Sitting of 11 November 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE PROHIBITION BILL.
  Petition from Wick and Pulteneytown, against; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions from Shaftesbury and other places, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Ashton under Lyne, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CRIMES (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto, [ordered 2nd November; Mr. Lonsdale]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 320.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4164 and 4165 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (TRADE).
  Copy presented, of Review of the Trade of India for 1907–8 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DOCK LABOUR IN RELATION TO POOR LAW RELIEF.
  Copy presented, of Report to the President of the Local Government Board by the Honourable Gerald Walsh, one of the Inspectors of the Board [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WESTERN PACIFIC.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to the Administration of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  FISCAL POLICY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum by Mr. Alfred Marshall on the Fiscal Policy of International Trade."—(Mr. Chancellar of the Exchequer.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 321.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Compensation for Licences Withdrawn.
  MR. WHITBREAD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of licences for which compensation has been awarded by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the Licensing Act, 1904, since the date of 1st August, 1906, he can give the
  248
  total amount so awarded, the total of the Schedule A assessments of the houses in question, and the estimated value of the same houses after the extinction of the licences.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Since 1st August, 1906, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have determined awards of compensation to an aggregate amount of £671,795, in the case of 742 houses. The total of the Schedule A assessments of these houses when licensed was £29,258, and their total annual value unlicensed was £14,742, as estimated by the Inland Revenue for compensation purposes, that is to say, the estimated annual value of the houses unlicensed amounted to about 50 per cent. of their Schedule A value with licences. These figures may be compared with those given in reply to a previous Question as the houses in respect of which the Commissioners awarded compensation for the years 1905 and 1906, showing (exclusive of premises which have been unoccupied) a total Schedule A assessment, with licences, of £20,145, and an actual Schedule A assessment, without licences, of £14,442, or about 72 per cent. of the value with licences.

  Scale of Living at Twickenham.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to say what is the cost of living in the postal area of Twickenham.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is estimated by analogy from neighbouring towns where investigation has been made by the Board of Trade that the cost of living at Twickenham is considerably above the normal. Under this analogy the scales of pay of the indoor and outdoor force at Twickenham have been raised.

  Hours in Provincial Post Offices.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state what are the recognised weekly hours of the clerical staff in the head offices of Worksop, Mansfield, Lincoln, Spilsby, Gainsborough, Grimsby, and Brigg; and what are the

  249
  weekly hours these staffs have worked I board's start are sometimes employed for during the past twelve months.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will have inquiry made into the matter, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Expedition of Mails to Ross, Co. Cavan.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that letters posted in Belfast at 7.30 p.m. are not delivered at Ross sub-post office, near Mount Nugent, County Cavan, till the second day following, and that it takes the same time for a letter from Ross to be delivered in County Monaghan, he can see his way to have the delivery of these mails expedited.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There is only one post a day to and from Ross, and it would not be practicable to expedite the delivery of the mails referred to, except by instituting a second post. As there is a loss to revenue on the existing service I should not, I am sorry to say, be justified in authorising an additional service.

  Women Inspectors of the Board of Education.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the President of the Board of Education how many women inspectors are now employed by the Board of Education; how many are on the permanent staff, and how many temporarily employed; what are the maximum salaries (and allowances) attached to such posts; what are the maximum salaries obtainable, and by what increments are these reached; and whether an increase of the number of women inspectors is contemplated by the board.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) There are now twenty-one women inspectorships on the staff of the Board of Education; of these all but three are on the permanent staff, with salaries of £200 rising by increments of £15 to £400, as shown in the Estimates; the other three being tenable for five years at a fixed annual salary of £300. Besides these there is the post of chief woman inspector, and further, women not on the
  250
  board's staff are sometimes employed for two or three consecutive days on different occasions for assisting in the full inspection of secondary schools, being paid by fees proportionate to the time so spent. The answer to the concluding paragraph is in the affirmative.

  1-Pounder Quick Firing Guns.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many 1-pounder quick-firing guns for field service the British Army possesses per 1,000 men, as compared with the French and German armies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The hon. and gallant Member appears to be under some misapprehension. 1-pounder quick-firing guns have been withdrawn from the British service, and there are no such guns in either the French or German armies.

  Appointment of Governor for the Island of Trinidad.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a governor has yet been appointed for the Island of Trinidad; and, if not, when this appointment is likely to be made.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) The vacant Governorship of Trinidad has not yet been filled, but the Secretary of State hopes that the appointment will be made very shortly.

  Precautions against Anthrax.
  MR. BRIGG: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give instructions to the consuls in the ports from which goats' hair, mohair, and low quality of wools are exported to circulate amongst the farmers, dealers, and packers in their respective districts a request that they will use every possible precaution to prevent blood stains and pieces of skin being sent to this country in bales for manufacturing purposes, as according to the recent discovery by Dr. Enrich, of Bradford, that the germs of anthrax are traceable to blood stains

  251
  and not to the ordinary dust arising from the sorting of foreign materials, the fatal cases arising from anthrax may be diminished, and the costly regulations for dealing with ordinary dust may, if thought advisable, be considerably modified.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I am advised by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the issue of such a request as is suggested in the Question might possibly prove useful though too great expectations must not be based upon it, and that, after consultation with the Home Office, steps will be taken to bring the suggestion to the notice of those interested.

  Baskets for Irish Postal Services.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that samples of baskets required for the Post Office have to be sent to an English depot, he will arrange that a receiving depot will be established in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) This has already been arranged; practically all the baskets required for the Irish parcel service will be ordered in. Ireland and delivered in Dublin.

  Registration of Ownership of Lands.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he will consider the advisability of recommending an Amendment to the reference to the Royal Commission at present taking evidence on the working of the Land Transfer Acts, to enable them to take evidence in favour of the establishment in every county of local registries of deeds similar to the registries that have for the last two centuries existed in the counties of Middlesex and Yorkshire.
  (Answered by Sir William Robson.) It is not intended to change the reference to the Royal Commission, nor am I prepared to say that they are excluded by its terms from considering the question of local registries of deeds.

  The Crown and the Prerogative of Mercy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds does he maintain that it is out of his power, having regard to the provisions of the Prisons Act of 1898, to remove prisoners from the second to the first division, having regard that by that Act the prerogative of mercy exercised by the Crown on his advice is not affected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have not contended, and I do not contend, that there is an absolute legal obstacle to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, in a particular case and for exceptional reasons, so as to effect the transfer of a prisoner from the second to the first division as an act of clemency by means of a conditional pardon. The prerogative of mercy, as such, is not altered by the Act of 1898. That Act, however, very widely extended the discretion of courts as regards prison treatment. Parliament established three divisions in local prisons, the second division being designed to enable prisoners of respectable character and antecedents to be completely separated from prisoners belonging to the criminal classes, and in express terms it entrusted to the Courts the discretion of placing each prisoner in one or other of the three divisions. In these circumstances it appears to me that to use the prerogative of mercy for the purpose of overriding the discretion given by law to the Court of trial, and deliberately exercised, would be wrong and unconstitutional action by the Government. Even though the prerogative might be exercised for special reasons as an act of clemency in an individual case, this clearly could not be done for the purpose of placing a whole class of prisoners in a privileged position. I may add that, with regard to the ladies who are now detained in Holloway Prison for offences against the ordinary law, I see no reason to think that the magistrates have exercised their discretion otherwise than rightly in directing that they shall be treated in the second division.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether seven ladies, imprisoned

  253
  for offences arising out of the woman suffrage agitation who were placed in the third division by the magistrate, have been removed by his authority from the third to the second division; and will he explain how it is within his discretion to exercise the power of removing prisoners from the third to the second division, but outside his discretion to remove prisoners from the second to the first division.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Eleven ladies were removed from the third to the second division, but this was done by the magistrate, not by me. All I did was to draw the attention of the magistrate to the fact that these ladies belonged to the class of prisoners for whom the second division was intended. I have no executive power to remove prisoners from one division to another; and, as regards the seven ladies who are still detained in default of paying their fines, I do not propose to take any steps with a view to their being removed from the second division to the first.

  Civil Service Supply Association.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Civil Service Supply Association, of Queen Victoria Street, is a business organised an conducted by State-paid Civil servants; and whether this association is permitted to canvass and solicit orders from Government employees during office hours.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The association is, I understand, managed by a committee about half of whom are Civil servants and the rest retired Civil servants. The Answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative; but, I believe, objection is not in practice raised to a servant of the association calling to take any orders that members of Government departments may have to give him.

  Pension Officer for Bryansford, Co. Down.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a pension officer has yet been appointed for the Bryansford, County
  254
  Down, sub-district; and, if not, when will the appointment be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) A pension officer has been appointed for the locality to which the hon. Member refers.

  Licence-holders Brewing own Beer.
  MR. BARNARD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of licensed holders who brew and sell their own beer; and how many barrels did they pay duty upon during the last-known financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The number of licensed holders in England and Wales who brew and sell their own beer is given on page 6 of the last Brewers Licences Return (i.e., for the year ending 30th September, 1907, Parliamentary Paper, No. 32, of 1908) as follows:—Victuallers, 2,065; retailers of beer "on" 1,103; retailers of beer "off," 88. In addition, a certain number of the 1,503 common brewers shown on the same page have a victualler's or retailer's business subsidiary to the main business of a brewer, but I have no means of determining how many. I have no information as to the number of barrels on which duty was paid by such licensed holders.

  Brewers Paying Duty on less than 500 Barrels.
  MR. BARNARD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he will state how many licensed brewers paid duty on less than 500 barrels during the last-known year.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I have no information as to the number of brewers paying duty on less than 500 barrels.

  Home Produce of Hops.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what was the amount of home-produce of hops during the year 1907–8; what was the average annual home-production of hops during the

  255
  last five years; how does this amount compare with that for the earliest quinquennium for which similar reliable figures are obtainable: and what was the average acreage under hops in England in the first and last quinquennium, respectively.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The English crop of hops was 374,129 cwts. in 1907, and 470,761 cwts. in 1908. The annual average home production in the last five years (1904–8) was 413,770 cwts., and in the five years 1885–9 504,386 cwts. The average acreage under hops in England in 1885–9 was 64,276 acres, and in 1904–8 45,469 acres.

  Old Age Pensions Claim.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that instructions to pensions officers require that cases in which the officer and the supervisor differ as to a claimant's right to a pension, or in which, owing to special circumstances, the officer and the supervisor are unable to come to a decision, shall be reported to the Board of Inland Revenue for directions before the claim is submitted to a pension committee; whether it is claimed that these regulations were made by the Board of Inland Revenue by virtue of No. 34 of the Treasury Regulations; and whether, seeing that that paragraph only authorised orders, instructions, and directions of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, subject to the provisions of the Act and of these regulations, while the control assumed by the Board of Inland Revenue in the matter is not subject to, but in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Treasury regulations, he will direct it to be withdrawn.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have had before me the confidential instructions to pension officers which have been given by the Board of Inland Revenue, and I am satisfied that the directions which have been given as to the manner in which claims are to be dealt with are in full accordance with the provisions of the Act and the regulations.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that
  256
  the regulations issued by the Board of Inland Revenue to old-age pension officers have no validity beyond the fact that they are instructions to officers, and that the Board of Inland Revenue's regulations that the supervisor must initial all reports of the pension officer before they are sent to the pension committee can be no possible check on the truthfulness of the evidence or the accuracy of the officer's report, because the supervisor has no knowledge of either, and is, therefore, no safeguard against fraud on either the claimants or the Treasury, he will direct this regulation to be withdrawn and the procedure of the Act and of the Treasury regulations to be carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The duties of the supervisor in connection with claims are performed by him in his capacity of pension officer for the district in which he has been appointed by the Treasury to act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 (4) of the Act and No. 34 of the Regulations. The present procedure is, in my judgment, necessary for the efficient administration of the Act, and does not appear to me to be in any way inconsistent with anything contained either in the Act or in the Regulations.

  Old-Age Pensions in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, since the Local Government Board for Ireland has been constituted by the Old-Age Pensions Act the central pension authority in Ireland and the local pension committee have been made the tribunal (subject to the Local Government Board) for determining the merit of claims, he can state by what authority the Board of Inland Revenue has usurped these powers of the Local Government Board and the local committees in certain cases and taken into the hands of the Somerset House staff the decision of claims on which its officers differ before the local pension committee is allowed to have information of the claim at all.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Inland Revenue has no power to "decide" any claim to an old-age pension, nor am I aware of any case

  257
  in which they have claimed to exercise such a power.

  Old-Age Pensions in the Channel Islands.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the advisability of extending the benefits of the Old-Age Pensions Act to naval and military pensioners resident in the Channel Islands, considering that a great part of their lives has been spent in the service of this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I will bear the case in mind; but I fear it would be difficult to draw a distinction between the Channel Islands and other parts of the British Dominions whose financial arrangements are separate from those of the United Kingdom.

  Indian Army—Ex-Sandhurst Cadets and Ex-Militia Officers.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that thirty-one Sandhurst cadets for appointment to the unattached list for the Indian Army, who passed the entrance examination in June-July, 1899, were gazetted on 28th July, 1900, and, if qualified, will be promoted captains on 28th July, 1909, and that the Indian Army List for 1st July 1908, shows, by footnotes (pp. 138 to 149a), that twenty-six officers now graded below the above-mentioned thirty-one ex-Sandhurst cadets will receive promotion to captain before 28th July, 1908, owing to their being permitted to count as service for promotion time spent in South Africa as Militia officers; whether among these ex-Militia officers, who in some cases entered the Army without any examination whatever, are some who actually failed in the Sandhurst entrance examination of the summer of 1899; whether, as the result, these ex-Militia officers will supersede the ex-Sandhurst cadets who were regular officers months before the former, the ex-Sandhurst cadets being therefore penalised for their success in the entrance examination; whether this was the intention of the military authorities; and, if not, whether the Secretary of State will have the
  258
  matter reconsidered with a view of preventing this injustice.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) When it was decided that commissioned service in the South African War, previous to the attainment of a commission in the Regular Army, should be permitted to count towards promotion in the Indian Army, it was recognised that this concession would enable some officers specially commissioned in the Regular Army after field service to attain the successive ranks in the Indian Army sooner than officers commissioned from Sandhurst at earlier dates. I have no means of verifying the hon. Member's statement that amongst those who benefit by this concession are some unsuccessful competitors for Sandhurst; but, if it is so, the Secretary of State does not think that this is a sufficient reason for reconsidering the decision then arrived at.

  Dismissals of Labourers and Artisans from Cork Barracks.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received the report as to the dismissal of a large number of artisans and labourers from the Cork Barracks, where they had been for years employed, and the substitution of military men in their places; what is the rate of wages of the dismissed artisans, and what is the pay of the soldiers substituted for them; is this change in accordance with the Fair Wages Resolution of this House; and whether, in view of the widespread want of employment in Cork, and the efforts of the local representative bodies to cope with it, he will be good enough to withdraw the notices of dismissal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A field company of Royal Engineers has recently arrived at Cork Barracks. This company will, as a matter of course, be employed on some military work. No change has been made in the system of doing incidental repairs by the triennial contractor. The military authorities at Cork report that nothing is known of artisans and labourers being given notice of discharge.

  Provision of Second Uniform for Territorial Army.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, although funds may be available to provide two suits of uniform for the Territorial Army, the provision of the second suit cannot be undertaken until a pattern for the walking-out dress is approved of; why it has taken seven months for the Army Council to settle this essential preliminary; how much longer delay may be expected; and whether he still suggests that it is the fault of the County Associations that the second suit has not yet been provided.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) County Associations were informed of the pattern of the second suit of uniform to be worn by the Territorial Force by special Army Order dated 12th June last, except in the case of the horse artillery, which required special consideration. Any delay in individual cases in approving the second suit after that date has been caused by applications made by units to vary the prescribed pattern, and these applications have only been received in the War Office within the last fortnight.

  Stamp Duty on Share Options.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the expediency of broadening the basis of taxation for the next Budget, he will consider the advisability of imposing a stamp tax upon all time bargains in fictitious products, shares, and warrants which are not to be delivered, in order to check and control such gambling in options and futures, seeing that bona fide contracts are taxed and gambling Stock Exchange operations are left free and uncontrolled.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I can assure my hon. friend that my consideration will be given to this, as to all other modes of raising such revenue, as the circumstances of next year may require.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Protection of Life at Sea.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the First Lord
  260
  of the Admiralty whether he is aware that about four years ago telephonic communication was established all round the coast of the British Islands with the coastguard stations, and the coastguards were required, when a ship went ashore or was in a dangerous position, to telephone to the nearest port, and in the case of fishing vessels to the owners or port of register for assistance; whether he is aware that this service has been invaluable to fishermen and the mercantile marine; whether this service is to be abandoned in the thirty-three coastguard stations that have already been closed this year; and, on the closing of the other stations, what steps, if any, will be taken to protect life and property by telephone service, as in many cases village telegraph offices are several miles from the shore and are not available during the night.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The coast communication system was instituted in 1892, and a full explanation of the extent to which, and method in which, it has been developed by the Post Office is given in Appendix D. of Command Paper 4091; it does not embrace all coastguard stations nor is it made through them only. There is no doubt that the system has been, and is of value to the mercantile marine and to fishermen. Sixteen of the thirty-three coastguard stations closed this year were connected with the system. I understand that the General Post Office is making such arrangements as are necessary in the circumstances.

  Admiralty Contracts and Unemployment.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Deptford Borough Council, at its meeting held on the 3rd instant, urging the Admiralty in view of the number of unemployed workmen in the riverside districts of London to apportion a share of shipbuilding and repairing work to firms having yards in the port of London; whether such request has been considered by the Admiralty; and, if so, with what result.
  MR. MCKENNA: The repair of warships is reserved for the royal dockyards. The question of the acceptance of the tenders which have been received for the ships of this year's programme is now under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, but with regard to the allocation of ship-building contracts, the Admiralty are bound to take into account considerations of price and comparative excellence of work.

  Wages on Government Contracts at Portsmouth.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the code of working rules containing the wages and working conditions for navvies and labourers, signed by representatives of the contractors and the workmen in the Portsmouth district; and whether it is his intention to insist upon the contractors of his Department in that district observing such wages and working conditions.
  MR. MCKENNA: My attention has been called to this matter, which is being carefully considered.

  Rosyth Contract.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the contract for the new works at Rosyth will contain a clause making it impossible for the contractor to claim the bonus of £800 per week for any portion of time that the works might have been completed had there been no labour disputes, providing such disputes were caused by the contractors having failed to pay trade union rates of wages.
  MR. MCKENNA: I must remind my hon. friend that trade union rates of wages are not specifically mentioned in the Fair Wages Clause which is a condition of all Admiralty contracts. With this limitation, the point raised by my hon. friend is fully provided for in the contract.

  Naval Base at Cromarty Firth.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is proposed to establish a permanent
  262
  naval base at Invergordon, in Cromarty Firth; and, if so, how much it is proposed to spend upon it during the financial year.
  MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir.

  Admiralty Orders at Cowes.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the total amount of the orders placed with Messrs. White's yard at Cowes by the Admiralty in each of the financial years 1905–6, 1906–7, 1907–8, and in 1908–9 up to the present date.
  MR. MCKENNA: The total amounts of orders placed with Messrs. J. S. White & Co., Ltd., are as follows: 1905–6, £375,929; 1906–7, £289,236; 1907–8, £305,150; 1908–9 (contracts signed to date), £16,768.

  Docks for Dreadnoughts.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if there is dock accommodation available on the East Coast of England or Scotland for the refit of the "Dreadnought" and the larger ships of the "Dreadnought" type now building; and, if so, how many ships will they accommodate at the same time.
  MR. MCKENNA: Messrs. Stephenson & Co.'s dock at Hebburn-on-Tyne will accommodate one ship of either of the types specified when at somewhat less than her normal draught.
  MR. FELL: And is that the only dock on the East Coast?
  MR. MCKENNA: Yes, sir.
  MR. WATTasked whether Rosyth would accommodate ships of this type.
  MR. MCKENNA: Yes, when the dock is built.
  MR. BOWLESasked the right hon. Gentleman what he meant by "normal draught."
  MR. MCKENNA: When she carries her normal amount of coal. The draught can be lightened by limiting the amount of coal carried.
  CAPTAIN FABER: When is Rosyth likely to be ready?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.

  Baroda Educational System.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has received any report as to the system of compulsory primary education introduced into the Baroda State; if so, whether the report is a favourable one; and whether the Government of India will take into consideration the advisability of introducing a similar system into British India.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The latest information tends to show that the free compulsory education scheme which was extended in 1906 to all parts of the Baroda State has on the whole worked satisfactorily. The Government of India are no doubt watching the experiment carefully.

  Imports of Spirits into Brass.
  MR. ARMITAGE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what quantities of gin and rum were imported into Brass in 1907.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The total quantity of spirits imported into Brass in 1907 was 155,800 gallons.
  MR. ARMITAGE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the difference between gin and rum?
  COLONEL SEELY: No, Sir; I must leave it to my hon. friend himself to decide what the difference is. Of course, if he wants technical details. I shall be happy to get them for him.

  Gold Coast—Railway Rates on Spirits.
  MR. ARMITAGE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the reason for the reduction made in the railway rates on spirits in 1907 in the Gold Coast Colony.
  COLONEL SEELY: It was represented by the Governor that the effect of the then existing rate, which was equivalent to more than 7s. 6d. per ton mile on the actual weight of spirit, was to divert all the spirits sent up to Coomassie from the railway to the carriers on the roads. The duties on spirits imported into the Gold Coast were already heavier than in any other Colony in West Africa; and it was considered that the change would not result in increased importation, but solely in the transfer to the railway of the bulk of the Ashanti spirit traffic. The Secretary of State is inquiring whether this anticipation was correct.

  Fines in the Delta of the Niger.
  MR. ARMITAGE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if, when fines are paid in the delta of the Niger, any entry is made of the amount and nature of the payment.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Answer is in the affirmative.
  MR. ARMITAGE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if fines were not paid in gin in the delta of the Niger, how were they paid, and who collects the fines.
  COLONEL SEELY: Fines are paid in coin wherever, in view of the development of the country, it is possible to demand it. Where coin cannot be paid, fines are paid in kind, gin being expressly excluded by law. Fines are collected by order of the Courts and are paid into Court.

  Gin as Currency.
  MR. ARMITAGE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if gin is a currency in the delta of the Niger, especially in the neighbourhood of Brass.
  COLONEL SEELY: Gin is still used as a medium of exchange in some parts of the delta of the Niger, but the Government are doing all that they can to encourage the use of coin. They have recently introduced a new subsidiary coinage with results which are reported to be encouraging; but the extreme

  265
  conservatism of the inhabitants of these districts renders the task a difficult one.
  MR. FELL: What is the source of this gin? Is it Hamburg potato spirit?
  COLONEL SEELY: It comes from various sources. I cannot say its precise nature, but I believe it is very nasty.

  Imports of Specie into Brass.
  MR. ARMITAGE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what amount of specie was imported by merchants into Brass in 1907.
  COLONEL SEELY: Specie to the value of £800 was imported into Brass in 1907, as against £500 in 1906.

  Brass Produce.
  MR. ARMITAGE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if produce is mainly bartered for spirits at Brass.
  COLONEL SEELY: The produce exported from Brass in 1907 was valued at £72,100. The value of the goods imported, exclusive of freight charges and customs duties, was: Spirits, £14,900; other goods, £37,500. If the duties are added, the values are: Spirits, £42,200; other goods, £41,300.

  Southern Nigeria—Sale of Spirits to Natives.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be able to announce the formation of the Commission promised to inquire into the evil alleged to result from the sale of liquor to natives in Southern Nigeria, and the names of its component members; whether, in view of statements recently made by prominent officials in the Colony, a chairman will be sent out from this country to ensure fair and unprejudiced reception and consideration of the evidence to be taken by the Commission; what provision will be made for the representation of the Native Races and Liquor Traffic United Committee on the Commission; and whether it is understood to be the policy of His Majesty's Government to apply the same policy of restriction
  266
  of supply of liquors to natives in Nigeria as in South Africa.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State is awaiting a communication from the Governor, but I hope it will not be long before I am in a position to make a statement as to the composition of the proposed Committee. Such a statement will, of course, include a reference to any representation of the Native Races and Liquor Traffic United Committee. I am not clear as to the meaning of the reference to the statements of prominent officials in the Colony, but the appointment of a chairman is a matter for the Secretary of State, and I am authorised by him to say that he is disposed to concur in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that, if possible, a chairman should be sent out from this country. His Majesty's Government will reserve any statement as to policy until they have the Report of the Committee.

  Trinidad.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the administration of the medical department of Trinidad; and, if so, can he state whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps having for their object the reorganisation of that Department on lines that will give to Trinidad a health ordinance on more modern lines.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State has received no official representations on the subject, and he is not aware that any scheme of re-organisation is under the consideration of the Colonial Government.
  MR. REES: Since the Indian coolies flourish so well in Trinidad, can it be said the condition of the place is so very bad?
  COLONEL SEELY: We are doing our best to bring about an improvement.

  Tropical Diseases.
  SIR J. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any instructions, and, if so, instructions of

  267
  what character, have been addressed to the Governors of Colonies following upon Reports made by them relating to the prevention of malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases, in pursuance of requests addressed to them by the Secretary of State in June, 1906.
  COLONEL SEELY: The periodical Reports received from the Governors in answer to the Secretary of State's circular despatch of June, 1906, are referred to the Advisory Committee for the Tropical Diseases Research Fund, and so far that Committee have not advised the issue of further instructions. A great deal of work in the desired direction is being done in the Colonies and while it is thought well not to overload the governors and their medical advisers with repeated instructions, the matter shall continue to have the most careful attention of the Secretary of State.

  Venezuela and Trinidad.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the Resolution carried unanimously at a meeting of the Trinidad Chamber of Commerce, declaring that the Government of Venezuela, whilst availing itself of the full advantages afforded by the harbour and port of Trinidad, has prohibited the export of produce, except in insignificant quantity, from Venezuela to Trinidad, to the detriment and loss of merchants there, who in some cases have advanced moneys in respect of such produce, and requesting the Acting Governor to ascertain from His Majesty's Minister at Caracas the reason for such action on the part of the Government of Venezuela, or to take such other steps in the matter as might seem fit to His Excellency; and, if so, can he state what steps, if any, are being taken in regard to the matter.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. MCKINNON WOOD,): Yes, Sir; His Majesty's Minister at Caracas has asked for an explanation from the Venezuelan Minister for Foreign Affairs of the reason for the restrictions upon passenger and goods traffic, and he has been informed in reply that the
  268
  restrictions on passenger traffic were due to the reappearance of plague in Trinidad, but that they had been removed and that the regulations regarding goods were those contained in the Finance Laws. Sir Vincent Corbett will be instructed to continue to take such action as may seem best adapted in the circumstances to secure the end in view.

  German Imposts on Alcoholic Liquors.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any in formation as to the new imposts to be levied in Germany on alcoholic liquors; and whether he can state the total amount of new revenue which is thus proposed to be raised.
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: We have received from His Majesty's Embassy a copy of the proposals which the German Government have made public, and intend to submit to the Reichstag, providing for an increase in the duties on alcoholic liquors. According to these proposals, the German Government expect to obtain £5,000,000 from the tax on spirits, £5,000,000 from the tax on beer, and £1,000,000 from that on still wine in bottles.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: Does the hon. Gentleman mean pounds sterling or marks?
  MR. MCKINNON WOOD: Pounds sterling.
  MR. REES: In view of the prevalence of taxation in this country, can nothing be done to keep down the taxation on Moselle?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Pensions Officers' Excessive Duties.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the inquest held last week at Birmingham on the death of Henry Mortished, a Revenue Officer, whose death it was alleged was due to excessive work in connection with old-age pensions; and whether, in view of the pressure of this

  269
  work, about which there are loud complaints among the pensions officers, he will appoint an additional number of officers for the work.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I have seen a newspaper report of the inquest, from which it appears that a verdict of "accidental death" was returned in the case of the deceased officer, whose death has caused deep regret among his colleagues in the public service. The work entailed by the Old-age Pensions Act is undoubtedly heavy in some districts; but I ought to point out that, while it must necessarily be exceptionally severe at first when the initial applications are being received, there is certain to be a considerable decline later when the Act is working normally. While, therefore, I have given directions that assistance should at once be given, where it is found that the officers appointed to administer the Act have more work than they can adequately perform, I have hesitated to appoint a large number of additional officers with whose services it would be necessary to dispense after a short period.
  MR. SNOWDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman made calculations or has he instructed any of his officials to ascertain whether it is physically possible for any one man to do the work between October and December? Is he aware that there are many cases in which one pension officer has 1,000 cases, spread over a wide area, and that many cases necessitate two or three visits?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no doubt that the pressure will be very severe during the next three months. We have between 500,000 and 600,000 applicants; but that is a purely temporary state of affairs due to the fact that we are beginning a new operation. Three or four months hence an officer, instead of having to deal with 1,000 cases, will probably have to deal with only ten or a dozen.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I quite admit what the right hon. Gentleman says; but in
  270
  the meantime are these men to be killed?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already told the hon. Member that where there is exceptional strain of this character, wherever it is brought to our notice, we are dealing with it; and if any officer really feels that he is being overworked he has only to make out a case.

  Cumberland and the Licensing Grant.
  MR. HOWARD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor the Exchequer if he can state what proportion of the £40,000 promised to the county councils for the expenses of collecting establishment licences will be payable to the county of Cumberland.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is estimated that £350 will be payable to the Cumberland County Council in respect of the surrendered licences.

  Supplementary Distress Grant.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in framing the Supplementary Estimate for £100,000 towards the central fund for the relief of distress due to unemployment, he will leave himself free to make grants to approved agencies for dealing with unemployment, especially in connection with skilled artizans and women, in addition to distress committees.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The sum of £200,000 already voted was voted specifically in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, and it is now proposed that the further £100,000 should be voted as a supplement to that grant. The £100,000 will, therefore, be appropriated to the same purposes as the former grant, and will not be available for application in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would revise the form of the Estimate so as to widen the scope in which the money was to be applied, seeing that there were numerous applications for grants from areas in which no distress committees existed?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should like to have notice of that Question.

  Marriage of Lunatics.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, looking at the increase of lunacy, he can see his way to recommending that a Bill should be brought in to prevent the marriages of those persons who have ever been confined in a lunatic asylum.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE): No, Sir. It would be impossible to prohibit the marriage of all persons who have ever been confined in a lunatic asylum, because in many cases the mental trouble is of a limited and temporary nature. The recommendation on the subject in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Feebleminded will be considered.
  CAPTAIN FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether lunacy is on the increase?
  MR. GLADSTONEasked for notice.

  Case of David Evans, of Aberdare.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of David Evans, who was recently sentenced by the stipendiary at Aberdare to one month's imprisonment for alleged assault; whether he is aware that, owing to an inadvertence on the part of a clerk to the solicitor who defended Evans, notice of appeal was not properly lodged within the time specified by the Act; that the prosecuting counsel agreed to waive this objection to the appeal being taken, but the stipendiary himself briefed counsel to oppose the application; and whether, seeing that Evans is a young man of good character and reputation, who claims to have been the party assaulted, and produced strong and uncontradicted evidence at the trial in support of this, under all these circumstances, he will cause him to be immediately released.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiry into this case, but on the in-
  272
  formation before me, I see no sufficient reason for interference. It does not appear that any fresh evidence would have been called if the defendant's appeal had been heard, and the fact that, owing to the mistake of his solicitor, it could not be heard, does not seem to me to afford sufficient ground for advising any interference with the sentence.

  S.S. "Taunton"—Disobedient Seamen.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the sentence of fourteen days' imprisonment for disobedience of lawful commands passed, on 23rd October last, by the Barry magistrates on four seamen of the steamship "Taunton," whether any part of this sentence has been remitted; and, if so, upon what grounds.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I advised the remission of the sentence after the men had served one week, as there appeared to me to be reason to believe that the offence charged was due to a bona fide difference of opinion as to what a seaman's proper work is when a ship is taking in cargo; the offence had been committed at Philadelphia in August, 1907.

  Imports of Ship Plates and Tram Rails.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the amount of ship plates and tramway rails imported into this country from Germany and Belgium during the past year; their cost per ton, as also the cost per ton of similar material manufactured in this country; further, the amount of royalties per ton levied in the countries named, as compared with the royalties per ton levied in this country; and also as to whom the royalties are paid in each of the countries.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will have a statement printed in the Votes showing the quantity, value, and average value per ton of tram rails and iron and steel plates and sheets imported into the United Kingdom from Germany and Belgium in 1907. I have no official information as to the average cost of tramway rails, or ship plates manu-

  273
  factured in the United Kingdom, but I am appending to the printed statement some information as to the average declared values of our exports of those manufactures to all destinations. I have no information as to the extent to which royalties paid on the raw materials

  Statement showing the Quantity, Value, and Average Value per ton of Imported Tram Bails and Ship, &c., Plates and Sheets of Iron and Steel consigned to the United Kingdom from Germany and Belgium during the year 1907:—

  Country whence Consigned to the United Kindgnom.

  Quantity.

  Value.

  Average Value per ton.

  Ship, Bridge, Boiler and other Plates and Sheets not under ⅛ inch thick.

  Tons.

  £

  £

  s.

  d.

  Germany

  …

  …

  12,999

  107,016

  8

  4

  8

  Belgium

  …

  …

  20,244

  149,346

  7

  7

  7

  Ship, Bridge, Boiler and other Plates and Sheets under ⅛ inch thick.

  Tons.

  £

  £

  s.

  d.

  Germany

  …

  …

  5,627

  49,122

  8

  14

  7

  Belgium

  …

  …

  10,470

  85,926

  8

  4

  2

  Tram Rails with grooved heads, for Tramways worked by horse or by mechanical power.

  Tons.

  £

  £

  s.

  d.

  Germany

  …

  …

  858

  5,564

  6

  9

  8

  Belgium

  …

  …

  1,362

  8,766

  6

  8

  9

  NOTE.—There is no official information as to the average cost of the above articles manufactured in the United Kingdom, but the following statement shows the quantity, value, and average value per ton of tram rails and ship, &c, plates and sheets of iron and steel of British manufacture, exported from the United Kingdom to all destinations during the year 1907:—

  Quantity.

  Value.

  Average Value per ton.

  Tons.

  £

  £

  s.

  d.

  Ship, Bridge, Boiler and other Plates and Sheets: Not under ⅛ inch thick

  232,622

  1,832,911

  7

  17

  7

  Under ⅛ inch thick

  67,591

  772,348

  11

  8

  6

  Tram Rails, with grooved heads for Tramways worked by horse or by mechanical power

  4,077

  69,284

  16

  19

  11

  enter into the cost of manufacture of the finished articles.
  The following statement [printed in the Votes] gives the information asked for by the hon. Member so far as it is avail able—

  Railway Combines.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that interference with combinations or other mutual arrangements for working traffic, enforcing rates, withdrawing rebates, pooling receipts, abolishing inter-competition and establishing community of interest, which have been entered into since 1905 by various railway companies in Great Britain, will compel the companies concerned to compete at a loss, or to pay merely nominal returns upon their invested capital, he will state under what statute he possesses authority to disapprove or disallow such combinations or mutual arrangements.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Prior to 1873 working agreements entered into by railway companies under the authority of special Acts, either incorporating Part III. of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, or containing similar provisions, required the approval of the Board of Trade, but in that year the Railway Commissioners, now the Railway and Canal Commissioners, were established, and the powers of the Board with respect to such agreements were transferred to them. Under Section 17 of the Railway Regulation Act of 1841 the Board of Trade may apply to the Courts for an injunction if they are of opinion that a railway company is acting ultra vires, and that it would be for the public advantage that they should be restrained from so acting.
  MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over half the railway stock in this country is held in parcels of £500 and upwards, and that the return on it averages 3¼ per cent.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to know everything. Notice must be given.

  American Copyright Act.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether having regard to the prejudicial effect on the British printing trade of the operation of the American Copyright Act, by
  276
  which authors in this country, in order to secure copyright in the United States, are required to deposit there two copies of their work printed from type set up in those States, in consequence of which books intended largely for home circulation are printed in America, he will consider the advisability of restricting the copyright in books of British authors to books printed from type set up in this country, and of requiring America authors to print in this country any books the copyright of which they desire to secure in the United Kingdom.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know if the hon. Member is aware that the adoption of his suggestion would involve the retirement of this country from the Copyright Union, and the sacrifice of the advantages which are derived from participation in that union. I am not prepared to recommend the adoption of the course referred to.

  International Copyright Conference.
  MR. COOPER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the English translation promised by him of the suggested alterations in international copyright, being discussed at the International Conference now sitting at Berlin, will be printed and obtainable.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I informed the hon. Member for Leicester on 19th October that I would have a translation issued if he desired it, but I understood that he did not so desire. The document referred to is now out of date, having been superseded by amended proposals brought forward by various countries from time to time at the Conference itself. To issue a translation at the present time would therefore be useless and misleading.

  Canadian Trade Correspondents.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to appoint trade correspondents for the new Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan; and why are appointments for Montreal and Toronto being delayed pending the Report of the Trade Commissioner.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In view of the absence of important trade centres in Alberta and Saskatchewan, it is not, at present, thought necessary to appoint trade correspondents in either of those provinces, but if it appears expedient in the future such correspondents will be appointed. Appointments for Montreal and Toronto are being delayed until it is definitely decided what city His Majesty's Trade Commissioner shall make his headquarters.
  MR. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he makes these appointments, see that business men are chosen, and not lawyers or soldiers?
  MR. BARRIE: On whose authority are these appointments made?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The appointments emanate from the Board of Trade.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the previous commercial experience of Mr. R. Grigg, the British Trade Commissioner for Canada.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I fully satisfied myself of Mr. Grigg's qualifications for the post in question prior to appointing him thereto. He is neither a lawyer nor a soldier. He has been engaged for many years in business in this country, besides possessing an intimate knowledge of Canada. Mr. Grigg has recently conducted a commercial mission in the Dominion for the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade on Commercial Intelligence. His Report upon his mission has been laid before the House.

  Distress Works.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will give the percentages of men who worked on distress works during last December, January, and February, respectively, for six, five, four, three, and two days consecutively in each case; and also the percentages of those who only worked one day at a time.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am sorry that the
  278
  information in my possession does not enable me to give the particulars desired by the hon. Member.

  Poor Relief for the Aged.
  MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of persons over seventy years of age in the Administrative County of London; and whether he can state the number of such persons in the receipt of Poor Law relief on 1st January, 1908.
  I beg also to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of persons over seventy years of age in England (not including Monmouthshire) and in Wales (including Monmouthshire); and if he will state the number of such persons in receipt if Poor Law relief on 1st January, 1908, on each country.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I hope my hon. friend will allow me to answer together these Questions. The number of persons seventy years of age and upwards in the middle of the present year is estimated as follows: Administrative County of London, 115,000; England, excluding Monmouthshire, 898,000; Wales and Monmouthshire, 59,000. The average daily number of persons of that age who have been in receipt of Poor Law relief during the year (exclusive of lunatics in asylums) is estimated as follows: Administrative County of London, about 31,000; England, excluding Monmouthshire, about 220,000; Wales and Monmouthshire, about 16,000. These figures as to pauperism must be taken as rough estimates only.

  Hackney Marshes—Proposed Model Yacht Lake.
  MR. BROOKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any communication from the Eastern Model Yacht Association, asking for his interest in the establishment of a model yacht lake for the East End of London in Hackney Marshes; and whether, seeing that such a lake would be one method of draining the marshes as well as of providing work for the unemployed during this

  279
  winter, he will consider favourably this application.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received a communication from the commodore of the association referred to, and am suggesting that he might place his proposals before the Central (Unemployed) Body.

  Mortlake Motor Fatality
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to an inquiry held in the Coroner's Court at Mortlake, on the 12th ultimo, into the death of a chauffeur killed in a collision with a motor bus near Barnes Common, the jury adding a rider to their verdict recommending that, in consequence of the increase in the number of accidents caused by motor driving within twelve miles of Charing Cross, the speed of motor vehicles should be reduced; and whether consideration has been given to such recommendation, and, if so, with what result.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. My attention has been drawn to the recommendation of the jury in the case mentioned. I am not empowered to make a general reduction in the speed of motor vehicles in any district in the absence of an application from the proper local authority. But if such an application is made to me in respect of any specified limits or place, the matter will receive my consideration.
  MR. BOWERMAN: Do these recommendations come before the right hon. Gentleman personally?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, everything of this kind comes under my personal observation.
  MR. MYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Sunday afternoon in Hammersmith a motor was going along at four miles an hour?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon Member had better give notice of that.
  MR. BOWERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received many recommendations similar to the one referred to?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: No, Sir. I can only say that out of twenty-one applications submitted to me I have sanctioned reduction of speed, I think, in eighteen cases.

