving a trial to the hon. Member for East Nottingham's scheme for withdrawing our army from India and relying on treaty rights?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Indian Native Press.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have made any request for legislative authority to repressive measures being taken against incitements to violence appearing in a certain class of native newspapers; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to give the Indian Government a free hand in this matter.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Government of India have submitted no recent proposals for the purpose mentioned in the Question. The Secretary of State is unable to make any statement as to the course which he may think it right to adopt if any such proposals are received.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India
  238
  whether the Secretary of State will have laid upon the Table of the House translations of articles inciting to violence which have appeared in the Indian vernacular Press recently.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by giving greater publicity to the articles to which the hon. Member refers.
  MR. J. DEVLIN:Are there any "carrion crows" in India?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Amir and the Frontier Rising.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government have knowledge of any proclamations issued by the Amir or by Nasrullah Khan, forbidding Afghans to undertake hostilities against the British forces; and whether in fact, any such proclamations were issued.
  MR. BUCHANAN: We have no information that any proclamation such as is referred to by the hon. Member has been issued, but, as was stated in reply to the hon. Member for Stirlingshire on the 29th April, we believe that the Amir has endeavoured to prevent his subjects from joining the rising.
  MR. SMEATON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1897 the Amir issued a proclamation forbidding his subjects to cross the Kabul river?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I am aware of that.

  Marriage in Malta.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the Papal decree of August, 1907, which came into force at Easter, and under which Protestants at Malta will be free to observe their own forms of marriage, the Government will institute a process of civil marriage; and whether, in the case of mixed marriages, they will take steps to settle by legislative declaration this long-standing difficulty on the lines of the despatch to the Governor of Malta on the 15th August, 1906, in which the

  239
  Secretary of State declared that there must be perfect equality of treatment among all denominations, and full freedom of conscience to all persons inhabiting the island.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): I am afraid that the only reply which I can return at present to my hon. friend's Question is that His Majesty's Government is in communication with the Governor of Malta on the subject.

  British East African Legislative Council.
  MR. BECK: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that two out of the three unofficial members of the Legislative Council of the British East African Protectorate have been suspended owing to the attitude taken up by them upon a matter of vital importance to the community they represent, and also bearing in mind that the third unofficial member is somewhat closely connected with the Government of the Protectorate, he will inform the House as to any steps His Majesty's Government may intend to take to ensure the more adequate representation of the taxpayers in British East Africa.
  COLONEL SEELY: The question of the suspension of the two members to whom the hon. Member refers has not been finally settled, as the Secretary of State was waiting for despatches by post which have only just been received. There are, however, two other unofficial members and the appointment of a fifth is under consideration, and my hon. friend may rest assured that no time will be lost in, coming to a decision.

  Alderney Harbour Dues.
  MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will cause inquiries to be made into the proposed foreign animals wharf and abattoir in the Island of Alderney and the reasons which prevent the Commissioners of Woods and Forests leasing the Crown lands required for the scheme to its promoters; whether he will state what sum it is estimated would accrue to the Imperial Treasury from rents and taxation and from harbour dues payable to the Woods and Forests Department for
  240
  the use of Alderney Harbour by the vessels which would be employed in the proposed trade; what is the present income from the same sources; what is the cost of keeping Alderney Harbour in serviceable condition and repair; and by which Department or Departments of the Government is the cost defrayed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The Commissioners of Woods declined to facilitate the scheme because, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, it involved a risk of the introduction of cattle disease into the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom. It is impossible to say what sum would accrue to the Imperial Treasury from rents and harbour dues payable to the Office of Woods for the use of Alderney Harbour by the vessels which would be employed in the proposed trade. The income of the Commissioners of Woods from harbour dues for the year ended 31st March, 1908, was £692. The cost of keeping in repair the piers in Alderney which are under the management of the Commissioners of Woods for the same year was £63. The breakwater protecting the harbour is under the charge of the Admiralty, and all expenditure on it is made by that Department.

  Accommodation for Alien Immigrants.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what is the estimated number of houses for the accommodation of aliens to be provided under Section 24 of the Port of London Bill, and what will be the probable cost.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I beg to answer this Question and the next on behalf of my right hon. friend. As at present advised I do not contemplate more than one establishment in the Port of London for the reception of alien passengers under the clause quoted. It is impossible to state the cost until the details of an actual scheme come to be worked out.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if houses for the accommodation of alien immigrants are to be erected in ports other than that of London, and upon

  241
  whom the cost of erecting such buildings will fall.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The circumstances which have rendered necessary a special statutory enactment in regard to the accommodation of alien immigrants at the Port of London are peculiar to that port, and have not arisen elsewhere. The cost of providing that accommodation where necessary, whether under existing conditions or under the provisions of the Bill, falls on the shipping companies concerned.

  Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state how many chambers of commerce throughout the country have passed resolutions in support of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill; and how many have passed resolutions against it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to a Question of the hon. Member for Hammersmith on the 6th April.

  Clubs Tied to Breweries.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it has become the practice of certain liquor-supplying clubs to engage themselves only to buy liquor from specified brewers in return for money accommodation afforded by such brewers by way of loan, mortgage, or bill of sale; that in the last balance-sheet of the North Brixton Gladstone Club it appears that all the beer supplied to the club is purchased from one firm of brewers, and that the same firm is the club's creditor for a large sum of money, as well as the holder of a bill of sale on its property; and whether he will take steps to have introduced into the Government Licensing Bill some Amendment dealing with this practice.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member. They involve important but very difficult questions. There are already on the Paper many Amendments to the Licensing Bill directed to the object of preventing clubs from coming under obligations to makers of and dealers in intoxicating
  242
  liquor, and I think the subject is one which can be treated most usefully by discussion in Committee.

  Board of Trade Appointments in Glasgow.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many paid appointments were made in Glasgow under his Department in the years 1906 and 1907, respectively; how many of these appointments were given to men resident in Glasgow and district; how many were given to men brought from a distance; and will he say for what class of positions his Department was unable to find suitable applicants in the neighbourhood.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): Four such appointments were made in each of the two years mentioned, and I understand that four of the persons appointed were residents in the district and four came from outside. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question I would remind my hon. friend that in a service extending over the whole Kingdom it is extremely undesirable in the public interest that appointments at a particular port should be confined to residents in the district. Officers resident in the Glasgow district are not debarred from obtaining promotion at other ports.

  Inspection of Weights and Measures.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Board has been requested by local authorities administering the Weights and Measures Act to withdraw or modify Regulation 9 of the Weights and Measures Regulations, 1907, which requires the authority to arrange that the premises of every trader are visited by an inspector for the purpose of inspecting all weights, measures, and instruments in use for trade at least once a year, or once in two years in certain cases with the special sanction of the Board of Trade; and whether, in view of the importance of protecting the interests of purchasers, he will give an assurance to the House that this regulation will be strictly adhered to and enforced.
  MR. KEARLEY: A few of the local authorities administering the Weights

  243
  and Measures Acts have asked for the amendment of the Regulation in question or that their districts may be exempted from its operation, but the Board of Trade have not in any case acceded to the application and have no intention of doing so.

  Unemployment—German Statistics.
  EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reason statistics relating to trade union unemployment in Germany are given in some issues of the Board of Trade Labour Gazette and not in others, in view of the fact that figures are published monthly relating to unemployment by the German Statistical Bureau.
  MR. KEARLEY: The figures relating to trade union unemployment given in the "Labour Gazette." are those published quarterly by the German Labour Department, and the monthly percentages quoted at quarterly intervals are not available prior to the issue of these returns. So far as I am aware the German Labour Department is the only German Statistical Bureau which publishes such figures.
  EARL WINTERTON: Is it the fact that the figures for some months are not published although they are available? Could they not be published quarterly?
  MR. KEARLEY: They are published quarterly. We print them as soon as we are able after their publication in Germany.
  MR. JOHN WARDasked if it was not the fact that the German unemployment statistics were collected by the police and absolutely repudiated by German trade union officials?
  MR. KEARLEY: As far as we know the figures published by the German Imperial Bureau are trades union figures. There are other figures, however, published by an independent association.
  EARL WINTERTON: Are not the German figures quite as reliable as those in England?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Distribution of Poor Law Relief.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the practice of Poor Law guardians representing a district as regards the administration of Poor Law relief being transferred to other districts; and whether his Board sanctions the practice.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am aware that in some instances boards of guardians have so constituted their relief committees as to secure that a guardian elected for a particular parish shall not be a member of the committee for the area in which the parish is comprised. It is competent for the guardians to make this arrangement, and no sanction to it on the part of the Local Government Board is required.
  MR. CLYNES: In cases where individuals object to being transferred, can the board of guardians insist on transferring them?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I think the guardians must alone decide as to the fitness of a member of its body to take part in the distribution of relief in the area from which he himself draws his electoral power.

  Telegrams at Press Rates.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what classes of individuals in the country get the advantage for telegrams of the Press rates of a fraction over 2d. for 100 words; and whether he will extend this privilege to free libraries, working-men's clubs, and village institutes?
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension as to the rates for the transmission of Press telegrams. Under the Act of 1868 the charges are fixed at 1s. for every 100 words, or fraction of 100 words, between six p.m. and 9 a.m.; and 1s. for every 75 words, or fraction of 75 words, between nine a.m. and six p.m. The rate of 2d. for every 100 or 75 words (as the case may be) to which the hon. Member refers, applies only when the same Press telegram

  245
  is sent to more than one address and consequently shared by several newspapers, institutions, or clubs, the rate being charged for each additional address beyond the first. Institutions similar to those to which the hon. Member refers are already allowed, after satisfying certain conditions, to receive telegrams at these reduced rates.
  *MR. BYLES: Does not the entire newspaper-reading world derive enormous advantage from these low rates?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am afraid that is a matter of opinion. There is a great loss on the Press messages.
  *MR. BYLES: But can the loss be assessed, seeing that the wires would otherwise be idle at night?
  MR. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation to raise the price?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, sir.

  Scottish Local Government Bill.
  MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state when the Bill to amend the Scottish Local Government Act of 1889 will be introduced.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg also to ask the Secretary for Scotland when he will introduce the Bill dealing with the dates of town council elections and other matters which is suggested by the Convention of Royal Burghs, and which he promised to a deputation last November would be brought in by the Government this session.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I hope to introduce legislation on this subject at an early date.

  Scottish District Education Fund.
  MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the new district education fund proposed to be constituted by the Education (Scotland) Bill will be administered by the county committee or by the Department.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have in reply to refer the hon. Member to the first paragraph on page 5 of the Memorandum Explanatory of the Provisions of the Bill. [Cd. 4,051.]

  Irish Congested Districts Board—Staff Salaries.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the average salary of the officials of the Congested Districts Board engaged at the head office including both the permanent and temporary officials; whether officers engaged in such mechanical duties as copying and typewriting are in receipt of salaries of £150 and £180 per annum respectively; whether, as the work of superintendence is presumably entrusted to the permanent staff, and as the temporary clerks are alleged to be employed only for the simplest and least responsible work, there is any valid reason why the salary of any temporary official should exceed £100 a year, especially in view of the fact that these salaries are being paid out of the Board's own funds and that the money is consequently being diverted from the purpose for which it was originally intended; and how many of the temporary clerks are now being paid £100 a year or over.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELT,): The average salary of the officials engaged at the head office, omitting the secretary and assistant secretary, is £139 including the legal staff, or £130 excluding it. No officer engaged in copying or typewriting is in receipt of a salary of £150 or upwards. The more important duties of the office are performed by the permanent staff, but for the reasons which I explained to the hon. Member on 5th March, a considerable number of the temporary staff also have responsible work to do. The Congested Districts Board Act of 1899 provided for an annual increase of £25,000 to the Board's income for the express purpose, amongst other things, of paying salaries and administrative expenses. It is therefore incorrect to say that the money used in paying these salaries is diverted from the purpose for which it was intended. Twenty-five of the temporary clerks, other than those employed in the legal

  247
  branch, are in receipt of £100 a year or over.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how much of the expenditure of the Congested Districts Board goes in salaries and personal expenses; how many temporary clerks and how many permanent clerks are employed, and what is the average length of service of the present temporary clerks; whether any of them are engaged on responsible or technical duties; and whether the anomaly of keeping on the temporary list clerks who are to all intents and purposes permanent is due in any way to Treasury representation.
  MR. BIRRELL: The total annual cost of the head office for salaries and personal expenses, including those of the secretary and assistant secretary and the solicitor and his staff, is £14,260. The number of permanent clerks is thirteen, and the number of temporary clerks, including the legal staff, is seventy-one. Of the temporary clerks fifteen have less than two years service; thirty-two have from two to five years service; seventeen from five to ten years; and seven over ten years. The majority of these clerks are engaged on responsible or technical duties. The normal permanent staff of the Board was fixed in 1894, with the consent of the Treasury as prescribed by the Acts constituting the Congested Districts Board. It is to be remembered that the Congested Districts Board is not a permanent Government Department in the ordinary acceptation of the term. The Board was established in 1891 for a period of twenty years certain, which will expire in the course of a few years. In such a case there are obvious objections to the creation of a large permanent staff, involving a heavy charge upon the State for pensions.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?
  MR. BIRRELL: The Treasury very much object to a permanent staff, and desire, if possible, to keep it temporary.

  Newtown Cunningham Evicted Tenant.
  Mr. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the chief Secretary to the
  248
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the application of James Allison, Munfad, county Donegal, to the Estates Commissioners to be reinstated in his farm containing 125 acres, rent £75, situated on the Brassy estate, near Newtown Cunningham, county Donegal, from which he was evicted seven years ago; whether he can state if an inspector visited the farm, and, if so, when; and will he say what is the cause of the delay in reinstating Allison in his former holding.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners do not intend to take any steps for the reinstatement of Allison in his former holding, which is now in the occupation of a tenant. The applicant's name has, however, been noted as that of a suitable person to work a farm, and the Commissioners will consider his case in connection with the distribution of any untenanted land which they may acquire in the locality.

  Irish Members of Parliament and Boycotting.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two hon. Members of this House have recently been publicly advocating boycotting in county Longford, in connection with agrarian agitation; and what action, if any, be proposes to take.
  Mr. BIRRELL: According to newspaper reports which I have seen, an hon. Member of this House has, if correctly reported, recently advocated boycotting in county Longford. There is, however, no sufficient evidence that the hon. Member in question used the objectionable language imputed to him, and in the circumstances it is not proposed to take any action.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask if in the event any poor people in the county of Longford act on his advice they will be punished for doing so?
  MR. BIRRELL: Certainly.

  Galway Cattle Drives.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three

  249
  cattle-drives recently took place at Claregalway, about six miles from Galway; and how many arrests have been made.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police are aware of but one cattle-drive at Claregalway or its vicinity. This occurred on 16th April, when a drunken man drove some sheep off a farm. He was arrested by the police, and when he became sober he said he would not drive the cattle again. He has since been prosecuted and fined for drunkenness.

  Carrick-on-Shannon Cattle-Drive.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a cattle-drive on an extensive scale took place on Monday the 20th April last, off a farm called Kiltoghert, near Carrick-on-Shannon, South Leitrim; is he aware that the raid took place in consequence of a series of resolutions passed recently by the South Leitrim executive of the United Irish League; and have any arrests been made.
  MR. BIRRELL: On 19th April nine head of cattle were driven off the farm in question. I have no information as to the motives which influenced the offenders. No arrests were made, but proceedings have been instituted against eighteen men with the object of having them bound to keep the peace.

  Colthurst Estate, Ballyvourney.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a letter from Mr. Edward Fitzgerald, solicitor, Mallow, acting for the small landholders and labourers on the Colthurst estate, Ballyvourney, in which he enters strong legal protest against the manner in which the alleged tenancy of Jeremiah Hegarty, in the holding known as the Home Farm, was determined; whether he is aware that in the will and schedule of assets of the late Jeremiah Hegarty no mention whatever was made of the Home Farm, showing that the late Mr. Hegarty had no disposing power in regard to this farm, and had accordingly no valid tenancy in it; and, in view of the facts set forth in Mr. Fitzgerald's letter, will he state whether
  250
  the Estates Commissioners propose to reconsider this matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received a letter from Mr. Fitzgerald to the effect stated in the Question. The matter referred to has been disposed of by the Commissioners judicially, after hearing all the parties concerned, and they do not propose to reconsider it.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of an agricultural labourer, as defined by the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, hired and employed for the seven days of the week, the expression, whose average wages in the year do not exceed two shillings and sixpence a day, means two shillings and sixpence a day for each of the seven days in the week; and whether such a labourer, earning an average wage of 17s. per week all the year round, would be entitled to the benefits of the Labourers Acts.
  MR. BIRRELL: The question raised by the hon. Member is one for judicial decision. The Local Government Board anticipate that it will come before either themselves or a County Court Judge on appeal, and pending legal argument and full consideration the Board are not prepared to express an opinion on the question.

  Firings on the St. George's Estate, Kilcolgar.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday night the 29th March, shots were fired into the house of a man named Niland, on the St. George estate, at Kilcolgar, county Galway; that the house of a man named Kearney, on the same estate, has already been fired into; and that the house of a man named Patrick Sheehan, on the same estate, has been fired into three times; whether any arrests have been made in connection with any of these outrages; and what steps have been taken to prevent a repetition of these firings.
  MR. BIRRELL: The house of William Niland was fired into on the night of

  251
  29th March last. The house of Patrick Kearney was fired into on 20th February, 1906, and that of Patrick Sheehan was fired into on two occasions, namely, 9th January, 1905 and 5th June, 1906. In the case of Kearney three persons were arrested, of whom two were discharged at petty sessions for want of evidence and the third was acquitted at assizes. In the other cases no arrests were made. The persons whose houses were fired into are receiving police protection.

  Evicted Tenants Act.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the reason for the delay in furnishing the promised Return from the Estates Commissioners of operations under the Evicted Tenants Act of 1906; and how soon the Return will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Return in question has been in the printers' hands for some time and proofs have been revised. The Estates Commissioners hope to present the Return early next week. The Return is a complicated one, and, being the first, it covers the period extending from the passing of the Act of 1903 up to 31st December last, and a considerable time has necessarily been taken in its preparation. Future Returns will regularly be presented quarterly as prescribed by the Evicted Tenants Act.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in order to supply the House with information as to the present state of land purchase in Ireland, with a view to the approaching debate on the Treasury proposals, he will direct the Estates Commissioners to prepare a county map of Ireland, shaded to show, approximately, the areas in which land purchase has been completed, those where agreements have been signed but not completed, and those where no agreements have yet been come to.
  *MR. BIRRELL: I have been in communication with the Estates Commissioners as to the possibility of meeting the hon. Gentleman's wishes in this matter, and am informed that the preparation of county maps showing,
  252
  even approximately, the present state of land purchase, would be quite impracticable without much expenditure of time and money. To furnish such maps, it would be necessary to show upon them the estates for which agreements have been lodged but the sale of which has not yet been completed. There are 4,369 of such estates, comprising 125,000 purchasers, with a total purchase money of, approximately, £40,000,000. It would be necessary to take the estate maps of these 4,369 estates, which maps are on the six inch scale, and transfer them to the county index maps which are on various smaller scales; and this work would necessarily occupy some months and would cause a dislocation of the Commissioners' ordinary business. The Commissioners, however, could prepare a Return, approximately accurate, showing by counties the extent of land actually vested in tenant-purchasers, and the extent of land for which advances have been applied for but not yet made. The residue of the total area of each county would consist of land unsold, part of which would, of course, be composed of mountain, bog, and other unsaleable land. If such a Return would suit the hon. Member's purpose, I will ask the Commissioner's to prepare it with as little delay as possible.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there will be any difficulty in a newspaper producing within a week or so a rough and ready map such as I suggest out of the materials in the hands of the Estates Commissioners, and whether such a map which I suggest has been actually prepared by a private individual would not give this House a more valuable idea than anything else of the most serious position as to land purchase in Ireland as to the area, as to one-third of the country sold, another one-third half sold, and another portion unsold, and will he say what is the difficulty.
  *MR. BIRRELL: I quite agree that a map of that kind would be a very useful one, and should be glad if such a map could be prepared, but the Government cannot make a rough and ready map of that kind. They would be bound to show every one of the estates, scattered all over the country, which have been sold or agreed to be sold, and the work of

  253
  transferring these estates from a large accurate map which we have got into a map on a smaller scale would occupy months of a department already overworked. If a newspaper or a private individual can publish such a map a good service would be done, but I am afraid the Government cannot undertake that.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Allow me to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if a private newspaper undertakes to give this information, he will have the result published for the information of the House of Commons.
  MR. BIRRELL: If such a map be found published presumably accurate I see no objection to it.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to say that I will call attention to the action of these officials in keeping this House in the dark as to the most critical position of land purchase in Ireland.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many evicted tenants have been reinstated or otherwise provided for under the voluntary provisions of the Land Purchase Act of 1903, and how many under the compulsory powers of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1906.
  MR. BIRRELL: The total number of evicted tenants who have been reinstated under the voluntary provisions of the Act of 1903 is 1,546, and the number reinstated under the compulsory provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, is nine, making a total of 1,555. Proceedings for the restoration of other evicted tenants under the Act of 1907 are in progress. The Commissioners find that in many cases in which their proposals as to the restoration were refused prior to the passing of the Evicted Tenants Act, the notification by them of their intention to put the compulsory provisions of that Act into operation have resulted in the voluntary reinstatement of the evicted tenant by the landlord on the terms previously refused.

  Inspections under the Evicted Tenants Act.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire
  254
  land whether it is in accordance with the instructions of the Estates Commissioners that an inspector under the Evicted Tenants Act should conduct his inspections in association and consultation with a local Member of Parliament.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that there is nothing in their instructions which prohibits an inspector from obtaining such information locally as he may think advisable.

  Ballinrobe Shooting Outrage.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any information with regard to a shooting outrage at the house of a man named Murphy, at a place about seven miles from Ballinrobe, county Mayo, on the 25th April; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with the occurrence.
  MR. BIRRELL: On the evening of 19th April, two shots were fired into the house of James Murphy in the district of Ballinrobe. The police have carefully investigated the case, but have not yet succeeded in obtaining evidence which would justify them in making arrests.

  Donore Lands, County Meath.
  MR. LONSDALE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Londonderry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether portions of the lands of Donore, Ballivor, county Meath, have recently been sold to the Estates Commissioners and divided by them amongst John Killain, Thomas Fitzsimon, and Joseph Kennedy; whether, prior to the sale to the Commissioners, a cattle-drive took place on these lands in consequence of their being sub-let under the eleven months' grazing system; whether John Killain, Thomas Fitzsimon, and Joseph Kennedy have advertised, or are now advertising, for grazing under the eleven months' system the lands so divided among them by the Commissioners; and, if so, whether the Commissioners will take steps in reference to the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have sold portions of the land of Donore to the persons named in the Question. It is not the case that a cattle-drive took place on.

  255
  the lands prior to the sale to the Commissioners. The Commissioners have no information as to the alleged letting of lands by the purchasers for grazing.

  Firing Outrages.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many cases of firing outrages have been reported to the Dublin Castle authorities or the police during the current year, the number of arrests made, and sentences passed.
  MR. BIRRELL: During the current year eighty-sixty offences in which firing took place have been reported, and in connection with them twenty-six persons were arrested. Seven of the persons were discharged at petty sessions and three are still on remand. Thirteen have been returned for trial and the cases are pending. At Quarter Sessions one person was sentenced to three months imprisonment, and at Assizes one person was sentenced to two months imprisonment, and another was found unfit to plead and was sent to a lunatic asylum.

  Injury to Cattle by Cattle-drives.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any cases of cattle sustaining injury through being driven have been brought to the notice of the Dublin Castle authorities or the police during the current year; and, if any, will he furnish particulars.
  MR. BIRRELL: The cases of alleged injury to cattle through being driven which have come under the notice of the police during the current year are as follows:—One case in which the hair was cut off the tails of several animals; one case in which the horn of a bullock was broken; and eighteen cases in which claims for compensation have been made in consequence of alleged deterioration due to exhaustion from over-driving. In thirteen of these latter cases the claims have been heard and compensation granted.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture has stated that cattle-drives did no harm to either man or beast?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Cattle-driving Statistics.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many cattle-drives have been reported by the police during the months of January, February, March, and April last; how many arrests have been made; and what sentences have been passed in each month, respectively, and for corresponding figures for the same months in 1905.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of cattle-drives reported to the police in January, 1908, was 35; in February, 31; in March, 57; and in April, 62. In January two persons were arrested and bound to keep the peace. In February sixteen persons were arrested, of whom fifteen were bound to the peace, and one was sent to prison for two months in default of giving bail. In March forty-three persons were arrested. Of these twenty-three were bound to the peace; six were sent to prison for three months, twelve for two months, and one for one month, in default of giving bail; and one was discharged. In April, ninety-four persons were arrested, of whom forty-nine were bound to the peace, one was sent to prison for two months in default of bail, and eight were discharged. The cases of the remaining thirty-six are not yet disposed of. There are no corresponding figures for 1905. Cattle-driving had not come into practice at that time, and any occasional case which may have occurred was not specially reported.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can offer any explanation of how it is that cattle-driving has increased so much under the administration of His Majesty's Government?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can explain a speech at Southampton in which he said—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order-Quotations are not in order.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I was not going to quote, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman was asking the right hon. Gentleman as, to a speech "in which he said."

  Proposed Dublin University.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG;I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what protection will be afforded in the Dublin Roman Catholic University for a professor unjustly accused of teaching contrary to the tenets of the Papal Encyclical on Modernism.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am completely at a loss to know what the hon. Member has in his mind, but do not doubt that in the course of the discussion on the Universities Bill he will have an opportunity of making his point intelligible to me.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: In view of the fact that, as I think, the right hon. Gentleman is the only living person who still keeps up the fiction that there is not to be a Roman Catholic University——
  *MR. SPEAKER: This is not the opportunity for making speeches. If the hon. Member wishes for information arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer he can ask for it; but this is not the opportunity for making argumentative statements.

  Lord Ashtown's Gamekeeper.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that at Ballymacarbery, county Waterford, petty sessions, on the 13th of January last, James Graham (Lord Ash-town's gamekeeper) prosecuted a man named Ryan for illegally having in his possession a strokehaul on the banks of the River Nire for the purpose of taking fish, and that Graham proved that he took the strokehaul from Ryan, and produced it in Court; that in direct opposition to the evidence the majority of magistrates dismissed the case; that the two resident magistrates present, Messrs. Orr and Dixon, were in favour of a conviction; that Graham and his assistant, Butler, were convicted of an assault on Ryan on the same occasion and sent to gaol for fourteen days, the majority of the magistrates refusing to increase the sentence to thirty-two days to enable them to appeal, and that next day they were discharged by order of the Lord Justices; that Graham appealed against the dismissal in the fishery case, and the
  258
  appeal was heard on Saturday the 4th April at Durgarvan quarter sessions, when the Bench was filled with magistrates from all parts of the county, when the appeal was dismissed by seven to five; and that the County Court Judge stated from the Bench that it was a scandalous miscarriage of justice; how many of the magistrates present were magistrates only by virtue of their position as chairmen of urban or rural district councils; and will he bring this matter before the Lord Chancellor with a view to putting a stop to miscarriages of justice of this kind.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,: As regards the two cases before the magistrates at petty sessions referred to in the first part of the Question, I beg to refer to the Answers to Questions on the 5th, 12th, and 20th February last. In reference to the appeal of Graham to quarter sessions from the decision of the magistrates, I am informed that the Bench at quarter sessions by a majority dismissed the appeal. The County Court Judge dissented, and is reported in the newspapers as having said that the decision of the Bench was a gross miscarriage of justice. Only one of the magistrates sat by virtue of his position as chairman of a district council. The Lord Chancellor informs me that there was no illegality in the constitution of the Bench, and no irregularity in the proceedings, and I am not prepared to say that in my opinion there was any miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances I do not, propose to take any action in the matter.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Was there not a miscarriage of justice in the case when Graham was sent to prison?
  MR. CHERRY: My remarks apply to the second prosecution, not that in connection with fishery.
  MR. MOONEY: Is it in accordance with the rules of the House to allow to be inserted in a Question a statement to the effect that the magistrates dismissed the case in direct opposition to the evidence?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The House may take it for what it is worth.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Has the attention of the Lord Chancellor been drawn to the second part of the Question, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman himself had to admit that the magistrates were wrong and to reverse their decision?
  MR. CHERRY: I never admitted anything of the kind.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Are the facts as stated in the first part of the Question correct or not?
  MR. CHERRY: I do not think they are as a matter of fact.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG:> In what respect are they not?
  MR. CHERRY: I cannot go into details now.

  Dublin Treasury Remembrancer.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a Treasury clerk from London has been imported into Dublin Castle as Treasury Remembrancer in room of a retired Irish official; and whether the Government took any steps to ascertain if any Irishman was qualified to fill the position, in view of the policy of associating the Irish people with the management of their own affairs.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: As has been officially announced in the Press, Mr. Hewby, of the Treasury, has been appointed Treasury Remembrancer upon the retirement of Sir Robert Holmes. Mr. Hewby's qualifications were considered to render him the candidate best suited for the appointment.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the Question.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: It is more desirable to get the man best qualified for the post than one belonging to a particular party.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN:Was an effort made to get the best man in Ireland?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I have said that we considered Mr. Hewby's qualifications made him the best suited for the appointment.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What were his special qualifications for the post?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I must have notice of that Question.

  Donegal Railway.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the joint committee of the Donegal Railway to stop trains by signal at the Meenglass platform; whether he is aware that this means of travelling accommodation was afforded at this platform for many years and now suddenly stopped, and the people living within an easy distance of it are forced to walk several miles to and from other stations; and whether he will take immediate steps to cause the committee to stop all their trains by signal at the Meenglass platform, and thereby afford the people the same opportunity of travelling by train as they always had in past years.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade are in communication with the County of Donegal Railways Joint Committee in this matter, and will inform the honourable Member of the result.

  English Land Valuation Bill.
  MR. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state when the Land Valuation Bill for England and Wales will be introduced.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am afraid I cannot yet name a date, but the introduction of the Bill will not be long delayed.

  Irish Land Act Finance.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the plans of the Government for dealing with the financial difficulty in connection with the Irish Land Act of 1903 will be laid before Parliament; and whether it is intended to deal with the matter by legislation.
  MR. ASQUITH: The recommendations of the Departmental Committee and the suggestions and criticisms which they have elicited are under consideration,

  261
  but I fear I cannot at present make a more definite statement.
  MR. LONSDALE: Is it intended to deal with this most important matter by legislation?
  >MR. ASQUITH: I cannot say until full consideration has been given to it.

  Scottish Home Rule.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the official announcement that the Government is in favour of Home Rule for Scotland; and, if so, whether this measure will be modelled on that introduced for Ireland by Mr. Gladstone in 1893.
  MR. PIRIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that this House, under the last Liberal Government, passed a Resolution declaring the desirability of Home Rule for Scotland; and is he aware that at the present time the principle of Home Rule is advocated by large sections of this House entirely on the basis of a scheme of devolution applicable to all parts of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. ASQUITH: I believe that is so. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Darlington, I am not aware of any such announcement.
  MR. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that under the present system Scotland gets a fair share of the time of this House?
  MR. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that comparatively few Scotsmen believe that any weakening of the political connection with England could possibly benefit their country?
  *MR. SPEAKER: This is not a debate on Home Rule for Scotland.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Trade, in a speech at Dundee, said he was in favour of Home Rule for Scotland, and that he thought that Scotland should not be behind Ireland in the matter, and does he know that the right hon. Gentleman also
  262
  promised Home Rule for Ireland at the Manchester election?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not see how that Question arises. The Question is whether my attention has been called to an official announcement that the Government are in favour of Home Rule for Scotland. I know of no such announcement.
  EARL WINTERTON: Another broken promise.
  *LORD BALCARRES: Does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the promise which was given?
  MR. ASQUITH: My right hon. friend is perfectly within his rights in stating his opinion on this matter. If the noble lord wishes to know my opinion—
  *LORD BALCARRES: No; the opinion of the Government.
  MR. ASQUITH: Then I refer him to my speech in the debate on the Resolution of the hon. Member for Waterford.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. McKenna, Mr. Acland, and Mr. Lough; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Education (Local Authorities) Bill): Mr. Runciman, Mr. McKinnon Wood, and Mr. Walker.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Married Women's Property Bill): Mr. Hicks Beach, Mr. StaveleyHill, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. Arkwright, Mr. Micklem, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Dobson, Mr. Glendinning, Mr. Berridge, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. William Johnson, Mr. Lupton, Mr. Dunn, and Colonel Ivor Philipps.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Children Bill): Sir Henry

263
Kimber and Mr. Courthope; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Children Bill): Mr. Staveley-Hill and Mr. Guinness.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill: Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. Bell, Mr. Boland, Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh, Sir William Anson, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Haddock, the Earl of Ronaldshay, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Henry Gooch, Mr. James Hope, Mr. William Jones, Sir Frederick Banbury, and Sir Edward Sassoon.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW-BORN CHILDREN (PROTECTION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Monday next read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
NEW BILLS.
  DOGS (EXEMPTION) BILL.
  "To exempt dogs from painful experiments," presented by Mr. Ellis Griffith; supported by Colonel Sandys, Sir Francis Channing, Mr. Field, Mr. Tomkinson, Mr. Weir, Mr. MacNeill, Mr. Clement Edwards, Mr. Crooks, and Mr. Sloan; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 216.]
  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  "To empower a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to dispose of dogs which have been ill-treated," presented by Mr. Ellis Griffith; supported by Mr. Clement Edwards, Mr. MacNeill, Mr. Crooks, and Mr. Weir; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 217.]

