Sitting of 12 November 1908

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP M).
  Sir LUKE WHITE reported from the Committee on Group M. of Private Bills: That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, 17th November, at Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
  Petitions for legislation, from Berkhampsted; and New Barnet; to lie upon the Table.
  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE PROHIBITION BILL.
  Petition from Nottingham, against; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Three Petitions from Swansea, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Marple, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th September, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 26) Warrant, 1908. Dated 31st October, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Overtime in the Dundee Post Office.
  MR. MORTON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postal and telegraph staffs at Dundee have been working overtime almost continuously during the present year, and that an assurance was given last year that overtime would be considerably reduced daring 1908; and whether he will inquire into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I regret to find that a considerable amount of overtime has been required of the postal and telegraph staff at Dundee during the present year. This has been chiefly attributable to the demand for officers to act as season and leave substitutes at other towns. I am glad to inform the hon. Member that proposals have now been framed with the view of obviating the necessity for so much overtime at Dundee.

  Wages of Transferred Postmen.
  MR. DU CROS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, during 1907, a number of postmen applied for transfers to various towns; that those transfers were granted, and forms were signed by the men accepting them upon the rates of

  501
  wages shown therein; that many of these transfers were held over for departmental or other reasons until January and February of this year; that on the transfers being made the men were given rule-books setting out the wages of the offices to which they were transferred; and whether, in these circumstances, he will issue instructions that the circulars of February and July, reducing wages at various offices, shall not apply to those men who obtained sanction for their transfers under the higher rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have been considering the case of the postmen referred to by the hon. Member and I have arranged for all postmen transferred before 14th February, 1908, to have the choice of old or new scales at the office to which they have been transferred.

  Admiralty Purchase of Greenock Foreshore.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland with reference to the property of ten acres of land and four and three-quarter acres of foreshore near Greenock, which was recently purchased by the Admiralty for torpedo purposes for £27,225, and which at the time of that purchase formed part of a property of forty-eight acres of land (with foreshore not entered on the valuation roll) which was entered on the valuation roll as of the annual value of £75, if he can now say by how much that £75 valuation for rating of the larger property has been reduced by reason of the severance of the purchased portion.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) By £11 2s.

  Ventnor Telegraph Clerks' Grievance.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at the Ventnor office the instructions in the recently issued circular dealing with minor irregularities have been disregarded, and that the local secretary of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association has been punished for drawing attention to the circular in question; and whether he proposes to
  502
  take any, and, if any, what, action in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The officer in question has been guilty of repeated acts of negligence and has been punished for them in the ordinary course. The punishment had no connection either with the recent circular referred to (which has not been disregarded) or with the officer's membership of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association.

  Irish Postal Baskets.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the amount expended in the purchase of baskets for the Irish department of the Post Office and parcels post; whether he can state how much of this sum is expended in the purchase of baskets manufactured in Ireland; and whether any repairs are executed in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) With the exception of two wicker tops for handcarts, the whole order for baskets for the Irish parcel post service will go to Irish firms. I am sorry to say the requirements this year are very small, and the cost will be under £11. I have also given to an Irish firm an order of about the same amount for baskets for use in England. Repairs are executed by Irish firms; they were paid £110 10s. 4d. on that account in 1907–8. The Board of Public Works inform me that baskets used for indoor work in the Dublin sorting office and other post offices in Ireland are obtained in Ireland at an annual cost of about £27.

  Ballyshannon Postal Service.
  MR. SWIFTMACNEILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received recently further communications from Ballyshannon, in which complaint is made of the delay in the postal service and the great inconvenience and dislocation of business resulting therefrom, the letters of the first morning post not being delivered on some occasions during the last week till nearly mid-day; and whether he intends to take immediate steps to remedy this alleged grievance, which is one of long standing and the subject for

  503
  years of repeated representations to the postal authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton). An application for the improvement of the service to Ballyshannon reached me a few days ago, and I am having inquiry made.

  Port of London.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the particulars as at the end of the year 1907 set out in the two tables printed on page 28 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Port of London.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping,

  Number of Steamers afloat (excluding warships) belonging to the following countries, according to Lloyd's Register Book, published on 1st July, 1908:—

  Nationality.

  5,000 tons to 6,999 tons.

  7,000 tons to 9,999 tons.

  10,000 tons and above.

  British

  373

  159

  64

  American (United States)

  140 (a)

  30 (b)

  10

  Dutch

  24

  —

  6

  French

  65

  9

  3

  German

  124

  39

  30

  Russian

  9

  3

  —

  NOTE.-(a) Including 100 trading on the Great Lakes of North America.

  (b) Including 19 trading on the Great Lakes of North America.

  Irish University Commissioners.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will furnish a list of the payments, if any, to be made to the Dublin and Belfast Commissioners respectively, appointed by Section 6 of the Irish Universities Act, or, if no sums have been fixed, the rate or scale according to which they are to be paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) No remuneration is payable to the Commissioners, but they will receive payment for expenses incurred by them according
  who supplied the figures to the Royal Commission, have been good enough to furnish me with similar particulars published by them on 1st July, 1908. These figures are based on gross tonnage and not on net tonnage, as in the case of the statistics published by the Board of Trade. The particulars are as follows:

  Number of Steamers afloat of all nationalities (excluding warships) of 2,000 tons gross and over, according to Lloyd's Register Book, published on 1st July, 1908—

  Tonnage.

  No.

  2,000 to 2,999

  2,359

  3,000 to 3,999

  2,012

  4,000 to 4,999

  1,173

  5,000 and above

  1,199

  to the usual scale for members of Royal Commissions.

  County Cavan Evicted Tenants.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the town lands, owners, and area gazetted in County Cavan for compulsory acquisition under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907; what was the date of gazetting; and when is it expected that these lands will be available for the evicted tenants.

  505
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The accompanying statement gives particulars of the lands in County Cavan which have

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  Date of publication of Notice in Gazette.

  Owner.

  Townland.

  Area.

  A.

  R.

  P.

  (1) 12th May, 1908

  Charlotte Hinds

  Dreamland

  32

  0

  0

  (2) 29th May, 1908

  Charlotte Hinds

  Linn

  97

  1

  32

  (3) 12th May, 1908

  J. S. Winter and another

  Cornaglare or Palmira

  337

  2

  27

  (4) 12th May, 1908

  Samuel Saunderson

  Dreenan

  88

  0

  20

  Clarebane

  9

  2

  22

  (5) 14th August, 1908

  John Fay

  Coolkill

  366

  2

  3

  Leehary

  Mullacastle

  Tonylion

  Leiter

  Ballytrust

  Ballytrust Lower

  Drumakinner

  Corncarrow

  Lisgannon

  Ratrussan

  (6) 30th October, 1908

  Eugene M'Manus

  Pottle

  88

  1

  5

  In Nos. (1) and (2) appeals have been lodged by the owner under Section 2 (ii.); in (3) and (4), as the result of objections lodged under Section 2 (1), the proceedings have been discontinued; in No. (5), an inspector has been directed to inspect and report on the property in compliance with Section 2 (3); and in No. (6) the time prescribed pursuant to Section 2 (1) for lodgment of objections has not yet expired. Having regard to the proceedings pending, the Commissioners cannot state when the lands may be available for evicted tenants.

  Cancer in Ireland.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the Chief-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if there has been a continually increasing number of deaths from cancer in Ireland since calf lymph was used for vaccination.
  been gazetted for compulsory acquirement under the Evicted Tenants Act—
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As I have already stated, nothing, so far as the Local Government Board is aware, has been advanced to show that there is any connection between calf lymph vaccination and cancer. Calf lymph has only been in general use in Ireland since 1900, and the cancer death rate had been increasing for many years previously.

  Notification of Infectious Diseases.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the statement of Dr. Alexander James, F.R.C.P., Edinburgh, that compulsory notification and isolation of infectious ailments has acted injuriously; if his attention has been called to the statement of Dr. C. K. Millard, medical officer of health for Leicester, to the effect that hospital isolation has failed to reduce

  507
  scarlet fever; and will he introduce legislation to make notification and removal to a hospital non-compulsory in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My hon. friend has called my attention to the statements in question, but I understand that the great majority of the medical profession take the opposite view. I cannot undertake to introduce legislation for the purpose suggested.

  Runcorn Vaccination Death.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Local Government Board has now made an inquiry into the case of the nine weeks old female child of Mr. Edward Johnson, of 14, Albert Street, Runcorn, vaccinated on 29th September, inquest held on 16th October, death from septic poisoning; and if he will in consequence discontinue the dissemination of poisonous matter to be put into the blood of healthy children.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have obtained a copy of the depositions taken at the inquest in this case. The child died from septic poisoning following on septic abscesses on the eyelids and behind one ear. It appears that the mother was suffering from an abscess of the breast, and the medical evidence at the inquest renders it practically certain that the abscesses in the child were the result of accidental inoculation of poison from the mother's abscess, and were not in any way caused by vaccination.

  Babies and Tuberculosis Germs.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has any figures to show that every year 10,000 babies are killed, 10,000 impregnated with the germs of tuberculosis, 10,000 impregnated with the germs of cancer, and 50,000 debilitated, as regards their teeth and eyes, by the illness caused by impregnating infants of tender years with poisonous matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) No, Sir, I have no such figures; and, so far as I am aware, there are no such facts.

  Admiralty Timber Contracts.
  EARL OF RONALDSHAY: To ask the Secretary to the
  508
  Admiralty whether the Admiralty apply direct to German firms for tenders for timber; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of restricting such applications to British firms for the future.
  (Answered by Dr. Macnamara.) Tenders for Dantzic fir are invited both from selected firms of German exporters and from British agents. This competitive method has advantages as compared with dealing exclusively with British firms.

  Small Holdings in Kent.
  MR. ROWLANDS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many applications under the Small Holdings Act, 1907, have been applied for in the county of Kent; the amount of land asked for; the amount of land which has been obtained; the number of persons whose applications have been supplied; and in what parts of the county is the land situated.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The information for which my hon. friend asks is as follows: Number of applications received, 714 (53 of which have not yet been dealt with); acreage applied for, 9,648 (including 591 acres asked for by the 53 applicants referred to above); amount of land acquired, 495 acre 3 roods 12 poles; number of persons whose applications have been supplied, 31 by the council, 12 applicants have been supplied with 114 acres direct by private landowners; situation of land acquired, 34¾ acres at Capel, 69½ acres at Hawkhurst, 10¾ acres at Marden, 27½ acres at Sborne, 7 acres at Bilsington, 128¾ acres at Bredhurst, 133¾ acres at Applegore, 30¾ acres at Sandwich, 28¾ acres at Nettle-stead.

  Edenbridge Labourer's Grievance.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state the name of the late employer of David Nicholls, the Edenbridge labourer, to whose case his attention has been called, and what were the reasons assigned for the instant

  509
  dismissal of Nicholls on Saturday last, immediately ensuing upon his eviction from his cottage by Mr. Churches, also the name of the owner of the land upon which Nicholls was recently employed, and the name of the landlord part of whose land Nicholls applied for as a small holding; and what steps he proposes to take.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that David Nicholls, the Edenbridge labourer to whose case his attention has been previouly directed, is desirous of being reinstated in Prettyman's Farm, Four Elms, from whence he was recently evicted and which is now vacant, and to acquire some adjoining land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure that the cottage and land shall be negotiated for with a view to providing Nicholls with a home and means of livelihood.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to reply to these two Questions at the same time. One of our inspectors has made a full inquiry into this case. Mr. Churches let part of the farmhouse on Prettyman's Farm, Edenbridge, which he rents from Colonel Streatfield, to Mr. Nicholls in November, 1906, at 5s. a week, the other part remaining empty. Early this year Mr. Churches received an offer of £30 a year for the whole house, and he thereupon told Mr. Nicholls he would have to leave. This occurred before he knew that Mr. Nicholls was applying for the house and part of the farm under the Small Holdings Act. Mr. Nicholls raised no objection at the time. Mr. Nicholls is not one of Mr. Churches' farm labourers, and, except for odd jobbs, he has not been employed on the land for the last three years. For the last five or six weeks he has been working as a bricklayer's labourer for Mr Joseph Winter, builder, of Four Elms, who told him last week that the work for which he was engaged would be completed in a few days, and that he should therefore look out for another job. The Board understand that Mr. Nicholls personally
  510
  has no grievance against either Mr. Churches or Mr. Winter and that they have no animosity whatever against him.

  Black Scab in Potatoes.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board are aware that the black scab of the potato has broken out in Germany; and whether they intend to take steps to prevent the importation of diseased potatoes into Great Britain by issuing an order in similar terms to the Irish Order of 1st October, which prohibits the importation of diseased potatoes into Ireland.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board understand that the disease in question has appeared in certain small holdings in Germany that are cropped year, after year with potatoes, but that fields under rotation are free. The Board do not propose to adopt, at any rate at present, the suggestion of the hon. Member.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board will proceed against the outbreaks of black scab in potatoes in England and Scotland by adopting the same measures as are being carried out in Ireland, namely, the immediate destruction of the diseased tubers and the isolation of the infected area; and, if not, why this disease should be treated differently in this country.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The number of outbreaks of the disease in Great Britain is far greater than is believed to be the case in Ireland. In all case growers have been urged to destroy diseased tubers and to take other means for preventing the spread of the disease, but it would be impracticable to "isolate" all the diseased premises. Isolation to be effective would have to be enforced for more than five years.

  Gooseberry Mildew.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset,

  511
  as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that the Gooseberry Mildew Orders have been in force for more than a year, the Board will now present Returns showing the areas infected in each county, the number of outbreaks and the success or failure of the measures adopted by order of the Board to deal with the disease; and whether the Board will in future secure that the fungicides used in connection with their Orders should be approved as efficient by the Board, as is done in connection with sheep dips under the Sheep Scab Orders.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) A report on the administration and effect of the American Gooseberry Mildew Order Orders will be issued in due course. There seems no good reason for the adoption of the suggestion contained in the latter part of the Question, as the fungicide usually used is that specified in the Board's Orders, and in the rare cases in which other fungicides have been used the Board have been consulted as to their efficiency.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board were advised, as long ago as 1st October, that an outbreak of gooseberry mildew had occurred in the county of Surrey; whether any order has been issued by the Board to deal with the disease in the county of Surrey; and whether, in view of the fact that during October and November most of the necessary sales of plants takes place he will say what precautions have been taken at this time to prevent the spread of so infectious a disease.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. An inspector visited the affected premises and explained the procedure and precautions to be adopted in dealing with the disease. The Board have no evidence to show that the disease is spreading in Surrey, and have not therefore considered it expedient to issue a special order for that county at present.

  Crockham Hill Dairy Farm.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that the Crockham Hill dairy farm has been advertised for sale at £50 an acre, though the owners now ask the Kent County Council £60 an acre for the land, and that the adjoining land has been recently sold at £14 an acre; whether he is aware that the agent for the county council also acts for the owners of Crockham Hill dairy farm, and has advised the latter to raise the price; and whether he will state what further action it is proposed to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The facts are substantially as stated. As I have already said, in answer to a previous Question, the county council are negotiating for the acquisition of the farm, and the Board have advised them to acquire it compulsorily if they are unable to do so by agreement on reasonable terms.

  Edinburgh Coopers' Conviction.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the conviction of two coopers in Edinburgh who were engaged in peaceful picketing in a dispute with sundry brewing firms, such men being charged under the Edinburgh Municipal Police Act, 1879, while under the Trade Dispute Acts, 1871 to 1906, they could do what they were convicted for doing; and does he propose to take any action to get such a conviction quashed.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) I may be allowed to answer this Question. These men were not charged with any offence under the Edinburgh Municipal Act, but with the common law offences of breach of the peace and assault in the one case and breach of the peace with threats of violence in the other. They seem in every respect to have had a full and fair trial, and had legal assistance in their defence. I have no power to get the conviction quashed.

  Old-Age Pensions and Poor Relief.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received sufficient information to enable him to hold out some prospect that aged persons of excellent character who, prior to the passing of the Old-Age Pensions Act, had been compelled to accept relief will be entitled to share the benefits of the Act with their more fortunate companions.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I understand that the point is engaging my right hon. friend's careful attention, but that he is not yet in a position to make any definite announcement upon it.