  Motor Speeds in Hyde Park.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the speed of motor cars and motor cabs using Hyde Park is restricted to ten miles per hour, he will consider the desirability of applying the same limitation of speed to all mechanically driven vehicles using the public streets of the Metropolis, in which the danger to life and limb from high speed motor-driving is necessarily greater than in the royal parks.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The limitation on the speed of motor cars in Hyde Park was imposed under the powers conferred on the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works by the special legislation relating to the Royal Parks. As regards the streets of the Metropolis, regulations for the reduction of the speed of motor cars in them could only be made under the Motor Car Act, 1903, and on the application of the local authorities, viz., the County Council and the common council.
  MR. BOWERMAN: Is the risk to life and limb not greater in the streets of London?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: If that be so, and the London County Council and the Corporation of the City of London make representations to me, I shall not be reluctant to act.

  School Attendance Regulations.
  MR. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the provisions of the Education Code, Schedule II., Clause 39, a child proposed for admission to a higher elementary school must have attended at a public elementary school for two years; and, having regard to the

  281
  provisions of the Education Bill to the effect that contracted-out schools will no longer be regarded as public elementary schools, whether he will consider the advisability of providing that children educated in such contracted-out schools should not be debarred from the benefits of such higher elementary schools.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. TREVELYAN,): In the event of the Education Bill becoming law it will be made clear in the Code that attendance for two years at an elementary school in receipt of grant will satisfy the requirement to which the hon. Member refers.

  Scholars in Elementary Schools.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state the latest available figures of the number of scholars on the registers of public elementary schools in England and Wales.
  MR. TREVELYAN: The latest available figures relate to the statistical year ending 31st July, 1907, when the number was 6,003,772. The figures for the statistical year ending 31st July, 1908, will be available in about a month.

  Devonport Naval Engineering College.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the case of a master recently dismissed from the Royal Naval Engineering College at Devonport, solely with the view to the winding up of that college, the award of £99 3s. 4d. a year as a pension was made by the Treasury on a full and unfettered consideration of the circumstances of his particular case or under the limitations of some, and what, departmental rule.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,): The award was made under Section. 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1859 (the provisions of which are permissive in character), after a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case. It was made by the Treasury
  282
  in the exercise of their discretion under that section, due regard being had to the practice of previous Boards of Treasury in dealing with similar cases in recent years.

  Edinburgh Relief Works.
  SIR GEORGE MCCRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that a dispute has arisen between the Town Council of Edinburgh and the distress committee as to a claim by the distress committee for repayment out of the rates of a sum of £3,700 disbursed on relief work for the unemployed, including wages and the expense of working a farm colony; whether the Local Government Board (Scotland) is prepared to advise that this payment is legal under The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905; and, if not, what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): Yes, Sir, I am aware that such a difference has arisen. This difference raises a point of considerable doubt; and while the Local Government Board have expressed the view that it does not lie with the Town Council to refuse payment of the demand made, I may point out that where such differences cannot be overcome in any other way the procedure of Sections 175 and 176 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, is provided by Article 16 of the Regulations (Organisation for Unemployed) (Scotland), 1905, as the method of settling such disputes by law. In answer to the second part of the Question, I have to say that the Local Government Board has not yet been called upon to consider and decide any question relative to the legality of any payment made by the distress committee out of the central fund. The statutory duty in this regard does not fall to be performed until the matter is brought under their notice on a Report by the auditor appointed under the Act to examine the accounts of the distress committee. I do not propose, therefore, to take any action in this matter, but I may express the hope that amicable adjustment may be attained without resorting to extreme measures.
  SIR GEORGE MCCRAE: Is it not the fact that this matter has already been before the Local Government Board of Scotland and that there is a complete deadlock, with the result that the distress committee is being handicapped in its action.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I do not think so. As I have said, I hope there will be an amicable settlement.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the decision in these legal matters taken by the Local Government Board's own responsibility or on the responsibility of the Law Officers?
  MR. SINCLAIR: There has been no decision in this case.

  Aged Paupers in Scotland
  MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state the number of persons over seventy years of age in Scotland; and whether he can give the number of such persons in receipt of Poor Law relief on 1st January, 1908.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The estimated number of persons over seventy years of age in Scotland at 1st January, 1908, was 133,730. The old-age pauperism figures collected at present by the Local Government Board for Scotland are in respect of persons over sixty-five and not seventy, but it is contemplated adding a column for the number of paupers over seventy in the next Return.

  Afforestation in Ireland.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the unanimous resolution of the Cork Council on 3rd instant on the subject of the important Report of the Departmental Committee on Irish Forestry in April last urging the Department to take practical steps towards carrying out the national scheme of afforestation recommended by the Committee and pledging the county council to co-operate with the Department by every means within its ower; and whether, in view of the
  284
  public feeling in Ireland in favour of a national scheme of afforestation, and of the amount of employment of a reproductive character which such a scheme would involve at a period of the year when employment is most needed, the Department are prepared to take prompt action in this matter.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Department have received the resolution referred to. I regret that I am not at present in a position to add anything to the Answers I have given to previous Questions on this subject.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Do the Estates Commissioners possess power to purchase woods in the landlord's hands when estates are being sold with a view to the preservation of the timber?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: They have power to purchase, but the practice has been in the past to sell them to timber merchants to be cut down.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Were not the famous Dun drum Woods purchased by the Commissioners.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes, and they afterwards passed into the hands of the Department for preservation.

  Irish Creamery Butter.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether he will explain why home-made hand-separator butter is entitled to be called creamery; is he aware that large quantities of such butter are at present sold as creamery; has the Department from time to time received representations from the Irish Creamery Managers' Association and other bodies on this subject; and will he state whether he intends to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department have appointed a Committee with the view of arriving at a definition of creamery butter.

  Irish Surprise Butter Competitions.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that 128 creameries entered for the summer surprise butter competitions in 1907; that out of that number ninety-five sent butter to the first competition, 122 to the second, 116 to the third, twenty-nine to the fourth, and thirty-two to the fifth; whether he is aware that the falling-off in the number of exhibits sent to the fourth and fifth competitions was due to the dissatisfaction caused by the appointment of a Mr. Carroll as creamery instructor; and if the above figures are correct, will he explain how they are to be reconciled with the statement that twenty-eight creameries, not 100, withdrew from these competitions.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The figures are accurate, and in view of the circumstances I am considering the discontinuance of these competitions.

  Cattle-Driving Prosecutions.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the procedure of arresting persons charged with cattle-driving and bringing them before a single resident magistrate out of petty sessions, with a view to their being bound over to future good behaviour, under the statute of Edward III., has been adopted in pursuance of instructions issued by the Executive Government; what are the circumstances under which the practice of proceeding in such cases by summons was departed from; on what date were the instructions referred to issued; and will he state whether the effect of the altered procedure has been a diminution in the number of cattle-drives.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The procedure referred to in the Question has been adopted for many years, and long before the present Government came into office, by the police in Ireland in the case of agrarian disturbances. The police in this as in other matters act under the instructions of the Executive Government. No special instructions were issued as regards cases of cattle-driving, but as in other cases, instructions
  286
  from time to time are given with regard to each case. As there has been no recent alteration in either the practice or procedure, it is unnecessary for me to answer the latter part of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. LONSDALE: On what date were the instructions issued?
  MR. CHERRY: No instructions of a general character were issued, but as cases arose the Central Government sent instructions to the police.

  Aged Paupers in Ireland.
  MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of persons over seventy years of age in Ireland; and if he can state the number of such persons in receipt of Poor Law relief on 1st January, 1908.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The number of persons in Ireland aged seventy years and upwards was, at the date of the last census, 187,315. As regards the remainder of the Question I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question asked by the hon. Member for North Sligo on 15th October. In that reply the number of persons in Ireland over seventy years of age then in workhouses, or who had been recipients of outdoor relief since 1st January last, was estimated at 32,000.

  Longford Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. J. PHILLIPS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the Local Government Board for Ireland have refused to sanction a loan of £30,996 applied for by the Longford Rural District Council for the purpose of the Longford Rural District Labourers (Unopposed) Order, 1908, having regard to the fact that the council's application is based on the amount actually approved of by the Local Government Board, namely, £133 4s. 4d. for building each cottage and fencing plot attached thereto, on the amount (or within £2 of it) allowed by the arbitrator, namely, £33 5s. 4d. for the purchase of each acre of land

  287
  acquired under the Order, and on a sum of £12 per cottage which has been set aside to pay incidental expenses.
  MR. BIRRELL: The loan applied for by the Longford Rural District Council is at the rate of £182 15s. per cottage, which the Local Government Board consider too high, and the Board have informed the district council that they are not prepared to advance a loan at this rate out of the limited fund provided by the Labourers Act of 1906. The Board have, however, expressed their willingness to sanction a loan of £170 per cottage which they think should be sufficient, and, should this prove inadequate, to consider the propriety of authorising the district council to obtain a supplemental loan in the open market.

  Irish Old-Age Pension Appeals.
  MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what steps will be taken by the Local Government Board for Ireland to deal with appeals arising under the Old-Age Pensions Act; and when, and by whom, will these claims be investigated.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board will deal with appeals as they arise, after consideration of the evidence and documents submitted to them by the pension committees and the appellants. If further information is necessary, the Board will obtain it by local investigation through their inspectors, and where questions of law are involved, they will be guided by legal advice.
  MR. CULLINAN: Will the Local Government Hoard itself deal with the appeals, so as to expedite the working of the Act?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir.

  Untenanted Lands—Landlords' Appeals.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what is the procedure adopted by the Estates Commissioners in respect to appeals lodged
  288
  by landowners objecting to the compulsory acquisition of untenanted land by the Commissioners, with a view to the reinstatement of evicted tenants; whether notice of the landlord's intention to appeal, and the alleged grounds for appealing, are communicated to the evicted tenants or their representatives; has the landlord the opportunity of making ex parte statements to the Commissioners in person or by solicitor or counsel, whilst the evicted tenant has no opportunity of stating his case or tendering rebutting evidence; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to secure equality of treatment in these appeal cases.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the procedure on appeals under the Evicted Tenants Act 1907, is prescribed by Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland. * When an appeal is taken from an order of the Commissioners they take no further action until the appeal is determined. The Commissioners give notice to all persons interested in the land of their intention to acquire lands under the Act, and it is open to all parties to communicate freely with them.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he will introduce his promised Bill dealing with the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether, as he stated over a year ago that the matter had been too long delayed, he will make the provisions of the Bill retrospective so as to (-over the current year.
  MR. BIRRELL: I had intended to take the Committee stage on Monday, but find that it is not an available day. I hope to take it to-morrow, after setting up the Committee to-night. When the financial resolution has been passed the Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible, moment, and will, I hope, become law before the end of the session. It is not proposed to make the operation of the Act retrospective.
  MR. MOONEY: May I ask what time to-night? Because I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a very controversial Motion, and will take some time.
  MR. BIRRELL: I cannot believe that it is.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: May I ask what is the amount of money involved, and whether it would not be better applied in helping to settle the Irish Land question?
  MR. BIRRELL: The police have their rights in this matter. It proceeds upon a recommendation of this House, the whole matter is overdue, and there should be no further delay.
  MR. MOONEY: May I again ask the Chief Secretary at what time of the night he will take it? It does not appear on the Order Paper.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: The Chief Secretary says it is long overdue; is not that a reason for making it retrospective?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am told it will be taken after the Port of London Bill.
  MR. MOONEY: On a point of order, can a Resolution of this kind be taken without its having appeared on the Notice Paper?
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member mean the setting up of the Committee?
  MR. MOONEY: Yes.
  MR. SPEAKER: That can be taken at any time. The Motion that this House resolve into a Committee can be taken at any time.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: In consequence of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him whether he seriously takes the view that this is a non-controversial measure?
  MR. BIRRELL: I think after this matter is explained to the House, and
  290
  after I have explained the purposes of the Bill, it will be non-controversial.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: We all know the purpose of it.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand the Committee is already set up, and, therefore, no Motion will be necessary.
  MR. MOONEY: Is it not a fact that on the papers issued this morning there is a statement that he intends to take this on Monday next, which is an allotted day, and is he not, therefore, springing it on the House?
  MR. BIRRELL: In answer to the Question, I said I hoped to take it on Monday.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Docs the right hon. Gentleman seriously intend to take this Motion to-night without notice? I must be allowed to say that if he does, it will meet with the most strenuous opposition. Will he answer?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am very much surprised that there should be opposition to this matter, very much surprised indeed, but after what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member, I will not proceed.

  Irish Police Warning to Newspapers.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the result of the warning recently given to certain newspapers against publishing the intimidatory resolutions of the United Irish League branches; what proceedings he intends to take within the ordinary law against the proprietors of newspapers who continue to publish these resolutions; and whether he will take action also against the organisations who pass the resolutions and are responsible for the intimidation which is practised.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is not yet possible to estimate the results of the warnings which have been given. It would be neither possible nor desirable to say what proceedings may in certain events become necessary. Each case will be

  291
  considered upon its merits. Prosecutions will be instituted in all cases in which evidence of a criminal offence is forthcoming.

  Excluded Tenants.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has from time to time received many public representations as to the position of agricultural tenants excluded from the operations of the existing land laws; and whether it is proposed to legislate for the claims of these excluded tenants in the forthcoming Land Bill.
  MR. BIRRELL: Numerous representations with regard to the position of excluded tenants have been made to me and are receiving consideration. I do not think it desirable to discuss the provisions of the forthcoming Land Bill pending its introduction.

  Firearm Outrages.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire from the Inspector-General whether in some cases serious outrages, such as firing at the person and firing into and outside dwelling-houses, were not brought to the knowledge of the police until several days after their occurrence, and then not by the individuals whose persons or property were attacked, but by others; whether the Inspector-General attributes this condition of affairs to the fact that the individuals in question were too terrorised to report such outrages; and whether he will state what action he proposes to take to secure that the operation of the ordinary law will overcome incidents of this nature.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that it sometimes occurs that offences of the nature referred to are not reported to the police by the aggrieved persons, but come to their knowledge from other sources. The failure to report such cases is, the Inspector-General believes, usually attributable to other causes than that suggested in the Question. There is no reason to believe that such cases have
  292
  increased in number, or that it would be possible to prevent them from occasionally happening.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: What other reasons are there than terrorism on the part of the people?
  MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General informs me that the reasons are not those suggested in the Question.

  Cork County Prosperity.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed that the secretary of the Cork County Council has reported that of £88,000 due in rates for that county for the last half-year only £172 remained uncollected at the date of the report; whether he is aware that Cork is the county where far the largest number of land purchases has taken place in Ireland; that arrears of instalments of purchase money due to the Land Commission in that county are virtually non-existent; that, no cattle-driving has taken place there; and that no extra police have had to be quartered on the county; and whether, in view of this state of facts, he will, in the highest interest of the Empire and of all parties in this House, accelerate and complete the abolition of dual ownership in the county of Cork and in the rest of Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am glad to say that the satisfactory description of the condition of the County Cork given by the hon. Member is substantially correct. It is the intention of the Government to do what it possibly can to make land purchase proceed as quickly as possible.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total amount of purchase money represented by agreements under the Purchase Act of 1903 up to 1st November last, with the number of purchasers and area of land covered by the agreements; what is the amount of purchase money remaining unpaid at that date; what is the number of tenant purchasers who

  293
  have agreed to pay 3½, 3¾, and 4 per cent. interest, respectively, on the purchase money pending completion of the sales; what is the annual amount of the loss sustained by each of these categories of tenant purchasers as compared with the annuity of 3¼, to which their payments would be reduced if the purchase money were available; and, in case the failure to supply the purchase money should continue for five years or over, what will be the total loss to the tenant purchasers up to the time when their ownership will begin; and whether the forthcoming Bill will make any provision to remedy this injustice.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase agreements lodged up to the 1st instant are being scheduled as rapidly as possible, and until this has been completed, the Commissioners will not be in a position to state the amount of the purchase money applied for in such agreements, nor the amount of purchase money applied for but not advanced on that date. The agreements are not classified according to the rate of interest which the tenants have agreed to pay, which is a matter for arrangement between the parties. The Commissioners are, therefore, unable to give the information asked for in the concluding part of the Question. They are, of course, aware that interest at 3½ per cent. and higher rates is paid, and it necessarily follows that until the advance is made the tenants are at a loss represented by the difference between such rate of interest and the annuity of 3¼ per cent.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Do I understand that the Estates Commission do not inquire what rate of interest the tenants covenant to pay?
  MR. BIRRELL: They only know it from the papers before them.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: How soon will they supply this information, which is so vital to the point, as to what the present purchasers are losing by the present arrangement?
  MR. BIRRELL: Having regard to the fact that in the week ending 31st October
  294
  purchase agreements involving £6,500,000 were lodged, the hon. Member will realise that the work of scheduling is one of enormous difficulty. Overtime is being worked in order that the information may be forthcoming at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will it be forthcoming by Monday week?
  MR. BIRRELL: I hope so.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Inasmuch as the Land Commission collects the interest, how is it possible they do not know the rate?
  MR. BIRRELL: The difficulty is that the agreements are not classified according to the rate of interest paid.
  MR. GILHOOLY: But is the rate not set out in the agreement lodged by the landlord?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, but in the absence of classification it is impossible to say off-hand how many tenants pay 3½ per cent. and how many 4 per cent.

  Templemore Bomb Outrage.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a bomb outrage was committed on Sunday, 27th October last, at the residence of Mr. Francis O'Mullane, of Templemore, county Tipperary; whether the police can state what led to the attack on Mr. O'Mullane; what arrests have been made; and what sentences passed.
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. and gallant Member asks what sentences have been passed in a case which only happened on the 25th of last month. In this case a person is under arrest and the proceedings against him are pending. It would be undesirable in the interests of justice to enter into particulars of the case while the proceedings are sub judice.

  Ballinacurra Drainage Scheme.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has

  295
  been called to the condition of the Ballinacurra district at Limerick in connection with the question of sewerage; when was the Provisional Order passed; have the district council applied to the Local Government Board to send down an arbitrator, and has the request been yet complied with; is he aware that disease has broken out in this district and that deaths have occurred, which are attributed to the want of proper sewerage; and will he see that the Local Government Board hasten this necessary work.
  MR. BIRRELL: A Provisional Order authorising the district council to acquire certain lands compulsorily for the purpose of carrying out a sewerage scheme for the district named has been made by the Local Government Board and was confirmed by Parliament on 1st August last. Copies of the Act were not available till the middle of October, when a copy was sent to the council with directions for the preparation of the maps and schedules required for arbitration purposes. The district council have asked the Board to send down an arbitrator, but this cannot be done until these maps and schedules are furnished. No cases of infectious disease at Ballinacurra have been recently reported to the Board.

  County Clare Cattle-Drives.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a series of cattle-drives took place during the latter end of October in County Clare, cattle being driven, as to twenty-five, the property of Mr. Thomas A. Gorman, J.P., as to seventy-five, the property of Mr. Hardy, and as to thirty, the property of Mr. Patrick Cahir; can he state if all have been recovered and restored to their owners; were those concerned in the outrages armed; were any shots fired; how many arrests have been made in each instance; and what sentences have been passed.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am aware that the cattle-drives referred to in the Question took place. All the cattle were recovered and restored to the owners. The person or persons who had drove these cattle did so at night and unnoticed. It is not, therefore, known whether they were armed
  296
  or whether they fired any shots, nor has it of course been possible to make any arrests.

  Ireland—Old Age Pension Officers.
  MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say how many pension officers and how many supervisors have been appointed for Ireland under the Old-Age Pensions Act; and what are the areas assigned to both classes of officers.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: As regards the first part of the Question, I may perhaps be allowed to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 9th instant to a Question by the hon. Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the Question could not be supplied in detail without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour; but I may say generally that each pension officer is responsible for the areas of one or more sub-committees as the case may be, and each pension officer appointed to be a supervisor has the supervision of the work of five or six other pension officers.

  Administration of Distress Funds.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the event of a locality where no distress committee is in existence setting up a voluntary committee with a scheme of work for the unemployed, an application from such a committee for a grant from the central fund will be favourably considered.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): The grant is voted for contributions in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act. Consequently payments out of it can only be made to central bodies and distress committees under the Act. A voluntary committee would not come within the terms of the Vote.

  Tuberculosis Among Soldiers.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the promotion of the Government of the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill, if he can

  297
  state whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt the recommendations of the Select Committee as to tuberculosis amongst soldiers, about 350 of whom are discharged every year suffering from this disease, and in regard to whom no provision for treatment is made by the State.
  MR. ASQUITH: I can add nothing to the statements already made by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War in regard to this matter. As has been stated the Government are not prepared to adopt the recommendations of the Departmental Committees which inquired into the subject.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: And meantime those discharges of soldiers help to spread the disease all over the country.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Why should these soldiers be saddled on the rates in Ireland?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have nothing to add to the very full Answer on this matter given by my right hon. friend.

  Small Holdings—Intimidation by Landlords.
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to instances of agricultural labourers who had applied for small holdings being dismissed by their employers; and whether the Government will consider the possibility of introducing legislation to make it a criminal offence for a employer to dismiss a labourer merely upon the ground that he has availed himself of the right conferred upon him by Parliament of applying for a small holding under the Small Holdings Act.
  MR. ASQUITH: No instance has, so far, been brought to my attention in which there was satisfactory proof that a labourer had been dismissed on this ground by his employer. I can hardly imagine conduct which would constitute a more serious and indefensible attempt to defeat the intentions of Parliament, and I cannot believe, as at present advised, that it is likely to be resorted to.

  Port of London Bill.
  MR. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that under the new arrangement of business the opportunity for discussing the question of the purchase of the docks might only arise in the middle of the night, and that question was not discussed on either the First or the Second Reading of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman would arrange that Clause 3 should not be taken after 11 p.m.
  MR. ASQUITH: Both to-day and to-morrow we shall be discussing this Bill. We have no intention of sitting late, and I think there will be adequate opportunity for the discussion my hon. friend desires.
  MR. LOUGH: But will the right hon. Gentleman agree not to take this clause after 11 p.m.?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.

  The Public Galleries.
  Mr. W. THORNEMr. Speaker, I wish to ask you a Question of which I have given you private notice. It is, when it is your intention to reopen the public and ladies' galleries.
  MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I have made such inquiry as I could so as to obtain the general sense of the House, and I have not hitherto observed any feverish anxiety to reopen either of the galleries. At the same time, I am considering from day to day under what conditions the galleries might be reopened, and what safeguards might be taken to preserve our debates from any interference.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I respectfully ask, Sir, whether while these galleries are vacant additional accommodation might not be provided for the Press, in view of the fact that its accommodation is very restricted at the present time?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter which the hon. Member had better put to the First Commissioner of Works.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I put it to the First Commissioner now.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): That is a Question I had better have notice of. I am not aware that I have any control over the galleries now vacant.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, since the Speaker has been good enough to refer

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Agnew, George William

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

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

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Armitage, R.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hooper, A. G.

  Barker, Sir John

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barnard, E. B.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hudson, Walter

  Beale, W. P.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Beauchamp, E.

  Erskine, David C.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Black, Arthur W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Joyce, Michael

  Boland, John

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Brace, William

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Branch, James

  Gill, A. H.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Brigg, John

  Ginnell, L.

  Lambert, George

  Bright, J. A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lamont, Norman

  Brooke, Stopford

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Burns, Rt. John Hon.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Grant, Corrie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Byles, William Pollard

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Lundon, W.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Lupton, Arnold

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hall, Frederick

  Lynch, H. B.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Halpin, J.

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

  Clough, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  MacVeagh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Crae, Sir George

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

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

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cooper, G. J.

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

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Massie, J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Menzies, Walter

  Cox, Harold

  Hazleton, Richard

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Crooks, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mond, A.

  Crossley, William J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  me to him, whether he could refer me to somebody else?

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (PORT OF LONDON BILL.)
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Port of London Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Mr. Asquith.)
  The House divided:—Aves, 235; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 372.)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Tomkinson, James

  Morse, L. L.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ure, Alexander

  Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walsh, Stephen

  Myer, Horatio

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Walton, Joseph

  Napier, T. B.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Rowlands, J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. Clackmannan

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  O'Grady, J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Whitbread, Howard

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seddon, J.

  White J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Seely, Colonel

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Price, C. B. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

  Summerbell, T.

  Young, Samuel

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Rees, J. D.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  NOES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

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

  Gretton, John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Renwick, George

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hodge, John

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Jowett, F. W.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Snowden, P.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederlk Wm.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Winterton, Earl

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Younger, George

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Oddy, John James

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (LICENSING BILL) (ALLOCATION OF TIME ON REPORT STAGE).
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,)said he rose to move the Motion standing in his name with regard to the allocation of time for the Report stage of the Licensing Bill. The House resolved last July that five days of Parliamentary time should be allotted to this stage
  302
  of the measure. Of course, it was no longer open to them to consider or discuss the question whether that was or was not an adequate provision of time, but the House at the same time adopted what he ventured to think a very wise innovation on the procedure which had hitherto been established in regard to closure Resolutions, by reserving till the close of the Committee stage, when the course of the discussion would have made it clear what topics had arisen in

  303
  the debate which required further consideration, the manner in which, as between the five days resolved upon, the different clauses should be apportioned. He would point out by way of summary that the number of clauses discussed in Committee was nineteen, the number undiscussed was twenty-eight, one clause was dropped, and one added. Of the twenty-eight undiscussed clauses, twelve were not opposed. Therefore, it was fair to assume that of the undiscussed clauses, at the outside sixteen presented nothing in the nature of controversial matter. Of the seven Schedules, four were discussed, and one of the remainder was not opposed at all. That was the situation as it confronted them now in regard to the actual employment of the time during the nineteen allotted days in Committee. In those circumstances, it became the duty of the Government to endeavour to allocate as fairly as they could the five days for the Report stage. The governing principle, which he thought the House in all quarters would agree they rightly had in view, was to allow the House to consider first of all any new proposals of the Government, and next any Amendments which the Government proposed to introduce in order to carry out promises given during the Committee stage. Subject to the time given for the consideration of these new proposals, the table had been arranged so far as possible to allow further discussion on the most important parts of the Bill. He said at once that he should listen with interest, and with every desire to consider them, to any criticisms or suggestions which could be made from any quarter as to the precise allocation of time which they proposed. With that preface, it would be perhaps convenient that he should discuss seriatim the proposed allocation as between the successive days. The first day, which would be Friday—the House saw on the Paper that the time was 10.30, but in accordance with the Resolution passed in July, if the allotted day fell on a Friday, five o'clock was to be substituted for 10.30—they proposed to take Clauses 1 and 2. The Government's new clauses, of which there were only two, provided, as to the second of them, for the closing of public-houses
  304
  at polls for Parliamentary elections, etc., which was fully discussed in Committee, and in regard to which, though he could not say they were proposals which were likely to meet with universal assent, yet they might have sympathetic consideration on the other side of the House in view of the declaration made by the Leader of the Opposition. The other new clause, that first on the Paper, raised questions which were rather questions of practical detail than of principle, and dealt with two matters with which the Government during the Committee stage promised to deal. Then there followed the new clauses proposed by private Members, some of which undoubtedly raised important points, but he should hope at any rate that no large part of the time of the first day would go to the discussion of these new clauses, because, for one reason, any such discussion would necessarily curtail the time to be given for the consideration of the first and second clauses of the Bill. As regarded Clauses 1 and 2, they had been amply discussed in Committee; three days were given to their consideration, and, he thought they might fairly add, the best part of another day, devoted to the consideration of the first Schedule, which was an appendix and could only be considered in relation to Clause 1. He came next to the second day, which they proposed to divide into two compartments, the one to close at 7.30 and the other at 10.30. That was Monday. The first matter for consideration would be Clause 3, which, as regarded the first part of the Bill, was considered in many quarters the most important of all its provisions. That clause was fully debated in Committee, but of course there ought to be a further opportunity for discussion, inasmuch as they had put down a proviso—a concession, it was described as in some quarters—which he said in the debate in Committee the Government were willing to make, by which an extra seven years was given at the expiration of the reduction period of fourteen years before the State would resume the monopoly value of old licences. That the Government regarded as a matter of very great importance, and that the House ought to have time to consider. The Amendments which the Government proposed

  305
  to make in Clause 4, which followed in the first compartment of the second day, were purely drafting Amendments. The second compartment embraced Clauses 5 to 9, and they had put down Clause 5 advisedly as the first matter to be considered in that second compartment, because, as the House would see, if they looked at the Amendments on the Paper, it would raise the question of the position of off-licences after the end of the reduction period. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 were administrative, clauses, and the only Amendments which the Government proposed were some drafting Amendments, and raised points not on Clause 7 but on Clause 9 as to Welsh local option, which had been fully discussed. They came to the third day, which included Clauses 10 to 17. They rightly began the third day with Clause 10, which was an extremely important clause, and the Amendments which the Government had put down on the Paper to that clause raised the question of the value to be placed, in assessing the compensation annuity, on the concession of the further seven years period which they proposed to give on Clause 3. As regarded the remainder of the clauses in that bundle, Clause 14 raised the question of the constitution and functions of the Licensing Commission, which were very fully discussed during the Committee stage. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh," and "Never."]
  MR. G. D. FABER: The policy of the Commission was never discussed. We were told we must wait for the clause, and the clause was never reached.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid his recollection did hot tally with that of the hon. Gentleman. He thought every aspect of the Commission, its functions and composition, was discussed in a most exhaustive way. Clauses 15 to 17 made purely administrative changes, and he did not believe, as far as he could judge, that there was any very serious opposition to the proposals which they contained. Coming to the fourth day, the first part of Clause 18 (the Sunday Closing Clause) had been very fully discussed. Clause 19, which was not discussed at all in
  306
  Committee, the Government thought a very important clause, dealing with the children and it was right that the House should have an opportunity of reconsidering it on Report. On the fourth day they dealt with Clauses 20 to 23. Clause 20, which enumerated the conditions which justices might attach to the renewal of licences, was a very important clause, and certainly ought to take the first place in any compartment allocated for the Report stage. The Government had put down an Amendment so as to allow the justices, in view of the special circumstances of particular localities, the power to prevent drink being sold before eight o'clock in the morning. Clauses 21 to 23 were unimportant. The fifth and last day they proposed to divide into two compartments. The subject of discussion in the first compartment began with Clause 24, a very important clause, dealing with monopoly value. Inasmuch as there was no opportunity for discussing this clause in Committee, the Government thought the House was entitled to take it first for discussion on the Report stage. As regarded the remaining portion of this bundle, Clauses 25 to 35 were of minor importance, and to a great many of them no Amendments of any kind were put down; and from general experience it might be assumed that no real objection was taken if no hon. Gentlemen on one side or the other put down any Amendment. The second compartment of the fifth day included the clauses on clubs, which were discussed in Committee during the whole of three days. There was no part of the Bill which had been subjected to greater consideration than that particular section. In regard to the Schedules, the first and fourth were put in front. That which had reference to passenger vessels was assented to by most of those concerned. That was the allocation which the Government proposed. They had put down the Motion after much careful consideration, with a view of carrying out the principle which he indicated in his opening remarks. But at the same time the Government were perfectly ready to listen to any Suggestions which would, in the opinion of any considerable body

  307
  of Members, secure ampler discussion of matters which either were undiscussed altogether in Committee or, in consequence of the Committee discussion, acquired a novelty or an importance which they did not appear previously to possess. He would only say, in conclusion, that if they were to have compulsory closure of measures of much complexity and importance like this, the precedent which the Government were setting of reserving the allocation of time for the purposes of Report until the conclusion of the Committee stage, was a most useful precedent, because it would prevent what had undoubtedly happened in days gone by—what hap-

  TABLE.

  REPORT STAGE.

  Allotted Day.

  Proceedings.

  Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.

  First

  New Clauses and Clauses 1 and 2

  10.30

  Second

  Clauses 3 and 4

  7.30

  Clauses 5 to 9

  10.30

  Third

  Clauses 10 to 17

  10.30

  Fourth

  Clauses 18 and 19

  7.30

  Clauses 20 to 23

  10.30

  Fifth

  Clauses 24 to 35

  7.30

  Clause 36 to the end of the Bill, and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion

  10.30

  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he certainly did not rise to make any attack upon this particular allocation of time. The real matter of which they complained was that the right hon Gentleman should allow only five days for dealing with matters which every man, he did not care to which party he belonged, knew perfectly well had never been discussed at all in the earlier stages of their debates. He was, he confessed, disappointed with a phrase which fell from the right hon. Gentleman in the closing words of his speech, for he seemed to consider that the methods adopted for dealing with this Bill were likely to be perpetually adopted when any com-
  pened certainly in regard to the Licensing Act, 1904—that particular provisions of the Bill were passed by that House without there being an opportunity for consideration either on the Committee or the Report stage. He begged to move.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the proceedings on each of the five allotted days given to the Report stage of the Licensing Bill shall be those shown in the second column of the following table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that table—
  plicated measure of this kind was brought forward. With all the experience of the ten closures by compartment for which in three years the Government had been responsible, absolutely the only improvement which had suggested itself to the inventive mind of the Government was that they should, having allocated blindly at the beginning of their closure by compartments a certain fixed time for dealing with Report, manipulate that brief time in the interests of discussion. He thought it was, perhaps, better that they should have the Report stage dealt with by compartments than that they should have it confined to a very narrow space of time without compartments. He did

  309
  not quarrel with that. But to suppose that this alteration, namely, closure by compartments, was anything in the nature of a reform of Parliamentary procedure was really absurd It might be the faintest and most insignificant palliation of a great and growing evil, but more than that it certainly was not. They had only to listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to learn that nothing he was proposing to-day did away with the original vice of the arrangement to which the Government committed itself last July. They suffered now, and, whatever arrangement was made, they must suffer now under the plan which the Government had adopted, and so far as that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was concerned, he only regretted that there was no hint or suggestion that he had in his mind some better method of dealing with complicated Bills than the rough-and-ready methods which his predecessors did adopt occasionally, but which he and his friends had made an habitual, chronic, almost invariable practice, and to which he apparently looked forward with serenity in the long vista of the future history of Parliament. He thought that was a very unhappy state of things, and he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not even by a phrase or a parenthesis indicate that he hoped something better would occur in the future than a repetition of that policy, which had produced such unhappy consequences in the past. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that there were forty-seven clauses of this Bill, of which a very large number had not been discussed, but of that large number a great many had not been divided against, and, therefore, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that because those clauses had not been divided against, they had been considered not worthy of discussion and were unopposed. The right hon. Gentleman after all was an old Parliamentary hand, and he must know perfectly well that clauses, though they might contain some pernicious details, were passed over because they had not time to discuss or comment upon them, and were only allowed to vote Aye or No. That put them in an extremely difficult position. A Member was naturally very unwilling to commit himself wholly in opposition to a clause with much of which he might happen
  310
  to agree. It was really inconceivable that the Government should suppose that unless a section of the House was prepared to vote against a clause standing part of the Bill, that such clause was not worthy of commentary, discussion, or amendment. It was an entirely novel doctrine to be laid down by any Government in that House, and it was one utterly subversive of Parliamentary discussion in Committee of the Whole House. Such a position was wholly untenable. It did nothing to mitigate their objection to a Bill, which was so arranged as to raise previous issues connected with social reform, and the largest issues connected with the title of individual citizens in their own property—a Bill which raised those two groups of questions in a most aggravated and acute form, and a Bill 88 per cent. of which had been absolutely untouched and undiscussed in Committee, only, 179 lines out of 988, having been discussed at all in that stage. So to treat a measure was really to turn discussion in the House into an absolute travesty. The acquiescence of the Government in it, and the absence from the right hon. Gentleman's speech of any suggestion in regard to this deplorable method of carrying on Parliamentary business, he confessed filled him with gloomy apprehension for the future of that House. The right hon. Gentleman must know that they had never had a chance of discussing the question of off-licences nor of the addition to the fourteen years which he represented as a concession to the licensing trade, but which seemed to them, so far as he understood the matter, not to be a concession at all. They had never had the Government policy explained of why off-licences were not to be subjected to local veto and why on-licences were to be so subjected, and he could not see that the right hon. Gentleman meant them to have any opportunity in the allocation of time which he was now giving to monopoly value. For any human being in the House to think that it was decent, when they were dealing with interests so vast, to allow such important questions as monopoly value to pass untouched was to have the strangest view of what was really due to the House of Commons and its constituents. The right hon. Gentlemen had referred by comparison

  311
  to the Act of 1904, which he and his friends thought pernicious at the time, but which they had adopted as the basis of some parts of the Bill. He would not go into the merits or demerits of the Act of 1904, but it was a simple measure which carried out one plain proposition, with which they might agree or from which they might dissent. It was discussed absolutely ad nauseam, and there was not very much to be said about its details. Simple as it was the Bill of 1904 was discussed at a length absolutely beyond comparison with the time which had been allowed for this Bill, if they took into account the comparative length of the two measures. The peculiarity of this Bill was not merely that it was a long one, but that it contained within it a number of isolated and separate changes in the law, each of which, if taken alone, would be regarded as quite as controversial a subject as any passed in the Act of 1904. There was the question of the time-limit, which could have been treated in a separate Bill. There was the question of off-licence, which also could have been treated in a separate Bill; and there was the whole question of local option, which could have been similarly treated. He mentioned only some of the subordinate measures contained within the ambit of this extraordinary scheme, and each of these, if the Government had brought them forward separately, would have required discussion on the Second Reading of the Report stages, and, as everybody knew, each of them would have taken a very large portion of Parliament's time. But simply because the Government had chosen to bind together these fragments of licensing reform, having no mutual connection or logical coherence, and cram them into the limits of one measure, they thought they were justified in saying to the House that they would only allow so much time in which to discuss them, and if five days on the Report stage were not sufficient, well then it was a great misfortune, they were very sorry, but it was not their fault. But it was their fault. It was the fault of the Government, not merely that they tried to pass too many Bills, but because they tried to put into what they called one Bill, the substance of half a dozen separate Bills. Of course, hon. Gentle-
  312
  men opposite differed profoundly from the views held on his side of the House with regards to the merits of many of these proposals, but was there one of them familiar with Parliamentary proceedure in the past who did not know that in the very criticisms he was passing on His Majesty's Government, he was not in the least exaggerating the kind of task which they expected the House to perform; and if the House was unable to perform it under the old rules, which in the main governed their procedure, the fault was with those taskmasters who put before them a work which they were unable to perform, and not with the assembly which was asked to do the impossible. In the actual distribution of the time during the five days which the right hon. Gentleman was giving to Report, he personally took very little interest. It was perfectly clear that it was never intended that they should discuss this measure. In their method of conducting the business the Government exhibited, he had almost said, a malign pleasure in showing how little they considered the rights and dignity of the House, because—though they had many months for deliberation—when they had Government Amendments to be discussed on a particular evening, the printed Amendments appeared on the Paper only on that evening. He did not know whether they were going to do the same on Report. How many Amendments other than those on the Paper were the Government going to bring forward? Was the Solicitor-General, on whom so much of the burden of the discussion of this Bill had fallen, as the unfortunate slave of the powers which he was unable to control, going to ask them to deal for the first time on one of those evenings with an Amendment which they had never seen, and which, no doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman had never seen but which he was put up to move? Was that other victim of unhappy fate, the the First Commissioner of Works, going to come down some day on the Report stage and explain a new clause which turned out in the opinion of the Government to mean something quite different from what it meant according to its grammatical structure? This had been their infelicitous experience. A great amount of Parliamentary time would

  313
  have had to be given to this Bill, which as a matter of fact, was unnecessarily large and cumbersome. Of course, they should have opposed the fundamental and essential principle, because they differed from it, as they thought they had shown reason for differing from it. But that could have been discussed within the time allotted to them, if the Government had not insisted, not only upon the central principle, but upon all sorts of subsidiary matters which they regarded as great questions of licensing reform, all of which required discussion, and none of which had received it—["Oh."]—Well, very few of which had received it. Whatever was the division between the two sides of the House on the actual merits of many of the Government proposals, he believed he was talking to an absolutely sympathetic audience when he said that, dealing with an immense subject, touching the interests of every working-man in the country outside those who habitually used public-houses, raising the most violent feelings of hostility and prejudice touching the main subjects of social reform, there was not a Member who did not know well that he was not exaggerating in the least when he said that a measure of this magnitude to be passed through the House in the manner in which the Government had tried to pass it through, and were still going to try to pass it through, was not merely to deal another blow at the liberty of discussion, which, though in a diminishing degree, they had enjoyed up to the present time, but it was to send the Bill from the House of Commons for discussion in the country without the imprimatur of that House upon it, and without anything behind it in the shape of argument, discussion, or criticism which should commend it to the great mass of their fellow-countrymen.
  MR. BARNARDsaid the right hon. Gentleman had complained that the Bill had not been adequately discussed. He thought the fault lay largely on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman himself and his friends. The Bill in its details had been deliberately boycotted. If, as he said, it was based largely on the 1904 Act, did it not show there could not be the same necessity
  314
  for dealing with the points taken from that Act? He objected to the leading features of the Bill, but he realised that there was going to be a Bill and he believed there was going to be an Act of Parliament, and it was essential to try and contemplate the details of the measure, and see to what extent they could be improved and brought down to the position of practical business. He had never doubted that the Government had made very great concessions, but he was of opinion that the concessions could be still further improved, and that they could be moulded into a shape which he believed would render it more advantageous generally to have a Bill than not to have one. He thought the allocation might be advantageously altered. There had been points of uncertainty in connection with the discussion. It was obvious that in a great measure like this some features in the hurry might be overlooked, and he thought there were two or three groups of subjects which had not been sufficiently discussed. It would be an extremely desirable thing to discuss further the question of the compensation to public-house tenants. He recognised that the Government had gone a very great way towards protecting the interests of the public-house tenants, and that they would be in a better position after the Bill became law than ever before, but further discussion was necessary in order to elaborate and round off some of these points. The extension of the time-limit to twenty-one years had left a doubt in people's minds because he did not understand now the exact arrangement of the three years compensation and other points of that description which he thought might be dealt with at greater length. He put it to the Prime Minister whether it would not be possible in connection with the time-limit to take off this clog of local option. They had not got local option with the off-licences, but it was on these on-licences, and it clogged the whole position. It got rid of the security. It did not enable the people to insure themselves against these risks, and it was acknowledged in every part of the House that the two-thirds majority on local option was not likely ever to be effective or to be put into operation, at any rate in the greater part of England. He