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): I do not
264
propose to trouble the House at any length with the details of this measure which has now been in the hands of hon. Members for some days. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already explained fully the provisions of the Bill. So far the Bill has met with an encouraging measure of general approval. I think I may say with confidence that our proposals in regard to their main principle, at any rate, have met with general approbation in all parts of the House of Commons. It may not be accepted in every detail, but I think that all the interests affected will be satisfied. That is a state of things which has not happened before in regard to any Bill introduced dealing with this question, or any Bill affecting so many various interests. A Bill of this nature has no party character whatever about it. It deals with a great and comprehensive subject upon which the prosperity of London depends, and there is absolutely no room for any party feeling whatever. The problem with which we are dealing has received on several occasions the attention of successive Governments. It is a perplexing problem, and if we solve it by this Bill, then I think it is only fair to acknowledge, as I do now, that we are solving it by building upon a foundation which has been laid for us by others. The Royal Commission, appointed in 1902, dealt with this question in that year. Then there was the Port of London Bill which was introduced by the Government of the day in 1902, and based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That Bill, the House will remember, made but little progress whilst it was before the House of Commons. Nevertheless it was an attempt made by the late Government to solve the problem, and it indicated to us various pitfalls and thorny paths which we have thought it advisable to avoid. What is the problem which we have to face? London has long been and still is the greatest port of the world. There is no other port in this country or abroad which can show such a large total of import trade. No less than one-third of the total trade of the country enters by the Port of London. As regards the export trade, taking the total

265
exports of the country no less than one-fourth of them leave by the Port of London. It has played a great part in the past, and, provided its resources and facilities are fully developed so as to enable it to meet modern requirements, it is destined to play a great part in the future. Those who have witnessed and taken note of the development and improvement made in all our great rival ports must be apprehensive lest something should be done in the near future that will make it perfectly impossible for the Port of London to maintain its position of supremacy, and in order to prevent that occurring it appears absolutely necessary that some strong authority must be established, capable of harmonising the many conflicting interests which at present hold sway in the Port of London. We want an authority for London which will take a broad view, and what is more important still, an authority armed with the necessary Parliamentary powers and financial resources sufficient to enable it to carry out any of the works and improvements that are necessary in the interests of the port. That is the idea which prevails amongst all sorts and conditions of persons who have an interest in this question. As regards the adequacy of the facilities of the Port of London, as long ago as the year 1887, a strong appeal was made by the leading interests in the Port of London to the port authority of that day to improve the river and navigation facilities by dredging. They called attention both to the increase of tonnage and of the size of the vessels entering the Port of London. It is quite true that something has been done during the last few years to meet the demand that was made so long ago as the year 1887, but however urgent the question may have appeared in 1887, nothing short of a revolution has taken place in the character of the ships built since that day. Ships are now constructed of dimensions far in excess of those which existed at the time to which I am referring. I am told that twenty years ago the largest vessel built was about 550 feet in length. Ten years later the length of ships had grown to 635 feet, and now we have the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania" with a length of 762 feet. It is this great growth in the size
266
of ships that has revolutionised the conditions of commerce. Ships are the most important factors now competing for the commerce of the world, and the Port of London is called upon to take ships of this character without having proper or adequate facilities for the purpose. In a great port like Liverpool there is a great development going on to meet the requirements not only of the ships of to-day, but of the ships that are going to be built in the future. The Mersey Docks Board are contemplating spending a further sum of £3,500,000, not in order to meet the requirements of to-day, but they are looking ahead and anticipating that the same growth in the size of ships will continue in the future as has been going on without a break, practically for the last twenty years. It may be said that in the Port of London the question is not so acute as in Liverpool, because it is supposed that a large part of the shipping which comes into London is engaged in the Eastern trade, and has to come through the Suez Canal, which necessarily acts as a factor in determining the amount of water required to come into the Port of London. I would remind the House that in the case of the Suez Canal the depth of water has been increased and dredging operations are continually going on. The depth of the Suez Canal is now about twenty-eight feet, but dredging is going on in order to increase it to twenty-nine feet. I cannot verify what I am going to state, but I have been told that the policy of the Suez Canal directors is that they wish ultimately to get a minimum depth of thirty-six feet through the Suez Canal. I only mention that to emphasise in a general way the urgency and necessity as regards London that such a depth of water should be brought about by dredging as will enable ships of the largest tonnage and of unusual draught to enter the river at all states of the tide. That is our ideal, but whether it will be possible to carry it out without an enormous expenditure of money is a matter for the new authority we are proposing to establish to determine. Of this I feel confident, and I think the House will agree with me, that if the Port of London is to maintain its commercial supremacy it must be able in

267
the near future to accommodate the largest of our modern ships. On this point we have the evidence given before the Royal Commission by Sir Alfred Jones, who is a great authority on shipping. He pointed out that the economical ship was the large ship, and that only those ports that can make provision for the large ships will be able to hold their own in competition with their rivals abroad. That fact seems so obvious that I will not labour it, and the great development which is taking place in Continental ports proves it up to the hilt. I am not in any way speaking derogatorily of what has happened in the Port of London in days past. If anyone wants to ascertain fully what has happened in the Port of London they should read carefully the Report of the Royal Commission, where the whole subject is set out in detail. I am most anxious to avoid saying anything derogatory of the large number of bodies to whom the task of administering and developing the Port of London is now entrusted. I admit that private enterprise has done much to bring the Port of London to the point it has now reached, but at the same time it has long been recognised that none of those bodies are capable of doing what is necessary unless they enjoy larger authority from Parliament and larger revenues than are likely to be raised by any private body. Therefore, it is useless to look in the direction of existing bodies in the hope of finding any authority able to provide the necessary improvements to enable the Port of London to compete with the rapid developments which are going on in other ports. When you consider the magnitude of the work that will have to be carried out you will see perfectly well that only a strong public authority can achieve what is necessary in order to enable the port to maintain its supremacy. Take the three great Continental ports which are in direct competition with London—Hamburg, Rotterdam, and Antwerp. On the figures to which I have had access, the estimated capital expenditure on these three ports alone in the last twenty years is half as much again as the total capital possessed by the existing dock undertakings. In Hamburg alone in the last twenty years there has been an expendi-
268
ture of fifteen millions of money, in Rotterdam, between nine and ten millions and in Antwerp, I think I am not wrong in saying the expenditure approximates to eight millions of money.
MR. STEADMAN: Who found the money in those places?
MR. KEARLEY: That is not the point. I do not stop to inquire what has been the expenditure of the Port of London because the circumstances are so thoroughly well known to everybody, but the existing bodies have not had the power to do what is needed. Still, in view of the fact that this extraordinary expenditure has taken place abroad, and that developments of every kind are continuously going on there to encourage trade, is not it obvious that something has to be done at the earliest possible moment if the Port of London is to hold its own in this great struggle? We have in the Port of London a multiplicity of private interests, and private trade has done much to bring the Port of London up to its present position. The multiplicity of private interests in the port is one of the great reasons for the introduction of a unified scheme of administration, but all those who are in contact with the problem must recognise, as we have been compelled to recognise, that the multiplicity of private interests is one of the obstacles to the provision of a scheme which is generally accepted. Further than that, they must have recognised how sensitive and apprehensive these interests are of any change that may be brought about by a Bill of this kind. So far as the Board of Trade is concerned it has taken practically three years of continuous patient negotiation with all the interests connected with the port to produce a sufficient accord to justify the hope and expectation that legislation would be successful, and in this connection I may perhaps be permitted to refer to the extraordinary skill and tact displayed by my right hon. friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in conducting these negotiations, the fruit of which is the Bill itself to which we are asking the House to give a Second Reading to-day.
Now what are the principles of our scheme? In the first place we propose

269
under the Bill to set up a single representative authority to control both the river and the docks, and this authority will combine in itself the powers and functions of the Thames Conservancy as regards the deepening, dredging, and the general improvement of the river, of the dock companies as regards the great system of docks on both sides of the river, and of the Watermen's Company as regards the supervision and control of the barge traffic. These will be what I may term the inherited responsibilities of the new authority, but, in addition to that, under the Bill we impose on the new authority the obligation to take a comprehensive view at the earliest possible moment of the needs and requirements of the port as a whole, so that it may not be merely a question of carrying on matters as they at present stand, but they will take a comprehensive view of the requirements of the port as a whole in order that they may take adequate steps for putting the port in the position in which it ought to be. The second point of principle is this, that the body in the main will be a commercial body composed of individuals who have direct interests in the trade of the port. At the same time it will be a body which may be taken as representing the general public. The main principle of our scheme as regards this is that the body shall be a commercial body, and that it shall be elected on a general register. We do not want men to come and take a hand in the management and direction of the port merely as trade delegates and as representing sectional interests. We want them to come there inbued with the idea that it is their duty to contribute what they can in the way of management to the development of the port for the common good of all and in the interests of all trades. We do not, for instance, want representatives of the corn trade to come and look after grain. Therefore, we have adopted very much the model of Liverpool in having these representatives elected on a general register. The appointed members will represent certain Government Departments, the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, and the municipalities of London—at all events, the London County Council and the City Corporation—and these appointed mem-
270
bers will be presumed to be representatives of the public interest at large. I make that distinction between them and the commercial members. The majority of the Board will be commercial. The Board is not a large Board. The Royal Commission recommended forty members; we have satisfied ourselves with twenty-four—fourteen commercial representatives and ten appointed. The Board will have the opportunity to select its chairman from outside. We think that, is large enough. My right hon. friend pointed out on the introduction of the Bill that good men are scarce, and that it is easier to find twenty-four than forty. My idea is that if twenty-four men cannot run the Port of London, double the number will not be able to do it. It will be a matter of public spirited endeavour on the part of those who take up this responsible work, and the success of the authority will depend on the spirit and the industry of the men who have undertaken the responsibility. The question of numbers will not be the governing factor at all, but the ability and the application of the men who go there to carry out the work. The third main principle, and this is very important, is that the port is to be self-supporting without any contribution or guarantee from the rates. The port authority will be empowered to impose dues on goods as well as on shipping, but within the limit of a maximum fixed with the approval of the Board of Trade. While it will be necessary that the revenue should be adequate to give a satisfactory guarantee to stockholders, still the utmost possible care will have to be taken that the schedule of dues on goods is not such that it will throw on the trade a burden calculated to do injury. I regard that myself as one of the most vital principles of the Bill. We must take care that we do not make the dues unduly heavy on those goods that cannot bear them. I have had experience myself that certain classes of goods would be really unduly handicapped by the imposition of a charge, small as it may appear, of 3d. a cwt., and I daresay the coal trade is one of those industries which would not be able to bear a heavy impost. The special requirements of special trades will have to be considered by the port authority, and the matter fully

271
discussed before the final schedule is arrived at. The Board of Trade stand in this position, that they will have the final word in the matter. The port authority will not be able to settle the schedule itself or consider it definitely fixed until the Board of Trade has given its assent to it, and I regard it as one of the most onerous responsibilities that is committed to the Board of Trade that they shall have to undertake this. They will undertake, as far as they are able, to work out a reasonable schedule, and the House may rely on it that the very best endeavours of the Board of Trade will be directed to doing this. The fourth principle of the Bill is that, unlike the previous Bill we do not contemplate the acquisition of the docks by arbitration. The Bill actually embodies agreements that have been entered into by the Board of Trade with the various dock companies. I need scarcely say that these agreements are subject to the acceptation of the House, and Parliament is supreme in the matter. That is a very distinct difference between the Bill of to-day and the Bill of 1904–5. A great responsibility was undertaken by the Board of Trade when it proceeded to negotiate for the purchase of the docks. It was made perfectly clear that under no circumstances whatever would we be a party to the acquisition of the docks by arbitration. At the same time, however, we left it quite clearly understood that we were perfectly prepared to treat for purchase directly with the dock companies. We also made it quite clear that if we should come to negotiate we could only buy upon terms that would cast no permanent new charge upon the trade of the port by the acquisition of those interests. I may say there was a good deal of what I will venture to call manœuvring before we got to a definite point. But all the interests concerned have now realised our meaning, and they know exactly our attitude, and they gave us to understand that they were prepared to negotiate with us upon that basis. We asked them for access to their books, and that our own engineer should examine the condition of the docks and all works, and that our own valuer should be permitted to report on the various properties, land, and
272
things of that kind which would necessarily have to be included in the purchase. The London and India Docks hold about 750 acres of land, upon which they place a very high value, and, of course, it was necessary for us to ascertain what the value of that land was for the purposes of the undertaking. I may say that we had the benefit of the views of one of the best valuers in the country. We endeavoured to select, and I think we succeeded in our effort, three of the most competent persons to be found in this great city. We employed Mr. William Plender, of the firm of Deloitte, Pleader & Griffiths. Then we had the advantage of the services of Mr. Crutwell, a partner of the firm of John Wolfe Barry & Partners, and we also had the services of Mr. Bousfield, of the firm of Edwin Fox & Bousfield. We are able, I am glad to say, as the result of all this, to state that the revenue to be anticipated from the docks will be sufficient to provide for the charges imposed by the purchase on the new authority. We have ascertained to our own satisfaction that there is at this moment an available revenue based on the average of the figures for a period of six years past sufficient to discharge the interest on the purchase money and the liabilities which the new authority will have to meet. In taking this term of six years, we have included years of very serious depression as well as years when there has been a boom, if I may use the term. Taking the thing all the way through, I think in our estimate we have struck a very happy mean in regard to the revenues which we are likely to receive in the future, and which will he available for the new authority when it takes over the responsibility.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the hon. Member give us the figures?
MR. KEARLEY: Yes, I will. The figures, which are based on the average of six years, give an estimated revenue in round numbers of £808,000. The interest charges on the stock issued by the new port authority are estimated to total about £800,000, so that we

273
have left a margin, although it is a somewhat narrow one.
MR. BARNARD: Why did you take six years?
MR. KEARLEY: We thought that that was a reasonable period, because in those six years there are periods of depression and of trade activity, but as a matter of fact we are satisfied ourselves that this is a fair estimate. There was no obligation upon us to take six years, but we thought that that was a fair period upon which we could make a calculation.
MR. MORTON: Is the £808,000 the net revenue?
MR. KEARLEY: I wish to point out to the House that by the course we have taken and by the arrangements we have made we have avoided entirely the heavy expenses of arbitration. In that particular alone, I think, we have reduced to a minimum the expense of the acquisition of these undertakings. There is another very important point bearing upon what I have already said in reference to the urgency of this matter. We calculate that, by avoiding the long and tedious process of arbitration which is a very laborious matter, we have saved two years. We know now exactly what we have got to pay; we know that we have reduced the purchase to a minimum, and we have saved two years of valuable time. Those, at any rate, are three important particulars in which we have succeeded. This Bill will go to a Committee, and we shall be perfectly ready before that Committee to justify the price to be paid. I notice that some scaremongers have published to the world at large the idea that we have bought at an exceedingly high price. I read an observation of that character in a speech made by the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire, in which he said that we were proposing to pay £75 for the third shares which were notoriously not worth £20. I do not know what the statement of the hon. Member before the Committee will be, but we shall be quite prepared to see him there to justify his accusation. The Government are quite ready to justify before the Committee upstairs every penny that we
274
are going to ask the House to agree to pay for these undertakings.
I think I ought to say a word or two with regard to the position of the wharfingers. We do not propose nor do we think it practical to propose that the new authority should be required to purchase the wharves, although we are perfectly ready to leave the dual authority a free hand in this matter. We say that if they should consider it expedient in the future to purchase the wharves they will be at liberty to do so. Of course I have my doubts upon this matter, but nevertheless we are ready to give the new authority a perfectly free hand in the matter. While saying that, I am bound to admit that we recognise the rights of the wharfingers to have their position fully considered, and we are prepared to consider their case sympathetically. At the present time we are carrying on negotiations with them, and I have the warmest expectation and confidence that we shall succeed in effecting an accommodation with them satisfactory to them and at the same time not detrimental to the interests of the new authority. Whatever arrangement is made with them we must keep in mind the paramount object of our measure and not allow any interest to intervene which will be detrimental to the ultimate object this Bill has in view.
There are one or two other points of principle to which I wish to allude. There is Clause 23, which requires the new authority to take into consideration the methods of engaging casual labour. Everybody knows full well that casual labour in the East End of London, and the methods of employing it, are a great scandal. This question was brought prominently to the attention of the public at the time of the great dock strike, and something was then done to reduce the evil. Nevertheless, I think we should have been neglecting our responsibility if we had failed at this juncture, when the opportunity offered itself, to take some steps to remedy the evil by inserting a clause in the Bill whereby the new authority will be compelled to take into consideration the methods of engaging casual labour so as

275
to ensure as far as possible some degree of regularity of employment, registration and other methods, which will tend to reduce the hardships to a minimum, if not to annihilate them altogether. Then with regard to housing accommodation upon works undertaken by the new authority. We anticipate that the new authority will be compelled to undertake works and carry out large extensions. Consequently it will be their responsibility to provide suitable accommodation for those who will be employed when such works are undertaken. The new authority will have to decide whether the housing accommodation shall be on the spot or not. In my opinion it might be wiser to remove the housing accommodation further into the country. At any rate, wherever new works are undertaken it will be an obligation on the part of the new authority to provide adequate housing accommodation. Then we have taken power under this Bill to give the new authority the power to acquire waste land needed in any development scheme without coming to Parliament, although they will have to approach the Board of Trade, who, in this matter, will be the custodians of Parliament. I know certain kinds of land may be required which cannot be treated in this way, but we have scheduled the area containing all the waste land, and with regard to the acquisition of those particular lands the Board of Trade thinks it is perfectly competent, and Parliament will have sufficient confidence in it to allow it to determine the matter.
All I have said up to this time applies to the Lower River, and it is difficult to say what will happen as regards the Upper River. According to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, we propose to constitute a body of conservators representing all the adjacent bodies and boroughs bordering on the Upper River, and this committee will be responsible for the management of the Upper River. There will be on that committee representatives of the Metropolitan Water Board, the port authority, the Board of Trade, and the various Upper River authorities. I may say that there will be a clear distinction between the two bodies managing the Upper and the Lower
276
River. I know the Upper River is a great pleasure resort much frequented by Londoners, and we hope the new authority will preserve the amenities of the river for the delectation of thousands of people who will no doubt continue to enjoy it. I wish to say, in conclusion, that although some of the interested parties differ from us on some points, they have given us the fullest information freely and they have helped us generally in the preparation of this Bill. I express the hope that through this Bill the future greatness and increased prosperity of the Port of London will be assured. I am going to move later on to refer this Bill to a Joint Committee, and in doing so I am only following the example of Mr. Gerald Balfour upon the Second Reading of the Port of London Bill in 1903. The Government, in asking the approval of the House in regard to the Second Reading of this Bill to-day wish it to be definitely understood that it carries with it in a distinct form the acceptance of our proposals for the purchase of the docks. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid that, having been Chairman of the Thames Conservancy Board for over ten years, he naturally took a deep interest in this Bill. He might safely say that he welcomed the measure which had been brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought it was a great advance on any Bill which had been brought in before because it removed all manner of sores which had appeared in every other Bill, and he thought it dealt fairly with all the interests concerned. Therefore any remarks he made would not he antagonistic, but would be put forward in the hope that some little change would be made in the Bill in one or two respects. His first observation was that he was very sorry the decision had been arrived at to separate the authorities controlling the Upper and Lower River. That separation existed some few years ago, and he might say that it came to utter grief. It was found that they were not able in the Upper

277
River to carry on the management and expense of the administration, because they had no power to put any tax upon adjacent landowners. When the Conservancy Act was passed some years ago the Upper and the Lower Rivers were put under one Board, and to show the financial position of the Upper River the price fixed for the redemption of the debt was only about £5 per cent. He could only say that it was of the utmost importance that the Lower River authority should have the Upper River in its own hands, for this reason. The balk of the water which went into the Lower River came from the Upper River. If the Upper River had the power of dealing with this water as it pleased, what was to prevent it from getting more income by selling to the water companies, thereby depleting to a certain extent the Lower River, which would make dredging much more difficult to carry out, and much more difficult to be maintained. He hoped that the Board of Trade would increase its powers, so that it might take over the Upper River with the Lower River. It was not quite exactly the same now as it was then, because the money got from the water companies, of course, increased the income. There was no doubt that the passenger traffic and the barge traffic was so small that not more than about £2,000 a year could be got in that way, while the upkeep of the locks cost about £16,000 a year. If they had not some powers, they would want to get money to keep themselves afloat. He thought the President of the Board of Trade should look into it and see whether it would injure the principle of the Bill to keep the river one as now, because it would be of great advantage to the scheme if that could be carried out. There was only one other point upon which he wished to say a few words. He was very glad to hear what was stated in regard to waste lands. He considered that in the waste lands lay the future of the Port of London. In foreign ports the question of wharf age was very important, for this reason that ships could be put at once at those wharves in less time than it took to get into docks, but if these docks were built in stages, one above the other, the cargo from various parts of the ship could be discharged at the same time. Railway
278
carriages and wagons could be run alongside the wharves, and the goods from the ships could be raised and placed in trucks at once. If that could be done in the Port of London, it would be a great help, and it would prevent delay on the part of the shippers. Delay was the thing that cost money—the delay in getting into docks and in discharging the cargo at one platform—and it was so large that it prevented a great number of people from coming to London. In other places there was no doubt that the means for the quick discharge of cargo existed. He looked forward to the time when these waste lands would be devoted to this purpose, so that the Port of London would be made far more commodious and expeditious than it was now. Those were the two points he wished particularly to mention to the promoters of the Bill. There was no doubt that they must have a single authority to take up the docks. He doubted very much as to their being so valuable as was stated. He knew that at Hull when the North-Eastern Railway Company took over the docks there they gave something like £250,000 for them at the time, and the railway company spent another —250,000 upon them, and could not perform their duties then, and in fact nearly the whole of the money was thrown away. Of course there was this difference that the smaller ships might get in without any great outlay and expense, but there was no doubt that they could not reorganise these docks, they must give them their present uses. They could not make them into larger docks without serious outlay which would not be remunerative. Therefore, he looked to the time when the suggestion which had been made in regard to utilising the waste lands would be carried out. The value of the wharves was very great, and the point really raised was the competition between the public dock companies and the private wharfingers. The hon. Gentleman had said that negotiations were going on for dealing with the parties, and, therefore, he need not say more on that subject. He could only say that he was glad to see this Bill introduced in such a business-like way, because that was the point they had to look at. He hoped

279
particularly that the question of keeping the two rivers united would be considered.
*MR. CARR-GOMMsaid he rose as a riverside Member to say a few words on the Bill. They were discussing a question of enormous importance, and there was hardly adequate time for going into the details which came under it. When he saw the number of hon. Members on all sides who were to follow, equipped with information and ready to discuss all those questions, he felt somewhat as the fortunate individual must have felt who at the psychological moment entered the Pool of Bethesda in the face of his unsuccessful rivals on the bank. He thought the House would pardon this his first intrusion in debate when he said that his constitutents had to work very close to the river from London Bridge to Deptford Reach, and that they viewed with natural concern and interest the setting up of this new authority in Lon- don. He would not attempt to go into the financial part of the question, because he knew that others would do so. He could only say that the welfare of those who worked on the riverside was being placed in the hands of those twenty-five gentlemen, who, without any guarantee from the rates, had the slightly emharassing task of improving the Port of London, of bringing it up to modern requirements, and of attracting the trade on which the citizens of London would depend. He realised that the finance of the Bill was based, and naturally based, on the replies given by the London County Council to the questions put to them by the Board of Trade, and he saw beneath the veil of official language a certain surprise and indignation that it should be thought that the London County Council should be in any way held to be responsible for the improvement of the port. He could not help thinking that that august body would have done well to have looked at the debates on the Bill which was brought before Parliament by a former President of the Board of Trade. If they had done so, they would have taken a different view as to the burden the ratepayers would have to bear if there had been some guarantee from the rates in con-
280
nection with the proposed reforms. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's spoke of the minute burden on the ratepayers. The present authority had to do without that Speaking for a large portion of his constituency he could only trust that the provision in the Bill would be sufficient, and that there would be a sufficient amount of trade in the Port of London to be able to bear the burden put upon it. He wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for not overlooking the interest of the water-men and lightermen when he took counsel and considered the cases of the various competing interests. The lightermen, he thought, need have no fear about the Bill. They seemed to be in a better position under the present Bill than under the former Bill. Under Clause 8, transferring the powers and duties of the lightermen's Company, the obligation to retain the licence of lightermen and watermen was a point gained. He thought it might be of advantage if it could be found possible for the new authority to work in conjunction with the Watermen's Company in retaining, certainly to a large degree, the system of apprenticeship. When they heard hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House speaking of unemployment they often heard them refer to the disappearance of the apprenticeship system. Here they had a very valuable system which they should retain and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his care for the very worthy watermen who worked on the river-side. He welcomed Clause 23 which he thought was one of the most important in the Bill, referring as it did to casual labour. He had always supported, for his own part, the scheme of labour exchanges for riverside work, and he thanked the Government for this first legislative recognition of the system. Anyone who had had anything to do with labour exchanges must know that the system could only rest upon neutrality; that was, the workers and the employers must have full access to the organisation of the exchanges; and if the exchanges were to be set up under the port authority there must be some control over them. He did not believe the system could be a

281
success if entirely controlled and supervised by the employers, and he therefore felt that first of all in setting up this port authority the labour exchanges and their waiting-rooms must be outside the dock premises, or else some statutory provision should be inserted in the Bill for securing the independence and neutrality of the exchanges. He believed that there was a certain amount of suspicion towards this new system of labour exchanges, and, more than that, in order to make this scheme for drafting a large body of workers up and down the river according to the fluctuations of trade thoroughly practicable and to make he men trust it, they should have them directly represented on the port authority, even though some of their representatives might be appointed as delegates of the London County Council. He believed that they could have men from both the north and south side of the river who understood the needs of labour, whom the men could trust, and who would be able to put the officials of the authority on the track of first-rate men to be engaged. He wished to ask all the members on the opposite side of the House as well as on the Government side to work together so as to get the Bill through this session. They in London had waited for years for this measure, and he only trusted that they had not waited in vain.
*MR. BARNARDsaid he wished to express his approval of the measure, which it appeared to him would solve this long-vexed question ill a most admirable manner. He differed altogether from the hon. Baronet regarding the division of the river into two separate bodies. Like himself the hon. Baronet had been for a long time; a member of the Thames Conservancy, and he was absolutely convinced that there was no other business way of dealing with this question than by separating these divergent interests in the way the Bill did. He was also of opinion that bringing about conferences of all the different interests concerned was the most likely way to get the Bill through. He did not think the House need at present go into the detail of whether one person got a little more or a little less. They could not have
282
accomplished what they had done with any chance of success if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not brought these people together in the way he had. He was very glad to hear from the Secretary to the Board of Trade that negotiations were in progress with the wharfingers, because he felt that that great body should be dealt with reasonably and equitably. He observed that Section 313 in the Thames Conservancy Act was not one of the sections proposed to be repealed by the Bill. Referring to the Watermen's Company, that section said—
"Nothing in this Act shall be held to affect any right, privileges, or exemptions, actually enjoyed by owners of lighters passing along the River Leo and its branches into or from or along the Thames or to affect the persons employed in such lighters."
He assumed that these rights were to be maintained. At any rate that was a matter he would like the Board of Trade to consider. Again, he assumed that the officers of the Thames Conservancy would have the same consideration under this Bill as was granted under the Water Board's Bill to their existing officers. For his part, knowing something of the Water Board, lie was glad they were not going to have again all those arbitration proceedings and heavy expenditure which were incurred when the Water Board Act was passed. Now as to the Upper River. The constitution of the Board for the Upper River was a matter of very serious importance to many of the parties concerned. Speaking as a member of the Water Board, while they disliked the constitution they loyally accepted it as they found it; but he wished to refer to one or two points, not antagonistically, of the proposals of the Board of Trade. It was quite out of the question that the Water Board could carry on their business on the new Upper River authority with only one representative. They provided four-fifths of the revenue of the Upper River, and he would like the Board of Trade to remember that they had to look to the purity of the river and that the water should be maintained in a condition fit to be used for drinking purposes, as at present, or better. He knew that more consideration had been

283
given by the Board of Trade to the consitution of the new port assembly than in previous proposed Bills; but as regards the Upper River, they were going to give representatives to the county councils and certain small boroughs. The question of pollution was very important for the future, and he put it to the Board of Trade that some assurance should be given to them that additional representatives would be conceded to the Water Board, which would not alter the scheme of the Bill in any way, for the upcountry would have always a majority of fifteen or sixteen. This was a matter on which he might reasonably ask for some sympathetic remark from the representative of the Board of Trade. One thing more. They were looking forward to a Rivers Pollution Prevention Bill from the President of the Local Government Board. When that came he dared say it would alter altogether the state of affairs, but meantime they had to take things as they found them. They had in another Act of Parliament the right as a Water Board to ask the Lee Conservancy to put into effect any powers they possessed in regard to pollution, and if they failed to do so they could ask a Government Department to step in and take action. Other Acts contained stepping-in powers. He thought the Board of Trade should put a clause something like that into this Bill. One part of the Bill gave power to the Board of Trade to formulate Provisional Orders to deal in a certain way with enactments and finance and what not. He understood that the intention of the Board of Trade under Clause 6, subsection 6, was to obtain authority to use Provisional Orders for revising the charges leviable by the new Conservators of the Upper Thames. It so happened that a sum of £35,000 was paid by the Water Board to the Board of Trade. Was he right in understanding that this section was not intended to apply to the existing arrangements between the Water Board and the Thames Conservancy or to making any alteration of it?
MR. KEARLEYwas understood to say "Yes."
*MR. BARNARD: One word more. The claim of the wharfingers to a representation on the new port authority seemed to be omitted from the Bill. He thought that claim appeared to be unanswerable and should be conceded. He wished to make it clear that he was personally strongly in favour of the Bill as he found it, and he should like to be able to advise the authorities concerned, in whom he was interested not to lodge petitions against the Bill, but to endeavour to make some arrangement with the Board of Trade.
MR. PERKSsaid that the crux of the question was, as they had just heard from the hint of the hon. Member, that this Bill was going to be fought in Committee by various private interests. It was to be hoped that the Government, or rather the country, would not be subjected to some of those costly inquiries in the Committee room which in past times had characterised the progress of the port schemes for the City of London. Indeed, one of the great troubles in connection with this vast undertaking for the control of the commerce of our capital had been that for at least fifteen years, to the knowledge of many of them who were closely connected, perhaps too closely, with the commercial interests of the city, the dock authorities had not known what on earth was going to happen next. The result had been not merely that the dock authorities had been unable to extend their property and possibly bring some of their appliances up to date, but that they had been practically unable to expend the necessary capital without any certainty at all of regulations which Parliament might make, and which would affect the value of their properties most materially. He did not agree with his right hon. friend who had spoken about the importance of unifying the upper and the lower reaches of the river in their government. He thought that the interests involved in the rural and more attractive sections of the river, and the

285
questions involved in the uses of the river in relation to the towns upon its course, and the water supply of the upper sections of the river, were so totally different in their character from the commercial questions involved in the lower reaches of the river, that the Government had acted very wisely indeed in leaving the lower section of the river under the control of the new authority alone. He suggested to the Government that it would have been somewhat wiser to have extended the limits of this measure down the river. The eastern limit of the authority's port was Havengore Creek on the northern side, and Warden Point on the south side, but if they would consider a little they would see that they had omitted just outside this area some invaluable tracts of waste land which would be of the utmost value to the port authority for utilisation in connection with their great dredging scheme which they proposed to make. Those who were familiar with the port of Hamburg knew well that that port was sixty miles from the mouth of the river, and required something like twenty dredgers constantly at work dredging the channel up to Hamburg. And might he say while he was speaking on this point, that there could be no greater mistake in the world than that which was often made by the critics of the port of London when they adversely compared the channels up the river leading to the Port of London with the channels of Antwerp, Rotterdam, or Hamburg. There were shipowners there who knew far better than he did the facilities of these three ports, but he thought he was perfectly correct in saying that for a rapid journey up the river our river compared favourably with any of the channels of these competing ports. But near the channel which was constantly dredged up to Hamburg by these twenty powerful dredged vast areas of waste land had been utilised and had come to be of great commercial value because they had been utilised as tipping grounds for the dredged material. In consequence of the material being utilised in this way and placed upon them the lands had become of commercial value. He did not see that in this case there had
286
been quite a recognition of the importance of scheduling within its limits these large areas just outside the Havengore Creek, which he thought someone else might utilise some day for the purpose which he had indicated. He had spoken a moment ago of the fallacy of assuming that the approaches to the port were in any way inferior in regard to the character of the channel, and also for facilities for rapidly handling goods, to the ports that had been mentioned as the most formidable Continental rivals across the Channel. He thought that any test which they chose to apply to the port of London would show that, hampered as the port authorities had been by the conditions to which he had alluded and subjected to the irritating interference, if he might say so, on the part of the wharfingers, which had seriously hampered the trade of the port, the port had held its own in a way which some of their critics were not willing to admit. On the subject of the wharfingers he noted with some little interest the negotiations which were pending between the wharfingers and his right hon. friend below him, because at the very bottom of the financial success of the Bill was the importance of retaining at least at its presents level the existing net revenue available for the payment of interest upon the new stock. His hon. Friend opposite had stated the case for the port of Hull, where he said a few years ago one of the railway companies took over some of the big docks, spending a sum of £250,000, and found that the whole of their money was unremunerative. What was the real secret of that? It was that the railway company came under one of those Parliamentary obligations which were so often forced upon railway companies of reducing the rates they knocked the bottom out of their revenue and, therefore, had nothing to pay upon the additional capital that they were called upon to expand. He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would not listen too much to the representations that might be made by the wharfingers, either for a reduction of charges in connection with the docks for discharging over the side in the barges, which had been one of the most