  Married Couples and Pensions.
  MR. ESSEX: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if an income accruing to one person of a married couple is calculated as to half its amount to each of such persons, or as the sole property of the person to whom it accrues.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The means of a person, being one of a married couple living together in the same house, are calculated in precisely the same way as the means of a person who is not married, viz., at the amount received or enjoyed by him or her individually, except that, under the proviso contained in Section 4 (2) of the Act, the means of such a person cannot be taken as being less than half the joint means of the couple.

  Aliens and Pensions.
  MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the number of applications for pensions received from aliens who have become naturalised in this country and have resided here for the qualifying number of years.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) My right hon. friend is unable to furnish the information desired by the hon. Member.

  Highlanders and Pensions.
  MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if applications for pensions have been received from more than half
  514
  of the inhabitants in certain of the villages in the Highlands of Scotland; and if there is any certain means of ascertaining the age of these applicants.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) My right hon. friend has no means of knowing what proportion of the inhabitants of the villages in the Highlands have applied for pensions. Some difficulty has arisen in ascertaining the age of some of these applicants, but the Board of Inland Revenue are making arrangements to meet it.

  Pension Committees' Accounts.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that in Financial Instruction No. 8, for pension committees and sub-committees, issued by the Treasury on 29th August, 1908, the clerk of the county council is directed to review and check the accounts of pension committees and sub-committees and to submit a claim to the Treasury for the amount, he will say what authority the Treasury has for calling upon the clerk of the county council to perform duties in connection with the Old-Age Pensions Act; whether the Treasury propose to remunerate the clerk of the county council; who will defray the amount of such claim which the Treasury may, after audit, decide to disallow; and whether the instructions, as distinguished from regulations under the Act, have any validity or binding force.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The duty of making advances to provide for the immediate payment of the expenses of pension committees has been put upon the appointing council by No. 25 of the regulations under the Act, and the duty of accounting for expenditure out of such advances is a necessary condition of recovering the amount expended from the Treasury. Under Section 10 (4) of the Act the Treasury has power, independently of regulations, to determine the amount which shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the expenses of pension committees. As the hon. Member is aware, however, Regulation 25 is now under reconsideration, and arrangements

  515
  will be made for relieving the appointing councils of the duties in question.

  Warwickshire Territorials.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Leaflet No. 2, entitled Service in the Territorial Force, on page 5 stated that the Territorial soldier is entitled to pay at Army rates, including the extra emoluments paid in certain corps while in camp, and that the armourers of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th battalions Royal Warwick regiment were paid during their recent training 2s. 9d. per day; and whether, seeing that the Army rates of pay at this time were 4s. 6d. per day, he will order the balance due to be paid to these armourers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) 4s. 6d. is the rate for an armourer sergeant of the Regular Army Ordnance Corps, a highly-skilled rating which does not exist in the Territorial Force; 2s. 9d was specially fixed as a suitable rate for Territorial infantry armourer sergeants, a rating which does not exist in the Regular Army, pending consideration of their position and duties.

  The Postmaster-General's Visit to Bradford—Call for the Military.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the exact terms of the communication which the Mayor of Bradford recently addressed to the military authorities requesting troops to be held in readiness to assist the civil authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The exact terms are as follows:—"The public authorities are apprehensive of there being a disturbance in the city to-morrow (Friday) evening on the occasion of a political meeting to be held in St, George's Hall. I trust that no disturbance will take place other than what the police will be able to cope with. I think, however, that it would be desirable that you should have as many of your men as can conveniently be spared in readiness, should the police authorities communicate with you and ask for your assistance." The hon. Member
  516
  will notice that my reply to this Question on the 3rd instant gave substantially the terms of the communication.

  Special Reserve and the Unemployed.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he has any record of the number of applicants to join the Special Reserve, and the percentage of applicants who have actually enlisted; and if he is aware that the majority of applicants to enlist have believed that the engagement in the Special Reserve is for six months only, and that, on learning that it is a six years engagement, in the majority of cases they retire.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Returns of the numbers of men applying to enlist into the Special Reserve are not forwarded to the War Office. No information has been received at the War Office to bear out the allegation contained in the last part of the Question; and, in view of the fact that the term of six years service is clearly set forth on the recruiting poster, the statement is not understood.

  Army Boot Contracts.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the number of pairs of boots and shoes required for the Army this year are equal to the number of pairs ordered in other years; whether any of the contractors are behind with their deliveries, and, if so, to what extent and for what reason; and whether he is aware that there is no dearth of labour in Northamptonshire but much unemployment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The figures given in reply to a Question put by my hon. friend on 15th October contain the information required in the first part of the Question. As regards the rest of the Question, speaking generally, the deliveries are in advance of those of any year in recent times, there are few arrears, and only of slight extent. I am informed that there are unemployed hands in Northamptonshire.

  Price of Army Boots.
  MR. NICHOLLS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the average price per pair paid for Army ankle boots during 1907 and 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It would be contrary to the practice of my Department to disclose the prices, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot furnish my hon. friend with the information for which he asks.

  Cape of Good Hope Licence and Stamp Fees.
  MR. LUTTRELL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the new Act of the Government of the Cape of Good Hope relating to licences and stamps; whether there has been a very large increase in the fees payable by agents for foreign firms; whether British agents in the Cape of Good Hope would in consequence have to pay these higher fees; and, if so, whether he would make such representations as he may think advisable on behalf of these agents and British trade.
  (Answered by Colonel Seely.) Yes, Sir. The Cape Stamp and Licences Act imposes large increases in the fees payable by agents of foreign firms. As the expression "foreign firm" applies to all (even those in South Africa) which are not domiciled in the Cape Colony the higher fees are payable by agents of firms in this country. The Secretary of State has been in communication on the subject with the Cape Government who stated that it has been found necessary to revise the tariffs for all licences with a view to obtaining increased revenue. He will, however, communicate with the Governor again.

  Postage of English Trade Circulars Abroad.
  MR. HYDE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the growing practice amongst English traders (owing to the advantage of four per cent. in the postage) of sending to be posted on the Continent, with five centime stamps, certain of their
  518
  circulars intended for delivery within the United Kingdom; and whether, to prevent the consequent loss to the Post Office due to the division of postage and to secure the like benefit to the trader, he will authorise postmasters to receive and stamp with ½d., such circulars posted in large quantities at the rate of 500 to the £1.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There is no reason to think that the practice referred to in the Question is adopted to any appreciable extent; and I am inclined to doubt whether the slight saving in postage which could be effected would counter-balance the various items of expense involved in sending circulars abroad to be posted. I do not consider it advisable to reduce the rate of postage on inland circulars posted in large quantities.

  Police Ambulances in London.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of police wheeled-litter ambulances in the metropolitan area in each year from 1891 to 1907; and the total number at the present time.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The earlier figures cannot readily be given, but it may be assumed that previous to 1903 there was an ambulance at every police station. The total number of police ambulances on 31st December of the undermentioned years was: 1903, 190; 1904, 192; 1905, 198; 1906, 203; 1907, 263; 31st October, 1908, 278.

  International Copyright Conference— British Delegates.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the British delegates to the International Copyright Conference now sitting at Berlin; whether any of the British have had any legal training in English copyright law; and, if not, for what reasons have they been selected.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The principal delegate is Sir Henry Bergne, who attended the International Conference on Copyright in 1885, 1886.

  519
  and 1896, and was a plenipotentiary for the signature of the Convention of 1886 and the Additional Act of 1896. The second delegate is Mr. Askwith, K.C., Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trade, who, I need hardly say, is a highly-trained lawyer, and who is at present in charge of the Department concerned with copyright. The third delegate is Count de Salis, Councillor of Embassy at Berlin. The first was selected owing to the important part which he has taken officially for the past thirty years in all negotiations connected with the subject; the second for his legal knowledge; and the third in accordance with the usual practice in the case of international conferences, which is that one of our delegates should be a diplomatist.

  Worcester Quarter Sessions—Shorthand Writers' Fees.
  DR. HAZEL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, at the last County Quarter Sessions at Worcester, owing to the refusal of local shorthand writers to undertake the work of official note-taking at the fee allowed by the Treasury, the work of the Court had to be suspended until a shorthand writer from the county council offices was brought in, and that even then only one Court instead of two could be held; whether he is aware also that at Worcester City Sessions, three weeks earlier, there was a similar deadlock until, as the result of an appeal by the Recorder to the reporter of a Birmingham newspaper on public grounds to act and to his editor to allow him to act, this reporter consented to act and the business then proceeded in one Court instead of two; and whether, in view of these difficulties, and of the difficulties occurring at other Courts since The Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, came into force, and of the general dissatisfaction with the Treasury allowance expressed by shorthand writers, steps will be taken to raise the fee to an amount more commensurate with the exacting and responsible nature of the duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The two cases mentioned have been brought to my notice, but I am not aware that
  520
  such difficulties have been in any way general. The remuneration offered is in practical accordance with the rate usually paid by the Government in legal and other cases, and I am not a prepared to raise it.

  Regent's Park Lake.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state when the ornamental lake in Regent's Park was last drained and cleaned; and whether he will consider the advisability of directing that such work be undertaken during the present winter.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The lake in Regent's Park was last drained and cleaned as a whole in 1867. A portion of the lake at the north-east corner was drained and cleaned last winter, and a portion at the south-east corner is being drained and cleaned now by the "unemployed."

  Chartered Company of Rhodesia.
  MR. NOLAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Chartered Company of Rhodesia have requested His Majesty's Government to guarantee a loan for £10,000,000 in the interest of railway and other enterprises in Africa; and, if so, whether the Government has definitely declined to do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The hon. Member is mistaken as to the form of the request made by the British South African Company. Through their solicitor they invited the Treasury to guarantee the interest on railway debenture issues in Rhodesia, but His Majesty's Government felt obliged to inform them that, while they were in sympathy with the good administrative work which is being done under the charter, they could not give the company a guarantee.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Admiralty Liquor Contracts.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask the First

  521
  Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty are bound by any agreement or undertaking, or is otherwise under any obligation, to obtain a supply of any intoxicating liquor from any particular person or persons; if so, what are the names of the persons; and what breweries, distilleries, or licensed premises they represent.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY Mr. MCKENNA,): Such liquors as are bought directly by the Admiralty are obtained in the open market by competition in the usual way. As regards canteens in naval shore estabments, the supply of liquor is not purchased by the Admiralty, but is provided by the general contractor for canteen supplies under arrangement with the naval officer in charge. The Admiralty policy is against anything in the nature of a tied system with any particular firm of brewers for wet canteens, and whore anything of that nature still exists, steps will be taken on the termination of the current local agreement to regulate any fresh arrangement in accordance with the policy referred to.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: Arising out of that Answer, and seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Questions, may I ask, Can he say definitely whether the Government are bound or not by any contract; and further, is there any contract with the proprietor or owner of a public-house known as the "Coach and Horses"; also, how many of these canteens are tied at the present time?
  MR. MCKENNA: I have answered the Questions completely. The hon. Member asked whether the Admiralty are bound by any agreement or undertaking, or are otherwise under any obligation, to obtain a supply of any intoxicating liquor from any particular person or persons. My Answer is in the negative.
  MR. H. C. LEA: Is it not a fact that all the rum bought by the Admiralty at the present time, and for years past, has been bought under an agreement with a firm of brokers in the City?
  MR. MCKENNA: I must ask for notice of that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Answer did not deal with the Admiralty in its centralised capacity in London, or does it mean that there are no contracts with the Government at Portsmouth, for instance, or Devonport or any other place with individual suppliers of liquor?
  MR. MCKENNA: There are contracts, but I have endeavoured as well as I could in my Answer to draw a distinction between wet naval canteens and Admiralty contracts. Under Admiralty contracts liquor is invariably bought in the open market by open competition, but the canteens are not Admiralty contracts. In this case there have been past contracts extending over a period of three years, but it is proposed in the future to bring all such contracts to an end and to insist upon the Admiralty policy being adopted in regard to canteens.
  MR. LEIF JONES: Arising out of that Answer and the cross-examination of my right hon. friend, may I ask whether the best way of overcoming the difficulties suggested in the various Questions would not be for the Admiralty to give up purchasing liquor?
  MR. H. C. LEA: Certainly not.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not want unduly to press the right hon. Gentleman, but we are anxious to know exactly what the system is. I understand that arrangements are made to buy in the open market, and of course we have nothing to say against that, but is the arrangement made with a firm of brewers for a week, a month, two months, six months, or for any period? For how long are these open market agreements made?
  MR. MCKENNA: I have no knowledge on that point, but no doubt the contracts for delivery of beer which might be ordered would extend over a considerable period. But the contract with any particular brewer would be made in open competition with other brewers.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could

  523
  give us the names of persons, and I repeat it now, and can he tell us if there is any contract with the owner or proprietor of the "Coach and Horses"?
  MR. MCKENNA: I have no knowledge at all of the "Coach and Horses."

  German Workmen on British Contracts.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether firms located in Great Britain but employing German workmen have been entrusted with work in various dockyards in preference to firms employing only British labour; and whether the foreign workmen have had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the confidential arrangements of dockyards at home and in British Dependencies.
  MR. MCKENNA: I have understood from a private communication from the hon. Member that he refers to a contract at Gibraltar, and I am telegraphing to the dockyard for information as to whether any foreign workmen have had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the confidential arrangements of the yard—or whether any foreign workmen have been employed at all.

  The Home Fleet.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the ten battleships and thirteen cruisers officially stated to have taken part in the recent cruise of the Home Fleet were fully manned; how many had nucleus crews; what were the names of the two battleships exercising independently; and were they fully manned ships.
  MR. MCKENNA: Four battleships and six cruisers were fully manned; the remainder had nucleus crews. H.M. ships "Vengeance" and "Mars," the two battleships which were exercising independently had nucleus crews.

  The Channel Fleet.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the strength of the Channel Fleet in battleships when it left Portland on the 23rd September.
  524
  I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the names of the battleships with the Channel Fleet when it left Portland on the 23rd September; and what were the names of the battleships withdrawn for repairs, and by whose order they were so withdrawn.
  MR. MCKENNA: The following battleships were with the Channel Fleet when it left Portland:—"Africa," "Commonwealth," "Hibernia," "King Edward VII.," "London," and "Venerable." The following were withdrawn for alterations and repairs:—"Britannia," "Bulwark," "Dominion," "Hindustan," "New Zealand," "Triumph." The remaining two battleships, "Irresistible" and "Swiftsure," did not proceed on cruise on 23rd September, as they were due for refit soon after that date. The "Bulwark" was withdrawn by Admiralty Order; the other battleships undergoing refit were approved by the Admiralty to be taken in hand, the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet having submitted a programme of refits showing the desirability of such action.
  MR. BELLAIRS: The right hon. Gentleman says one battleship was withdrawn by Admiralty Order. Is it not the case that no battleship can be withdrawn unless by Admiralty Order, so that the whole of the eight must have been so withdrawn?
  MR. MCKENNA: There were not eight, but six. I stated further that the other battleships were undergoing refit and that was approved by the Admiralty to be taken in hand, the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet having submitted a programme of refit showing the desirability of such action.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Does not the sole responsibility for ships being away rest with the Admiralty?
  MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir; but the Admiralty issue their Order on the recommendations of the Commander-in-Chief, and in this case the recommendation was made by the Commander-in-Chief.
  MR. WALTER LONG: May I ask whether it was by the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief

  525
  that these six ships were absent at the same time?
  MR. MCKENNA: It is only by taking one particular date that one arrives at the fact that these six ships were absent. If another date had been chosen it would have been found that fewer ships would have been absent.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but that is not an Answer to my Question. I did not attach any importance to any particular date, but I understand that at a particular period, and at the date given in the Question, a certain number of ships were absent in the Fleet. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that they were absent in consequence of a scheme submitted by the Commander-in-Chief. Was it in accordance with the Commander-in-Chief's recommendation that they were absent at that particular time?
  MR. MCKENNA: Certainly; he had recommended a programme which involved the absence of the ships.
  MR. MITCHELL THOMSON: May I ask whether that recommendation applies not only to the ships themselves, but to the time for which the ships are to be withdrawn?
  MR. MCKENNA: The recommendation covers both the particular ships and the period. The programme was particularly appropriate on this occasion, because two days after two of the ships had finished their refit.