  315
  should like to have further time on the matter of compensation, which had not been very largely discussed. It appeared to him that if there was not to be a limitation upon the levy to be charged equally, if there was a doubt about that, there ought not to be a limitation upon the method of compensation.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing some future Amendments to the Bill. He cannot do that at this stage. He must wait until the opportunity arises.
  MR. BARNARDsaid there were many reasons why, in his judgment, further time should have been allocated for the consideration of the important clauses and Amendments, because in that way they were more likely to produce a Bill which might be workable than otherwise. He had occupied rather a difficult position during the debates. After the Prime Minister had made the concession of the seven years he had explained that that was a position which ought to be contemplated and weighed up, and that was where he parted with Members of the Opposition. In his judgment it ought to be contemplated in detail. They thought it ought to be dealt with solely in the manner in which they had chosen to deal with it. After his speech, in which he said this thing should be looked into in detail, he had got into a terrible tangle. The trade papers proceeded to say he was ratting, and all the rest of it, and there was a quarrel amongst the interested parties inside his own constituency. The licensed victuallers met, and passed a resolution unknown to him—it was published in all the Birmingham papers—in which they said they were of opinion that he had been perfectly right in fighting one by one, to the best of his ability, these Amendments. If hon. Members above the gangway were so positive in not going into the details of the measure—if they were perfectly certain that the publicans of England were with them—all he could say was that he was not. He could hope that the earlier days might be rather extended and the later ones cut out.
  EARL WINTERTONsaid he did not propose to follow
  316
  the hon. Gentleman. He should certainly be out of order if he did so. But if the hon. Member had taken the trouble to look into the number of times he had spoken in Committee, he did not think he would bring the accusation of obstruction against the Opposition. The Prime Minister had stated that twelve of the clauses which were undiscussed were non-controversial, and therefore unimportant. That threw a very lurid searchlight on the attitude the Government took up on the time they considered necessary to allocate to the discussion of each clause. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman thought that because a clause was non-controversial it was unimportant. That was the effect of his words. They were to understand that when clauses were controversial, when fierce party passions were aroused, and when words were bandied across the floor of the House, the Government thought it necessary and important that the clauses should be discussed, and when they had clauses equally important containing matters of detail, because they were not controversial, the Government thought it was not necessary to discuss them. When the Prime Minister held these views it was obviously a mere waste of time to discuss the details of the allocation. He was pleased that for the first time when they had discussed guillotine Resolutions they had not heard the hoary old fiction trotted out that the guillotine Resolutions were rendered necessary by the obstructive tactics of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted frankly, not merely that, owing to the Resolution passed in July, his hands were more or less tied, but that in a controversial Bill of this kind it was necessary to tie down the House to prevent a great many clauses being discussed, for the physical reason that there was not sufficient time to discuss them. That again was a very important admission, as was also the admission that this procedure was to be widely adopted in the future. The right hon. Gentleman had one ally much more powerful than any of his colleagues—the clock. That was the General Blucher who never failed him, and was always in time. If he might make a suggestion with all courtesy and seriousness and

  317
  without impertinence, it was that the right hon. Gentleman having that powerful ally might well give some of his colleagues a well-earned holiday and enable them during the Report stage to give a little much-needed time to the work of their own offices.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid they did not think it in the least necessary to accept the right hon. Gentleman's invitation of suggested alterations in his scheme. The difficulty arose from the shortness of the time at the Prime Minister's disposal. It would be impossible to recast the time-table in such a way as to ensure the fair and proper discussion of many clauses which they had not had an opportunity of saying a word about in Committee and were not likely to have an opportunity of discussing on Report. The Prime Minister had laid great stress on the fact that very many clauses were allowed to pass, not only without opposition, but without any very great number of Amendments appearing on the Paper. That arose largely from the fact that they knew it was perfectly impossible to reach them. The right hon. Gentleman must not therefore consider that these clauses were thought incapable of amendment. He agreed that, so far as he had been able, the Prime Minister had redeemed his pledge of giving them an opportunity of discussing the new Amendments, but he was certain the Bill would leave the House without many of its important clauses having been discussed at all. The whole trouble arose from the fact that six or seven Bills had been crammed into one, that barnacles had been attached to the main body which it was perfectly impossible to discuss or remove, and, therefore, they must not be held, simply because they had not discussed or sought to amend the clauses, as accepting their principle.
  MR G. D. FABERsaid the Under-Secretary for the Home Department on 17th July last, when the setting up of the guillotine was under discussion, used the following words—
  "The hon. Member for the Ashford division of Kent suggested that there would be no time to ascertain the feeling of the House as to the manner in which the five days should be distributed.
  318
  But during the long weeks in which the Bill would be under discussion there would be ample time for the Government, through the ordinary means of communication, to gather views from the various quarters of the House as to which clauses Members desire should have preference on Report. From that point of view the proposal of the Government for the new allocation on Report was not open to objection or criticism."
  He had asked the right hon. Gentleman who had control over these matters as regarded their own party as to whether the whips on the Government side had approached him, and he did not gather that any such communication took place. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have carried out the undertaking, and gathered the general views of the House before the discussions for the five days were actually stereotyped. As regarded the general discussion, he felt that the matter was past praying for. The whole mischief was done when the guillotine Resolutions were originally taken, and nineteen, days were allotted to Committee and five to Report—manifestly insufficient in either case. The actual allocation of the time for the discussion arising on the Report stage was relatively of minor importance. The Government could not tell in anticipation how many days would be required, and if they were going partly to reserve the guillotine with regard to the Report stage it would have been better to have reserved it altogether and derided now instead of then how many days should be given. They had not done it, and it was not much use carrying the matter further. He was sorry that in the heat of the moment he had interrupted the Prime Minister on the question of Clauses 14 to 17. Those clauses had really never been discussed as regarded the policy of the establishment of the Commission. They had discussed the number of the Commissioners, but the Chairman had held them down to that, and the question of policy was reserved until they got to the notice to omit the clause, and it was never reached.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONwished to make his humble protest against this allocation proposal. The position seemed to be utterly absurd in view of what had already taken place in Committee. Only

  319
  about one-seventh of the Bill had been discussed, yet he was glad to think the Prime Minister had not accused them of obstructive mehods. He, himself, had not made a single speech. It had been left to the hon. Member for Kidderminster to accuse them of obstruction. He was entirely unjustified in his remark, and if he had totted up his speeches he would probably find he had made as many as any Member of the House. In spite of the drastic way in which the Government had forced the measure through the House, it was freely acknowledged that they had managed to get themselves into a greater muddle than any Government had ever got into in modern, times on an important measure such as this. Amendment after Amendment of the most drastic character was placed in the Bill by the Government or else accepted by them. And what of the other part of the Bill which was not discussed at all? It was clear that the Government had not given proper consideration to the measure, and they had shown their hopeless incompetence in dealing with it. When they came to the Report stage they found they were practically dealing with a more or less new Bill, utterly different from that which they had passed on the Second Reading. It was absolutely absurd to endeavour to force it through the Report stage in five days. He acknowledged that, given the small time allowed them, the right hon. Gentleman had done his best to allocate it as fairly as he could. He noticed that with the exception of one day the right hon. Gentleman, intended to see that everyone got his dinner comfortably, as he had allotted only two clauses for the dinner-hour each day, with the exception of the fifth day, when they were to have eleven clauses at the dinner-hour, and he was afraid the latter part of the Bill would not receive the discussion which the Prime Minister told them it would receive. A three hours discussion for twelve clauses and the Schedules appeared to be absolutely absurd. One could not help feeling thankful that the Bill after it left the House would go to another place where it would receive that fair and proper discussion which it merited. The country had come to see that it was not the House of Commons
  320
  which gave fair consideration to any measure, but the House of Lords, and the country was looking to the House of Lords to do something drastic with the measure.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he gathered from the speech of the hon. Gentleman that he thought this the most muddle-headed and incompetent Government that ever held office. It was very sad to hear that opinion, but nothing he could say which would be relevant to the question would induce the hon. Member to change it. He would not go into the general question whether or not the Government had given sufficient time for discussion; he would simply point out that, by the time the Bill had passed through the Report stage, it would have had six full weeks devoted to its discussion. It was not easy to give a larger measure of Parliamentary time to any measure. The Leader of the Opposition had alluded to particular points of importance in regard to which he seemed to think the House was not being treated fairly. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned particularly the additional period of seven years, the monopoly value, and Clauses 3, 5, and 24. He agreed that, in view of what took place in Committee, they all presented some novel features worthy of discussion; and it was in consequence of this that the Government had given each of those clauses the first place in one of the periods to be allotted to the Report stage. He thought that by so doing they had met the legitimate demand for an opportunity to discuss those portions of the measure. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham had spoken of turning a lurid searchlight on the policy and procedure of the Government. And what did the searchlight disclose? That the Government had chosen for preferential discussion on the Report stage controversial portions of the Bill. What would the noble Lord have said if a preferential position had been given to clauses which passed through Committee, without any Amendments to them being placed upon the Order Paper—at least six, he believed, fell within that category—or to others upon which, when they were put from the Chair, a division was not challenged?

  321
  He acknowledged the fair and dispassionate spirit which had characterised the discussion. Nobody liked these closure Resolutions, and, as he had often said, nobody disliked them more than he did. He would not enter into the vexed question, on which they would never come to an agreement, as to the occupants of which of the two front benches was the more responsible for the introduction of this particular form of procedure. He was glad to see that nobody had seriously questioned the fairness of the allocation of time that the Government had attempted to make between the various clauses, and he trusted that the House would now allow them to proceed to a division.
  Ordered accordingly.

  PORT OF LONDON (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  MR. BONAR LAW: In the absence of my hon. friend the Member for the Holborn division, I desire to move the Amendment that stands in his name. I think this Amendment is one of the most important that could be put down for discussion at this stage of the Bill. The Amendment alters the conditions under which the new Port of London authority is to be elected. The Government themselves, in adopting the proposal contained in the Bill, have avowed that the principle which should animate them in the creation of this new body is to have every industry connected with the port represented in the most favourable manner possible. I know that on a question of this, kind in regard to practical proposals which have been put forward by the Board of Trade, with all the means of knowledge at their disposal, and which had been accepted by a Committee specially appointed to consider the subject, the House is almost bound, or at all events, is very apt to come to the conclusion that that is a subject with respect to which they ought
  322
  to take the conclusion arrived at by the Board of Trade without further discussion. I think as a rule that is a good principle, but I am bound to say that so far as the constitution of this new authority is concerned this rule ought not to apply. Five years ago when a similar Bill was introduced by the late Government the Board of Trade took the view represented in the Amendment before the Committee. At that time also the Committee appointed to consider the question agreed with the proposal of the Board of Trade. They took the view that some kind of sectional representation was necessary for the separate industries so to be represented. Thus we have the Board of Trade and a strong Committee taking one view, and the late Committee taking another view. I think we may take it that this is not a subject to be settled by authority, but that it is something which the House ought to decide on its own merits. I venture to say that the arguments used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Second Reading of the Bill took place, when the same objection was raised which I am raising now, were arguments which, though they then convinced the House largely, were not really sound or quite applicable to the situation. His two arguments—I am speaking from memory—were these: He said it is a far simpler thing to have one register, and that it would make the Bill far simpler. The right hon. Gentleman said also that the principle of one register has been working successfully in Liverpool and Glasgow, and has had good results, and that we could not but anticipate the same results connected with the Port of London. I am sure that no one who is acquainted with the Mersey or the Clyde would say that I the conditions in these ports are in the least the same as in London. So far as both of these ports are concerned all the traders are on precisely the same footing. They all pay their dues to one authority in proportion to the amount of business given, but in the Port of London the reverse of that is the case. A large part of the trade in the Port of London will be conducted under conditions entirely different from those under which the rest is conducted, and it is obvious that what may be a good system on the Clyde

  323
  or the Mersey may turn out to be a very bad system so far as the Port of London is concerned, and here again we have different experiences. The conditions on the Tyne resemble those in the Port of London much more than those in Liverpool or Glasgow, and on the Tyne there is the kind of sectional representation proposed in the Amendment. Here again, therefore, we may say that so far as authority is concerned, there is as much to be said in favour of the one proposal as of the other. The other argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that we desired to get the best possible men on this new authority. Well, undoubtedly that is the main thing. If you can do that you will go a long way to make the Bill a success, and if the Bill is to have that effect I would say that that is a reason in favour of it. He said that if sections elected representatives, they would not be so likely to get the higher type of business men as if the members were all elected on one register by everybody voting at the same time. That might have something in it if it were the case that all sections would have a chance of electing those representatives. But what becomes of the argument if it I can be shown, as I believe it can be, that the effect of the arrangement as it stands in the Bill will be that the Port authority will still be sectionally elected, but that unfortunately it will be entirely elected by one section. I think that is the statement that can be proved with really mathematical certainty. As the Government have framed the measure, everybody who pays dues is to vote, and they are all to be on one register, with the exception of the wharfingers, who are to vote differently. There are four different categories under which dues are to be paid; (1) payers of dock dues on ships; (2) payers of dock dues on goods; (3) payers of river dues on ships; and (4) payers of river dues on goods. I want the Committee to remember that the first two categories represent one interest. The different interests in this new Port authority will be clearly and sharply defined. They will represent in most clear and marked fashion two distinct interests. On the one hand there will be the interest of those, whether ship-
  324
  owners or traders, who use the docks; and on the other hand will be those interests, whether ship-owners or traders, who do their business in the river. Not only are those interests clearly defined, but it is obvious that they can become directly hostile to each other. That will be admitted by the Board of Trade. At this moment a charge is made that the expense of the docks is one of the great drawbacks to the Port of London. It would be perfectly possible, and in a sense perfectly right, for the new authority to say that these expenses in the docks ought to be reduced and this reduction can be made in one of two ways. It can be done by increasing the volume of trade, but there is another method by which it can be effected, and that is by increasing the expense to the trade done outside. I cannot help thinking that anyone acquainted with the conditions and willing to look fairly at this subject will see that nothing could be more unfair than that one interest—that of the docks—should have complete control of the port, and that it is they, and they only, who are to decide the way in which the expense in the docks should be reduced at the expense possibly of the trade done in the river. That is precisely the position which is left by this Bill. The figures I am about to quote were given in evidence. The payers of the dock charges and of dues on goods pay £2,100,000, and the payers of port charges on shipping and dues on goods, which are the only things in which people interested in the river as distinct from the docks have any say on the new authority, pay £140,000. But only half of that belongs to those trading in the river, and therefore their interest in it is £70,000. The dues on goods amount to £180,000, and again something like a half is represented by those trading in the river. Therefore I ask those who are interested in the subject to take these figures into consideration.
  MR. RUSSELL REA: Where do you find these figures?
  MR. BONAR LAW: It is the estimate made by the Board of Trade before the hon. Member's Committee. This

  325
  great interest which does its business in the river pays in dues and has, therefore, voting power of £160,000, while the interest which does its business in the docks pays £2,260,000. That is to say you have one register only, and if all classes vote on that register, the chance of outside trade being represented on the new authority is as £160,000 is to £2,260,000. It is perfectly obvious that under such circumstances the new Port authority, so far as elected, will consist entirely of those who represent trade in the docks. If they put up seventeen candidates to be elected, there is not the slightest chance in the world of any other interest having any elected member whatever. I do not say that that is merely a danger that may arise; I think it is a certainty. This new authority so far as elected will consist entirely of those who trade in the docks, and the other interests will be left altogether unrepresented. That is my belief, and I think it is borne out by the figures I have given. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman will say that I have left out of account altogether the modifications introduced by the President of the Board of Trade. In the first place, the President of the Board of Trade has the right to decide what class of payments to the dock authority shall be considered as dues from the point of view of having a Tight to vote. It is quite possible, and I think it is probable, that the Board of Trade may say that warehouse charges should be left out, but even if they take that course, the preponderance is still so enormous on the side of the docks that it will not make any difference to that part of the trade of the river which represents in volume half the total trade of the Port of London, and whose interest in the Port of London is every bit as great as those who do their trade entirely in the docks. The next modification introduced into the Bill during its passage through Committee is a clause by which the Board of Trade is to make half of the elected members shipowners, and the other half merchants. I do not see how they are going to do that. It is an attempt at proportional representation, and I do not see how it can work. But even if it does work, that modification is based entirely on
  326
  ignorance of what the real facts are in London. In other ports, the Mersey and the Tyne, if there is any difference between the various classes of payers of dues, it is the difference between those who pay dues on ships and those who pay dues on goods. But in London that is not the dividing line. It is between those who trade in the docks and those who trade in the river. If you are to have half the new authority to be represented by those who pay dues on goods, and the other half by those who pay dues on ships, you will not touch the central injustice of this proposal; and that is, that this great river interest, which represents in bulk half of the total trade of London, will be absolutely unrepresented on the new authority. The last modification made by the Board of Trade is that they reserve power, after the first election, if they find that this system is not working well, to alter the whole system on which the voting is done. Obviously that provision is for an emergency and put in to meet a difficulty if a difficulty arises, and it does make the position much less serious than if it were permanent. The figures I have given to the Committee show that you cannot possibly have a worse system from the point of view of dealing fairly with the existing interest than the system represented in this Bill, and it is surely of the greatest importance that at the outset the different interests should be fairly represented. There is another body which deserves special consideration from the Government. I mean the manufacturers on the waterside. I think they should have at least one representative specially put on the authority as constituted. Let me point out how important that is. It is a fact, I believe, that London is the greatest manufacturing city in the kingdom; but everyone knows that these manufactures are carried on under very great difficulties and disadvantages; so much so, that many industries which used to flourish here have been carried to other parts of the country. The sole advantage of manufacturers in London is the cheap method of receiving the raw materials and of sending away the finished goods. I believe this Bill will do good to London, as a whole, but I do not see how it is

  327
  going to benefit the manufacturers of London. They will be placed at a disadvantage if dues are imposed on the goods used in their manufactures, and if they are made liable for dues on the export of their goods. I say that this body should have their representatives on the Port authority. The importance of that was felt so strongly that in the Bill of the late Government, though no representation was given to the manufacturers in the original Bill, Lord Cross's Committee gave them two representatives. I think in the interest of the Port authority itself, it would be a great advantage that there should be at least one man to represent those interests and to point out what would be the effect on the manufacturing industries of putting dues on the different kinds of material they use, and on their manufactures. I can quite believe that the constitution of the authority will not work out so badly as the figures I have given show; and that whatever body is appointed they will try to be moderately fair. That is true, but docks have their own interests to protect, and the river trade has its interest, and it is the interest of the dock to keep the charges on the dock down. Surely it is not right that the decision of this question should be left entirely to those who have a direct interest in deciding it in one way. I do not know whether it is too late to appeal to the Board of Trade to reconsider their decision, but I am afraid they have made up their minds about it, and that there is not much chance of carrying conviction to them. But I am certain the system is wrong, and that the Government are making a mistake in persisting in it, and I hope they will reconsider it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 22, to leave out from the word 'eighteen,' to end of subsection, and to insert the words 'nineteen. By payers of dues on ships trading to the docks, four; by payers of dues on ships trading to the river, three; by traders, five; by waterside manufacturers, two; by wharfingers, three; by owners of river craft, two.'"—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The hon. Gentleman has addressed the Houses at some length, but although he has given us a great many statements and arguments upon the general subject of the method of selecting a Port authority, he has devoted hardly any observations to advocating the Amendment which he has thought proper to move. The hon. Gentleman has found fault with the Government's idea of a Port authority. I wish he had shown some reason why he does not think it good; but in support of his Amendment he has moved I have not heard a single argument in favour of the particular form in which he would propose to amend and reform the constitution of the Port authority. I was not surprised at this. The hon. Gentleman has always shown some temerity in committing himself to the principle of sectional representation on these boards, as against the principle of general representation. For what is the issue before the Committee? Surely it is an exceedingly simple one. Are the members of this new Port authority to go to its meetings with the desire of representing the interests of the Port of London as a whole, or are they to go there merely to-consider what would conduce to the prosperity of part of our system; are they to be merely the delegates of special sections of the community, each of whom do not consider the general interest, but the interest of the special groupings which they represent. Which of these two methods which are now before the Committee seems the most in accordance with the public interest? I submit that there can really be no doubt in anyone's mind. There was no doubt in the minds of the Committee. The traders applied to the Committee to determine this matter; they heard all the arguments which were advanced by the different sections, and they felt, having regard to the multiplicity of traders that there are in London, that the only chance of getting a really clear and powerful policy from the Port authority is to avoid sectional representation altogether. The hardship which the hon. Gentleman has dwelt upon, of particular sections possibly not finding their representation, is not so great as is commonly supposed, because

  329
  as a matter of fact all traders, shipowners, and wharfingers in the river have interests which are largely interdependent and will prosper as the prosperity of the port advances and will suffer in proportion as that prosperity is impaired. This Amendment which we see upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Holborn, even this would not be representative of all sections, and if it be an attempt to give sectional representation of all classes it is a conspicuous failure. From that point of view I shall, therefore, ask the Committee not to assent to this proposal. It has been from the first the guiding principle of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prefer the general interests to the sectional interests, and that is one of the issues of principle which we submit to the House at the very outset of these discussions. Once you begin to give sectional representation where are you to stop? Every single locality considers it is affected; every single trade—corn and timber—has come forward asking for sectional representation, and it is against all these disconnected individuals and separate interests that we are asking the Committee to prefer the large and general interests of the Port of London. In choosing this course we have the respectable precedent of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, where a general method of election prevails, and the new development of the dock system which has been lately brought into force upon the Clyde. Therefore, I must ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment, and I should like to say, so far as the other parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech were concerned, in which he attacked the general methods and principles by which we propose to give effect to the principle of a general Port authority, that those points will arise very suitably in regard to the numerous Amendments which have been put upon the Paper affecting that particular machinery.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not profess to have a very intimate knowledge of the subject, although it is one in which my constituents have very great interests, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has not very
  330
  successfully answered my hon. friend. I quite agree that the question is one of great difficulty, but in the first place the right hon. Gentleman seems to suppose that my hon. friend near me had approached this question in a controversial spirit. No one who heard his speech could say so. He did not attack the Government, and I am rather surprised at the tone which the right hon. Gentleman adopted. My hon. friend's contention really was a very simple one, and it has not been disposed of by the argument of the President of the Board of Trade, though there may be other arguments, and if so, they ought to be made to the Committee. I quite admit that the hon. Gentleman opposite, and the Joint Committee over which he presided, pronounced in favour of the scheme of the Government, but I believe the Bill of the late Government was based on the Report of the Royal Commission, which did admirable work—work upon which the whole of this legislation is founded—and Lord Cross' Committee which investigated the question, and which came to an opposite conclusion—indeed, to the conclusion which my hon. friend has embodied in his Amendment. That, at all events, shows that perfectly impartial authorities are divided on this question. What was the solitary argument of the President of the Board of Trade? He said—"We are in favour of appointing a body which is to deal in a broad spirit with the interests of the Port. We do not want to have sectional representation, under which the various members of the Port authority shall come forward, not to deal with the interests of the Port as a whole, but to deal with them in a fragmentary fashion, each of the representatives dealing only efficiently with that part of the scheme for a Port authority which affects his particular constituency." I would, of course, rather have a general representation than a sectional one, if you are going to get it by the Government Bill; but the whole of my hon. friend's point is this, that though in terms and on paper you are going to get a broad representation by the scheme of the Government, you will, in fact, get a sectional representation, with this great disadvantage, that only one section will be represented, viz., the section which

  331
  deals with the docks, and not with those great interests which are involved in the use of the river outside the docks. Everybody knows that the whole difficulty, or one of the great difficulties of dealing with the Port of London, is this division of interests be ween those who use the river and those who use the docks. That is the fundamental and essential difficulty, and it is a very great difficulty, and I do not think you will get out of it by running a scheme of representation in which only the docks or mainly the docks will be able to have it all their own way, no matter what anybody else says, thinks, or does, and then salve your conscience by saying: "Well, we have only one register, and we have only one scheme of representation, and therefore we represent all the interests of the docks," when, in reality, the effective electors who will have it in their power to control the management of the whole Port of London will be the owners of the docks, and the owners of the docks alone. That really is the scheme of the Government. It may be one or the best solution of the almost overwhelming complexity of this problem, but I am bound to say that I do not think the President of the Board of Trade has proved that it is the best and only plan, and highly as I rate the authority of the Committee of which the two hon. Gentlemen whom I see opposite were members, who considered this question in an impartial spirit, they will forgive me if I say that I think that this all important point ought to be dealt with in a somewhat broader spirit than that exhibited by the President of the Board of Trade, and some attempt should be made to deal with the crucial difficulty laid before the Committee by my hon. friend, namely, that if you have one register, and if you confine yourself to the register in the scheme of the Bill, the result will inevitably be that interests which have to deal with half or more than half in volume of the trade of the whole Port of London may be and probably will be outvoted by those who represent a very important, but still only sectional, interest connected with the Port. It is in the interest not of a section, but of the whole Port of London that I plead for a
  332
  rather more impartial consideration of my hon. friend's Amendment than the right hon. Gentleman has given it, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman who presided over that Committee or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will submit what is the policy of the Government, and give us in more detail the reasons which induced them to leave the precedent set by the Commission and Lord Cross' Committee and adopt a wholly new method. I am sure the Government will accept the assurance that neither I nor my hon. friend approach this question in a partisan spirit. I am only too anxious to see a settlement, and I recognise the tremendous difficulties which any Government would have to deal with, when they have to consider the many interests which by long practice in the Port of London have been allowed to grow up.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I fully accept the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that he does not approach this question in a party spirit and I extend the same observation to the hon. Member for Dulwich, because I remember very well the way in which when I had charge of this project, the hon. Member assisted me in the matter, and I may say that he approached the problem in a spirit of helpfulness as far as I was personally concerned when I was at the Board of Trade. I accept his assurance of the sincere spirit in which he acted, and that his observations were not directed in any partisan spirit against the action of the Government. And after all it is a difficult question, a very difficult question, to decide. I am sure that for some time I hesitated a good deal myself as to whether I should follow the precedent set by my predecessor and adhere to a sectional representation, or whether I should rather follow the precedent of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board. All I can say is that after considering the thing very carefully, I came to the conclusion, very, very slowly, that, on the whole, the Mersey precedent was the better precedent, and I still hold that opinion. I agree that the hon. Member is perfectly right and can demonstrate

  333
  from the figures the possibility of getting representation almost exclusively into the hands of one group. I do not think it is likely to operate in that way, and I think there is a good deal in what my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade said about it—that the men who largely trade in the docks have also an interest elsewhere. It is not as if trade had purely a dock interest; here there is a river interest, and here they are interdependent, and people who do business in the docks do business in the river as well, and I am very doubtful if you can group them into the docks on the one hand and the river on the other. The Government are very anxious to avoid a mere sectional representation where you get men returned in the purest sectional interest, and I think that is a very important consideration for the first few years when the whole policy of development of the Port will have to be decided. I do not want to criticise severely the interests of the Port of London, but it seems to me that there is a greater danger in the Port of London than in almost any other port of the whole thing in the end falling into the hands of a section. In Liverpool and Glasgow you have a civic spirit, they are Glasgow men and Liverpool men, but I found when I came to deal with the Port of London that they were the wharfingers, or the Baltic, or any of the different trades, such as the corn trade, or they were great liners or short sea traders, or they were interested in barges. They fought very fiercely for the sectional interests, and I think that on the whole there is more of that spirit in the Port of London than you would be likely to meet in either Glasgow or Liverpool or on the Tyne. Therefore I think it would be very important, at any rate for the first few years, when you have to decide very important questions of policy, in fact gigantic questions of policy, such as the development of the river, whether you are going in for wharves and quays, whether you are going to extend the barrage—they are all problems of enormous importance and questions of policy to be referred practically to the first body to be elected—I think it is very important that you should get not merely men who represent the best
  334
  spokesmen for the wharfingers or for the docks or on behalf of the barges, but really the most prominent men connected with the trade and the Port of London. I think by this treatment you would get the very best men. There are many prominent and suitable persons, men who command general confidence and whose interest in this matter would be a general one. By this means we shall at all events have established the status of the Port authority. After all, the success of this scheme will not be dependent on the ingenuity of the scheme itself, but entirely upon the class of men attracted to it. My own opinion is that you are likely to get better men by appealing to a larger constituency. For instance, if you say: "We want three wharfingers," the wharfingers will choose three men who will fight best for that particular interest. In fact, it is almost an appeal to them to do so, and I know how keenly they contest every small point in connection with their trade and very often subject the general interests of the whole to their own particular interest. Therefore I think it is of paramount importance that you should have some scheme which will attract the really big men who are connected with the trade of London and induce them to go upon this board—men who are known not merely in their trades but to everybody. I think it will be to the interests of men of the particular trades to put forward their big men and get them to serve on the board, and thus establish the status of the Port authority for all time. If we get small men, each representing his own particular trade on to this board, it will be hopelessly damned for ever. The board wall be an inferior board, and that is not what we wish to have. The need of getting the very best men is shown in the case of Liverpool. One particular interest in Liverpool is so dominant that it could easily capture the majority of the port authority of Liverpool, but what happens is this, that the various interests electing the port authority meet together beforehand and arrange these matters. The members of the port authority are drawn from each section, but are responsible to the whole. Not only are they responsible to the whole, but they are men known to

  335
  everybody both inside and outside their business. They are the big men of the trades. They are not the most clamorous or the most noisy, but they are really the best men in the trades and men who commend themselves not only to their own section but to people outside. It is most important that we should begin at any rate by getting the very best men in London for this Port authority. Supposing it turns out that our anticipation is not realised and that the prediction of the hon. Member turns out to be true, and that, after all, the whole representation gets into the hands of one group, we have not only a remedy but a warning. These men who endeavour to get the whole of the board under the control of any particular trade will know perfectly well that the Board of Trade would have to revise their rules at the next election, and with that warning before them—and even without it—I do not think business men will act in that way. For that reason I am glad that my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade has decided to stand by this clause and not to accept the Amendment.
  MR. STEADMANsaid he was not at all surprised at the speech which had just been delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had a theory in favour of this Bill, and when he heard that at last the Bill had been drafted by the Board of Trade to satisfy all parties concerned he wondered by what magic wand the right hon. Gentleman had been able to accomplish it. When the Bill was before the House on a former occasion no opportunity was offered to hon. Members for honest criticism. The whole thing was rushed through. But since that time they had been able to study the Bill both inside and outside the House, and there was now as much opposition outside the House by persons interested in the Port of London as there was before. The Amendment he rose to support did not give him the opportunity at that juncture to say to what, in his opinion, was due the success of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to this Bill. But he claimed to have as good a knowledge of the river as any Member of the House. He went as an apprentice to a barge-builder in 1866 and
  336
  from that period down to the present time he had seen all the attempts that the dock company had made to grapple with this problem. Moreover he was for twelve years one of the London County Council representatives on the Thames Conservancy Board. The right hon. Gentleman had made an elaborate attempt to try and avoid what would practically be the repetition of the personnel of the old Thames Conservancy Board, but he had not, in his judgment, made out his case. The Board of Trade seemed to be bossing the whole show so far as the Port of London was concerned. He wanted to ask the President of the Board of Trade what he could tell him about this river; what his nominee on the present Board knew about it, what the Admiralty knew about it, and what Trinity House knew about it except that they had a depot at Black-wall. He had always regarded these men as a drag on the wheel so far as getting practical work was concerned for the Port of London. It should be governed by a trust composed of the very men on the river whose action the right hon. Gentleman had condemned. He was taken on one occasion by the Mersey Harbour Board up and down the Mersey, and the success of the Mersey, he found, was due to the fact that the Harbour Board was composed of practical men. That was what was wanted here. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the barge-owners would select men to look after their own interests, and that the shipbuilders would do the same, as would also the wharfingers. But they would select the best men that they could get, for, the Committee might depend upon it, their living depended upon the Port of London. If the trade of the Port fell off it would not be one but all who would suffer, and that was why they would work amicably together. He was glad the right hon. Member for the City of London was not going to make this a party question. They made too many things party questions, and had lost a great deal by so doing. He was not there to champion the cause of the barge-owners, wharfingers, and shipbuilders; they were able to take care of themselves; but they brought the trade to the Port of London, and

  337
  there were hundreds and thousands of working men whose living and whose wives and families' living depended on the success of the river. It was in their interest that he said what he had to say. On this Bill the Government ought to give the House a free hand and let every Member vote according to his conscience. Nobody was more anxious to see this problem solved than himself.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must really ask the hon. Member to speak to the Amendment, and not to travel so widely from it as he is doing.
  MR. STEADMANsaid he had not much more to say except that he hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Holborn would be accepted, because in that way they would get a better board than that which the Government proposed.
  MR. WHITEHEADdesired, as representing a constituency which was very much interested in this river, to say a few words. He understood the objection put forward by the Government to this Amendment was that it involved sectional representation. That was their only argument, and he did not think in a practical matter of this kind, involving very great issues and the future prosperity of this Port, the House of Commons would consent to be put off with a fine phrase like that. They must regard the facts and look at the Bill as it was presented to them at this stage. The Government proposal was itself a proposal for sectional representation. Only one class in the Port would get representation under it. If the Committee took the figures in the Schedule what did they see? The facts were very simple. On the voting register as it appeared in the Schedule, those who paid dock charges on ships and on goods would on the present basis become responsible for £2,100,000, while those persons interested in the Port of London who paid port charges and port dues would be responsible for the sum of about £320,000. Those who were interested in the docks, and not in the river at all, would thus have seven-eighths of the voting power on the register. What
  338
  did that mean? It could only mean that the big shipowners using the docks would get the majority of the voting power. Therefore not only did this proposal of the Government involve sectional representation, but it was also very unfair to those merchants and shipowners who had provided at their own expense, by a great capital expenditure, what might be described as their own dock accommodation. The dues paid by the vessels which came into the docks paid in a sense rent for the use of the docks, but those who traded on the river at wharves had paid their own rent. Therefore the proposal was unfair inasmuch as it excluded two important interest, the shipowners in the river, and the waterside manufacturers. The Government ignored the fact that this was a matter which concerned London as a manufacturing centre. Many persons regarded it as if the question only affected the docks. In London they had a large manufacturing interest; they had private firms and public companies who had come to the shores of the Thames for the purposes of manufacture, because of the facilities of water carriage which they obtained at the present time at a very cheap rate. This Bill, if passed in its present form, would enable the big shop-owners to place a tax on the manufacturers of London. The cry of the shipowners had been that they desired a reduction of the dues of the docks. They wanted to make London more available for ships. If they reduced the dues of the docks, on whom were they going to throw the burden—revenue was admittedly required for the new dock undertaking. If the dues were lowered in the they could only get the revenue out of the trade on the river and on the riverside. If so, the Committee was placing in the hands of the big shipowners and the State a power which involved the power of imposing a tax on the raw materials of industry that came to this port. That was a very grave consideration, and one which ought to weigh with the Committee when it voted upon this Amendment. Even the Board of Trade had recently recognised that this had created a very unfair situation. They quite recently gave to the waterside manufacturers a promise that when

  339
  making the first appointments for the Port authority a representative of their interest should be placed upon it. If the Board of Trade saw its way to make such an appointment today and admitted its justice to-pay, surely it was a principle which was good for all time. The principle having teen already admitted by the Board of Trade that the manufacturers' interest as well as the shipowners' interest should be represented, it was only fair and just to give dock representation to the ships trading on the river.
  MR. REMNANTapologised for not being present when his Amendment was called on. He regarded this matter very seriously, and hoped the Government would assist the Committee to make good this defect in the Bill. He cordially agreed with the President of the Board of 'Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this should not be dealt with as a party question, but that they should deal with it in the interest of the Port of London. He was struck both by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade and by that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The President of the Board of Trade said he did not see his way to accept this Amendment and put representatives of sectional interests on the Port authority, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the desire of the Government was to attract the very best possible men they could get on to the board. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the P. and O. Company, but, after all, the P. and O. Company came under the category of those who used the docks. The objection, that had been urged and which lay at the bottom of this Amendment was that no sufficient protection was afforded to those who used the river as distinct from those who used the docks; that the preponderating influence the latter would have would quite overshadow the representation of those who used the river. He always thought that the object of this Bill was a general change; that the dock, harbour, and port dues of London were so excessive as to cripple trade. If that was so, then the desire of those who managed the docks, and who had this preponderating influence, would be to
  340
  reduce the charges. The Bill made the authority the administrative authority for the whole Port. As to the docks, it became a trade corporation, and he was afraid the tendency would be that the dock charges would be reduced at the expense of the other interests. It was in the hope that that might be overcome that he had put this Amendment down on the Paper, and he hoped the Government would see its way to give better representation to the river interest as apart from the dock interest and would agree to the Amendment.
  MR. RUSSELL REAsaid that perhaps he was more closely identified with sectional representation than even the hon. Member for Dulwich. In the hon. Member's Bill there was no sectional representation. In the Bill for which he was so largely responsible in 1903 there was no sectional representation of the kind that he now advanced. The distinction as he said now was not between ships and dues, but between docks and river. In the hon. Member's Bill the whole distinction was between ships and dues, and what sectional representation was introduced into that Bill he was in part responsible for, as being a member of the Joint Committee which inserted it. Notwithstanding his sectional record, he was a supporter of the general register which was embodied in this Bill, and which was approved by the Committee. He was in favour of it on the general grounds so well stated by his right hon. friend. It would probably introduce better men—it would introduce a better spirit—but it was a very difficult question he admitted. If there were to be sectional representation, it might be necessary in the future, and, if it should prove necessary, it would come—but it was impossible to impose sectional representation logically now. It was impossible to make a scheme for sectional representation which could be defended, and which would last, and they would very probably, in making a sectional scale now, be creating vested interests which it would be very difficult to deal with later on. If they were to make a sectional Schedule it would be sure to be wrong now, because they

  341
  had not the means of coming to a right conclusion. They were going to create an absolutely new constituency and they did not know what it might be. The payers of dues on goods would be a mass of unknown people, and what would be their relative weight in the now scheme? What about the revenue they would contribute? They did not know, and what their numbers would be they did not know. For instance, on the Schedule as it stood, supposing £100,000 was contributed to the revenue of the State by dues on goods, it might be contributed by one contributor such as the P. and O. Company, who would get fifty votes, or it might conceivably be contributed by 10,000 ratepayers who paid on dues who would have 10,000 votes. He stated all these things to show that the whole of the suggestions in Schedule 1 were tentative. It appeared to him that they were reserving power to adapt these things to the circumstances better by adopting the general register now. For instance, the whole thing was "subject to the provisions of this Schedule," and the provisions of the Schedule were such as this, that the Board of Trade might make new regulations as to voting power and might revise their rates if they found that one interest predominated or was over-represented. Then, of course, for the first elections they held in their hands the definition of what dues should count, and such a preponderance as the hon. Member for Dulwich suggested would certainly not be permitted. Then after the first election the whole thing might be varied, and it could not be varied altogether at the pleasure of the Board of Trade, but must be varied by Provisional Order, and would undoubtedly come to the House again. There was another security for the oppressed waterside manufacturer, or wharfinger, or other classes who were alarmed for their interests. There were in this body a very large number of appointed members, much larger than in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and these men might be considered guardians for the general interest. They would be men selected by great Departments, chiefly by the Board of Trade, and also by the Admiralty, and they would uudoubtedly
  342
  consider the general and not the sectional interests. Eventually, he admitted, it was possible that they might have to give sectional representation, and if they did the means were provided. But at the present juncture it was impossible to institute a logical scheme of sectional representation, and he hoped and was confident that the general register would prove to be practicable and just.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought every member of the Committee would agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that the sole object which Parliament ought to have in laying down the principles under which the members of this new board were to be constituted ought to be to secure a body of men of the highest possible class who would not be actuated by mere selfish interests, but who would have at heart the rights and privileges of all and would be prepared to do their best in the interests of all. Of course, there was not the slightest doubt that if they could secure such a result as that everybody would be satisfied; and the only question, as he understood it, before the Committee was really this, that some Members, including those who were responsible for this Amendment, very respectfully were suggesting that perhaps these objects would not be attained quite as well under the Government scheme as under the Amendment which they proposed. Considerable reference had been made to the happy state of affairs and the great successes which they had had in connection with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. It was undoubtedly a matter of common knowledge that at present, and also for many years past, they had enjoyed in the constitution of that body the advantage of the presence, administrative ability, and help of a number of men of the highest possible class and of the greatest respectability and position in every respect. There was no doubt that that had been a very great thing for the Port of Liverpool, and it had been a magnificent thing for the general administration of such a concern as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. When any Government ventured, to tackle a difficult problem like that of the Port of London—