287
serious troubles in the docks, or for setting up some special class of representation of the wharfingers on the new port authority. Might he just say one word in conclusion with reference to the finance of the Bill? He thought he was correct in assuming that the total borrowing powers of the port authority were not to exceed the sum of £5,000,000. He would like to know whether that was exclusive or inclusive of the borrowing powers which were already inherent in the existing dock authority, and the borrowing powers of the existing companies. He was bound to say that this measure was, he thought, a vast improvement upon any proposals which had hitherto been presented to the House. It had the great advantage of not being a State or a municipal undertaking. No guarantee had been asked from the State and no guarantee whatever had been asked from the County Council, or if it had been asked for it had not been given by the County Council. At all events it was not sought in this Bill; it was not asked for in this Bill, and they were not asked for it. As far as he was concerned he thought the Port of London would be likely to flourish in a greater degree the more it kept away from municipal and State control. They were certainly engaged that afternoon upon a not very sensational measure, but he was not at all certain that the measure was not of infinitely greater importance to the commercial prosperity and progress of our capital and port than possibly some other more sensational measures which sometimes came before the House.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that perhaps as representing a borough which was at the entrance of the port he might he allowed for a few minutes to intervene in the debate. It had been very generously stated by the Secretary to the Board of Trade that the present Government in putting forward this Bill were building upon a foundation laid by others, and the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat had stated that the Bill was a great improvement in all respects over all other previous Bills. He was sure the Secretary to the Board of Trade would
288
willingly say that it was not altogether an act of genius on the part of the late President of the Board of Trade in presenting this Bill. He was able to profit by the experience of his predecessors in office, and by that of the promoters of previous Bills, and they were able in this House and outside of it to elicit from the public and from any interests concerned, evidence which had been of great benefit to the Department which the hon. Gentleman so well represented in this House. He would not attempt to deal at all with the financial details of the Bill. He agreed with its main principle, and he congratulated the Government and most sincerely the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on having been able to make arrangements with the competing dock companies. The hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading of the Bill had spoken about conflicting interests. He did not think that he meant to say conflicting interests, but competing interests. These competitive interests had, of course, been difficult to amalgamate, and it was a triumph of departmental skill to have been able to amalgamate them for the purposes of this Bill. Much had been said about the decline of the trade of the Port of London—the comparative decline. He did not think that the Secretary to the Board of Trade had made any such statement. The trade of the Port of London had not declined, and since his right hon. friend sitting below him was a member of a Commission which brought in a Report upon which further efforts in the direction of solving this great problem had been based, the trade of the Port of London had very considerably improved, not through solving or ending of all the problems, but through other considerations. Perhaps the House would allow him to make one or two quotations which were very interesting. He took the years 1900–4. The increase of imports in that period represented 1,207,000 tons, and the increase of exports represented 730,000 tons. This Bill did not excite the jealousy or rivalry of competing ports, and he did not know what attitude the hon. Member for Liverpool took with regard to it, but he had every reason to be satisfied with what Liverpool had done. The increase of imports

289
to Liverpool for 1900–4 were 1,985,000 tons, a very considerable amount more than those of London, and the increase of exports was over 1,000,000. In Hull there was a decrease of 337,000 tons of imports and 687,000 of exports. There was also a decrease in the Tyne ports. So that London had not done so badly in these particular years, and he believed in the last three years there had been a proportionate increase. He only mentioned these figures to emphasise the possibilities of the Port of London of which the Report that his right hon. friend below him signed drew so eloquent and so inviting a picture. Undoubtedly the Port of London had suffered very greatly from the uncertainty of the arrangements and the inadequate provision made. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had referred to the deepening of the river. There was an absolute necessity for deepening the river from the Nore to Gravesend. The great ships could not have that accommodation in the river which was necessary if the trade of the Port of London was to be expanded. When the deepening of the river took place it would require a good deal of money to effect it. But he was of opinion, and that opinion was based on information obtained from many quarters, that perhaps the docks at the present time were not so well managed as they might be.
AN HON. MEMBER: How?
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he would explain in what way. For instance, it was a curious thing that, taking a certain day of the year, the berthing room was not found to be insufficient. That was to say that the number of ships in the different docks represented, in the case of the St. Katherine's Docks, about 70 per cent. of the scheduled accommodation; in the case of the London Dock it was 50 per cent.; in the East India Dock, 30 per cent.; in the West India Dock, 33 per cent.; in the Royal Victoria Dock, 55 per cent.; in the Royal Albert Dock, 55 per cent.; and in the Tilbury Docks. 30 per cent.; the total average of the berthing accommodation used being 43 per cent. That was to say that on a particular day of the year—there was a complaint that there was
290
not sufficient accommodation for the shipping—on a given day in the year only 43 per cent, of the berthing accommodation was being utilised.
SIR F. BANBURY: Does that not arise from the fact that complaint is made by these large ships that they can only get into the Tilbury and not into the other docks.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he was open to correction, but he had not, he thought, made any statement which was contrary to what his hon. friend had just said. What he was going to suggest was, that the berthing accommodation in the clocks in the Port of London was ample, but access to it was impeded by the practice of over-side loading into barges in the docks, and the congestion was clue to the barges in the docks at the present time. The over-side loading in the docks not only incommoded the ships which were themselves in the docks, but other ships that could not get into the docks because of the congestion caused by this over-side transhipment of goods. That was a very serious matter, and he desired to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Government saw any prospect of relieving the congestion caused by over-side loading. They had clearly indicated that the Port of London were to have power to deal not only with docks, but jetties and wharves, and so on and he wished to know whether it was a part of their policy as a result of their investigations that they should recommend the port authority—the recommendation would be in the Bill as part of the general policy—that deep water jetties should be constructed. The construction of deep water jetties would do a great deal to remove from the docks the present congestion. He was sure that the Secretary to the Board of Trade would agree that this was a very serious question, and if, as was stated in the House by many authorities, what he had said was accurate, it would appear that a solution of the problem lay not only in the building of docks, which was a very expensive business, but also in the development of deep-water jetties. These were the words Lord Brassey

291
used in a speech delivered at the Chamber of Commerce in March, 1888—
"At Antwerp and Hamburg deep-water wharves were largely used with advantage as to cost and rapidity of discharge. They should adopt the same system exclusively on the Thames. The rise and fall of the tide but slightly exceeded that of the Elbe. On the left bank there were admirable positions for the constructions of wharves below Tilbury. On the right side a short distance above Gravesend wharves could be built in a straight line for nearly three miles with deep water alongside."
That was a very important statement by an authority who had made a study of commercial, maritime, and naval questions. It was estimated, for instance, that in the royal Albert and Victoria Docks there were 47,250 feet of berthing accommodation. On one particular day there were thirty-nine vessels, occupying 14,619 feet; of these eight were laid up. On another day there were thirty-one vessels occupying 11,201 feet. In the Tilbury Docks there were 13,650 feet of accommodation. On this particular day only 4,571 were occupied. At the Millwall Docks there were 9,120 feet, and the space occupied was 7,827 feet. If, as had been said, the docks were congested, how was it that on that average day there was only that amount of shipping? The facts were, as the private inquiry showed, that there was so much over-side loading of cargo that ships were prevented from coming in. If that was the case, it surely ought to be the considered policy of the Government, and the policy of the port authority, to develop what would be for the benefit of all countries, and a much cheaper and more natural scheme, namely, that of deep-water jetties, as was done in the case of Antwerp, Rotterdam and elsewhere. That would relieve the congestion in the docks.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): That is mentioned in Clause 4.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: I know.
MR. KEARLEY: It is in the Bill in Clauses 2 and 4.
SIR GILBERT PARKERadmitted that the Bill did make provision, that
292
it did include the policy, but he wished to know how much importance was attached to it. Did the Government consider that this particular scheme of deep-water jetties would do a vast deal, not only to relieve the congestion, but also to cheapen to manufacturers and others who had bought goods and those who sold the goods the cost of loading and unloading vessels in the docks? He believed that the cost of loading and unloading was at least 3s. a ton for manufactured goods. It ought not to be so much. It would not be more than 1s. 6d. or 1s. 8d., at the outside, at a deep-water jetty. Then there was another point upon which he would like to ask for some information. He knew it was not wise on Second Reading to go too closely into details, but it would be worth while, as a kind of instruction to the Committee, if the Secretary to the Board of Trade could say whether there would be widely differing charges for produce and manufactured goods coming into the port. Suppose there was a manufacturer who used two or three kinds of raw materials, upon which he was charged a certain rate for unloading. Those raw materials made up produced a finished article. But the foreign competitor sent in a finished article, and the dues for those three kinds of raw materials would be greater than the dues on the manufactured article when it came in. He hoped the Secretary to the Board of Trade would believe him when he said he was not putting this case with any idea of discussing fiscal reform, but it was certainly a matter for consideration.
MR. KEARLEY: All these are matters for the port authority and the Committee.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he had just stated that these details were not to be settled on the Second Reading. The conditions would no doubt be settled by the port authority, but someone must ask for this information. All hon. Members would not be on the Select Committee, and surely it would be well worth the while to have an expression of opinion on a point so important. He was very glad the Watermen's Company had been taken

293
over by the authority on such good terms. The men in his constituency objected to he taken over at all, but that had nothing to do with this point. He was glad they had been taken over on such good terms, but he wanted to ask a question which the hon. Member below had put in 1902 with regard to the officials displaced. He did not know whether any such provision had been made. When the right hon. Gentleman replied to the debate he hoped he would be good enough to say, because it was important, when taking over the powers and authority and business, that due and proper care should be taken of the interests of any officials who were displaced. One point, which, however, he did not want to press at all, but to which an answer perhaps would be given, was this: It seemed to him to be essential that Kent and Essex should be represented. He did not know why they had not been included in the authority. It seemed to him that two counties bordering on the river, with interests of many kinds involved by the operations and the administration of the Port of London, should be represented on the authority. Was there any reason why the county council should not have a member on the body? He agreed that twenty-five was too many. If it could be done by twelve it would be better, because on an authority of that kind it was invariably the case where there were so many that they would say: "Oh, there is sure to be a quorum; there is sure to be sufficient members present," and the temptation to be, he would not say careless, because such men as a rule were not careless, but the temptation to shelve, it might be, their responsibility onto the shoulders of their colleagues was great. Therefore he would support a smaller number or the authority. Still he would like to know the reason for not including a representative of the County of Kent and of the County of Essex on the Board. In conclusion, he thought the Bill would do a great national work in developing the Port of London. It could not be a local work, it must be national; and if the port authority constituted under this Bill were established on fair conditions he thought there was scarcely any criticism which could be made against
294
the general scheme, because it would not increase the rates, and the public would not be suspicious that too much had been given for the properties involved. If the authority does the work that they believed it could do it would restore confidence, which was the best guarantee of progress. If the shareholders were dissatisfied with the terms—and a good many of them were—perhaps hon. Members opposite would think that that was one of the best guarantees that the docks had been acquired on reasonable terms. He believed that the properties, so far as one could judge, had been acquired on reasonable terms. The way seemed open at last to establish a Port of London which would add to the national confidence and prosperity, and the River Thames would be left second to no river in the world, in its prospects and the proportion of success that ought to attend the commercial labours of the Metropolis which was the centre of the great Empire. He gave the Bill hearty and warm support.
*MR. W. BENNsaid he ought to thank the right hon. Gentleman for continuing a friendly interest in the Port of London. The Port of London indeed had need of friends. It was not necessary for him to urge the great need that existed at the present moment for something to be done towards the improvement of the port. They had had a period of six years delay, and in that six years their rivals had made a great advance. In that period the Port of Antwerp had had an increased tonnage entered of 4,000,000; the Port of Liverpool, 2,000,000; Rotterdam, 3,000,000; and Southampton about 1,000,000. And during that period, although it was oil a much greater total, the increase for London had been only 2,000,000. But these figures did not show the real danger. Although the present was to a certain extent satisfactory and secure, the future was unprovided for. In managing a great port they had not only to consider the needs of the moment but the needs of the future; and during those six years no provision had been made, or very little, for the future of the Port of London. It was quite true that the Thames Conservancy had carried out

295
part of the dredging work recommended by the Royal Commission. It was also true that some of the dock companies had made extensive improvements. But while they bad been waiting for the comprehensive scheme now introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, it had been impossible to make any efforts such as were necessary. If this Bill immediately passed into law it was still possible that they might have to suffer for eight years of neglect. During the last ten years, Liverpool had spent £8,000,000 on her dock accommodation. Antwerp had spent £9,000,000 in about the same period on docks and quays. These amounts were amounts of cash actually expended, but in prospect there were still greater improvements which threatened the prosperity of the Port of London. Liverpool had acquired powers and land for an expenditure of £4,000,000. Antwerp had a heroic programme involving the expenditure of £12,000,000, and within five years two docks out of nine were to be finished. Rotterdam had acquired the necessary land for 750 acres of new docks; and, as they knew, Southampton was constructing a dock which would take the largest ship afloat. It was quite clear that London stood in need of a policy of bold reform, and he thought in the first two clauses of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman they saw the promise of that reform. In these clauses as to the controlling authority, on which the duty was laid to take the necessary steps for the improvement of the port, they saw the essence of the scheme, and as to the general principle of the Bill he supposed everyone would be agreed. He would like to say a word about the position of the wharfingers. He would like the right hon. Gentleman, if he spoke later, to say something more as to the position of those traders. It seemed to him that they were left to compete with the docks managed by a public authority, an authority which had power to create new wharves, perhaps those deep-water jetties which seemed to be such a promising venture. In addition, charges were to be made on the lighters by which the wharves were fed. He thought the Bill bore with some hardship on the wharfingers who, in the past, had done
296
much for the prosperity of the Port of London. The principle of administration in the Bill, the principle adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that they should secure the management of the docks by business men. The right hon. Gentleman had abolished the separate representations of conflicting interests by setting up a common register from which the elected representatives should be chosen. His principle was that the control of the Port of London should be by those who depended upon it, but it seemed to him that he had omitted one very important section—he referred to the labouring men who worked in the docks. There were 13,000 men employed in the docks and wharves of the Port of London, and although their individual interests were small, the interest of each was his whole livelihood. He happened to know from his experience in his own constituency that these men very often earned a very precarious living. By Clause 23 he saw that the duty was laid on the new authority of considering the question of casual labour and dealing with it. He thought that clause alone was sufficient ground on which to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to admit d direct representation of labour, by allowing a representative to be on the part authority. The right hon. Gentleman knew much better than he how that could be done. It might possibly be by nomination by the Board of Trade. If it were said that the London County Council had power to select two men from outside its own body to be nominated to this authority, then he should reply that those two representatives were there to represent London. London's port was the greatest of all its interests, and the claim of the workingman for a representative was based on exactly the same grounds as the claim of the wharfingers or the shipowners—it was the claim that he had his daily livelihood at stake in the welfare of the part. While on that question of labour he would like to mention another and perhaps a small matter. He must apologise to the House for mentioning those small matters, but he was not quite certain what other opportunities they would have of bringing them forward. The matter to which he referred was the licensing of lightermen. At

297
the present moment licences to lighter-men were issued by the Court of the Watermen's Company, and that power of licensing the lightermen was transferred by this Bill to the new port authority. They had a perfectly free hand to make whit conditions and what regulations they liked for the issue of licences, with one very wholesome saving restriction, that the man licensed must have two years practical experience on the river. The Court of the Water-men's Company was a body of freemen of the Thames, many of whom had had a long practical experience in the work of the river, and they were able to take, further, a fatherly interest in the welfare of the apprentices on the river, and maintain that pride in their calling of Thames watermen, with which Dibdin has made them familiar. He ventured to urge on the right hon. Gentleman that it might be possible that instead of setting up a new committee, as would have to be done, of the port authority to issue these licences, the Court of the Watermen's Company might be allowed to issue the licences subject to any regulations which the port authority might lay upon them. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had here a most unusual opportunity of combining even ruthless efficiency with the preservation of an historical institution. The income of the new authority was to be largely derived from rates on goods. He would like to point out that it would obviously be unwise to put a heavy tax on transhipment goods which required to be handled cheaply, and there would be great danger of those goods being driven away to competing ports which were taking more than their fair share of them, if heavy rates were imposed. He would like to refer to the present attitude of the London County Council in this matter. He must apologise for criticising so important a body in which he had only the most slender hereditary interest. The London County Council was asked in December of last year whether they would guarantee the port stock, and whether they were prepared to find £2,500,000 as recommended by the Royal Commission. The guaranteeing of the port stock meant a saving of
298
half per cent. on the enormous capital of the dock enterprises—possibly a revenue of —150,000 a year. If power was given to the new authority to rate goods there was practically no risk. These propositions were not new. The Royal Commission has made these recommendations, and the previous London County Council had agreed to them. They had been before the public and had been very amply discussed for six years, but it was three months before the London County Council could find it possible to make an answer to the Board of Trade, and when the answer did come in March it was a halting answer, to the effect that they were not able to guarantee the stock, and that they were of opinion that it was not necessary to provide £2,500,000 for deepening the river, because the Thames Conservancy was carrying out that work. He might remind the House that the Thames Conservancy was spending something less than one-sixth of that sum, and, further, was spending it out of a revenue which was urgently needed for other purposes by the new port authority. In face of the keen competition of Antwerp and Rotterdam, two ports which were lavishly financed with municipal and State money and run with a single eye to efficiency and cheapness, he thought the London County Council was woefully wanting in appreciation of its duty when it refused to undertake these obligations. In conclusion, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the Bill and expressed the hope that this new authority, though heavily handicapped, might do something to bring to our traders, and above all to those humble people whose welfare depended on the Port of London, a new era of prosperity.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated in the opening part of his speech that he hoped good terms would be made with the watermen, and also that they might make deep water jetties later on, because otherwise they would be competing with a rate-aided authority. Then he had expressed the view that that would be rather hard on these particular people, and he had concluded

299
his remarks by saying that he regretted that this body, which was not a rate- aided authority, was not made one. The two remarks were absolutely incompatible. If the London County Council had followed the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman then indeed wharfingers and others would have been subjected to a rate-aided competition which certainly would not have been fair, but as it was, under the present Bill, they practically could compete with what to all intents and purposes remained a private enterprise. The hon. Gentleman had stated that if the County Council had guaranteed this loan there would have been a saving of ½ per cent. per annum, which would have amounted to £150,000 a year. He did not admit that that was correct, but he left out of his statement the fact that they would have had to provide £2,500,000, which would have been a very serious thing for them to do, and that would have taken away the advantage of the saving. But he did not admit that that saving was correct. How did he arrive at it? He presumed, though the hon. Member did not tell them, that he arrived at it on the assumption that the dock shareholders would have taken a less sum if the London County Council had guaranteed the issue. But that was only his opinion. He was not himself interested one way or the other in the London docks. He spoke merely as a Member for London. But what had taken place was that the shareholders in the docks had been given the average amount of their income for the last six years with a margin of £8,000. That was not a very large margin and those were not terms which would admit of any reduction. His hon. friend asked "Why six years?" He was not a member of the Government, but he presumed it was because the Government wished to be very carefull. The ordinary average taken in purchasing business was three years, and the Government, wishing to be careful—he was always prepared to give them credit when they deserved it—took six years instead of three, and they took six years during which there were periods of prosperity and periods of depression, and therefore he thought they had taken a proper period. But having done that, was it likely that the shareholders would have
300
said: "We will sacrifice part of our income, which has been arrived at by an average spread over six years, merely because the London County Council is going to guarantee the stock." They wanted their income; they did not want the guarantee, and he maintained there would have been no saving if the London County Council had guaranteed the stock. He always endeavoured to criticise, he hoped with fairness, the actions of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in his place. On this occasion he thought they had done very much better than his own Party did two years ago. He was not in favour of that Bill, and he thought that on the whole this Bill was an extremely good measure. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not object to that criticism, coming as it did from an opponent. But it was not the fault of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Bill was a good Bill. He happened to have some little knowledge of what took place some few months ago. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had his way he would have committed the very errors that his hon. Friend below him committed. It was only because the London County Council refused to do what he asked them to do that he had proposed what in his opinion was an extremely good Bill. He would give the right hon. Gentleman the credit of having the courage, when he could not get his own way, to get another way. He did not want to say very much upon the Bill, but there was one clause in it—he was not quite certain what the effect of it was going to be but it made the dock companies a railway. He was not certain that terminal charges were not mixed up in that, and he hoped that if that clause was found to damage the railway companies, they would have the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not know that it would. The hon. Gentle man said it would not. He did not make a point of it, but he happened to notice it and he thought he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what the effect would be. There would be, he was afraid, a certain amount of opposition. He held in his hand a circular from the London Short Sea Traders' Association, which

301
no doubt the right hon. Gentleman had, in which it was said that Amendments of the gravest character were absolutely necessary to avoid irretrievable disaster, and then were other statements in the same strain. Of course, the Bill would inflict, he thought, an increase in the rates which they would have to pay, but in return for that they would get increased facilities. If they got increased facilities they had to pay for them. There was no question about that. The idea that they were going to get facilities without paying for them was absurd. The reason, he thought, that it was necessary that something should be done in regard to the dock question was not that the docks had been badly managed, as the hon. Member for Gravesend said, but because they had not been able to get the money, the enterprise not having been very profitable up to the present. That being so, it was absolutely necessary that someone should step in, and provide some means by which the improvements of the river and of the port could be carried out. Naturally the people who were going to gain by that would have to pay something towards it. Those would be the large ship owners, and he did not think they ought to make any objection. His hon. friend the Member for Gravesend had said the docks were more or less empty, and the reason of that was that they were filled up by barges. Of course the question of free water, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, was a very big question, and on the face of it, it seemed that it was hardly fair. On the other hand, he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had preserved the free-water rights, as he understood he had, with the exception of a small licence which the barges would have to pay, because those rights had been given for more than 100 years. He thought they were statutory rights. They had always been very advantageous to the Port of London, and they could not really be taken away without heavy compensation. He would point out to the hon. Member for Gravesend that there was nothing under the Bill, as he understood it, to prevent the port authority, when constituted, from expending fresh money on other docks or upon (deep water quays, and really he thought that
302
ought to be left to the authority. They could not discuss that question when they knew very little about the pros and cons of the matter. He was glad the number of the authority was not to be too large. He himself would much sooner have seen twelve or thirteen than twenty-five, not for the reason given by his hon. friend, that the members might be inclined to evade their responsibility, but, first of all, because they would more easily get twelve good men than twenty-five. The world was so constituted that there was not a great number of really first-class men in it.
MR. CROOKS: The one and only.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not know who that was. Did the hon. Member mean the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If so, he was rather inclined to agree with him, though he would not put it quite so high as that. But it was difficult to get men of ability, and unfortunately, if they got a large number of men, they were likely to get some, and they were the men of least ability, who would always differ when anything was proposed, and consequently nothing whatever would be done. Therefore he was glad the number was not more than twenty-five, and he would have preferred a smaller number. He again congratulated the Government upon having brought in a Bill upon which he thought the present London County Council ought also to be congratulated, because it was owing to them that they had a good Bill and not a bad one.
*MR. DICKINSONfelt that the compliment which had been paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the hon. Member for the City of London was one of doubtful significance. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. He thought the warm-hearted approval which the hon. Member for the City had given afforded them some little ground for hesitation as to the absolute merit of this measure, but at the same time he did not rise in any spirit of opposition to the Bill. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Board of Trade for having brought forward this measure, and having placed them

303
at last within sight of a solution of the greatest problem that London had ever had to deal with. Might he also, at the same time, express his high appreciation of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary to the Board of Trade had gone into all the pros and cons of the question and weighed the arguments for and against the various solutions which had been brought forward. He felt certain that the Bill had at any rate been the result of very careful consideration. It was now nearly twenty years since this question was first mooted on the London County Council. The Secretary to the Board of Trade was quite right in saying that in 1887 the ship owners approached the Thames Conservancy Board with a View to obtaining an improved channel in the river; but it was not until the County Council was established some time that any effective action was taken in this matter. One of the earliest questions brought before Parliament by that newly elected body was that of reconstituting the Thames Conservancy Board and later on the question of the Port of London. It was at the instigation of the London County Council that the Royal Commission was appointed to investigate the whole subject of the administration of the Port of London. He mentioned that fact for two reasons. First of all he wished to say that the delay which had already taken place I in the settlement of this question had proved to be so disadvantageous to the port that, although he might not be altogether in accord with the actual solution now brought forward, he felt justified in accepting this measure rather than do anything which might possibly leave the problem undealt with. His second reason was that his experience had convinced him that this question would not have been advanced to its present position had it not been for the action of the representative authority of London, and although he quite realised that under the circumstances of the case it had been impossible for His Majesty's Government to establish the new Port authority upon a municipal basis, at the same time he could not help saying that he viewed that decision with great regret. It was of the utmost importance that the trade
304
of London should not be treated as an interest separate from the interests of the whole of London. London depended for its very existence on its port and its port depended upon Londoners. Therefore, the attention of the people of London ought to be constantly kept attracted to the management of the Port of London. When public interest was directed to a question of this kind then great things were done, and they saw illustrations of that fact in other towns. They saw it in connection with the greatest of the rival ports. What had made Antwerp London's great rival? It was simply the municipal spirit in Antoverp which had inspired the public authority to spend enormous sums of capital in the development of that harbour. The same might be said of other towns. In Bristol, for instance, the upkeep of the port was a matter of the greatest interest to the people there because the corporation had it under its own care. To take another example, when the Manchester Ship Canal was made it got into very low water at first, and at last the Manchester Corporation advanced money in return for which they obtained the right to appoint a majority of the members on the Board of Management. The result was that the interests of the Manchester Ship Canal immediately became the interests of the people of Manchester, and now he believed that the Manchester Ship Canal was slowly becoming successful. He did not, however, ask the House to dwell on that point, because they had now another solution brought before them, and that was, to use the words of the Secretary to the Board of Trade, the appointment of a commercial body. He was himself rather doubtful as to whether they were not pursuing a fetish in imagining that they would obtain better service from such a body than from a body composed upon the principle of popular election by the people. He knew it was quite true that the system now suggested held good in Liverpool and had been successful there; but at the same time he was doubtful whether under the conditions which prevailed in London they would succeed in attracting business men into this service any more by this system than by giving the power of election to the public.

305
The Government itself appeared to entertain some doubt upon this subject, because they proposed that all the first members who were to represent the trade interests were to be appointed by the Government and not by election. The new authority would be a body composed of twenty-four members, of whom however, not more than three would be men who were in direct touch with the people of London. He knew that this was not the fault of the Government. The constitution of an authority on these lines was inevitable because, from the very first time when a municipal system was proposed, it had met with the most strenuous opposition, not only from traders, but from a great many others. Those who had followed this question for years realised that it would have been quite impossible, in view of this opposition, to propose for the management of the Port of London any system similar to that which had been al opted in Bristol, and lately this solution had been rendered all the more impossible 'by reason of the fact that the present London County Council had taken an entirely different view from that which had been adopted by the former London County Council, and desired to have nothing to do with the Port of London. That being so the only question which they had now to consider was whether this authority, which would have to stand, so to speak, on its own bottom, would be started in such a financial position that it was certain to be successful. Whatever was done there was no doubt that the new port authority would have a very difficult task to perform. It would be bound to raise all its money from the trade of the port, and at the same time it would have to keep the trade from leaving the port. London was subject to very keen competition not only by Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg, which were its great competitors, but also from ports like Harwich, Southampton and Dover; and a very little might drive away the trade from the Thames to some of those other ports. That was the reason which had led the former London County Council to make its proposal to help the new port authority, by mans of the
306
rates. It was most important that this new authority should have a fair start from the very beginning, and he thought there was at the present moment room for considerable doubt as to whether this would be the case. The Memorandum circulated by the Board of Trade stated that it was anticipated that the revenue transferred would be sufficient to meet the obligations which would be transferred under the Bill. It had been explained that an estimate had been drawn up based upon a careful investigation made by eminent accountants into the affairs of the companies. That investigation had been made upon what was termed in the Memorandum: "The adjusted earnings of the companies." That expression was one which was open to a good deal of suspicion. He knew very well what "adjusted earnings" had meant when they dealt with the London water companies. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill the Secretary to the Board of Trade hid stated that an estimate taken over a period of six years was sufficient to entitle him to say that the income of the new authority would be sufficient to meet the expenses. The hon. Member took his average over a period of six years, but if the average had been taken over a period of three years it would have shown a lower figure; and if it had been taken over a period of eight years the result would not have been so satisfactory. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had taken the average income at £800,000, but the average for the last three years came out at about £750,000, and the average over a period of eight years at about £770,000. He preferred, however, to take the actual figures of last year. Last year the dock receipts of the dock companies amounted to £2,385,000. The expenditure of the dock companies plus the interest fiat would have to be paid to the stock holders and the expenditure which would be involved in compensation to the directors and the cost of transfer, amounted to £2,443,000, leaving a deficit of £58,000. The Bill proposed to allow the new authority to raise new income by doing away with the privilege which the passenger steamboats possessed at the present moment, and by charging licensing fees on barges.