  Education in Bombay.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Bombay has issued a Resolution expressing regret that the advance of education in that presidency has been accompanied in recent years by a lowering of the standard of manners in schools and colleges, that this is due in some measure to the tendency of masters, boys, and students to associate themselves with political demonstrations, in which the way of anarchy is prepared; and, if the Answer be in the affirmative, whether he will place a copy of the said Resolution in the Library.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The Resolution referred to has been printed in the public Press, and the Secretary of State does not think that anything would be gained by placing a copy in the Library.
  MR. REES: In view of this statement as to the result of the present system, will the Government consider the propriety of changing the system?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I hardly think that arises out of the Question.

  His Majesty's Proclamation to India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to state when the measures of reform in India which are foreshadowed in His Majesty's gracious proclamation will be made known to the House.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State is not able to state when the measures of reform will be laid before Parliament. No time is being lost. The hon. Member will easily understand that a good deal of communication with the Government of India is necessary. An Act of no great length will be necessary for certain of the proposals, but the Bill cannot be introduced this session.
  SIR H. COTTON: Does the hon. Gentleman apprehend that a statement will be made on the subject this session?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I have given the fullest answer I can to the Question.

  Indian Reforms.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a Departmental Committee has been appointed to consider the measures of reform in India which are foreshadowed in His Majesty's gracious proclamation; and, if so, will he state the names of the members of the Committee.
  MR. BUCHANAN: On the 15th October in answer to a Question by the hon. Member I stated that the question of reform in Indian Administration was under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council, and that he was not

  527
  in a position to make any further statement. I have nothing at present to add to that reply.
  SIR H. COTTON: Is it a fact that no Departmental Committee has been appointed?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think it is quite reasonable to ask as to the methods by which the Secretary of State is endeavouring to form the best judgment and to get from a very wide circle advice on the very important matters involved.
  MR. REES: Do the Government of India contemplate any reforms in the direction of strengthening its hands for the suppression of sedition and the punishment of crime?
  MR. BUCHANAN: There again I hardly think my hon. friend's Question arises out of the Question on the Paper.

  Amnesty of Prisoners in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will grant a return of the number of prisoners, and the character of the offences committed by those prisoners, who have been released or whose sentences have been reduced under the terms of His Majesty's gracious proclamation to the princes and people of India.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State regrets that it is not practicable to comply with the hon. Member's request. The benefit of His Majesty's clemency under the proclamation will extend to the general mass of the prisoners in India in proportion to the length of their sentences and irrespective of the nature of the offences for which they were convicted. Sentences of a year and upwards are reduced by a month for every year of sentence. Similar reductions are made in sentences of under a year.
  SIR H. COTTONasked, if nothing special, nothing other than the ordinary gaol delivery was intended, why such exceptional prominence was given to the release of prisoners in His Majesty's gracious proclamation.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid there was something special, inasmuch as every man who was under sentence on 2nd November got a month off his sentence, if his sentence lasted more than a year, with a proportionate reduction if the sentence was less than a year.
  DR. RUTHERFORDasked whether that was any more than was customarily given to men who behaved themselves properly while they were in prison.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Prisoners will not forfeit any reduction of sentence which is consequent upon good behaviour in prison.
  MR. REESasked whether the Government would except from this benefit all those who have been convicted of spreading sedition amongst the people of India.
  MR. BUCHANAN: There is no distinction drawn with regard to offences.

  The Maharajah of Burdwan.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government desire to make any public acknowledgement of the courageous and patriotic conduct of the Maharajah of Burdwan in helping to save the life of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I am sure that His Majesty's Government and this House fully appreciate and admire the brave conduct of the Maharajah of Burdwan, and that the Maharajah himself will feel that heroic conduct and its public acknowledgement are its own best reward.

  Transvaal Civil Service.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of new posts created in the Transvaal Civil Service since the assumption of responsible government; how many English and Dutch, respectively, have been appointed; and of these how many respectively have been transferred from other posts which have been abolished or otherwise.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The Transvaal Government do not classify their Civil servants as English and Dutch. It has never been the custom for self-governing Colonies to furnish returns of appointments to their Civil Service. The Transvaal and Orange River Colony Governments have recently furnished the Secretary of State with very full returns of reductions made in their Civil Services. These returns have cost the two Governments much time and labour, and the Secretary of State recognises that the preparation of these documents has been a special act of courtesy on their part. The Agent-General for the Transvaal has informed me that he has general information from his Government that new appointments to the Transvaal Civil Service have shown no preponderance in favour of either English or Dutch, but for the reasons given the Secretary of State cannot take the very unusual course of asking the Transvaal Government to go to further trouble and expense.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he would give the House the information to which he had referred in his Answer; was it based on the Return sent by the Transvaal Government? He had clearly stated that there had been a greater number of English officials appointed to the Civil Service than of Dutch.
  COLONEL SEELY: I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman refers. I have stated, what has been stated on more than one occasion, that no racial favouritism whatever is shown; and that, indeed, is the fact. And with regard to the refusal, which I now make, to ask the Transvaal Government to furnish this Return, I may say that there is every indication, as the hon. Gentleman will find if he refers to the Agent-General, who has furnished me with this information, that there is no racial antagonism of any kind shown in these appointments; but we cannot ask a self-governing Colony to go to great trouble and expense to prepare a Return, especially when the form of the Question implies a reflection on the Government.

  Natal Native Administration.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can explain why the Colonial Office has not yet received a copy of the Bill to provide for the better administration of native affairs, which has been read a third time and passed by both Houses of the Natal Parliament, and was published in the Natal Government Gazette of 1st September ultimo.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Natal Gazette of 1st September contains the Bill as read a third time and passed by the Legislative Assembly. There is nothing in the Gazette to indicate that the Bill was then in its final form, and I observe from the Natal Press that three weeks later the Prime Minister in the Legislative Council moved to retransmit the Bill to the Legislative Assembly certified correct as passed by the Legislative Council with certain Amendments made therein by the Legislative Council. I do not know what those Amendments were.
  MR. BYLES: Does not the Bill transfer the duty of protecting the natives formerly imposed on the representative of the Crown to permanent officials of the Natal Government?
  COLONEL SEELY: The Bill in its final form has not been received as yet.

  The Pacific Phosphate Company.
  MR. H. C. LEA: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the High Commissioner's Report of his inquiry into the allegations made against the Pacific Phosphate Company, and also a copy of the leases and licences obtained by the company on the guano phosphate island, Paanopa.
  The hon. Member also had the following Questions down on the same subject:—
  To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Pacific Phosphate Company, of which Lord Stanmore, an ex-Commissioner of the Western Pacific, is chairman, holds on a nominal payment a valuable guano phosphate concession in the Gilbert Islands, Western Pacific; whether his attention has been called to

  531
  the allegations that have been made that, by a system of unjust taxation, ill-treatment of natives, and general mal-administration, Colonial officials have assisted the interests of this company, and that these allegations have never been thoroughly and independently investigated; and whether he proposes to hold any inquiry into the matter.
  To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the two inquiries into the allegations impugning the Pacific Phosphate Company and the connivance of the Colonial officials, whether he is aware that both were held after long delay; that, in the first inquiry, the complainants' witnesses were not present; that the second inquiry was made by the High Commissioner alone, and not on the spot; and will he explain why the Colonial Office has refused to publish the same.
  To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will explain why the Government have disclaimed responsibility for the Gilbert Island natives being deprived of their guano phosphate property on the ground that Paanopa was not then British territory, seeing that some years before the Pacific Islands Company obtained any lease of those phosphate beds Paanopa had come under British rule through a treaty with Germany, which divided that portion of the Pacific between the two Powers.
  COLONEL SEELY: I will answer together the four Questions of my hon. friend on the subject. The Pacific Phosphate Company occupies Ocean Island (the native name of which is Paanopa) on a licence under which the company pays a royalty of 6d. per ton on the phosphates exported. This royalty, which now amounts to more than £3,000 a year, has hitherto been paid to the Imperial Exchequer, but arrangements have been made by which it will in future be paid to the Government of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate. I shall be happy to communicate copies of the licences to my hon. friend, but the Secretary of State doubts whether they are of sufficient public interest to justify their being laid before Parliament. Ocean Island did not become part of His Majesty's Dominions under the Anglo-German agreement of
  532
  1886, but was annexed in 1900. A report concerning the only allegations against the company which have reached the Secretary of State is being laid on the Table. The earlier inquiry to which my hon. friend refers related to other islands in the Gilbert group, and had nothing to do with the Pacific Phosphate Company, or with Ocean Island.
  MR. H. C. LEA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this company get a lease from the natives practically under false pretences during the time the island was under the protection of the British Government, although the flag had not actually been hoisted, and that—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member had better put the Question on the Paper.

  British and Canadian Trade.
  MR. BOULTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the bonding privileges which enable Great Britain and Canada to send goods to one another through United States territory in bond are the subject of treaty; and, if so, who are the parties of the treaty; is the treaty for a definite period, and what period; it is subject to termination by either party, and on what notice; and, if no such treaty exists, what are the arrangements under which those bonding privileges are in force.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The bonding privileges referred to in the Question of the hon. Member are based on Article 29 of the Treaty of Washington of 1871, and although the Fishery Articles of that Treaty were subsequently denounced, the article in question in the view of His Majesty's Government is still in force, though on this point a different view is entertained by the United States. Its provisions have, however, in practice been acted upon ever since.

  German Prosecution of British Trawler.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the arrest of

  533
  the British steam trawler "Taurus" by a German gunboat, on the 14th May last, and of the trial of Captain George Barker, at the Royal Provincial Court at Flensburg, on the 24th August, when he was fined 300 marks and the vessel's gear and voyage confiscated; whether he is aware that at the trial it was admitted that the commander took no cross-bearings or angles, that he stated he took soundings and that the vessel was in 9 feet of water, whereas the ship draws 13 feet; whether the Court refused to recognise the vessel's chart, and that the Court in giving judgment charged the captain with carrying an inaccurate chart of the waters on that coast; whether he is aware that the chart in question was one of Close's charts, which was prepared under the surveys of Commander Lindup of the British Admiralty, who has since seen the chart and guarantees its accuracy; and whether the Foreign Office are aware of any difference between the German and English charts as to the limit-line in these waters, or whether the Germans are entitled to fix the three-mile limit-line where they choose and arrest British vessels without notice.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Acting under my instructions, the British Vice-Consul at Finsburg was present in the Court at the trial of the master of the British steam trawler "Taurus." I am not aware of the admissions and statements attributed by the hon. Member to the commander of the Gorman gunboat. As regards the chart in use on the "Taurus," no authority was given to Mr. Lindup, a chief officer of coastguard, to assist Mr. Close in preparing the chart, and any assistance given by him to Mr. Close was unofficial. I understand that Mr. Close did consult him privately in the matter. I am in communication with the Admiralty as to any difference which may exist between the British and German charts. The German authorities are of course bound by the definition of the exclusive fishery limits contained in Article 2 of the North Sea Fisheries (Police) Convention of 1882, which runs as follows:—"The fishermen of each country shall enjoy the exclusive right of fishery within the distance of three miles from low-water mark along the whole extent of the coasts of their respective countries, as well as of the dependent islands and banks."

  Persian Constitution.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Shah of Persia has announced his intention to promulgate a rescript abolishing the Constitution; whether the representations made by His Majesty's Government in concert with that of Russia to the Shah, having in view the summoning of a Parliament according to the Constitution, are being renewed; and whether it is proposed that any limitations should be placed on freedom of election and control by Parliament of the national Budget.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information that the Shah of Persia has abrogated the Persian Constitution, and refused to convoke the Parliament.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: In reply to a petition presented on November 7th, the Shah promised to instruct the Grand Vizier in the sense desired by the petitioners, that is to say, that the Constitution should be abandoned; but he has not yet issued a rescript to this effect. Representations such as the hon. Member alludes to were renewed on 8th November, subsequent to the events described above, but were of a general character, and did not go into the constitutional details referred to in the last part of the Question.

  Ex-Constable George Reed.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evidence of ex-Constable George Reed before the Royal Commission of Metropolitan Police, and the statement made by the chairman in connection with his evidence; and whether he intends instituting proceedings against him for perjury.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): My right hon. friend would refer the hon. Member to the reply which he returned to a similar Question on the 8th August, 1907. The Royal Commission have made no recommendation on the subject, and my right

  535
  hon. friend does not propose to take any action in the matter.

  Licensing Statistics.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the figures showing the number of new licences granted, the number of licences reduced, and the total number in existence on the 31st March in each year from 1900 to 1908 inclusive.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: All available information on the points mentioned by the hon. Member is given in the Annual Volumes of Licensing Statistics, and the Secretary of State thinks he will find substantially what he wants there. He may refer him to the tables given on page 6 in regard to new on-licences and the annual decrease in existing on licences and to the table on page 3 in regard to the numbers of on-licences existing in each year.

  New Licences and Tied Houses.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of new licences granted under the Act of 1904, and how many of them are subject to a tie in respect of the purchase of liquors.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the years 1905–6–7, 165 new on-licences and 601 now off-licences have been granted and confirmed in England and Wales. My right hon. friend has no information as to how many of these licences are tied; but he may say that under Section 4 of the Act of 1904, which empowers them to impose conditions on new on-licences, the justices have in three cases laid down that the licence is not to become tied.

  Lancashire Cotton Trade Disputes.
  MR. HAWORTH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent dispute in the Lancashire cotton-spinning trade, which resulted in an extensive stoppage of machinery before the contending parties could settle their differences, he will consider the advisability of taking steps, by legislation or otherwise, to secure the adoption of an
  536
  automatic sliding-scale to regulate wages according to the state of trade, and so avoid strikes or lock-outs in the future in cases for which the Brooklands agreement has proved inadequate.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I am deeply impressed with the urgent importance of this matter. While I am of opinion that neither employers nor employed would desire the establishment by law of an automatic sliding-scale to regulate wages and that both would prefer that questions respecting the setting up of such machinery for avoiding disputes should be decided in the main by the interests directly concerned, I can assure my hon. friend that the Board of Trade would be prepared to lend their best assistance, if desired, in the furtherance of negotiations between those interests. I propose to communicate with the various parties in this sense.

  Shipping Regulations.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state for what reasons the Board of Trade have postponed the application to foreign vessels within British ports of the provisions of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, relating to load-line, defective equipment, the stowage of grain cargoes, and life saving appliances.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Act of 1906 provides that the British rules as to load-line and life-saving appliances are to be applied to foreign ships in our ports on some date during 1909, to be prescribed, the intention being to allow as long a time as is reasonably required to enable foreign Governments to make any necessary alterations in their rules. Voluntary action on the part of foreign Governments is in every way preferable to the bare enforcement of our standard in United Kingdom ports. The negotiations with foreign Governments are progressing very favourably, and the date selected, 1st October next, will, I hope, admit of this voluntary action being completed in the case of the principal maritime Powers.

  Birmingham Gun Trade.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the practice of the

  537
  English proof houses, both in Birmingham and in London, of proof-marking foreign-made barrels and firearms with the same proof marks as those put upon British made barrels and firearms, and to the fact that this practice is taken advantage of by importers and Continental makers to send their goods to the English proof houses instead of to the proof houses in the countries of origin for the purpose of obtaining English proof marks and thereby passing off the goods so marked as of British make; and, if so, what steps do His Majesty's Government propose to take to prevent the deception.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that the views held by different sections of the English gun trade on this difficult matter are widely divergent, and that whilst all parties agree that imported barrels might with advantage be marked differently from British, the gunmakers are opposed to the desire of the barrel makers, that barrels made from tubes imported in the rough should also be marked as foreign. A conference on the subject between representatives of those interests was held at the Board of Trade in 1904, but without result. I am at any time prepared to consider proposals for a further conference which may be made to me on behalf of the parties interested, but while the trade is so divided in opinion it is not possible for me to take action in the sense desired by the right hon. Member.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Will my right hon. friend take steps to ascertain whether or not the so-called gunmakers who are opposed to this change are gunmakers at all, or simply importers of guns whom the present system—so bad for the workmen—suits?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will submit the statement of my right hon. friend to my advisors at the Board of Trade.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is it a fact, as suggested in this Question, that this unpatriotic system is practised in Birmingham?

  British Investments Abroad.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any materials from which he can give an estimate of the amount of
  538
  British capital sent abroad during each of the years from 1900 to 1907.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I know of no satisfactory means of making such an estimate.
  MR. FELL: Have not the Board of Trade on several occasions made estimates based on income tax returns, showing the revenue derived from foreign investments?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is not the information I have, nor do I think it would be satisfactory.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Is it not the fact that banks and houses using coupons or foreign bonds make a declaration with regard to them? Could not the returns be made up from them?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That seems to fall within the purview of the Treasury.