  343
  the most difficult problem of this nature in the world—it was inevitable that they should turn to the constitution of a body like the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and say that if that constitution had given such success, and had resulted in such excellent and worthy and able men being elected as members of the Board, they could not go very far wrong in adopting in outline, at all events, the general principles which obtained there. But although the whole of the elected members of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board were elected by the general body of payers of dues, irrespective of any such distinctions as were suggested in this Amendment, yet it would be acknowledged, he thought, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the elected members of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, of whom he saw one honoured member sitting on the benches opposite, were, in fact, nominees of and did represent different trades. For instance, the corn trade had their representative on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, not legally but because it had been found in practice that the corn trade ought to be represented, and although the constitution did not provide for the corn trade making any such election, yet as a matter of fact it was found that, the best, wisest, and justest, thing to do, and that was the way it was done. Things were so arranged in Liverpool that they had probably the very best man in the city representing any particular trade on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. He knew comparatively little about the geography of the Thames from actual personal acquaintance, but he thought there was one very great essential difference between the conditions that obtained on the Mersey and on the Thames which seemed to him to go to the root of the whole matter. That difference was that on the Mersey practically the whole trading front on both sides of the river belonged to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and there were very few private wharves. He knew they had the docks belonging to the London & North-Western Railway, and there was also the Manchester Ship Canal, which had the use of the river, but his point was that in Liverpool all the dock front on the Liverpool side and all the front
  344
  available for trade purposes for goods on both sides of the river belonged to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and was managed by that Board. In London they had an entirely different state of affairs. In London they had a few docks which were a comparatively small proportion to the general bulk of the trade. People owned their own wharves and had spent very large sums of money indeed upon making those facilities which up to the present no public authority had ventured to undertake. It was not proposed by the Bill to give the new authority either the power or the right to take over the whole of these trading facilities.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,): But we have power in this Bill to take over the riverside premises.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he did not think that even the wildest dream of anybody associated with the Board of Trade ever suggested that this new board when it was constituted would undertake such an enormous task, within at all events any reasonable period. He thought the hon. Gentleman would admit that it was not seriously proposed in practice by this, Bill that this newly-elected body should begin its operations by absorbing either the greater portion or really any serious portion of all those private wharves or other trading facilities on both sides of the Thames. Therefore, they were faced with the difficulty that in London they had a number of small private interests who had got quite as great an interest, if not a greater taken collectively, in the welfare and management of the Port of London as this new body would have which would only own a comparatively small portion of the trading front of the river on both sides. The problem was rendered much more difficult by that fact. In conclusion, he was bound to say that, although he listened to the arguments of the hon. Members who supported this Amendment, and although he was impressed with the difficulties, he was afraid that other interests had been overlooked which were paramount interests. One could not get away from the conviction

  345
  that the majority of the elected members ought to be elected by the payers of dues promiscuously, irrespective altogether of any particular class of voters. If the majority were elected from the register made up of the payers of dues then there would be quite enough room in a minority of the total body to give every other section some reasonable representation. He thought if that could be carried out it would at all events meet his own personal views more nearly than either the proposal of the Government or the Amendment now before the Committee.
  MR. MORTONthought the people ought to be much better represented on this Board than was proposed. It had been said that the Government claimed that their's was not a sectional proposal. If it was not then he should like to know what it was. He knew they were in a difficulty in discussing this matter at the present moment, but that was not their fault. As a matter of fact, this was the first opportunity they had had to discuss the matter at all, and if a question like this was brought forward at the fag end of an Autumn Session it was not his fault and it was not fair to the House. The voters who were to elect these eighteen members were to be the payers of dues. The payers of dues were not the consumers, and it was the people who actually paid the money. The payers of dues might be called the pocket through which the money passed. What he would like to have seen on this and every other Board was that those who had to find the money should have the majority of the representatives on the Board. Unless they adopted that principle they did not get the consumers who had to find the money properly represented. He had found from experience that those sectional gentlemen generally went to represent their own selfish objects—he meant their own trades and businesses—and practically only attended when they wanted to do something for themselves in any particular direction; otherwise they left the business to those who represent the people. He did not say this offensively; it was only human, nature after all. They had heard that this new body might have to consider the barrage system, but his impression was
  346
  that they would have no money to spend and they would not be able to consider anything, after they had spent all their money in the purchase of docks. If they had a proper opportunity of sending representatives there with the object of preventing the waste of public money he could see some reason for this Amendment. He was told that they wanted to get representatives of the P. and O. Company on this Board. [An HON. MEMBER: They do not control the docks.] He knew they were supposed to be represented in the future by the payers of dues. He could give the Committee a striking illustration of how this special selfish interest asserted itself, and he thought it would prove up to the hilt that these people did represent their own selfish interests and their particular business interests. In the Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Port of London Bill which sat in 1908 there appeared the following record. He was giving this quotation because it proved up to the hilt that these specially selected gentlemen could not be depended upon to look after the public interest. Before this Joint Committee there came a question brought forward by the promoter of the Bill in the following direction—
  "In page 13, line 30, after the word 'circumstances' to insert the words 'provided a provisional order under this section shall provide for exempting from such rates goods imported for transhipment, etc."
  He need not trouble the House with the whole extract. All he needed to mention was that it was a proposal to exempt some of those interests from the charge of rates and dues in the Port of London. They were told that the Committee deliberated on that. He was further told that it was moved by Mr. Russell Rea to insert after the words "goods" in the second line the words "including coal for bunkering steamers proceeding beyond the limits of the port." They deliberated on that, and, upon a vote being taken the contents were two (Sir William Bull and Mr. Russell Rea), and the non-contents were six (including Viscount Milner, Lord Dawnay, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, Lord Ritchie and Sir Albert Spicer.) He was glad to notice that the Members of the House of Lords voted in the right direction, and he was glad to have an opportunity of acknowledging it. He looked to see

  347
  who the gentleman was who moved this exemption in the selfish interest of the bunkering industry, and he found under the heading "Our Shipping Headlights—Russell Rea, Esq., M.P. The subject of this sketch though not a shipowner, as the term is generally understood, is yet prominently identified with one important branch of the shipping business—the bunkering industry."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I really do not see what this has got to do with the Amendment.
  MR. MORTONsaid he was going to prove that when a case arose of looking after their own selfish interests it was not always noticed, and he was trying to prove by an actual illustration how little they could depend upon them. It was his own personal experience that they could never depend upon that class of men to look after the interests of the people generally. Something had been said about the difference between the Mersey and the Port of London. That was a different case altogether. Practically they might say the business of the Port of London was done nearly all outside the docks, and therefore the outside authorities ought to be better represented. This was a democratic discussion as to democratic representation upon what was going to be a very important body which would have the right to tax the food of the people and make them pay unfair charges. Consequently he should be glad to see this new body made as representative as possible to prevent this tax being put upon the food of the people, and he was very sorry indeed that such a proposal was being put forward by a free trade Liberal Government.
  MR. RUSSELL REAsaid he wished to make a personal explanation. The hon. Member for Sutherland had accused him of making proposals to serve his own personal interest. He wished to say that he had no interest in the Port of London. He had no business in the Port of London; his ships never came into that port, and never could come into it. He made the proposal to which the hon. Member had referred in the interests of those who might be con-
  348
  sidered his trade rivals, and he did it in order to put those in the Port of London in the same position as he found himself in in the Ports of Liverpool and Southampton.
  MR. MORTONsaid he would like to complete reading the letter—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLdeplored the fact that this very important Bill had come forward so late in the session. An immense amount of time had been given to it. He had sat on the Committee for six weeks and had listened patiently to the whole of the proceedings, and without prejudices on one side or the other he came to the conclusion that sectional representation was practically impossible. The Committee came to that conclusion from the mass of evidence that was placed before them. He thought it would be agreed that the Committee listened very patiently to the evidence and they failed to arrive at any other conclusion. He knew that some were very much enamoured of sectional representation. They felt that certain great interests should be represented upon this body, and they leaned in that direction, but the interests of the Port of London were so numerous and there were such an enormous number of trades to be considered, many of which hon. Members of the House had not even heard of, that they came to the conclusion that nothing but a general register would deal fairly between them all. It was not only a question of tonnage but a question also of value. There was the case of diamonds that came up to the Port which were very small in bulk but represented a tremendous amount of money. He might give to the Committee one explanation of the reason why they came to the conclusion that sectional representation would not be the best. Some hon. Members had suggested that they should go back and have sectional representation, but how were they going to do that? Hon. Members who knew the way in which business was conducted knew that this Bill had either to be dropped or the Resolutions of the Committee accepted. There was no time left now to bring in

  349
  the question of sectional representation, and if they admitted one particular party they were bound to admit them all. They were bound to reconsider the whole case and the moment they once more raised the question all those bodies would come up and point to the particular interest they had to represent. For that reason he intended to support the Government in this matter. It was not a party question in any way. They were all patriots and they wished to see the Port of London removed from party politics and put in a position which would make it important and useful in a way which hitherto it had never been. If they could start afresh, and have the river clear of any docks at all, the question would be an entirely different one, but that was not the position in which they were placed. They were bound to deal with the question as they found it at the present time. They had had docks since 1759. They were started at London Bridge and they had gradually gone down the river, and those docks, with their privileges and obligations, were bound to be considered as they were dealing with this question. The whole question was an immensely thorny one, and only those who had studied the matter and looked into the details could realise the immense difficulties of the case. There was the question of free water in regard to which the dock companies were bound to allow lighters to enter their docks day and night. They were bound to open their docks and allow them to go alongside of ships in the docks so as to unload their cargoes into the ships and to allow ships to unload their cargoes into the lighters. There were the interests also of two classes of wharfingers to be considered, namely, the wharfingers who owned wharfs and houses to receive other persons' goods, and those who owned wharfs and houses for their own use. Therefore it appeared to him that a general register where those different interests were intermixed was the most satisfactory. They had considered various other suggestions, but he had come to the conclusion, with a long knowledge of the river, that a general register was the only practical solution if this Bill was to go through in 1908.
  SIR A. SPICERsaid he only desired to put one point before the Committee which had not been made hitherto. The Committee should remember that the first Port authority was to be appointed by the Board of Trade. It would have been impossible to have formed a register sufficiently accurate to enable the new authority to be elected on that register, and therefore the Bill provided that the Board of Trade should nominate the first Port authority. Of course, on this appointment, speaking broadly, almost the future Port of London depended. It would be much more satisfactory to leave the Board of Trade a free hand in the choice of the members for the first Port authority than to bind them by saying that certain sections were to be represented in a certain way.
  MR. BARNARDsaid the Government proposals were far and away the best. It appeared to him that the principle which dominated the Mersey Board and the Boards of the Tyne and the Clyde, namely, that those who paid the money were to be in the majority, was the right principle and the one which ought to be accepted. If that was so, the question was how the best eighteen were to be selected. They had had four or five members of the Thames Conservancy speaking there today. He took a totally different view from the hon. Member for Finsbury. It appeared to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrapped it up in extremely pleasant terms when he said that the experience of sectional representation had been by no means a happy or successful one. He happened to be the only member of the Thames Conservancy who did not represent any of those sectional interests, because he was there to deal with the purity of water alone, and therefore he had been able to watch and see what had been going on, and his observations brought him to the conclusion that the present deadlock, which he hoped this Bill would get rid of quickly, had largely arisen from members of the Conservancy perfectly openly and frankly, and from their point of view perfectly properly, advancing and always pushing forward

  351
  the sectional interests they were sent there to represent. He was certain that it had not been a success, and he believed that the future of the Port depended largely, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, on being able to induce the best and most distinguished men to join the new body. If they could do that they would have men who would be trusted, and he therefore welcomed the proposals of the Board of Trade because he assumed that they would pick the men who believed in what the Bill sought to put into effect. If they did that they would get over the difficulty, and perhaps make the Port of London what it ought to have been before this time.
  MR. BONARLAW: Perhaps as I moved the Amendment I may be allowed to say a few words. I am obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his reference to my attitude on this matter, which is not a party one. I am sure that my hon. friend did not imply that I was acting in that spirit. I am glad that my hon. friend has taken a different line from mine because it shows that we are not taking a party line. I would like to refer to the argument, used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of this proposal as it stands in the Bill. In doing so, I admit that if the premise on which the right hon. Gentleman starts is correct, that his proposal is going to get the best men for the purpose, there is nothing more to be said. That is the object we all have in view. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—it was my experience when Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade—that there is not the same civic spirit in London as in Liverpool and Glasgow, but that is owing to the size of London more than anything else. People do not know each other in the same way as in other towns, and when he says that there are outstanding men in the different trades, all I can say is that that is directly contrary to what I was told by London business men. They all said that it was extraordinary how little men knew of each other.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What I said was that all those men trading in the river were known to each other.
  MR. BONAR LAW: There may be one or two interests in which that is true, but the same thing does not apply all round. You will not get in London as in Liverpool or Glasgow seventeen or eighteen gentlemen who will be so outstanding as to be known to the people who would give their votes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after pointing out how sectional London was, said that the whole authority should be composed of one section. The whole question in dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is whether or not by the Government arrangement the authority was not made as sectional as in my Amendment, with the exception that the whole power was left in one section instead of being spread over the others.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In Part IV., at page 52, of the Bill it is provided that—
  "The regulations may provide that (subject to duly qualified candidates presenting themselves) the elected members shall include as nearly as may be an equal number of persons whose principal business is or has been mainly connected with vessels and persons whose principal business is or has been mainly connected with goods."
  MR. BONAR LAW: I was going to refer to that as showing that the principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had broken down. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was the principle on which he framed the Bill. There was only to be one register because in that way you would get the best men. Since the right hon. Gentleman left the Board of Trade that principle has been abandoned absolutely. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; it has. The Bill as framed says that they are not to be chosen from the best men, but half of them are to consist of shipowners. Probably the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that that is in the Bill.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Power is given to the Board of Trade to prevent any distortion in the proportions.
  MR. BONAR LAW: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the evidence given before the Committee he will find a distinct undertaking that that is going to be done. I only refer to that

  353
  because I say it proves that the principle of the right hon. Gentleman has broken down. You cannot hope to get one register which will fairly represent all trades. I would like to refer to what I think was a mistake made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech. He said that the two questions of a general register and of sectional representation had not been considered. But the hon. Gentleman who was a member of both Committees had pointed out that was entirely wrong. It was not paternal partiality that made him prefer sectional representation. As a matter of fact, the late Government had very little of this sectional representation, but Lord Cross's Committee recommended sectional representation, and the arguments were so powerful that they convinced the Board of Trade at that time, and I remain convinced that it is the only fair way of dealing with this question. I am not going to take up the time of the Committee any longer. I admit that it is a question on which there is room for great difference of opinion, but my whole case is that I think the question is very important, and one on which the Members of the Committee should judge for themselves and not treat it as a party question at all. The question really is—Can you possibly hope to get a fair authority on the principle which gives absolute power, in any way you like to arrange the votes, to one section of trade in London although that section in bulk does not represent much more than one trade? Should you not make sure at the outset that other interests will be represented?
  SIR H. KEARLEY: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the previous Government in their Bill accorded representation to all sections of trade in the Port of London, and I think we might almost say that that acted as a considerable warning to us. What happened to the Bill? It went into Committee with a small sectional representation in it; it emerged from Committee with sectional representation written large all over it. That is the reason which induced us to keep clear of sectional representation, because once you admit it, it becomes divided and sub-divided again and again, and a number of
  354
  separate traders make claims for special representation. Therefore we have thought in the best interests of the Bill that the best method to adopt in order to get the best men is to disregard sectional representation altogether. The question is an extremely complex one, as is admitted on all sides, and one on which views may change from time to time. The views of the late Government changed. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dulwich admitted that he was a strong convert at one time to our point of view. He has changed again, and nobody can object to that. My hon. friend who was Chairman of the Committee upstairs pleaded guilty that it was mainly through his instrumentality that sectional representation was provided in 1903; and now he and other Members of the Committee have become converts to our view after having heard the whole of the evidence. The object we have in view is that of everybody interested in the Port of London, viz., to induce a far better class of men to join the Port authority—men more representative of London than of sectional interests. The hon. Gentleman, following the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, regretted that civic patriotism was not more strongly developed in London. I am certain that you cannot adopt a worse method of securing for the new Port authority the most desirable class of men than that of sectional representation. It would not be in the general interest of the Port as a whole, because the men would be there as mere delegates of sectional trades. It is because the Government hold that view that we adhere to the proposal that sectional representation should not obtain in the Bill. We say frankly that we have been very much influenced in the course we have taken by the example of Liverpool. Although the hon. Member for Liverpool says that there is an adjustment of the proportion of the representation of the various trades on the Mersey, still it is well-known in Liverpool that if a man comes on to that Board nominated by the corn trade and during his term of office shows his influence is exclusively exercised on behalf of the corn trade, when he comes up for reelection as a member of the Board the public spirit in Liverpool is so strong that

  355
  he never gets re-elected. So that, although it is perfectly easy to argue that sectional representation obtains in Liverpool, it is free from the conditions to which we object, and acts in the general interests of the port, and not in the interests of a particular trade. As there are other important matters to be considered I appeal to the House to come to a decision on this question so as to proceed to other parts of the Bill.
  MR. ROWLANDSsaid he was sorry he could not accede to the desire of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, because he, like others, had to discuss this question on the only opportunity given to those who represented the river. He had listened to the whole of the debate and was very much interested in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and his strong expression of opinion as compared with that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to sectional representation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that this was a very open question and that there was a good deal to be said on both sides, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade talked of sectional representation as being a pernicious principle. He (Mr. Rowlands) said distinctly that he thought the Amendment would give them the best representation on the Port authority—much better than that in the Bill. So far as the Bill itself was concerned it was in his opinion based on sectional representation, and that being conceded some concession ought to be made to the various interests involved in the river. They had been told about Liverpool by those who knew it and their arguments had not been answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. If they gave sectional representation to one interest they should have sectional representation of all the industries. There were two great industries represented on the Mersey Board—the cotton trade and the corn trade.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Although these members represent particular interests they are not responsible to a particular sectional constituency, but are responsible to the whole general body.
  MR. ROWLANDSsaid he admitted that. There was nothing in the constitution of the Mersey Board giving representative powers to these particular interests, but the authority of the port had to go outside the constitution and accept sectional representation and concede it to the two great interests on the river. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had said that if these gentlemen were so exclusively exercised with their own affairs they were thrown out at the next election. He agreed, but supposing they were able to get the whole of the interests, including the manufacturers on the Thames, on the new Port authority, it would not happen that these representatives would be only present at the meetings of the authority when some interest of their own was to be debated. Hon. Members talked about great men of genius coming forward from the shipping interest, but there were great manufacturing interests on the Thames. He held in his hand a list of the manufacturing firms on the river, including some of the biggest and best known firms in the country. Take the Wall Papers Association, which spent hundreds of thousands of pounds every year in wages, and employed thousands of hands. Were their interests sectional? If they selected a representative would he not be a gentleman of equal capacity with the representative of the shipping interest? He maintained that these big manufacturing interests could not afford to send a man on to the Port authority who was not expert, intelligent, and could not grasp the whole affairs of the Port. He held that this question was one that could be best met by having all the interests represented on the Port authority. He joined in the view that this was not a party question, because they all spoke in the interest of the well-being of the huge population that depended on the Port authority.
  MR. REMNANTasked how the President of the Board of Trade could reconcile his statement that this was not a sectional representation when on page 52 of the Bill there was a provision as to the election of representative members which distinctly said that—
  "The Board of Trade shall have regard to the desirability of elections being so conducted

  357
  as to secure that so far as possible the several interests concerned shall be adequately represented on the Port Authority."
  MR. CHURCHILL: The authority of the Board of Trade shall only be used to prevent exceptional representation or an undue balance or disproportion of interests being represented. There is no analogy between that and the proposal of the hon. Gentleman to construct a series of sectional constituencies.
  MR. ROWLANDSsaid he only quoted the Wall Papers Association as one of the biggest industries established on the river.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think it is quite clear that there would be no objection to the authority, when constituted, having something like the natural evolution that followed in Liverpool. It would make sectional representation, but without the members who represented the sectional interests losing their responsibility to the general body.
  MR. SEAVERNSsaid he was sorry to detain the House, but there was one point and a most important point which arose out of this controversy, which had not been covered in the debate. As he understood the proposal of the hon. Member for Dulwich, it was that because the river trade constituted one-half of the total trade of London, that trade should be entitled to representation on the Port authority to the extent of something like 50 per cent. As far as he could analyse the figures of the Amendment, that would be the effect of it. Might he also point out that if the figures of the hon. Member for Essex were agreed to, they would then have this state of affairs prevailing, that those in London who were the users of the docks were to provide an estimated revenue of £2,100,000 to the new Port authority and docks, and would be receiving the same voting powers as those other individuals representing the river trade who only provided £300,000. He would like to say, thus early in the Committee stage of the Bill, that if the Government were for one moment to adopt an attitude of that kind it would meet with the most strenuous opposition from those who
  358
  were prepared, at that moment, subject to reasonable Amendments, to accept the Bill. They felt that the burden put upon the commercial interests of London, the traders of London, was already sufficiently heavy, and that there was a very large element of risk of enormous damage being done to the interests of the port if the burden proved greater than was estimated. The payers of the new dues were in a somewhat perilous position, owing to possible extravagance and waste of money by the new Port authority, and they felt that their only safeguard from such a state of things was the possession of the franchise on a satisfactory basis. If, therefore, the Government were to adopt this Amendment or any other Amendment by which the franchise given to those who had to provide the money was illusory or fictitious rather than genuine and actual, he and others now supporting the Bill would strenuously oppose it. He was glad that the Government had taken this stand and he hoped they would not depart from it.
  Amendment negatived.
  COLONEL WARDE, in moving to substitute "eleven" for "ten," said he had put down the Amendment in the interests of the County of Kent, and he could assure the President of the Board of Trade that there was nothing sectional in the proposal to give the Kent County Council one member on the Port authority. On the contrary he quite agreed, if he might be permitted to say so, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the constituencies from which the representatives of the Port authority were elected should be very wide ones; he contended that the County of Kent would be a very wide constituency indeed, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would allow that there were very urgent reasons why the board should be enlarged as he proposed. The County of Kent included nearly 1,000,000 inhabitants, and its chief centres of industry were located on the river littoral within the seaward boundaries of the Port authority. The towns of Erith, Dartford, and Gravesend

  359
  alone included nearly 80,000 inhabitants, I most of whom got their living either as owners of, or workers in, wharves and works connected with the county, and yet, notwithstanding the vital importance the river was to the county, it was, according to the Bill as it at present stood, to have no representation on the board. He might remind the right hon. Gentleman that under the Thames Conservancy Act of 1894 the Kent County Council had representation on that body, and indeed that the Royal Commission of 1900 appointed to inquire into the administration of the Port of London recommended that the Kent County Council should have representation on the new port authority. Under the Bill the boundaries of the Port of London were extended much lower down the river; therefore, seeing it was considered just that the county should have representation when a much smaller portion of its river littoral was affected, it was much more necessary now that the representation should be continued if not increased. It was all very well to say that the general body of the Port authority would naturally safeguard the interests of the county, but those interests might sometimes clash, and he need only refer to the question of sewage disposal to demonstrate that contention. The North river boundary of Kent included fisheries, oyster-beds, and places of pleasure resort. Any outfall that might be quite sufficient for the purposes of London might be wholly insufficient to protect either the health or the attractiveness of those places. Indeed, the lower part of the river had already been much polluted. Unless the pleasure resorts of the county were to run the risk of being much damaged their interests could assuredly only be properly safeguarded by local representation. But there was another consideration of much more far-reaching importance than even the health of the river littoral. He alluded to the safety of the river banks, and it seemed to him an extraordinary omission that when a Bill of this vast importance was being prepared no more efficient powers of control over the river walls were asked for than those which at present obtained. At present, so far as he could ascertain, there was no central authority
  360
  responsible for the safety of the river walls. They were maintained partly by specially appointed Commissioners and partly by private owners. The dredging operations might seriously affect the safety of the foundations of these walls. Possibly not many members of the Committee could remember the disastrous explosion that occurred at Erith some forty years ago, which caused such a rent in the river wall that, had it not been for the prompt and courageous action of the military authorities at Woolwich, it was represented by the engineers on the spot that the whole country from Erith up to Camberwell might have been inundated and many thousands of lives lost in addition to the then new outfall sewers being all blown up. It might be argued that this danger, being a general one and not of local concern only, the board as a body might be interested in the question; but as Kent would primarily suffer it would be of vital consequence to the locality that, local representatives should be held responsible for this important local consideration. It might be said that these questions were dealt with by the Joint Committee upstairs; but so far as the interests of Kent were concerned, he was informed that the county council went to considerable expense in retaining counsel and collecting evidence in order to be heard before the Committee with a view of enlarging the port authority as he suggested, but the Committee ruthlessly put aside its claim, and its application to be heard was refused. He therefore pressed their claim on this occasion, and begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 2, to leave out the word 'ten,' and insert the word 'eleven,'"—(Colonel Warde.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the clause."
  MR. LOUGH, on a point of order, asked if the Chairman would make it clear that other Amendments would be permitted. There were several Amendments, and some of them were not interested in this particular Amendment, but they might be in

  361
  those which increased the number to twelve or fourteen. Or, perhaps, the whole subject might be discussed and the debate not confined to this particular proposal.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not save Amendments but what could be done, and this was what the right hon. Gentleman wanted, was that the whole subject could be discussed. Other Members might desire to leave out "ten" for different reasons but there might be a combination of interests in favour of leaving out "ten" in order that some other figure might be inserted. Therefore the whole question could be discussed.
  MR. CHURCHILL: This is the first of a series of Amendments proposing to give representation to various counties and cities which are, of course, affected by the operation or possible operation of the new Port authority, and I am quite sure that many will feel that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made out a very good case for the representation of the County of Kent. The difficulty the Government is in is that, no doubt, an equally good case can be made out by Members representing Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, and West Ham. Here already are a long series of Amendments, each of which would add a local representative to the Port authority. The case presented in every one of these cases is good if one had to consider only the one isolated case, but if you are to place five or six local members on the port authority to represent particular districts affected by its operation you will impair and paralyze to a very large extent the work of that authority. You will make its numbers larger than would be consistent with the swift discharge of public business and destroy the whole compact and manageable nature of the Board which it is now proposed to create. Therefore I ask hon. Members to exercise a self-denying ordinance in respect of what they might reasonably ask in the share of the representation. All these things were brought forward before the Joint Committee and urged with very great force, but the Committee was opposed to adding representatives for Kent, Essex, and
  362
  West Ham, as they thought that it would be impracticable to do that and retain the compact and manageable character of the Board. In fact the Committee went so far as to say that the number appointed under the Bill was rather excessive than otherwise, that there were ten appointed members and eighteen elective members, and that that was as high as we ought to go. There can be no just ground for picking and choosing between the counties asking for representation. What is good for one is good for all, and I can only add that if representatives were appointed for each of these counties, I am sure the efficiency of the Port authority would be prejudicially affected. It would be unwieldy and have upon it an unduly large element not directly concerned with the work of making the Port of London a first class port. I therefore most strongly urge the Committee to support the proposal in the form in which it has been put before them, and to keep the Committee small. The duties which will be put upon the Port authority will be various and important, and some will be of the most supreme importance. We are going to set up a public, or quasi - public, authority which is to succeed private bodies and come forward in the general interests. Let it have a chance. Let it be a thoroughly workable and manageable body, so that this great step forward may meet with the success that it deserves.
  MR. CAVEsaid that as the representative of one of the counties alluded to by the President of the Board of Trade, he wished to point out to him that what he had said was not consistent with what he had done in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman gave direct representation to the London County Council. He gave the London County Council four members on the Port authority. Why did he do that, and give no representation to other county authorities interested?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The London County Council have no sectional interests to protect; that is the reason why.
  MR. CAVEprotested very strongly against the view that any of these counties had any sectional interests to

  363
  protect. He felt more and more, so far as these counties are concerned, that the Government was not treating them fairly in this matter, and especially the President of the Board of Trade. In the Electricity Bill, a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman put the London County Council forward not only as the representative of London, but of the whole of the home counties; and a similar course was being followed in this Bill. These counties had a large frontage to the river, all of them had docks or wharves, and all of them had banks which would be affected by the dredging which was to be done by this Port authority. He thought, therefore, that the public bodies representing these large areas ought to have representatives on this Port authority, not to bring forward sectional views, but to bring forward matters affecting public interest. Surrey had a frontage of eight miles to the river. It had wharves and banks and was affected by dredging. More than that, it had the Richmond lock, which was actually within the area of the Port of London, and which required special working. Why in the name of all that was fair and just should not that county have one member on the board? He thought anybody appointed from one of these county authorities would think not of his own county alone but of other counties also. He could not see why these bodies having a direct interest in the matters in question should be excluded from representation on the authority of the Port of London. They were not heard by the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is important that a Committee of the Whole House should not criticise other Committees, although, of course, arguments affecting onr action may be founded upon what has taken place in other Committees. Still less should the hon. Member criticise a Joint Committee.
  MR. CAVEsaid he would of course follow the ruling of the Chairman and endeavour to suppress his feelings with regard to what took place in the Committee. When the Thames Conservancy was formed in 1874, these counties bordering on the Thames had representation
  364
  given to them in the manner now suggested, viz., by putting members of the county authorities on the Board of the Conservancy. What was just then was just now. He was now dealing with that part of Surrey which came below Teddington lock, and which was brought within the area of the Port of London. That being so, Surrey ought to have representation on the Port authority. It seemed to him a matter of simple justice that all these counties should have a representative. An addition of four or five members to the board would not make much difference. There were twenty-eight members now, there would be thirty-two members then. Twenty-eight was somewhat too large a number to conduct business without delegating some of the work to committees. Thirty-two members would not be very much greater, and he could not understand why if twenty-eight members formed a workable board a board of thirty-two members would be so objectionable. There were many members who felt very strongly on this matter, and he hoped the Government would give way and would drop their number of ten, in order that representatives of these counties might be added in their place.
  MR. RUSSELL REAwas glad to have this opportunity of hearing the accusation made that the Committee did not hear the case of the counties.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into that matter now. I have already said that it is not desirable for this Committee to criticise other Committees.
  MR. RUSSELL REA: In obeying your ruling, Sir, I suppose it will not be forbidden to me to defend the action taken by the Joint Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not our business to criticise another Committee, and therefore it is not necessary to defend the action of any other Committee.
  MR. RUSSELL REAsaid it appeared to him, and it appeared to the Committee, after studying the petitions of the counties,

  365
  after hearing all the cross-examination of the Board of Trade witnesses, that the admission of representatives of individual counties, in addition to the appointed members under the Bill, would be to encourage sectional representation of the very worst kind. The worst kind of sectional representation was geographical sectional representation, and he did not think there could be a better illustration of that than the two speeches to which the Committee had just listened from the hon. Members for Mid-Kent and Kingston. They both disclaimed any idea of sectional treatment, but their arguments were based on their sectional claims and the local interests that might be endangered or promoted in their particular localities. That was an argument against their being on the Port authority and not in favour of their being represented. They wished to safeguard against damage to or to promote local interests so far as they as local representatives could do. If they wished to safeguard local interests their proper way to do so was by the way of saving clauses. All proper saving clauses which were put before the Committee were admitted. What was wanted on the Port of London authority were members who were anxious to promote the commerce of the country and the interests of the Port of London as a whole. It further appeared to him and to the Committee that the proportion of appointed members was quite large enough, in fact, too large. The Committee, however, kept to the number of appointed members and did not decrease it, but they did increase the number of the elective members from fourteen to eighteen. It was said that the constitution of the Port authority was not entirely satisfactory. The democratic principle was that taxation and representation should go together, and that those who had to maintain and support the great properties which would be entrusted to this authority should constitute the governing body. As it was, they had a majority, though not an excessive majority. After reading the petitions very carefully, and after hearing all the cross-examination by the counsel for those counties, thus gathering entirely what the case for those counties was, the Committee came to the conclusion, as he
  366
  had come to the conclusion, that if the county representatives were to be admitted to the Port authority, they should prefer that they had the county of Merioneth rather than the county of Middlesex, simply because it had less local, sectional, and geographical interests. It was complained that the London County Council was over-represented. He was not there to defend the extent of that representation, but it might be observed that they had a sort of historic claim from their connection with this question, which originated with them, and from the various generous offers they had made in former times to contribute millions of money out of their own pocket and to guarantee the debt of the authority. All that had gone, but the position of the County Council was to some extent maintained, and in the opinion of the Board of Trade and of the Government, having regard to the sectional interests of the ratepayers of the Port and seeing that a large number of appointed members appeared to be necessary—it was probably better to follow the example given in previous Bills and accept the London County Council as in a general way representative of municipal and outside local opinion. Of course, the representation of the City of London was on an absolutely different footing. The City of London had no geographical interest to safeguard, and had no undeveloped property on the river frontage; it had no manufactures there, and its interest was entirely the whole interest of the Port and of the commercial community. Therefore, they came to the conclusion, first, that they would not on any account increase the number of appointed members, but they did increase by one the representation of the City of London, and they did it at the expense of the London County Council.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he was unable to follow the hon. Member in his argument defending the London County Council. The hon. Member had just said that the London County Council was representative of interests inside and outside of London. He presumed he meant that it covered the interests of Kent, Essex, Surrey, and Middlesex. He could imagine those counties listening to that statement.
  MR. RUSSELL REA: I did not say hat.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: That the hon. Member did not make that statement is correct, but if the hon. Member's statement did not mean that then I am unable to understand what it did mean. The hon. Member said the London County Council represented vast outside interests.
  MR. RUSSELL REA: No, I did not say that. I said that the County Council, seeing that so many appointed members appeared to be necessary, might be taken as representative of municipal and local feeling generally.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Municipal and local feeling generally. Did the hon. Member mean municipal and local opinion in Kent, Surrey, Essex, and Middlesex? That was exactly what he meant, and what he understood from the speech of the hon. Gentleman. But surely the hon. Member's argument would not hold water for one minute. Let him suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he would meet a very just claim and appeal by cutting down the representation of the London County Council. The London County Council had no more direct interest in the welfare of the Port of London than Kent, Surrey, Middlesex or Essex.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Its interest is much more general.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he could not quite see that. But oven if the London County Council had a greater interest than any of those counties, it was still not a sufficient reason for refusing the application and appeal of those counties. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he dropped this provision. He must agree with him in saying, however, that they ought not to have a body which was too unwieldy. He thought that twenty-eight was a very considerable number, but as his hon. and learned friend had observed, the difference between twenty-eight and thirty-two was not great, when it represented the removal of injustice. He believed it was an unjust thing not to give those four
  368
  counties bordering on the river, and having great interests, due and proper representation. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman. He believed the whole sense of the House and of the country would be with them in this appeal to lower the representation of the London County Council, and give those four counties the representation which the London County Council had. He would make the representation of the London County Council consist of one selected by them inside the body, and one selected outside the body. That, he thought, would be very just. Why they should exalt the London County Council and represent its interest to be so much greater than the interests of the counties of Surrey, Kent, Essex and Middlesex could not understand. Why should they absolutely ignore the interests of those counties? It had been said by the hon. Member opposite that theirs was a purely sectional interest. He thought on second thoughts he would reverse his opinion. If he asked, as representing the Borough of Gravesend, for representation on the Board, then they might accuse him of asking for section representation. If the Member for Rotherhithe were to ask for a representative of that constituency, then he could be accused of asking for sectional representation. But, as his hon. friend pointed out, they had, in Kent alone, a population of over 1,000,000; they had vast interests which could not be considered as local interests, or as sectional. It was suggested that great counties representing vast geographical areas, in asking for moderate representation by the appointment of three or four members to this Board were asking for the representation of sectional interests. That was not in accordance with the facts. The hon. Member had talked about the historic claim of the London County Council, but that body was an exceedingly modern institution, and to talk of it as one of the hoary institutions of the country, having established a record for great efforts on behalf of the community and receiving the general appreciation of the public on that ground, he ventured to say was quite unreasonable. There was no historic claim on the part of the London County Council. If they were going to have historic claims, then surely the

  369
  counties of Kent and Surrey could put forward an historic claim. [An HON. MEMBER: Essex.] He did not exclude Essex. He hoped the hon. Member would establish the claim of Essex in the speech which he trusted he would deliver to the Committee. When the right hon. Gentleman suggested that Sectional representation was behind this appeal on behalf of the counties, he had not even been true to the principles laid down in his own Bill. Let the Committee look at subsection (7), where a representative of Labour was deliberately to be chosen by the Board of Trade. Surely that was sectional. He did not object to it at all, but he did object to the right hon. Gentleman talking about sectional representation when the Board of Trade deliberately said—"We are going to give to Labour, a section of the community, a representative, on this Board." He did not think that the arguments which had been adduced were satisfactory, and while he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the authority ought to be limited in number, and ought to be kept down if possible to at most thirty, he submitted that that result could be achieved by taking two or three from the London County Council and giving them to the other counties.
  MR. E. H. LAMBwas glad to have an opportunity of emphasising the non-party aspect of this question, and, therefore, he supported his hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Medway division and the hon. Member for Gravesend. The President of the Board of Trade had emphasised the fact that the Port authority was in a sense already too large. But he would point out that as it was so large already, and the delegation of work was necessitated by the present number, the addition of two members, one representing one section, and another for Kent, would not add to his difficulties in that respect. Then the right hon. Gentleman made reference to the number discussed in Committee, but might he remind him that since the time to which he referred the number has been increased from fourteen to eighteen, What they were asking was that the number of appointed members should now be increased. Counsel were engaged at very great expense
  370
  on this very point, but they were not heard, and, therefore, it was scarcely open to the President of the Board of Trade to say that upstairs they had every opportunity of being heard.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I did not say that I said that the Committee had given full consideration to the matter, and they declined to give the representation asked for.
  MR. E. H. LAMBdid not think the right hon. Gentleman had gainsaid his statement, but he must not be drawn into criticism of the action of the Joint Committee. He wished, however, to refer to some of the objections raised in Committee to the Amendment moved by his hon. and gallant friend. First of all, they were told by one of the speakers against the Amendment—he thought it was the Chairman of the Joint Committee—that they ought if they had some representation also to have some financial responsibility. He would point out to him that this very argument would apply with equal strength against the London County Council and the City Corporation. They had representation and no financial responsibility. He was not arguing that the City Corporation should lose one of its representatives, but what was fair for them was equally or still more fair for Kent and for Essex. When they remembered that both Kent and Essex had nearly 1,000,000 acres and almost 1,000,000 inhabitants, surely they had some right with their great river frontage to some representation on the Port authority. Then he wanted to emphasise the fact that under the Thames Conservancy Act of 1894, both counties actually had representatives, and also that the Royal Commission, appointed in 1900, reported in favour of both Kent and Essex having representation. Under this Bill the extension of the limits of the Port took in a far greater frontage of both the counties. Then again, the question of dredging had been emphasised. A very large portion of both counties lay below the level of the Thames, and the Royal Commission reported very strongly upon this point. In Section 5 of the Report they said—
  "A full description of the estuary of the Thames from the Nore to Gravesend is given in

  371
  the Report of the Lower Thames Navigation Commission, and it is, therefore, unnecessary for us to deal with this part of the subject."
  Again, in Section 56 they said—
  "We desire to call special attention to the expression of the views of the Lower Thames Navigation Commission in certain paragraphs of their Report."
  The paragraph they referred to was this—
  "Above Gravesend there may possibly be some complications affecting the feasibility of any serious deepening of the river by reason of valuable properties in places bordering on its banks, and there may be questions as to the stability of the embankments which protect low-lying lands from being overflowed. These matters would require careful examination."
  The Royal Commission, in reporting, emphasised that broad fact which had been found by the previous Commission, and was more accentuated to-day than ever. They had had a somewhat recent experience. They knew what happened for six months—the direct railway service between London and Tilbury was interrupted. He knew he would be met by the right hon. Gentleman when he said Section 42 deprived the Port authority of the protection they would otherwise have by acting upon statutory powers in the event of actions against them for special damage by dredging. That might safeguard the interests of a great railway company like the London and Tilbury, but it would be very difficult for the owner or occupier of a small cottage or other small property to make good his claim for compensation without the assistance of of local representation, and that was another argument in favour of their contention that they should have, direct representation of both the Kent and Essex County Councils. Then the county council in each case were the health authority for their respective counties. He should be bound to vote against the Government. He desired that ten should be deleted in order that twelve might be inserted, because he felt that if the case was considered impartially, as they were unable to have it considered before the Joint Committee, Members must feel that they had made out a case, and he, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman to listen to their appeal and settle this very vexed question.
  MR. NIELDsaid that perhaps most of them were, as regarded
  372
  the Government aspect of the matter, belligerent; one would like to hear a little more said for the measure. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He could assure him one could be sufficiently belligerent, but the Chairman's ruling had relieved him, he was glad to say, of an unpleasant task. But there was one statement which the hon. Member for Gloucester made to which he was sure the Chairman would allow him to reply, and that was that he had heard cross-examination by opposing counsel. He had extracts from the minutes of the proceedings, and the county which he represented was deliberately stopped in the cross-examination of witnesses. He was sure the hon. Member, when he refreshed his memory, would agree with him that he was mistaken when he made that statement. It was curious that the Chairman of the Committee should have used the name of his county when he said if they were to have this, which he regarded as the worst of all sectional representation—representation by county—he would rather it was the county of Merioneth than Middlesex. The case of Middlesex was an overwhelming case. In no sense of the word could it be regarded as sectional representation. These large outlying counties were just as much the county of London as any other part of the country. Middlesex now had a population of 1,060,000, the bulk of whom went into London and contributed to the wealth of inner London. Surely they should be represented, and unless they got this representation by county they would be wholly shut out. Even the industrial classes, by means of locomotion., were now going out afield, instead of stopping in these areas, and the result was that they were giving to a very limited electorate an opportunity for representation which they were denying to the day population of those areas which lived in Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent. There was a very strong additional reason why Middlesex should have representation. It was given power by Parliament ten years ago to be the river pollution authority for the county, and the rivers of Middlesex flowed into the Thames. Not only was the population vast, but the rateable value also was a matter of concern, because it showed the immense financial interests