307
He believed that these two items had been estimated to realise about £30,000. That still would leave a deficit on the first year's working. It was true that the Thames Conservancy receipts exceeded their expenditure, the reason being that the Thames Conservancy had recent obtained the right to levy new tonnage dues, but that right had been given for the express purpose of expenditure on dredging, and the new body would not be justified in applying that to the ordinary management of the docks, so that, so far as he could see, there was a deficit of something like £28,000 on the first year's working of the docks.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): May I ask my hon. friend how he arrives at that figure? I think he said that he included the amount which was paid as compensation to the directors. Does he include that as a capital amount, or has he put it in the estimate for the year? The other point I wish to ask is whether he has put in the payment on account of bridges into the expenditure of the year, and whether he bears in mind that there will be no payment of the kind in next year's estimate?
*MR. DICKINSONsaid the payment which he had put into the year's expenditure was for the annual payment in respect of the compensation payable to the directors, and that he understood to be £3,800. And there was I also a similar addition in respect of the cost of transfer. The interest charges amounted to £812,000, because there was, he understood, a mortgage charge of £12,000 in addition to the figure given by the hon. Gentleman, and that brought up the amount to £2,443,000.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Does my hon. friend include directors' fees? There will be no directors' fees.
*MR. DICKINSONsaid that possibly this had not been eliminated from the expenses of management and he might be incorrect in regard to that item. But supposing they eliminated that, there still would be, so far as he could see, a small deficit, according to the figures of last
308
year's account, the figures of last year's account being, of course, worse than the figures based on the average of the six years. And further, this left Out of consideration altogether the question of new capital, and there could be little doubt that the new authority would be bound to spend capital to no inconsiderable extend, and to spend it at a very early period, because the capital expenditure on the docks had not been kept up as it ought to have been, and it was essential that the new authority should expend capital at the earliest possible moment. The expenditure of £1,000,000 only would involve for sinking fund and interest an annual charge of £46,000. He had quoted these figures not in the least degree wishing to appear hostile to this agreement, but because they appeared to him to be of immense importance as affecting the future position of this new authority. There were two great difficulties which would confront the new authority. First of all, there was the question whether any, and if so, what dues they were to impose on goods in order to make good their revenue, and secondly, there was the questing how best to obtain the new capital which would have to be raised. In regard to the question of dues on goods, that was a proposal which had indeed obtained the assent of the Royal Commission, but it was one which with great respect he ventured to think had never yet been thoroughly investigated at any public inquiry. The County Council in its proposals had advocated an increase in the tonnage dues on shipping, rather than the in position of duties on goods, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman must feel, and they all must feel, that the imposition of new duties on goods was at any rate a very risky experiment. They could not foresee the effect which such duties might have. The Royal Commission recommended that the dues should be of very small amount and that they should be levied only on imports and not upon exports, but this Bill proposed that the dues should be on imports and exports, and inasmuch as in the Port of London a very large proportion of the trade was in the shape of what was called re-exports, he was of opinion that this proposal might have a very serious,

309
effect on the general trade of London as a port.
SIR F. BANBURY: I thought that transhipment was exempted under this Bill.
*MR. DICKINSONsaid that as he read the Bill there was a clause which enabled the new authority to make exemptions, and he supposed that would include an exemption on the transhipment of goods, but this was only a small part of the re-export trade. Again, the imposition of duties might affect very seriously indeed a large class of persons whose business was of the greatest importance to London, namely, the manufacturers who had their factories on the banks of the River Thames. At the present moment the fact that they could get their goods there free from the imposition of duties was of great value to them. But, in any case, he submitted that the imposition of new duties on goods should be the very last resort of the new authority, and if it was possible, as personally he believed it would be, to obtain the necessary money for the first two or three years by a small increase in the tonnage dues on shipping, that would be better than the too hurried establishment of a new system of taxation of goods. What he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman was that the whole question as to whether or not there should be dues on goods should be left to the discretion of the new authority. The Bill, as he understood it, made it obligatory on the new authority to present a schedule of duties within six months. If the new authority could have a year, or two years, in which to consider the whole question as to the best means of raising additional revenue he thought the subject might be better considered than had been the case hitherto. There was a second point to which he wished to refer, and that was the importance of giving to the new authority facilities for raising money at the cheapest possible rate. They would have to borrow money at a very early date and they would borrow under conditions that were by no means satisfactory. The London County Council had formerly
310
offered to guarantee the loans to be raised by the Port authority, and there was no doubt that that would not only have improved the security but also made the loan a trustee security, and by that means some £125,000 a year would have been saved to the new authority upon its total capital expenditure. The present County Council had refused to give that guarantee and there was, of course, no means now of giving that advantage to the capital required for the purchase of the dock companies. He desired, however, to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that such advantage might be very well given to the new capital. The Bill treated new capital, he thought, rather unfairly. It gave absolute priority to the A. stock, which was to be handed over to the debenture stockholders, and it compelled the new authority to borrow its new capital as B. stock, which was to be a 4 per cent. stock, and would be worth about £100. If it was stock equal to the A. stock the value would be about £111. What he would suggest to the Government was that if possible they should give priority to the new capital over the capital which was to be issued to the dock companies, and at the same time obtain what he believed it might be possible to obtain, namely, the guarantee of the London County Council to a limited amount of new stock, say, to the extent of £5,000,000 or £7,000,000. By that means there would be on the issue of that stock a saving of £30,000 or £40,000 a year. He hoped that that was not inconsistent with the agreement come to with the companies. The dock companies had got so satisfactory an arrangement that they could very well afford to allow that priority to be given to the new capital. He did not wish to criticise the terms of the agreement. He believed that the choice of the right hon. Gentleman was between that agreement and arbitration, and his knowledge of arbitration led him to know that the price paid to the companies might well have been more than that which the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to. But at the same time they were bound to bear in mind that the shareholders in these companies had obtained very considerable advantages. The market value of the stock to be issued to them would be at

311
least £1,500,000 more than their holdings were worth in June of last year, and nearly £1,000,000 more than they were worth quite recently in the present year. Their aggregate income would be some £34,000 more than the dividends they received last year, so that their position was really secured, and they might very well give the advantage suggested. It would not be unfair even to the debenture stockholders since the value of their stock had been considerably increased. For example, the stock which was to be issued to the holders of the £443,000 5 per cent. debenture stock of the Millwall Company would be worth some £70,000 more than that stock was worth in February last. By giving priority to the new stock they would only be putting the companies in the same position which they would have been in if they had had to borrow the capital themselves. The whole question of the success or the non-success of this new body depended upon very small figures. The margin one way or another would be very narrow, and he hoped that some arrangement might be come to which would place it in a better position financially than it would occupy under the terms of the present Bill. He was glad to hear from the Secretary to the Board of Trade that the figures on which the agreement had been made would be before the Committee. He understood that the agreements would have to stand or fall as a whole, but if the Committee could investigate the facts and figures upon which they were based no one could take exception to such an arrangement.
*MR. BONARLAW: I do not propose to deal with the criticism on the financial position of the Bill suggested by the hon. Member for St. Pancras. That is the part of the Bill for which the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer is responsible, but I do not think it would be very difficult to answer the criticisms of the hon. Member, because he based his objection on the returns of a single year and that the worst year for the docks. The hon. Member had to admit that even so there would be a very small credit balance or a very small deficit. If that is all that can be said against the financial position of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman who is respon-
312
sible for it has no reason to complain. Before I make a few remarks on the Bill itself, I hope it will not be considered out of place if I offer, as the only Member on this side of the House who had any connection with the Department, the late President of the Board of Trade my congratulations not only on his change of office, but still more on the successful administration of the Board of Trade while he was there. During the time the right hon. Gentleman was at the Board of Trade the Opposition on almost every occasion supported and agreed with the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. That I attribute entirely to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, in the administration of the Board of Trade, treated every question on its merits, as every trade question ought to be. It is for that reason that he has had very little opposition from the Party of which I am a Member. I am glad to say that the Bill which we are discussing is one which on the whole I regard favourably, and I would be sorry if it did not get quickly into Committee. I cannot help thinking, however, that the anticipations which have been raised as to the great benefits that are going to result from the Bill are very likely to meet with some disappointment. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh."] That is my feeling, and both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Board of Trade dwelt in a way which other Members have not dwelt on the difficulties which are to be encountered in this matter. The more I had to do with it in connection with the late Government, the more I was impressed with these difficulties, and during the time since then, experience has made me feel that these difficulties are even greater than I imagined. I think it is possible that the Bill as we now have it is the best method available for dealing with the subject, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it is not by any means an ideal solution of the matter. I am bound to say that there is an immense amount of exaggeration as to the conditions which now prevail in the Port of London. Let me indicate to the House the kind of arguments which have been used to show how bad the conditions of the Port of London are. It is constantly pointed

313
out that the entrepôt trade is declining not absolutely, but relatively. Anyone who knows anything of the subject knows that that is a change which is due to the changed conditions in which the trade of the world is carried on. It is due largely, and almost entirely, to the fact that there has been an immense expansion in the trade of the world, and that there are now connections with and from all sorts of places. For instance, in my own experience there was only one line of sailing ships running direct from Glasgow to Australia. The great bulk of the trade went direct from London, whereas now there are direct lines of steamers from Glasgow to Australia; and the same thing applies to other ports in our own country. Still more does this apply to all the great Continental nations for whom London used to act as an entrepôt, and who have now themselves direct lines of steamers which compete, and successfully compete, with the lines that go from this country. It is evident that that trade has been developed not on account of the conditions which prevail in the Port of London at present. Personally, I believe that that change is going to become more marked in the future, and I do not think that anything we can do would keep that trade to the Port of London. Another argument used, and this was employed by the Secretary to the Board of Trade, is the great and rapid increase in the trade of Hamburg, Rotterdam, and Antwerp, as contrasted with the comparatively slow increase in that of London. There again, that argument ignores entirely the immerse change which has taken place in the trade conditions of the world. The rapid increase of the Continental ports I have named is due mainly to the far more rapid increase in the total trade of their respective countries, as compared with the total trade of the United Kingdom during the same period. To make that point clear to the House I went to-day into the actual figures of the trade expansion in the several countries since 1890. I cannot give them absolutely accurately, because, while the figures for some of the countries are available down to 1907, in other cases. I have no later Returns than 1905. The result, however, is pretty accurate. Since 1890 the expan-
314
sion of the total trade of the United Kingdom, imports and exports combined, has been altogether about £380,000,000; but during the same time the expansion of the total trade, imports and exports combined, of Germany, Holland, and Belgium has been nearly twice as much—nearly £700,000,000. It must be obvious to everyone that that great growth in the trade must lead to a corresponding growth in the trade of the ports in these counties through which the trade passes. Nothing we can possibly do can prevent the ports of those countries from growing in some proportion to the rapidity of the total expansion of the trade of those countries. Another argument is that the docks of London as compared with those of Liverpool and Antwerp are not up-to-date. I remember reading a remark by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had been visiting the London and Liverpool Docks, in which he pointed out the inferior condition of the London Docks. But you cannot possibly compare a port like London with a port like Liverpool. The conditions are entirely different, and for this reason, that in Liverpool, when goods leave the ship, the whole handling is done on land. Now, in Liverpool I am told that the lowest rate for car age is 1s. per ton, and in London 2s. 6d. There is an essential difference, and it is that the transport in Liverpool is done by land, and in London almost entirely by water, and water is, on the whole, a cheap transport. Of course, I admit that in London the docks are not up to date, but still they are not nearly so bad as they are represented. Whatever the changes may be it will not be in the direction of making the docks more and more like those of Liverpool; but it will be in improving the facilities for transport by water instead of by land. There is another consideration which I think has not previously been pointed out. All the trade done at present outside the docks will not be under, the complete control of the new authority. When people talk about the disadvantages of London, I ask hon. Members to realise that the trade done in the river and outside the docks—and that is nearly half the trade of the port—is done on conditions which are cheaper than can be found in any other great port in this country, if not in the world. There are

315
no dues on goods; dues on ships are very small, something like 2d. per ton. The result is that for that part of the trade the conditions are as good as they possibly can be. My hon. friend the Member for the City of London talked of the representative bodies which had many objections to this Bill. That is natural. Look at it from the point of view of those who are conducting the trade now carried on, not in the docks but in the river. To them it seems that what we are proposing to do is to put taxes on half the trade they are conducting in the Port of London in order to improve the condition of the other half of the trade with which they have nothing to do. That is what happened to a considerable extent. Now I will tell the House why it is that in spite of holding these views I still think that a Bill on these lines is necessary. My reason is that you cannot look upon the trade of London in part, but you must look upon it as a whole. It is no use to have one-half of the trade of London done under the most favourable conditions in the world, if the other half is done in the docks, and conducted under very unfavourable conditions. Let us suppose, for example, that the facilities in the river become better and better, but that the clocks become worse and worse, until they are quite unable to take in the biggest ships. In the long run the result will be that the consumers in London will pay more for what they receive than they would have to do if proper conditions prevailed in the Port of London. Take for example the case of Liverpool. Liverpool has spent immense sums of money upon dredging the river to a great depth, although the ships requiring that depth are very few in number. And yet in Liverpool nobody suggests that the cost of deepening the river should fall only on those ships which need a great depth of water. Liverpool proceeds on the principle that it is in the interests of the port as a whole that it should be able to take in the biggest ships, and they believe that such accommodation should be paid for not by those large ships alone, but by the trade of the port as a whole. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last took excep-
316
tion to raising dues on goods at all, but that is only part of his natural conservatism. He is not accustomed to dues on goods. I have heard charges made against the right hon. Gentleman that this is another measure in favour of tariff reform because it proposes to put dues on goods. I do not, however, see where that comes in, because the dues are to be put on our own goods as well as those which come from foreign ports. It does, however, mean a broadening of the basis of taxation. If you put all the charges for the port on the ships, the ships will, of course, have to charge higher freights, and the consumer will pay in precisely the same way, because those trades are regulated by the charges at the ports. I agree that theoretically it would make no difference whether the revenue was raised wholly on the ships or partly on ships and partly on goods. If business was done entirely on mathematical lines, it would make no difference, but even business is more psychical than mathematical. It is quite true that a shipowner before putting his ship on a voyage makes a calculation which includes the expenses in the ports where the ship loads and where it discharges its cargo, but if the impression becomes general that London is an unusually dear port, the effect of that will be that shipowners who do not make their calculations with mathematical accuracy will become afraid of the Port of London, with the result that there will be less competition amongst them, and the effect will be that while you think you are saving the consumer by not putting any dues on goods you are really making him pay more by putting on higher freights that if the port were a cheap port. I should like to refer briefly to one or two of the provisions in the Bill itself. I was not hurt by the criticism of my hon. friend behind me and others to the effect that this Bill is a great deal better than the one which was introduced by the previous Government. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will believe that if four years afterwards we introduced a new Bill it would have some improvements on the old Bill, and I will not take up the time of the House dealing with the differences between the two Bills, except in those

317
instances where they have some bearing upon the present situation. With regard to rate-aid, I entirely disagree with my hon. friend behind me. Personally, I do not see any difference whatever between what is called rate and the power to levy dues required to meet the expenses of the port authority. There is really no difference between the two. I agree also with those hon. Members who have said that the interests of the Port of London and the City of London are identical. I was, therefore, in favour of obtaining rate-aid for our Bill on the ground that it would enable us to borrow money more cheaply, with the result that London as a whole would get the benefit. That is a different view from the attitude taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who seem almost to resent the fact that the London County Council has not to pay something, although they are getting nothing in return for it. Under our Bill the House will remember that it was compulsory on the docks to take payment in port stock, and we were bound to see that that stock was as safe as we could possibly make it, because the usual thing was that under such circumstances payment should be made in cash. If I had been a member of the London County Council and had possessed control on the two occasions, I should have been willing to give a guarantee on the last occasion and I should not do so now, because there is a great difference in the monetary conditions on the two occasions. From the point of view of London, at the present moment nothing is more important than to raise the credit of the County Council's loans in London; and even from their sown point of view it might really pay London better that a little more should be paid in interest if necessary, than that the rise which was taking place in the stocks should be limited. Anyone who looks at this question from that point of view will conclude I think, that the port will have no difficulty in standing on its own merits. If you have the power of levying rates and dues the port stock is, in my opinion, practically as safe as the rate-aided stock of the City of London. It should not be overlooked that London is unlike other cities in this respect. In Liverpool
318
or Glasgow the trade does not depend upon a district which must be supplied by those ports, because they have competitive ports. The great bulk of the trade of London is done for the supply of London proper, and there is no competition, except that of the railways. Therefore, if you have the power to raise dues there is no question whatever that it is possible to make certain that the Port of London will pay its way. My next point is the composition of the port authority, and there I have no criticism to make. It is to be composed in the best possible way and based on the principle that the people who pay the piper are to call the tune. The men who are going to control the docks are the men who are going to pay for it, and it is to their interest that the docks should be run in the best way and on the most business-like methods possible. That is the best guarantee for the success of this new authority. I rather doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman has made any improvement in making only one register instead of giving a fixed number of members to the different interests involved. This is, however, a question which is a pure matter of opinion. Upon this point what does experience show? On the Tyne there is a fixed representation of each interest. In Liverpool and Glasgow this is not nominally the case, although in practice it is so, because the different trades combine so that each section is represented at each election by a fixed number of members. I know that we cannot have an arrangement like that in London because it is too big. I believe that it will be found that the present provisions in this Bill will really not give fair representation to the different interests involved in the Port of London. There is one other important point which I desire to bring forward. This Bill, like ours, has the very great blemish that nearly half the trade of London will not be under the complete control of the new authority. I was, of course, very much disappointed that our Bill did not go through, and I had hoped that when the subject next came forward it would have been found possible to remedy that state of things by bringing under the control of the new authority the wharves which

319
are doing business outside the docks. I know the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has to meet on this point, but I do not think the problem is so difficult on the whole as hon. Gentlemen seem to suppose. There are, of course, a great many wharfingers, but what we are setting up is a port of London authority, and it is only interested in those wharves which can accommodate not merely lighters, but ships. I know it would be quite easy to distinguish and say: "We will only take wharves which will take ships of a certain tonnage." I was told to-day that there are only about twenty wharves of that kind, and if that is so I think it is very desirable to make a similar bargain with those interests as the right hon. Gentleman has made with the docks. I should like the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether this arrangement cannot be done even now. I know that under the Bill the new authority has power to purchase those wharves, but that is not quite the same thing. The arrangement which this Bill makes leaves the wharfinger outside, and hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not know, will be surprised to learn that some of those wharves can deal with steamers of 7,000 tons. Under this Bill those wharves will be left in precisely the same position which would have resulted if the Government had bought two of the docks and left a third one to compete against them. Those wharves will be left to face the competition of a rate-aided authority. I do not want to exaggerate upon this point, and I may say that I do not believe that an authority constituted as this new authority will be would deal unfairly with those interests. It seems, however, to me that, if it is possible, this is a point which ought to be settled in the same way as the question of the docks has been. I am sure also that in the interests of the port authority itself, in the interests of concentration, which is one of the advantages we hope to derive from the change, it would be an immense advantage if the big proportion of the trade of London done on the wharves were also brought under the control of the new authority the House is setting up. There is only one other point I wish to refer to. There was in our Bill,
320
as there is in this measure, provision for-the payment of the chairman and the vice-chairman of the new authority. This measure, however, goes further and gives authority to pay the chairmen of committees, and others if it is thought proper. The Bill is based on the principle which prevails in the Mersey, where it has worked very well in practice. In Liverpool and Glasgow it is considered to be a greater honour to be chairman of one of these boards than to be the head of the municipal life of the town. We have been told that in London there is not the same local feeling as in Liverpool, and that there is a great danger that we shall not get the best men in London to fill these positions. In some places I know that the chairman is really the managing director, and I think that is a very good arrangement. If payment is made to the chairman and the vice-chairman I think it will not tend to secure the best men. In the case of the Port of Manchester, there is payment, and the arrangement is a good one because the chairman is the managing director and really conducts the business. But here sooner or later, there may arise a tendency on the part of the ordinary members to say that the people who are paid ought to do the work. It might also very likely have the effect that if the chairman and vice-chairman are paid good salaries, and unless these salaries are fairly large the proposal is useless, the authority will not be inclined to pay the man who is really the manager a big enough salary to obtain the very best man for the purpose. I do not want to be dogmatic upon this point, but the view I hold I think is right, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman instead of leaving it free to the Commissioners to deal with it, might consider whether it would not be better to leave it in this form, that if the Board of Trade find it necessary they should merely obtain powers to make these payments permissible.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,who was imperfectly heard, was understood to say: I first desire to acknowledge the kind references that have been made to the Board of Trade and to my own services in the Department, and the ready assistance

321
that the hon. Member has always given to me there. I think, on the whole, it might be said that my hon. friend supports the Bill so far as the main outline is concerned and confined himself to two or three points. I shall confine my observations to those points and not attempt to follow him in the ingenious argument by means of which he sought to drag the House into the fiscal controversy. My hon. friend, I am afraid, finds it very difficult to discuss any of these questions without bringing in tariff reform. His first point, I think, was with regard to the chairman. I will consider the suggestion which he makes, though I am not quite sure what would be the best thing for the Board to do. I feel that the Board would be better judges themselves when they saw the class of man who would be elected; and, therefore, I am rather in favour of allowing them to decide. It has been urged that if the Liverpool and Glasgow Boards succeeded in attracting the best men in the kingdom, then it would be almost a necessary step to take to pay the chairman. But there is a greater difference here. Not merely is there an absence of that civic feeling which is apparent in Glasgow and Liverpool, but there are counter attractions in the City upon which I need not dwell. All these very eligible gentlemen are absorbed by other corporations who are able to remunerate them more adequately for their services than, say, a body like the Thames Conservancy. It is possible, therefore, that the new Board may find it difficult to secure the real services apart from the nominal adhesion of men of this class. It is no use to have a man in authority who may attend meetings, perhaps, once a month. What is wanted is a first-class business man who would put his back into the work, and this is especially important in the first two or three years. A good many suggestions has been made as to the wharves, quays, and new docks. Those are questions which the Board of Trade ought not to decide and which the House of Commons ought not to consider now. They should be considered by the new authority after they have secured the best expert advice available. It is advisable to guard against a mistake being made by the Port of London in the policy it adopts
322
with reference to particular schemes, and as the Board of Trade is not equipped with the proper knowledge and the expert evidence to decide for it, the Department cannot recommend any course one way or the other to the House. But there are other questions which the new port authority ought to consider at once. The Port of London is not so bad as it is represented to be. It possesses enormous natural advantages, though the accommodation has been short and inadequate. There is general agreement about that point. The new authority, therefore, must take up the question of increasing the facilities and the accommodation at once. It is of the first importance that the first chairman of the Board should direct its policy to a large extent, and he ought to be the best available man. The Government has taken authority in the Bill, therefore, that if it is impossible to secure such a man without paying him adequately, then he should be paid such sum as might be necessary. I think that this is the best policy in the circumstances. The second point raised by the hon. Member was as to the register. It is desirable to have one register rather than to have sectional interests represented. It is true that the arrangement may result in having men drawn from varied interests. At Liverpool the interests represented agree among themselves what amount of representation each shall get, and if a member devotes his attention to a purely sectional interest, the other interests on the board has something to say to that representative when, he comes up. It is, therefore, desirable that members should not represent a section of the trade, but that they should represent the port as a whole. In this way you will get a much better class of representative and better work will be performed. After much consideration, therefore, I thought it was better to secure that one register should be adopted and not half-a-dozen different registers. It had been suggested to the Board of Trade that it would be very desirable to include the whole of the shipping accommodation in the port, that one trade should not merely undertake the purchase of the docks and another the work of negotiating the far more difficult task, the purchase of

323
the wharves. I will consider that point also, but it is a much more complex problem. I do not think, however, that it is a matter against which the port authority ought to close its eyes. There are two sides to the question as to all others. The trader rather enjoys having the wharfinger to compete with the docks. He secures better terms as well as greater facility with which the goods are handled. The wharfinger has been keeping the dock authorities up to the mark, though this means no reflection whatever on the docks. The Wharves have profited by air tardiness of the docks, a condition of things for which the docks are not always responsible. But the trader would regard with misgiving the elimination from the Port of London of that element of competition which has kept the docks and the wharves up to the mark so far. This, too, is a point that should be considered. Then there is the question as to the extent to which the port as a whole would benefit by a single management and by the saving of expense that would follow. There is also the economy that might result from the arrangement enabling the port authority to control all the facilities of trade for the port, to make the necessary arrangements whereby one class of business should be sent to this wharf, another class to a dock, and another class to a warehouse. A considerable saving could be effected, and I think that the suggestion is a very valuable one and worthy of the consideration of the Board of Trade and the port authority. The Government take power to enable the port authority to enter into an arrangement of that kind if they think it advisable. I think the proposition that only one half the trade of the port should be brought under the control of the port authority is rather too sweeping, for, after all, the whole trade of the port is under the port authority, and I hope the whole trade will benefit by its operations, because its first function is to improve the waterway, and if the waterway is improved the whole trade of the port must necessarily benefit. The cheapness of a port does not depend altogether or mainly upon the charges;
324
it depends upon the facilities, upon the time which is consumed in consequence of bad management; a day saved is worth a good deal more to a ship than an extra charge. Therefore, I hope that the whole trade, not merely the trade that goes to the docks, but the trade of the river, will also benefit very considerably by the improvement in the waterway. I come to the criticism of my hon. friend the Member for St. Pancras. One of his criticisms, I think, he answered himself, as to why this Bill was not a municipal Bill. The circumstances are very considerably changed, and one thing is perfectly clear, that even if I were of opinion that a municipal Bill was the best means of dealing with the situation, I could hardly force an unwilling municipality to undertake the task. Of course, no one knows better than my hon. friend that every problem in London is very considerably complicated by the question of boundaries. After all, the bulk of this port is outside the boundaries of the London County Council, and it would be a very strong order to bring in a Bill to put under the control of the London County Council something not in their area at all. Before the London County Council is in a position to get municipal control either of the docks or probably any other undertakings, it will have, in my judgment, to reconsider the whole question of its area. This is, of course, the real difference between the Port of London and the Port of Hamburg. Hamburg is not merely a city, it is a State, and it has a very considerable area outside altogether of the city boundaries, and in that case they are able to make arrangements which in London are impossibe. With regard to the question of price: If the hon. Member will allow me to say so, I do not think that his figures were very conclusive, but it is very difficult for me to criticise them without an opportunity of examining them. All I can say is that his figures do not coincide with the figures given to me after an examination which has extended over weeks of practically all the dock accounts, and he admits himself that he has not taken into account the great saving to be

325
effected in the elimination of the directorial element from the management. An extraordinary thing about the position is this. Of course the largest part of the undertaking is the London and India Docks, for which we have paid something like £17,000,000. If you take the London and India Docks there is a saving upon last year's trading of £17,816. If we had bought the London and India Docks simply on last year's trading there would have been a surplus of over £17,000; the deficit has been entirely on the Surrey and Millwall Docks. The only difficulty we have had in putting the transaction through has been, not with the London and India Docks, which provide us with a surplus, but with the Millwall Dock which has provided us with a deficit; yet the Millwall shareholders are in revolt about the price. If we look at it altogether, I think we treat them fairly. I would not like to say we are treating them generously, but we should not wish to take advantage of the fact that we had already secured the largest docks in London. We could have made use of that fact, if the Millwall Company had chosen to stand out. We gave them a price; I do not mind saying that we stretched the figure to the utmost limit with a view to inducing them to come in, because I think there is an advantage in getting the whole of the docks in if possible. We recognised also that they had been unfortunate. It is not altogether their fault. They had a very able body of men at the head of affairs; but they had fallen upon possibly the worst two or three years they had ever had, because the building trade in London which use their docks, had been bad. That applied to the Surrey Dock as well. I think it would have been very unfair to take advantage of that. We went back six years because they had good years about six years ago, and they said: "Are you going to take three years which are bad for reasons which are quite explicable and quite temporary, and rule out the three years which are good? We do not want you to take the good years and buy on that basis, but take the good and the bad years and strike an average." I think that was very fair, and we bought on that basis.
326
It is for that reason that I think my hon. friend is unfair in taking altogether the basis of last year. If he takes the basis of last year in the case of the London and India Docks, we have secured a surplus of nearly £18,000, but the London and India Docks Company were quite shrewd enough, and if they had secured purchase upon the basis of last year they would have exacted a much higher price. But we took the same basis for them, which was bad for them, as for the Millwall and Surrey Company, which happened to be unfortunate in the last two or three years. I think the hon. Member will find that taking it through and through, the purchase price has been a fair one. We had, of course, to take into account that we were buying as a Government Department. We did take into account the fact that if we failed to buy, we could compete with their docks, and they knew that perfectly well. But we could not take undue advantage of that. We had to offer them a perfectly fair price, and what we did was to get the very best men available, thoroughly independent men, one to examine the accounts, and the other to value the properties. We took the best advice, and upon that basis we made an offer, not in a haggling spirit, but in the spirit of offering what we were advised was a fair price, and they accepted it. Those who accepted it with the greatest reluctance were those who met us with a deficit. My hon. friend as a business man will know perfectly well that if he were buying these three dock undertakings, not for the Government but for a syndicate, and proposed to run them as one great commercial concern—I think that is the test after all—I am perfectly certain, he would have been prepared to take into account not merely the earnings of these concerns in the past, but the saving which would be effected by amalgamation. That is a very substantial element when you are effecting the amalgamation of three concerns, and I think you are entitled to take it into account. It is that element which enabled us to give a price to the Millwall Company, which I think we might not have been justified in giving upon the actual figures presented to us. The London and India Docks Company had gone through the process

327
themselves. They proposed amalgamation with the Millwall Company about three years ago—an amalgation by which all the parties would have benefited, but the Millwall Company were offered a bigger price on that occasion than we offered, and that was part of their complaint against us. Although I think the London and India Docks Company were offering more than I think the thing was worth, yet I think it would have paid them, because they would have saved a good deal with the docks under one management, and would have been able to make arrangements for accommodation which they could not otherwise have made. It would have been a transaction, even with the bigger price, for the mutual benefit of all parties. We have to take that into account, and I think that the Board of Trade ought really to enter into this matter on the same business principles as if they were buying for a private concern, taking into account what would be to the general advantage of those who would be trading subsequently with the port. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the saving which will be effected will not merely provide us with the surplus which we anticipate on the figures, but, with good management, with a very considerable surplus for the benefit of the port—thanks to my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board who has been associated with the preparation of this Bill. My right hon. friend has been in the dock business a good many more years than I have. My right hon. friend has rather been engaged in putting up dock charges, and I was very glad of his assistance in a transaction which will have the effect of lowering those charges, without in any way giving away the benefits which he secured for the dock labourers. Then as to the question of surplus, lands. We made no allowance at all for surplus lands because they do not produce revenue. But my hon. friend should take them into account. There are surplus lands for which hundreds of thousands of pounds were paid forty years ago, and which are available for dock accommodation. I am perfectly certain they could not be bought by any new dock authority without paying over a million for them. But we made no
328
allowance at all for that in the revenue but there ought to be. When you are buying a concern you look not merely to the revenue but to the assets as a whole. Now all that will be taken into account. My hon. Friend has assumed that the docks were really very run down, that they had been neglected, and that a very considerable expenditure will be involved in putting them into anything like working order and repair. I do not mind making the admission that I also started with that assumption, but I have been informed on very good authority that that is not the case. But we have no right to make an assumption of that sort upon mere hearsay evidence, and it was my business therefore to examine into the matter very carefully, because if the docks had been thoroughly out of repair, then I agree with my hon. friend that it would have involved a very considerable sum, though not so much as he says, to put them in order. There was also a suggestion that in order to produce a great revenue the Dock Companies had been rather starving the docks themselves. I got the best authority, and that matter was very closely examined, and the sum of money necessary in order to put the docks into excellent repair would not be a very considerable sum at all. I think they suffer very largely in comparison with the docks of the Continent, and if money is spent to improve and equip them it will lead to the improvement of trade. I do not reckon with my hon. friend that it is going to be a loss which will involve thousands of pounds. I believe it will be a revenue-producing expenditure. It may not be for a year or two, or three perhaps, but in the long run it will pay the new dock authority to spend more money. Of course, it will get rid of the ships out of the docks in much less time, and the docks will be able to provide more accommodation than at present. I was rather surprised at some of the primitive methods of discharging cargo. Whether that is the fault of the docks or not I do not know but I was amazed at some of the wheelbarrow business which was going on. In the short visit I paid to some Continental ports I never saw anything to compare with it. Of course, the Port of London suffers under a disadvantage in comparison with these

329
docks of the Continent, which are comparatively new. They started after new ideas about machinery, and more especially new ideas with regard to the value of railways, came in. These docks were started when we had hardly any railways here. They were constructed for cart business. The docks of the Continent were constructed for railways, and, of course, there is the great advantage that the railways there are State railways and anyone who has been in Antwerp more especially, and knows the railways, realises what the importance of that is. Here the railway clause comes in, and the difficulty is that you have practically the command of the trade of the port in the hands of one or may be two railways which are not trunk railways but little bits of local lines. The other railway companies are put in a very unfair position because they can only get access to the docks under conditions which are almost prohibitive and which must necessarily damage the trade of the port. Go to Antwerp. What do you find there? There you have the ship alongside the wharf. There you have the railway truck right by the ship, and you discharge either from the railway truck right into the ship or from the ship into the railway truck, as the case may be, and it goes without any further change. There is no difficulty of having to go through half-a-dozen different railways, and it goes straight to any part of Belgium. The whole system is adapted for the purpose of developing the trade of the port. What have you got here? You have one little local line of railway. It has to make arrangements with every other railway within the Kingdom. They can only get access under conditions which have been inserted in Act of Parliament, and which are perfectly prohibitive from the business point of view. That is the kind of thing which has to be thought of, and that is why I think even this Bill is not the end of dealing with the Port of London. The hon. Member will find that as far as price is concerned you have got it at a perfectly fair and reasonable price, and that is all we aimed at. We did not aim at getting it under what we thought was fair. We did not haggle in that spirit at all. We felt that something
330
was due to the men who had invested their capital in the undertaking. On the other hand, we did aim at this, that the interest on the capital invested there should not be a burden upon the working expense of the port. Subject to that, I think we have entered into a perfectly fair bargain. I do not know that there is anything else that I have to deal with in this connection. I believe I have dealt with the whole of the criticisms which have been passed upon the Bill. There are points of detail with regard to casual labour, which I consider to be a very important matter. I think it is a hardship to those who are engaged in the work of the docks that the system should not be systematised. It means that good men go without work for a long time, whereas if there were some sort of system they would at least be able to take their turn and such work as is going would go all round. I am perfectly certain, from the business point of view, that to those engaged in business discharging in the port it would be a much better thing that there should be an absolute system. The men themselves would be of better quality, and I am sure the whole trade of the port as well as the men engaged in it would benefit by a regular system of exchanges. Another point I should like to deal with is the question of labour representation. I think it is very desirable that there should be labour representation. The traders of the port would find it to their interest. It is so much better, I think, for them to have any labour question that may arise thrashed out in the Board to begin with before it arises in the nature of a complicated and difficult and heated quarrel outside, and if there were two or three representatives of labour on the Board any trouble of this kind could be brought before them first of all by their colleagues. There is a double advantage—first of all, the advantage to the traders themselves that these questions should be brought before then before they become the subject of heated controversy, and where they can be discussed in a quiet businesslike way; but I think it is an advantage also to the men. If they get their representatives inside they will know from inside knowledge what the difficulties are. For instance, if it is a rise of wages, their

331
representatives will be able to tell them from inside knowledge whether a demand of that kind could be justified under the conditions. It would remove suspicion if you got them there round a table discussing the thing together. Surely it would be better for the traders of the port, better for the dock authority, and infinitely better for the men as well. Of course, there are two ways of giving representation, one by the Board of Trade and the other by the County Council. I hardly think the County Council will altogether neglect the opportunity of securing amongst their representatives some labour representatives, who would be able to assist the Board in any labour complications which will probably inevitably arise in the future. Of course, there is an additional advantage. Here you have a clause with regard to casual labour. I do not see how the dock authority can deal with that unless it has a man inside who will be able to advise them, and who will have the responsibility of a member of the dock authority.
I am very much obliged to both sides of the House for the way in which they have received this Bill. It has been a very difficult business with such a competition of vested interests which were created generations ago. London is one of the oldest ports in the world, and naturally there were all sorts of vested interests. It has been very difficult to adjust them, but I must say this: I took the trouble to consult them with representatives of the committee which helped me to frame the Bill. Having regard to the fact that interests very vital to themselves had to be dealt with, they behaved with singular reasonableness and fairness, and I am very greatly indebted to all these great interests of the port for the very fair and generous way in which they assisted the Board of Trade to arrive at a settlement. I have only one appeal to make to the House before I sit down. I should like to get the Bill before a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, and I trust the House will assent to that proceeding. It will save a good deal of expense. Otherwise it will have to go upstairs before a Committee, and then go before the Lords. It is very much better that there should be a Joint Committee of
332
Lords and Commons. It is the procedure which was adopted by the Government of which the hon. Member for Dulwich was a Member. I trust that that will be secured. The only fault is this. I think it is a great pity that it should have to go before a Committee of that character at all. There is a good deal in what the hon. Member for Louth said, that if this Bill is going to be fought upstairs by every sort of interest, and expensive counsel are retained and enormous sums of money expended, and the Government are not represented, the Bill may come back with all kinds of clauses and conditions inserted in order to make concessions to eminent counsel, which may make the whole Bill nugatory. In the last Bill there were four or five different things inserted which rendered it absolutely useless, and the result was that my predecessor at the Board of Trade had to put down a Motion to eliminate them. I trust the Board of Trade and the House will retain an absolutely free hand. It is very important that the port authority should not be clogged by impossible conditions. That is really the only object of clearing out the dock authorities at a good price. You want to bargain for a free hand for this great port, and if that is done, I am much more sanguine about the results than the hon. Member for Dulwich. Of course, it will always be a great port, probably the greatest port, but I believe it will forge ahead at a rate which has been unparalleled in the past, and it is with all confidence that I recommend the Bill to the House.
MR. CROOKScongratulated the right hon. Gentlemen upon the concession he was able to announce to them just now. He wanted to ask one or two questions which he hoped the, Secretary to the Board of Trade would answer. Supposing the new authority found itself saddled with a deficit, who would have to make it up? The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the Port of London, but he (Mr. Crooks) wished to point out that the well-being of the Port of London meant the well-being of the whole community. The Secretary to the Board of Trade said there would be dues on tonnage and goods. He wanted to know whether the short sea traders