  Underground Railway Employees and Conciliation Boards.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say what steps are being taken, if any, by the Central London and other underground electric railway companies for the establishment of conciliation boards with their workmen.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As I have, informed my hon. friend the Member for Derby, the Board of Trade are now in correspondence with the Central London Company on this subject. As regards other underground electric lines, conciliation boards have already been established for the Great Northern and City Railway, and an election of the men's representatives is about to take place on the Metropolitan Railway. I do not know whether any steps are being taken for the formation of conciliation boards on the Metropolitan District Railway and the group of tube railways controlled by the Underground Electric Railways Company, but, as my hon. friend will be aware, the circumstances of these lines differ from those of most other lines.
  MR. HUDSONasked if more than a year had not elapsed since the arrangement was made between the Board of Trade and the companies, did not these

  539
  men apply to have a board formed more than six months ago, and would steps be taken to press the matter to a conclusion.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade are in constant communication with an increasing and substantial measure of success with the companies in order to bring these boards into existence, and if the Central London Company has lagged behind it has not been our fault.

  Administration of the Distress Fund.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that, in consequence of the central and various local distress committees not receiving the Circular withdrawing the two disqualifications, viz., poor law relief and two successive years work, a large number of men are being prevented from obtaining work; and if he can state when the Circular will be issued removing the two disqualifications mentioned.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): An Order dealing with this matter was issued yesterday, and copies of it, together with an explanatory Circular, have been sent to the local bodies concerned.
  MR. W. THORNE: What is the difference between the alteration and the old Orders?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Full discretion is given to the distress committees.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON,: May I ask whether leaving to the discretion of the local committees the two points referred to in the Prime Minister's recent speech—the poor law disqualification and having one's name on the distress register for two years—is what the House were led to expect?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It is generally regarded by those responsible for the administration of the Act that this is by far the best and most effective way of giving expression to the Prime Minister's promise.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: But may I ask whether it is not setting aside the intention of the Prime Minister's speech to leave it in the discretion of the authorities whether the disqualifications definitely promised to be removed have been allowed to remain?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: That is not the view of the distress committees.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: Will the modifications take place from the date of the Prime Minister's speech or that of the issue of the Local Government Board's Circular?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I presume they will take effect from yesterday, when the Circular was issued.
  MR. CROOKS: Are we to understand that these poor men who are now registered as disqualified will not be allowed to come in. I put that to the Prime Minister.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I should like to have notice of that Question.

  Valuation of Corporate Property.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the value of £241,000,000 set on the corporate property and undertakings of the councils of boroughs, other than Metropolitan boroughs, in England and Wales, according to the Return obtained in 1904, represented in whole or in part the original cost of the undertakings and works.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The value of the assets comprised in the total of £241,000,000 was estimated in different ways in different boroughs. In some cases the original cost was apparently taken as the estimated value. The remarks in column 12 of the Return contain further information on the point, and I will send a copy of the Return to the hon. Member.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Does that £241,000,000 represent the depreciated value?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The hon. Gentleman had better peruse the Return and draw his own inference.

  West Ham Distress Committee.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the West Ham Distress Committee received any grant from the £300,000 granted by the Government to assist the unemployed for the year ending 1908–9.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It has not at present been necessary for a payment to be made to the distress committee out of the Grant for 1908–9, as they have in hand a considerable balance from the Grant for 1907–8. I have already authorised the appropriation of £1,520 from this balance towards works upon which men registered with the distress committee will be employed, and I hope to be able to assent to further appropriations very shortly.

  Housing and Town Planning Bill.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the many difficulties of construction, and of law, which have arisen, and are likely to arise, in the discussion of the Housing and Town Planning Bill; and whether he will take steps to secure for the Standing Committee the presence of some legal assistance.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I have already made arrangements which will, I hope, give us the advantage of the presence of one of the law officers on the Committee next week.
  LORD R. CECIL: Will he be present continuously or only for five minutes at a time as was the case to-day?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It is very difficult to guarantee the attendance of a law officer or indeed of any lawyer either in or outside this House.

  Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the receipt of poor relief by a husband during the
  542
  present year disqualifies the wife, who is otherwise fully qualified to receive a pension, from receiving a pension.
  Mr. NICHOLLS: At the same time may I ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the position under the Old-Age Pensions Act of an aged couple over the age of seventy years who have received out-relief from the Poor Law, which does not recognise the wife's claim to its assistance so long as the husband lives; and whether the wife can claim a pension under the Pensions Act.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am taking the opinion of the law officers with respect to the point raised in this Question, so that at the moment a definite reply cannot be given to it.

  Mombasa Mail Service.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Post-master-General if he can state approximately the number of letters conveyed by the British India Steamship Company to Mombasa, and approximately the cost to the country of each letter; and whether, in view of the fact that there is practically no passenger traffic on the said line, he will consider the advisability in future arrangements of insisting that the service should be an adequate one.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The number of articles from the United Kingdom, excluding parcels, conveyed by the British India Steam Navigation Company on the mail service from Aden to Mombasa and Zanzibar is estimated at 145,000 per annum. The company also conveys about 380,000 articles per annum, originating in British possessions and foreign countries. The cost of conveying each letter cannot be stated, as the payment to the company is made in a lump sum covering the conveyance of all letter mails and parcel mails in both directions and between several ports. The question of revising this contract is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

  Postal Split Duties.
  MR. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what number of

  543
  extra men would be permanently employed by the Post Office if the present system of split duties worked by London postmen was abolished.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The information required by the hon. Member is not available. Unfortunately, as recognised by the Parliamentary Committee, split duties cannot be abolished.

  Christmas Pay in the Post Office.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any instructions have been issued to postmasters in the provinces relating to the pay per hour to be given to the extra staff employed during the pressure of Christmas business; whether, according to this instruction, the maximum is now to be 6d., but may be as low as 4d. per hour; whether in any case the scale hitherto paid has been over 6d.; and upon what basis the alteration, if any, has been made.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It recently came to my notice that in certain cases the rates paid to the staff temporarily employed in the Post Office during the Christmas season were lower than those on which the wages of auxiliary postmen are based. I have therefore caused instructions to be issued that the rates of pay for the temporary force should, as far as possible, be based on the rates recommended by the Select Committee for auxiliary service. The lowest rates payable under these conditions will be 4½d, an hour, and this will be applicable only to Class 5—that is, the smallest offices. Higher rates than 6d. an hour will be paid where the auxiliary rates are not considered to be sufficient remuneration for the performance of certain duties which may be required. Besides the fixed wage the men receive special pay for night work, for Christmas Day and Boxing Day and got overtime when it has to be worked.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Will the wages paid hitherto be lowered in any case?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As I explained the other day in reference to the Leeds case, there is to be a reduction of the rate per hour, but in the end the
  544
  aggregate amount received by the man will exceed that paid last year.
  MR. CROOKS: You are reducing the rate and making the man work twice the time in order to keep up his wages.

  London and Paris Mail Service.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he would state the official time occupied by the longest of the mail services between the two capitals of London and Paris via Dover and Calais, and the quickest time occupied by the mail service between the same cities via Boulogne and Folkestone
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The longest time occupied in any of the mail services between London and Paris via Dover and Calais is 8 hours 45 minutes, and the shortest time occupied in any of the services by way of Folkestone and Boulogne is 6 hours 45 minutes.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the shortest of all the routes between London and Paris, viz., via Hastings and Treport, a distance of 238 miles, as compared with 287 miles by the longest of all the routes, via Dover and Calais; and, in view of the increasing rapidity of modern mail steamers, would he consider, in conjunction with the French postal authorities, the possibility of securing an equally rapid and alternative service either via Newhaven and Dieppe with the existing service, or by the proposed service via Hastings and Tréport.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: There is no regular service of steamships between Hastings and Tréport suitable for the transmission of mails; nor, so far as I am aware, are the harbour accommodation and railway facilities on either side by that route adequate for a mail service. I am considering the possibility of sending more of the mails for France by the route of Newhaven and Dieppe.
  MR. PIRIEwas understood to suggest that with electrification of the line to Tréport a considerable saving of time would be effected.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am looking into the whole matter, and if my

  545
  hon. friend can bring any facts before me I will consider them.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, with regard to the mail service between the two capitals of London and Paris, and in view of the fact that there are from London to Paris twenty mail services per week carried by the longer route, via Dover and Calais, as compared with twelve by the shorter route, via Boulogne and Folkestone, and that in the service from Paris to London the weekly differences were greater, being twenty-one by the longer as compared to seven by the shorter route, and as this arrangement is solely in the interests of the railway companies to the detriment of the mail service and of the travelling public, he will endeavour, in conjunction with the French postal authorities, to obtain rectification so that the mails for or passing through Paris may be more often carried by the shorter than by the longer route.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not think it can be said that the arrangement to which the hon. Member refers is solely in the interests of the railway companies. The question of modifying the present service in the manner suggested is not by any means free from difficulties. The matter is being carefully considered.

  City Postmen's Duties.
  MR. WILES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state whether the new early morning attendance of E.C. postmen resulted in the expected acceleration in the delivery of the first morning correspondence in the City of London.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The early morning attendance of the E.C. postmen has already resulted in a decided acceleration in the delivery of the first morning correspondence in the City of London and this acceleration may be still further increased in the future.

  National Telephone Company.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is able to make any further statement either in regard to the discharges by the National Telephone Company in consequence of the nearing of the termination
  546
  of their lease, or in reference to any arrangements he may have agreed on with them in order to carry on uninterruptedly the construction work.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg also to ask the Postmaster General whether he can give any further information in regard to the discharges by the National Telephone Company in consequence of the nearing of the termination of their lease; and whether he has concluded any arrangements with them in order to carry on the construction work.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am glad to say that, in view of the proposals of the Post Office now under consideration by the National Telephone Company, the company have arranged that, in order to avoid discharges which might otherwise take place consequent on the early termination of their lease, especially during the winter months, they have given instructions that as far as possible employment is to be found, and that if necessary new work proper for the company to undertake, having regard to the termination of its licence, may be put in hind earlier than would otherwise be the case. As regards the continuance of construction works, I have made a proposal for the co-operation of the Post Office with the company, which is now under their consideration.
  MR. CURRAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take precautions to prevent the company using old cables and other material in the laying of new lines?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If the hon. Member can give me any information I will look into the matter.

  Postal Duties in Lincolnshire.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what are the usual ordinary weekly hours for the clerical staff at the head offices at Worksop, Mansfield, Lincoln, Spilsby, Gainsborough, Grimsby, and Brigg; and what are the weekly hours worked during 1908.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a similar Question which he put down for

  547
  Monday last, I am having inquiries made; but the information has not yet reached me.

  Small Holdings in Gloucestershire.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of the small holders recently announced by him as provided for in the county of Gloucester are ordinary tenants on privately-arranged holdings, and how many are tenants holding direct from the county council of Gloucestershire.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. Out of the seventy applicants for whom holdings have been provided, thirty hold from private landowners and forty are tenants of the county council.

  Clyde Pilots Grievance.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, at the trial of Mr. William McKinlay, a Clyde pilot, held at Glasgow on 15th May, 1907, for reckless navigation on the Clyde, there was any nautical assessor with pilotage knowledge assisting the sheriff who tried the case, and, if not, can he say whether, taking into account the highly technical nature of such cases, he will in future have such assessors appointed to assist in such trials; and can he say if this is the practice in the other parts of the United Kingdom.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW, Hawick Burghs): I have nothing to add to the Answers given by my right hon. friends the Secretary for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade on this subject. I have no power to appoint assessors. The practice appears to be the same in the three kingdoms. I may add that should the inquiry into pilotage referred to by the President of the Board of Trade in his Answer on 4th November take place I would be very glad if this question of assessors were included in the investigation.
  MR. JOYCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in such cases in England a nautical assessor always assists the Judge?
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: According to the information furnished me by the Board of Trade that is not so.
  MR. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further on this point?
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I shall be pleased to do so, but I would point out that this was a criminal and not a technical proceeding.
  MR. JOYCE: Where did the criminality come in? Was it not the reckless navigation of the naval officer?

  Kilmaleg Rent Dispute.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that when one of the Land Commission's inspectors went to inspect the lands of Patrick M'Gann, of Kilmaleg, he declined the request of the tenant to inspect the worst part of the farm; whether the landlady appealed to the decision of the lower Court and that, on account of the bad portion of the land not being inspected, the rent was increased by £1 5s.; and whether, seeing that inspections of this kind are giving general dissatisfaction, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Land Commission inform me that in the case referred to in the Question a judicial rent was fixed by the Land Commission Court of Appeal under Section 88 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The lay assessor who acted upon the appeal in this case reports that he visited every field on the farm when making his inspection.

  Castleconnell Burial Dispute.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the House full particulars of the attack by a Roman Catholic mob on the funeral procession when Mr. Enright's body was being conveyed to the Protestant burial ground in Castleconnell, County Limerick; can he say if the body was interred without any funeral service; have any arrests been made in connection with the case; and, if so, what sentences have been passed.
  MR. LUNDON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies may I ask him whether Mr. Enright died a Roman Catholic; whether a Roman Catholic clergyman attended him, and whether he died according to the rites of the Catholic Church?
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman was a member of the Church of Ireland for his whole life, that he was a member of the elected vestry of his church, and tint he was an earnest and hard worker in his church for the last forty or fifty years?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that there was no mob, Catholic or Protestant, on this occasion. Police were present, but as there was no breach of the peace there was no occasion for any arrests. Mr. Enright is believed to have been admitted into the Catholic Church shortly before he died, and, owing to this general belief, the coffin was taken straight to the grave instead of to the church, where the Protestant rector was waiting to read the service. It is understood that the service was read in the Church. With regard to the supplementary Questions, I really deprecate them. It is no doubt a fact that this gentleman, who was the child of a mixed marriage, was a Protestant during the greater part of his life. His father who was a Protestant died, and he lived with his mother who was a Roman Catholic. It is undoubtedly a fact that during the last days of his life he wished to join the Catholic Church. He did so and he died in that faith.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Was the body interred without any burial service, and if this man died a Roman Catholic, was the service read by a Roman Catholic clergyman?
  MR. BIRRELL: I understand that no Catholic priest was present on the occasion. The service was read in the Protestant church.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: When the right hon. Gentleman says that in his latter days this gentleman turned Roman Catholic, does he mean that he did so within a few hours or a few weeks of his
  550
  death. It is very important. [Cries of "Oh."]
  MR. SPEAKER: I think we might leave this poor gentleman alone now.

  Killea United Irish League Branch.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a mooting of the United Irish League, Killea (King's County) branch, on Sunday 18th October last, when a man named Stapleton was fined £1 for associating with so-called obnoxious people in the locality, and a labourer was forbidden to work for Mr. Cradock, junior, because the league had condemned Mr. Cradock, senior; and what steps the Government intend to take to stamp out the holding of illegal Courts by the United Irish League.
  MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to a newspaper report purporting to contain an account of the meeting in question, but the police authorities have no knowledge that Stapleton attended the meeting or that he was fined as stated. Mr. Cradock lives in quite a different neighbourhood, and their appears to be no foundation for the statement that a labourer was forbidden to work for him.

  Lacken Moonlight Outrage.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a daring moonlighting outrage was perpetrated on 27th October last at Lacken, in the Kilmihill district, County Clare when a party of disguised and armed men intimidated a man named Cushen by firing a number of shots outside his dwelling-house; can he state what force of police there is stationed at Kilmihill and Kinlea; and what arrests have been made in connection with the outrage, and what sentences passed.
  MR. BIRRELL: As regards this case I have nothing to add to my reply to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Mid Armagh on the 4th instant. There are at present one acting sergeant and and five constables at Kilmihill, and one acting sergeant and six constables at Kinlea.

  Crookenden and Casey Estate, Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why the syndicate owning the Crookenden and Casey estate, County Cavan, have not replied to the Estates Commissioners' offer under Section 6 of 3 Edw. 7; when was the first offer made; and will he say when it is likely that a reply will be received.
  MR. BIRRELL: The owners of this estate have accepted the offer made by the Estates Commissioners on 7th July last for its purchase.

  Cavan Evicted Tenants.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the townlands, owners, and area gazetted in County Cavan for compulsory acquisition under The Evicted Tenants Act, 1907; what was the date of gazetting; and when is it expected that these lands will be available for the evicted tenants.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have furnished me with a tabular statement giving the required information which I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to publish with to-night's Votes.