  373
  at stake. He was sure, under these circumstances, it was not fair to say that the London County Council were representative in the least degree of these great interests which were only in a secondary degree, and in a transitory way, attachable to the County of London. The right hon. Gentleman would not say that the increase in the number of the Port authority from twenty-eight to thirty-eight, or thirty-two, would appreciably affect its working. He did not know that the right hon. Gentleman had ever given a portion of his time to the service of municipal or county authorities, but he was sure he would take it from those who had given their time and labour to the less illustrious and, perhaps, less rewarded service of municipal authorities that the difference could not be appreciable. He asked the Government to abandon that non possumus attitude which they appeared to have pursued all the way through, and to concede to these outlying districts, which were now a vital part of London, the representation which was asked.
  MR. NAPIERsaid he rose to join the chorus of geographical sections pressing upon the President of the Board of Trade the amendment which had been moved. He noticed that the President, in his reply to the mover of the Amendment, began by recognising the prima facie justice of the demand, and to anyone who for a moment realised the facts the admission of the President became self-evident. Here they had two counties through which the river flowed. The limits of the ports extended for something like forty miles down the river from London, but there were only eight or ten miles of London in it, and they gave practically the whole of the Board to this little area of eight or ten miles. He admitted that it was the wealthiest and most important part, but they neglected the whole of the other Counties extending fifty miles on each side of the river. Of course, the President was acutely dialectical as always in the way he met the Amendment. He said that if he yielded to Kent he would have to yield to four or five other people who were pressing him. He did not altogether agree with that answer to the Amendment. It depended not upon the number of the
  374
  demands but upon the justice and the character of each demand whether they ought to yield to it or not, and he did not admit for a moment that Kent and Essex were to be placed upon the same level as Middlesex and Surrey. Let them consider for a moment. They had six or seven miles of Surrey and Middlesex apart from London in the port area. They had thirty or forty miles of the Kent and Essex portion of the river, which included manufactories and wharves of an infinitely greater size, and where he ventured to say there was from fifty to 100 times as much business done as in the Surrey and Middlesex part. Therefore, he suggested, to the President of the Board of Trade that if he applied his mind to the demands of particular counties he would come to the conclusion that the demand of Surrey and Middlesex might be fairly met by giving them a member between them. He might remind the Committee that the Metropolitan Water Bill contained provisions whereby several local authorities united to elect a member, and he submitted it would be perfectly easy to apply that principle to the present Bill. The President of the Board of Trade went on to say that if they had these four or five members the body would become too large. If they were going to have a small body for the purpose of doing the work it must practically be a committee. Substantially, there was no difference between a body which had over fifteen or sixteen members and one which had between thirty and forty members. The moment they exceeded fifteen or sixteen for the purposes of committee deliberations they might as well go up to thirty or forty members. That was so in this particular case, and it was absurd to pretend that the increase in the number of the members of this Board from twenty-eight to thirty-two or thirty-three could really make any difference at all in the deliberative character of the Board. The President of the Board of Trade went on to tell them that the addition of these three or four members would hamper and paralyse the work of the Board. He thought that language was somewhat exaggerated. Why should the addition of four members elected by county councils who were presumably men of knowledge, who wished well to the

  375
  Port of London, and who wanted the Port of London to be a great port, be any obstacle to the success of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill? Why on earth they should hamper and paralyse the action of the Board passed his comprehension. They would be there to guard particular interests, and subject to that they would give their very best attention to the work of the Board and devote their best services to bringing about the objects which the right hon. Gentleman had in view in his Bill. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Gloucester, had told them that the representation of Kent and Essex would be a geographical representation, and that that was sectional representation of the worst kind. The hon. Member, however, did not bring a single argument forward to prove his bare statement. In almost all ports in the Kingdom they proceeded upon the basis of geographical representation. That was a principle almost without exception, and to come to the House of Commons at the present day with a grave face and tell them that geographical representation was the worst kind of representation seemed to him to be one of the worst kinds of argument which he had heard for a long time. There was a very great deal to be said for the argument of the Secretary to the Board of Trade that when dealing with the trade of London as a whole, when they did not know what really were the diverse interests in trade and when they could not apportion representation fairly and equally amongst all the interests concerned, they had better elect the Board en bloc and trust to the best men being elected. That did not interfere with the argument he was urging. He was taking the House away from the mass of the trade of London and directing its attention to those outlying parts of other counties which were necessarily involved in the creation of a great port for London. They were not introducing sectional interests into the administration of the Port, but they were asking to have introduced into the governing body the representation of interests which sometimes might be adverse to the whole interest of London, but which still were interests which were definite and which were not likely seriously
  376
  to conflict with the rest of London. Illustrations had been given in the way of the walls of the river. It had been pointed out how an alteration in the channel brought about through dredging, which would be a perfectly legitimate operation for the benefit of London, might yet do very serious injury to the wharves on the river. There was another point which especially concerned the constituency which he represented. The Medway and the Swale were exempt from the operation of the Bill; the dredging of the Thames, however, might affect the channel of the Medway and the Swale, and, therefore, in any plan for the dredging, of the channel it was only reasonable that the representative of Kent should have an opportunity of making his voice heard. It might be said by the right hon. Gentleman that if any damage was done to Kent or Essex, they would have their remedy under the Bill. He knew that under certain sections they might bring an action for damages against the Port authority. He did not think that they were sufficiently protected in that way. No doubt a really wrongful act done by the new Port authority might be actionable. If they negligently broke any sea wall, they would be liable, but if they did damage by an alteration of the channel, and it could be proved that their action was necessary for the development in the best possible way of the Port of London, they would have no remedy at all. The commonsense of the House did not approve of a position of that kind. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman on the front bench that they ought to ask for no representation in the Bill which would injure the constitution of the Board as a whole. They wanted the Board to represent the trade of London, and he agreed that there ought not to be such a number of external elements as would imperil the efficiency of the Board as a whole. He submitted there was a clear case here in which they had three or four counties who might be vitally interested in what was done by this Port authority who were not likely, if they had the privilege of electing members, to send gentlemen who would either hamper or harass its work. These counties had enormous interests which might be effected by the Bill, and it was only in accordance with precedent

  377
  and with Acts relating to local government and local boards that a member each should be accorded to those counties.
  MR. WILLIAMSONsaid that as a member of the Joint Committee he would like to say a few words upon this question. The different counties whose representatives had spoken had made out a strong case from the point of view of their particular counties as compared with other counties. But the Committee, after reading all the petitions from the different counties and hearing their lawyers cross-examine the promoters of the Bill, deprecated the nominated element on the proposed body. They deprecated that that element should be increased, in fact they regretted that it existed at all or to such a large extent as it did already in the Bill. That being so, the frame of mind of the Committee was not to increase the number of nominated representatives of certain sections. The instances of the London County Council and the Corporation of the City of London were looked upon as exceptional cases. The position of the London County Council was indeed altered by the Committee, because instead of having a number of representatives from their own body they were reduced to four, two of whom they must elect from outside. The County Council's exceptional position was based upon the fact that it represented a great body of the consumers of London and the general public who were not payers of dues. It might be said that there were others in Middlesex and Kent and elsewhere in the same position, but after careful consideration the Committee concluded, he thought rightly, to accept this principle so far, regretting that they had to accept it at all, and they looked upon the County Council representation as an exceptional case which might cover that interest altogether. Then there was the case of the Corporation, and that was an entirely exceptional case also. There again they had to elect a representative who was not one of their own body as well as one who was. Let them look at other ports. What was done on the Mersey? They had the city of Liverpool on the one side and Birkenhead on the other. There was the county of Lancashire on one
  378
  side and Cheshire on the other, but there were no representatives on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board of either Lancashire, Cheshire, or Birkenhead. Those different geographical places were not represented on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board as geographical areas, and yet the interests of those counties with regard to what was done on the Mersey were not very different from the interests of the counties of Kent and Essex in what might be done in the case of the River Thames. In coming to the decision which they did he thought the Committee came to a right decision after carefully considering the petitions of the various parties. The members who were to be elected by the London County Council would belong only partly to that council and would partly represent interests outside the council, and he thought they would represent the interests of the consumers and the small traders outside the city.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the Question before the Committee was an exceedingly interesting one. It was to his mind really a question as to what was right and what ought to be done. It had been discussed in Committee from several points of view as a mere question of expediency. He thought that the proposal of the Government was open to serious objection on the ground that it was not consistent. The speech of the President of the Board of Trade was exceedingly convincing. It was, in fact, incapable really of being answered. What he claimed was that the gentlemen constituting the Board should be a body of business men, and that they should really be elected ad hoc very largely, or as far as possible, by the actual people who paid the dues. From the democratic point of view there was no answer to that proposition. This Board ought to be elected as far as it possibly could be, consistently with preserving the legitimate rights of other people, exclusively by the people who paid the money. Representation in this case, as in all others, should follow taxation. If the matter had rested as stated in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, there would have been an end of it, but it was only

  379
  when they looked at the Bill they found that the real difficulty arose, because they then found that there were a number of nominated members of exactly the class which the President of the Board of Trade said ought not to be on the body. There were to be two from the London County Council who were members of that body and two more who were not members of it—four in all—from the London County Council. There were to be two from the City of London, and one from Trinity House. What on earth Trinity House wanted with a representative on the Port of London Authority which was to be a business body, he could not conceive. It would be quite right that the Admiralty should have one and that the Board of Trade should have two, especially for the purpose of nominating as one of those men, a leading Labour man. But when they found that the whole of the arguments of the Government, and the whole of the arguments of the President of the Board of Trade, were given away by the Bill, and that there were those nominated members to represent geographical areas, then they were face to face in this particular Amendment with the question. Why should not Kent have one? If they conceded that the London County Council should have four, and that the City of London should have two, there was no answer to the claim of Kent for one. Some observations had been made with reference to Essex. He heard an hon. Member rather belittle Essex as if Essex ought not to have a member. If he knew anything of the limits of the Port of London he would have thought that a large part of the practical work of the docks was done in Essex. Why should not Essex have a representative if any county was to be represented at all on this body? The real truth of the matter was this. The proposal of the Government was wrong because it was not consistent, because it had picked out one body and given it an overwhelming representation to the exclusion of other bodies which had as great, if not a greater, right to be represented. He asked himself how it was that the County Council had slipped in for four members, and the City of London for two. He thought the
  380
  provisions of the previous Bill cast a little light on that, tinder the previous Bill the body proposed to be set up was to be largely dependent for its finance on the City of London, and in that case it was right that it should have considerable representation in respect of its pecuniary relations to the body. But when they read this Bill through, they found that there was not a pennyworth of pecuniary responsibility cast upon the City of London one way or the other, and, therefore, on these grounds they had no right to have any representation at all. The real justice of the position demanded that all these County Council representatives should go, and if the President of the Board of Trade were present—he saw that the right hon Gentleman was ably represented—and if he were willing to strike out the London County Council altogether, one of the two members for the City of London, and the Trinity House man—it was a ridiculous suggestion that Trinity House should have a representative—if the right hon Gentleman would say that he would not have any of these people, the position of the Government would be consistent and logical; on all sides of the House there would be hardly any question that it was just and right, and they would be prepared to leave the question of the administration of the Port of London to this newly constituted body consisting almost entirely of bona fide elected members representing the people who paid the money and those two or three nominated members to whom he had referred, such as the representatives of the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. He stood up to advocate the principle which he believed was the democratic solution of this matter namely, to leave the whole of these men out, but if the Government and the President of the Board of Trade insisted on keeping the four County Council representatives, the two from the City of London, and one from Trinity House, it seemed to him that it was not logical that the legitimate claim of Kent, Essex, Surrey, and Middlesex to be represented should be refused. As for the statement of the Chairman of the Joint Committee, that he would prefer the county of Merioneth to be inserted he

  381
  would say that it was a paradox, because it really did mean something. It puzzled him for some time, but he thought the hon. Member really meant that it was very objectionable from his point of view to have on the Port authority half a dozen members representing isolated interests and who practically came there as respectable leading men in the County Council and elsewhere, though they were not in the front rank as active business men of the day. The hon. Member meant that it was objectionable to have them on the Board, and that he would prefer that they should come from Merioneth where he would get men who would not understand the English language, and therefore, would not be able to take a lengthy part in the debates. He fancied that was the idea he had in his mind, if there was any idea at all in the observation he made. He thought that was as near the sense of it as they could get. He appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to knock out all these nominated geographical members. If he did so they would all be pleased, but if he insisted on keeping them in, the other areas had an equal right to representation.
  MR. ROWLANDSsaid he had listened with very great interest to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn and the hon. Member for Gloucester, and he must say that when he heard the reasons why they arrived at a certain conclusion he was somewhat astounded at the frame of mind they must have been in. They had both spoken against the Amendment proposed by his hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Med-way Division, and they had told the Committee that if they had had their way they would have taken out the whole of the nominated members from the Bill. Had they recommended that course to the Board of Trade, possibly the Board would have listened to their wisdom, and, as had just been said, they would all have been satisfied that the Port authority was to be elected by the people who had to find the means whereby the expenditure in connection with this new body was to be carried on. But under existing circumstances he could not for the life of him see how
  382
  they had arrived at the conclusion to oppose the whole series of Amendments that dealt with the extension of the representation on the authority. They had heard over and over again from those Gentlemen, and also from the President of the Board of Trade, that the one thing they did not want was sectional representation. He thought they had got that word "sectional" into their minds until it had become so absorbing to them that it had excluded all other thoughts. How could it be sectional representation if the nominee represented the whole of a great county with all its varied interests? Indeed, in the case of Essex and Kent, when the river was under the control of the Thames Conservancy, these two great counties had representation on that body. [An HON. MEMBER: They were the best working members of it.] He thought what the hon Member had stated had also been the experience of those who knew the working of the Board. The calibre of the men who were to be put on the new authority had been very much discussed. They had had experience in Kent of the class of gentlemen nominated by that county to look after the interests and the well-being of the river, and he ventured to say that those sent to the Thames Conservancy Board were men of the class who would be sent by the County Council of Kent, and they would be quite equal to any representatives elected in any other way. The position so far as the Government were concerned was absolutely illogical, for having said that they wanted a body representative of the interests of the people who found the money, they conceded that nominated members should be on the body. When they looked at the varied interests all round the coast which have to be considered it was most surprising to him that the hon. Members who had taken part in the debate seemed to have the notion that somewhere outside the boundaries of London there were some wilds and marshes called the counties of Kent and Essex. That was amusing to those who knew the river. He remembered that on the Second Reading debate the President of the Board of Trade, talking about cheap land, said there were wilds that might be bought near the river. He asked him to go to Kent or Essex, outside of London, and he

  383
  would find that, instead of having to deal with some wilds which were derelict, from the moment he crossed Abbey Wood into Kent, or the river Darenth into the Erith district, he was face to face with a population which at the time of the last census was 25,000. They had in that district alone industries of the largest magnitude—firms whose names were historic, whether it was in connection with armaments, engineering, cables, coal, or other industries. He had lists of them, and he could show that millions of money were involved in those industries. That was only taking the boundary of the river, but if they went further they came to the town of Gravesend. They went beyond that, and had the biggest cement industry in the world; and then they went on to the other divisions until they got to the docks. What was the case so far as Kent was concerned? In this Bill it had been thought judicious—he was not criticising that — to remove the old boundaries of the Thames Conservancy, and to go further into the sea. They had travelled down the whole coast of Kent and Essex, and they had taken the whole of the interest there into their keeping. When the interests involved were of such magnitude, he could not understand, for the life of him, how a business-like body such as the Board of Trade, having conceded nominee members on the Port authority, could ignore the vast industries on the lower reaches of the river. They had adopted the attitude of the Medes and Persians, and they would not give way. But what justification could they have for their conduct? None whatever. They had all an interest in looking after the well-being of the river. The question of dredging had been put forward. They had, in his own constituency, two important creeks where dredging had taken place; but they might be affected by the general dredging of the river, and what representation could they have on the Thames Conservancy? One of the creeks was two miles long, and there were busy industries on that portion of the river. It might be said that the other representatives on the authority would represent their interests, but neither the London County Council nor the City Corporation were interested in their
  384
  welfare. They had their own interests to look after, and were not concerned with theirs. And therefore some indiscretion might arise, with the best intention, affecting detrimentally the whole of the trade of that part of Kent, and incidentally affecting a large portion of the labour engaged in it. He had put the case of the dredging already before the Board of Trade, and had pointed out where the dredging of the river had affected business-places on shore. A great point, so far as Kent and Essex were concerned, was that every single scheme of any magnitude that was talked about for the improvement of the Port of London was not within the boundaries of London, but on portions of the river outside London, and within the range of Kent and Essex, whether it were the projected barrage or the sea-wall, and yet no representation was given to these counties. It was not that they had not a good case. It was admitted that they had a good case, but the argument was: "We do not want to extend the numbers of the Port authority." He could have understood that if the Port authority had been constituted of a dozen persons who could have managed the whole thing without cutting up the body into committees. That was a matter for consideration. But they had extended the members to twenty-eight, and that was a body which could not discuss all the details. One of the first things the new Port authority would have to do was to subdivide itself into committees, and all they said was that having created a body of that size, and having admitted the fact that there were all these industries to be considered in Kent and Essex, they ought to concede some representation on that great body to these counties, because their interests were the same as those of the rest of the Port of London. But it was said that this would be something in the way of sectional representation. It was ridiculous to talk of sectional representation coming from a county like Kent, with its varied interests, on a public body that was to control the whole of the river. He maintained that they might have a representative from the County of Kent capable of

  385
  looking after the well-being of the Port of London as a whole and all those things that were for the well-being of the country at large. They were told about the consumers and that London was getting representation on account of the consumers; but when he spoke of these counties of Kent and Essex he spoke for over a million of consumers. Therefore they had a right to plead with the Board of Trade to give them that representation which would not overweight the Port authority.
  MR. W. THORNEsaid he could not altogether subscribe to the doctrine preached by the hon. Member on the opposite benches and by the Chairman of the Committee who sat on this Bill because they said that taxation and representation ought to go together. He agreed to a large extent with that principle, but he could not subscribe to it in regard to this particular question, for if only the gentlemen who paid the dues were to be represented on the Port authority, he was afraid that there would be a quarrel between the section which represented the docks and the section which represented the river, and the result would be that those who represented the docks would be trying to shift the responsibility from their own shoulders on to the shoulders of those who represented the river. And that would not work. He did not altogether agree with the argument of his friend when he said that the Government ought to knock out the representatives of the London County Council and of the City Corporation. He had no objection to the power given to the London County Council and the City Corporation, for there was no doubt that the gentlemen selected from these bodies would do their best to increase the trade of the Port. But it did not altogether follow that the London County Council in selecting two from within and two from without their number, and the City Corporation in selecting one from within and one from without would get the best representatives. They might select from without the biggest duffers. Then there was another danger, because every three years they had a County Council election, and there might be a com-
  386
  plete change in the composition of the County Council, and if the representatives of the County Council lost their seats on the County Council there would have to be a fresh change of the men interested in the business of the river. The representative of the Board of Trade had said that a case had been made out by some of the previous speakers, and he took it that he should have to make out a case for West Ham, South. He did not think he would have very much trouble in doing that. He thought that the President of the Board of Trade was somewhat mistaken in regard to the particular Amendment before the House, because he said that if that Amendment were carried it would mean that the whole of the counties would call for representation on the Port authority. He did not read the Amendment in that direction. He took it that, if it were carried, instead of there being ten representatives there would be eleven; and if that were so it would then devolve on the Board of Trade to choose another representative for the counties of Kent, Essex, and Middlesex. He agreed that it would be much better, and more satisfactory to all concerned, if these representatives were appointed for Kent, Essex and the borough of West Ham. It appeared to him that the Government were responsible for the lengthy debate because it would have been curtailed had there been a chance on the Second Reading of the Bill to thrash out all these matters they were now discussing. So far as West Ham was concerned, they had a great interest at stake. They had two miles of river frontage leading to the Thames, and had the whole of the Victoria Dock in the centre of the borough, and also part of the Albert Dock, and a rental value of £75,000. In the face of these facts he thought the Government ought to agree to give them a representation on the Port authority. When the Thames Conservancy Act was passed in 1904 the information given to the Committee was of such importance that they agreed to give the borough of West Ham one representative; but where this new authority was to be established they would not only be deprived of their representation, but other districts would also lose their representation. He could not see why

  387
  the Government should have given four representatives to the London County Council and two to the City Corporation. He took it that they would not alter that representation, but in the face of the tremendous amount of business to be brought before the new authority, and the great stake they in West Ham had in the matter, he appealed most earnestly to the Government to make the small concession to West Ham which had been asked for by all sides of the House. He had been in the House for some three years and had listened to many discussions with regard to various Bills, but he had never found such earnest appeals made from all quarters of the House to the Government to change the position that they had already taken up. He, therefore, endorsed the appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to make this small concession so that they could get on to the other clauses.
  SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid he did not look with any enthusiasm upon the measure, and the condition of th3 House suggested that he was not alone in the attitude he took up with regard to it as a London Member. He found some difficulty, rather, because of the authority which was to be set up, in warmly supporting the Board of Trade and thanking them for the Bill. Personally, he regretted that this was a case in which London was to have another ad hoc authority set up. He had hoped that the case might be dealt with in the large measure of London reform which the Government was considering for next year, and he thought the matter might have waited till then. They heard that those who paid the dues were the persons who ought to be represented on the authority, and they also heard that those who paid the dues indirectly were the consumers, and it was consumers who ought to be largely represented on such a body as this. Indeed, the justification for the representation of the London County Council and the City Corporation was said by the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn to be that they largely represented the consumers, and that that was the justification for the representation. He thought that the argument ought not to have stopped there. He considered that this was
  388
  largely a consumers' question and that the question of the reform of the Port of London ought to be, if it was not, one of the primary municipal concerns of London. They had been told from the other side that they lacked civic enthusiasm and enterprise in London, but the Government were not likely to encourage that enthusiasm or enterprise by giving such a small share to London's municipalities in such a scheme as this. He could have wished that the model of Bristol had been taken rather than that of Liverpool. He had visited Bristol and had seen the civic enthusiasm there. On the Continent they might search in vain for any such authority in any port as that set up by this Bill. He regretted that the majority was given to the so-called elected element. He would have increased the appointed members over the elected members, and have begged for a larger representation for the London County Council and the Corporation. He regretted that the London County Council had not seen its way to assume any financial liability in the matter, but he hoped and trusted a future council might take a different view in regard to that. He deeply regretted that London was to be fobbed off with, and have foisted on it another ad hoc authority, and that the municipal representation upon the new authority was to be so small. This great question of the Port of London, which ought to occupy the interest and excite the enthusiasm of the citizens of London, was not likely to achieve that end while the authority had such small municipal representation. He wished the Continental system had been accepted here. The port of the capital of the Empire ought to be regarded as a matter of Imperial concern, or at least as a matter of municipal concern, and he urged that the municipal representation ought to be far larger than it was in the Bill put before them.
  MR. WHITEHEADregretted very much that sitting on that side of the House he was unable to accept the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade that they should not press this matter. Speaking on behalf of the County of Essex he felt bound to urge their very important interests

  389
  affecting the Port of London. The fact was that on the Second Reading the Government, he thought, injudiciously insisted upon closuring the debate and not allowing these matters to be discussed. That, he thought, would have been the right opportunity to have cleared the air with regard to these matters which appeared upon the Order Paper. At that time he gave notice to move an Instruction to the Committee dealing with this very matter but Mr. Speaker intimated to him that it would not be in order. He was afraid if he were to state to the Committee the reasons Mr. Speaker gave he would seem to be trespassing beyond the limits of the ruling given that evening by the Chairman's predecessor in the Chair when he said they were not to criticise the action of the Committee upstairs. But on the Second Reading no opportunity was given for considering this matter. The debate had covered a very large number of points, and he hoped to confine himself within the strictest limits, but he could not help thinking after listening to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, which he did most carefully, that the right hon. gentleman had sympathy with the views he was expressing, and that in his heart he thought they were right. But he had used one or two phrases of a rather rhetorical character about pampering and paralysing the action of the Port authority. He would put it before the Committee, that this was a serious business question, and the use of fine phrases on one side or the other did not afford any guidance to the Committee, They had heard strange contributions from the members of the Joint Committee who had taken part in the debate. One of them ventured to put forward the suggestion—the farcical suggestion, if he might say so—that the County of Merioneth was as much and more entitled to representation than the counties of Essex and Kent, and that the London County Council had some great historical claim to be represented. These considerations had been dealt with by previous speakers, but he could only say that, representing one of the divisions of Essex which, was interested in the port, they entirely repudiated the suggestion
  390
  that the London County Council in any way represented their interests or could represent them. The interests of the London County Council were entirely in conflict with those of Essex in many important particulars, and it seemed very hard that the London County Council should be represented in so large a degree whereas Essex interests were entirely disregarded. It was not as if Essex had not a historic claim. It had, it was not a very ancient one, but at all events since 1894 they had had a representative on the Thames Conservancy who had looked after their local and business interests affecting Essex along the Essex shore. What the Government were doing was absolutely to disfranchise the County of Essex in respect of this question. It was a very strong action on their part, and he submitted that to do this simultaneously with giving a large representation to the County Council of London was a very unusual and a very unwise step to take. He submitted a short time ago to the House when they were considering the Electricity Bill, that the Board of Trade, in the outlook which they had with respect to such questions were guided by rather narrow considerations. They looked only at the existing facts, whereas he submitted to-day as he submitted a fortnight ago, that the Board of Trade, being a great public Department, ought seriously to look at the trend of events. When they were dealing with the River Thames, no man who was aware of the state of things existing to-day could shut his eyes to the fact that the great manufacturing and shipping business of the Port of London was drifting away from the centre of London itself and going outside the boundaries of the London County Council and settling along the shores of the river on both sides. That being so, and although the County of Essex had only the interests of consumers approximating to 1,000,000 persons, there could be little doubt that as years passed on its interest, even from the consuming point of view, would be actually greater and relatively far larger compared with London than it was to-day, and he could not help submitting that the interests of people carrying on their life's work on the Thames between

  391
  Barking and the sea were as much at stake and they had as much right to representation on this authority as the inhabitants of Shepherd's Bush or round the Crystal Palace who were not dependent upon the Port of London, and whose livelihood did not depend upon it. He was bound to say that the County of Essex with its large shipping interests was more entitled to representation than the London County Council itself. Then it had been pointed out that the proposal contained in the Amendment was in no way in conflict with the principles of the Bill. In fact it was in accordance with the principle accepted by the Government themselves. He knew that the London County Council represented a more populous area at this moment, but he did not think that really affected the principle for which areas outside London were contending. It had been suggested that the Committee had in their mind the Liverpool example. The hon. Member for Nairn held that up as worthy of their adoption, and said that the counties of Lancashire and Cheshire on each side of the Mersey were fairly comparable with the counties of Essex and Kent on each side of the Thames. He had practical and personal knowledge not only of the River Thames but also of the River Mersey, and he ventured to say that if the hon. Member for Nairn would come down the river Thames with him he could convince him in a very short time that the view he took was entirely contrary to the facts and that they had on the shores of the Thames great manufacturing as well as shipping interests, wharves and other things, which entirely differentiated it from the state of things which existed along the Mersey. He could not help submitting to the President of the Board of Trade a point which had been made, and a very practical business point it was. It was that they already had an authority so large that its business could only be carried on by committees. That being so he believed it would actually add to the efficiency of the body, and enable them to carry out their work in different directions better, if they had an addition to their members and, therefore, had more men able to do committee work. The hon. Member for Nairn told them that Liverpool alone was represented on the
  392
  Mersey Dock and Harbour Board; but there was a more modern precedent. It was only two or three years ago that a Bill was before the House dealing with a river much more analogous to the River Thames, viz., the River Clyde. When that Bill was before the House direct representation was given to all the authorities along the shore in order that they might have the opportunity of making their claims known. He thought it would be a very great advantage to the administration to have from the county of Essex, men who were living on the spot, and who were acquainted with the needs of the trades carried on on the shores of the Thames, and who were in constant touch with them. They would be of real practical value in the discussions of the authority; he believed equally, if not more, valuable than City men and representatives of great shipping companies who were to be the only persons to be allowed to be on the Port authority. Something had been said with regard to the interest of these counties in connection with sea walls. The President of the Board of Trade had suggested that in regard to sea walls there was some provision in the Bill which gave adequate protection in the case of damage. That was an entirely misleading suggestion. The clause the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind simply prevented a statutory defence being set up under this Act, in respect of any damage that might arise in consequence of dredging. But the point was this. Along the shores of the Thames there was a large population resident below high water mark, a population mostly consisting of men of small means, and if the walls were let down in consequence of dredging, and the property of these people was damaged, they really would have no remedy. They were poor men and could not afford the legal costs and the expense of getting the evidence of experts which it was so necessary to have when fighting a great corporation who could afford the very best counsel. So that the damage caused by the letting down of the sea wall was only provided against in theory. In actual fact it would give no protection at all. The only way these people could really be protected would be by having somebody on the authority who would

  393
  see as far as it was possible that this important matter was not overlooked. He thought the claim of Essex was greater at this period of the evening than it was a few hours ago. The Government had rejected the claim for representation by the riverside manufacturers and the ships which used the river. Those two classes formed a very important element of the counties of Kent and Essex and if the President of the Board of Trade would only grant this concession asked for now he would go far to mitigate the hostility of the people in those parts to the Bill. There was a population of 500,000 resident in the districts on the river front, and the health of that population was a very important matter. Although the Essex county authority was the authority for health, the London County Council could and did discharge the effluent from their sewers into the water there, and whilst London would have several members on the authority to safeguard London's interests in this matter, no representative would be there from Essex to prevent an improper exercise of the London County Council powers. He was a strong supporter of the Government, and he wished to see this Bill passed; still he was constrained to ask the right hon. Gentleman now to consider the strong claim that is made on behalf of these counties.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I am sorry to break up the harmony of the Opposition in this matter, but I must say in this, I take the view of the Government. I say that in my personal capacity, however, and do not wish in any way to influence hon. Members behind me. The hon. Member who spoke last made what to me was a surprising statement which was that on the Clyde Board these outside bodies were represented. I think he will find that that is not the case.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: I took it from the evidence given before the Committee upstairs.
  MR. BONAR LAW: In that case I am wrong. I only spoke from memory. The hon. Gentleman who represents West Ham made the remark that in all his Parliamentary experience he had never seen such unanimity. I have had a little
  394
  longer experience, and I have seen similar unanimity under similar circumstances. I have seen it between the Irish Unionist and Nationalist Parties when they all wanted the same thing. Every Member in this case wants representation for his own district. It is quite natural that they should, but that is no reason why the House should give it. It seems to me that the only valid argument put forward was that of the hon. Member for Kingston who said that as representation was given to the London County Council it ought to be given to other county councils. But there is this difference between the London County Council and the other county authorities, that if by any chance the port authority should not pay its way the interest of London in having a good port is so essential that the London County Council would have to step in and aid the port, and assist it in its finances. I do not think that is a contingency which is very likely to happen, but the London County Council are bound to take that step if it does, and I do not think any of the other authorities are in the same position. I do not think there is any magic in the number the Government has set up, and I am not sure that the addition of one or two more would not be an improvement, but I personally think the members of the Port authority should be drawn from the class that pays the dues, that the people who pay the expense should call the tune, and that the vote which is claimed by the hon. Member for Essex should come not through the county authorities but through the people who do the business. I therefore desire now to support the Government. We had the same difficulty before us some time ago, and we then came to the conclusion that it would not be to the interest of the Port authority to have the Board extended in the way that is suggested.
  MR. CHURCHILL: This discussion has now gone on for a considerable time, and those who have been in the Chamber during its progress will be able to judge of its merits. I do not quarrel with any of the speeches which have been made, or make any animadversion on the objects which those who made them have pursued. But are not the Committee fully convinced by the debate that all these

  395
  proposals put forward, excellent as each may be in itself, are mutually destructive? If we are to safeguard the Port authority from being hampered and encumbered by a great number of localised representatives we must, even at the risk of appearing sullen and obdurate and grossly disobliging, stand firm, and keep the numbers of the authority to reasonably manageable proportions. I may point out this. The hon. Gentleman has just referred to the London County Council. It is quite true that the London County Council has been given representation and that the county authorities have not. But quite apart from the vital difference the hon. Member for Dulwich has pointed out, the London County Council is in quite a different position, is of quite a different character, and on a far different scale from these smaller authorities. The London County Council has a general and not a sectional interest in the Port authority. It will not be concerned in things in which a particular district or town has a particular interest. Its interest is a general interest. Its interest in the Port of London is not sectional in any degree. The same may be said of the Corporation which is in a different position also from these county authorities. The hon. Gentleman who represents Gravesend tells us we have also been inconsistent in giving a representative to Labour, whilst we oppose sectional interests. The use of the words "sectional interest" as applied to labour is subject to some reserve. When you consider the many thousands of men who are engaged under hard and sometimes evil conditions of casual labour, who are earning their daily bread at the docks, I do not think it can be said that they are a sectional interest in the same way that every class of trader is sectionally interested. Although I am quite ready to admit that the representation of Labour on a port authority is introduced into this Bill for the first time, I am perfectly certain it is defensible, because, although it is an interest of a particular class, that class is so large and its interests are so interwoven that it cannot be dismissed as wholly sectional; it is a human, moral, and national interest of a large and responsible character. That is the answer I
  396
  would venture to make to the hon. Gentleman who made a most moderate and closely reasoned contribution to the debate—I mean the hon. Member for West Ham. If the claim of West Ham is put forward as geographical, it must take its chance with all the other geographical claims, and he knows perfectly well that the excellent arguments brought forward to show there was special reason to give a special member to West Ham were matched by excellent reasons brought forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite for giving a special member to Middlesex or Kent. If I rightly interpret the mood and intention of the hon. Gentleman, it is twofold. He wishes, no doubt, if he can, to secure a member for West Ham, but he is also concerned that the Labour interest of which his constituency is largely composed, shall be adequately represented on the Port authority. I agree. The Board of Trade have already pledged themselves that one of their representatives shall be appointed after proper consultation with the established representatives of Labour opinion, which I think is the most convenient method. I see an Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe proposing that one of the members nominated by the London County Council should be similarly appointed after consultation with or from the recognised Labour organisations. The Government will be sympathetic in their attitude towards that Amendment when it is brought on; and, if the House and the Government were to take the course advocated by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe, I should like to point out that that would to some extent give effect to the views we have heard so often expressed during the discussion, that the County Council representation is excessive—a view I do not share. Still I am not at all disposed to think the County Council would be hampered in its influence upon the authority if it were to look towards the representatives of Labour in that respect. May I now respectfully ask the Committee whether we cannot come to a conclusion on the general question of the size of the authority? Everyone who has spoken has had a plan by which that authority mighty be extended and improved. Our proposal is bluntly and clearly to remain at ten appointed

  397
  members. We think to increase that would be to make the authority more cumbersome and less adapted for its purpose. We think that to admit the claim of one local authority and deny it to others, would be to increase the injustice to the others without substantially introducing greater modification or indulgence into the Bill. Finally, we venture strongly to urge upon the House the undesirability of increasing the proportion of appointed members beyond the limit which has already been fixed to elected members and which the Committee which examined it considered to be excessive even as it stands.
  MR. MORTONsaid he quite agreed with his hon. friend who represented a portion of the County of Essex. It would have been much better if the Second Reading had not been closured and they had had an opportunity of discussing the question generally. Knowing something about the working of the river, he sympathised very much with the hon. Gentleman who wished to get more representatives of the consumers and not of the mere payer of dues. It was found that the smallness of the old Metropolitan Board practically rained it. Having, as a member of the Thames Conservancy, carefully watched and viewed the river from the Nore to Cricklade, he was bound to say that those hon. Gentlemen who represented the towns and county councils on the present Conservancy Board were among the best members they had. They had first to be elected to their own town or county council and then afterwards they were selected, apparently on acount of their knowledge of matters connected with the Port of London. That being his opinion, he strongly sympathised with those hon. Gentlemen who wished to see Kent, Essex, or any other district bounding on the river represented. He quite agreed that the London County Council ought to be strongly represented on a body of this sort. He wished to say that openly and honestly. No doubt the old Corporation ought to be represented too. The people of London owned the freehold of the Thames from Staines down to Southend; they had a big money interest in it, and it was only fair to say they ought to be represented.
  398
  He was glad that had been recognised, but he still thought that those who were going to pay the money should have more representatives on the Board.
  MR. RADFORDsaid there was something pathetic in listening to one Member after another claiming representation for his own constituency as if he were claiming something important or useful for London. Experience showed that this kind of representation was altogether illusory and completely futile. There was no doubt that experience with the Thames Conservancy and Metropolitan Water Board showed that a man nominated on a great body of this kind in the manner proposed to be done under this Bill did not go there to do any work or for any useful purpose at all. The office was conferred as a kind of honour upon an elderly gentleman.
  MR. MORTONexpressed dissent.
  MR. RADFORDsaid he made no aspersion on his hon. friend the Member for Sutherland. He was perpetually young. That was what happened. The man went on to the Board not to do any work. He regarded the proceedings with a languid interest and went back home to his friends in his own suburban district, and said he was a member of the Port authority of London.
  MR. MORTON: As the hon. Member has referred to me, I should like to say that the corporation put me on the Thames Conservancy as an active member on purpose to look after them.
  MR. RADFORDsaid his hon. friend was an exception to all rules. It was proposed to have representatives of the London County Council, the Corporation of the City, the Admiralty, and the Board of Trade. Why on earth some of those bodies were introduced he could not for the life of him imagine. It was of no use to the Port of London and would not contribute to the efficiency or usefulness of the body they were setting up. He found himself in this matter in a position to support the Government, and he hoped they would consider whether they could

  399
  not usefully reduce the number of appointed members on the Port authority and pay no attention to the arguments addressed to them. When the appointed members had been largely reduced in number and the constitution of the elected members had been vastly im-
  proved, then, and not until then, might this be a useful measure.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 373.)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Jowett, F. W.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Balcarres, Lord

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rowlands, J.