333
were to have double dues placed upon them by the Thames Conservancy. Would those traders have to pay on tonnage? He wanted to know whether those dues would be continued or repealed. Were they going to levy rates on goods which did not come into the docks? Would there be any difference made between the goods coming to the docks and those coming to the wharves? He thought it was well worth keeping up the trade of the Port of London. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had been accused of driving away the trade of this country. But they now had it admitted that as far as the trade of London was concerned it never went away at all, and consequently they appeared to be redeeming their character bit by bit. In all the continental ports the authorities had risen to the occasion. It was a perfect farce that every person who wanted to approach the docks should be obliged to go over certain railways. He was not surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that some of the methods of loading and unloading he had witnessed upon London docks were rather primitive. He rejoiced to know that they were going to do something for the organisation of casual labour, because to his mind that was a far greater thing than the taking over of the port itself. In connection with this matter there were sick clubs and benefit clubs in connection with docks. Were they going to be kept on under the new port authority? It was to his intense satisfaction that he heard the statement that the Government did not intend to give any consideration to the surplus lands. He wanted, however, some further attention paid to this matter. He did not want to boast, but he did persuade a dock company to part with a bit of land on lease for a public garden. Surely they did not want to take it away from them. He hoped that under the new authority the twenty-one years lease would develop into a freehold if this Bill passed. If that were so, then they would have the name of the place altered. In the case of ships of 500 tons, they could at present get some twenty or thirty into the docks. But now that ships were being made so much larger, to do that was impossible. He wanted also to ask that the suggestion
334
as to ten nominated members should not be a hard and fast rule. They might take away those representatives from the London County Council, and they would be able to give one of the seats to the West Ham Corporation who certainly deserved some consideration, and were entitled to a seat on the port authority. Another seat might well be given to a direct labour representative. He was not so sure that the London County Council would be able to pick out a direct representative of labour, because he had heard in the House members of the aristocracy declaring that they directly represent the working classes because they had been elected by ballot. That, however, did not suit the labouring people outside. There were a good many different sections of dock employment. He thought it would be a good thing if the employment register were taken as the basis on which the representative of labour should be elected. They had many kinds of employees on the docks. There were carpenters, stevedores, and dockers. He might point out that the stevedore was the aristocrat of labour, whilst the docker was just a docker and no more. He thought it would be well if they gave the employees on the dock the right of selecting their own man. With regard to the labour bureau, he did not like the words of the provision a bit. They began by saying that "the port authority shall take into consideration." That might mean anything or nothing. Casual labour was the tragedy of London, and in spite of all that was done for the dockers in 1889, men were still going to the docks begging and praying for work without getting it. Was the port authority to manage the labour bureau? Something had been said about rearranging the work in regard to the casual, but he hoped he did not mean that the work would go round. He wanted really to take some of the casual labourers away. He wanted a number of them to understand how much regular work there was for them in order that the other poor fellows might know their fate and be dealt with in some other way. By doing that he thought they would be able to diminish casual labour down to at least 10 per cent. above regular employment, whereas at the present moment it was as high as 80 per

335
cent. Let the House think of these poor men going down to the docks each day. He thought this Bill would give London a better chance, and then London might in the future take her proper place. Even if they had to face a deficit he thought London ought to be prepared to bear the burden.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORSaid that he had only one criticism to make upon the Bill and it was purely of a business character. He was surprised at one omission. It was so remarkable that he thought his right hon. friend had forgotten it. The new port authority was to have enormous powers conferred upon it in regard to finance, wharves and jetties and other things, but it had not been given any power to light the Port of London. He supposed his right hon. friend had considered this point. He would have thought that one of the first things that ought to be done in conferring powers upon the port authority would have been to give it the necessary powers for lighting the approaches to the port. The effect of the Bill was incidentally to create an inequality between the Port of London and other ports of the United Kingdom. The coasts of this country were lighted under the administration of Trinity House, by what was called a General Lighthouse Fund, and every port contributed to the General Lighthouse Fund for the lighting of the coasts. The majority of the ports contributed locally by imposing local charges upon the vessels using those ports for lighting the ports themselves. But London did not do so. London ever since the year 1898 had not done so, and the lights of London were a charge upon the general body of shipowners using the other ports of the United Kingdom. That was incidentally a blot upon the Bill, and he hoped his right hon. friend would consider the desirability of making it a more perfect Bill by removing that blot from it. The charge for lighting the coasts of the country was about £500,000 per annum. If the cost of lighting the Port of London, which amounted to about £50,000, were thrown upon the new port authority, as was the case in Liverpool, which had been taken as a precedent for this Bill in so
336
many particulars that he was surprised his right hon. friend had not taken it as a precedent in this matter as well—if that course were followed the general charge for all the ports would be reduced by about 10 per cent., and he believed the Port of Liverpool would benefit by about —8,000 a year. He did not mention this matter in any carping or niggardly spirit, but he submitted that to start a new port authority shorn of the power of lighting and superintending the light of the Port, was to start it in a mutilated condition. In conclusion he would echo on behalf of the shipowners generally their good wishes in regard to the Bill, and their obligations to all those who had engineered it so well. He thought that when the measure got into Committee some of the difficulties would be removed and they would be able to make it a more perfect Bill.
*MR. MORTONsaid he was very, sorry that they had not been allowed sufficient time to consider this Bill as it ought to be considered. Those who were opposed to the Second Reading had a right to protest, because they had not been allowed an adequate opportunity of stating the views of those who were opposed to the purchase of the docks. A charge had been made that it was strikes which had been responsible for injuring the trade of the Port of London. The shipbuilding trade seemed to have gone altogether from the Port of London, and the reason for that was no doubt strikes, high rates of wages, and heavy rates and taxes. He had listened carefully to the speeches made by the Secretary to the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but neither of those speeches gave them any reason whatever of a satisfactory nature as to why the docks should be purchased. The Secretary to the Board of Trade complained of a statement made by him with regard to the value of some of the shares in the London and India Docks. If the hon. Gentleman had courteously allowed him at the time he made the statement, he would have given him an explanation at once. His statement was that the Bill proposed to pay £75 for something that was not worth more than £20. In that statement, he was taking the value

337
previous to the Report of the Royal Commission recommending the purchase of the docks; as a matter of fact those shares stood at £19 10s. at that time, and they had previously been as low as £17. What had happened now? Under this Bill they were actually going to pay £75 for what was worth only £19 or £20 as far as market value was concerned, and it was proposed to tax the food of the people of London in order to pay these millions to rich trusts and companies. Therefore he was quite right in saying that it was a proposal to pay £75 for something that was not worth more than £20. He believed that any scheme to purchase the docks was bad and against the interest of the people of London. It did not follow that anyone was wrong because he ventured to oppose the Board of Trade, even when it was a Liberal Board of Trade. He was aware that this ought not to be made a party political matter, but unfortunately by our system of government it was made so, and in this case is made doubly dangerous by the combination of the two front benches. A combination which put them between the devil and the deep sea. If this Bill passed the Committee would have no opportunity of considering the price of the docks, and therefore it would be tied hand and foot and practically have nothing to do with the matter, because
the real point in this Bill was the purchase of the docks. He remembered in the year 1894 when he was trying to get a clause inserted in the Tramway Bills to prevent the companies and authorities from charging extra fares on public holidays and Sundays that he was opposed by a Liberal President of the Board of Trade. Sir William Harcourt, the then Leader of the House, eventually got alarmed by the divisions, and he sent him (Mr. Morton) word that they would no longer oppose his clause. That clause was now a model clause, and had been put in every Tramway Act in the United Kingdom in spite of a Liberal President of the Board of Trade. He desired to move the rejection of this Bill (of which he had given notice) mainly, first, because he objected to the purchase of the docks at all, and secondly, he considered that they were proposing to pay too much for them. In the third place——
Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 18. (Division List No. 78.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Donelan, Captain A.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E)

Byles, William Pollard

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cameron, Robert

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Erskine, David C.

Barnes, G. N.

Cleland, J. W

Esslemont, George Birnie

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Clough, William

Everett, R. Lacey

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Clynes. J. R.

Faber, G. H.(Boston)

Beauchamp, E.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fell, Arthur

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

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

Fenwick, Charles

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

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

Ferens, T. R.

Bennett, E. N

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ffrench, Peter

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Findlay, Alexander

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

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bethell, T. R.(Essex, Maldon)

Crooks, William

Fullerton, Hugh

Boland, John

Crossley, William J.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Curran, Peter Francis

Gill, A. H.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Branch, James

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Glover, Thomas

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Brooke, Stopford

Devlin, Joseph

Grant, Corrie

Bryce, J. Annan

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Grayson, Albert Victor

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Micking, Major G.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Gulland, John W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Stanger, H. Y.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Marnham, F. J.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hall, Frederick

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sutherland, J. E.

Hart-Davies, T.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Taylor, John W.(Durham)

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Myer, Horatio

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Higham, John Sharp

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Tomkinson, James

Hogan, Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Holt, Richard Durning

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Toulmin, George

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Verney, F. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wadsworth, J.

Hudson, Walter

O'Malley, William

Walsh, Stephen

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Jenkins, J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Waring, Walter

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Waterlow, D. S.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Watt, Henry A.

Kekewich, Sir George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Weir, James Galloway

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Radford, G. H.

Whitbread, Howard

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Red, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

White, Luke (York, E. R)

Laidlaw, Robert

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lambert, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

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

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robinson, S.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Young, Samuel

Lupton, Arnold

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Yoxall, James Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

MacVeigh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Sears, J. E.

Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Seddon, J.

M'Callum, John M.

Seely, Colonel

M'Crae, George

Shackleton, David James

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Hodge, John

Seaverns, J. H.

Baldwin, Stanley

Jowett, F. W.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Whitehead, Rowland

Castlereagh, Viscount

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wiles, Thomas

Forster, Henry William

O'Grady, J.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gretton, John

Rowlands, J.

Mr. Morton and Mr. Steadman.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.—(Mr. Kearley.)
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. Kearley.)

THE OPIUM TRAFFIC.
*MR. W. JOHNSONin moving "That this House, having regard to its Resolution Unanimously adopted on 30th May, 1906, that the Indo-Chinese opium trade in morally
340
indefensible, welcomes the action of His Majesty's Government diminishing the sale of opium for export, and thus responding to the action of the Chinese Government in their arrangement for the suppression of the Consumption of the drug in that empire; and this House also urges His Majesty's Government to take steps to bring to a speedy close the system of licensing opium dens now prevailing in some of our Crown Colonies, more particularly Hong-Kong, the straits Settlements, and Ceylon," said that he was in great sympathy with the movement for the total suppression of the vice of opium-smoking which everywhere produced such evil results. He would leave to others more able than himself to give details; he would confine himself to

341
stating the position briefly, the effect of the vice and its evils, what was being done, what should be done, and he hoped to do that courteously but with candour. It was agreed that both nationally and internationally this question was one that should be dealt with and put an end to. It was a question between money and righteousness, and in the end no one who believed in righteousness could doubt which would prevail. All the great authorities on this question—Sir J. Jordan, British Minister at Pekin, Sir Robert Hart, etc.—were agreed that the evil must be put an end to; and they had behind them the great body of public opinion, archbishops, bishops, leaders of the churches—in fact, the whole of the country, to judge from the number of, letters and telegrams he had received. He believed that every Minister of the day and every ex-Minister was in favour of an end being put to the traffic in opium. It was true that there were difficulties in the way; but the Government should face those difficulties and they would be overcome. They must put the righteousness of the cause before money. He would give a few illustrations of the evils of opium smoking and of the opium traffic. The author of "From Pekin to Sikkin," speaking of the town of Ning-hsia, said—
Opium has largely killed this city, all of whose inhabitants indulge in this drug, and when once this awful vice has thoroughly mastered a Chinaman, he sells all he has—his land, his wife and children, the roof, doors and windows of his house, in summer nearly all his clothing, and dies of cold in winter, stripped and naked in the street
That was a terrible thing to record. In the White Paper, China No. 1, 1908, it was said that—
"The opium smoker wastes time and neglects his work, ruins his health and improverishes his family, and the poverty and weakness which for the past few decades have been daily increasing among us are undoubtedly attributable to this cause. It is mental and physical ruin to those who indulge in the habit."
On the last occasion when this question was discussed, on 3rd May, 1906, the Resolution was unanimously accepted. Since then, much to the credit of the Indian Government, much had been done, but many people thought much more would have to be done. The Foreign Office had done some little, the Colonial Office next to nothing, while
342
China had been moving in her own behalf to put an end to the traffic. Foreign Governments had made progress in the matter. All acknowledged the evil, but the pace was too slow. They wanted them to get along faster. They were asked to exercise patience, but those who knew most about the degrading traffic had already been too patient. What they wanted was to see the end of it, and that was the least that would satisfy them. They believed that the end should come as far as the British Empire was concerned. His hon. friend the Member for one of the divisions of Yorkshire, stated lately that Chinna wanted freedom from opium. Lord Morley of Blackburn, then Mr. John Morley, who was still Secretary for India, stated on 30th May, 1906, that "he hoped it was so; if so, the thing was done." Lord Morley added: "Does China want it? That is the question." Further he used these words—
"He would say that if China wanted seriously and in good faith to restrict the consumption of this drug in China, the British Government would not close the door.…It was no secret that China had been considering for the last two years or more whether some plan could not be devised of dealing with the importation of opium into the country other than that which prevailed. They (the British Government) would see whether they could in some way meet the views of the Chinese Government…The Government of India and His Majesty's Government would say they would agree to it, even though it might cost us some sacrifice."
They asked the British Government to make the sacrifice, and they would have the British people behind them; but let them make it at once. Was China sincere? If they looked at the White Paper, China No. 1, 1908, they would see that China made an offer to put an end to the traffic in ten years—that was from 1908 to 1917—but it had been thought that if the Indian Government would accept it, China would put an end to it in three years. The North China Herald for 26th July, 1907, said—
"Not a few influential Chinese would gladly see the ten years of the Imperial Edict reduced to three years."
The White Paper further said—
"If an official merely keeps up appearances and, while outwardly obeying, secretly disregards these commands, he is denounced by name for punishment."

343
Here was an instance of how it was done—
"In Foo-Chow, a city which has a population of 650,000, one of the first great cities to deal with this opium question. The date fixed was 12th May. Several days before, a thousand traders met in one of their temples, drafted a remonstrance and subscribed a sum of money to defend their interests. They met in vain. The man who presented the petition was locked up. The resistance collapsed; 3,000 shops trading in opium were closed."
AN HON. MEMBER: No compensation?
*MR. W. JOHNSON: No compensation whatever.
"One man held out, trusting to his influence with the officials; he was at once lodged in gaol, and his property confiscated. Two or three others were marched through the streets in chains. A week after not a single opium-den existed in the city."
That was what the supporters of the Resolution wanted. That was what the people of this country wanted, and what His Majesty's Government wanted, but there was a good deal of difficulty about it. It was stated that the first six months following the issue of the anti-opium regulations expired on Friday, when the last of the opium-dens in Pekin was closed. Who could doubt the sincerity of the Chinese authority after that, and it only remained for the Government to he as sincere. Still, they were grateful to the Government of India for what they had done, but they hoped they would accelerate the pace. He turned to the Foreign Office Papers, and he found it stated that in Shanghai in the native quarter, on 22nd June last, all the opium-dens, about 700 in number, were closed. At the same time in the British and American: concessions quarter the municipal council declined to do more than to discontinue the grant of fresh licences, and it was not until 20th March this year at the annual meeting this council were induced to propose to close one-fourth of the dens on 31st July this year, and the other three-quarters within two years. And yet they doubted the sincerity of the Chinese! In Shanghai the Chinese would have total closing more than a year before the British and American part of the city took action, and then instead of closing at once they proposed
344
a gradual closing, extending over two years. The Chinese would, in fact, close their opium-dens in Shanghai three years before the British, and he thought that proved that the Chinese were more sincere than ourselves. Still dealing with the Foreign Office he found in the White Paper that on 17th October, 1906, America proposed joint investigation to be undertaken by the United States, Great Britain, France, Netherlands, Germany, China and Japan, to come to a decision as to whether the consequences of the opium traffic and opium habit were not such that civilised Powers should do what they could to put a stop to them. The next thing they heard was on 27th November, 1907, thirteen months later, when the Indian Secretary asked for more precise information and time and place of meeting. That was what they complained of. Surely thirteen months was an unnecessary delay on the part of the Foreign Office. Still, they knew the time it took for these things to go through the red tape of officialism, and perhaps that might be the explanation. Our self-governing Colonies had refused to allow the opium traffic in their territory. Then he came to our Crown Colonies, where the question of the opium trade seemed to be rather neglected. In Hong Kong nothing had been done: in the Strait Settlements a Committee of Inquiry had been appointed; and in Ceylon they awaited the publication of the Report of the Ceylon Committee presented to the Governor some months ago. While that was the state of things in the Crown Colonies the Americans had closed all the opium-dens in the Philippine Islands, and hundreds of the wretched victims of the opium traffic were leaving the Philippines and arriving in Hong Kong and the Strait Settlements to swell the number of undesirables in that quarter. The Colonial Office would, he hoped, make haste and keep pace with America, as he thought that this was a matter in which we should lead. While they were grateful for what had been done, it was asked that prompt steps should be taken by the India, Colonial, and Foreign Offices, not merely to reduce the opium traffic, admirable as that might be, but to put an end to it. This was urged by every consideration of

345
humanity. Let Great Britain wait for no one but lead the way. It was admitted that the traffic was horrible in its consequences. Therefore, let them put an end to it. It debased the mind, degraded the character, and ruined the health. It was not only a stigma and a disgrace, but a real moral danger to the British Empire. He begged to move.
*MR. THEODORE TAYLORin seconding the Resolution said that opium was not a subject that had had a great many innings. Only once in nearly thirteen years before that night had they had a discussion on the topic. There was Sir Joseph Pease's Motion in 1895 to discuss the Report of the Royal Commission, and there was a discussion about two years ago when the House unanimously affirmed that the Indo-Chinese opium trade was morally indefensible. Much had happened in two years, but not enough. He thought one might say, however, that more had happened in the last two years than in the preceding eleven years, and he was not sure that the Resolution passed two years ago had not had something to do with quickening the pace of opium reform throughout the world, although they knew that there were already the beginnings of a reform movement in China, and opinion was ripening, not only in China, but in other countries. The present Motion welcomed the action of the Government in diminishing the sale of opium for export, and thus responding to the action of the Chinese Government in their arrangements for the suppression of the consumption of the drug in that empire. He laid stress on the word "suppression," and in seconding the Motion he desired to lay down in the most explicit manner possible the proposition that nothing less than complete suppression of the consumption of opium in the British Empire would satisfy those who had studied the question. When he said suppression he did not include the medical use of the drug. There was a question he would like to ask the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. So far as he could make out from the correspondence, the ten years during which they had tentatively and hypothetically agreed to assist the Chinese Government
346
in suppressing the consumption of the drug by diminishing the sale at Calcutta, commenced, he presumed, with 1908.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,)said that was so.
*MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid that although it had taken two years to do that it was not entirely the fault of the Government, and he thanked them for having made the tentative three years agreement which was, at all events, definite. It looked a long time, ten years in which to continue a traffic which the House had declared to be morally indefensible, and he must say that if he did not know a good deal about the difficulties, both in India and in China, of this question, he would be more impatient with the Government than he was. He had lately visited China practically for the purpose of studying this question. He enjoyed considerable advantages, having communications with the British Minister and Consuls, with merchants and missionaries. He made it his business to study the question on the spot, and he had come to the conclusion that the movement there was not a mere farce. All the best elements in China were resolved to put an end to the traffic. It was not merely an edict of the Government, but the reform had in it all the elements of a great national movement. Scenes of enthusiasm such as had been alluded to by his hon. friend, he could recite, if necessary, by the score. Only that day he had had put in his hand a newspaper from Fuchan of last month describing the sixth of a great series of public bonfires of opium pipes and utensils amid great public rejoicing in the City of Fuchan. He really believed that China was changing in many ways. He was in Peking and he saw the ruins of their Examination Hall of 10,000 cells, in which students used to sit for examination for Government situations. Since the Boxer trouble this hall had been in ruins. That was an emblem of the state of things in China. The old system of Civil Service examination was in ruins. The country was changing. It had been often said that China never

347
would change. The books that he used to read years ago were entitled the "Break-up of China," "China in Decay," and "China in Convulsion." The titles of books to-day must be "China in Evolution," and "China in Reformation." Chinese educational methods were changing. She had now 200 newspapers, everyone of them an anti-opium journal. Although there were few railways, yet railways were very popular. There was a modern spirit of inquiry and of progress. Above all, there was a real resolve on the part of the people that they would be strong. He remembered reading in the Report of the American Philippines Commission made four years ago (an important document) these words—
"In China there seemed to be neither a public opinion which could control nor a national life which welded and consolidated the people. There is no Chinese nation. There is merely a Chinese race."
Already those words were absolutely out of date. There was to-day a Chinese nation, as well as a Chinese race, pulsating with new national life. China was determined to be strong and was therefore against the opium traffic. Although he was prepared to justify our Government in their somewhat tardy action of spreading the extinction of this traffic over ten years he believed that if from to-day they did not send any more opium to China, China on her Own account would endeavour to put down this traffic. He was not sure that she would not regulate it and try to make a revenue out of it, but he did not think she would. Opium farming lessened the food supply, ruined individuals, ruined families, and was ruining the nation. If anyone wished to buy curios they were told to go to families who had been ruined by opium smoking. It ruined the country. The greatest reason of all why China was against opium was not a moral reason—it was self-interest. She desired to make herself strong and realising that as an opium-smoking nation she was weak, in her desire to have a strong Army she knew she ought not to have opium. The one Viceroy who had created a strong Army would not allow opium-smoking, and had cut off a few heads of those found illicitly smoking.
348
Not only in China itself, but in the Straits Settlements, South Africa, Vancouver and Australia the national and anti-opium feeling was growing among the Chinese. In New South Wales they had asked Parliament to put down the opium traffic. In Vancouver the Chinese presented a petition only last month asking the Government to put an end to opium smoking there. In South Africa only last month in co-operation with the best of the Chinese a memorial was presented to the Transvaal Colonial Secretary by Europeans there asking for the repeal of the smoking regulations of the Colony of the Transvaal. Three years ago opium-smoking was forbidden in the Transvaal, but because the Chinese in the mines desired to have it the Government decreed that a man should have 2 lbs. a month if he could find a doctor to certify that he might have it. That gave an opportunity for five men living in one house to have 10 lbs. a month, and opened the door to a great deal of illicit smoking. He regretted to say that among the regular smokers were thirty white men, six white women, and many people of colour. No wonder the people desired to stop the traffic. With regard to Shanghai it was very unpleasant for Members of that House to speak critically of their fellow-countrymen residing abroad, and he wished to be quite just to the municipality of Shanghai, but the Chinese failed to appreciate the difference between British citizens living at home, and those living in Shanghai. In Shanghai there were three towns, viz., the old town now, without an opium-den in it, the French Settlement, and the International Settlement with about sixteen different Consulates, which no doubt made it a little difficult for our Foreign Office to deal with. In the old town under Chinese rule 700 dens were closed last June, and although no compensation was given, the native Governor smoothed things over as well as he could by sending those employed in them back into the country who had come there from, and opening industrial institutions for others who had been employed in the dens. The municipality of the foreign settlement through its chairman expressed "its sincere sympathy" with the efforts of the Chinese to

349
put down the traffic, but did not live up to those sentiments, and only at last from the pressure of our own Government had they given notice to close one-quarter of the opium-dens in the Settlement, and proposed then to "watch with care and deep interest the next move on the part of the Chinese." He protested against such a course. It was not fair to the Chinese. The municipality said their policy was totally to suppress the dens in two years, but when an Amendment was moved that they should be closed by the end of 1909 they refused to accept it. In point of fact, they had not yet committed themselves to close more than a quarter of the dens in the foreign settlement. He thought they could have gone much further without any damage to British interests and with great assistance to the Chinese themselves in their endeavour to put an end to the traffic. In Hong Kong nothing had been attempted, nothing done. In the autumn of 1906, within a few months of the Resolution in that House condemning the traffic as "morally indefensible," the Christian missionaries and ministers there drew up a Memorial to the Governor asking the Government "to check and not to encourage the traffic" and condemned the farming system. They said "the farmer must get his money back, and therefore push the use of opium to its farthest extent." Nothing was done. The Government revenue from consumption of opium in Hong Kong had I rapidly increased. In 1857 it was 14,776 dollars. In 1897 it was 286,000 dollars. In the three years, 1898–1900 the average was 367,222 dollars, for 1901–3,729,000; and for 1904–6, 2,008,000. That showed an average of over 30 dollars per man per year which the Government got from it, and allowing 25 per cent. for the farmers profits and expenses it brought it up to 40 dollars per head, which was an enormous sum for the Chinese coolie to pay out of his small wages. In his opinion that was most unsatisfactory. The opium-farming system was bad everywhere, and it was bad in Singapore. He would give the figures. In 1867 the Straits Settlements came under the Colonial Office. There was then no revenue from opium. In 1897 the revenue from opium was 1,800,000 dollars.
350
Then he would take the figures in periods of three years. In 1898–1900 the average annual revenue was 2,318,000 dollars. In 1901–1903 it was 3,732,000 dollars. In 1904–1906 it was 5,595,000 dollars, or over half a million stifling. There was a very strong anti-opium movement in Singapore as in other parts of the world where the Chinese were. He heartily welcomed the new Under-Secretary in whom he had so much confidence, believing that he would look after the public interest as well as the interests of the natives and our Colonies. He believed that the hon. Gentleman would fulfil the great trust reposed in him, and would regard the Government as trustees of these people. He might express his gratitude to the Colonial Office for one small mercy, a very small one. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman when he expected that the Strait's Opium Commission's Report would be issued. Some of them went to the Colonial Office last year and urged that something should be done in the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong. When he got to the Straits Settlements last December, he was glad to find that the Opium Commission was already at work, and he believed that they concluded their sittings in January or February of this year. He thought, therefore, that they ought to have that Report very soon, because if they did not have it soon, there would be the Estimates framed for another year on the old basis, and they should not have the opportunity of having the improvement which they wanted. The Japanese knew their own interest, because they were sternly penalising the use of opium in the interests of their own subjects. When he was there last October it was very interesting to him to find that the Japanese Government were strictly carrying out the anti-opium laws, which prescribed three years imprisonment with or without hard labour if a man smoked opium; five years imprisonment with or without hard labour if a man sold a pipe to smoke opium; and seven years imprisonment with or without hard labour if a man sold opium to smoke. While there he had seen paragraphs in Japanese newspapers recording punishments inflicted on men who were imprisoned for a year or

351
two years—what for? For smoking opium in their own homes, so sternly were the Japanese putting the evil down. He regretted greatly, however, to see that the temptation to make revenue was affecting them. Gold was the real Yellow Peril. The Yellow peril to us and to all those countries where the people smoked opium was the temptation to make revenue. He regretted very much to say that our Oriental ally, while sternly suppressing the opium traffic among her own subjects and in her own country, in Formosa was allowing opium-smoking to spring up, and also in Korea. But we really could not blame her. How could we have the impudence to reproach Japan for allowing opium-smoking in Formosa and in Korea, while we were carrying on the same thing in our Crown Colonies? How could we find it in our hearts and consciences to blame her so long as we in our own corner of China, Hong Kong, were raising millions of dollars from this opium traffic? It was no use giving any more evidence that opium-smoking was bad, because he supposed that they were all agreed about it. The Chinese were issuing one edict after another, and those edicts were being largely carried out. It was, he thought, the second edict which said that in China 30 or 40 per cent of the people smoked opium. What did that mean? It meant that 150,000,000 people were smoking opium in China. China was going to be one of the great Powers of the world. When he was there he was deeply impressed by her natural resources, and by the physical and moral possibilities of the people of China. He believed that some day or other China would achieve her purpose and become one of the great Powers of the world, and she would not forget then how we treated her when she was weak. If the newspapers had given us the truth, our Government had just made an agreement with Siam for the abolition of our extra territorial jurisdiction there.
SIR EDWARD GREY: There is no agreement as yet. The matter is still under consideration.
*MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: At all events it seemed that such a thing might be possible in the near future,
352
and Japan with our assistance had already secured it. Could we put our extra territorial jurisdiction in China to a worse use than protecting this wretched traffic which the Chinese were trying to suppress? And could we take any course more damaging to our moral claim to the continuance of that jurisdiction? Was it to our interest that we should be poisoning the people of China and ruining them, for that was what it really meant? Was it to our interest that we should be making revenue out of their ruin? Was it to our interest that we should hinder the young men in China who were trying to effect reforms in that country, by providing opium dens for her people who came over the line into Hong- Kong, knowing that in nearly all the great cities of China the opium-dens were shut up? Was it to our interest that the Chinese people when they came to the Straits Settlements should find open there the opium den that was closed in China? We ought, as His Majesty's Government had already said in the correspondence, to take the lead in this matter and not follow; and he was seconding this Motion, not because he wanted to criticise harshly His Majesty's Government, but, because he felt that public opinion at least, would justify them in taking very strong measures as quickly as possible. Not only should they help China to get rid of the opium curse in her own country, but they should banish it for ever from the whole territory of the British Empire.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, having regard to its Resolution unanimously adopted on 30th May, 1906, that the Indo-Chinese opium trade is morally indefensible, welcomes the act ion of His Majesty's Government in diminishing he sale of opium for export, and thus responding to the action of the Chinese Government in their arrangements for the suppression of the consumption of the drug in that Empire; and this House also urges His Majesty's Government to take steps to bring to a speedy close the system of licensing opium-dens now prevailing in some of our Crown Colonies, more particularly Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, and Ceylon."—(Mr. W. Johnson.)
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,):It may be a convenience to the House if I reply at once to the able speeches made by my two hon. friends behind me on the colonial aspect of the question, partly because the Colonial Office has been told to-night that it is the principal offender, and also because I understand that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will reply on the whole question at a later period of the evening. I confess it is with some anxiety that I address the House for the first time from this box. My right hon. friend Mr. Churchill had such rare gifts of lucid exposition and eloquent phrase which I cannot hope to follow, and I see before me the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, whose knowledge of colonial matters always makes us listen to him with respect even when we differ from him most. But my task is easier to-night than it might have been, because, as I hope it may be the case in an increasing degree in all colonial matters, this is no matter of party politics. Both parties are committed to the view that we must do what we can to abate what is a real evil. If it be supposed by anybody that there is any section of the House opposed to what one may call the anti-opium view, I will only recall that, while many hon. Members on this side have taken a strenuous part in bringing this matter before the House, I think it may truly be said that the right hon. Gentleman who sits opposite, the Member for the Honiton Division of Devonshire, for many years has been the protagonist in this cause. May I say at once that the Government are prepared to accept this Motion, and they are prepared to accept it because they consider the time has come to take a decisive step forward in this matter? That being our position, the issue is slightly altered. Instead of having to defend ourselves from a charge of laxity, we must defend ourselves for the action we propose to take. I would only refer to the speech of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India, Lord Morley, who near a year ago said—
"Whatever our attempts give us, or fail to give us, do not let us fall behind Japan or
354
China, both of whom have taken decisive steps in this matter."
Mr. Churchill on behalf of the Colonial Office said—
"We can only say that Lord Elgin will still watch every opportunity that may occur to bring the regulations of our Colonies and dependencies still more in harmony with what is the overwhelming opinion of this House and more in harmony with what is our plain duty as a great civilising power."
The Government are bound to act by their previous declarations, and the time is now ripe for them to act. If one word more can be said in justification of the action we propose to take I would recall striking facts about China and Japan. Those two far Eastern Powers know all about opium. Japan has prohibited opium with such stringent laws that I venture to quote two of them. Article 159 lays down that—
"Any manufacturing or having for sale or growing opium in any form shall be punished with penal servitude not exceeding seven years."
Further, Article 162 lays down that—
"Any person eating or smoking opium shall be punished with penal servitude not exceeding three years."
That is discouraging the use of opium with a vengeance. If Japan has found it necessary to make and enforce such a law, I think it is a conclusive proof that opium smoking and eating is in the long run well-nigh fatal to the well-being of the race. Therefore, it becomes our duty to take such steps as may be possible not only to give an example to China and to give China assistance in the task she has set herself, but also—and this is the point on which the Colonial Office has been, rightly to some extent, censured—to save our own fellow-subjects from the evils of a drug which may have such dire results. In justification of the action we propose to take we have evidence from all sources in the Colonial Office, notably from Sir Henry McCallum, the Governor of Ceylon, showing that whatever the evil results to the Chinese people may be of opium-smoking, experience shows that the evil results on the brown races other than Chinese are far greater. Now may I come to the definite points raised in this Motion, which, as I say the Government are willing and glad to accept? There are three places mentioned in it—the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, which I