  Firearm Outrages in Ireland.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the constabulary authorities have reason to believe that many outrages, including cases of firing into dwelling-houses, have been committed since January, 1907, without the local police having heard of them; and, if so, to what cause such a condition of affairs is attributed.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary is of opinion that it is very rarely that any outrage takes place of which the police do not hear. Cases occur from time to time which are not reported by the persons injured, but they almost invariably come to the knowledge of the police. There is no reason to suppose that the number of such cases has increased since January, 1907.

  United Irish League in County Sligo.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the Inspector-General the number of branches of the United Irish League in County Sligo, and the proportion of these that have been active during the past twelve months in passing condemnatory resolutions against persons who hold grazing or evicted farms or against those who have given them assistance.
  MR. BIRRELL: So far as the police authorities are aware there are forty-two branches of the United Irish League in County Sligo. The proceedings of these branches are usually conducted indoors, and it is not therefore possible to say how many have been active in passing condemnatory resolutions.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the number of resolutions passed by branches of the League and published in the local newspapers?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have kept no records.
  MR. JOYCE: How many Orange lodges are there in South Antrim, and what resolutions did they pass?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that.

  Threatening Letters to Magistrates.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the Inspector-General whether in several cases during the past two years letters threatening with death or serious outrage have been received by local justices of the peace, the object being to prevent them from attending petty sessions; whether in other cases local justices have been boycotted or intimidated because they adjudicated at petty sessions; and will he state what action has been taken by the Government in such cases.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary is not aware of any case in which threatening letters have been addressed to justices of

  553
  the peace with a view to deter them from attending petty sessions. One magistrate has been boycotted and hooted on account of his action at petty sessions, and another was hooted on one occasion for the same reason, but on full consideration it was decided that the circumstances were not such as to justify a prosecution in either case.

  Alleged Terrorism in Ireland.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the constabulary authorities whether the condition of a large number of persons in Ireland who struggle to maintain their freedom and independence is pitiable in the extreme; whether these authorities are of opinion that the ordinary law is powerless to supply a remedy; and what steps, if any, it is proposed to take to restore confidence in the law, and to ameliorate the condition of such persons.
  MR. BIRRELL: It would be contrary to practice to state the nature of the Reports furnished by the constabulary authorities for the information of the Government, but I have no reason to believe that the condition of any large number of persons in Ireland is pitiable in the extreme. In every case in which persons are known to be subject to intimidation or unlawful pressure all possible steps are being taken, and will be taken, by the police authorities for their protection.

  Drogheda Cattle-Drive.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a cattle-drive, within the last few days, near Drogheda, the tails of a number of cattle were tied together, and that in their endeavours to free themselves portions of the tails of three of the cattle were pulled off; and whether any information is forthcoming as to the perpetrators of this outrage.
  The following Question also was on the Paper—
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that
  554
  an outrage was committed near Drogheda on Sunday night, 1st November, last, when four cows were injured by having their tails partially torn off; and what arrests, if any, have been made and what sentences passed.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that this occurrence had no connection with cattle-driving. It appears to have been the wanton act of four boys, who are being prosecuted for cruelty to animals. This Answer also applies to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for East Down.

  Elphin Agrarian Dispute.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any arrests have been made in connection with the recent attack on John J. McGrath, of Curcreigh, Elphin, Roscommon, when he was badly beaten about the head as the result of an agrarian dispute; and can he state the nature of McGrath's injuries, and his present condition, and say what led to the assault.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that this assault was not the result of an agrarian dispute. An arrest has been made and proceedings are pending. It is not desirable to enter into any further particulars while the case is sub-judice beyond saying that the injured man was certified to be out of danger on 25th October.

  Macroom Explosion.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at an early hour in the morning of 6th November last, an explosion occurred in Main Street, Macroom; whether an attack was made on the business premises of Mr. Jeremiah Cronin; whether any restrictions are imposed regarding the sale of blasting powder, dynamite, and other explosives in Ireland; did a similar occurrence take place at Bealik, near Macroom; and what arrests have been made and what sentences passed.
  MR. BIRRELL: Four arrests have been made in connection with the explosion referred to in the first part of the Question. As the matter is sub judice it is not desirable in the interests of justice to enter into particulars. The restrictions imposed by the Explosives Acts apply to the United Kingdom as a whole. The police authorities inform me that there was no explosion at Bealik, near Macroom, on the night in question.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Do the police say there was no explosion at Bealik, or that the details have not yet reached them?
  MR. BIRRELL: They inform me there was no explosion on the night in question.

  Athenry Eviction.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state full particulars of the eviction of a herd near Athenry on 2nd November last; what led to the eviction; did the police make a baton charge; were stones thrown by the crowd; were any persons injured; were any arrests made; and, if so what sentences were passed.
  MR. BIRRELL: On the occasion in question a herd in the employment of a small landlord near Athenry was evicted. The eviction was due to the fact that the herd had refused to do his work on account of a dispute between the landlord and his tenants. The warrant for possession was addressed to a special bailiff, who, with his assistants, was protected by a force of sixty police. The house was barricaded, but the herd and his family left without offering any resistance after the door had been forced. When, however, the bailiffs proceeded to drive the herd's stock off the farm they were obstructed by a crowd of 200 to 250 people, who became disorderly and threatening and had ultimately to be dispersed by a baton charge. The police saw no stones thrown, and they are not aware that any persons were injured. No arrests were made.

  Ballybricken Fair Disturbance.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  556
  of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Nicholas Quinlan assaulted David Heylin, of the firm of Fitzgerald Brothers, at Ballybricken Fair, Water-ford, on 20th October last, by striking him on the head with an ash plant, and subsequently after having his wound dressed, Heylin was again brutally assaulted by Maurice Quinlan and his two sons, Patrick and Nicholas, in the presence of the police; whether he can say if Heylin has recovered from the effects of the assault; and what arrests have been made, and what sentences passed.
  MR. BIRRELL: I understand that civil proceedings are pending in this case. It would be undesirable to enter into particulars while the matter is sub judice.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: In cases of that sort where an outrage is observed by the police, are they not permitted to take action immediately for assaults committed?
  MR. BIRRELL: The police have the fullest powers to take what steps they think necessary in the interests of the repression of violence.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Why have they not done so in this case?
  MR. BIRRELL: They exercised their discretion.

  Kenmare Sub-Land Commission Court.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of applications to fix fair rents which were heard at the sitting of the Sub-Land Commission at Kenmare in July last; whether Mr. Humphreys, the Assistant Commissioner, visited Kenmare during the first week of October last and left again after two days; the number of holdings he inspected during that period and the number yet to be inspected; why he was recalled from Kenmare, though he had sent through the post notification that he would inspect certain holdings; and whether the Irish Land Commission will communicate the order of the Court to the

  557
  tenants whose holdings Mr. Humphreys inspected, and, if so, on what date.
  MR. BIRRELL: Sixty-seven applications to fix fair rents were heard at the end of July last by the Commission, of which Mr. Humphreys was the lay member. The inspection of the holdings was commenced by Mr. Humphreys on 13th October; but, owing to an accident to his leg, he was almost immediately obliged to postpone the inspection to a later date. He resumed the work towards the end of October, and the decisions in these cases will be announced as soon as possible.

  Clare Evicted Tenants.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many evicted tenants have been provided with holdings up to date in County Clare; how many cases are under consideration in the same county; and whether anything will be done to hasten on this work.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that ninety-eight evicted tenants in County Clare have been reinstated in their former holdings or provided with other holdings; forty-nine other applicants have been noted as suitable, and will be provided with farms as soon as practicable; and 113 other applications await consideration.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly impress on the Estates Commissioners the fact that the general peace depends in great measure on the settlement of this question, for which we have waited so long?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Limerick Borough Finance.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any information has been submitted to him showing that the borrowing powers of the Limerick County Borough Council have not been substantially exhausted; and will he inquire whether there is a margin of more than £40,000 still remaining before those powers would be exhausted.
  MR. BIRRELL: I informed the hon. Member on 5th instant that the borrowing powers of the Limerick Council had been substantially exhausted. I have since made inquiries, and learn that there is an unexhausted margin of some £40,000 in the borrowing powers of the city. But in the case of the loan for a technical school, which was the subject of the hon. Member's Question, the only security which could be accepted consisted of rates amounting to 2d. in the £ which had hitherto been deemed insufficient for the purpose. As I have already stated I am taking what steps I can to secure that the difficulty may be overcome.

  Sherlock Estate, Araglen, Cork.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have had the holding, formerly occupied by Mr. David Riordan, on the Sherlock estate, Araglen, County Cork, inspected, with the view to estimating a price to be offered for it, in order to effect the reinstatement of the evicted tenant.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not yet had an inspection made of the holding in this case, but it is under consideration.

  Leader Estate, County Cork.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have under consideration the application of Mrs. Alice Nagle for reinstatement in her old holding at Ballinahallisk, on the Leader estate, County Cork; and whether, seeing that the present occupier of her farm, Thomas Nagle, only took possession in 1902, and is not a judicial tenant, the Commissioners will favourably entertain Mrs. Nagle's claim when the sale and purchase of the estate as a whole comes before them.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Mrs. Nagle's application has been received and will be considered when the Commissioners are

  559
  dealing with the Leader estate under the Irish Land Act, 1903.

  Irish Intermediate Education Rules.
  MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question of which I have given him private notice. I had intended to move before putting the Question that the rule of the Intermediate Board should be disallowed, but I believe it is impossible to do that. I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether the effect of the revised rules issued by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland will be to make it impossible after 1909 for anyone who has passed in any grade to present himself again for examination in that grade.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not urgent. It can be put on the Paper in the ordinary course.
  MR. KETTLE: I respectfully submit that it is urgent. The rule has just been laid on the Table.
  MR. SPEAKER: That means that it is not urgent, but that there is plenty of time. If the hon. Member puts a Question down to-night he will get an Answer on Monday.
  MR. BOLAND: May I point out that there are a number of allotted days, and it may not be possible to raise a discussion on this rule after eleven o'clock. The forty days may run out without any opportunity for the discussion being afforded owing to the number of allotted days or suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule.
  MR. SPEAKER: It will not be possible to have a discussion, whether there are allotted days or not unless the hon. Member obtains the assent of the Government to it making it practically a Government Order. The Order of the House is that I must adjourn the House when the Orders of the day have been run through.

  New Licences.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state whether the Government
  560
  will take steps to secure that, in regard to all new licences, the holders shall enjoy complete freedom of contract in the purchase of their liquors.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Government, as my hon. friend knows, are in sympathy with what they believe to be his main object in this matter, and they are considering whether it will be possible on the Report stage to accept or introduce some provision which will neither be too wide nor ineffectual for the purpose.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: May I ask whether the Government will include the holders of old as well as new licences?
  MR. ASQUITH: That will be considered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I make an appeal to the Prime Minister that, if there is to be another Amendment on Report, due notice may be given?
  MR. ASQUITH: Ample notice will be given.

  Standard of Naval Strength.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government accepts the two-Power standard of Naval strength as meaning a preponderance of 10 per cent. over the combined strengths, in capital ships, of the two next strongest Powers; and, if not, could he state the definition of the two-Power standard which is accepted by the Government.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative.

  Agricultural Instruction in Elementary Schools.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will set up the Committee to pass the money Resolution, in order to enable the Grand Committee to proceed with the consideration of the Agricultural Education in Elementary Schools Bill.
  I beg also to ask the Prime Minister if he will give facilities for the adjourned

  561
  debate on the Small Holdings Bill to amend the Small Holdings Act, 1892.
  MR. ASQUITH: At this stage of an Autumn Session, the Government cannot even consider the granting of facilities to any Private Member's Bill unless definite assurances are given that the Bill will pass through its further stages after eleven o'clock as a non-controversial measure.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill passed its Second Reading without a division? The Committee asked for will take very little time.
  MR. ASQUITH: If the Bill is really non-controversial, of course we will consider it, but I have indications from other quarters that it is not regarded as within the category.

  The Education Bill.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Government will place upon the Paper the Amendments to the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill agreed upon with the Archbishop of Canterbury; and when the Committee stage of the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill will be entered upon.
  MR. ASQUITH: In the event of such an agreement as my hon. friend assumes being arrived at, the Government will put down their Amendments in ample time for their being considered before the Committee stage of the Bill is taken. At the earliest this cannot be before Tuesday the 24th.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the Education Bill for England stands next to the Port of London Bill on the Orders of the Day, he can give the House any information whether the statement made by the President of the Board of Education to a meeting of certain. Members of this House announced any change in the intentions of His Majesty's Government with respect to that measure; and, if so, will he now say what that change is.
  MR. ASQUITH: The statement referred to was made privately by my right hon. friend to a body of his supporters in this House. Any change which the Government propose in the Bill will appear in due course in the shape of Amendments on the notice Paper.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: How soon will notice of those Amendments be given?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have used the word "ample." I will endeavour to make the word good.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite appreciate the impossibility of fixing an exact date; but in view of the fact that the suggested alterations of the Bill, whichever rumour is taken, are so great as really to constitute it a new Bill, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will interpret the word "ample" in a generous sense so as to give the House some opportunity of weighing and forming an opinion upon the merits and demerits of the new proposals?
  MR. ASQUITH: Without accepting the right hon. Gentleman's assumption that the Bill is reconstituted, I will interpret the word generously in as wide a sense as I think the necessities of the case allow.

PORT OF LONDON BILL.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In view of the late sitting last night may I appeal to the Leader of the House not to have a very late sitting to-night. The Bill under discussion is one in which there is great interest, and I am informed that last night the debate was mainly carried on by hon. Members on the Government side. There is, of course, no question of obstruction, but I hope under the circumstances there will not be a very late sitting.
MR. ASQUITH: This, as the right hon. Gentleman indicates, is not a party Bill, and I had hoped we might get through it in reasonable time. Of course no undue pressure will be put on the House.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; that they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning etc., Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Attorney-General.
Report to lie upon the Table.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [LORDS].
Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Post Office Consolidation Bill [Lords], pending in the Lords, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 322.]

ADJOURNMENT.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the important difference between the statement of the Prime Minister regarding the future administration of the Unemployed Workmen Act and the Order issued this day by the Local Government Board;" and the pleasure of the House being signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past Eight this evening.

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. Ayes, 228; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 375.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Fuller, John Michael F.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cherry, Rt. Hon R. R.

Fullerton, Hugh

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

Clough, William

Gilhooly, James

Agnew, George William

Clynes, J. R.

Gill, A. H.

Alden, Percy

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Glendinning, R. G.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Cooper, G. J.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Grant, Corrie

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Barker, Sir John

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Barnes, G. N.

Cox, Harold

Gulland, John W.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

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

Crooks, William

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Bennett, E. N.

Crossley, William J.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Bertram, Julius

Curran, Peter Francis

Halpin, J.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Boland, John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Boulton, A. C. F.

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bowerman, C. W.

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

Hart-Davies, T.

Brigg, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bright, J. A.

Donelan, Captain A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Brooke, Stopford

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hazleton, Richard

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

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Hedges, A. Paget

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Erskine, David C.

Henry, Charles S.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Essex, R. W.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Esslemont, George Birnie

Higham, John Sharp

Byles, William Pollard

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Hogan, Michael

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Holt, Richard Durning

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Fenwick, Charles

Hooper, A. G.

Horniman, Emslie John

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Mooney, J. J.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester

Hudson, Walter

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

Idris, T. H. W.

Morrell, Philip

Seely, Colonel

Illingworth, Percy H.

Morse, L. L.

Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford

Jackson, R. S.

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

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

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Jardine, Sir J.

Myer, Horatio

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Jenkins, J.

Napier, T. B.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nicholls, George

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Joyce, Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Soares, Ernest J.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Spicer, Sir Albert

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Steadman, W. C.

Kennedy, Vincont Paul

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sutherland, J. E.

Laidlaw, Robert

Partington, Oswald

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Lambert, George

Paulton, James Mellor

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Lamont, Norman

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Vivian, Henry

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wardle, George J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pollard, Dr.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lewis, John Herbert

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Whitbread, Howard

Lundon, W.

Pullar, Sir Robert

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rainy, A. Rolland

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lynch, H. B.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wiles, Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Wilkie, Alexander

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Ridsdale, E. A.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williamson, A.

Maclean, Donald

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wills, Arthur Walters

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Robinson, S.

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

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon)

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

M'Callum, John M.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Winfrey, R.