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

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

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cave, George

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Snowden, P.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Steadman, W. C.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Myer, Horatio

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Napier, T. B.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Nield, Herbert

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  O'Grady, J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Gill, A. H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Glover, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Colonel Warde and Mr. Whitehead.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renwick, George

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  MR. HOLT MR. HOLT (Northumberland, Hexham) moved to leave out the word "two," the number of the nominees of the Board of Trade, in order to insert the word "three." The Amendment was not moved in order to increase the number of ten, but as consequential on an Amendment to leave out the representative of Trinity House. He failed to see on what grounds it was proposed that Trinity House should have a representative on the Port authority. The functions of Trinity House would not be interfered with. It was a body which no one knew very much about, and which was certainly not representative, and he could not see in what way it could claim to have a statutory right to appoint a representative on the port authority of London. If the Amendment were accepted it would be perfectly open to the Board of Trade to do with its nominee anything that it was possible for Trinity House to do. It was quite possible, for instance, if the Board of Trade came to the conclusion that there ought to be a gentleman possessing the special knowledge which Trinity House would have, to sub-let one of its nominations. That was the way in which Manchester had obtained a representative on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. It might be said that Trinity House ought to have a representative because they conducted the lighting and piloting of London, but it did not seem to him that that was a sound argument at all. The argument was the opposite way. If there was any connection between the Port authority and Trinity House on account of lighting and pilotage it was not for Trinity House to be represented, but that the Port
  402
  authority ought to help Trinity House. That seemed to be the logical conclusion. If the special knowledge possessed by Trinity House was not required there was in the hands of the Board of Trade another nomination which it would be possible to put at the disposal of any body which was not represented.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 4, to leave out the word 'two,' and to insert the word 'three.'"—(Mr. Holt.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the clause."
  MR. CHURCHILL: I was not under any illusion as to the purpose of my hon. friend's Amendment. I did not think it was intended to be a compliment to the Board of Trade. Had it presented itself in that light I should have been very much tempted to accept it. But I recognised very early in the day that my hon. friend had an ulterior design in moving the Amendment, and that it was part of the general proposal which has been placed by various Members on the Paper to remove the Trinity House altogether from any connection with the Port authority, if not indeed to abolish that institution. I trust the Committee will not attempt to put an end to the existence of Trinity House at present. Trinity House was not heard in evidence on the subject of the Bill, and I think it would be exceedingly unfair to strike at it as the result of any of these Amendments cursorily introduced into the Bill. Trinity House will have the conduct and the lighting of the Port of

  403
  London in the Bill as we contemplated, and that being so, it is most extraordinary that it should not have a representative on the Port authority. It is essential that it should have a representative on the Port authority. All the Commissions recommended it, and all the previous Bills, I understand, accorded it, and I am bound to say that I do not think any serious injury can result from the authority which is specially charged with the duty of lighting the whole, not only of the Port of London, but the general approaches of the river, having a right to appoint a member. We can quote in support of this arrangement not only the opinion of the Joint Committee, but the recommendation of almost all previous bodies who have approached the consideration of this subject. Therefore the Board of Trade feel at the present juncture that two members are sufficient for them, that they will resist, partly from prudence and partly from modesty, the gift, however complimentary, which the hon. Gentleman desires to bestow upon them.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsupported the President of the Board of Trade in his contention and opposed the Amendment of the hon. Member. The President of the Board of Trade and the Government had been quite clear regarding one thing. They had said: "We want to give all the interests representation, but we do not wish to give them sectional representation. We want the manufacturers and the wharfingers and every class of people interested in the Thames to be represented, but we do not wish to give sectional representation." There was one class of men who were entirely left out of any representation at all, even by this wide clause, and in the Schedule which the right hon. Gentleman had added to the Bill. They proposed arrangements by which in regard to voting for election to the Port authority, the voter would be allowed to vote for a number of candidates in order of preference or otherwise, in order to secure that so far as possible the several interests concerned should be adequately represented. The Government contended, of course, that that covered the ground of the general interest, and that their aim was to give all the interests repre-
  404
  sentation. But Trinity House represented not only a very large number of pilots, but also a large class of men who would become pilots eventually, and by no means would these men be represented except through Trinity House. The Port authority would require its special and technical knowledge, and its position ought to be preserved upon the authority, not alone because of its technical knowledge, but because it represented a body of men who had no other means of expressing their interests under the Bill. Therefore, he gave his unhesitating support to the President of the Board of Trade, and his opposition to the Amendment.
  MR. HOLT: If the President of the Board of Trade really sticks to his arrangement, I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, and I ask leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. E. H. LAMBsaid that in order to secure a fair share of representation on this body for Kent, he desired to move to leave out the words "Trinity House," in order to insert, "the Kent County Council."
  MR. STEADMANasked if his Amendment (to substitute "six" for "two" as the number of representatives to be appointed by the London County Council from outside its own body) was out of order, and, if not, whether it should not take priority over this Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment is not in order because he does not move to omit any other four nominees, and if his Amendment were carried it would exceed the number of ten which the Committee has already agreed to.
  MR. STEADMANpointed out that one hon. Member had already been allowed to move an Amendment to delete "two," and insert "three."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment is not in order because it would exceed ten.
  MR. E. H. LAMB, resuming, said the President of the Board of Trade finished his speech by saying that the policy of the Government, bluntly and squarely, was to have ten appointed members, and ten only. As that was the position, they must, of course, bow to the inevitable, but he wanted the Committee to consider who should have this last representative among the appointed members. The Corporation of Trinity House seemed to have some enchantment for the Committee, but he would like to remind the Committee of the composition of that body. Leaving out the members of the Royal Family, of whom there were three, there was first of all the name of Lord Rosebery. He thought His Majesty's Government would agree with him that the noble Earl had quite sufficient scope for his energy in dealing with matters in another place, without having his time taken up with the appointment of one of the members of this new authority. Another member of the Trinity House Corporation was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, whose absence from the House of Commons they all greatly deplored. Another member was the Leader of the Opposition, and the list also included Lord Selborne, Lord George Hamilton, who at one time was an excellent Member of the House representing Ealing; Prince Louis of Battenberg, and others he need not mention. All he wished to emphasise was the fact that the Trinity House Corporation was composed of such men as these, and he wished to know whether His Majesty's Government, speaking through the President of the Board of Trade, were serious in asserting that these gentlemen were more entitled to representation than the county of Kent, which embraced nearly a million acres, and contained a population of over one million. The county of Kent was likely to be very seriously affected by the dredging operations which might be carried on by the new Port authority. He noticed that the hon. Member for the Kirkdale division had an Amendment in Clause 11, to insert—
  "As from the appointed day there shall be vested in the Port authority the management and control of buoying, beaconing, and lighting of the Port of London and estuary of the Thames."
  406
  He did not know whether the President of the Board of Trade was going to accept that Amendment or not?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No.
  MR. E. H. LAMBsaid that, having got that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, he would not press his Amendment.
  MR. CARR-GOMM*MR. CARR-GOMM (Southwark, Rotherhithe) moved to insert the words "and one of the members of the Port authority appointed by the London County Council shall be appointed by the Council after consultation with such organisations representative of labour as the Council think best qualified to advise them in the matter." He wished to thank the President of the Board of Trade for the kindly reference he made to his Amendment and he would not detain the Committee for many minutes. He wished, however, to point out that the object of the Amendment was to strengthen the Port authority and make it one which would have the thorough support and confidence of the workers all over the Port of London. This was very important, because under Clause 27 the Port of London had some special functions to perform. He might be told that the new body would be a business organisation consisting of business men. In reply to that he wished to point put that the tendency in modern industrial undertakings was to associate labour with the control of the business. This was especially important in the case of this new authority for the Port of London. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, impressed upon the House the importance of having any labour question that might arise threshed out in the board room to begin with before it arose in the nature of a big complication and heated quarrel outside, and if labour had two or three representatives on the Port authority, any trouble of that kind would be brought before it first of all by the labour representative. He thought it was most important that this Port authority should be able to carry out the work in a harmonious manner, and his object

  407
  in bringing forward this Amendment was to strengthen the Port authority. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert the words 'and one of the members of the port authority appointed by the London County Council shall be appointed by the Council after consultation with such organisations representative of labour as the Council think best qualified to advise them in the matter.'"—(Mr. Carr-Gomm.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.
  MR. CHURCHILL: After the observations which I ventured to address to the Committee earlier in the debate, I do not think it will be expected that I should reply at any length to this Amendment. I am bound to say that I do not believe that the arguments are by any means all on one side in this matter. There are no labour representatives on any other Port authority in the United Kingdom. When the case of the County Council came to be considered the Committee took away one of their members and transferred it to another quarter. I confess to having some slight misgivings as to the transference we are now asked to make, but on the other hand I feel strongly that the labour interests which are associated with the working of this great port, including the great question of casual labour and all the extraordinary difficulties associated with that question, which up to the present have baffled all social experiments and organisation, and the question also of the possibility of labour disputes and the importance of strengthening sympathetic relations between the two great parties to production—all those considerations in the case of London, in my opinion, justify a case for some extension of the principle of representation to the class of manual labourers. I think there is a case for that, although there are disadvantages which I do not underrate a bit. I believe I shall be interpreting the general wish of the Committee if, on behalf of the Government, I accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, leaving it possible for reconsideration on Report—though this is a matter which I only
  408
  state with some hesitancy—whether the extra member who will go to represent the labour interest should necessarily be drawn from this particular source. That we may think over when we are going over the Bill a second time on Report, but for the present I accept the Amendment.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he did not rise in any way to make a violent speech, or indeed a partisan speech against the Amendment which had from many points of view the sympathy of everybody in the House, but he confessed that he really regretted the precipitancy with which the Government had accepted it. After all, let them carefully consider what they were constituting. They were going to constitute a body for the management of one of the greatest industrial undertakings in the whole country, and the Government had occupied the first hour of the proceedings in saying that they wished to secure the best possible heads in London to manage that great undertaking. They addressed a very-successful appeal to the Committee not in any way to hamper the choice of the very best people. He did not at all deny that it might turn out that the London County Council would desire to select a labour man as one of their representatives, but ought they not to leave the thing quite free? Why should they fetter the discretion and the choice of the London County Council in this matter any more than in any other? The President of the Board of Trade said that the interests of labour were so great in this matter that they ought to have a representative. Surely that was not the point. That was not the real way of looking at it. The labour interest in this as in everything was the same as everybody else's interest. There was no real distinction between the two. It might be short-sighted of employers to lose sight of this obvious truth; but everyone who considered it must see that the interests of labour and the interests of employers were identical, for the prosperity of an undertaking depended upon both sides. Therefore, he distrusted this kind of suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade that there were interests of labour

  409
  which were antagonistic to or not identical with—
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is really not my suggestion. What I said was that there are problems of labour to the solution of which even on a body like the new Port of London authority a representative of labour would be able to bring special knowledge.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that if the only object was to have someone there to inform the governing authority what was desirable from the point of view of labour, then he must point out that the Bill now provided for one representative of labour. The President of the Board of Trade had justly said that it was a great experiment. It was a novel idea, and he thought it was right that it should be tried. He was glad to see it in the Bill. The question was whether it was desirable that it should be carried out in the way proposed.
  MR. CHURCHILL: You must also remember that my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out an expectation. He did not mention any figure definitely, but his expression has been interpreted as meaning that labour will at least have two representatives.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that that was a different point and he did not pretend to carry in his mind all the pledges which the Government had given on this and other subjects. It seemed to him that they were already bound to do this, and there was an unnecessary display of impartiality on the part of the President of the Board of Trade when he said the Government would accept the Amendment. Having said that, the Tight hon. Gentleman said he was not quite sure whether the Government would be able to accept it in this form or not. The Committee had nothing at all to do with the pledges of the Government. He asked the Committee to consider rather carefully whether, when trying an experiment, it was not better to try it on a modest scale at first. If the experiment succeeded there would be no difficulty in
  410
  extending it. It would be extended naturally and automatically because the County Council, which was a popularly-elected body dealing essentially with the interests of the pulic, would be the first people anxious and willing to extend it and to select one of their number. If the experiment failed, and if they imposed two members of an inefficient character on the Port authority, so far from doing any good to labour they would be really doing it harm. There was another argument to which he wished to refer. The right hon. Gentleman said it might be desirable to have labour thoroughly well represented on the Port authority because in the case of any labour dispute the labour representative might be helpful. He entirely concurred with that as a general principle. The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that both the Board of Trade and the County Council representatives would not be elected by the working classes. There had been many successful experiments tried in industrial undertakings where the working classes had been enabled to elect directors of these undertakings. But in those cases the working-men chose their representatives and they were the representative mouthpieces of the working men. If they selected labour representatives through the London County Council or the Board of Trade the position was a very different one, and not nearly so favourable to the success of the experiment. He did not wish to oppose the Amendment, but he confessed he would have been better pleased if the Government had said that they would consider the matter carefully and had not acted so precipitately as they had done in accepting an Amendment so far-reaching in its character.
  MR. STEADMANsaid he knew that one had to be thankful for small mercies, and he was thankful to the noble Lord for the half-hearted manner in which he had supported the Amendment. He could assure the noble Lord that hundreds of thousands of working men were anxiously looking forward to the passing of this Bill. Men of his class were always mistrusted. They could afford to ignore that. It was like pouring water on a duck's back. Working men had their co-operative societies, friendly

  411
  societies, benefit societies, and trade unions in this country as living monuments of the administrative ability of the industrial classes. The River Thames was the staple industry of this vast metropolis. It was not only the workmen in the docks and on the riverside who were interested in the administration of the Port of London, but the proposals now before the Committee involved the bread and butter of thousands of workmen spread over the whole of London whose industries depended on the success or failure of the Port. They had a dock strike some years ago, of which the President of the Local Government Board could tell them something. He was sure the noble Lord did not wish to see a repetition of that. What was the Government doing? He admitted that they were setting up a principle for the first time, but it was a principle which they could defend inside and outside. It was a principle that would inspire confidence among the thousands of workmen who were employed in the docks. Quite likely—more likely than not—it would mean the prevention of many a trade dispute which would otherwise occur. That was his experience in connection with the London County Council, and they were the largest employers of labour, with the exception of the Government, in the country. He had faith in the London County Council when he was a member. If this Amendment was accepted, the County Council would be bound to put one labour representative on the Port of London authority. He said in all sincerity that he shared the views of the late President of the Board of Trade and the present President in their anxiety to secure the best representative men available for this board. He could select six men—they might call them agitators; he did not care what they called them—secretaries of trade unions, whose members were working on the River Thames, who knew ten times more about the river than the men the Board of Trade would select in making the appointments to the board. They were the people they wanted on the Port authority, although he had heard slurs cast upon them. If there was a little more confidence between the industrial classes and the employ-
  412
  ing classes in the country, it would be better for the prosperity of both, and of the country at large.
  MR. W. BENNsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper in the same terms as that now proposed, and he begged to thank the President of the Board of Trade for having accepted it He hardly found himself in agreement with all that the noble Lord had said as to this Amendment. The noble Lord had accused the Government of precipitancy in accepting the Amendment, but six months ago the principle of direct labour representation was accepted by the then President of the Board of Trade, who said that he thought there should be one, two, or three representatives of labour on the Port authority, so that the noble Lord could not charge the Government with acting precipitately in the matter. In constituting this authority the object to be aimed at was to get the best men, and the County Council would take care that the men selected by them were the best to represent the largest interest concerned in the Port authority. The noble Lord had said that they would not be elected by the working men.
  LORD R. CECIL: All I said was that they would not be selected by the working men themselves. I was comparing this representation with the representatives elected directly in great industrial concerns.
  MR. W. BENNsaid that personally he thought there was a great deal to be said for the direct election of the labour representatives. The noble Lord had said they had got one representative of labour, and surely that was enough for an experiment. He was inclined to think that the experiment was likely to be more successful if they had two representatives rather than one. The Port authority was to have its own procedure. Supposing that no proposition could be discussed unless there was a seconder, and the representative of labour brought in a proposal directed against the interest of capital, and could not find a seconder. He would then be unable to raise the matter. Again, the Port authority had to set up a number

  413
  of committees. They were not paying the members of this authority, and it would be difficult, if there was only one working man representative, who had to earn his own living, for him to sit on these committees. From these two points of view he thought it was an excellent thing to have two labour representatives instead of one. Another important point was that the labour interests of the Port of London were quite as varied as those of capital. The labourers were divided into certain distinct interests—the lightermen, who were the aristocracy amongst the labourers, the stevedores, who were the middle class, and the dockers, who were the poorest; and they looked at many things in different ways. In dealing with these classes it was a great advantage to have the representatives of labour capable of taking a wide view, not only of the interest of the class they represented but of the interest of all the classes engaged in the port. The first job which the authority would have to undertake would be the regulation of casual labour, and hon. Members well knew that the representatives of the workmen often gave totally different evidence. The representatives of the lightermen and the stevedores were satisfied with the present system, and the representatives of the dockers wanted almost a revolutionary change. It would be greatly to the advantage of the labourers as a whole if the representation was not confined exclusively to one section. As to the future, he had not the slightest doubt that the great advantage of having representatives of labour on the Port authority would be the avoidance of strikes and misunderstandings. These disputes were much more likely to be avoided if there were more than one representative of labour. If there was only one he would be often placed in a difficult and rather invidious position. If there were two the workers themselves would have much greater confidence in their representation. From the employers' point of view it would be a great advantage to have more than one representative, because every representative of labour was a missionary of peace, and in the case of disputes it would be a great advantage to have working men on the Board to explain to their fellows exactly what was going on. He wished
  414
  again to thank the President of the Board of Trade most heartily for securing this representation of labour, and he could assure him that he had done something to promote the well-being and efficiency of the Port of London.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he did not think that there was any objection to have one representative of labour as originally proposed. He agreed with his noble friend that there was just the danger of over representation of labour in this particular portion of the Port authority—dealing with the nominated members, which was the permanent portion of the authority. It seemed to him that the Government might well rely on the democratic feeling that existed among all the interests that were to be represented on the authority under subsection (5). There was no reason why among the eighteen elected members there should not be one, two, or perhaps more who were directly representative of labour. It seemed to him that the Government had not thought really of the possibility of labour being unduly represented through the ordinary form of election. He called the attention of the Committee to the possible composition of the ten nominated members. He assumed that the Government in making the appointment of these ten had covered the general interest of the Port. Naturally they secured the appointment of a representative of the Admiralty, who would cover the Naval interest. Then the Board of Trade would naturally be represented by representatives of commerce and industry in the widest sense. The municipal interest in its most general sense was clearly intended to be represented by the members chosen by the London County Council and the City Corporation, while the purely technical and professional interest, with traditional knowledge of the river, which belonged to Trinity House, would be represented by the member chosen by Trinity House. He thought in these circumstances that to give one direct representative of labour was as much as the Government ought to be called upon to do. Therefore, although he was naturally sympathetic to the representation of labour

  415
  in these eighteen elected members, he was opposed to a double representation of labour which would necessarily crowd out one of the very important interests to which he had already referred. Therefore he felt bound to support the Amendment.
  MR. NAPIERthought the whole House would desire to have on the Port authority labour represented by one or two members, but the true way to do this was either by the method suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the early part of the debate, or by leaving the County Council unfettered discretion to elect a representative of labour. He objected to the Amendment, not because he objected to labour representation, but because it unduly fettered the discretion of the County Council, and in doing that, the Government were setting an exceedingly bad precedent. He felt very strongly that in accepting this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman had taken a step which was not really and truly democratic, but which tended to class representation.
  MR. MORTONsaid he was sorry to find there was opposition to this Amendment. The objection to the proposal to get labour better represented on the Port authority would be well understood out of doors.
  MR. CROOKSsaid he was in a very considerable difficulty about this nomination, because everybody said that the members of this body ought to be elected on a democratic basis. This was starting all wrong, because if they began with a nomination they could not have a democratic basis. Then the hon. Member for Gravesend had said there was possibility of a labour man being on the body. What they, in that part of the House, meant by a labour man was a man connected with trade unions or labour organisations apart from a man of commerce. The hon. Member said they were likely to be selected, but surely that could not be so. What was going to happen? Were they going to be elected by payers of dues, owners of river craft, and wharfingers? Did anyone think that even sc respectable a man
  416
  as his hon. friend the Member for Finsbury could get a vote from one of them? The constituency which sent them there would not consist of wharfingers alone, and they would be voted against in the constituency. Let them not talk about democratic basis; it did not come in there; it did not work out. But why put this particular one on from the London County Council and also one from the Corporation? What a delightful thing it would be if the Corporation would elect him! Why should not the City of London have a labour member? It was about time. It was a reason why he should be elected that they promoted City Guilds and institutions of that sort. In regard to the Amendment, what would happen was that the Council would simply choose the man they wanted and put him up to represent labour. If they said, however, that this man should be selected by a labour group or be a paid official of a labour organisation he was walling. But that was what would not happen.
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is so.
  MR. CROOKS: You are going to consult an organised labour group. I hope that will be put in.
  MR. CHURCHILL: That will be put in.
  MR. CROOKSsaid they would have to be careful, because if they got in a docker the stevedores would be jealous. If, however, they were going to consult trade union organisations there was no reason why the Amendment should not be carried.
  The Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MORTONproposed to leave out subsection (9) and insert "The Port authority shall set apart such sum not exceeding in any year £2,100 as the Port authority, with the approval of the Board of Trade, thinks fit, and shall divide the same among the members of the Port authority as they from time to time think fit." He wanted to provide that the Port authority might pay its chairman, vice-chairman, or chairman of committees, or others any salary within the limit mentioned in the Amendment

  417
  as it might determine. He desired that these monies should not go to the chairmen of the Port authority alone but should be divided among the members of the body, in a somewhat similar method to that carried on by the Thames Conservancy. His proposal was democratic. It was not quite Socialistic because he did not propose to make an equal distribution of the money. On the Thames Conservancy they used to give the chairman £500 a year out of the money, and the rest of it was divided among the members, but always according to attendance. Nobody had any money unless they worked. They got a fresh chairman a few years back; they appointed Lord Desborough. They reduced his salary to £300, not necessarily because he was a Lord but they did reduce it and divided the rest among those who attended, after paying £100 per annum to the chairman of committees. He thought that was a much better arrangement than giving it all to the chairman. He did not think that anybody for a moment could contend that it would be reasonable to expect the majority of the members of this Port authority to do the work, and for the chairman to take the money, or practically all of it, and, therefore, to his mind it was much more fair and democratic to divide it as he had suggested. He knew some people would say: "You should not let them have any money at all." That would apply equally, of course, to the chairman of the Board and the chairman of committees, because they had no more right to get money than the ordinary members. It was only fair and right that gentlemen who gave up two or three days a week should be paid. He dared say he could find an excellent lot of gentlemen to occupy the front Treasury bench without any salaries at all, but they paid the Members of the Government salaries, some of them very large ones, and some were wanting more, but there was just as much reason for paying members of this Board for their attendance as there was for paying officials who represented the Government in the House of Commons. Therefore he had always thought that it was only fair and right that gentlemen who were willing to give their services and a
  418
  great deal of their time should be paid. If they did their duty on a board of this sort they must give up a great deal of time as they should go and inspect everything. Otherwise they could not look after the men or anthing else concerned with the management. Unless the masters were continually inspecting and visiting the work so as to let everybody know they were looking about, it would not be kept straight. If they paid the chairman and not the others, the business might be left entirely to the chairman, and then they got the worst sort of government they could have, because one-man goverment nearly always failed. He trusted the Committee would see its way to agree to this proposal. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 26, to leave out subsection (9), and to insert the words '(9) The Port authority shall set apart such sum not exceeding in a year two thousand one hundred pounds, as the Port authority with the approval of the Board of Trade thinks fit, and shall divide the same among the members of the Port authority as they from time to time think fit.—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question put, "That the words of the subsection down to 'vice-chairman,' in line 27, stand part of the clause."
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think this would be a very good arrangement. It is a great question whether members of these public or quasi public bodies should be paid. It is another question of importance whether the chairman should be paid, and another question whether the chairman of committees ought to be paid. I do not know that it is any solution of either of these questions to take £2,100 and divide it in sums of £60 or £70 among a body of twenty-eight business men, whose time would be valuable, and who would not be attracted by this remuneration. I do not think that is consonant with the dignity or efficiency of this new Port authority. The sum of money seems to bear no relation whatever either to what is necessary to get people to serve on such a body, or what can be considered an adequate remuneration of their services. I am well aware that a similar principle has been adopted upon

  419
  the Thames Conservancy, and I am not at all sure that it has been in every respect attended by results that have altogether eliminated from the area of the operations of that body any ground of complaint. I venture to think that the much more reasonable way is to pay people adequate salaries for responsible executive work which they have to discharge, and which will absorb the whole of their time, as in the case of the chairman or chairmen of committees, and if any payment should be made to other members it should take the form more of reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses than this sort of arbitrary or capricious douceur which is distributed among the members en bloc. A very noticeable thing is the opinion which the London County Council have formed as to the principles at present in vogue on the Thames Conservancy. They do not allow their members who are members and officials of that body to take that £70 a year; it is paid into the general funds of the London County Council. I think that does indicate in a very remarkable way the opinion which has been forced upon this large public body in regard to such matters as this. I am bound to say I wish to treat the hon. Gentleman's Amendment with all respect, but I do not think that the House will find from any point of view that it is a practical or convenient arrangement. I, therefore, trust that we may be permitted to adhere to our plan in the Bill which is to pay substantial salaries to the persons whose services must be almost wholly absorbed in the work and to allow the Port authority to have in the management of their business the same sort of discretion as the private bodies which they are going to supersede. I hope they will not pay more than is necessary, but they will have to pay people who give the whole of their time. If any other payment is required, let it be proportionate, and let it be only for legitimate out-of-pocket expenses.
  SIR A. SPICERtotally disagreed with his hon. friend in the Amendment he had moved. He thought the Committee had studied economy quite sufficiently in the clause now under consideration. He would not be in the least surprised if
  420
  experience showed that they had to pay more money in the way of salaries to the members. After all the new Port authority would be called upon to administer a trust the capital sum of which would be over £20,000,000, and he very much doubted with all the claims made upon our ablest men in London, whether they would be able to obtain sufficient strength without paying more than was contemplated in this section. It must be remembered that they would not hand over to the new Port authority a business that could be run through with comparatively little time on the part of those who were going to administer it. They were handing over to the Port authority a great enterprise which would want all their powers of administration to make it a success. He believed it could be made a real success, but it would have to be carried out by men who were not going to play with the matter, and who would give a large part of their time and strength to this great enterprise. Therefore, he ventured to point out that the Committee must not be surprised when the new authority commenced to work if it came back and said: "If you want us to do the work properly we must get the right men and must be prepared to pay a higher remuneration."
  MR. BARNARDsaid he found from the section on which this Amendment was based that, subject to the provision of the section, they might appoint a chairman and vice-chairman who need not be an appointed or elected member. He wanted to ask why a distinction was made between the Port of London and the Thames Conservancy.
  SI H. KEARLEY: The hon. Member asks why the distinction between the Port of London and the Thames Conservancy?
  MR. BARNARDsaid he was referring to page 9. At the point under discussion it said they might appoint a chairman, a vice-chairman, and chairmen of other committees, and then he turned to page 9, and he found nobody but the chairman might be appointed.
  SIR H. KEARLEY (who was imperfectly heard)was understood to say: The

  421
  reason why we only put the chairman in the case of the up-river board, and why we put chairman, vice-chairman and chairmen of committees into the Port-authority I should have thought was obvious to everybody. The down-river authority is an extremely important board. The up-river board is, of course, important, but the Port authority is a great trading board, dealing with great commercial interests, which the up-river board does not. The hon. Member proposes that all the members should be paid approximately about £70 a year each. I put this question to the Committee. We have talked to-night about the desirability of attracting the best men to this Port authority. Does any hon. Member think £70 a year is likely to attract the best men? The probability is that it would attract the class of men we do not want to see there. We take provision in the Bill to pay the chairman, vice-chairman and chairmen of committees at the option of the authority. In discussing this matter among ourselves at the time the Bill was being framed we saw very clearly that on a board of this kind it might be necessary to pay a really substantial salary to the chairman, vice-chairman and chairmen of committees. For example, there are those who have great experience in the administration of docks, and we could only obtain their services by means of a substantial salary. I have in my mind men whom we should be very desirous to have, who certainly could not afford to come on the board as ordinary unpaid members, but who would be of great advantage to the board as chairmen or vice-chairmen. There must, of necessity, be several committees set up, one to deal with the administration of the river, one to deal with the administration of the docks, and so on. I am perfectly certain that when this new authority is set up it will have to be composed of men who will devote themselves continuously to this work, and we shall not get the extremely important assistance of these men without paying them a substantial salary. I hope after this explanation my hon. friend will not press this Amendment.
  MR. H. C. LEAsaid the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary-Secretary had had a
  422
  rather curious effect upon him, because he was prepared to support the Government till he heard the hon. Gentleman. Among other things he said the effect of paying a man £70 per year would be to attract to the Board a very undesirable person from his point of view. Under subsection (5) of Clause 1 the only persons who would be attracted were persons elected by payers of dues, wharfingers, and owners of river craft. The hon. Gentleman in his long experience of business in the City of London must know very well that the payers of dues, wharfingers, and owners of river craft were not the people to elect undesirable men who might put up, so that that argument was absurd. Then the hon. Gentleman said he had somebody in his mind who would be attracted by a big salary. It at once occurred to him that there was a job here. He would much prefer that the Parliamentary-Secretary should get that gentleman out of his mind and put him in the Bill so that they might know who and what kind of man he had in view. Under those circumstances, he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. MORTONsaid he did not know that it would be necessary for him to go to a division, but he would like to say a few words in reply to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. He had reminded them that the members appointed by the London County Council were not allowed to take their fees, but all those gentlemen were sorry they were not allowed to take them. It was an amusing state of things. These gentlemen came to them politically and asked them to pledge themselves to the payment of members; and, when an attempt was made pay them, they were so pure they could not take a fee. The only objection they were told was that people would be hunting about to get £60 or £70 a year. They were not very likely to do that. What they would do would be to hunt about to get £1,000 or £2,000 a year, and in all probability those appointments would be filled by politicians and not by anybody who understood the work at all. That was why one should be careful how he supported the clause as it stool in the Bill. He could not understand the Government

  423
  objecting to the payment of the ordinary members of this authority or any other similar body, because they were pledged to the payment of Members of Parliament. It was most extraordinary. For many and various reasons, they supported the payment of Members, but when they had a proposal before them in concrete form they said: "Oh no." Having given the best consideration he could to the matter, he did not think it necessary to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, although he was practically certain the Committee was really with him in the matter. Possibly they might think the Bill would never come into force, and that it was not worth troubling about that night. At any rate he did not want to put the Members to the trouble of going through the division lobby. Therefore, he asked leave to withdraw.
  Leave to withdraw refused.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HOLT MR. HOLT moved to amend the section in the sense of giving the authority power to pay the chairman I and vice-chairman, but taking away the power as regards the chairmen of committees. He did not want to see the chairman or vice-chairman paid, and he would be very glad to know that the Board of Trade would make a very determined effort to procure a chairman or vice-chairman who would accept the positions without any payment whatever. He was perfectly certain from his own experience in. Liverpool that, if they wanted to get the best men—as he was sure they all did—they were more likely to do so by making a determined effort to get men to serve on the authority without payment for the sake of the town and the trade of the port. He supposed it was no exaggeration to say that the chairmen of committees would number seven or eight, and allowing for the chairman and vice-chairman of the authority that would mean approximately that one member in three would receive payment. It was quite illusory to suppose they could pay the chairman of one committee and not the chairman of another. There would be jealousy among the committees. Not only would the chairman of committee A. want
  424
  to receive the same as the chairman of committee B., but the members of committee A. would regard it as a slur upon them if their chairman did not receive the same as the chairman of committee B. If the proposal therefore were adopted, it would involve the payment of about one-third of the-authority. He supposed they might assume that the payment to the chairman of committees would be something like £300 per year if anything at all. He thought that would not be an unfair guess as to the salary that would be paid. If they had these jobs going at £300 per year, kindly disposed men would say: "Who is there who wants £300 a year and a decent job? Who is rather hard up?, Let us put him in the position." He was certain from his experience that that was the very first thing that would be done. They would put into the positions of chairmen of committees, not the best men, but the men on the committees who stood most in need of £300. That would be the practical upshot. The appointments would become a sort of old-age pensions for needy and unsuccessful merchants. He thought, therefore, it would be a great mistake to give the authority power to pay the chairmen of committees at all. The Members on the Treasury Bench, in speaking on the last Amendment, rather exaggerated the amount of work that would have to be done by the chairmen of committees. He was chairman of one of the committees of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and his experience was that it meant three hours work over and above what one would otherwise have had to do. The real hard detailed work was all done by the permanent officials, and he only gave directions as to lines of policy from the committee. If, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said, it was necessary to take over from the existing dock companies some experienced men who could not be got without a large salary they must be taken over as a permanent body of officials of the Harbour Authority. Lastly, he would like to ask hon. Members to consider what were likely to be the feelings of the other members of the committee working under this chairman. They would feel either that he was the

  425
  servant of the committee or that they were in some way in an inferior position to him. He would therefore very earnestly beg the Board of Trade to accept his Amendment, and see if they could not go further and give some kind of pledge that they would make a determined effort to set up the Port Authority on the lines of the members not being paid, and only to pay the chairman and vice-chairman in the case of the worst and last necessity.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 27, after the word 'Chairman,' to insert the word 'and.'"—(Mr. Holt.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'and' be there inserted."
  MR. CHURCHILL: I hope the Committee will notice that this power is an enabling power and not a compulsory one. No one says the port authority is to pay its chairman or vice-chairman, but if they think it necessary for the proper and efficient conduct of the great responsibility they are inheriting to make such payments it ought not to be withheld from their discretion to do so. Personally, I entirely agree with much that has been said by my hon. friend in moving the Amendment. I think there are many advantages in honorary service being given on these great public bodies. At the same time I respectfully ask the Committee to remember that we are taking over the whole of the docks of London, which are now managed by-private companies pursuing their own private interests and the interests of their shareholders with their opportunities and with their obligations. We are consolidating them into one solid mass and vesting it in the charge of a combined Port authority. That is a great operation, and any one who cares about collective ownership, about the efficiency of a quasi public authority, as compared with private syndicates, must in common prudence take the position of not denying to such public bodies the facilities and advantages, when they are legitimate and honourable, which the others have enjoyed and which, if they are denied, cannot fail to place them in a position of disadvantage in regard to others with whom they will have to deal as
  426
  well as in regard to the great responsibility which they have inherited from those who have gone before them. Without going into the question really on the merits of honorary or salaried service, which after all is a large question, I would ask the Committee to plump for a discretionary power for the Port authority to do what it may think fit and best to advance its interests.
  MR. BONAR LAW: On the Second Reading I made very much the same speech as that which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I feel rather strongly on this point. I do not say we should make it impossible for the chairman and vice-chairman to be paid. We should be running a risk. But if we have to pay the chairman and the vice-chairman of this body we admit that to a large extent the new authority is a failure. If you cannot get the best men to do it on the same grounds on which they do it in Glasgow and Liverpool you are getting a different body, and it will be more or less a failure. Just look how it works practically. If the chairman and vice-chairman are to get salaries, one of two things must happen. Either men will seek to get on the Board for the sake of those positions and the salaries which attach to them, or they will look upon these men as their servants, as men who are paid salaries and are in a different position from them, and yet these men with salaries will have a different position. If it is necessary, and I daresay it will be, to get some of these experienced dock people on to the Board, I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham that the way to do it is to pay them big salaries as permanent officials at the head of the Department. The effect will be either to get men who will try to become chairman for the sake of the salary, or it will amount to this, that if you pay big salaries, and you will not get good men without them, to the chairman and vice-chairman, you will pay a smaller salary to the managing director who ought really to do the work. In this case the thing to do from the business point of view is what is done by great industrial corporations, to pay whatever salary is necessary to your managing director and to try to get

  427
  the direction of this public body on disinterested motives. I am not going to support, the Amendment. I admit that the Board of Trade may require to give this authority, but I would like very much if the right hon. Gentleman would say now that he will not agree, in the first body which is under his own sole appointment, to make these appointments until he has made a determined effort to get a good body, including chairman and vice-chairman, without any salaries whatever.
  MR. DICKINSONsaid he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had rather cursorily rejected this suggestion. The proposal to pay the chairman of a committee was not only quite novel, but he was convinced it was bad essentially. He knew of no authority similar to this which had anything like that power. They had heard that the. Liverpool port authority did not pay any of its members. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not set on foot this new proposal, which could only bring about invidious distinctions between members of the same body.
  MR. BARNARDhoped the Government would stand absolutely firm to their own proposals. This great business undertaking was nothing like a corporation or municipality. They were asking a new body to take over all the various docks, to put them into shape, and to work the thing as a going concern, the difficulties of which must be profound. The work of taking over a great going concern was much more enormous than any Member of the House could know. The hon. Member opposite, who belonged to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, said he was chairman of a committee and it took two or three hours a week. He (Mr. Barnard) was chairman of the Water Board Committee which managed the whole work when it was taken over for four years, and he was positive it would take an enormous amount of time if they did the work as it was hoped and desired they should do it. In such an undertaking as this they would have to decide whether they were going for a general manager, or whether they intended that it should slide into being managed by officials, and unless they deliberately in the
  428
  first instance chose first rate men to be at the head it would drift into the hands of permanent officials. It was very easy to talk about paying £300 a year and that sort of thing, but they did not want retired men who might have been eminent in some other profession and could just spare the time to undertake this work. They could not do the work, and the result would be that they would not do it, although they might be the head-pieces. He was perfectly convinced from his little experience that it was highly desirable for the Government not to swerve in the slightest degree, but deliberately to try and get men of the type they had spoken of, and he did not believe they could do it successfully nor ought they to try to do it unless they remunerated them in a proper manner.
  MR. MORTONhoped the Government would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dulwich in regard to the first appointment, to which they had had no answer. There were a number of officials in connection with the docks who might have to be considered. As far as he could understand the matter, they were all to be provided for by getting rid of them, and the directors were not to be retain because they were to have £127,600. London was the cheapest port in the world. Liverpool was anything but that, and Glasgow was a much dearer port, and they had this difference between Liverpool and Glasgow itself. In Liverpool it was all docks. In Gasgow they had no docks at all, and therefore they could not judge much from that what the management would be. He thought if the Government would give them the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Dulwich, it would help them and give the new authority the opportunity of deciding whether anybody ought to have these big salaries which were suggested.
  MR. CROOKSsaid that unless this Bill was to be recast they must adopt this proposal as it stood on the Paper. If the hon. Member for Dulwich was right and they were going to run it by managing directors, it meant the whole staff were going to run the thing, high salaries must be paid them, and the committee

  429
  would act as overseer. The hon. Member knew perfectly well that in the commencement of a gigantic scheme such as this they had to get the best possible men. The first vice-chairman and the second deputy-chairman of the London County Council had £1,500 a year for several years for doing the very work they were proposing to do now. When they reorganised the scheme and abolished the office they saved money by giving £2,000 a year to the clerk and £500 a year retiring pension to the man who had been acting clerk before. What they had been getting for £2,100 they got for £2,500. They saved absolutely nothing by it. He did not know whether it was more efficient.
  MR. HOLT: I am quite ready to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MORTON*MR. MORTON moved to leave out subsection (11) which provided that the first elected members should be appointed by the Board of Trade. In the first place they had no assurance that these persons would represent the trading interests of the Port of London at all. Then the clause went on to say—"the first Chairman shall, if the Board thinks fit, be appointed by the Board and shall if appointed by the Board, be paid such salary, if any, as the Board may determine." Personally, he thought it would be much better if they waited and elected the eighteen members by the new constituency, so that they should represent the interests that they were supposed to. Then it would be much better to allow the Board to appoint their own chairman. That would get out of the difficulty. They might be political appointments, and have nothing to do with whether the person was a fit and proper person and knew anything about the business whatever. He was afraid that the Board of Trade, if it had the appointments, would be driven to making political appointments. This was such an important Bill that every line in it ought to be considered before they passed it. By spending all the money in purchasing docks they might ruin the Port of London and make
  430
  it a dear port instead of the cheapest in the world.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 34, to leave out subsection 11."—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of the subsection down to the word 'Board,' in line 35 stand part of the clause."
  MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman's proposal ought not, I think, to command acceptance of the Committee. It is physically impossible that the first Port authority should be elected for this reason. The register is a register of payers of dues, and payers of dues cannot be formed into a register until after the schedule of dues and rates has been prescribed, and that schedule of dues and rates has to be brought before the House by Provisional Order and with all the safeguards of Parliamentary discussion. Until that process has taken place, which probably will not be next session, perhaps not the session after that, and until the resulting schedule of rates has been in operation for at least a year, so as to show who are the payers of dues, it would not be possible to form the register. Owing to the way in which the board is to be formed it would not be possible to prepare a register on which the election could be made. If it is suggested that we should try to create a new and revised register merely to get over this gap, I say that would be very inconvenient and troublesome. A great deal of importance is attached by many of the interests concerned to the fact that the first board is to be nominated by the Board of Trade. I must tell the hon. Member for Suther-landshire that they do not seem to have just such a bad opinion of the Board of Trade as, I am afraid, he has formed in his own mind. The different interests believe that they will get fair and just consideration in the appointments which will be made by the Board of Trade. The discussions have proceeded on that basis, and it is generally understod that our proposals have been made on that basis. The Committee were confronted with the proposal of the hon. Gentleman; it was most carefully considered and rejected, and I have no choice but to

  431
  urge this Committee to take a similar course and to adhere to the scheme in the Bill, namely, that the first authority shall be appointed by the Board of Trade.
  MR. MORTONsaid he never stated that he had a bad opinion of the Board of Trade—certainly not worse than he had of other Departments. He admitted that one difficulty in regard to all of them was to get them to do their duty. Perhaps no greater sinner had existed than the Board of Trade in regard to many things they ought to have looked after. That he could prove, but it would be out of order to go into that matter now. [Cries of "Divide."] No time was gained by making a noise and crying out "Divide." He would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment after what the Government had said. He thought it would be a waste of time to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. He was sorry that the name of the chairman of the new authority had not been given them by the President of the Board of Trade. The "man in the street" had told them that the chairman was practically named.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  MR. LOUGHsaid he would not move the Amendment of which he had given notice on Clause 2. The object he had in view would be better secured by the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had put down.
  MR. MORTONsaid he understood that Clause 2 was practically the same as Clause 3, and he thought, if it was in order, that the two clauses should be considered together. He wished to ask whether the Government were willing to postpone Clause 3 in order that it might be taken on another day. In that case he would let Clause 2 go through now without moving the Amendments of which he had given notice but it must be understood that they were to have a free hand in discussing Clause 3, which really covered Clauses 2, 3, and 4.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am very anxious indeed that the crucial and fundamental clauses of this Bill, of which Clause 3 is perhaps the most important, should be discussed in the House at the best period for publicity and criticism, and that is also the view of my right hon. friend. It is clear that the crucial issue of the Bill is, of course, the purchase price with which Clause 3 deals. I should be very glad if it were the general wish of the Committee—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think we must have something before the Committee as a matter of form.
  MR. MORTON: I will move as a matter of form to report progress in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of continuing his speech.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Morton.)
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if we were, when we reach Clause 3, to postpone it so that it should come on as the first clause to-morrow afternoon. That would enable us to come to a decision on the main principle of the Bill, and I think that is a fair and convenient way of dealing with the House of Commons. This is a Bill of sixty clauses, and so far we have only got to the end of the first clause, and I think that I must ask the Committee—I am very loth to do it—to go on to-night as far as the end of Clause 11. Between Clauses 7 and 11 there have been no Amendments put down. Clause 12 is very important. It deals with the port dues on goods. I think we are agreed generally that we should go down to Clause 11, and we can begin with Clause 3 when we meet to-morrow.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he did not see that the right hon. Gentleman had made any concession by postponing Clause 3. The House had an assurance from the Prime Minister that they would not be kept sitting late to-night. The whole of the debate had been carried on by Members on the