355
take together, Hong Kong and Ceylon. In the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States I am unable to give so definite a reply as in the other two cases, and for the reason that has been referred to, that a Commission has been appointed and is at work. It has nearly concluded its labours, and we expect a Report early in the autumn. I agree that it should be expedited, and everything that can be done will be done at home and abroad to expedite it. On that Report we propose to take action. Of course, my hon. friend may say that we have proposed to take action very often, and very little indeed has followed, but I shall be able to show from the action which will be taken in the case of Ceylon, where a similar Commission has been sitting, that we have every reason to believe definite action will follow. Of course, it is difficult to act rapidly in the Federated Malay States and in the Straits Settlements, for there one-half of the revenue is derived from this monopoly. My hon. friend the Member for Nuneaton, in his able opening speech, urged us to reflect that morals were of more importance than money. Of course, I agree with him. But when it is our own morals and other people's money, that makes a difference; and although I fully agree with him that in this matter we must see that what is an evil thing is ultimately eradicated, he will, I hope, agree with me that we cannot do it all at once. So that although we have not yet got this Report, although I am able to state we will take action, he will, I trust, not be disappointed if it is not sudden action, in view of the difficulty of rearranging revenue, which to the extent of about a half—a deplorable fact, but no less a fact—has been raised in the Straits Settlements from this source. Fortunately, in the Federated Malay States the case is not quite so difficult. There, indeed, the amount raised is from one-fifth to one-ninth of the total revenue. There eye hope the process may, if possible, be a little quicker; but in any case I can promise that action shall be taken, and action which shall lead with certainty in the direction of the ultimate extinction of the abuse of opium. What I wish to emphasise is that hitherto we have, as has been rightly stated, made no progress. There
356
has been a road open to us to march along—a road towards the ending of this system. To-night we definitely decide to take that road. Now I come to the other two cases, where I am glad to say I am able to give a more specific reply. In the matter of Hong Kong, the Secretary of State has decided to abolish all opium-dens. I have here a telegram which was despatched yesterday by the Government to the Governor of Hong Kong—
"His Majesty's Government have decided that steps must be taken to close opium-dens in Hong Kong, as they recognise that it is essential in dealing with the opium question in Hong Kong that we must act up to the standard set by the Chinese Government."
That is decisive action. Of course, there will be difficulties there also owing to the revenue derived, not from the opium-dens,—that is a very small matter—but from the opium as a whole and also from vested interests. But they will be dealt with. That telegram stands, and my hon. friend can rest assured that in the matter of Hong Kong the Government will not recede from the expression of that part of the telegram, that as well as abolishing the opium-dens as soon as may be, they realise that they must act up to the standard set by China in this matter. Finally, I come to Ceylon, where, again, I am able to give a more precise answer. There also, as in the case of the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, a Commission has been sitting, but in this case the Commission has concluded its labours, and we have the Report. I was asked by my hon. friend whether I would lay the Report. I understand that it will be laid. The persons appointed were the principal medical officer, Dr. Perry, and three unofficial members of the Legislative Council. This Commission was requested to inquire into the whole matter of opium in Ceylon and their recommendations are drastic. They recommend that the present system of licensing opium-houses be abandoned; that all opium-shops be closed on the expiration of existing licences; that the importation, distribution, and sale of the crude drug be made a Government monopoly; that for every opium-shop closed the nearest Government dispensary be made available for the distribution of the drug to all habitual users of the same

357
who may come forward to register their names for a certain quantity periodically to be given out, to be paid for in cash, and suitable remuneration to be given to the dispensers for the extra work; that the use of the drug except for medical purposes should be entirely prohibited after a definite period; and that a system of careful inspection be introduced by the appointment of special officers for the purpose. On that, the Governor has written a most interesting despatch. He points out that except the last member all the others were known to hold more or less strong views on this opium question on the side advocated by my hon. friend, adverse to the free consumption of opium, and he therefore points out that it rendered the Committee's Report more or less a foregone conclusion. He points out that there is not much justification for the grave alarm which old and experienced practitioners hold, but, on the other hand—and this is what I particularly wish to put before the House in justification of the strong action we now propose to take—"it is generally admitted"—these are his words, and I have read the previous sentence to show that he is quite unprejudiced and impartial—
"It is generally admitted by those who have personal and extended experience of opium consumption among native races that while the vast majority of Chinese can consume opium constantly without any very marked ill effects and without indulging to excess, the opium habit almost invariably leads to overindulgence and to physical and moral injury if the consumer belongs to one of the brown races."
These are our fellow-subjects, therefore it is a necessity that action should be taken. On this Report, which I have read, I am glad to say the Governor makes these recommendations to the Secretary of State. He says in effect—
"Subject to the Secretary of State's approval I propose to accept all the recommendations and to put them in force except the fifth."
The fifth recommendation, which is prohibition after a definite time, he is not prepared to express an opinion upon at the present moment, and in that I need hardly say I think most reasonable men would agree with him, seeing that the other five will govern so much of the decision which will be taken as to the time. After experience of the proposed system, advice front medical authorities
358
as to how the other five have worked, will be obtained, and then it will be considered. Even that is not rejected. It is left over for consideration. But the whole of the remaining five recommendations are recommended to the Secretary of State for acceptance, and the Secretary of State is telegraphing to the Governor that he accepts his proposals. This means an end of all opium-dens and opium-shops, as we know them, in Ceylon. This means that in Ceylon a beginning has been made of putting an end altogether to the whole system. The Report of the Commission, the Report of the Governor himself is a conclusive proof that we cannot allow in Ceylon this traffic to go on, and from what I have been able to tell the House they will see that in Hong Kong the same state of things obtains, and from the pledge I have been able to give the House, they will understand that in the Straits Settlements, and in the Federated Malay States, there also action of this decisive kind will be taken by His Majesty's Government. I need only say, in conclusion, I trust I have given all the information to the House that I was capable of giving on the matter. I think in this step forward the Government are fully justified, and in taking the steps they have done, they will not only free our own fellow-subjects from what is a great peril, but they will be able to co-operate by their example with hundreds of millions of people in China in their stupendous task, the regeneration of the people.
MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's,): I understand it will be to the general convenience of the House that the very few observations I have to make should be made now. I understand there are still some other Members who desire to express their opinion on the Indian portions of this case, with which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will deal. Will the House permit me, in the first place, to express my most sincere congratulations to the Under-Secretary on occupying the distinguished place that he does? I can assure him and the House that, though we have had many controversies in the past, he is one of those of whom

359
I can say most sincerely in Carlyle's words—
"We walked westward arming copiously, except in opinion not differing."
That has a peculiar applicability to the hon. Gentleman in the minds of my friends who sit on this side of the House. The difficulty of the position which he occupies, and of which he is already fully aware, is that in this enormous Empire of ours there are numerous differences of opinion upon a number of points, and the real difficulty of the opium question in the past has been that we have entertained strong opinions in this country with regard to the opium traffic which were totally different from the opinions which were held by those in numerous parts of the Empire, and the difficulty was greater when earnest men proposed reform in these matters, because it was we who desired, at the expense of others, to put our own ideas in force against theirs. The Under-Secretary very fittingly said that when it is a case of our morals and other people's money that makes all the difference. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion, and seconded it in a way that we all heard with great pleasure, because he is moderate and accurate in his views, furnished to the House evidence of a conclusive character that the Chinese themselves are quite genuine in the desire to exterminate this particular form of vice. As the Chinese Government are exercising a right influence in this matter—and from what the hon. Member has told us they have already brought about a considerable reform even in the last few years—it seems to me obviously impossible that we, who pride ourselves—I do not know whether we do so rightly—on a greater civilisation than the Chinese, can fall behind the Chinese Government in what they now desire. There is scarcely anything further to be said, because the Under-Secretary has assured the House that all opium-dens are to be abolished. A decree against these places has gone forth in Hong-Kong, and the Under Secretary has promised that in Ceylon there will be a move made in that direction. Therefore, I do not feel disposed, and I do not think it reasonable, to press the Government further in regard to these two Colonies. Everything that is reasonable is, I think, being done by the
360
Government both in Ceylon and Hong-Kong. Neither would it, I think, be otherwise than premature, seeing the attitude they have taken up in regard to these two Colonies, and the evidence we now possess, that we should unduly press them, for in a few weeks, or perhaps in a few days, they will have the information in the Report of the Commission on Singapore. I do not propose to detain the House further, but I congratulate the Government and the Under-Secretary on having taken steps which seem to me to be entirely reasonable in the circumstances.
*THE EARL OF RONALDSHAYsaid he understood that the Amendment of which he had given notice was not in order, and lie was not altogether sorry, because in any case it would not have been moved in any spirit of hostility to the Motion. He had put it down to emphasise the fact that the object that we in this country and our Government had in view was to assist the Chinese Government in carrying through the great task they had set themselves. It was absolutely imperative that we should not endeavour to force the pace. The hon. Member who proposed the Motion seemed to think that we ought to do our best to stop the export trade in opium from India to China immediately, and thereby wipe out what he considered to be a stain from our national character. The hon. Member wished to rescue his own soul, and the souls of other members of the British race, from hell fire. If that was his object, it was a selfish one. It was not an altogether altruistic one. The hon. Member's object was not so much to assist the Chinese Government to put down the opium trade in their country as to preserve his own soul, and the souls of others of the British race, from future hell fire. His own object and, he believed, the object of the British Government, was to assist the Chinese
†"That the House realising that an immediate abolition of the export of Indian opium to China would defeat the object which Parliament has in view—namely, that of assisting the Government of China to stamp out the vice of opium smoking—by stimulating the production of opium in China itself, is desirous of placing upon record its approval of the policy of His Majesty's Government of reducing the export from India pari passu with the reduction of production in China."

361
Government and people in dealing with the trade, and he desired to state a few reasons why the immediate stoppage of exports from India to China would not assist them, but would have the reverse result. If they abolished the importation of opium into China immediately, the result would be to stimulate the production of opium in China itself. Although the British had nothing to do with the introduction of opium into China, he did not deny that British merchants, haying found a demand there did not hesitate to supply it from the fields of India. We were bound, therefore, to assist the Chinese Government in their efforts to deal with the question. He had studied the subject on the spot and had travelled into the vast provinces of the West of China which produced an enormously greater quantity of opium than the amount exported from India into the whole of that country. He had himself travelled 1,000 miles up the Yang-tse-Kiang river to Ichang where he had to pick his way through piles of cases of opium which had come down from Western China, and were being transported from the poppyfields there to the eastern provinces. He travelled another 1,000 miles to the province of Szchuen, and he found that it produced four times the amount of the total imports of opium from India into the whole of China. They must endeavour to assist the Chinese Government to stamp out this evil at its root, and that was the enormous production of opium in China itself. Powerful forces weighed in the scale in favour of increasing the native production. The Chinese Government derived a revenue of £7,000,000 sterling from taxation on native opium. Again, the officials who were relied on to stamp out the evil were in a large number of cases very largely interested pecuniarily in the continuation of the production in China. The Report in 1905 of the Philippine Commissioners stated that they had ascertained that—
"Certain of the high officials, who wrote the most eloquent letters condemnatory of the opium traffic and appealing to foreign nations to prevent its introduction into China, are believed to have steadily increased the areas under opium cultivation in their own domains."
That was one of the great evils that they had to guard against. Another reason why the people of China were
362
necessarily very much inclined to continue to produce opium in the same quantities at the present time was that the crop was very much more valuable than the ordinary cereals they might be able to produce if the ground were turned to other purposes. Sir Alexander Hosie, who had spent many years in China, and whose knowledge of these matters was unique, had given the following reason why the value of land under opium was greater than under wheat; An acre of wheat would give an average yield of grain to the value of £4 5s. 6d., and the same acre would produce raw dry opium to the value of £5 16s. 8d. That was to say, fifty acres producing opium would make a greater profit to the farmer than lie would make if they were used to produce only cereals by £77 18s. 4d. That, perhaps, did not sound a very vast sum to Englishmen's ears, but it should be remembered that in the interior of China the only coin which was current was a microscopic piece called "cash," some thousand of which went to a florin. While travelling last year in Szchuen, he had inquired into this matter among European missionaries, Chinese merchants, coolies, peasants, and farmers. In more instances than not he found that the peasants were simply jubilant at the idea of a cessation of the importation of Indian opium. What was the reason of their jubilation? It was not in the least because they were desirous of giving relief to what an emotional writer, Du Bose, described as—
"The desolate homes, the weeping mothers the fathers crying, 'O! Absolom, my son, my son,' the degraded wives, the ragged children, the starving households, the fiendish men, the wretched women, the poor suffering sons and daughters of sorrow."
It was because they saw the prospect of administering to these people in the future an amount of opium one-tenth greater than they were able to do at the present time, and so increasing their profits from the crops there grown. These were the factors that weighed in the scale in favour of the production of opium in China. He did not deny that there were many cases in which the men of China were undoubtedly sincere in their endeavour to rid themselves of this horrible evil. In a town

363
in Western China he came across one of the chief merchants of the place who was doing everything in his power to stop the evil. In Fuchou he came across -the case of a landowner who has absolutely prohibited the sowing of opium on his land in future. There was a salutary public opinion gradually springing up which undoubtedly was doing an immense amount of good in educating people, but this public opinion had great odds against it at the present tune, and if they were to carry out the policy advotated by the hon. Member for Nuneaton they would give a stimulus to the production of opium in Western China which no rules or regulations could possibly prevent. The statements in the White Paper bore out his contention that there was an immense difficulty in the way of putting down what, after all, was the root of the evil, the production of opium in China itself. The Report contained the following remark in regard to what was being done under the Edict of 1906—
"In the month of April the Consolidated Opium Tax Bureau, which is a branch of the head office in Hupei, and unquestionably an official institution, issued a Proclamation urging the cultivation of the poppy for the sake of revenue, which can only be looked upon as an extraordinary proceeding in face of the Decree."
Here was another instance from the great Province of Kansu—
"More poppy is grown than ever, and in one district an official urged the people to plant for all they were worth, and to make hay (or opium) while the sun shone; in consequence, rive times as much was sown. One missionary sends a discouraging report that the high price of opium has induced people to take to drink, while another states that those in his neighbourhood are trying various medicinal herbs as a cure."
He would read a quotation bearing on a point which he had suggested for the consideration of the House in relation to the difficulty of enforcing "the restriction of the cultivation of the poppy in order to remove the root of the evil." The comment which the Report made upon that was in the following terms—
"Although in isolated instances in other provinces the cultivation of the poppy has been reduced, yet it may be safely be said that in general no attention has been paid to this Article throughout the Empire, nor have the penalties for non-compliance with its provisions been imposed."
364
He, therefore, desired to emphasise as strongly as he could that the best, indeed, the only, policy which it was possible for this country to pursue, if it was really and sincerely desirous of assisting the Chinese Government in its task, was the policy now being pursued by the Government of reducing the export of opium from India to China not immediately, but in the same proportion as, and pari passu with, the reduction of the production of opium in China itself. He hoped the House would be disposed to give the Government every credit for carrying out what they honestly believed, as he believed, to be the only satisfactory policy with regard to this question.
*MR. ELLISsaid the House had listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for the Hornsey Division, though he seemed to have been rather impatient of the speech made by the mover of the Motion, who spoke with a cogency which had refreshed the hearts of many of them. The noble Lord seemed to think that they were moving too rapidly in this matter. He himself shared the sentiments of his hon. friend, and he thought the best way to assist China was to go on as fast as or possibly faster than, the Government had seen fit to do. It was with a sense of humiliation he heard his hon. friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies say that we must at adopt the standard of China.
*COLONEL SEELY: It was a quotation.
*MR. ELLISsaid he was glad to hear that his hon. friend did not quite adopt it. Having given a good deal of attention to this question for many years, he thought they had made a distinct march forward that evening. He gathered from the declaration of the Under-Secretary that opium was immediately going in Ceylon and Hong Kong, and they were in sight of the same as regards the Straits Settlements. The Resolution passed in 1906 was one of the Parliamentary landmarks in the progress of the movement, but that was not the first time the House had declared that the opium trade was morally indefensible.

365
The present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the present Secretary of State for India, the late Prime Minister, and, he believed, the present Prime Minister went into the Lobby and declared the same thing, so far back as 1891. If they had declared twice that the thing was morally indefensible, his opinion was that they could not put au end to it too soon. Then in 1906 Mr. Morley had used the emphatic words that—
"To any plan for the restriction of the consumption of opium, brought forward in good faith, the Government of India and His Majesty's Government would say they would agree to it, even though it might cost us some sacrifice."
The Chinese welcomed that declaration, and issued an Edict, and made certain arrangements. Could any one have the slightest doubt as to the sincerity of the Government of the Chinese Empire? The noble Lord the Member for Kensington was full of doubts and fears in 1907. The noble Lord who had just sat down had treated the House to some rather belated extracts from the Report of 1904. But what was going on then was not going on in China now. There was a most interesting Report in the White Paper sent over by Sir John Jordan. The Report therein from the Consular Legation, after careful inquiry stated that although it was too early to expect any definite result, what had been hitherto obtained showed that the task that the Government had undertaken could be fulfilled. That was the opinion of no anti-opium faddist, but of our authorities in China. Again, Sir Ernest Satow, to whom he wished to pay a tribute of respect as a great diplomatist, always took a most favourable view of that Chinese aspect of the matter. That opinion was supported by Dr. Morrison, the correspondent of The Times, whose distinguished services they all acknowledged. He would not dwell now on that most remarkable proposal of the United States Government that there should be art International Conference on the subject. He hoped that his right hon. friend, the Foreign Secretary, would inform the House how that proposal stood at the present moment. His trust was that the British Government would not only second the United States
366
but assist them in all possible ways to bring about that which there was ample evidence that a number of great Powers having interests in the Far East desired. The real fact was that this matter had got beyond argument; what was wanted was drastic action. He remembered when the financial element was the bugbear which stood very much in the way. Well, that had passed. One could not read the statement of Mr. Baker, the Financial Member of the Indian Viceroy's Council, without seeing that they need not fear now any difficulty in regard to the financial aspect of the question. The Viceroy himself had declared—
"There is no doubt that throughout the civilised world a feeling of disgust at the demoralising effect of the opium habit in excess. It is a feeling in which we cannot but share, we could not with any self-respect refuge to assist China on the ground of loss of revenue to India."
He remembered the late Lord Salisbury when he was at the India Office saying that responsibility did not lie with the Government of India, but with the Cabinet. He ventured to say that the House of Commons would do what it could in the matter. He welcomed the attitude taken on the part of the Government in their last utterance as disclosed on 29th July last year and in the White Paper; but he would like to see the pace quickened, and if there was any proposal from China for shortening the period when the prohibition should come into force he thought they ought to welcome it. After all the question was a moral one. He was glad to take note that there was no opposition or thought of it from any quarter of the House, and the late Colonial Secretary had concurred in and congratulated the Government on the success of their efforts. He was quite sure that in the steps which the Government were taking they would have the overwhelming, if not the unanimous support of the House of Commons, and the earnest admiration, heart-felt sympathy, and support of the moral conscience of the people of this country.
MR. MEYSEY THOMPSONsaid that they had been told that the Government was not going half-fast enough in this matter.

367
He was afraid he should find himself in the unusual position of defending the present Government, but he wished to point out the great difficulties in the way of carrying out what the mover and the seconder of the Resolution proposed. The mover of the Resolution said that he wanted absolutely to prohibit the use of opium throughout the British Empire, except for medical purposes. He (Mr. Meysey Thomson) had just returned from India, and he knew the difficulties therein the way of suppressing the opium traffic. It was quite a different thing to suppress smoking opium in dens, and to prevent the eating of opium by large sections of the Indian people. They were all agreed as to the desirability of bringing the opium traffic to an end as soon as possible without doing any harm, and at any rate of putting down the opium-dens. But a large number of the people in India used opium without incurring any harm to health. Many people in India, and in this they were supported by the opinion of medical men, used opium as a valuable febrifuge. Inquiry would show that opium was most used in districts where people suffered most from fever, and if that practice was put down suddenly, a large volume of opinion would be opposed to it. There was another aspect of the question. If they tried suddenly to break the natives from the use of Opium they would induce them to take alcohol, or other drugs. He had been in one city in India where he had witnessed dreadful sights from the use of some of these substances. Cocaine did more harm than opium, and the use of hemp drove men mad. They were told that they need not discuss the financial question, but should help China to stop the use of opium which was doing so much harm. If China honestly determined to restrict the use of opium with a strong hand, and showed her bona fides, like Japan, we should give her all the help in our power. But, by taking too rapid a stride, a reaction would be caused, and greater evils would be created than now existed. He congratulated the Government on the strong action they had taken, and he hoped they would not allow themselves to be forced by well-meaning but impractical people to go faster than they thought it wise to go.
*SIR H. COTTONsaid he did not propose to occupy the attention of the House for more than five minutes, but there was one point connected with the cultivation of opium in India which he desired to bring to the notice of the Under-Secretary for India and the House. The argument had not been pressed that evening, but he remembered that the Secretary for India two years ago did refer to it. The right hon. Gentleman then said what a serious matter it would he to the cultivators of opium if we abruptly interfered with that cultivation, and he asked how we could compensate them. The fact was that the opium cultivators had frequently, continually, year by year, protested to the authorities against this cultivation. They asked for freedom of cultivation, and to be allowed to cultivate as they liked, because they knew that it would be more profitable to raise other crops than opium which they produced under contract with the Government. There was a very large area of land under cultivation in Opium in India—some 600,000 acres or more. In consideration of the cultivation of opium, the cultivators received from the Government a sum of money somewhat exceeding a million pounds or a million and a quarter per annum. Did anyone suppose that if they were allowed freedom of choice in this large area, which it must be remembered, consisted of the very best land in the villages, their efforts would not yield a far larger profit to them than a little over a million pounds. 600,000 acres under food crops or sugar cane would yield far more than a million and a quarter. Therefore, when the argument was put forward that, in the interests of cultivators in India they must he very careful not to reduce the area of cultivation, he wished to point out that it would really be to the gain of these cultivators, and not in any way to their detriment, to reduce the area of cultivation to any extent. There was one other point he wished to mention, and that was a purely Government point. It was that as the exports of opium from India to China and elsewhere were reduced, as they were being reduced, he was glad to say, so to some extent at least the value of those exports increased. Diminishing exports were always followed by

369
an increase in the market price at auction sales at Calcutta, and that in itself made a considerable difference to the Indian revenue, and pro tanto compensated the Government for the smaller quantity of opium exported.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid he only,desired to add his expression of the very great satisfaction with which he learned of the remarkable progress which this question had made, and of the remarkable steps taken by the Government which they were able to announce, and which had been received with such great satisfaction by the House. He had been in close connection this last day or two with one who had devoted a life of nearly fifty years to service in China, Archdeacon Mollie, and some words he had used had struck him very much. The Archdeacon stated that as it were by an electric flash, England and China had, within the last two years, awakened almost simultaneously to the disgrace and danger of the continuation of this opium traffic. The evidence was strong that the Chinese were in earnest in the matter, but that they had a very gigantic task before them, as was shown so ably by his hon. friend who had spoken of his recent experiences. It seemed to him very clear that the Chinese were in earnest in this matter, and he agreed with his right hon. friend the ex-Colonial Secretary that England must not lag behind China, and other nations, and he welcomed most cordially the policy of the Government on this subject.
*MR. BENNETTsaid that of all the admirable speeches delivered that evening one which had afforded him especial pleasure was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division. He wished that more speeches in that House might be animated by a similar spirit of earnestness in great moral questions. There was very little of the hyper-official mind about the right hon. Gentleman. There was, of course, no need of any fresh evidence to prove the "moral indefensibility" of the opium traffic carried on by the Indian Government. The evidence had been accumulating for generations; it was
370
clear and irresistible. At Oxford they had a considerable number of Oriental students, and he had never met one of them who was not in deadly earnest in his detestation of the opium trade. In fact, the only cases in which apathy or open hostility towards anti-opium efforts was to be found were those of some Indian and Colonial officials and traders—men who lived as an extremely small minority of aliens amongst the millions of mankind afflicted by this curse. The opium question was, as had been remarked by more than one speaker that evening, simply one of morality. And in this connection he ventured to say that his Radicalism had received a somewhat, severe shock when he heard Lord Morley in 1906 declare that the revenue question stood in the way of the suppression of a trade admitted, by every section of that House, to be "morally indefensible." He had no desire to criticise unfairly the action of the Secretary of State for India, who in the past had supported the claims of oppressed nationalities, and championed unpopular causes; but after all, that was what Lord Morley's speech came to—India refused to lose £3,000,000 of revenue in order to suppress this abominable traffic. Let them contrast the utterances of a Chinese Emperor in 1844—
"Nothing will induce me to derive revenue from the vice and misery of my people."
And that of a Chinese Ambassador in 1871—
"Let the revenue go! We care nothing about it. What we want is to stop the consumption of opium which is demoralising and impoverishing our people."
In many speeches made at various times in that House, Ministerial and otherwise, and even in the Resolution that evening, was implied the extraordinary principle that our own moral responsibility in this matter depended in some way or other on the moral attitude taken up by China. Such a contention would not hold good for a moment. Our national morality was a matter for our own national conscience; it had nothing in the world to do with the ethics of the Chinese. The attitude of people who argued in that way was simply a confusion of mind far too common in modern times. If, for example, European troops

371
in their conflicts with barbarous or semi-civilised peoples acted in a way contrary to the laws of civilised warfare, their actions were frequently justified on the ground that the higher morality when brought into contact with the inferior had necessarily to sink to the lower level. But, as a matter of fact, if it came to a question of China's morality in this matter of the opium traffic, he ventured to think that her ethical claims were at least as good as our own. China had in the past suffered most cruelly in her efforts to save her people from the curse of opium. Her cities had been bombarded, her unarmed people and badly armed troops slaughtered by thousands, and valuable portions of her territory forcibly taken from her in her unavailing efforts to keep from her shores the opium forced upon her by a, a Christian nation. At this moment, too, China was prepared to sacrifice—though a poor country—more than £7,000,000 of annual revenue in her anxiety to eradicate this great evil, i.e., more than double the £3,000,000 which had hither to blocked the path of reform in India. In the debate of 1906 reference had been made to the existence of the "official mind" in this matter. The "official mind," apparently, in this question of opium, was another name for the mental attitude of Indian officials and colonial ratepayers. Some recent illustrations of the working of the "official mind" in reference to the opium trade were afforded in the pages of the recent White Paper of last February. From that document they could see that the Indian Government demurred to the Chinese proposal, which involved the extinction of the import of opium in nine years, on the ground that this "would commit India to the complete suppression of an important trade." Further, the proposed dimunition of the export of opium from 71,800 chests to 60,000, and an annual decrease of 5,800 chests for three years, without any definite undertaking for subsequent years, was regarded by the "official mind" as a "substantial reduction" and the view of the Indian Government was that "such a standard of reduction ought to satisfy the Chinese Government for the present"—i.e., satisfy a country which had incurred
372
untold sufferings in the past, and was now making almost incredible efforts in order to eradicate from her territory the use of this horrible drug. Again, the Indian Government declared that it was opposed to any increase in the present rate of duty imposed by China on imported opium. A country, that is, which taxed a great variety of imported commodities fir revenue purposes, denied the right of China to tax opium for, so to speak, a moral purpose. Let hon. Members contrast the duties levied on opium by the Chinese Government, with those levied on imported spirits in England. The Chinese duty on opium was 3s. 3d. in the £, the British duty on imported spirits was no less than £1 0s. 2d. for every £'s worth which entered our Customs. The revenue difficulty was, of course, a serious one in India, but was there no room for enough retrenchment in Indian military expenditure to replace the deficit caused by a surrender of this discreditable opium revenue? Notwithstanding the Japanese alliance and the Anglo-Russian Agreement, the military estimates of India had risen in ten years from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000. At any rate, this was not a question to be settled by Indian officials or the ratepayers of Hong Kong, Singapore, or Ceylon. He felt the greatest distrust of that imperialistic fetish called the "man on the spot" whose superior intelligence and experience was held to be paramount in deciding great questions of policy and morality. The decision on this question of the opium trade lay with us in England, the moral responsibility was ours. He hoped that they would hear that evening some pronouncement of a more hopeful character and, he ventured to add, an even higher moral level than some of those which on previous occasions had proceeded from that Table. We had a Government ready to take grave risks in its courageous attempt to alleviate the evils of the national curse of intemperance; and he ventured to suggest that, after all, the loss of £3,000,000 of revenue was hardly too great a sacrifice to rid themselves once for all of an imperial degradation. So clear an issue, involving as it did our national morality and credit, really admitted of no compromise.
SIR EDWARD GREY: I should like cordially to endorse the remark made by my hon. friend the seconder of this Resolution when lie gave to the House of Commons the credit for the progress which has been made in this question owing to the line it took in the debate two years ago and on other occasions in recent years. I think that he is justified in claiming for the consistent, strenuous, and repeated expression of opinion by the British House of Commons a real effect in making progress in the Opium question in China. But though I am prepared guardedly to follow the line he and other speakers have taken during the debate, I doubt if I shall satisfy the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, and I cannot agree with the criticisms he passed on the language used by my noble friend the Secretary of State for India two years ago, which, I think, are not justified. It is true that the promise made by my noble friend two years ago was guarded, but it was followed by a large measure of fulfilment; the words were careful, but performance has been up to the level of the words if the language was cautious, it was because, as everyone who has followed the public career of my noble friend will appreciate, he is exceedingly chary in raising expectations that he may think not easy of fulfilment. It is true he pointed out difficulties, and it is no good ignoring difficulties. It is part of the duty of a Minister to point out difficulties that cannot be ignored and which sooner or later, whether they are ignored or not, will have to be encountered. He has to point out the difficulties, and if he does not, no one else will do so, and the House will not have full information. My noble friend did point out the difficulties, but it is a wrong construction to place upon his speech to say that he pointed out the difficulties in order to plead them as excuses for nut doing anything at all. Clearly that was not his object.
MR. BENNETTsaid that that was not his intention.
SIR EDWARD GREY: I think I shall be in the recollection of the House in saying that the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Secretary of State for India quoted official opinion in India
374
and he criticised the speech as giving too much importance to official opinion. My noble friend stated the difficulties of the case that the House might be aware of them; but, as his action has shown (and the Under-Secretary for India can bear me out), there has been no intention on the part of the Secretary of State, of the India Office; or of officials, to plead difficulties as excuses for not doing anything. As a matter of fact, the policy of the Indian Government has been to convince the Chinese Government that they are in earnest in this matter by proceeding with large instalments of reductions in exports. Now, I go to one or two questions with which the Foreign Office is specially concerned. The hon. Member who introduced the subject did not, I think, quite understand the position of the Foreign Office when he criticised the action of the Shanghai municipality, nor did he give the credit deserved to the British members for the abolition of opium-dens in the purely British settlement. In the second place, it is not possible for me to control the action that may be taken by the British settlements. They have considerable freedom of action. Even the Local Government Board at home cannot dictate to municipalities like Glasgow and Birmingham, or other great towns, in the conduct of their own affairs; and my position towards British municipalities in the East is even more vague and undefined than is that of the local government towards municipalities at home. And with regard to Shanghai, the only municipality about which criticism has been passed, I would point out that Shanghai has an international settlement as well as a British settlement; and though, no doubt, there is a large British majority on the council, this is a matter to be decided, not only by the council, but also by the ratepayers, among whom are a large number of Americans and people of other nationalities. But the municipality has promised to reduce the opium-dens by a quarter within a month or so, with a view to bringing the whole to an end in two years. My hon. friend read an extract to show that this was not decided; but my information has led me to suppose that that is the definite intention. I cannot give an absolute promise about something not