M'Crae, Sir George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Young, Samuel

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

Rose, Charles Day

M'Micking, Major G.

Rowlands, J.

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

Maddison, Frederick

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Mallet, Charles E.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Marnham, F. J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Massie, J.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Balcarres, Lord

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Radford, G. H.

Baldwin, Stanley

Gretton, John

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Renwick, George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Baring, Cap. Hn. G. (Winchester

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

Hill, Sir Clement

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Jowett, F. W.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bull, Sir William James

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Snowden, P.

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birminghm

M'Arthur, Charles

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Watt, Henry A.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Morpeth, Viscount

Doughty, Sir George

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

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

Fardell, Sir T. George

Oddy, John James

Fell, Arthur

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

PORT OF LONDON (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Considered in Committee:—
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 3:
MR. LOUGHsaid pe haps it would be convenient to the House if he stated with regard to the first Amendment in his name that while expressing his obligation to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he had treated this Bill and put this clause first, he refrained from moving his Amendment. His hon. friends whose names were on the Paper had kindly agreed to allow him to move the second Amendment which stood in his name.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no second Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. LOUGH, in opposing the clause, said he thought everyone would feel and recognise the consideration which had been extended to them in connection with this Bill, but everyone would also feel that this was a clause which required careful attention, because it was of a most extraordinary description. In his Parliamentary experience he had never seen anything like it. There was a transference of property arranged under it, and the price of that property was stated in it. If any Member of the Committee would add up the amounts he would see that they came to something like £23 000,000. He thought it was an innovation in Parliamentary practice that the price should be fixed in the way it was done in the Bill. He believed the clause to be a very difficult one to grapple with, and he asked the indulgence of the Committee in trying to bring the seriousness of the situation before them. The first reason which they might give for asking that the clause be omitted was the way in which the matter had been brought before Parliament. On the First Reading of the Bill no discussion what
568
ever was allowed. The Bill was introduced under the ten minutes rule, and although that was a very useful practice generally, yet, when he considered that the measure contained as one of its main provisions a clause of this kind, he thought it was a great misfortune that no discussion was allowed. If discussion had been permitted, the clause would have secured an amount of attention which it had not had up to the present time. On the Second Reading it was not quite as bad, but they had altogether a very stinted debate on that stage of the measure. The debate only lasted four hours, and it ranged over such a vast number of subjects that it was quite impossible to direct that close attention to the important principle embodied in this clause which it deserved. What was said on the Second Reading debate? It was said that the whole thing would be discussed in Committee. But when the Bill got into Committee there was a most extraordinary ruling given on this point.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that whilst he is in order in reviewing the findings of the Committee, he will not be in order in criticising their proceedings.
MR. LOUGH: May I not say that the question of the principle of purchase embodied in this clause was ruled out by the Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman can of course state that as a fact. What I mean is that he is not entitled to criticise the action of the Chairman.
MR. LOUGHsaid that nothing was further from his mind. He left the action of the Chairman to the judgment of the House. He would accept the spirit of the Chairman's ruling. He only wished to point the attention of the Committee to the fact that when this question went upstairs to be considered it was immediately ruled out. They had the principles of the Bill stated in an admirable speech delivered by his hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade—perhaps the most explanatory and useful speech they had had on this Bill. His hon. friend, on

569
the Second Reading, stated that the first principle was the establishment of a port authority; the second principle was that it should be a commercial body; and the third principle was that no charge would fall on the rates. His hon. friend also stated that no permanent charge would rest upon trade. These were the three principles of the Bill laid down in the House. Therefore, he thought it was a little unfortunate that, upstairs, this other question in Clause 3 was ruled out of the discussion. What was the result? In all the preliminary stages that the Bill has gone through, the main principle that resided in this clause had never been fully examined. That was the reason why he thought they were indebted to the Government for giving them this opportunity of justifying their appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to extend such consideration to their arguments as would lead him to make some large proposal with regard to the measure — for instance, that Clause 3 be left out; and also lead him to consider the point that this was the first time that this important issue had been raised in a proper way before Parliament. He left that point with the observation that the Government ought to hesitate before pushing through this purchase, which had not received sufficient consideration. The feeling of London was growing stronger against it every day. That was wholly the fault of the Government. The Government did not set the public to think of this problem as they could have done by a discussion in Parliament, and the result was that when the question was becoming important, and when it was known that it would be discussed in that House, public opinion was growing more hostile to the proposal every day. If the Government attempted to make a purchase like that now proposed they must follow what he might call the recognised lines in dealing with this property. They must deal with the matter as business men. A great mistake had run through many of their debates on this subject. The analogy of the Water Board had been dragged into this business. There was no analogy. He maintained there was no analogy between the position which the water companies
570
occupied and the position which these dockowners occupied. The Water Companies had statutory rights within their areas, and nobody could get water save from those companies. Therefore the claim which they might make in arbitration was of an entirely different character from that which dock owners might make. The dock owners were simply rival traders in London, with a valuable business, an historic business if they liked, a business which did not differ in principle one bit from that which was carried on by individuals and companies in this great centre of commerce. Therefore, they must get rid of analogies derived from buying up monopolies. These docks were not monopolies. In ancient days, all through the history of these docks, Parliament had taken care that they should have no monopoly, and that they should be simply trading bodies paid, like a workman, wages for the work they did. He did not think the truth of that statement would be disputed, and he hoped it would be borne in mind all through their discussions. What position were the Government in when they came to purchase? They were just in the position of business men when they came to purchase a business or property. What was the business they asked to look at? No doubt it was an old-established business with a large property, and considerable revenue; it was a fluctuating revenue, and rather a declining revenue. Now, what steps should the Government take in dealing with the matter? The steps they should take were quite clearly marked out. They were to separate the freehold property from the fluctuating income of the companies as traders; and the freehold property could be quite easily dealt with. They could get a valuation of it—nowhere better than in the City of London. They could pay the price fixed by this valuation for the property, and then they could deal with the income in accordance with recognised principles. That was the method of procedure which the Government were almost bound to adopt. He would first look at it from the standpoint that the Government was bound to get a valuation. That was a point which he would like to impress upon the Committee in dealing with his Amendment to leave out this

571
clause. The Parliamentary Secretary, in that splendid speech to which he had already alluded, made the clearest statement with regard to the valuation. He stated that they asked that their valuers should be permitted to report on the various properties—on the land and things of that kind which it would be necessary to calculate in the purchase; and he then proceeded to add that the London and India Docks had 750 acres of land. The Parliamentary Secretary went on to use words which required a good deal of explanation; for he said that the Government had the advantage of the services of Mr. Cruttwell, a member of the firm of Wolfe, Barry and Co., and of Mr. Bousfield, a member of the firm of Edwin Fox and Bousfield, and that the Government were quite ready to justify before the Committee every penny that they were going to ask the House to agree to pay. He must not be understood as putting too heavy a responsibility on his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade; no one would be more reluctant to do that than he. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also declared that what the Government did was to get the very best men available to value the property. They took the best advice, and on that basis they made their offer. When the matter went up to the Committee the Government put Mr. Cruttwell into the box, and he was asked whether he had made a valuation of the property. He replied that he had not, and that he had not been asked to do so. He was asked what state of repair the docks were in, and what sort of work they had been carrying on; did he think them suitable for the needs of this port, and had he measured how much water there was in the docks. He said he had done none of these things, and he had not been asked to value the docks at all. Mr. Bousfield was not put into the box at all, and Messrs. Edwin Fox and Bousfield had good reason to complain of the use made by the Government of their name in the matter. When the Committee asked where the valuation was, Mr. Plender gave the reply that no valuation had been made, and they did not think it necessary. There was an extraordinary conflict of
572
evidence. The Second Reading was procured by a declaration on behalf of the Government that they had obtained the services of valuers, and the names of the men were given, and when they went before the Committee it was said that no valuation whatever had been made and the Government did not think it necessary. That was a most extraordinary proceeding in a large purchase of this kind and one which no business man would have sanctioned. He wanted to allude to one point only which was brought before them, both by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a matter of great and substantial value in these properties, the purchase of which Parliament was asked to approve. The Parliamentary Secretary said that certain of the docks had a large quantity of land—750 acres. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said those lands were of immense value, and he was quite certain they were worth over a million of money. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how was he certain they were worth over a million of money. How had he any knowlege of the value of these lands? Then Mr. Plender, who appeared to be the only professional man who was really taken into confidence, referred to the matter and stated that lands of great value belonged to the companies. The attention of the hon. Member for Central Hackney, who was a member of the Committee, was called to this, and he said—and he did a great service by putting the question—"Are these 750 acres of land valued?" "Certainly," said Mr. Plender, "they were valued by Mr. Bousfield of Edwin Fox & Bousfield, at £3,600 an acre." His hon. friend was astonished, and he asked "Are you sure these were the vacant lands?" "Yes," said Mr. Plender, "these were the vacant lands." If that statement had proved to be accurate that would represent a value of £3,000,000 sterling, but the Government, fortunately for themselves, had a very careful man in the Committee, named Mr. Fitzgerald, K.C., looking after their interests. Mr. Fitzgerald created quite a sensation in the Committee by saying a mistake had been made. The lands that were worth £3,600 an acre were not the 750 acres at

573
all. No valuation was ever made of the 750 acres except by the directors themselves, and Mr. Bousfield's name was withdrawn altogether, and it was explained that the price of £3,600 an acre applied to 200 or 300 acres of land on which the docks themselves were built, which had been purchased sixty years ago at £200 an acre and now were worth this vast sum. These amateur valuers and buyers, in the only case in which they brought before the House a matter of substantial value, had made an essential mistake. These vacant lands had not the great value which the Chancellor of the Exchequer attributed to them. They lay, some of them at Tilbury and others at Crossness. They were scattered over Kent and Essex and they had no proof that any great value attached to them. The matter was of no great importance, except in this way. It showed that single items of value which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague mentioned as important might be considered as quite illusory. He might almost say the Government were a little like those company promoters who, speaking of a mining claim in some remote country, said there would be found gold, and after the money was subscribed and the enterprise pushed on people began to ask where the gold was, and then they found the prospect very different from what they were led to expect from the glowing accounts given to them. The reason this was important was that it was the only information of a detailed character that they had got. If a man of that House was only buying a bungalow, he would ask some valuer to value it. He would ask for a description of the property. He would have looked at it and seen what it was, and he would have seen that he got something in return for what he was paying. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an interesting speech, and he used these words—
"I think the docks suffer very largely in comparison with the docks of the Continent. I was surprised at some of the primitive methods of discharging, and the wheel-barrow business that is going on. In the short visit I paid to the Continent I never saw anything to compare with it. Of course, the Port of London suffers under a disadvantage in comparison with the docks of the Continent. They started after new ideas with regard to machinery, and more especially new ideas with regard to railways, came in.
574
These docks were started when we had hardly any railways here. They were constructed for cart business. Here the trade of the port is in the hands of one, or it may be two, railways, which are not trunk lines but little bits of local lines. Co to Antwerp, What do you find there? Your ship alongside the port, the railway track right by the ship. What have you got here? You have one little local line only."
And words like these had led up to the purchase, at a price sufficient to be the National Debt of the Kingdom, of that property. Surely one would think from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's words that he was going to conclude by saying: "The properties are totally unsuitable for our purpose." He could not throw very much light on the properties. He only told hon. Members that if they wanted to see them to advantage, if they went to that very noble entrance that was made to the Tower Bridge in the East End of London, and if they looked on the right they would see the Tower of London, a splendid specimen of Norman architecture, a beautiful relic of antiquity, while if they looked on the left they would see these buildings which were called the docks. They would see a lofty wall springing up from the ground. If they went in very close they would see a number of houses like prisons with iron-barred windows, and in the centre of a huge collection of buildings of this kind they would find a pool of muddy water. These were the docks that they were paying this immense price for. He heard that many of the gates would not open, and t' at if they were open no ship could get in, that in many of the docks the entrance was only 40 feet wide, and to be of any use they wanted an entrance of 100 feet. Some of the locks were only 150 feet long, and if they were to be useful they ought to be 700 feet long. The depth of water had never been told them. He heard some were half full of mud. How many warehouses had they? Were they used? What was the value of them? No information whatever had been given on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman smiled. He hoped he would smile when he had finished. The truth was that these early Victorian or Georgian docks were built in days when this country had a tariff. That was the meaning of the barred gates and the huge warehouses. For a free trade country many

575
of these docks were absolutely and totally useless. The Government should have laid before the House a description of the property. They should have stated the valuers' opinion on which they had gone and then they could have proceeded in a sane and businesslike manner with regard to this transaction. Let him just say one word on another branch of the subject. The Government had, with that great art which resided especially in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, created an immense feeling in favour of this Bill. That feeling rested on a very questionable foundation. It could not be an intelligent feeling. They did not know what the thing was that was to be bought. This bargain as it stood now had no more authority than if it had been made between two fish women in Billingsgate. The House of Commons had to give validity to the bargain, and if this Committee said the proceeding was questionable and held up its hands it must stop. The Board of Trade had no right to proceed in this way unless the House approved. The whole business rested with Parliament, and no Member ought to give his sanction to this matter, if he was going to preserve the ancient rights of the House with regard to the handling of financial matters, without being thoroughly satisfied that it rested on a sound and business-like footing. He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with that statement. He had described what the Government did not do. He would now take the point of what they did do. They bought on income—on revenue. That was a perfectly customary proceeding and whenever a very doubtful business was to be sold it was always sold on income or revenue. Two methods were always uniformly adopted when the sale was based on income. The first was to select an artificial period for the income, which did not give a fair description of the business, and in the artificial period some doubtful procedure was carried on to inflate the income. There were two things which always distinguished properties when they were sold on income. This purchase by the Government was a most astounding illustration of these two propositions. The Government had bought upon a
576
period of six years, from 1902 to 1907, and they took the revenue for those six years. They said they would give a price which left a very small margin based on that income. The figures for the period of six years had been deliberately inflated for the purpose of the sale of the docks. There was an inquiry by the Royal Commission upon which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was a very useful member. That Commission inquired into this question of income, and the chairman of the docks, Mr. Scott, was one of the witnesses called before them. He complained that business was bad and that the income was not sufficient. That was in 1901. Mr. Scott was asked to what he attributed the bad business and the Commission pointed out to him that his company was not charging the full dues on ships. Mr. Scott replied: "Yes, I know, we have a statutory maximum of 1s. 6d. per ton, but we are only charging one shilling." The Committee said to him: "But why do you not charge 1s. 6d. per ton?" Mr. Scott replied: "We are loth to charge the full price lest it should drive away shipping from our docks. The port is already a very dear port, and if we raise the price I am afraid it might not be good for our business." He thought that was a good answer, but the curious thing about it was that it was made in 1901, and the experiment which the chairman deprecated was made immediately after the answer was given; the result of that experiment was before the eyes of the Government and yet it did not warn them about proceeding to purchase those docks on income. In 1902, although the chairman of the docks made this statement, a charge of 1s. 6d. was levied as dues on shipping instead of 1s., and the Royal Commission in its Report on that point deprecated the action of the docks which it described as a questionable experiment. He must trouble the Committee with figures for the two periods. He would first tell hon. Members how the income was proceeding during the three years previous to 1901 before the maximum charge was levied. He would quote his figures in round numbers. In 1899 the revenue was £661,000; in 1900, £676,000; and in 1901, £733,000, Those