  433
  Government side of the House, and he thought it was most unfair to the House after the distinct promise given by the Prime Minister, that they should be asked to go on discussing the Bill. He thought it was going rather far to ask them to continue the debate until Clause 11 had been passed.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid Clause 4 gave power to purchase the undertakings, and he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should postpone Clauses 3 and 4. An hon. Gentleman below the gangway had given notice of a Motion to leave out Clause 4. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to start at Clause 4 or 5?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Clause 4.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid it would be more convenient to discuss Clause 4 with Clause 3.
  MR. LOUGHsaid there was an essential difference between the two clauses. If the Government proceeded in the way proposed the progress of the Bill would be greatly facilitated. He had no great objection to Clause 4, but he took fundamental objection to Clause 3.
  MR. MORTONsaid he agreed that Clauses 2, 3, and 4 were really the same, and they should all be postponed. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to adopt this suggestion that would suit everybody. He did not think there was any objection to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the other clauses.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to allow the House to be adjourned now.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I really do not think that it is an unreasonable suggestion that has emanated from my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, and it has been made after consultation with those who are criticising the Bill.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: As regards Clause 3?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, but as regards the other clauses of the Bill. If my right hon. friend will look at the Paper he will see that there is no substantial point of disagreement in the clauses which it is suggested should be taken at this sitting. The concession made by the Government is a very substantial one, and as a means of arranging the debate it is a matter of considerable magnitude, even from the point of view of the consumption of time. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difference between a debate at an early hour of the day and a debate at a late hour of the night; and I think, under these circumstances, that the suggestion which has fallen from my right hon. friend is a very reasonable one. We ought to have down to Clause 12 taken to-night, which latter clause is of considerable importance, and the hon. Member for Dulwich asked that it should be postponed until to-morrow. I trust that the Committee will consent to the arrangement which has been entered into, an arrangement which will enable these important clauses to be taken first at to-morrow's sitting, and debated in broad daylight, when we can take full cognisance of every important point. Two days for this stage is a very reasonable allocation of time, when it is remembered that the influential Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament spent six weeks over the Bill. I trust that in these circumstances my hon. friend will withdraw his Motion.
  LORD R. CECILasked if they sat up to-night to dispose of the clauses down to Clause 11, were they to be asked to sit up to-morrow night to a late hour? If so, he thought that was most unreasonable.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I make no assertion as to any particularly arduous late sitting to-morrow night.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that what the right hon. Gentleman said removed some of tin danger. He understood that if they should take down to Clause 11 to-night, the rest of the Bill was to be taken to-morrow. So far as he was

  435
  concerned, he hoped that the Government would not insist on any such proposal. That would be a very unreasonable suggestion, particularly in view of a new clause to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman reinstating a clause which was rejected by the Committee, and introducing a principle of the utmost possible importance.
  MR. MORTONasked leave to withdraw his Motion that progress be reported.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2:
  MR. MCARTHUR*MR. MCARTHUR (Liverpool, Kirkdale) moved to insert "(c) Acquire and carry on the undertaking of the Trinity House transferred to the Port authority by this Act." This Amendment he said involved a point of importance, not only to the Port of London, but to the other ports in the kingdom. There was one function not conferred upon the Port of London Authority by this Bill which was as important as the control of docks or warehouses—the power to light and buoy the port. All other ports in the country managed their own local lights. London was the only port which had its lights and buoys controlled and paid for out of the general funds of Trinity House. How did this anomaly occur? It arose in this way. Trinity House originally had jurisdiction over the Port of London, and it had gradually extended its embrace over the whole of the United Kingdom; but when Trinity House became the lighthouse authority for the United Kingdom, it continued to be the local lighthouse authority for the Port of London.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I rise to a point of order. Is this Amendment in order or not? It is clearly outside the scope of the Bill and Trinity House has had no notice of it.
  MR. MCARTHUR, on the point of order, said the title of the Bill was in very wide terms, and the lighting of the Port of London was part of its administration. He could hardly see how
  436
  it could be outside the purview of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that with regard to the point of order he did not think the question of taking over the duties of Trinity House as regarded the Port of London was out of order, although it might involve the Bill being referred to the Standing Orders Committee. But he understood that the duties of Trinity House extended outside the Port of London, and he did not think that taking over and acquiring the undertaking of the Trinity House came within the general scope of this Bill. If so, he must rule it out of order.
  MR. MCARTHURsubmitted further that it was only that part of the functions of Trinity House which related to the Port of London which were transferred. What was done by this proposal had been done in other cases. Trinity House had been responsible for the whole of the country, and then gradually the powers had been transferred from Trinity House to the local port authority at Liverpool, Glasgow and other ports.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the proposal of the hon. Member is entirely confined to this port, he is at liberty to move his Amendment.
  MR. MCARTHURsaid it was entirely confined to the Port of London, and when the President of the Board of Trade interposed he was endeavouring to explain how it was that London had this almost obsolete system. The reason was that Trinity House originally had this jurisdiction over the Port of London, and the jurisdiction was gradually extended to the whole country. "He was going on to say that according to the old system each vessel paid for the lights which, it passed, but when, in 1898 the new Merchant Shipping Bill was passed, that system was altered and the ships had to pay a certain fixed rate per voyage. The money so collected went into a general lighthouse fund which defrayed the cost of the general lights of the country. The position at present was that London had its local lights paid for for nothing. The money

  437
  was paid out of the General Lighthouse Fund, whereas Liverpool, Glasgow and the Tyne and Belfast, and other ports supported their own local lights. London, however, was still in a condition of pupilage. It did not control its lights, but they were controlled and paid for by Trinity House. It was all very well as long as London had no Port authority of its own, but now they were going to give London a Port authority why should it not possess this power which they gave to the other ports? The present position was unfair to the other ports. The cost of London local lights was £50,000, and if this amount was paid by the Port of London the result would be that, the dues of the other ports would be reduced by 10 per cent. He would conclude by referring to two authorities to support the proposal he made. The first was the Royal Commission on the Port of London which in June, 1902, made this Report—
  "The powers of the Trinity House, so far as they relate to the area of the Port of London as defined by the constituting Act should also be transferred at the same date."
  Then there was the Royal Commission appointed on Lighthouse Administration in 1908, who reported as follows—
  "There certainly seems to be an inequality in the present arrangement. It is not, however, an inequality which could be altered by an administrative action of the lighthouse authorities, and since the question, as it affects the General Lighthouse Fund, is of no great practical importance, except as regards the Port of London, and a new Bill for the creation of a Port authority for London is now under consideration, this brief reference to it may, perhaps, be deemed sufficient."
  Therefore they had these two recommendations in favour of dealing with the matter, and the second in favour of dealing with it in the present Bill. He wanted to ask whether this anomaly was to be continued—an anomaly for which there was no defence, and one which worked out at the expense of other great ports. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 20, at end, to insert the words '(c) acquire and carry on the undertaking of the Trinity House transferred to the Port authority by this Act.'"—(Mr. McAthur.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHURCHILL: I hope the Committee will not attribute this proposal to the recommendation of the; Royal Commission to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. That recommendation was quire different in its character from the proposal which he has put forward in his Amendment. The Royal Commission recommended the transfer, not only of the lighting and the buoys, but also of the pilotage under Trinity House, and it would be, on the face of it, unwise to transfer the lighting and buoys and leave another authority responsible for the pilotage. In the second place, I submit it is quite clear that this Amendment, if not technically so according to the rules of procedure, is in fact outside the scope of the Bill. Notices were not given to the parties affected and none were given to Trinity House when the matter was before the Committee, and as you, Sir, have indicated, if the Amendment is adopted it will probably lead to the recommittal of the Bill, and the consequent loss of all the fruits of our procedure during the course of this year. It will complicate the labours of the new authority, and those labours are already complicated enough. It is quite true that there is a certain anomaly. I do not deny it, but that anomaly is not created by this Bill, and it existed before this Bill was brought forward, and all we ask the House to do is to put the new authority in as good a position as the old. Let me point to the fact that the effect of the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved would be to relieve to a very inconsiderable extent the General Lighthouse Fund, and would, to a very large extent, burden the finances and complicate the labours of the new authority. The relief to the shipowners all over the country would be practically insignificant. [An HON. MEMBER: Ten per cent.] I am informed that the saving by this operation to Trinity House would not be more than £3,000 or £4,000 a year. [Cries of "No."] That is what I am informed, whereas to transfer these duties to the new authority would entail the setting up of new machinery, a new office and a new staff, which would cost £16,000 a year. It would incidentally require a special lighting rate which would have to be levied for London, and the new authority, to

  439
  which we want to give a fair start, would have to being by putting an additional burden on the trade of London, and be put in a worse position than the private companies it will succeed. I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that there seemed to have been some misunderstanding as to what took place in Committee. He undertook that as far as they could say there should be no obstruction when the Bill was before the Committee of the House, but beyond that he said nothing.
  MR. E. H. LAMBasked the Chairman's ruling to be made rather clearer because it seemed to him that there was something underlying, something more than appeared on the surface. He submitted to the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool that in his Amendment to acquire and carry on the undertaking of Trinity House transferred to the Fort of London there were no words confining it to the Port of London. It was rather serious because they might not have the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's presence in the Chair when a further Amendment came on apropos of the same point. If before putting the question the Chairman would rule that it was necessary to say in the Amendment that it was confined to the Port of London it would clear the way in regard to a further Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool had down a new clause which he understood was consequential to the Amendment he was now moving, and as he understood that new clause it did intend to confine the action of the. Amendment to what was transferred to the Port authority by the Acts and therefore confined the acquirement of what was suggested to be tinned over by Trinity House to the Port of London.
  MR. E. H. LAMBsaid he had read the new clause through very carefully to see if there was any safeguard in it to prevent the inclusion of the Medway, and he failed to see it.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid his hon. friend had called the attention of the Committee to the serious pecuniary inequalities caused to other large parts in the kingdom by leaving out of the purview of this new authority the functions of Trinity House as applied to the lighting, and also, he should think, to the pilotage, because in all those other ports those essential features of the port authority were part of the duties of the Port authority, and the effect of leaving them out here was important from a pecuniary point of view. The whole trade of the country had to pay for the special lighting and so on of the Port of London, whereas each other port paid its own special charges relating to those matters. A careful inquiry had been made and it had been ascertained that 10 per cent. of the charges at present levied were ascribable to what otherwise would be charged to the new authority of the Port of London. That was a serious point, because he did not think the Government in bringing forward a Bill of this sort would desire to inflict for all time upon the general commerce of the country a state of inequality or unfairness as between one po t and another. There was another very important consideration. When this new Port authority got to work, when it dredged and made its channels and that sort of thing, buoys and lights and similar arrangements continuously had to be altered in order to show the new channels and other arrangements that were continually requiring to be made in conjunction with the navigation of any great port. Their experience in Liverpool, which, after all, was some guide in a matter of this kind, was that in consequence of the alterations in the channels by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and in order to make the port effective, the buoys and the lights and other arrangements were continually requiring to be altered. But what would be the effect if these lights, buoys, and arrangements of that sort were left under one body, Trinity House, whilst the other alterations which they necessitated were to be carried out by another? He could not imagine a more inconvenient arrangement in the interests of trade. It was necessary sometimes

  441
  at a very few hours notice to alter the position of a buoy or light, and such notice had to be advertised in a certain manner prescribed by the regulations, in order to bring it to the attention of shipping. He thought it was not merely from the point of view of the pecuniary inequality inflicted that this was a serious matter, but from the point of view of efficiency of administration it was extremely desirable that all the functions of Trinity House, so far as they were applicable to the Port of London, should from henceforth be placed under the Port authority, because they were the proper people to carry them out.
  MR. OWEN PHILLIPSsaid the Members for Liverpool were taking an opportunity in this Bill to make an indirect attack on Trinity House. As a matter of fact the shipowners and shipping trade of the Port of London were quite satisfied that Trinity House could carry out their work in the future as economically as they had done in the past, and it was both misleading and inaccurate to say that if the work of Trinity House was given to the new authority, there would be a saving of anything approaching the amounts mentioned by the Members for the Kirkdale division and the other hon. Members. He trusted that the Government would remain firm, and refuse to transfer this power to the new Port authority, which would have quite enough to do in taking over the docks and managing the great undertaking.
  MR. WILLIAMSONcalled attention to the fact that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale division of Liverpool extended far beyond the Port of London as defined in the Bill. The

  AYES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. M'Arthur and Mr. Fell.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Seddon, J.

  Cave, George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Amendment referred to an area extending from the estuary of the River Thames westward of imaginary straight lines drawn from the Neptune Tower on the North Foreland in the county of Kent to the eastern extremity of the Sunk Sand, etc. That was an area far beyond the area of the Port of London which was under consideration.
  MR. E. H. LAMBsaid that they were under the disadvantage of not having the new clause before them, but so far as he could see in the Amendment as now before the House there was nothing safeguarding the position—that this undertaking of Trinity House transferred to the Port authority should be confined to the Port of London. Was it not necessary that those words should be inserted?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that if his attention bad been called to the fact that the new proposed clause would extend outside the Port of London he should in the beginning have ruled it out of order, but the discussion having been begun, he should not do so at this stage. All the more so because the differences were small. He did not know what the hon. Member for Rochester meant about the Medway. If the Amendment were negatived a new clause could not be proposed at all, and therefore nothing whatever would be done in regard to the Medway. The new clause would be out of order and could not be moved if the Amendment were negatived.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 6; Noes, 125. (Division List No. 374.)

  Branch, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Robinson, S.

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rowlands, J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Seely, Colonel

  Clough, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Shackleton, David James

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lloyd-George, Rt.-Hon. David

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Elibank, Master of

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ure, Alexander

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Verney, F. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Morrell, Philip

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton.

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

  Gill, A. H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Wiles, Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Williamson, A.

  Gulland, John W.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

  MR. FELL MR. FELL moved an Amendment to insert after the word "jetties" the word "locks."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 22, after the word 'jetties,' to insert the word 'locks.'"—(Mr. Fell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'locks' be there inserted."
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved that Clause 3 be postponed until after Clause 11 had been considered.
  Question, "That Clause 3 be postponed until after the consideration of Clause 11," put, and agreed to.
  Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:
  MR. BARNARD MR. BARNARD moved an Amendment to bring expressly within the provision of the clause any liabilities incurred under the Thames Conservancy Act, 1905. He said he could save time if he simply moved the first of his Amendments to this clause. He understood that the Government considered the Amendments were met by the Bill, and upon that statement he would withdraw the whole of the Amendments.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 32, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'all property and liabilities of the conservators held, acquired, or incurred in respect of the Thames below the landward limit of the Port of London.'"—(Mr. Barnard.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,): I have looked into the points raised in the Amendments, and I find that they are already covered by the words of the clause. The first Amendment is a drafting Amendment. The object of the second Amendment is to bring expressly within the purview of the clause any liabilities in respect of or any sinking fund applicable to the redemption of moneys borrowed under the Thames Conservancy Act, 1905. These are already within the purview of the clause.
  MR. BARNARDasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CAVE*MR. CAVE moved a new paragraph (g) repealing so much of Section 160 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, as authorised a toll to be demanded or received in respect of any vessel navigating westward of London Bridge to or from any point eastward of Teddington Lock. He said he was very sorry to move his Amendment at that time, but in a few minutes he could make his case clear. The point of the Amendment was this: by the Act of 1894 special tolls were placed upon vessels navigating westward of London Bridge, but with a proviso exempting vessels not going
  446
  further west than to Strand-on-the-Green, which was just below Kew Bridge. The Amendment would extend the proviso to vessels going as far as Teddington Lock, and for the reason that the river above Strand-on-the-Green up to Teddington Lock, including Richmond and Twickenham, was placed in the Port of London. He was sorry it was so, but being so he thought they should have the advantage in Richmond of being part of the port for all purposes, and should escape these special taxes now put upon the upper river. The effect of the Bill without this Amendment would be that vessels going westward of London Bridge, say to Richmond, would pay first, of course, the ordinary port due and then the new rate under this Bill; and, thirdly, this special tax, a sort of upper river tax of, he thought, 2¼d. a ton. That was a very great burden upon cargoes going to places like Richmond. It was an old grievance and this was a chance of getting rid of it once for all. The matter was brought before the Joint Committee, and the Chairman said it was an injustice, but that it could be remedied by a Bill to be brought in by the Port authority when formed. It was entirely against his experience, however, that any authority having once obtained power to levy a tax, readily brought in a Bill to take away that power. He was afraid one could not trust to that being done, and he took this opportunity to ask the Committee to remedy the injustice. He thought it was not only hard on that part of the river, but it had this deleterious effect: if they put too high a tax upon river-going cargoes the effect would be and indeed already was to drive the traffic from the river on to the railways. The river lost and the railway gained, and in the end, therefore, the

  447
  Port authority lost by the addition of this burdensome tax. He hoped the Committee would support him in freeing this part of the river from the tax.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 6, line 42, at end, to insert the words '(g) So much of Section 160 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, as authorises a toll to be demanded or received in respect of any vessel navigating westward of London Bridge to or from any point eastward of Teddington Lock shall be repealed.; and.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR H. KEARLEY: This is an old existing grievance I am perfectly aware, and it has been brought to the attention of the Board of Trade frequently of late. It refers to an old due which has been levied now for many years, and the due was re-enacted in the Thames Conservancy Act of 1894. At the time that Bill was before Committee in this House, a very great effort was made on behalf of those who considered this an onerous burden to get it remedied. The Committee of that day felt themselves unable to remedy it, and hence it has endured down to the present time. Now that the powers are being transferred from the Thames Conservancy to the Port authority, the Port authority will inherit these dues, and when I say that the sum involved is £5,000 or £6,000 a year I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to realise that it is not quite the function of the Government at this time to strip the new Port authority of its revenue, We have had frequent applications made to us from all sections to take this opportunity to do something that in effect would rob the Port authority of its revenue. If we were to begin to strip
  448
  it of its revenue even in a case of this kind it would make a serious difference to the balance sheet. I will say nothing with regard to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said as to the authority coming to this House to allow them to get rid of this due. All I can say for the moment is that we are not in a position to remit these dues, which would have a serious effect upon the finances of the Bill.
  MR. CAVE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has denied my case at all, but I feel it would not be right for me to divide the Committee on the matter. Having made my protest, however, I reserve the right to raise the point at a later stage. I do not withdraw the Amendment, but I will not divide the Committee.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDdesired to ask a question. As he understood this clause, a considerable fund would disappear from the list of possible investments, namely, the Thames Conservancy Redeemable A. debenture stock. He understood that that was a trustee investment, and he did not find in the Bill from one end to the other anything which made the new stock of the Port authority into a trust security. It was not good finance to extinguish an investment which was a valuable trustee security and to substitute another class of investment which was not a trustee security. If the President of the Board of Trade thought there was anything in this point and would insert a clause somewhere in the

  449
  Bill which would make the new Port authority stock it trustee security it would be a great advantage to the fund, because it would enable the money to be borrowed at a slightly lower rate. It would be a great pity in this case to take away from the investment list an available trustee, security, and to leave the corresponding fund which would not be available for the purpose of trustees putting money into it unless there was a special clause in the Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that this was an important point.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think the hon. Gentleman has raised a very interesting point, and I can promise him that I will consider it carefully. I may say, however, I am informed that the A. debenture Conservancy stock is not, in fact, a trustee investment at the present time.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: The debenture stock is.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In any event I will consider carefully the financial position—whether it is necessary, and in what way it is possible, to give effect to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  MR. MORRELL MR. MORRELL moved to insert after the word "purpose," the words "or any powers conferred upon them for the purpose of preserving the rights and interests of the public with respect to the Thames and its tow-paths." The object of the Amendment, he said, was to
  450
  give to any local authority who might appear to be interested the same right of appeal with regard to questions affecting public interests as they now had with regard to questions of river pollution, so as to enable any local authority which was dissatisfied as to the exercise of the powers of the Thames Conservancy in the matter of the use of the Thames as a place of public recreation to appeal to the Local Government Board, and if the Local Government Board was dissatisfied to enable that Department to make an order on the Thames Conservancy to carry out the work necessary to remedy the defect. He did not wish to delay the Committee over this Amendment because he understood it was going to be accepted more or less as it stood.
  MR. CHURCHILLdissented.
  MR. MORRELLsaid that at any rate there was very little difference between the Amendment that was going to be accepted and this one. He could not quite understand why the Committee should be asked to insert the words which stood in the name of his hon. friend (Mr. Lehmann), because at the end of the clause, as the right hon. Gentleman would see, the Local Government Board might make such order as the circumstances required, and such order should be binding on the Conservancy. It would, therefore, be in the full discretion of the Local Government Board to make such order as they thought fit. The difficulty at the present time was that the powers and duties of the Thames Conservancy were extremely vague. No one knew how far it was the duty of the Thames Conservancy to interfere when obvious

  451
  encroachments were made on the rights of the public. In one case in his own constituency things had gone so badly that a village built on the banks of the Thames in Oxfordshire, and to which the Thames originally could have been the only possible highway, was now, owing to a series of encroachments, entirely shut out from any approach to the river. The result was that the inhabitants of the village, who were about 900 in number, were unable to get down to the river except by paying a toll. Gradually the road had been shut away from the Thames, and the last encroachment to take place was that a private owner, who had built upon piles sunk in the river, had made a garden between the road and the river, thus preventing people who came up the river in boats from landing. This had happened at Whitchurch. The parish council passed resolutions asking the Thames Conservancy to take action, but the Conservators replied that they were unable to do so as they did not see they had any power to interfere in the matter. Considerable correspondence ensued, but as a result of it all absolutely nothing was done, and to this day that village, which, as he had said, was built on the banks, was entirely shut out from the river. Should his Amendment be carried the Local Government Board would, in a case of that sort, be able to hold an inquiry and make an order. What he wanted to ask his right hon. friend to do was to give the Committee some assurance—in view of Members not pressing a lot of Amendments—that the Government would inquire into the whole question of the powers and duties of the Thames Conservancy with regard to the Upper Thames. At present those
  452
  powers and duties appeared to be in a very chaotic condition. In 1884, under a Liberal Government, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the operations of the Act for the preservation of the Thames and the steps that were necessary to secure the river as a place of public recreation. That Committee made an exhaustive inquiry and issued a Report, but from that day to this some of its most important recommendations had never been carried out. At present so unsatisfactory was the position of the Thames Conservancy with regard to the Upper Thames that if a piece of the towing path was washed away the Conservators had no compulsory power to buy land in order to repair it. A great many other instances might be quoted to show how the exercise of the present powers and duties of the Thames Conservancy was curtailed, but he thought he had said enough to convince the Committee of the necessity of something being done. He had reason to believe that it an inquiry was instituted by the Government into the financial position of the Thames Conservancy it would be welcomed by the present Conservators. They felt that in their present position they could not deal adequately with the very important problems which were continually arising along the many miles of the upper river—matters in which, under existing circumstances, the public suffered the loss of rights and privileges without there appearing to be much chance of securing a remedy. He did not wish further to delay the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman told them that he was going to deal with the matter then there was nothing more to be said.
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 40, after the word 'purpose,' to insert the words 'or any powers conferred upon them for the purpose of preserving the rights and interests of the public with respect to the Thames and its towpaths.'"—(Mr. Morrell.)
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have had the advantage of several discussions with my hon, friend the Member for Oxfordshire upon the general question of the powers of the Thames Conservancy and the carrying out of some of the necessary duties which should be discharged in the public interest on the upper river. I am quite prepared to agree with him that those powers are not all that could be wished, and in many respects no doubt lack of funds has very often prevented the Conservators defending public rights as otherwise they would have wished to do. I can assent on behalf of the Government to adopt, not indeed the Amendment which the hon. Member for Oxfordshire moved, but the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. friend the Member for Market Harborough. That Amendment, I may point out, is practically the same as that of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, or at all events it has an exactly similar effect, while at the same time it offers the additional advantage that the words are correct as regards drafting. Therefore I should be prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for Harborough, the effect of which is to give an appeal to the Local Government Board upon the complaint of the council of any county borough, district, or parish, adjoining the Thames. That is a general assertion of the responsibility
  454
  of the Conservators towards the rights and interests of the public on the upper river, and taking a step towards enforcing the effective discharge of that responsibility. I certainly agree that an inquiry is desirable into the present power and means for carrying out their duties at the disposal of the Conservators, and that the matter must be considered before the Board of Trade make a provisional order to repeal the Conservancy Act. Therefore while I should not be prepared to enter into any actual binding engagement, I can assure my hon. friend that I am substantially of opinion that the question of inquiry should receive urgent and effective attention from the Government at as early a date as possible.
  MR. BARNARDsaid he was not going to say much against the Amendment because he did not wish to enter into the whole question. He thought it was a very far-fetched thing to allow any rural parish council to lodge a complaint on a subject such as the preservation of the rights and interests of the public. He should like to hear from the Government what this meant, and to what extent it would be carried out.
  MR. MORTONsaid he would like to say that, having gone into this question on many occasions, he thoroughly agreed that more power was wanted to deal with this subject, but the matter did not lie entirely with the Conservancy. The mischief was done by Parliament when the amalgamation of the upper and lower river took place, and it was agreed that all encroachments in the last twenty years might be kept. That was all the cause of the trouble, for it

  455
  meant, in other words, that all that had been stolen might be kept. There was no question that more power was needed.
  MR. MORRELLasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LEHMANN MR. LEHMANN (Leicestershire, Market Harborough) moved to add the words "or by the council of any county, borough, district, or parish adjoining the Thames, that the Conservators having failed to exercise any powers conferred on them for the purpose of preserving the rights and interests of the public in respect to the Thames and its towing paths which they ought to have exercised." He was very glad indeed that the Government had agreed to accept the Amendment standing in his name, for he thought that it was necessary that in a Bill of that kind there should be some mention made of the rights and interests of the public. With regard to what the hon. Member for Kidderminster has just said, he thought that the parish adjoining was the one which would suffer most from encroachments, and that, therefore, this power should be given to it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 40, after the word 'purpose,' to insert the words 'or by the council of any county, borough, district, or parish adjoining the Thames that the Conservators having failed to exercise any powers conferred on them for the purpose of preserving the rights and interests of the public in respect to the Thames and towing-paths which they ought to have exercised.'"
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
  Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  APPLICATION OF SINKING FUNDS IN EXERCISE OF BORROWING POWERS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to inquire and report as to the powers conferred on Local Authorities by Local Acts, Provisional Orders, Stock Regulations, or otherwise, of utilising for purposes for which such authorities have borrowing powers, sinking funds (including loans funds and redemption funds) set aside by them for the repayment or redemption of loans raised by the issue of stock or by any other method; as to the expediency or otherwise of such powers being conferred; and as to any conditions which it is desirable to attach to the granting or use of such powers.
  Committee accordingly nominated of—Mr. Ashton, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Harmood-Banner, Mr. Masterman, and Mr. Charles Nicholson.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at one minute after One o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INDIA (TRADE).
  Review of the trade of India in 1907–1908.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4164. France (Algeria).
  No. 4165. Japan (Yokohama).

  WESTERN PACIFIC.
  Correspondence relating to the administration of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate.

  DOCK LABOUR IN RELATION TO POOR LAW RELIEF.
  Report to the President of the Local Government Board on dock labour in relation to poor law relief, by the Hon. Gerald Walsh, one of the inspectors of the Board.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

TRAWLING IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
LORD HENEAGErose to move to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House a British vessels should not be prohibited from trawling in waters outside the territorial limits of Scotland where foreign vessels are able to come in and use the fishing ground; and that any bye-laws now prohibiting British vessels from fishing in such waters should be withdrawn, and the open sea restored to the mutual condition in which it formerly existed under International law and the provisions of the North Sea Convention of 1882."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name has been placed on the Paper at the unanimous request of the whole fishing industry of Great Britian represented in the National Sea Fisheries Association. There was no division of opinion amongst them whatever, either politically or otherwise. The Resolution to which they agreed, on which this Motion is founded, was proposed by one of the delegates
214
from Aberdeen, and was supported by four other delegates from Scotland and by representatives from Grimsby, Fleetwood, Hull, Milford Haven, and other great fishing ports. I do not desire to waste your Lordships' time by repeating what has been said before on this question, but I would ask you to allow me to recall the history of the bye-laws to which I refer.
In 1888 the Royal Commission on Trawling reported that—
"the beam trawl is not destructive to cod or haddock spawn, and there is no proof of injury to the spawn of herrings or other edible fish.',
They, however, recommended that the fishery authorities in England and Scotland should have powers to enable them to make bye-laws for the regulation and supervision of beam trawling or other modes of fishing "within territorial waters." The last three words are really the subject of this debate. The Report was fully discussed by the fishery trade at a very representative conference held at Fishmongers' Hall on March 22, 1888, and attended by nearly 200 persons connected with the trade, amongst whom were a large number of Members of both Houses of Parliament. At that conference a resolution was unanimously passed in favour of the recommendation of the Royal Commission to give fishing authorities power to regulate and suspend trawling within territorial waters.
Then in 1889 the Secretary for Scotland introduced the Herring Fishery Bill, and I will quote his own words on the Second Reading. Lord Lothian said—
"I have referred this question to the Fishery Board for their advice and opinion as to the propriety of closing the whole of the territorial waters against trawling, and after inquiry they recommended that that course should be taken; it is with that object that the present Bill was introduced into the House of Commons and now comes before your Lordships, and I trust that your Lordships will pass it practically without Amendment,"
—that was, for territorial waters only. So that your Lordships will see that the Royal Commission, the fishing industry, and the Scottish Fishery Board up to that time had never intended for a single moment that rules should be made applicable to anything but territorial waters. It stands to common sense that it should be so, because no single Power has the slightest right to attempt to regulate the waters of the open sea.
Now, what are the territorial waters? They are commonly known as the three-mile limit; and the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy (Lord Fitzmaurice) in answering a Question put to him eighteen months ago by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, stated that the Imperial Departments which had most to do with sea fisheries were all agreed on the question of the three-mile limit and knew exactly what it was. But in regard to the North Sea we have a Convention as well as International Law. In the North Sea Convention of 1882, embodied in the first schedule of the Sea Fisheries Act of 1883, it is clearly laid down, in Article II., that—
"As regards bays the distance of three miles shall be measured from a straight line drawn across the bay in the part nearest the entrance at the first point where the width does not exceed ten miles;"
and in Article IV. the limits of the North Sea are definitely fixed, and the boundaries of the Scottish territorial waters clearly set out in subsections (3) and (7). Therefore there can be no mistake whatever about the territorial waters in the North Sea.
The question of any claim to regulate the open sea is a matter which appears to me more for the Foreign Office than for the Scottish Office. It is one which will have to be dealt with in regard to the other signatories to the North Sea Convention; and we were told the other night in very strong terms by the Prime Minister that no International contract between Powers could be revoked by one of them at their own pleasure without the consent of the other parties to the treaty. This convention was a treaty in every sense of the word. There is another article in that treaty in which it is stated that no single signatory Power shall withdraw from the convention without one year's notice. But what happened in 1902? Nothing was done with regard to extra territorial waters up to 1902, and then without any notice of withdrawal from the convention, the Scottish Fishery Board enclosed large stretches of the open sea in Moray Firth and other bays round the coast against the trawlers of all nations in direct violation of their treaty rights in the North Sea.
The Scottish Office asserted that they could exclude all trawlers. I think they have found out by this time that they cannot. They also stated that they
216
desired to close the Moray Firth in order to enable them to carry out scientific research. I may mention that no attempt has been made, or is now being made, to carry out scientific experiments. As Professor Machintosh said at the Sea Fishery Conference at Aberdeen—
"They might keep British trawlers out, but could not keep fish in the Moray Firth;"
that is a question of currents. The Scottish Office also assorted that they wished to preserve the rights of fishing to the poor line fishermen. Some fifteen years ago the fishermen of Moray Firth owned about seventy cranky old sailing boats; they never ventured far out, and the great value of these fishermen was that they were always at home on election days. Now there are very few of these fishermen and these old boats remaining. Their place has been taken by a large capitalist fleet of 503 steam vessels for line fishing, worth £400,000, and when not fishing in the Moray Firth they go right away and bring back profitable catches of halibut and cod. But they are engaged chiefly in herring fishing, and it is for the benefit of the capitalists who own these vessels that you are oreserving the Moray Firth.
I do not ask your Lordships to accept my statement uncorrobated. I will quote from the evidence of the Chief Clerk to the Scottish Fishery Board, who, in cross-examination before the Committee on Fishery Investigations in December last, said, in answer to a question by Lord Nunburnholme, that—
"Line fishing is not now prosecuted to the same extent in the Moray Firth that it was at that time [before the Moray Firth was closed] because the fishermen find that the herring fishing pays them very much better; it does not entail so much labour as the line fishing; the result is that the best fishermen we have in the Moray Firth now devote almost all their time to the herring fishing, leaving only the older men and the younger men to prosecute line fishing, etc. The great majority of those who go to the English fishing are the Moray Firth boats."
So that not only is the Moray Firth preserved for Moray Firth fishing boats, but they are allowed to go and fish in the extra territorial waters of England, while English boats are not permitted to go to the extra territorial waters of. Scotland. That does not strike me as fair play.
But if the Moray Firth line steamers do not care about spending too much of their time in the Moray Firth,

217
what is the case with foreign vessels? Fifteen or sixteen foreign trawlers—French, German, Dutch, Norwegian, and Danish—regularly fish the bay for six or seven months in the year; on the west coast of Scotland some twenty foreign vessels are regularly fishing in the prohibited waters, and amongst those working the Clyde and other prohibited waters, and steaming out of Fleetwood, are nine German trawlers owned by four different firms, and two Dutch trawlers with vessels of other nationalities. I should like again to impress upon your Lordships that the days of "single fleeting" are gone by, and that the fishing vessels of the present time, whether trawlers or line steamers, are owned by large companies. Their shareholders, debenture holders, and mortgagees are scattered over the length and breadth of the country; the companies are managed by directors, the same as railway and other companies, and they have their own recognised fish salesmen in the various ports to which they take their fish.
I have dealt with the facts of the case from the point of view of the fishing industry; but I must ask your Lordships to allow me very briefly to deal with the International and treaty side of the question. In 1901 the local authorities of Iceland passed very similar laws for enclosing extra territorial waters. They claimed to have jurisdiction over waters outside the limits as prescribed by the North Sea Convention and International law, but the National Sea Fisheries Association remonstrated and brought the matter before the Foreign Office. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, intervened, and I am glad to say that the Danish Government acknowledged the justice of his intervention against a violation of the North Sea Convention and International Law, and refused to ratify these local laws. In 1906 Mr. Sinclair, emboldened by the decisions of the High Court, prosecuted foreign vessels and obtained convictions; but Sir Edward Grey said that they must be released as the convictions—
"under the Act of Parliament as interpreted by the High Court of Justiciary were in conflict with International law,"
and, I would add, in conflict with the spirit and the intention of the Act of
218
1889, as declared by Lord Lothian on the Second Reading.
I will not detain your Lordships with any further remarks of my own on this question, but I should like to read two letters from the Foreign Office. On 12th February last year I wrote to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs protesting against the prosecution of Norwegian vessels, and I received the following reply, dated February 16th—
"I am directed by Secretary Sir E. Grey to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, respecting the cases of the Norwegian and Swedish fishermen who have I recently been convicted by the Courts in Scotland for trawling in the Moray Firth. I am to state, for your Lordship's information, that the men imprisoned have now been released, and that Sir E. Grey is in communication with Mr. Secretary Sinclair with a view to all further prosecutions being stopped pending a consideration of the whole question by His Majesty's Government."
What I want to know now is, what is the result of such consideration by the united Cabinet? I do not wish to have the opinion of the Scottish Office, but the opinion of the Cabinet. In March, 1907, the National Sea Fisheries Association passed unanimously the following resolution—
"That this association urges upon His Majesty's Government the great importance to the fishing industry of maintaining the three-mile International territorial limits as now defined; and that the Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to receive a deputation after Easter."
I would call your Lordships' particular attention to Sir Edward Grey's reply, dated March 20th—
"I am directed by Secretary Sir E. Grey to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th inst., transmitting a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of the general committee of your association respecting 'the great importance to the fishing industry of maintaining the three-mile International territorial limits as now defined.' I am to state that Sir E. Grey is not aware that His Majesty's Government have on any occasion failed to recognise the validity of the existing International law respecting the limits of territorial waters, and that there is, therefore, no occasion for him to receive a deputation on this point."
Is that the opinion of the Government, or only the opinion of the Foreign Office? We know that the Foreign Office is not a political office, and that as a rule there is continuity of policy. I should like to know whether we who have to manage the affairs of the sea

219
fisheries are to find the answers to the questions we ask in the replies of the Scottish Office or in those of the Foreign Office.
I will not refer now to the serious loss of employment to British fishermen; but I would ask your Lordships to consider what would be the effect if the other Powers in the North Sea followed the example of the Scottish Office. The effect would be to close waters equal to one-fifth of the whole of the North Sea. And what would the closing of one-fifth of the North Sea mean to the fishing industry of this country? It would mean total and absolute ruin. In proof of the fact that this retaliation is no idle dream, I would refer your Lordships to what took place at the New York Fishery Congress last month. Great Britain was not officially represented there, I believe—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—but Mr. Fryer, the chief inspector of the Fishery Department, was present, and therefore no doubt the Fishery Department have received a correct Report of what took place. It was pointed out there that the action of England in the Moray Firth was—
"inconsistent with England's position at the Seal Fisheries Arbitration relating to the Behring Sea, as in the Moray Firth England claims jurisdiction over vessels under a foreign flag at a distance of seventy or eighty miles from the coast."
It was further pointed out that the present claim of England was at direct variance with the principles laid down by the International Court of Arbitration at Paris; and it was further suggested that if England persisted in her present position it might result in similar claims being set out by other nations and a complete change in the now recognised reading of International law on the question of territorial jurisdiction at sea. This would be a most serious matter for England.
In conclusion, I assert that the bye-laws of the Scottish Fishery Board are inconsistent with International law; that they constitute a violation of the North Sea Convention as regards the open waters of the North Sea; that they are directly opposed to the spirit and intention of the Act of 1889, and contrary to the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1895, as amended by Lord Salisbury; that no attempt has been made to conduct scientific research in
220
the Moray Firth, and that the right of all nations to fish in the prohibited waters outside the territorial limits is now fully admitted by the Scottish Office. Therefore the pledge given by Lord Tweedmouth should now be redeemed. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House British vessels should not be prohibited from trawling in waters outside the territorial limits of Scotland where foreign vessels are able to come in and use the fishing ground; and that any bye-laws now prohibiting British vessels from fishing in such waters should be withdrawn, and the open sea restored to the mutual condition in which it formerly existed under International law and the provisions of the North Sea Convention of 1882."—(Lord Heneage.)
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, I rise to second the Motion of my noble, friend opposite. My noble friend has dealt so fully with the whole case that it will not be necessary for me to trouble your Lordships at any length; but there is one point to which my noble friend did not refer, but which I think it may be well to bring to the notice of your Lordships. I allude to the action which your Lordships' House took in 1895 upon the Sea Fisheries Act of that year, when, at the instance of the late Lord Salisbury, the House affirmed the principle of equal treatment of British and foreign trawlers and fishermen on the open sea in a manner which, I think, is exactly applicable to the case now before us.
I may remind your Lordships that up till the year 1895 nobody ever dreamt that foreign trawlers would come to English waters. There had never been such a case, and nobody expected that it would occur. I believe I am right in saying that the late Lord Salisbury was the first who ever suggested the possibility or the probability of foreign trawlers coming to fish in our waters. The Sea Fisheries Bill of that year as it came from the other House contained a provision under which the Scottish Fishery Board were empowered to extend the prohibition of trawling up to a limit of thirteen miles. Lord Salisbury pointed out that that clause would be absolutely invalid as against foreign trawlers. He said that by International law it was absolutely

221
certain that foreign trawlers had the right of fishing up to the three-mile limit and that no municipal law of this country could deprive them of that right. He added that if the clause passed in its then shape the extraordinary result might follow that foreign trawlers might fish freely within the prohibited zone, whereas British trawlers would be forbidden to do so. Lord Salisbury spoke of this in very strong language. He said—
"As the Bill stood there was nothing to prevent a stretch of the sea being declared in which foreigners might trawl and Englishmen might not. He could not conceive that such a state of things could be endured. Would it be reasonable, if a trawler were sighted some eight miles from land and a Queen's ship were sent to atop him, that while the vessel was being brought in a French trawler was able to take fish exactly on the same ground with impunity? He felt sure there would be an outburst of extreme indignation if such a scandal were permitted."
The late Duke of Argyle used language of almost equal strength. He pointed out that it would be a perfect scandal if foreign trawlers were allowed to fish in waters where British trawlers were prohibited. The only answer made by the Government in 1895 was that it was extremely unlikely that foreign trawlers would ever come and fish within the thirteen-mile limit. I think it is worth while quoting what was said by the late Lord Kimberley on the point. He said—
"I may mention that the whole of the Moray Firth is now subject to this prohibition. I regret that there is not in that case an option given to the Secretary of State to suspend the prohibition should it be found that foreign trawlers fish there."
It will be seen, therefore, that Lord Kimberley considered that it was not possible to prevent foreign trawlers from fishing in the Moray Firth, and, further, he expressed the opinion that if thereafter foreign trawlers should be found fishing there it would be impossible to maintain the bye-law of the Scottish Fishery Board against British trawlers.
That is the case now before us, and which seems to have been exactly predicted by Lord Salisbury and Lord Kimberley. In consequence of Lord Salisbury's statement an Amendment was inserted in the clause, at his instance, providing that this prohibition of trawling within the thirteen mile limit should only take effect when all the signatories to the
222
North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1883 should have given their consent to it, so that their fishermen might be bound; and as that consent has never been given the clause has been a nullity, and has never been acted upon. But since then, as I have said, the predictions of Lord Salisbury have been fulfilled, and foreign trawlers in increasing numbers have, during the last three or four years, fished in the Moray Firth and the Firth of Clyde. I believe I am right in saying that in the first instance these were, in tact, British vessels, although sailing under the Norwegian flag; but in later years other vessels of a much more bona, fide foreign character have fished there, and I am told that during last summer no fewer than fourteen foreign steam trawlers, Danish, German, Dutch, French, and Norwegian, habitually fished in the Moray Firth, and some twenty in the Firth of Clyde. In point of fact, as many foreign trawlers have been fishing in these two firths as used to be the case with British trawlers before the prohibition to which I have referred.
The Scottish Fishery Board met this proceeding in the first instance by prosecuting the masters of the foreign trawlers. At the beginning of 1907 they prosecuted six masters of Norwegian trawlers. The Scottish Law Courts sustained the conviction, and confirmed the principle, so far as they could, that the Moray Firth was an arm of the sea to which the municipal law of Scotland applied, and which was not under the rule of International law. This led to remonstrance and to diplomatic action on the part of the Norwegian Government, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Edward Grey, felt himself compelled to yield to the remonstrance and to direct that the fishermen who had been imprisoned in consequence of the infraction of this law should be released; and I think I am right in saying that he indicated that no more prosecutions of that kind should take place against foreign trawlers. There have been, more lately, prosecutions in respect of seamen who have been found on board foreign trawlers; but I believe that since the decision of the Foreign Office there have been practically no prosecutions of foreigners for trawling in the Moray Firth or in any of the prohibited areas of Scotland.