375
within my entire control; but we have already expressed our opinion as to what, for the credit of the British, the action of the municipality should be, and I will certainly do my best to ensure that what is, at all events, a tendency shall become a definite intention and be realised in two years. Though the native dens are closed as opium-dens, the Chinese are not prohibited from selling opium. Therefore, it is unfair to contrast the action of the municipality with the action taken in the native city as if the sale of opium was prohibited altogether there. I believe it is very desirable that in the international settlement the opium-dens should come to an end, and that not only should the Chinese precept but the Chinese practice be followed. There is the Chinese point of view to be borne in mind, and the Viceroy of Nanking, the great Chinese official, has expressed his gratification at the action the Shanghai municipality has taken; so that the Chinese recognise that, though their action may not have gone as far at present as could be desired, yet they have shown a desire to help the Chinese. My hon. friend who moved the Resolution asked me about the Commission which the United States has proposed, and about the delay. It is not our Commission, but the proposal of the United States. We have asked what the date and time and place of meeting are to be, and until we have a reply from the United States it is impossible to give more information on the subject. But we have not waited for the Commission as regards any action of our own. Our action will be quite independent of whether the Commission meets soot' or late. I am glad my right hon. friend behind me called attention to the moral earnestness and high tone of my hon. friend the Under-Secretary's speech, but I think he was a little unfair in the different ways in which he treated my hon. friend the Under-Secretary and myself. He advised my hon. friend to beware of the Reports of the Commission, and not to
376
rely too much upon them, but he besought me to do all I could to assist this Commission of the United States.
MR. ELLIS: That was not a Royal Commission.
SIR EDWARD GREY: With all respect to my right hon. friend who drew this distinction which I noticed at the time, I am not sure, looking back over the experience of years, that we should not hope as much from a purely British Commission of: purely British action as from an international commission or international congress. If my right hon. friend warns us not to rely too much on Royal Commissions, I should like not to limit that warning purely to British Commissions, because I think it also applies to Commissions of all kinds, and in some cases—though I hope and trust not in this—the more persons there are concerned the more indefinite the result is likely to be. With regard, however, to this Commission which the United States has proposed, we welcome the proposal, and we will do everything in our power to assist, support, and co-operate. I am exceedingly glad the United States should have so often in matters of this kind taken a leading part in trying to promote what is an international improvement, and from their position have done so effectively. The noble Lord who spoke opposite laid stress on the fact, and I think quite rightly, that it was desirable that the diminution of consumption in China should progress alongside of the diminution of the export from India. There are, no doubt, people in China who do not wish to see the consumption of opium diminished. There are people interested in growing it, and there are people there who would hope that, by the diminution of the import of opium into China, they themselves might be able to create a monopoly and make larger profits. There are people of that sort in every country. I certainly should

377
not like to see the opium question in China turned into a branch of Chinese tariff reform. I would much rather keep it on the present level. Though I agree that we ought not to make the shortcomings of others in any way an excuse for lowering our own standard, I think, also, it is common sense in this matter that when we are diminishing the export of opium from India to China with the object of bringing it to an end altogether, we should in everything we do help the Chinese not merely to get rid of the import, but to get rid of the consumption of opium in China itself. That has been one of the considerations borne in mind by my noble friend the Secretary for India. Progress has already been made in China. In some parts, no doubt, the decree has not had the effect which the Chinese Government and everybody hoped. China is a vast country, comparatively loosely organised, and undoubtedly in China itself the decree of the Chinese Government has not yet had the effect that it ought to have had in diminishing the growth or diminishing the consumption of opium. Considering all the circumstances, what strikes me is not the small result obtained, but the amount of good result which has been obtained in China in so short a time. Let us bear in mind the difficulties of the Chinese Government. They are enormous. They are undertaking the greatest task a Government can undertake. The most difficult task, I think, anybody can undertake is to put an end to a habit. It is hard enough for an individual. The victory of a man over himself is the hardest any man can attempt; but to attempt to put an end to a national habit in ten years is an attempt which Mr. Leach, who drew up the Report in the Blue-book, is perfectly justified in saying any European Government would
378
probably have been unwilling to undertake. One or two hon. Members have asked whether China is in earnest. The Chinese Government and the best people in China at all events are in earnest in this matter. There is a strong party of progress, and the dominant party is undoubtedly in earnest; but no doubt there is a pro-opium party as well. It is not peculiar to China that when a Government and a party of progress tries to put down an abuse, a party, and sometimes a strong party, at once arises to defend the practice and to protect to.
LORD BALCARRES): Does the right hon. Gentleman seek to make a party question of this?
SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not doing so, but if the noble Lord chooses to put a special application upon my words he is welcome to do so. Of course, there is a sacrifice, which has been pointed out, of Indian revenue. I think the Secretary of State admitted that the position he took up was that that question was one which ought to be faced if China was in earnest in putting the evil down in China itself. Whenever you raise such a question the question of confiscation arises and that becomes a matter of debate. No doubt it is the case in China that you have two parties. I do not want to press the matter any further than this. Any Government which tries to put down an abuse will have great difficulty in doing so. The question is—there being two parties in China, an anti-opium and a pro-opium party—on which side are we to be so far as our action is concerned? Of course, if you take the point that no progress has been made you can make that an excuse for doing nothing. If you are on the side

379
of abuse, of course it is easy to pick out the unsatisfactory points in which no progress has been made and make them an excuse for doing nothing; but, if on the other hand, you wish to help China, you can point out what satisfactory progress has already been made and make that the defence and justification—and this is the position we take up—for what we may do in the future. I should like in conclusion to give the House a quotation from a Decree issued by the Chinese Government on 24th March last, which is not included in the papers before the House. It is a somewhat remarkable Decree and recognises what the British Government has done and the difficulties the Chinese Government has to face—
"We have already directed by Imperial Decree that regulations should be issued under which the use of opium, both foreign and native, should be totally suppressed within the period of ten years. The British Government have now agreed to effect an annual reduction in the amount of opium exported into China, and other friendly Powers are willing to assist. This enlightened policy on their part has deeply impressed us. Under the agreement with the British Government the reduction of the export is to be continued for three years, and if it is found at the expiration of that period that China has effectively decreased the consumption and production of opium the policy of reducing the export will still be carried on. To allow these three years to slip by without taking measures for the abolition of the drug would be a poor return for the benevolent policy of a friendly Power and a deep disappointment to philanthropists of all nations. Should this opportunity be lost for ever and the disease allowed to become incurable, we should feel the deepest shame in recognising that the responsibility rested with us."
I think that is a remarkable statement and all entire justification for what the British Government has done and a fair statement of the actual situation. They recognise what we have done to help in the matter and their responsibility, and it rests with them to secure the effect
380
that they desire. The hon. Member who seconded the Resolution spoke of the future of China. I agree that it is a most interesting question, not merely from this point of view. With regard to reform in China, the question is—Are we sympathising with her or do we begrudge helping her? Our desire is that the Chinese should make progress and should be able to feel that we sympathise and help them step by step on this question. I am sure my hon. friend will feel that we have done so already, and, whatever party differences. We may have on other questions—and I am sorry if anything I said seemed to introduce party feeling into this debate—I leave them entirely to other questions and ask the House of Commons to accept this Resolution and to show that on this question it is unanimous in supporting the action the Government have taken.
Resolved, "That this House, having regard to its Resolution unanimously adopted on 30th May, 1906, that the Indo-Chinese opium trade is morally indefensible, welcomes the action of His Majesty's Government in diminishing the sale of opium for export, and thus responding to the action of the Chinese Government in their arrangements for the suppression of the consumption of the drug in that Empire; and this House also urges His Majesty's Government to take steps to bring to a speedy close the system of licensing opium dens now prevailing in some of our Crown Colonies, more particularly Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, and Ceylon."
Adjourned at two minutes after Eleven o'clock.

BARON HOTHAM.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Tuesday last, that the right of the Baron Hotham to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The Lord CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Glyncorrwg Urban District Council.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Rochdale Corporation Bill; Seaham Harbour Dock Bill.—Read 2a, and committed.
Cambrian Railways Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a (according to order).
Highgate Hill Tramways Bill [H.L.].—The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill; Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged. Ordered, that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Bognor Gas Light and Cock Company Bill [H.L.]; Swansea Valley Gas Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Derby Gas Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FEE FUND OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Annual Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords. The same was ordered to lie on the Table, and to be referred to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations for the preliminary education of elementary school teachers:—Pupil teacher regulations; Bursary regulations; Student teacher regulations (in force from 1st August, 1908, in Wales and Monmouthshire).
  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT.
  Report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the Bankruptcy Law and its administration:—Vol. I.—Report; Vol. II.—Minutes of Evidence and Appendix.
  IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL, 1908.
  Preliminary draft of the articles of:—A charter for the college to have its seat in Dublin; A new charter for the constituent college at Cork; A new charter for the constituent college at Galway.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEED INGS).
  Return of proceedings for the month of February, 1908.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY.
  Rules for military prisons in the field made by the Secretary of State for War. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
OFFICIAL DIRECTORY OF NURSES BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, although no proposal for

  179
  legislation on any of the subjects connected with the Bill of which I rise to move the Second Reading to-night has been before your Lordships, I am quite certain that to the majority of the House the general questions affecting the subject must be perfectly familiar. Many of your Lordships are connected with London hospitals and others in the country, and I shall assume that those who are so connected have followed the discussions which have been taking place on this subject during the last year or two.
  There are certain admitted evils—or shall I say disadvantages?—incident to the present position of matters, and as to those evils and disadvantages those who are in favour of the method of dealing with them which is put forward in this Bill and those who are in favour of a more drastic and more ambitious scheme of registration will probably be found to be in more or less general agreement. Each of the schemes is supported by high authority. Those who are in favour of a scheme of registration have placed their views in the form of a Bill and introduced it into the other House of Parliament; but, as there seemed to be no prospect of securing even a discussion upon the subject, those for whom I am acting thought that it would not be unreasonable that a discussion should be raised in this House. We have high authority for that suggestion, and I am rather surprised that those who are apparently preparing to oppose the Bill should think it worth their while to make a point of the fact that there has been no public discussion, as they describe it, concerning the proposal which I put before the House.
  I understand, although I have not seen an actual copy of it, that a summons to oppose the Bill has been circulated to many of your Lordships by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal whom I do not see in his place on the cross benches, and by one or two other peers. It seems to be made a grievance that we should introduce this Bill when there has been no public discussion upon it, but it is for the purpose of securing a public discussion before and by what I believe to be on this matter a perfectly impartial Assembly that those who have advised me have suggested the introduction of
  180
  this Bill; and, as I said a moment ago, we received a hint from a high authority that this might not be an unwelcome method of procedure. There were deputations to the Lord President of the Council, now the Leader of the House, two years ago, both from those who are in favour of registration and from those who favour the less ambitious scheme which I am advocating to-night; and, in the course of his reply to the deputation of those who are in favour of a Directory, the noble Earl said—
  "There was, or shortly would be, a Bill for the registration of nurses before the House of Commons. He did not know whether the present deputation thought of placing their views before Parliament in a similar way. If so, he supposed they would introduce a Bill empowering the Privy Council to start a Directory."
  Later on in his speech, after mentioning that there was little time available in the House of Commons, the noble Earl said that the House of Lords was open to discussions of such a nature. That was a hint given to a large and influential deputation, and it does not seem to me unnatural that it should have been acted upon. I may mention that this deputation was composed of persons of no less authority than Sir Thomas Barlow, Sir Frederick Treves, the Duchess of Bedford the Marchioness of Salisbury, the Countess of Pembroke, Lady St. Aldwyn, and the matrons of the following hospitals—London, St. Thomas's, King's College, St. Mary's, Seamen's, St. Marylebone Infirmary, Derby, Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge. It cannot, therefore, be said that even amongst those who are interested in the nursing profession the Bill which I have placed on the Table is altogether without authority.
  As I have said, those who are in favour of what I have described as the more ambitious, and, perhaps, even the more complete, scheme have placed their views before the other House of Parliament. I am prepared to give, without the slightest reservation, the fullest credit for the best intentions to those who differ from those whom I represent on this subject. I wish that I could think that our good intentions are equally believed in by those on the other side. I wish, before I sit down, to show your Lordships that we have, I think, some reason to complain of the sort of imputations of

  181
  bad motives which have been freely circulated amongst some of your Lordships. Now, what are the existing circumstances? What are the evils which those who support both of these schemes are anxious to remedy? There are certain evils and certain disadvantages at present existing, and we hope to remedy those and to gain certain advantages. There is a difficulty undoubtedly felt by large sections of the public and by the medical profession in no small degree on the ground that they cannot easily ascertain the competence of nurses whom they may wish to engage. They cannot find out very easily what are their special qualifications, and whether they are in particular specially suitable for the class of case which may be under consideration at the moment.
  I suppose it is generally the case that the medical profession are more or less responsible for recommending the nurse for the case which may be in hand. Sometimes the nurse has to be summoned suddenly; at other times, in the case of an operation or something of that kind, there is opportunity for inquiry and consideration. But the difficulty which is felt is this, that after the nurse has left the hospital where she has been trained, after she has, so to speak, set up in business either for herself or in one of the numerous co-operative societies, there is at the present time great difficulty in ascertaining what are her real qualifications or experience. Now it seems an elementary right that the public should have an opportunity of conducting their own investigations. The Bill, the Second Reading of which I am moving to-day, provides that there shall be a Directory, as it is called, on which shall be inserted such particulars as the Privy Council may think necessary, and which will be, we hope, an accurate statement of facts upon which those who want to make inquiry can proceed. All that is suggested is that there shall be a clear statement of facts, and that it shall be put forward on official authority. We want to know what are the qualifications of the individuals who pose as nurses, and for what they are competent and for what they are not. I venture to say that, so far as the nursing profession is concerned, that must be a benefit to those who have satisfactory qualifications, and
  182
  to a certain extent, equally, it must be a disadvantage to those who have not satisfactory qualifications; but it seems to be perfectly legitimate that those who have qualifications and choose to enrol themselves on the Directory should get the advantage of the qualifications they possess.
  I now come to the first point where I think there will be a divergence of opinion. Nurses may be unsatisfactory from more than one cause. Speaking generally, they may be unsatisfactory on account of their not having sufficient professional qualification. That is a thing which you could remedy either by a directory which gives the qualifications of the individual, or by a register upon which the nurse's name is entered. But there is this difference between the two schemes, that, although I do not suppose those who favour the registration scheme mean to do it, it is almost, I think, unavoidable that the fact of the name being on a register, with qualifications set out, with penalties upon those not registered, would almost certainly lead the public to believe that there was a guarantee of the fitness of the nurse, and a continuing guarantee, not only of her fitness, from professional qualification, but of her personal character and suitability for employment. The other point raises great difficulty. It is easy enough to certify and put in definite language the qualifications of the nurse so far as training is concerned, but it is not easy, in fact I go so far as to say it is impossible, to set forth upon a register the personal aptitudes of the lady. As between these two schemes the question is really one of degree.
  Is it possible at the present time to have a register of nurses analogous to that of medical men, dentists, and so on, and to say that there shall be penalties against those who, not being on the register, practice as nurses? I venture to say it is impossible. I do not think it would be possible in the near future; I am certain it is impossible at the present time. I quote as a witness for that view the noble Earl to whom I have already referred, who, in answering a deputation in favour of a registration scheme, used these pregnant words—
  "The history of the demand for registration showed that it was not seriously suggested

  183
  that registration of nurses should be compulsory. It would be impossible, for instance, to make the giving of a glass of barley water a criminal offence."
  That is an extreme instance, but it is what, in fact, it would amount to if you attempted to lay down a rule that only those who are registered with a certain minimum of training shall set themselves forward to act as nurses in any capacity.
  It is commonly suggested that those who take the view which I represent to the House have no nursing or professional authority behind them. I hold in my hand a Paper that was presented to the Select Committee of the other House of Parliament which sat on this subject a year or two ago. This Paper has two lists of signatures. Upon the first list there are 33 matrons in London hospitals and 60 matrons in various hospitals and infirmaries throughout the country, and there is a second list of 71 matrons of hospitals all over the country, or more than 160 matrons of hospitals in all. There are also the names of many well-known medical men and others besides. I need only mention one or two. I quote the names of Lord Sandhurst, the chairman of a London hospital; Lieutenant-General Lord Methuen, Lady St. Helier, and others. There are also Lord Lister, Sir James Reid, Sir Thomas Barlow, Sir Dyce Duckworth, and, amongst those who have taken an interest in the nursing profession, though not themselves engaged in it, the Marchioness of Salisbury, the Marchioness of Lansdowne, the Countess of Pembroke, Lady Francis Balfour, and many others. Now, what is their testimony? They say this—
  "Inasmuch as any system of registration must be based on the results of testing by examination the technical capabilities of a nurse, it of necessity raises to a predominant position this side of her work, and leaves entirely unconsidered those personal qualities upon which her main value depends, such as good temper, manner, tact, discretion, patience and unselfish womanliness. It is these characteristics which cannot be ascertained by examination, and which no system of registration can include. The experience of those concerned in the training of nurses and supplying them to the public, shows that it is the want of these qualities in a nurse which gives rise to complaints on the part of patients and their friends. It is seldom that a want of adequate technical training is the ground of fault-finding. Moreover, it is the difference in the comparative value of the technical skill
  184
  and the personal qualities in the making of a nurse which constitutes the essential difference between her and a doctor as regards the applicability of a system of registration, and renders the analogy, so often made, entirely fallacious."
  And again they say—
  "Those who realise that the ultimate success of a nurse must depend upon her personal suitability for her work already deprecate the growing tendency to attach undue importance to the passing of examinations at the expense of the cultivation of those qualities of power of observation, of sympathy, cheerfulness, and self-control, without which the services of a technically-trained nurse can never be acceptable to a patient."
  I apologise for reading so long a quotation, but it puts the point which I want to make so much better than I can put it myself, It puts it on the high authority of those whose names I have mentioned, and it seems to me to sum up the point of contention between the advocates of the two schemes in a way upon which it would be impossible to improve. I feel the danger of putting too much stress upon mere examination. Therefore, my point would be this, that, however elaborate your system of registration, to whatever extent you can raise the minimum qualification for a place on the Register, there will still remain the necessity for careful personal inquiry, while you will not get over the danger that a State Register involves a certain amount of guarantee and control which a mere Directory does not pretend to provide and will not seem to give. I think I may fairly say that any uniform test of training at the present time is impossible. Public opinion is ripening. The training is getting better and better by a natural process of evolution. For surgical cases, for intricate medical cases, you require the highest training, but there are many classes of cases and many women at present engaged in those cases who are perfectly fit for the work they are doing and to whom it would be a grievous injury and a great handicap if they had the slur cast upon them of not being upon the Register because they had not a certain minimum of training which some people think is essential.
  I turn to the question of what is to be said against the proposal which I make. I am quite aware that the Select Committee of the House of Commons passed a bare and abstract recommendation in favour of a system of registration. They

  185
  had full evidence before them, but they do not themselves in their Report, I think, in any way at all, certainly in any adequate manner, attempt to outline the scheme of registration which they recommend. There is no attempt in the Report of the Select Committee to meet the difficulties which I have put before you on the authority of the ladies and gentlemen whose statement I quoted. There have been letters sent and resolutions passed, of which, I have no doubt, your Lordships have received a great many. They take, in the main, two points. First, that those who are recommending this Bill are a mere association of employers, and that they have not consulted the ladies themselves. I think I have disposed pretty largely of that contention, for I have shown you that a large proportion of those who are interested in the nursing profession are in favour of the scheme in this Bill rather than the other one; and it will not do to say, when I can produce evidence such as I have done of those who went on the deputation to the Lord President of the Council, and those who have signed and committed themselves to this statement, that the authority of the nursing profession is entirely upon one side.
  It is made a grievance that in this Bill no ladies are associated with the Privy Council in the formation of the Directory. All I can say is that so far as I am concerned, and so far as those who advise me are concerned, if that will get over the obstacle, and if the Privy Council are willing to consent, there need be no difficulty on that head. But extravagant ideas have been promulgated as to what it is we propose. I received a printed paper yesterday from the Society for the State Registration of Trained Nurses. They object to the Bill for three reasons. The first is that—
  "It has been privately promoted by the Central Hospital Council for London without consultation with the class for whom it is proposed to legislate."
  I should like to say that I am not sure whether you can find out adequately at the moment what is the opinion of the class for whom it is proposed to legislate. I venture to suggest that as a preliminary step to that end such a Directory as is suggested in this Bill would
  186
  be most useful. I have not been able to find out how many trained nurses there are at present in this country. Some people say 20,000, others put the number as high as 60,000. So far as I can gather, at the most not more than 5,000 have joined the associations who are representing the opposition to this Bill.
  The second reason for which the Society for the State Registration of Trained Nurses object to this Bill is that—
  "It affords no guarantee of a nurse's efficiency to the public, as no minimum standard of professional knowledge is required."
  I have dealt with that point to the best of my ability. The third reason is that—
  "It makes no provision for a central governing body upon which trained nurses are represented, and which would maintain standards of education and discipline as required in the Bill promoted by this Society, and now before the House of Commons."
  I suggest that you must walk before you can run, and that this Bill is as far as you are likely to be able to go in the present state of public opinion. Even if I am wrong, I believe it to be an essential preliminary for such a proposal as the other one I have mentioned, because I do not believe that in these days Parliament will legislate so as to put control or regulations upon a body such as the nurses unless they find out in some way or another what their feelings on the subject are.
  I should like to read one letter as a test of the sort of communication which has come to me. I have two or three dozen of them and it is pretty plain that they have been engineered from a common centre. They are not in a sense spontaneous; they are not absolutely in the same terms, but they go over the same ground with such slight variation that it is perfectly evident that au organised attempt has been made to get as man representations as possible put forward. Here is a letter dated from the Swanse General and Eye Hospital—
  "As a trained nurse who is keenly interested in the training of sick nurses I beg to protest against the Bill which has recently been introduced to provide for the establishment of an official directory of nurses. Such directory would be a danger to the public and an obstacle to progress in the training of nurses, since it fails to provide for a minimum standard

  187
  of certification and would place the trained and the partly-trained nurse on the same level. Moreover, we are a large body of skilled workers, and we may surely claim the right to have a voice in a matter which so nearly concerns us. We are more keenly interested in maintaining a high standard of efficiency and conduct in our ranks than it is possible for any lay officials to be. We therefore think that it is only right and politic to demand that we should be well represented on any central board or council which may be formed for the purpose of organising or controlling our profession."
  In the first place I am not proposing a body which is to organise or control the nursing profession. I am proposing a means by which the public and the medical profession can get the information to which they are entitled. I have dealt with the question of a minimum standard of certification, and I deny that the proposal made in this Bill would in any shape or form place a trained nurse and a partly-trained nurse on the same level. It is to prevent their being on the same level, it is to give the medical profession and the public the opportunity of discrimination which they have not now, that I propose this Bill. No one can object to the tone or the temper of such a letter as that, but I do suggest that it proceeds from insufficient information as to the real scope and object of the Bill.
  I am afraid I cannot give the same praise to the letter which I am now about to read. It was not written to me, but to an official of the Central Hospital Council, for whom I am to some extent acting. It contains the sort of imputation upon our motives which I think we have a right to resent. It states—
  "The intolerable tactics of the few men who control the Central Hospital Council for London to subject the whole nursing profession to the status of serfs in the body politic will be strenuously and determinedly opposed. Autocracy, subterfuge, and sweating, rampant in connection with the nursing departments of some hospitals, will be resisted by the organised nurses of the country. Quite frankly, they do not intend to submit to any form of official tyranny, as embodied in the privately promoted legislation of the Central Hospital Council; and it is a serious scandal that a few employers of nurses should have attempted such an outrage."
  I do not grudge the lady the pleasure which it must have given her to write this letter, but I do suggest that some, at any rate, of the adjectives and attri-
  188
  butes employed are a little in excess of what the actual requirements of the case seem to me to render necessary.
  I can assure your Lordships that those who have promoted this Bill have done so with a genuine desire to put the noble profession of nursing upon a better footing than it occupies at the present time. I can truly say that we desire the co-operation of all who will give it. At the worst, as I have said, it would pave the way for more, and you would know really once for all to whom to appeal for their opinion. You cannot, in my opinion, make any scheme, whether of this kind or of registration, compulsory. All you can do is to appeal to the personal advantage of those concerned. I believe honestly that this Bill would be found to the advantage of those who are best qualified to have their qualifications set forth. I put it forward as a step in advance compared with the present position of matters. I believe it is as long a step as public opinion will allow you to take at the present time. You may possibly set up a fixed standard with a minimum qualification by-and-by, but to attempt to do so now would, in my opinion, be productive of grave injustice. Whether this House accepts the Second Reading or not I have done by best to explain clearly the objects of the Bill, and I ask your Lordships to give it a fair and dispassionate consideration, and to judge of it on its merits.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Balfour of Barleigh.)
  *LORD AMPTHILL,who had given notice on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, said: My Lords,. I regret very much, on personal grounds, to stand in the way of my noble friend, whose intentions I do not doubt are as benevolent as they are disinterested and straightforward. I gladly pay him the compliment which he sought, but I do not know that I feel inclined to pay a similar compliment to those who have persuaded him to espouse their cause. I must confess, however, to some surprise that the noble Lord himself has been willing to espouse yet another losing cause, and that his

  189
  chivalrous knight-errantry has brought him to take up a case of this kind. It is also to be regretted that his adherence to the Cobdenite doctrine of laissez faire extends so far that he would refuse to a great profession and to the general public that protection which has become an established principle of legislation, not only in this country and in the Colonies, but also in a great many foreign countries.
  But perhaps your Lordships will allow me first of all to explain my own position, for reasons which I think will be apparent. Although I am associated with hospital work and with the organisation of the nursing profession, as chairman of a county hospital and president of the Colonial Nursing Association, I am not the mouthpiece of either of those bodies. Nor am I the spokesman of any association or organised body of individuals. I am acting in accordance with what I conceive to be my duty as an ordinary Member of this House. On account of my frequent intercourse with medical men and with nurses I happen to know the facts. I became keenly alive to the strong feelings of indignation and resentment excited by the introduction of this Bill, and it seemed to me that even a provisional approval of the principles of the Bill would discredit your Lordships' House certainly in the eyes of two great and important professions. I realised also that what is everybody's business is very frequently not the business of anybody in particular; and having waited to see whether any Member of this House would undertake to oppose the Bill, and having waited for a while in vain, I deemed it my duty to show that there were those in this House who would take action in a matter of this kind without being solicited by interested parties. I trust that after this explanation I shall be absolved from any charge of having exceeded the bounds of modesty, or of having violated the custom of this House which enjoins reticence on those who have no special claim to speak on a subject.
  This Bill is objectionable in two ways—it is objectionable in matter and it is objectionable in manner. The substance of the Bill is objectionable, and the manlier in which it has been introduced is objectionable; but your Lordships will,
  190
  of course, understand that I am very far from referring to the impressive eloquence and the courteous dignity of my noble friend who moved the Second Reading. In order to prove these two contentions I must do what the noble Lord omitted to do—namely, briefly relate the antecedent circumstances. A movement to obtain the State registration of nurses was initiated some twenty years ago, and during the time that has elapsed it has received the support of an overwhelming consensus of opinion on the part of the medical profession and of practically all the organised bodies of nurses. The noble Lord endeavoured, I think, to throw dust in your eyes by quoting a certain number of names of individuals who supported his Bill, but I would call attention particularly to the fact that he was not able to quote the approval or support of any single organisation either of medical men or of nurses. He hinted vaguely that he was acting for certain persons who could claim high authority, but he did not give you their names.
  Now, my Lords, I will do what the noble Lord has not done. I will tell you exactly by whom the principle of State registration is approved. It is approved, in the first place, by the General Medical Council, the governing body of the medical profession in this country; it is approved by the British Medical Association, a body which, I think, contains a greater proportion of members than the organisation of any other profession, for I believe I am right in saying that out of 30,000 medical practitioners no fewer than 21,000 belong to the British Medical Association. At the annual representative meeting of the British Medical Association in 1906 the principle of State registration was approved by a vote of 90 out of 93, and I would call your Lordships' attention particularly to the fact that this was not the vote of an executive committee or a general council, but the vote of representatives of constituencies in all parts of the country. The Royal College of Physicians of Ireland have also approved of the principle of State registration, as also have the International Council of Nurses, the Matrons' Council of Great Britain and Ireland, the Society for the State Registration of

  191
  Trained Nurses, which has a membership of 2,000 and represents the opinion of a great many more the Scottish Registration Committee, the Royal British Nurses Association, the Irish Nurses Association, the League of St. Bartholomew's Hospital Nurses, and the Fever Nurses Association. I think I have now exhausted the names of the principal medical and nursing associations, but there has been support from other influential quarters. The Asylums Workers Association, the National Union of Women Workers, and the Women's Industrial Council are all on the side of those who advocate State registration. My noble friend quoted a few individuals, and I am sure your Lordships will know what weight to attach to the argument to which he was driven when he attempted to excite prejudice by reading to you a letter from some individual matron whose feelings on the subject had become too much for her. But I will leave that alone and proceed with my history of this question.
  This principle of State registration, which is supported practically by the whole of the organised opinion of the medical and nursing professions, obtained the approval, in 1905, of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which took exhaustive evidence. My noble friend went so far as to insinuate that the verdict of that Committee was vague and inconclusive. He suggested that they advocated some sort of registration. The opinion of the Select Committee was very definite indeed, and, with your permission, I will quote exactly the form which their recommendation took. They said—
  "Your Committee are agreed that it is desirable that a register of nurses should be kept by a central body appointed by the State."
  That is the whole point—"by the State." That shows exactly the issue between the advocates of State registration and those who have persuaded my noble friend to introduce this Bill, which is actually hostile to that principle of State registration. Two Bills to carry out the principles approved by the Select Committee of the House of Commons are now before the other House, and their consideration has only been delayed by the ordinary causes which tend to retard even legislation approved, as this is, by
  192
  men of all parties and of all shades of opinion in the other House. Those two Bills are approved by the immense weight of professional opinion I have just quoted, and every one of those associations of doctors and nurses which I have named are strongly and earnestly opposed to the Bill now before your Lordships' House, because they regard it as deliberately, avowedly, and wantonly hostile to the principle of State registration which they have at heart.
  Every day for the past month, since my noble friend gave notice of the Second Reading of his Bill, I have received resolutions from numerous bodies, which I will not delay your Lordships by naming, against this Bill, but I have not received a communication of any sort or kind expressing approval of my noble friend's. Bill. The reason is not far to seek. The advocacy of this Bill, which is in opposition to State registration, comes from a small group of individuals—I might almost say from one single individual, and their reasons for objecting to the principle of State registration have never been made clear, chiefly, I think, because they have been afraid to put them to the test of public discussion. My noble friend endeavoured to anticipate that argument, and affected to believe that the introduction of his Bill into this House would be the equivalent of public, discussion. But he must know perfectly well that what is meant by public discussion is a discussion among those who are most intimately concerned, and who are most likely to be affected by any intended legislation; and I think it has always been the custom in regard to legislation in this country that the opinions and the feelings of those who are likely to be affected, and who are most concerned, should be consulted before any Bill is introduced into Parliament.
  The advocates of my noble friend's Bill, baffled by the verdict of the Select Committee of the House of Commons and also by the judgment of a Board of Trade inquiry held in 1905, found that a policy of mere resistance was useless, and therefore they assumed the offensive in the form of this Bill, and have inveigled my noble friend, I know not how, into undertaking the somewhat undignified

  193
  task of drawing a red herring across the scent of true legislation. It is not a compliment to this House that the attempt to draw off the legislative pack on a false scent should have been made here, but I trust that your Lordships will not be misled by the fact that so sagacious and trusted a leader of the pack is for once in a way "throwing his tongue" in the wrong direction. This Bill is in effect a blocking Bill—an anti-registration Bill, and that is why I object to the manner of its introduction. Another reason for objecting to the manner of its introduction is that nobody outside the inner ring of the small self-constituted body calling itself the Central Hospital Council for London has been consulted. The opinion of neither doctors nor nurses has been sought or obtained.
  In these circumstances I might ask your Lordships to refrain from approving the principle of the Bill on the ground that it is not supported by any public demand, and that, on the contrary, it is objected to by a very large and influential body of public opinion. I might suggest that the right course for your Lordships to take would be to say that you would not spend time in discussing it unless and until it conies back with some show of public support. I think that that would be a fair and reasonable course to adopt in a case of this kind. But my task would not be complete unless I showed that the Bill was also objectionable in principle. The object of registering nurses is, of course, to protect the public and the nurses themselves. I need not take up your Lordships' time by explaining why that protection is necessary. The reasons must be familiar to most Members of this House who are so largely concerned with questions of this kind. It would be more appropriate to dwell on the necessity for that protection in discussing a Bill which proposed to give protection to the public and to the nursing profession; it is not so appropriate in discussing a Bill which is intended to deny that protection.
  My noble friend objected to registration as a means of protecting the public and the profession on two grounds. The first of these was that you could not register the character of a nurse, and the second was that examination was no test
  194
  of character. I think that argument is very easily disposed of. It will be sufficient to remind your Lordships that the need for protection in regard to the nursing profession is similar to that which exists in other professions, and therefore the method adopted might very well be analogous. In the Medical, Acts, the Solicitors Acts, the Dentists Acts, the Pharmacy Acts, and the recent Midwives Act, uniform principles have guided legislation in this country and throughout the British Empire; and if it is an objection to the principle of registration to say that you cannot register the character of a nurse and that examination is no test of character, or temper, or tact, or any of those other qualities which my noble friend enumerated in his most impressive manner, it is also an objection to the legislation which has taken place for the registration of doctors, solicitors, dentists, chemists, and midwives. The main principle of that legislation has been to establish registers which guarantee the efficiency of the members of the profession, and I think it is fairly obvious that the same principle could be followed and should be followed in regard to nurses.
  My noble friend's Bill does not provide in any way for the establishment and the maintenance of a proper standard of training and conduct among nurses, and that alone could adequately protect the public interest. It is for that purpose that the advocates of State registration, the promoters of the two Bills now before the House of Commons, propose the creation of a council having statutory duties and powers, subject only to the general control of the Privy Council, and not merely an advisory committee like that suggested by my noble friend. Again, this Official Directory of Nurses Bill does not provide, as do the Bills before the other House, for the proper representation of those best qualified to advise. It does not provide for the proper representation either of medical men or of nurses themselves. It ignores altogether the experience of those members of the medical profession who are not attached to hospitals, but who, nevertheless, have a greater practical familiarity than have the staffs of hospitals with the actual work of nurses in