577
figures showed a progressive income. Although the company was paying a very trifling dividend, he wished specially to call attention to the fact that the income was progressive.
MR. W. THORNE: That was the time of the war.
MR. LOUGHsaid that was so, but there had been better times since. In January the charges were raised 50 per cent. He knew it was always very simple in business to suddenly put up prices by 50 per cent., but every business man knew that that was a terible risk to run, and they might find that they were doing worse after raising the price than they were doing before. What took place? Immediately the revenue sprrang up to £873,000, then it dropped to £813,000 for the next year, and then to £732,000, and at the end of four years the 1s. 6d. dues on ships had failed to produce as much revenue as the 1s. produced in 1901. That was a most remarkable figure, and it was almost inconceivable to men who were not accustomed to business. If he might be allowed to mention it, they had had an example of the same kind in this House. They once had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was hardly driven, who thought it would be a very easy way of raising revenue to charge a 2d. stamp duty on cheques instead of 1d. As hon. Members knew, the House convinced the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a fortnight that he would not get half the income he was receiving with the 2d. stamp duty as he was actually receiving with the 1d. duty. The moment they raised a charge for any service over the legitimate amount they did not get a larger but a smaller sum. He had shown that after four years of the higher charges the dock companies were receiving a smaller amount than when they only charged 1s. per ton. In the fifth year the revenue was £749,000; in the sixth year, £763,000. Therefore, the Committee would see that the amount realised in 1907 with a 1s. 6d. charge was not nearly so great as they would have got if they had stuck to their 1s. charge all through. The period of 1905–6–7 was a period of inflated business, and with all this immense export trade caused by the war this
578
company were raking in no more revenue than they were getting before they raised their charges 50 per cent. What advantage had they got? They had got no advantage at all except that the Government somewhat impetuously accepted those six years, bringing in the first three years for which there was no legitimate basis. They brought those first three years into the general average on which the docks should be bought. He submitted that he had shown that an artificial period was selected which was quite different from the figures which would have been given three years before the price was raised. It was hardly credible that a House of business men would sanction the price which had been given. Nearly thirty years purchase of this fluctuating income was the price which the Government had agreed to pay. They were going to pay the same price for a fluctuating income as for the freehold property. The scheme was based upon twenty-six years purchase of the property and thirty years purchase of the income. That was a monstrous transaction as far as the income was concerned. He did not question the price for the property, but to buy a declining business like this at thirty years' purchase was ridiculous. The proper price was well known, and the Government should have paid about four or five years purchase for the income. One of the best businesses he knew of was Guinness's Brewery, and that business was sold at ten years' purchase of the income. Surely the Government did not suggest that this income of £800,000 a year in connection with these companies was anything like so large a concern to deal with. The profits on Guinness's Brewery were larger than this, and he submitted on those facts that the price agreed upon was a monstrous price, and it was a transaction which all business men in the House should hesitate to sanction. He had told the Committee how he thought they should have gone to work, and he had described how the Government did go to work. He hoped the Committee would bear with him while he went into the results produced by the setting up of this Port authority, and the bargain which had been made. The results were deplorable. The authority was to be created in a new

579
form from that in which any local authority was ever created before, and entirely because of this bargain. Anything like the way the unfortunate Port authority proposed by the Bill would come into existence was absolutely without precedent in this country. The purchase of the docks in the first place had upset the whole finance of the Port authority for ninety years to come. Its finances could never be right because of this first wrong purchase. The purchase price was to be £23,000,000, but the docks were no use as they were, and £5,000,000 must be spent upon them. When that sum had been spent and depreciation had commenced the sum of £1,100,000 a year would have to be paid in interest and depreciation and interest on the purchase price. That heavy burden would be thrown upon the commerce of this fair city for docks which were entirely unsuited to the needs of the trade. All this would have to be done before they commenced what he respectfully suggested was the real work of the Port authority to undertake. This purchase of the docks had led them aside from even contemplating the great problem which the Port of London presented. What was the Port of London? It was that noble stretch of river from London Bridge to the Nore which for all ages had been one of the greatest highways of ships that the world possesses. It was never frozen in winter, and there were no serious floods to make shipping dangerous. Long before these docks came into existence there was a splendid trade done in the river, and the essential thing the Committee should keep before it was that the river should be made to be in the future what it has been in the past, a great highway for ships suited to the commerce of this great city. This meant that they had to keep a depth of 30 feet of water from London Bridge to the Nore.
MR. STEADMAN: You cannot do it.
MR. LOUGHsaid they would have to make the water as deep as they could in order to let the large ships up the river. Were they going to see the trade of London, which had existed
580
for thousands of years, snatched away by Southampton and Harwich and possibly by Continental ports? It would be a crime for the House to do that. Arrangements would have to be made for deepening the river at whatever cost, so that the commerce of London might have every due facility. That point had been entirely left out in the Government plan. They were going to buy shallow docks at the mouth of the river before providing the necessary outlay for deepening the river and making it a great highway. As regarded finance, the proposal was entirely spoiled by this plunge into the tremendous outlay provided in Clause 3. He was not going to repeat the excellent observations made upon the Second Reading by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras on this point. The hon. Member went into another aspect of the financial question, and he showed that owing to this purchase clause they would have to raise the money very dearly. The port stock would not be a trust security, and if that point alone were met by making it a trust security a saving of £100,000 a year would be effected. His hon. friend also pointed out that the stock of these docks had been greatly inflated and that £1,000,000 had been added to the dock securities. All this had taken place and more would take place if this clause was sanctioned. He thought he had said enough to show that the financial obligations which this part of the Bill would lay upon London in the future were far too great to allow the House to hurry along with this clause. The dignity of the authority was greatly lowered by the arrangement which the Board of Trade had seen fit to make in order that the purchase price might be paid. Anyone who looked at the Bill would find some extraordinary proposals. This poor Port authority would be over-ridden by the Board of Trade to the day of its death, and if it ventured to dismiss an office-boy he could appeal to the Board of Trade and get a special inquiry into his case, and the Board of Trade might order the Port authority to restore the emoluments to this naughty boy. If the holders of stock did not get their interest paid at the right time they, too, could go to the Board of Trade, and they

581
could get a receiver's order. The Board of Trade were bringing into existence in the City of London a body of this kind which would be dependent to the day of its death upon the Board of Trade. The dignity of the body had been sacrificed. There was no need to put provisions as to purchase into the Bill at all. What they wanted to do—and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this—was to construct a Port authority. That was their proper business. He would say: "Let the Port authority first come into existence. Let it begin to deepen the river and look at the docks." They could then negotiate with the dock companies to buy them on a business basis. Let them do so, and if they could arrange for a purchase they could come to the House to get power to acquire particular docks. There was no need for proceeding in the rapid way for which the Bill provided. He would make another suggestion which he thought the right hon. Gentleman should consider, namely, the relations of the Port authority to the municipality. He would like to see the representation of the County Council increased. He would like to see a bargain made with the Council on the basis of increased representation on the Port authority on the one hand, and of the County Council giving the guarantees of the rates for the stock on the other. Then it would be a trust security, and there would be a saving in the raising of money. He would, in short, give to the County Council all the powers to protect itself which the Board of Trade was giving to the Port authority. He believed there was only one objection to that course, and that was that the present London County Council did not wish to take on the responsibility of guaranteeing the stock. The late County Council did not want to take the responsibility of guaranteeing the stock of the Water Board, but Parliament threw upon it the responsibility. He thought this Parliament ought to take the responsibility of imposing a similar obligation with respect to the Port authority. He did not think the County Council had been approached in the spirit of his suggestion. It had been approached by the Board of Trade, but not from the
582
point of view of giving the County Council such representation as would enable it to protect the rates. He put that before the Committee to show that he was not barren of suggestion in the matter. He thought the matter was extremely urgent. He took the action he was taking with the greatest regret. He was so busy with other things that he would have been glad not to deal with this matter at all. It was only six years since in the autumn session of 1902 he and seven other Members on 9th or 10th December fought against the proposition to create the Water Board, but they were swept away in consequence of one of those arrangements which were constantly made between the two front benches. They fought it out to the end, and he remembered almost the words he used in his concluding remarks on that occasion. He said that he hoped London consumers would not regret the step the House was taking, but that he believed they were bringing into existence an extravagant body which would lay heavy burdens on London. What was going on to-day? It was the most marvellous thing of which they had had experience in politics. He believed that in the Bank of England there was a man going about with a divining rod to see if a place could be found to sink a well because the Bank of England was not rich enough to pay the rates. Now he heard that stormy meetings presided over by the Lord Mayor were being held in the Guildhall to protest against the enormous burden this body was imposing on London. He appealed to the Government and to the Committee to have some mercy on London and not to inflict on the population another extravagant body which would be worse than the Water Board or any other board created up to the present. The Board of Trade was not going to pay this money itself. The Government did not propose to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer power to pay for the undertakings. They were going to make a bargain and make another man pay the money. On behalf of the Port authority yet unborn, and which when brought into being would have a troubled existence, he appealed to the Committee to reject the clause.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,): My right hon. friend has given in very eloquent but over-coloured language an interesting description of the properties we are proposing to acquire under the Bill. He has told us that anybody who likes to go there and inspect them will find that many of the werehouses have the appearance of prisons, that they are unsuitable for the purposes to which they are devoted and that they have served for over 100 years. Let me put this point at the commencement. In spite of the criticism which my right hon. friend brings to bear, we are contemplating the purchase by agreement under the Bill of three properties which have a gross revenue of £2,500,000 a year, so that we are not acquiring the worn-out class of undertaking my right hon. friend pretends that we are buying. He says first of all that one of his objections to this clause is that suitable opportunities have not been afforded to the House for the discussion of the principle of purchase contained in the Bill. He said that my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the Bill under the ten minutes rule, and that on the occasion of the Second Reading, which I had the honour to move, only four hours were occupied in the discussion of the principle. He said that the debate was closured, and that the facilities afforded for ventilating opinion on the points which he brings up now were altogether lacking. But he did not stop his criticism there. He carried it to the Joint Committee, which investigated the matter for twenty-one days. That Committee consisted of some of the best intellects we have in this House and in the other House, and they gave every provision in the Bill most exhaustive examination. The principle of purchase had been affirmed here on the Motion for the Second Reading. I would remind my right hon. friend that that principle was unanimously recommended by the Royal Commission in 1902. That it was the main feature of the Bill of the late Government which was brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour in 1903. The principle of purchase was reaffirmed by the Joint Committee of that year. It is
584
the principle of our Bill, and I myself put it definitely to the House. I took the liberty of using the exact words which were used by Mr. Gerald Balfour in 1903 when I put it to the House that by accepting the Second Reading we would be committing ourselves to the principle of purchase. My right hon. friend says that the Committee did not consider the principle of purchase. They examined it in the most exhaustive way, they had witnesses day by day from 24th June to 8th July, and the details of purchase were considered from every point of view, and what is satisfactory to the Government is that the Committee accepted the principle of purchase on the terms proposed by the Government on the Second Reading.
MR. LOUGH: Were valuators' reports read before the Committee?
SIR H. KEARLEY: I will have a word to say about that in a moment. That is not the point I was endeavouring to make good, in response to my right hon. friend's contention that we had not considered the principle of purchase. My right hon. friend complains that the Board of Trade in calling in two experts to advise them as to the method by which we should proceed in endeavouring to arrive at the basis on which purchase should take place, did not follow recognised lines. He laid down a programme of procedure for us, and I venture to say that if it was adopted or attempted to be adopted, we would be regarded as men insane or nearly so. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the purchase of the great brewery business of Guinness, and said that we should have gone on a basis of four or five years' profits. Let us look at the figures. It requires very little mental calculation to show how that would have worked out. The capital of these three undertakings was somewhere about £24,000,000. The exact figure is £23,750,000. If you take the basis of purchase at four or five years' profits, what would be the amount which would have to be given in consideration of the purchase of these vast undertakings? If you take the average profits at £800,000 a year, that would be, if we had proceeded on the lines suggested by my

585
right hon. friend, £4,000,000 for the £24,000,000 of capital.
MR. LOUGH: The hon. Gentleman is not at all representing what I said. It is really not fair to put it in that way. What I stated was that the purchase of Guinness' business was based on a ten years' purchase of profits, and that I thought that would be an extremely outside figure.
SIR H. KEARLEY: I can quite understand that my right hon. friend has forgotten some of the observations he made in his speech as to the method which ought to be adopted in regard to purchase. He said that we should have purchased on the basis of four or five years profits, and he suggested that we should have swept on one side the whole of the freehold property of the dock companies. I suppose he meant to convey that we should have left the dock companies in possession of their freehold property.
MR. LOUGH: I appeal to the recollection of the Committee. What I said on the question of freehold property was that the full price which any recognised valuer stated it was worth should be paid and that when the freehold property which might be very valuable was acquired the goodwill of the business should have been bought at so many years purchase.
SIR H. KEARLEY: I quite understand my right hon. friend's contention that if we had proceeded on his basis we should have purchased at a very much lower price than we shall have to pay. It is ridiculous to ask the House to affirm the principle of purchase at tins stage, seeing that the principle of purchase has already been accepted by the House on Second Reading and justified by the Joint Committee after a full examination of all the details, and I am prepared here and now to justify it before the House of Commons. Let us consider the principle on which we proceeded to make the purchase. There were two courses open to us. We might have proceeded to buy the under takings by arbitration, or to buy the properties by agreement. The Chan- 586
cellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the Bill at the beginning of the year, gave pretty obvious reasons why we should proceed to purchase by agreement rather than by arbitration. He pointed out that by agreement we should avoid delay and expense, but above all, that we should absolutely avoid the uncertainty as to what the price would be. We should remember that the Bill itself would have to pass through the House of Commons before the arbitration could be entered upon, and that when the Water Bill was before this House the strongest possible objection was made to it on that ground. However, the Water Bill was based on arbitration and the measure was passed through the House without it having any knowledge whatever as to the ultimate price of the undertakings a necessary consequence of buying on arbitration terms. Having this very much in mind we decided not to proceed to purchase by arbitration, but only by agreement. Now, let me say a word in regard to delay. Suppose that we had proceeded to purchase on arbitration terms, there would not have been one arbitration, but there would have been separate arbitrations with regard to the London and India Docks, the Surrey Commercial Dock, and the Millwall Dock, and all that would have taken a long time and would have incurred an enormous amount of expense, every penny of which would have had to be paid by the Port authority, and would have constituted a permanent burden on the trade of the port. I am told by our advisers that there are many other considerations that come into play when purchase is made by arbitration. For example, allowance would have had to be made for surplus lands. If we had proceeded to purchase by arbitration, the arbitrators would have fixed a very high figure on the value of these lands. I am told that if we had proceeded to purchase by arbitration the arbitrators would have made allowances for the prospects of future profits. None of these things were taken into consideration by our method. And then there would have been large expenses incurred in raising cash to pay off the existing stockholders. It was laid down clearly in the Water Board arbitrations,

587
that where shareholders are being compulsorily expropriated, the option rests with them of saying whether they will take their compensation in cash or in stock. Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that that does not apply here? How did we proceed? We proceeded on an altogether different plan. I think I have shown why it was that we did not proceed to purchase by arbitration, but by agreement. And how did we proceed? My right hon. friend was very critical on this point, and he called in question the methods we adopted. I say that the only possible basis on which purchase by agreement could be made was that adopted by the Government. We first of all called in the services of one of the most eminent accountants in London—Mr. Plender, of the firm of Deloitte, Plender, Griffiths, and Co., which is recognised as one of the best firms in London. And he advised us. He said it would be necessary for me to get an under taking from the dock companies that I should have the freest possible access to their books; I must have an opportunity of calling in an engineer who will be able to advise as to whether the condition of the properties and the equipment of the works are such that the income earned now can be maintained. That is a very well understood basis in a process of this kind. My right hon. friend in his criticism of this matter showed considerable dexterity. However, we opened negotiations with the dock companies. We put it to them that we did not propose to purchase their undertakings in any other way than by agreement. They met us in the most friendly and generous way. They promised that our accountants should have access to their books and that any examination of their properties we desired might be freely entered upon by our engineer. These two experts between them set to work to arrive at one definite result. And what was it? They set to work to arrive at what is called the net maintainable income of the undertakings. What is meant by "net maintainable income? It is the amount which we are advised, the Port authority will itself enjoy as owner of the combined undertaking. They ascertained what was the net income derived over a period of
588
six years, and they had to calculate whether that net income would be derived in future from the combined undertakings. The investigation of the books alone was not sufficient for that purpose, it was necessary to call in an experienced engineer to ascertain definitely whether the property had been sufficiently maintained so that the undertakings would continue to earn in the future the income they have earned in the past. Mr. Cruttwell, one of the most eminent engineers in London, was our adviser. That gentleman is one of the partners in the firm of Sir John Wolfe Barry, an engineer of the greatest possible experience. My right hon. friend takes exception to the fact that we did not value these undertakings. He wants us to value the buildings and the dock walls, to measure up the water area, to try underground and see whether the walls are sound or not, and to ascertain what is necessary to be put in these erections. What Mr. Cruttwell set to work to do was to ascertain whether the condition of these undertakings was such as to ensure that they were able to maintain the net available income they were now yielding. That was the procedure he adopted. My right hon. friend says that we selected an artificial period and tried to palm off on the House of Commons what in effect was a fraudulent return. If in these investigations we have selected an artificial period, that means that we entered into this examination not in a straightforward way.
MR. LOUGH: A stupid way.
SIR H. KEARLEY: What particular interest had we in making these investigations over what my right hon. friend terms an artificial period? He suggests that we took that artificial period as our basis of purchase because that represented an inflated income. We took an honest six years average, the reason for which was fully explained by Mr. Plender before the Committee. The fact is that in 1901 there was an amalgamation between the London and St. Katherine's Docks Company and the East and West India Docks Company. That is generally known. How could we make an investigation further back than the period of the amalgamation of the London and St.