223
The result is that there is the state of things which was anticipated by Lord Salisbury, and which is really quite indefensible—namely, that in the Moray Firth, over 2,000 square miles, and in the Firth of Clyde foreign trawlers can fish without interference, while British fishermen in the same areas are liable to fine or imprisonment with confiscation of their fishing tackle. For my part, I consider that no more unequal treatment could possibly be conceived, and I cannot for a moment imagine that such a state of things can be allowed to continue. It seems to mc that the only course now open is for the Government to follow the line of the clause in the Act of 1895 and suspend the bye-laws of the Scottish Fishery Board pending agreement among the signatories of the North Sea Convention.
I do not propose to go at length into the question whether these bye-laws were originally justified. They, in fact, are not valid now as against foreign seamen, and it is therefore impossible that they can be maintained against British seamen. If it were necessary to enter into the question of the expediency of prohibiting trawling in such a branch of the sea as the Moray Firth, I should express my confident belief that there was no justification for the complaints against trawlers which led to the passing of these bye-laws—the complaints that they destroyed the spawn of fish in such areas and that they caught an undue quantity of immature fish. I was a member, together with the late Professor Huxley and the late Sir James Caird, of a Royal Commission which many years ago inquired into the subject, and we came to the conclusion that there was no justification whatever for any of these complaints. There is no scientific basis for the assertion that the great bulk of fish lay their spawn in such arms of the sea as the Moray Firth or the bays of Scotland. The only fish that spawns at the bottom of the sea in such waters is the herring. All the other more valuable fish spawn in the deep sea at various depths, and it is utterly impossible that the trawlers can do any mischief to them.
I would also venture to point out, if it were necessary, that during the years when the bye laws of the Scottish Fishery Board prevailed and there was no fishing on the part of foreign trawlers, there was no increase of fish and no good
224
resulted to anybody. On the whole, therefore, it seems to me that the case against these bye-laws is absolutely complete. The question whether the fish in the North Sea are injured by over-trawling is being considered, and whatever action will be taken eventually will, no doubt, apply equally to the fishermen of all countries. That is a principle of the utmost importance. It is the principle which was affirmed in the strongest manner by Lord Salisbury in in the year 1895, and it seems to me that it is equally applicable at the present moment. I venture, therefore, to hope that the Government will act upon that principle, and will suspend the operation of the bye-laws of the Scottish Fishery Board as against British trawlers, at all events as long as there is no agreement on the part of other countries to apply them to their own trawlers.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am obliged to leave the House rather earlier than usual, and I therefore ask permission to say a few words on my noble friend's Motion before Lord Balfour of Burleigh proceeds to move his Amendment. I should think no Member of the House will be found ready to take exception to what I understand to be the main position taken up by my noble friend Lord Heneage, when he protests strongly against the idea that we could accept, as a permanent settlement of this question, an arrangement under which British trawlers would be excluded from waters to which foreign trawlers are allowed free access. But, while that is a simple and, I think, an intelligible proposition, there are various other considerations, of which I think we should not lose sight.
This question is a particularly difficult and delicate one. The interests of the fishing industry are, to some extent, divergent; there are evidently two very distinct schools of thought—the school of the trawlers of Grimsby and Aberbeen, of which my noble friend is an able and energetic champion, and the school of the line fishermen. I do not think I am wrong in saying that the exasperation which is undoubtedly felt by the trawling industry is due, not so much to the value to them of the waters of the Moray Firth, as to the fact that their foreign competitors are allowed to visit those waters while

225
they are excluded from them. The line fishermen, I think, must also have their champions, for I heard a very unmistakable cheer from the back benches when their interests were referred to by Lord Heneage in his opening speech. Not only are the problems that arise in connection with the fishing interests difficult, but questions of International law of the utmost delicacy and difficulty are also involved. My noble friend talked rather airily about the three-mile limit, and he proposes, in his Resolution, that "the open sea" should be restored to the condition in which it formerly existed.
LORD HENEAGE: Those are the words of Lord Tweedmouth.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: From whatever authority they proceed, I am bound to point out that it is not always very easy to determine where the open sea ends and territorial waters begin; and anyone who has had anything to do with these questions knows that there have been interminable negotiations upon the subject of the right of fishing within bays in different parts of the world, and that if you open the question as between this country and foreign countries in regard to a particular bay in which we are interested, they will desire to have it opened in regard to other bays and enclosed waters in other parts of the world. The Moray Firth is certainly not within territorial waters as we usually understand the term; it is not an enclosed bay. I do not know how many miles it covers from Duncansby Head to Rattray Head.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE): Nearly eighty miles.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The distance is, I am told, nearly eighty miles. Therefore we can hardly assume, as a matter of course, that other people will admit that it falls within our territorial waters. On the other hand, I am bound to say that a great deal would be gained, owing to the peculiar characteristics of the Moray Firth, if we could succeed in keeping all trawlers out of it and retaining it, partly as a sanctuary for breeding fish and partly in the interest of line fishermen.
226
My noble friend Lord Heneage spoke of a small number of obsolete line fishing boats; but I have received a paper which purports to be written with authority, and which states that—
"Around the shores of the Moray Firth there are located about 10,000 fishermen who fish with net and line; and in the winter months over 2,000 of these fisherman are engaged exclusively in white fishing in the Moray Firth."
Therefore we can hardly regard their interests as altogether negligible.
I understand that the policy of His Majesty's Government, and, I may say, to some extent the policy of Governments which have preceded them, has been that of endeavouring, in the first instance, to begin by excluding British trawlers from the Moray Firth in the hope that by so doing they would be able to bring about the exclusion of foreign trawlers also. That is, to my mind, a proper and intelligible policy; and so long as these local bye-laws are in force, there can be no doubt that it is the duty of British fishermen to conform to the law of their own country. Nor can we for a moment question the propriety of their conviction by Courts of law when they have been detected in the act of traversing the bye-laws. And I may add that, whatever my sympathy with the trawling fishermen may be, I certainly sympathise very little with those British fishermen who travesty themselves as foreigners, and invade these waters, from which legitimate British fishermen are excluded.
But, my Lords, I think my noble friend is perfectly right in arguing that, while such a state of things might be accepted as leading to something better, we cannot possibly look forward to its being indefinitely prolonged; and what I should like to know—and I hope we shall hear it before this debate concludes—is whether there is any prospect of His Majesty's Government taking up the matter, and endeavouring to come to an understanding with other Powers under which their vessels, as well as ours, would be denied access to the waters of the Firth. If that does not come to pass, then we shall be confronted with the position foreseen by Lord Salisbury in 1895, which he described in words that have been quoted by my noble friend at the Table (Lord Eversley), and which

227
appear to me entirely appropriate to the case.
There is another point, of which, I think, we must not lose sight. I understand the attitude of His Majesty's Government to be this—they do not deny the grievance of British trawlers, but they hope to be able to effect the object of keeping foreign trawlers out by means of a Bill which has already been introduced into the House of Commons, and which may, or may not, in time come before your Lordships. I should, of course, be out of order if I were to canvass the merits of that Bill, but it is a matter of notoriety that it seeks, by indirect means, to drive foreign trawlers from the Moray Firth, by making their fish unsaleable in a British port. I will not attempt to examine the propriety of that proposal, or to discuss whether or not a measure of that kind is likely to be successful. But we must, I think, take into consideration the fact that that is the declared policy of His Majesty's Government, and that we shall, no doubt, at some future time have an opportunity of considering it as a whole. If that is so, shall we be altogether wise in passing the Resolution of my noble friend Lord Heneage?
The Resolution involves two propositions, and, if my noble friend does not mind, I will take the second proposition first. He desires that any bye-laws now prohibiting vessels from fishing in the Moray Firth should be withdrawn. If I am right in supposing that there is likely to be a question of arriving at an understanding with foreign Powers on this matter, I can understand that His Majesty's Government should desire that in the meanwhile the bye-laws should remain in force, so that when their negotiations begin they will be able say, "We, at any rate, are in earnest; we are keeping our trawlers out of the Moray Firth, and we invite you to do the same." For that reason I should be reluctant peremptorily to call upon His Majesty's Government, in the words of the latter part of the Resolution, to annul or suspend the bye-laws. But the earlier portion of my noble friend's Resolution appears to me to be in principle perfectly defensible. He merely affirms the doctine of which, I think, we all approve, that British fishermen should not be excluded from waters to
228
which foreign fishermen have free access. I can see no objection to that part of the Resolution, if my noble friend really thinks it worth while to divide the House upon it; but I am bound to say that such a Resolution seems to me somewhat of the character of a brutum fulmen. I do not know that it will greatly advance matters; and if he obtains, as I hope he will, a sympathetic reply from His Majesty's Government, if they are able to tell him that they cannot tolerate this inequality being indefinitely perpetuated and that they are determined to find means to put it to an end, then I would, with great respect, suggest to my noble friend that it might be a pity to divide the House, and thereby leave on the public mind the impression that there is amongst us a difference of opinion which I really believe does not exist.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHrose to move "The previous question." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure no one will complain of the intervention of the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House. He has explained his reason for intervening early in the debate, and I am certain that, having regard to his great position in foreign affairs and his wide knowledge of the whole subject, his intervention was welcome to the House. I frankly associate myself with the main proposition put forward by the noble Marquess at the commencement of his speech. I certainly do not want to maintain anything in the nature of a real preference for foreigners. As a matter of fact, I have got into trouble at times because I am not convinced of the wisdom and practicability of a preference to people who cannot be described as foreigners. Under these circumstances I shall certainly not put myself forward as one who, either in principle or in practice, desires to maintain in any real sense a preference in British markets for those who are not British subjects.
I also associate myself very closely with what the noble Marquess said as regards the inexpediency of bringing forward this Motion at this particular time. I think it is quite contrary to the usual comity between the two Houses that when a Government Bill on a particular subject is before one House the other House should pass declamatory

229
Resolutions on the subject. Supposing a month or six weeks ago some Member of your Lordships House had proposed an abstract Resolution on the subject of licensing. Surely it would have been almost unanimously condemned from both sides of this House, and it is because I desire to keep the matter open at any rate for the present, because I do not wish to meet the noble Lord's Motion with a direct negative for fear that I should be thought to be prejudging the case upon the other side, that I have taken what I think is the fairest and most proper course of putting down what is known in Parliamentary practice as an Amendment for the previous question. The noble Lord who seconded the Motion made great play with certain declarations which were made on the occasion of the Bill of 1885.
LORD EVERSLEY: 1895.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It was in 1885, on the occasion of the Bill which allowed the closing of territorial waters, that Lord Salisbury made the remarks which the noble Lord quoted.
LORD EVERSLEY: I referred to what Lord Salisbury said in 1895, when the Scottish Sea Fisheries Bill of that year came before your Lordships' House.
LORD HENEAGE: The noble Lord is quite right. It was 1895.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have not the reference here, but I am certain that one of the quotations made by the noble Lord was in the sense of a speech made by Lord Salisbury in 1885.
LORD EVERSLEY: I distinctly quoted the speech made in 1895.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Lord read again the words which he quoted from Lord Salisbury's speech in 1895?
LORD EVERSLEY: Certainly. Speaking of the Sea Fisheries Bill of 1895, Lord Salisbury said—
"As the Bill stood, there was nothing to prevent a stretch of the sea being declared in which the foreigner might trawl and the Englishman might not. He could not conceive that that state of things could be endured. Would it be reasonable, if a trawler were sighted
230
some eight miles from land and a Queen's ship were sent to stop him, that while the vessel was being brought in a French trawler should be allowed to come and take fish exactly on the tame ground with impunity? He felt sure here would be an outburst of extreme indignation if such a scandal were permitted."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Lord Salisbury made those remarks with regard to a proposal in the Bill of 1895 to extend the territorial limits all round the coast to thirteen miles, but that provision was altered in your Lordships' House. 1885 was the year in which the Act was passed closing the territorial waters. In that year the same sort of discussion took place as to closing waters which were beyond the territorial limit, and Lord Salisbury then used language which certainly gave the impression at the time that he was not in favour of that course or anything like it. But acts are stronger testimony than words, and it was Lord Salisbury's Government who in the year 1889 passed the Herring Fishery Act which gave permission to close the Moray Firth, the Firth of Clyde, and other waters of a similar kind. It was in 1890 that part of the Moray Firth was closed by Lord Salisbury's Government, and in 1892 the whole of the Firth was closed by the succeeding Government.
Matters were in that position when I came into office in 1895, the bye-law having been passed and the Moray Firth having been wholly closed. Both Governments, therefore, before the time I succeeded to office, were engaged in closing waters which were beyond the territorial limits. I had to administer the Act for eight years. I am in it, too, to a certain extent, for when on a purely technical point the Court of Session upset the bye-law I had it re-enacted in such a form as to avoid the technical difficulty which was then raised. One of the main points made by the mover and seconder of the Motion was this apparent hostility to foreign trawlers. They were perfectly fair in admitting that at the time when these bye-laws were made it was not supposed that foreigners would take much advantage of their supposed privileges, and I think before I have done I shall show your Lordships that even now the extent to which these much-dreaded foreigners are taking advantage of their supposed privileges has been greatly exaggerated.

231
I wish to say distinctly that those who were in favour of closing the area were mainly actuated by a desire to protect the stock of fish. The noble Lord who seconded the Motion referred to the inquiry in which he took part a good many years ago. I have no doubt that the decision at which they arrived at that time was justified by the evidence placed before them. But circumstances have largely changed. The efficiency of trawling machinery has now so much increased that it would be nothing short of a calamity if all legislation were to be undone, and trawlers given full scope in the narrowest waters. I will read to your Lordships, on that point, a passage from the evidence of Mr. Fulton before the Committee on Fishery Investigations which recently sat. Mr. Fulton said—
"I know the Aberdeen men feel it as a grievance that the Moray Firth is closed, but I think that if it were effectively closed to every trawler they would not feel any grievance at all. I know positively, however, that some of them say that if they were admitted into the Moray Firth they could clear out the whole ground in six weeks."
That is the opinion of the immense majority of the fishing community who are acquainted with this ground. The testimony of all those who have knowledge of the subject amounts to this, that if trawling were wholly unrestricted, damage would be done to fishing grounds that would take years to repair.
Lord Heneage made great play with the apparent unanimity of the fishing community. At any rate, when action was taken in 1890 that community were not so unanimous as the noble Lord seems to think they are at the present time; and I am not quite sure that they are really as unanimous now as he would make out. A certain Mr. Barrett, of Grimsby, said at Aberdeen in 1905—
"He did not believe the North Sea if left to itself would last for ever. He was one of those who thought it could not last very long."
Another gentleman from Grimsby, Mr. G. Alward, said on the same occasion—
"His impression was that if they protected the young fish, and refrained from fishing for certain months in the year, he was sure, in his time, that the North Sea would become what it was twenty or thirty years ago—a splendid fishing ground—and that it would yield an enormous supply of food for the inhabitants of the country.
Another Grimsby gentleman, Mr. C. Jeffs, speaking at a Conference of the
232
National Sea Fisheries Protection Association in London in 1902, said—
"One is puzzled how it is that any gentleman can make such statements and hold such opinions that there is as much fish in the sea as there ever was."
The National Sea Fisheries Association asked the Fishery Board of Scotland in 1890 to inquire as to the wisdom of closing a large part of the Moray Firth, so that it may actually be said that it was partly on the initiative of the very association which is now most severe on the Fishery Board of Scotland that the action of 1892 was taken.
The noble Lord made light of the interests of the fishing community around the Moray Firth. I am really opposed to protection, in the sense in which the word is generally used, for anybody, but we hear a great deal now about the necessity of getting people back to the land. It is beyond all doubt that this quasi-protection has been largely instrumental in keeping people upon the sea coast around the Moray Firth, on the Clyde, and elsewhere. The tendency among those who live by fishing is to have larger and larger boats, and, as you have larger boats, you must go to larger harbours, which are only to be found in more or less crowded communities. And it seems to me a perfectly wise and reasonable bit of public policy to keep the territorial waters for those fishermen who have not the capital or the ability to go outside to the deep sea fishing. I do not believe that the closing of these waters does any material injury to the trawlers. I believe their demand to be largely due to selfishness on their part, and that upon the whole it is wise to preserve these districts for the class of fishermen to whom I have referred.
They are still a class of some magnitude. The noble Lord made light of them, but in a circular letter which reached me about three days ago, from the office of the Central Secretary of the Moray Firth Fisheries Association I find this statement—
"The Fishery Board look into account the fact that around the shores of the Moray Firth there are located about 10,000 fishermen who fish with net and line, in the winter months over 2,000 of these fishermen are engaged exclusively in the white fishing in the Moray Firth."
It seems to me of great importance that there should be near their homes

233
this area in which they can carry on their livelihood uninterrupted by the damage to their tackle which trawling in narrow waters undoubtedly does.
Now I come to another part of the subject. Is it really the case that a large number of foreign trawlers take advantage of the present state of things? There have been some, and there are some at the present time, but in quantity they are negligible. The great majority of those trawlers which are breaking the law are only colourably foreign. Mr. Fulton, in his evidence before the Committee on Fishery Investigations, 1908, was asked by Mr. Green [Question 2895]—
"I want to know how the companies owning these boats which are registered in Norway are registered in England?"
Mr. Fulton replied—
"I am not acquainted with the details, but I heard a leading representative—Sir George Doughty, I think it was—say at Aberdeen that all the capital invested in these vessels, except a few pounds, was English."
If we are to go back on the policy of the last sixteen years with regard to the Moray Firth, let us know the facts. Let us have an inquiry to ascertain exactly how many bona fide foreigners are trawling in those enclosed waters. I believe it will be found that they are very few in number. And, in my opinion, it is beyond all doubt that those who come are invited by the trawling interest for the purpose of casting discredit upon this bye-law.
I can give your Lordships some facts. I was at the Scottish Office in 1895–6 when this controversy began. The first foreign vessel to trawl in the Firth was the Dania," of Esbjerg, and the first report of her appearance was received from the Secretary of the Bon Accord Steam Trawlowners' Association in Aberdeen. We were told by this association, which was hostile to the bye-law, a good many hours before this foreign vessel appoared that she was coming to do what she did. It was what is commonly called a "try on," and I think it requires some explanation how this intelligent anticipation of events about to occur really happened. If we are going into this matter thoroughly, let us know exactly who the people are who are trawling in the Moray Firth at the present time, how many of them are really foreigners and how many sham foreigners, how
234
many of them are actually working with English money, and how many of them are really the Grimsby people who, under different names, are sending trawlers all over the North Sea. I believe that if we could get at the truth we would find that the bona fide foreigner was a negligible quantity compared with the others.
When a great country like this decides to try an experiment for the sake of putting to a practical test the question whether this system of fishing deteriorates stock, I say it is very hard—I say more, it is unpatriotic—that we should be constantly thwarted by the selfishness of those who have their own interests to serve. The experiment has never yet been fairly tried, because from first to last the trawl-owners have set themselves to thwart it. Lot us have a full examination into all the facts. Let us try the experiment, and if we are wrong let us go back upon our policy. But do not let us go back upon insufficient evidence. Lot us be quite sure that we are right before we make the change. I think there is gross exaggeration with regard to numbers, and that the appearance of bona fide foreign trawlers is only occasional.
I would venture to say one word in conclusion upon the terms of the Motion on the Paper. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, seemed to think that it would do no harm, or practically little harm, to place the first half of it upon the Journals of the House. But lot me call attention to the phraseology. The first part of the Resolution reads—
"That in the opinion of this House British vessels should not be prohibited from trawling in waters outside the territorial limits of Scotland where foreign vessels are able to come in and use the fishing ground."
Now, if it were proved that foreign vessels in the strict sense of the term do come in and use the fishing ground, I should be prepared to modify a good deal of my opposition. But my noble friend does not ask the House to commit itself to stating that they do come in, but only that they are able to come in.
LORD HENEAGE: I am quite willing to alter the words if the noble Lord wishes, but I preferred to use Lord Salisbury's words.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can understand the desire of the noble Lord to shelter himself under Lord Salisbury's great authority, but it is not said in the Resolution that they are Lord Salisbury's words, and if it should appear in the Journals of the House there will not be a marginal note to the effect that the noble Lord borrowed the words from Lord Salisbury. They will be taken in their natural sense, and I say it is ludicrous to ask this House to pass a Resolution when all that is proposed to be said is that a certain class of vessels are able to come in. Prove to us that bona fide foreigners do come in in such numbers as to make our regulation bad, and I will modify my opposition. There was a good deal in the noble Lord's speech about the Scottish Office and its character with which I prefer not to deal. I suppose that what he said will pass for wit at Grimsby, or, perhaps, at Billingsgate, but it was no serious argument in regard to the matter before the House, and therefore I think I shall be best consulting my own interests and the interests of the House if I now move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved, "That the previous Question be put whether the said Question shall benowput."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, I had occasion about a year ago to address your Lordships, I am afraid at rather too great length, on the very intricate questions which have arisen in connection with the North Sea Fisheries and their bearing on foreigners and foreign vessels. It was necessary then that I should place upon record, once and for all, in regard to this question, that there was no occasion whatever to doubt that the Foreign Office were committed, and irrevocably committed, on grounds of public policy which I stated to the House, and that they stood in regard to territorial waters upon the doctrine of the three-mile limit as what I may call the great underlying principle of international law.
That question has again been incidentally touched upon this evening, and I understand that one of the objects of the noble Lord the mover of this Motion is to obtain an assertion from the representative
236
of the Foreign Office in your Lordships' House that there is no change of attitude in respect of this matter. That assurance I have no difficulty whatever in giving my noble friend. Nor do I really think that it was necessary to ask for it, because nothing has occurred since last year, so far as I know, to lead anyone to think for a single moment that there is any derogation from that principle. There is, of course, a slight qualification which one always has to make in regard to the three-mile limit, which was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne. As Lord Salisbury's name has been so frequently invoked, I cannot do better than quote his words in the debate of 6th May, 1895, in regard to the three-mile limit and to those particular places where what may be called the facts of nature have made difficulties in applying that hard and fast principle and caused some slight modification in practice. Lord Salisbury said—
"As long as the coast is open there is no doubt that three miles is the limit of territorial waters, but when the coast is folded and doubled, as it is in that part of Scotland, there comes in a different set of conditions which belong to diplomatic law; and I may say it is an unsettled question in international law how far those territorial waters extend in such cases. … Where the coast is not straight but makes an angle, there the limit of the territorial waters is not so fixed."
It is precisely because many of the waters on the coast of Scotland are folded in that many of these difficulties arise.
There has always been a natural tendency on the part of different countries, by treaty if they can, by legislation if diplomacy fails, to obtain a certain amount of special control outside the narrow limits imposed by the three-mile rule. It is a rash thing to intrude into the minutiæ of a Scottish debate unless one is conversant with the actual places oneself. It is not, therefore, for me to try and give any accurate description from the point of view of the geographer. But we know that just as the limits of the North Sea have, for certain purposes, been defined by the North Sea Convention and by other, and, perhaps, more recent documents, so also by British legislation for domestic purposes a certain area has been defined to represent the Moray Firth. That area extends from Rattray Head to Duncansby Head, a distance of very nearly 80 miles; and this area is very different from the

237
narrow waters which make up the Firth of Clyde and other areas on the coast of Scotland where the waters are far more folded in. The Moray Firth, as now defined, gradually opens out and extends, and the large definition which has been made by the bye-law issued by the Scottish Office is no doubt one of the causes, perhaps the primary cause, of the irritation which has been created, amongst the allies of my noble friend at Grimsby and elsewhere.
But I think your Lordships will agree that in this affair we must, above all things, be practical. We are in the clutches of previous legislation, and we cannot go back upon the decision of Parliament, for which both parties are responsible, by passing abstract resolutions. No one disputes that there are difficulties in the existing state of things. There I am on common ground with my noble friend. It is common knowledge that a Bill has been brought in in another place, and this fact may be accepted as a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we realise the difficulties of the situation. The real difficulty has been so often stated in the course of this debate that it is not necessary to labour it. Briefly stated it is this, that British fishermen and foreigners are not on terms of equality in certain extraterritorial waters; and the question which is really before your Lordships to-night is, What is to be the rule and practice in regard to extra-territorial waters on the coast of Scotland and England? The Bill which has been brought in by the Scottish Office in another place, and which may reach your Lordships in the course of the present session, is a measure which affects the coasts, harbours, and ports of England in respect mainly of the sale of fish caught in the extra-territorial waters, bringing them under practically the same rule and practice which now applies under Scottish legislation to the ports, harbours, and markets of Scotland. It is that to which my noble friend objects.
The question is, what course could the Government adopt? We start by admitting that there is an inequality at the present time, that in certain extraterritorial waters British fishermen are placed at a disadvantage compared with foreign fishermen because they come within the scope of British and Scottish
238
legislation, which applies to them and does not apply to the foreign trawler. My noble friend is, of course, cognisant that if the legislation now proposed by the Government were to come into effect, certain disabilities which now affect only the fishermen who bring their catches into Scottish ports would be extended to those fishermen if they brought them into British ports. At the same time, I must remind my noble friend that the disability which would in that case be extended to the British fisherman is one which, in the particular matter of sale—as is now the case in Scottish ports—would also affect the foreigner. The moment a fisherman is in British harbours and markets he is either within the territorial waters or is actually on shore; and, therefore, the Bill so far places the foreigner and the Scottish or English fisherman, as the case may be, upon an equality. I am perfectly willing to grant that that, however, is only a step in the direction which my noble friend desires to go, and is not precisely the step which he does desire. What he desires is not to penalise the foreign fisherman and the British fisherman equally in Scottish or English ports. He desires to sweep away the bye-law which affects extraterritorial waters, and thereby to place the British and Scottish fisherman on an equality in those waters with the foreigner as he was before the legislation of 1885, 1889, and 1895.
I have been pressed by my noble friend and also by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition to state to your Lordships whether there is, or is not, in the opinion of the Foreign Office, any chance, or whether there is any intention on their part, of curing the difficulty which we admit to exist by ultimately obtaining some remedy more akin to the views of my noble friend than are the proposals in the Government Bill now before Parliament. I desire to be perfectly frank in this matter. I am not able to make any statement to your Lordships that there is an immediate probability of our being able to persuade foreign Governments collectively, because collective action in this matter is almost necessary, or even to persuade the more important among them to come into an agreement with us in the matter, such as was undoubtedly comtemplated by the late Lord Salisbury

239
when he moved and carried the Amendment in 1895 to which allusion has been made in the course of this debate. My noble friend, Lord Tweedmouth, whose absence we all regret, pointed out at that time that the carrying of Lord Salisbury's Amendment would, in his opinion, make the Act of 1895 entirely inoperative. What Lord Tweedmouth then said has been perfectly justified by the result, because whatever attempts have been made in the twelve years that have elapsed to obtain an agreement amongst the Powers they have never proceeded to any length or been successful.
We have always been confronted with the difficulty, that as there were so many waters elsewhere to which English fishermen now go and from which they would be likely to be excluded, it would be an exceedingly doubtful benefit to the English fishing industry if we were successful in the negotiations contemplated, and therefore the matter is one to be dealt with with the most extreme care and circumspection. On the coasts of Norway and Iceland are waters in connection with which there are ancient controversies, and if we were to press our own views too much in regard to, let us say, the Moray Firth, the result might much astonish the very persons who are pressing the Foreign Office to move in the direction referred to. It is for that reason that the Government have so far thought it wiser to proceed on the lines of existing legislation, and to try to place the foreigner and the English and Scottish trawling industry upon a footing of equality by placing them equally under such disabilities as they can enforce in their own ports, harbours and territorial waters, rather than to trust to long, and, perhaps, futile negotiations in regard to extra - territorial waters, which would affect, in the long run, not only the extra-territorial waters near our shores, but those in the neighbourhood of other countries where the British fishing industry has large interests.
Whatever risks there may be in the future, it certainly would appear that, so far, the number of genuine foreign fishermen who have come into the Moray Firth and pursued their industry there is not very considerable, and the Government think it better to trust to the class
240
of remedy which exists in the Scottish Acts and to propose their extension to certain of our English ports. This is a complicated matter; the facts are complicated because they are disputed, and the law is also complicated. I can only hope that your Lordships will at least be persuaded, by what I have placed before you this evening, that the Foreign Office and the Government generally are fully cognisant of the general interests involved in the question, and that my noble friend in particular will accept my assurance that the interests of British fishermen are near and dear to the Office which is more particularly responsible for them, and that, so far as the Foreign Office is concerned, there is no intention whatever of departing from those great principles of international law which I had the honour to lay before your Lordships last year.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments, but I should like to point out that there is no doubt that trawling has very greatly depleted the North Sear This has been practically admitted by a great number of gentlemen interested in trawling. Lord Balfour has already quoted the opinions of two or three of them and I will not, therefore, trouble your Lordships on that point. But I should like to refer your Lordships to the fishery statistics of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in proof of the assertion that trawling is doing a great deal of harm to the shallow waters of the North Sea. For instance, there were one million cwts. less fish trawled in the North Sea in 1905 than in 1903. The waters of the Moray Firth are shallower still, and contain very valuable breeding ground which will be very soon destroyed if trawlers are allowed to go there. Mr. Sutherland, the Member for Elgin Burghs, stated in the House of Commons, on July 8th last, that the present trawling fleet are equal to over 12,000 of the old fishing smacks. The hon. Member proceeded to quote an article from a Scottish newspaper, in which the writer said it was calculated that the spread of nets or the width of sea bottom covered extended at least to twenty-five miles, and that with a net towed at a speed of three miles per hour for twenty working hours per day

241
the area daily swept by them amounted to 1,500 square miles. He added—
"The whole of the Moray Firth would thus be swept from shore to shore in a day and a half."
I live on the shores of Moray Firth, and believe that the few so-called foreign trawlers which come there are really owned by Englishmen, the capital being found by Englishmen, and that they fly a foreign flag in order to evade the law of this country, with the ultimate object of securing bigger dividends. Mr. Sutherland, in the speech to which I have referred, declared that the attempt on the part of Grimsby trawl owners to defeat the law was a—
"cold-blooded, merciless, squalid conspiracy a conspiracy intended not for purposes patriotism, but in order to secure bigger dividends."
I confess that I do not think that language too strong. A conference was held in Aberdeen in 1905, and the Commissioner of the Norwegian Fisheries attended with the intention of stating that his Government were anxious to co-operate with His Majesty's Government in stopping the registration of Grimsby trawlers under the Norwegian flag. For some reason or other, he was not able to make this statement, but he wrote a letter to that effect to the fishing wade journal, which shows that the Norwegian Government, at all events, are anxious to co-operate, if possible, with His Majesty's Government. Personally, I think the way out of the difficulty is to reopen the conference of 1882, and to try to come to an arrangement with the other Powers for the closing of the Moray Firth to all countries. If for some reason unknown to us laymen the Foreign Office are unable to do this, then I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment moved by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and leave the Moray Firth as it is at present.
THE EARL OF ERROLL: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of what has been said as to the damage done to line-fishing by trawlers. It is within my knowledge that in the past the line fishermen have suffered great hardship at the hands of trawlers. The latter represent the capitalists, and have behind them all the strength and influence which
242
money can give; whereas the line fisher men are poor men, and unless they are protected from what I must call unfair competition, they will soon find their livelihood entirely gone. There is no doubt room for both line fishermen and trawlers to work in the North Sea, but it is impossible for thorn to work in the same areas. I would point out to your Lordships that there are 33,000 line fishermen in Scotland, and only 2,900 trawlers. I object to regarding trawlers as martyrs, simply because they are not allowed by the regulations to enter certain prescribed areas and curtail the supply of fish to the community by destroying the spawning beds and catching large quantities of immature fish. I know many villages on the coast of Aberdeenshire which were once inhabited by prosperous communities, and which are now half-empty simply because fishing inshore has been destroyed by trawlers. I have three of these villages on my own property, and I know how exceptionally hard this has pressed upon the old people in those villages. I have often seen, from my own windows on the Aberdeen coast, these trawlers lying at dusk just outside the three-mile limit, and the line fishermen tell me that the moment it gets dark the trawlers come in and sweep all the beds clean. I therefore think it most necessary that stringent regulations should be imposed. The reasons which influenced the Fishery Board to include the Moray Firth were, first, that there were important spawning beds requiring protection; and, secondly, that the Moray Firth had been proved to be a very valuable nursery for young fish. I quite admit that trawling is a legitimate trade, but it should not be carried on at the expense of the community, In the Report of the Fishery Board it is stated that to those engaged in the industry the growing increase in the quantity of small haddocks landed is a matter of concern, and that the small mesh nets now used by the majority of trawlers are responsible for this. These small fish, we are told, are frequently sold for manure. I think that nobody can contend that these trawlers do no harm to the fish supply. The trawlers have no right to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and, for these reasons, if the noble Lord, Lord Heneage, goes to a division, I shall certainly vote against him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords I do not intend to trouble your Lord ships with any observations upon this matter. There appears to be a general consensus of opinion that British fishermen ought not to be placed in a position of disability as compared with foreign fishermen. That is a general proposition, and as far as the terms of the present law are concerned they do not appear to be entirely consistent with that proposition; but, in matters of this great delicacy, it is evident that a general proposition of that kind can only be applied with due regard to the magnitude of the evil or mischief which it is intended to concern. I gather that nearly every speaker has agreed that the number of foreign trawlers who take advantage of their position to use the Moray Firth is exceedingly small. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh most frankly confessed that if there were a large number he might take a different view; and the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy founded a good deal of his argument upon the fact that the number of foreign trawlers was very small. My noble friend, Lord Saltoun, speaking from personal knowledge of the actual locality, also gave the same testimony. In these circumstances, I only rise for the purpose of suggesting to my noble friend, Lord Heneage, that the words which fell from my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, indicate the proper line on the present occasion, and that it is not worth while to assert a general proposition which nobody desires to contest. I therefore hope my noble friend will not press his Motion; and, if he takes that view, no doubt my noble friend, Lord Balfour, will withdraw his Amendment and thus open the way for the withdrawal of the Motion.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, the course which was suggested by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition appears to me to be the better one. I shall, therefore, adopt it. At the same time, I desire to say that I adhere to everything I have said with regard to the bona fides of the foreign vessels that are at present fishing in these waters; and, although I have not had time to verify it, I have received information from Fleetwood that five more bona fide German vessels have come to Fleetwood to fish from there. I am quite willing, if Lord
244
Balfour of Burleigh will withdraw his Amendment, to withdraw my Motion and content myself with the discussion which has taken place.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, in order to make way for my noble friend to withdraw his Motion I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment. But while I am not going to be provoked into making another speech in reply to what the noble Lord has just said, I wish to say that in agreeing to the withdrawal of the Amendment, I do not agree with the speech which the noble Lord has made in conveying his request.
Amendment for putting the previous Question (by leave of the House) withdrawn; then the original Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE DECORATION FOR NAVAL RESERVE OFFICERS.
LORD MUSKERRYrose to ask his Majesty's Government whether they could furnish any information in respect to the conditions or regulations which it was proposed to institute in connection with the new decoration for officers of the Royal Naval Reserve and of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and a long service and good conduct medal for men of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before asking the Question which stands in my name, I would like to express the gratification it have me to learn that His Majesty, on the recommendation of the President of the Board of Trade, had approved of the grant of a clasp in connection with the medal which His Majesty awards for gallantry in saving life at sea, this clasp to be granted to any person to whom the medal has already been awarded in recognition of a similar service performed subsequently to that for which the medal was granted. I am sure that we all admire the heroic deeds which are so frequent in the mercantile marine of this country, and we must feel great satisfaction at the personal interest in this matter which is displayed by His Majesty.
I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice what happened not very long ago. The captain and officers of a British

245
steamer rendered very valuable service in rescuing a portion of the crew of a Greek ship. His Majesty the King of Greece, as a mark of his high admiration of the bravery and humanity displayed, signed a decree at Athens, conferring upon the captain and chief officer the gold decoration of the Order of the Redeemer, and on the second, third, and fourth officers the silver decoration of the same Order. The Board of Trade apparently took exception to this, and through the Foreign Office informed the Greek Government that such high awards were not usual, and might be a source of dissatisfaction in future cases where services of the kind were rendered. The Greek Government then substituted silver medals, which the captain and two of the officers have courteously but firmly declined to accept. My Lords, I think this was a most uncalled-for action on the part of the Board of Trade, besides being a most ungracious one towards the foreign potentate who had been pleased to recognise the bravery of the captain and his officers in such a gracious way. Has there ever been a case of any foreign Power interfering to prevent her subjects receiving honours from another nation in recognition of valuable service rendered?
In respect to my Question I should like to say that the Admiralty have, in my humble opinion, taken a wise and proper step in instituting the decoration and medals to which my Question refers. I only wish that something of the kind could be extended to the whole merchant service, for, after all, it is essentially a national service, and one upon which our Empire mainly depends. At the present time my suggestion, may, perhaps, be considered too progressive However it is some satisfaction to feel that at least a start has been made; that our merchant commanders, officers, and seamen are beginning to be recognised as they should be, and that the enormous importance of the service which they represent is becoming more and more adequately realised.
I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity afforded by the noble Lord's Question to state on behalf of the Admiralty that the
246
King has been graciously pleased to approve of the institution of a long service and good conduct medal for the two principal branches of the Volunteer Naval Reserve—namely, the old-established Royal Naval Reserve, which is composed of persons belonging to the merchant service and the fishing community of this country; and, secondly, the Royal Naval Volunteers established five years ago by Lord Selborne's Board, acting on the report of a committee presided over by my right hon. friend the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. His Majesty has approved of a new medal being designed and struck for the purpose, and has selected a design displaying on the obverse of the medal the effigy of His Majesty in naval uniform, and on the reverse a representation of H.M.S. "Dreadnought." The King has also approved of the institution of a decoration for officers for both the branches of the Naval Reserve, and this is somewhat similar in appearance to the existing Territorial Army decoration. The detailed rules which will govern the grant of both the decoration and the medal are now being framed, and until official sanction has been given to the regulations which it is intended to adopt, it is not possible for me to make any statement with regard to them on behalf of the Board of Admiralty.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To morrow at half-past Ten o'clock.