  195
  those very circumstances in which the protection of the public is most needed.
  The Bill in no way provides that the nurses themselves should be represented, and that their experience should have weight in determining the conditions of their registration. It does not provide explicitly for a Central Nurses Board, which would be following the precedent of the Midwives Act and the other Acts I have quoted, and it does not provide the essential test of a State examination. For these reasons I submit to your Lordships that the Bill would in no way remedy the evils which my noble friend admits to exist, and which it is the object of the advocates of State registration to remedy. It would be misleading to the public and useless to the nurses. There is yet one minor objection which I should like to point out. The Bill does not provide for an appeal on the part of a nurse who is erased from the register, and that kind of appeal could only be provided if you had a statutory body following the precedent of other similar bodies. I assert, in spite of all that my noble friend has said, that the promoters of this Bill have deliberately refrained from making any attempt to ascertain the opinion of any organized bodies representative of the medical and nursing professions. And why? I do not think the reason is far to seek. It is because they knew full well that they would not meet with any encouragement or support.
  My noble friend referred to his daily letter bag. I, perhaps, may also be permitted to refer to mine. Every day for the past month I have received unvarying encouragement from every sort and kind of body and individual connected with the medical and nursing professions and interested in this question. I should be inclined to lay a very heavy wager that my noble friend has received very little, if any, similar encouragement. The object of this Bill is solely to put an obstacle in the true path of legislation—that is to say, legislation on the sound principles formulated by the Select Committee of the House of Commons, embodied in the Bills now before that House, approved by the two great professions concerned, and authorised by every kind of precedent in our own legislation and in the legislation of other countries and
  196
  our Colonies. The House of Commons have a prior right in this matter. They have taken the initiative, they have studied the question, and they have mapped out a course. I submit that we ought not to impede them without better reasons than those which have been shown by my noble friend. I conclude, as I begun, by affirming my humble opinion that it would discredit this House in the eyes of a very large and important section of the community if this Bill were even approved in principle, and therefore, I beg to move that it he read a second time on this day six months.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and to add at the end of the Motion the words, 'this clay six months.'"—(Lord Ampthill.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, like my noble friend who has just spoken, I have received a considerable amount of correspondence and printed matter in reference to this Bill, and until I received these communications I had not directed my attention at all to the subject. I am bound to say that I have only received representations against the Bill. Not one correspondent has communicated with me in its favour. I regret that there should be this antagonism between two bodies of opinion on this important subject. I think it is desirable that a question of this kind should be settled by a common general understanding. The whole country is interested in seeing the nursing profession attain a contented and thoroughly recognised position; but if all proposed legislation is to be made the subject of acute contention, it is unlikely that any legislation at all will be passed. There must be a kind of common understanding. The nursing profession has increased and developed in such an extraordinary way that it commands our respect and wins our sympathy.
  The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill quoted the testimony of three or four highly placed and respected ladies. I fully agree that a nurse has to possess many qualities that cannot be tested by examination, such qualities as sympathy with and attention to the patient. The nurses have

  197
  struggled to improve themselves in the homes, in their education, and in their qualifications for the duties of their calling. They submit themselves to two, three, and four years of training, and have done everything that conceivably could be done to win public respect. Their final step is to urge that they are entitled, for their own protection and for the assistance of the public, to have a State Register setting out a full statement of their qualifications and under proper supervision. They ask that as a public-spirited body. They claim that they are entitled to ask the State to provide for them a method of registration that will be a protection for themselves and the public. I think there is a good deal to be said for that. The subject was dealt with by a Select Committee of the other House, and that Committee, after hearing the evidence and considering the case thoroughly, declared that the claim was reasonable and fair. I daresay that in time such a Bill may pass through the House of Commons and be presented to your Lordships' House. But the Bill of my noble friend, of which I do not desire to speak harshly at all, is really intended to prevent the views of the nurses from being carried out.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: What authority has the noble and learned Lord for saying that?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: From the mass of correspondence which I have received and which I will send to my noble friend if he would like to read it. The noble Lord put forward his case with the greatest possible skill and in a most exhaustive way, but he was not able to mention the name of a single medical corporation or body supporting his Bill. He mentioned several members of the medical profession whose opinion is entitled to great respect, but they did not speak the views of any body of their profession. I believe, therefore, accord-to my experience as a man of the world and judging by the mass of correspondence I have received, the great body of the nursing profession are opposed to the noble Lord's Bill. They take their stand upon the registration of trained nurses as provided by a Bill in the House
  198
  of Commons, and they believe that this Bill has been introduced to stop the measure that they desire. Again, there is not the slightest suggestion in this Bill from beginning to end that the nurses are ever to be heard with reference to its administration; whereas in the Bills that have been introduced in the other House ample provision for this is made.
  There is nothing novel in the suggestion of registration for nurses. It is not proposed that they should be compulsorily placed upon the Register but that they might ask to be placed upon it with a statement of their qualifications. There is no suggestion put forward by the nurses that those who have not the qualifications entitling them to be placed on the Register shall be excluded from practising. Any one could employ what nurse he pleased, registered or unregistered, qualified or unqualified. As I say, there is nothing new in the suggestion that nurses should have facilities for registration. Colony after Colony has adopted the principle, and thirteen or fourteen of the States of America and several countries in Europe have followed the same policy. Is it not, therefore, reasonable, in the interests of the community that everything should be done to encourage nurses to improve their education and to allow them to be registered? I do not object to the principle of a Directory for the purpose of giving information to anyone wishing the aid of a nurse, but at the same time it is reasonable and just that the nurses themselves should have an opportunity of obtaining the registration of their qualifications. They have not asked for a Directory, and the concession of it would not meet their wishes.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, the subject raised by this debate is of very great importance. The profession of nursing is a very useful and honourable one. The number of nurses increases every year, and the duties they are called upon to undertake are becoming increasingly onerous. The nurse is the help both of the patient and of the doctor, and without her the work now done for the sick in this country

  199
  would be immensely hindered. But when noble Lords speak of the protection of nurses, they should not forget that the public have also to be considered. Great though the services of nurses to the public are, there are occasions when the position is reversed and when trouble arises between the nurse and the patient.
  Whilst I cannot propose that this should be treated as a Bill that is officially supported by the Government, I must say I look upon it with some benevolence. I do not at all admit the force of the argument put forward by the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill and by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. This Bill does not in the least interfere with the registration of nurses; indeed, it is a distinct step towards registration. There is very great controversy upon the matter, and it is not true to say that the nurses are unanimously in favour of the registration proposal. I do not think it has been attempted to be shown that more than about 5,000 of the nurses of this country support the particular proposal now before the House of Commons.
  But the nurses, after all, are not the only persons interested in this subject. The interests of the medical profession must also be considered. It is not the business of the patient to choose the nurse; it is the duty of the doctor to advise on the choice. The patient, as a rule, cannot tell what the qualifications of the nurse are, and it must be left to the doctor to recommend the nurse who is particularly adapted by her qualifications for any particular case. Then it is the business of the hospitals to train the nurses, and, whatever arrangement is eventually made, the views of the hospital authorities must be taken into account. There is another point. The Poor Law authorities are probably the largest employers of nurses in this country, and the Local Government Board therefore are also interested in this legislation. I do not regard the Bills in the other House as being in antagonism to the Bill of my noble friend; but, after all, this is essentially a case where the Government's procedure should follow the maxim of festina lente. It is better in a case such as this to begin quietly and within comparatively
  200
  restricted limits. Registration could very well be introduced under this Bill hereafter, for there is a power to make alterations in the arrangements by Order in Council.
  As regards the question of appeal, the intention of the Bill is that the nurse's name should only be capable of being excluded or erased from the Directory in the case of his or her actual conviction of some definite offence which would be specified in the Order in Council. I urge your Lordships to support my noble friend Lord Balfour's Bill as a practical and direct step towards what noble Lords opposite are desiring, namely, the registration of nurses. I believe the best way to arrive at that is to begin on a small scale and to extend afterwards if it should seem desirable.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I desire to support the action which Lord Ampthill has taken in regard to this Bill, because I cannot see that, if passed, it would be of the slightest advantage to any one. I have the honour of representing two large institutions—Guy's Hospital and Queen Victoria's Institute of Jubilee Nurses. Both of those institutions are opposed to this Bill, yet I think I may claim for them that they desire to maintain the highest possible standard of nursing, to promote the efficiency and further the interests of nurses, and to protect the public. I do not see that this Bill if passed would contribute to any of those ends. I think we are in some difficulty with regard to this discussion, because the Bill as it is before us is more in the nature of a skeleton, the most important details of which are to be filled in afterwards by Order in Council. It is extremely difficult to discuss the Bill without knowing the manner in which those details will be filled in. This Bill simply provides that a nurse who has received training at a hospital, infirmary, or other institution can have her name entered in a Directory. Nothing is said as to the size of the hospital or the nature of the training, and I should like to know whether the hospital training has to be completed by the nurse before it is proposed that her name should be entered on the Directory. The noble

  201
  Lord in charge of the Bill expressed the opinion that the measure would be in the interests of the most capable nurses, but I venture to think that if it is in the interests of any, it will be in the interests of the less efficient nurses. I cannot see how it is to be in the interest of the capable nurse if the measure of her capacity is not to be any inducement to her to place her name on the Directory.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Surely the measure of her capacity is just the thing that would be placed on the Directory.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: That is one of the questions on which we are in a difficulty, because the qualifications to be inserted are to be decided by Order in Council after the Bill has passed. I will take a concrete case. Take the case of a nurse who enters a hospital where the period of training is four years. Having completed that period the nurse receives a certificate. Supposing at the end of two years, either because her strength would not hold out, or because the hospital authorities did not think she was sufficiently capable to make a good nurse, she was compelled to leave without a certificate. She would have received training at a hospital. Would she be allowed to put her name down as having received training at that hospital? That is really a most important question, to which I should be very glad if the noble Lord could give me an answer.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is a point which will depend upon the regulations to be prescribed by the Privy Council, but I cannot myself conceive that such a thing would happen as that the Privy Council would allow a nurse who had only received two years' training to masquerade as having received four.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: No, but they might allow her to masquerade as having received two.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: The public at large has very little knowledge of the regulations which prevail at the various hospitals with regard to training, and if
  202
  it were not necessary that a nurse should receive a certificate before her name was entered on the Directory the public would be no wiser if her name was there than it would be if it was not. The certificate of efficiency should be the only gauge as to whether a nurse's name should appear on the Directory or not. It is difficult for us to vote for a Bill when such important details as these are not before us, but are left to be dealt with afterwards by an Order in Council. There are many arguments for State registration, and there are many arguments against it, but this Bill is neither one thing nor the other. Those who are opposed to State registration ought to oppose this Bill, because it contains that which they most object to in State registration, without, I venture to think, containing any of its guarantees; and I think those who support State registration ought to oppose this Bill because it does not carry out the objects they desire. Therefore, I claim against the Bill the votes both of those who are in favour of State registration and of those who are against it.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, it appears to me that the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council and the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading are the only persons who look upon this Bill as a stepping stone towards State registration for nurses. It is clear that this Bill is drafted on totally different lines. The view of the House of Commons Committee is that it is extremely desirable that an unqualified nurse should not be held out to be a qualified nurse, but this Bill proposes to put the unqualified nurse in precisely the same position as regards the Directory as the qualified nurse. That is a very serious thing. Any nurse of good character, as far as we can see, could get her name placed upon the Directory, and having got there she would have a distinct pull as against a nurse who was not on the Directory; and if in future an Act was passed for the State registration of nurses you would have these two things running concurrently, and the public would be liable to get confused. I certainly agree with the opinion expressed to me by a lady who is a very great authority on nursing,

  203
  and who thinks it is the more enlightened nurse who will be in favour of registration and the less enlightened, not possessing the same training, experience, and ambition, who will be content with the Directory; and I think it is extremely desirable, in the public interest, that there should be a Register setting forth the qualifications of the nurses rather than a mere Directory. I am entirely at one with the noble and learned Lord who spoke from the Front Bench opposite that the registration should not be compulsory. If we give this Bill a Second Reading we shall be acting against the opinion expressed by the Select Committee of the House of Commons, who considered this matter for two years, against all logic, and certainly against the opinion of the important bodies enumerated by Lord Ampthill. For some time I was treasurer of University College Hospital; for many years I have been on the committee of the hospital, and I am certain that if any member of the medical staff or of the committee had wished to support Lord Balfour's Bill I should have heard of it. But, as a matter of fact, I have not heard of one single doctor, nurse, or member of the hospital committee who is in favour of this Bill.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this Bill has been extremely fortunate in the personality of its introducer, and also in its unexpected support from the front Ministerial Bench, but I think there its good fortune comes to an end. I submit that a Bill of this character, introduced confessedly without the assent or the concurrence of any of the persons most interested in the subject with which it deals, is hardly one likely to commend itself to your Lordships. You have been told that the nurses themselves are not to be found, through any recognised association, to support this Bill, and your Lordships have also been told that medical men, who have the next best knowledge on the subject, are also not to be found in its support. I have received many communications regarding this Bill, but I have not received a single one in its favour. I can hardly think that your Lordships would be likely to pass a Bill for the regulation of a large class of this character when that measure
  204
  is entirely without support from those chiefly concerned and is not put forward after any considerable public discussion on the subject. I speak entirely as a layman; but the whole balance of the evidence, so far as I am able to form any opinion upon it, is that this Bill is not desired by those who know most about it, and, in spite of what was said by the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council, must necessarily prove a hindrance and obstacle to that State registration of nurses which we all desire.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but, having some little knowledge of the subject from the position which I previously held, I intervene at this point to say a few words. The question is not really such a simple one as it has been made out to be, either by the noble Earl who has just sat down or by the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench opposite. The noble and learned Lord said he spoke as a man of the world, and one is always delighted to hear him in that or any other capacity. But I would rather have heard him as one who had looked into this matter and realised the difficulties. The noble and learned Lord seemed to imply that it was a question between passing this Bill now and passing a Registration Bill in the immediate future, and he very naturally, and I think very properly, preferred the Registration Bill of the two. But, my Lords, that is not exactly the position. It may be that it is a question of something of this kind or of nothing at all, because the path of a Registration Bill is by no means quite so easy a one as Lord Ampthill and others have attempted to make us believe.
  There are two principal difficulties, which were brought before me when I was Lord President. One has to do with machinery, and it is a difficulty which has not been got over. The kind of registration wanted by the medical profession is not the same as that wanted by the nursing profession, because each profession insists that their profession should have the majority upon the council to be formed. That is a difficulty which, so far as I know, has been by no means solved, and your Lordships would

  205
  find that if a Bill came up to this House containing provisions either for a medical majority or for a nursing majority it would be hotly opposed by those who consider themselves entitled to speak on behalf of the one profession or the other. Then there is the inherent difficulty which has always seemed to me the main obstacle in the way of registration—How can you avoid people regarding registration as a guarantee of permanent efficiency?
  The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill quoted the Medical and Solicitors Acts as being analogous to a system of registration for nurses. That is not so. A doctor practises in a certain place and works, so to speak, in the light of day. If he gets drunk, if his character is such that people dislike to see him attending their wives and daughters, the fact soon becomes known and people cease to employ him. He may possibly be still on the Register, but his character can be perfectly well known. But there is no such means of ascertaining the character of a nurse. She is sent for very often from a distance and in a hurry, and in nine cases out of ten her past and also her present are absolutely unknown to the people who send for her. Therefore it seems to me that the analogy entirely breaks down. I have never heard a suggestion as to how you are to maintain any sort of inspection which will guarantee that a registered nurse is an absolutely proper and desirable person, quite apart from those questions of temper and other important matters to which Lord Balfour alluded.
  The noble Viscount opposite asked whether it might not happen that a person who had had no training would be, upon the Directory, in as good a position as a fully trained nurse. As I understand it, the object of the Directory is to give a sort of "Who's who" in the nursing profession. If a nurse had had only three months training, the Directory would show that, and the person sending for her would do so at his own risk. If she had successfully passed a four years course at St. Bartholomew's or some other well-known hospital, that fact would be stated. It is very difficult to see how you can go beyond the state-
  206
  ment of what the training has been unless you are prepared to regard the fact that the nurse is on the Register as a guarantee of her being at the time you send for her the kind of nurse you should have in your house. I am not in any way opposed to registration; on the contrary, I most heartily favour the principle; but I do not see any possibility of a Registration Act being passed within the next few years, not only on account of the Parliamentary obstacles, but also on account of the inherent difficulties I have just mentioned. I therefore regard this Bill as something in the nature of a step in advance, and I cannot see in what respect it would be an obstacle to registration in the future. On the contrary, it appears to me that it would be of assistance to registration, and therefore, if a division takes place, I personally shall give my vote with my noble friend in favour of the Bill.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I wish to say a very few words on the subject of this Bill, and I shall be brief, partly because I confess I have not, that intimate knowledge either of the subject or of the origin of this proposed legislation which is enjoyed by the noble Lords who have already spoken. We have had statements to the effect that there has been a failure to consult those who ought to have been consulted. Again, motives have been imputed to those from whom this Bill originated. I know nothing of these matters, and what I have to say has reference only to the simple text of the Bill as I find it on the Table.
  The noble Earl who has just sat down referred to the preference which had been expressed for another Bill now before the House of Commons. He met that argument by the observation that there was no security whatever that we should get that Bill, and I understood him to suggest that this Bill was better than nothing. But is it quite clear that this Bill is better than nothing? I confess to having some doubts upon that point. The Bill, as has been truly said, deals with a matter of very great importance—a matter of importance not only to the nursing profession, a profession of which I desire to speak with the utmost respect,

  207
  but also to the medical profession and the public at large, and it seems to me that we cannot be too careful in approaching legislation upon a subject of this kind. I confess I should myself prefer to leave it entirely alone rather than resort to legislation which might increase the confusion which apparently already exists and add to those rivalries and antipathies which have been disclosed during the course of this debate. There are two points in particular as to which I should like to say a word. In the first place, is not the title of this Bill rather a misleading title? The noble Lord who moved it dwelt repeatedly upon the fact that it was a Bill merely for establishing a Directory of Nurses, and he drew a sharp contrast between such a Bill and what he called the more ambitious and drastic scheme of registration which others prefer. But this Bill is really a Registration Bill. It is a Bill for creating a Directory; but behind the Directory there is an official registrar, there are conditions to be attached to registration, and there are penalties to be imposed upon those who do not comply with those conditions. Therefore, I venture to submit to the House that this is a Registration Bill, and that you must consider whether it is or is not a good Registration Bill.
  The second point to which I wish to invite the attention of the House is this—that this registration, for I prefer to call it registration, is not compulsory. It is, as I understand it, entirely optional upon a nurse whether she has her name included in the Directory or not. A nurse whose name is not in the Directory will be allowed, I apprehend, to practise as at present. If that is so, does it not clearly follow that the nurses who will be upon the Directory will claim for themselves, and may appear to the public to be, a kind of corps d'elite amongst the nursing body? But will they have a right to claim that they are really a corps d'elite? Is it not clear from what we have heard to-night that a great many of the best qualified nurses will decline to have anything to do with the Directory? To the public, however, the presence of a nurse's name on the official Directory will appear to
  208
  involve some kind of guarantee of her fitness to practise as a nurse. What is there in this Bill to afford any security that she really will be fit to practise in that honourable and difficult profession? Clause 3 says—
  "Every nurse who has received training in nursing at a hospital, infirmary, or other institution for the care of the sick.…not being an institution carried on for private gain, shall be entitled to have his or her name entered in the Directory."
  But nothing is said as to the amount of such training. It may be of the most perfunctory and insufficient nature. My noble friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill suggested to us that people would refer to the Directory in order to ascertain the competence, suitability, and qualification of the nurses, but I fail to find anything in the Bill to provide that the Directory shall, in itself, afford any guarantee whatever.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is not intended to.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is not intended to, says my noble friend. That is my argument. I certainly gathered from him, both when he spoke at first and also when he answered an interrogation from the benches behind me just now, that the Directory was intended to supply a measure of the nurses capacity. I think that was what he said at the Table a moment ago, but I fail to find in this Bill anything which really bears out that statement. What is likely to be the result of passing this Bill? After what we have heard this evening as to the marked division of opinion in the nursing profession, it seems to me quite obvious that a large number of the most qualified nurses will remain outside the Directory altogether, and if that should happen, surely we may say that none of the three interested parties—the nurses themselves, the medical profession, and the public—will really gain very much by our legislation.
  We know that another Bill dealing with this matter is before the House of Commons. I am not going to discuss the details of that Bill upon this occasion. Those of us who have had an opportunity of examining it are under the impression that at some points it compares favourably

  209
  with the Bill upon your Lordships's Table. But be that as it may, I cannot help doubting whether my noble friend who is responsible for this Bill is wise in pressing upon Parliament a measure which is evidently regarded with great suspicion. If there is to be a settlement of this question of registration—a difficult and a thorny question—surely we should endeavour to obtain a settlement which would be generally acceptable to all parties concerned; and it is because I am afraid that this Bill, instead of affording the material for such a settlement, will aggravate the existing difficulty, that I shall very reluctantly, if my noble friend presses his Motion to a division, vote, not with him, but with my noble friend Lord Ampthil.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I daresay the House will give me their indulgence for a few moments for a reply. I am very much in the hands of the House as to whether or not a division should be taken on this matter. I have received a certain amount of support from those who are well entitled to speak, and from those who are officially responsible in this matter, and I should be sorry not to take the sense of the Hose in respect to that support. I frankly admit that whether the House accepts the Second Reading or not it will not make any real practical difference. There is such a divergence of opinion in regard to the Bills before the other House that they are not likely to come to a successful issue during the present session; and it is also certain that, if our Lordships were ultimately to pass this Bill, it would not have much chance of acceptance in another place, having regard to the conditions under which business is there transacted. Therefore, it is purely a matter of academic interest whether e have a division on the Second Reading or not. Personally I am inclined to test in the division lobby the amount of support to be given to this Bill, because I believe there has been a considerable amount of interested clamour against it.
  I should like to say a word in regard to what my noble and learned friend said on the point of the authority which is behind the opposition to this Bill. Un-
  210
  doubtedly certain resolutions passed by certain bodies of organised nurses have been quoted both by him and by the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, but there is more than a suspicion that in some of these cases they are only a stage army. There are some individuals who are responsible for more than one of those resolutions. I am not very learned in the names of the different nursing association, but I have had some education in regard to them. I have had interviews with some of the ladies who are opposed to the Bill, and, so far as I can see, the management of these different associations which have passed resolutions is in hands not very dissimilar one from the other. I have not been able to find our how many nurses the opposition to this Bill represents. I do not for a moment deny that they represent a considerable number, but my contention is that in regard to the total profession they are not by any means so representative as they would like to make out, and as, perhaps, they genuinely think themselves. If we once have a Directory of Nurses, we shall be able, by some means or other, to find out what their real opinions are on this subject. It was on that ground mainly that I took up this measure.
  I suppose to some extent I am in the dock as one of those who desire to oppose the more ambitious schemes. I do not know whether any disclaimer on my part will convince those who have cast that stone at me; but that is not really the case. I have read the evidence that was given before the Select Committee of the other house, and I am convinces that there is a great deal more to be said on this Bill as a real step in advance than is admitted by those who are in favour of the larger schemes. I agree with the tow noble Lords who spoke opposite that, even if we passed this Bill, it might not advance very much the cause of those who want the larger schemes. I can assure them, honestly, that it is not put forward for the purpose of blocking those schemes, but for affording a means of improving the present position of matters. Lord Monkswell said that he was connected with University College Hospital, and seemed to imply that no one connected with that hospital would

  211
  have anything to do with such a Bill as mine. But his hospital is not unanimous about registration, for in the Appendix to the Select Committee's Report I find a list of resolutions in opposition to the Bills which were then suggested, and amongst them is one passed by the Committee of University College Hospital.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My statement was that I had received no communication from any member of University College Hospital in favour of the noble Lord's Bill.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think that may be quite possible. I do not know whether noble Lords will concur with me, but in my experience I find that those who are in favour of a measure are much less active than those who are against it. The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition made some observations in regard to the Bill. He objected to the title, which, he says, is registration in disguise, and he commented upon the fact that the entries upon the Directory would not be compulsory. No one proposes that registration, if you choose so to call it, under this Bill, or under the other Bill, should be made compulsory, because the only way in which you could make it compulsory would be by providing that those who were not on the Register or Directory should not be allowed to practise.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope my noble friend did not imagine that I was in favour of compulsory registration.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have far too much belief in my noble friend's knowledge of affairs to suggest that he would ever advocate so absurd a proposal; but I differ from him in this, that I do not believe there is any evidence to show that only the less good nurses would go on the Directory. I believe it would be a great advertisement of their qualifications; and, although it would not be a guarantee, it would give the medical profession and the public the means of finding out the qualifications, antecedents, and attainments of nurses, which they do not possess at the present time. Although the matter is of an academic kind, I desire to take the sense of the House in regard to this Bill. The more I have looked into this question, the more convinced I am that there is a real grievance to be remedied; and I concur most cordially in the statement that it is a great pity opportunity is not taken, by conciliation, to arrive at a better understanding on this important matter.
  On Question, whether the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion,
  The House divided:—Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 53.

  CONTENTS.

  Tweedmouth, L, (L. President.)

  Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

  Denman, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Glantawe, L. [Teller.]

  Crewe, E.

  James, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Cromer, E.

  Killanin, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Cross, V.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Bath, M.

  Armitstead, L.

  Welby, L.

  Balfour, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Clarendon, E.

  Churchill, V.

  Dartrey, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Bedford, D.

  Denbigh, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Devonshire, D.

  Jersey, E.

  Hill, V.

  Liverpool, E.

  Milner, V.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Onslow, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Russell, E.

  Ampthill, L. [Teller]

  Waldegrave, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Westmeath, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Heneage, L. [Teller.]

  Rathmore, L.

  Belper, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Hindlip, L.

  Reay, L.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Faber, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Fairlie, L. (B. Glasgow.)

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Newton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Haversharn, L.

  Playfair, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Moved to resolve, "That after the Companies (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.] has been read 2a it is desirable that the said Bill together with the Post Office (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament"—(The Lord Granard (E. Granard));—agreed to.

  Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

  TERRITORIAL HORSE ARTILLERY.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government: (1) To give particulars as to the amount of training undergone annually by officers and men of the Canadian and Australian Volunteer Field Batteries; (2) to state whether, by the last Reports received at the War Office, these batteries are regarded as efficient or inefficient; (3) whether it is proposed to issue to the Horse and Field Territorial Batteries old pattern collar harness or the new pattern breast harness; (4) with what gun it is proposed to arm the Territorial Horse Artillery; (5) what are the respective weights of the 15-pounder converted quick-firing and the 18-pounder quick-firing gun and limber fully packed and with shields; and (6) what arrangements are being made for the provision of proper artillery land ranges where the Territorial batteries may carry out their gun practice, and how many such ranges the authorities contemplate being able to obtain.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord LUCAS): My Lords, in answer to the first Question, I have to say that there are no "Volunteer" field batteries in either Canada, or Australia. The "Militia" Field Artillery of Canada has to do twelve days annually in camp and an additional four days practice at an artillery camp to qualify for efficiency. Pay is drawn for sixteen days only, but a number of voluntary drills are usually performed in addition to those required for efficiency. In Australia the number of days training required for efficiency by the Field Artillery is sixteen, which includes four days practice. Here also additional voluntary drills are performed. As to the second Question, copies of the reports of the Military Council of Canada and
  214
  of the Military Board of the Commonwealth of Australia are laid annually before the Parliaments of Canada and Australia respectively. His Majesty's Government have no control over the forces raised in the self-governing Colonies, and it does not, therefore, seem desirable that the War Office should make any statement on the subject of efficiency of these forces. In reply to the third Question, collar harness is going to be provided for the batteries of the Territorial Force; and, as to the fourth Question, it is proposed to arm the Territorial Horse Artillery with the converted 15-pounder and with the Mark IV which is slightly lighter than the Mark I gull. I now come to the fifth Question. The weight of the new 18-pounder quick-firer with the shield is 40 cwt. 16 lb.; the weight of the converted 15-pounder, Mark IV, is 40 cwt. 1 qr. It is at present under consideration to lighten the guns of the Territorial Horse Artillery by taking out a certain amount of ammunition from the limber. About 6 cwt. of ammunition is at present carried on the limber, and the gun in action is supplied from the wagons, and therefore the important thing is to carry the immediate supply in the wagons. With the 15-pounder you can carry in the wagon alone almost as many rounds as you can with the Horse Artillery gun in both limber and wagon. The answer to the sixth Question is that the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief have been instructed to place themselves in communication with the County Associations in reference to possible artillery ranges. It is considered at the present time, whilst this artillery is in its infancy, that the present range accommodation, most of which is at coast ranges, should be sufficient to provide accommodation adequate for its batteries for the first two years of their existence, and while they are really learning the rudiments of their work. By the end of that time it will,

  215
  of course, be desirable that they should have ranges which will afford them not only better facilities for manœvuring than the coast ranges do, but also that they should have the opportunity of firing across land. The County Associations have already received from the War Office a letter giving information with regard to the possible sites for new artillery ranges, and also there is a new clause in the Public Works Loan Commissioners (Annual) Bill this session to facilitate the purchase of artillery ranges. It is impossible to say what number of inland ranges it is hoped to provide, but everything is being done to provide them when the time comes, and it is hoped that in two years time we shall have made considerable provision with inland ranges.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I should like to ask if the noble Lord is aware that it is infinitely more important for horse artillery to have as much ammunition as possible in their limbers than with field artillery, because one of the most important functions of horse artillery is to act with cavalry, and to get over the country quickly, and very often the wagons cannot keep up with them. The reduction of the amount of ammunition is one of the most extraordinary propositions I have ever heard of.
  *LORD LUCAS: The total amount of ammunition carried with the battery will be practically the same. As I understand it, it is the wagon that is used at the time when the battery goes into action.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: There are many occasions with the horse artillery when it is preferable to use the ammunition from the limbers. I hope the authorities at the War Office will give due consideration to that fact.

INDIANS IN NATAL.
*LORD AMPTHILLrose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he would lay on the Table of the House any correspondence that might have passed recently concerning the Municipal Corporations Act and the Dealers' Licences Act of the Colony of
216
Natal. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies to discuss, or to make any statement upon, the very important subject referred to in the correspondence for which I ask. In the first place I do not think it would be fair to do so immediately on the accession of the noble Earl to the supremely important office in which, if I may say so without presumption, we are all glad to see him. Secondly, I do not think it advisable that a question of this kind should be discussed in this House without full official information. I would merely, therefore, put my Question to the noble Earl and ask him to allow me to do so on the understanding that if the Papers, by any unfortunate chance, cannot be presented, or cannot be presented within reasonable time, say a fortnight, I may consider myself at liberty to raise the question either with or without the official information I hope to obtain.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord opposite for his consideration, but I think I may be allowed to state how the matter stands at this moment, because it will be a guide to him if he wishes to refer to it on some future occasion. The two laws referred to are the Municipal Corporations Act of Natal and the Dealers' Licences Act, and I can quite understand that the noble Lord, having held the high position he did in India, takes a keen interest in the lot of Indians who have migrated, for trade or other purposes, to Natal. So far as regards the Municipal Corporations Act, that Act, as I daresay the noble Lord knows, is not in operation. It was reserved, and therefore it does not affect any Indians in Natal at this moment. There has been no recent correspondence on either of the Acts. Lord Elgin addressed the last communication to the Natal Government at the beginning of September, and so far no reply has been received. Two objections were taken by my noble friend and the Government to the Municipal Corporations Act. The first was that the definition of a coolie included persons to whom the term was never intended to apply—namely, persons outside the

217
classes of labourers and domestic servants; and, therefore, strong objection was taken to it. On that point the Natal Government were willing to meet my noble friend Lord Elgin. They were prepared to alter the wording of the Act in terms which would make it clear that only actual labourers and domestic servants would be included. But there was the further point that the Indians, who, as the noble Lord knows, are already excluded from the Parliamentary franchise in Natal, would also have been excluded from the municipal franchise. The latter is, in the opinion of the Colonial Office, a more domestic matter than the Parliamentary franchise, and therefore, there is a sort of a fortiori reason for not pressing the Natal Government to change their mind on this question of excluding Indians from the municipal franchise. But on one condition. If the Indians are to be excluded from the municipal franchise—and my noble friend did not stand out on that point—it could only be on the understanding that the ratepayers, who would not include the Indians, were prepared to treat the Indians fairly in every way. At the present time Indian traders can be deprived of their licences by the Licensing Board, on which they, of course, have no representation. That is provided for under Section 6 of the Dealers' Licences Act, and there is no appeal from the Licensing Board. My noble friend Lord Elgin intimated that the Secretary of State for India regarded it as essential that if the Indians are to be deprived of the municipal franchise, they ought, in return for that deprivation to have an appeal to the Supreme Court on this question of licences, the matter where they think their interests are likely to be most seriously affected. The noble Lord sees how the matter stands. That alternative was offered to the Natal Government, and so far they have made no reply. The question is, therefore, in so incomplete a stage at the present moment that there would be no advantage in laying Papers on the Table. But if the noble Lord will not press for Papers now, I will take care that he is informed when anything further occurs; and meanwhile the Municipal Corporations Act is not in operation.

COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  POST OFFICE (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.