589
Katherine's Docks Company and the East and West India Docks Company. It is important to note that the capital of the London and India Company as compared with the other companies is £18,000,000, or practically three-fourths of the whole. We found it was possible to take that period and no other. I come now to the purchase itself which I am going to justify by figures. Mr. Plender set to work to ascertain what was the net maintainable income of the undertakings, and taking the average of six years he found that the net income was the sum of £809,000 per annum. What are we giving in exchange for that? We are giving Port Stock yielding a smaller income. And that is what my right hon. friend calls a doubtful bargain! As regards the Surrey Commercial Dock, that company deals with very large importations of timber, and never since 1868 had the importations of timber been so low as during the period mentioned. That circumstance arose from the serious depression in the London building trade. As to the Millwall Docks Company, their trade is largely in timber and in grain, and owing to the disturbances in Russia and the economic conditions prevailing in consequence in that country, the importations of grain were very much below the average. In one year they were half the normal quantity of the six years under review. That again had a detrimental effect on the revenue of these docks. We had, therefore, to consider this extraordinary and abnormal depression in the timber trade and the grain trade.
MR. W. PEARCE: Are we to understand that the interest paid on the Dock Stock is less than the maintainable income? Are they not almost identical figures?
SIR H. KEARLEY: My hon. friend wants to know what is the difference between the two. The interest on the Port Stock which we are giving in substitution for the Dock Stock is just under £800,000, so that there is a surplus of £9,000.
MR. W. PEARCE: For all intents and purposes they are the same.
SIR H. KEARLEY: It is not a large sum, I admit; but still, there are these special circumstances to be taken into consideration, and in the current year the trading gives an encouraging indication that we may hope for very much better results than in the six years period. My right hon. friend has twitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the statement which he made when he introduced the Bill, that we secured the surplus land for no consideration whatever, and to which he attributed a large value. The value of this surplus land, amounting to 780 acres, is estimated by the company at as much as £1,650,000. These lands are situated, not as my right hon. friend says, at Crossness and places where they have no value at all, but in the very best positions on the river, and the main portions of them are contiguous to and adjoining the existing undertakings. What does that mean from the point of view of the Port authority in possession? Does it not mean that it can proceed at once with those developments which were held to be so necessary by the Royal Commission, and everybody who has any knowledge of the subject? They will be able to develop those lands at once, without the extraordinary expenditure incidental to the acquisition of land which is so detrimental to the public interest generally. In addition to the land for which we paid not one single penny of consideration—land said to be worth £1,500,000—we shall succeed to the Greenland Dock, a magnificent dock, which is part of the Surrey Commercial undertaking, and a set of new warehouses, specially built to meet the needs of the American and Canadian produce trade, upon which there has been in the last twelve years expended a capital sum of £1,500,000. My right hon. friend made no reference—I thought he was rather ungenerous in not doing so—to what must have been obvious to him, that some of these properties we are taking over are absolutely up-to-date, with the newest possible equipment and machinery. The profits which entered into the six years average and formed the basis of the purchase price only included three years working of this property. I do not know

591
whether it is clear what I am endeavouring to convey, but everybody knows, and it is an admitted fact, that a new dock takes many years to develop its adequate revenue, and by adequate revenue I mean this—a reasonable return on the capital invested. Tilbury Dock, I am informed, took as many as twenty years to develop its adequate revenue. That is a very long period indeed. With regard to this particular Greenland Dock, from the way in which it has been patronised by shipping and its warehouses are being filled by people who trade to and from the United States and Canada, it will, in our judgment, show with great rapidity increasing profits, and we hope to see the full fruition of that great development in the next few years. The point I wish to make is this—that in this average profit of six years, the profits made from this Greenland Dock extension only come in, for three years. Therefore, the revenue must be largely increased by the profits of these new docks in the future. I am told by those who know the river that there is great congestion in the trade of the Port. Tilbury is full, with every berth occupied, and the same thing is to be found at the London and India Docks, and the service which will be rendered to the port by this Greenland Dock will be of the greatest possible advantage. It will give at once to the new authority a water area to which large ships will come, and so increase the revenue of the Port authority immediately.
MR. STEADMAN: In what part of the liver will that be situated?
SIR H. KEARLEY: There is nobody in this House knows the river better than the hon. Gentleman does; and why should he cross-examine me when he knows the position of this dock and that it is doing a large and increasing trade?
MR. STEADMAN: I thought you were referring to a new dock.
SIR H. KEARLEY: Now with regard to this question of value—and here I am on sound ground, and this my right hon. friend will be obliged to recognise and admit. Three years ago an agreement
592
was entered into between the London and India Docks Company and the Millwall Company for an amalgamation, which involved the purchase by the London and India Docks Company of the Millwall Dock. The London and India Company under the agreement they entered into agreed to transfer to the Millwall Dock Company an amount of their own stock that would give an annual value of £65,000 a year. That was the agreement that was entered into three years ago. Now what is our agreement? We give to the Millwall Dock substituted "A" and "B" Port stock; that will impose on the Port authority a charge upon the annual income of the Port of £56,000 a year, so that by our agreement made three years later we obtained much more advantageous terms. What I have to say in conclusion is this: That we have the fullest possible confidence in the bargain that we have made. We believe that the existing undertakings will earn and continue to earn the interest on the Port stocks that we have given in substitution, and instead of imposing upon the trade of the Port, as was suggested, a charge by reason of the interest obligation, we think that the surplus will grow year by year. We think that it must turn out to be a most favourable transaction, because we cannot lose sight of the fact that in the average of six years that we have taken there have been abnormally bad years brought about by the depression of trade—the corn trade of the Baltic—and the building trade in London—and we think these periods of bad trade were quite exceptional and not likely to recur. For these reasons I say again that we are as confident as we can be, after the fullest possible investigation, that the surplus income will largely increase in future, and I may say that we are confirmed in this belief by every indication that has reached us. Quite recently, with regard to this year's trade I myself took steps to endeavour to ascertain how the trade of these undertakings was proceeding, and as far as my information goes there is a decided indication of improvement which induces us to think that when the balance is struck at the end of the year, instead of the income being on the basis of the figures

593
which I have given as necessary to maintain the income, it will be something much larger, and so give a much bigger surplus than that which I have mentioned earlier in my speech. Are there no savings to be effected by this unification of the management? Does my right hon. friend, who has had a great deal of experience, suggest for a moment that the managerial staff of the three undertakings will not be capable of modification, when it is a unified undertaking with a unified management. And has he such a poor opinion of this new Port authority that he thinks it is not capable of dealing with the business committed to it in such a manner as will do something to improve the condition of the river and the trade of the Port? I am very hopeful myself. We believe that the new Port authority will enter upon its duties with a determination to eliminate all that is bad or doubtful in the port, to use its energies to attract to the port the best class of trade, and by intelligent supervision and good management produce a beneficial effect upon the trade of the Metropolis, which I hope under the agency of this Bill will enter upon a new era of development and prosperity. We believe that this Bill is a necessary and essential step towards securing for London, for all time I hope, that preeminence that she has enjoyed so long as the greatest port in the world.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid that as Chairman of the Thames Conservancy and having the whole of the conduct of that part of the river near the Port of London under his control, he thought he might give some expressions of opinion that might be valuable to the House. He considered that it was most desirable to have one authority, and he had spoken in favour of that course on the Second Reading of this Bill, but he could not hide from himself that the whole success or failure in the future of the Port of London entirely depended upon the question of the docks, their value, and price. As to value it had ben stated by the last speaker that he considered that they would continue to maintain their present income in the future as they had done in the past. He doubted that very much, and he
594
doubted it on this ground, that they knew that it was almost impossible to make an old dock worth anything. He remembered perfectly well after the North Eastern Railway Company bought the docks at Hull, it was stated by one of the directors of that company in the House that they had given £250,000 for the docks and had spent £250,000 upon them and they were worth less then than they were before they bought them. These docks must be materially altered if they were to be any success whatever. The amount of shipping coming into the Port of London was very different from what it was when those docks were made. The Tilbury Docks and the Millwall Docks to some extent were good up-to-date docks; the other docks were practically worthless. They tried themselves to get the London and West India Docks to lower their sills so as to allow larger ships to go in. The matter was examined into most carefully and it was found that it was utterly impossible without an enormous expenditure to allow those sills to be altered so as to obtain a greater depth for vessels coming in. Even if they could have done so they could not have lowered the sills more than a certain amount because the walls would have fallen in and destroyed the docks. It was better and would be cheaper to fill up these old docks and build new docks lower down the river if it was the intention of the Board to carry out that principle. The Bill took, and took rightly, the power to build wharves on the river. There was a long stretch down the river, miles in length, where wharves could be established; where they could be made with stages so as to allow a ship to discharge her cargo from various parts at one time; and which would allow trains to be brought up so that the cargo could be discharged straight into the trucks. That was the character of future shipping. Everyone wanted London to be up-to-date. Antwerp and other places that were competing with us had all these wharves built in stages on to which cargo from every part of the ship could be discharged at one time. One of the great objections to docks was the time that it took to get in and out. A large amount of time was expended on that. If ships were allowed to come up and discharge at a wharf all that time would

595
be saved. Lately there had been a great number of ships discharging straight into the lighters in the river in order to save time. Though he thought this was a very valuable Bill and wished to help it in every possible way, he thought this question of the purchase of the docks ought to be deferred, and that it ought to be left to the new authority to carry out such arrangements as they found were possible, and which would be more economical. They had heard about the saving on the staff very often. The Committee heard it with regard to the Water Board when it was said that if the staffs of the old companies were amalgamated a considerable sum would be saved. What had occurred? The cost of the Water Board staff was £49,343 5s. 0d. in excess of the cost of the whole of the other staffs. The same extravagance would be engaged in by this Board. The result would be to make London a dear port and to drive away all the trade that came here. More than that, it would take away the work of the riverside population, and do extensive damage to every part of the City. It was entirely a question of getting an income from tonnage charges. The tonnage on goods would be of a very different character from that which was expected. For instance 8,500,000 tons of coal were brought to London by sea. A very small tax, 1d. a ton, taken by the Port authority would result in this coal being taken by the railways instead of by the sea and the river. If this charge was made so heavy that it must be recovered in some shape or form it would drive all the trade out of the river, and the revenue would fall off. And when they talke' of there being only a margin of £9,000 between the price to be paid and that they expected to get it was simply absurd. He had never yet heard of a company which was content to take over a business on such terms as that.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): No, no, the right hon. Gentleman has not listened to my hon. friend. He has left out altogether the value of the lands which are valued at £1,500,000.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: The hon. Member said the difference between the two was £9,000.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the profit and loss account.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Then tell us what the value is that the land will bring in.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My hon. friend said the lands would be taken at the value of £1,500,000, and that over and above that the balance was £9,000.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid he knew that, but he had heard that the land down there was such that it could not be let for any other purpose than docks. But supposing it was £10,000 a year, the margin between what they were bound to give and what they might receive was very small. Let them give the authority power to take the docks and the lands and let them buy them at their market value. If the docks companies had not the Government to deal with they would be willing to sell at a much cheaper price than that which they now offered to the Government. He protested against this great burden being put upon the Port of London. It would drive commerce away from this port and make them all sorry that they took this line at the present time.
MR. RUSSELL REAsaid the hon. Member opposite and his right hon. friend behind him appeared to think there was no necessity for the new Port authority to buy up these particular docks; that the dock owners were only one set of traders among other traders; that they had no monopoly; that they were not essential to their needs and that it was quite open to the Port authority to ignore them. But it was necessary to consider this matter a little—a little historically. Nobody who had investigated the matter, neither the Royal Commission, the late Government, nor the present Government had come to any other conclusion than that it would be impossible to create a

597
new port authority which should not become dock owners and which should not be the owner of these docks. The strength of the claim of the docks lay in this. When they were instituted an obligation was put upon them which was called the obligation of "free water." That meant that these companies might buy land at a low price, say £40 an acre, fence it and spend £100,000 per acre upon it, and when they had done that everybody had a right to use the property as their free water. But against this privilege to the public, some compensations were provided for the docks companies, and they had some monopolies which lasted for twenty-one years. Ta se then expired but they still had a natural monopoly created by the protective system which was then in vogue over the whole country. The cumbrous customs regulations gave these docks an absolute monopoly in the import trade. They lost that when Free Trade came in, and from that time to this they had had a struggling existence. They had come to the House of Commons again and again asking that they should either withdraw the privilege of free water or enable them to charge dues on goods. The House had refused to do anything of the kind. The House maintained the right of free water because various interests had been created and refused the docks power to levy dues on goods, because that practically put into private hands the power to tax the imports of this country. These docks were left in a position in which success was impossible, and to have instituted a port authority which could act independently of these docks and build up others would have killed them altogether. They had a claim which had been allowed by the late Government, the Royal Commission, and the present Government, which entitled them to some consideration. Then these negotiations came about. These docks were not taken over but there was a bargain which was submitted to the Committee upstairs. Although the Committee excluded the consideration of the principle that the Port authority should be dockowners they said that these bargains A., B. and C., must be justified before the committee. They were justified and he did not say that
598
the unanimous conclusion of the Committee was that they were extremely good bargains, but they were bargains of such a character that those who disagreed with them hesitated to take the alternative step of exposing the purchase to the risks of arbitration. He thought on the whole the bargain was a fair one. The property had not been purchased at much below its value, and very much above its value had not been given. The principle on which it was valued was a principle well known to all commercial men. The revenue basis was taken, and when his hon. friend talked about giving the capital value that was quite a different principle. It was almost impossible to mix up the two principles and utterly impossible to act on a capital valuation in such a case as this, because the value of a dock was nothing whatever except for the purposes of a dock, and the revenue it made. It was utterly impossible to act upon the valuation of capital in such a case as this, for a dock had no value whatever unless it commanded the trade. The criticism had been made that, if they took the maintainable revenue of the docks on the one side, and on the other side the obligations created under this Act, there was a surplus of only £8,000. The basis on which the calculation was made was one not to make a profit. It was meant to be a valuation so that as nearly as possible there should be no surplus revenue. The endeavour of the President of the Board of Trade was to give the dock companies a fair value, and the revenue had been investigated with that object. The hon. Member for Uxbridge spoke of the old docks as perfectly worthless. His own impression was that if they took the old docks of London, so picturesquely described by his right hon. friend behind him, and purchased them on a revenue basis to-day, they would probably get them very much below their capital value, for the value of this property in the heart of London was not to be estimated by the revenue which they got out of it by the present system of management, although there was now an extremely valuable warehousing business. As to the value of the surplus lands, it was not to be ascertained as

599
the hon. Member for Uxbridge said, by what rent would be obtainable for them. Their value was entirely for one purpose, namely, the dock purpose. They were not brought into use yet, but they were bought for dock purposes and for dock extension.
MR. LOUGH: That will cost money.
MR. RUSSELL REAsaid it would cost money, and what was the value of that to the dock owner? What would it cost the dock owner if he had to buy these lands when it came to making the extensions which were recommended by the Royal Commission, which were intended by the late Government, and by the present Government who introduced this Bill, which were needed by the port of London, and which were very much overdue. His right hon. friend talked of spending £5,000,000 to put the docks into order. The evidence was that the docks were in sufficiently good order to produce the revenue which had been stated to the Committee, which had been calculated by the most laborious, careful, and accurate investigation by Mr. Plender, who assured the Committee upstairs, and whose assurance was confirmed by Mr. Cruttwell, that the docks were capable of maintaining their present income. He stated that the docks were in sufficiently good order for the class of traffic they had now, and there was not the slightest doubt that there would in the future be the same class of traffic as now. It had been said that the dock companies inflated revenue by various devices with the object of producing a larger figure of maintainable revenue, but if anybody would think of it they would see that there was very little scope for a dock company to do anything of the kind. Anyone could see how various trading companies, and even railway companies, might do it, but dock companies could not do it to any great extent. It was proved to the Committee that they had spent nearly £100,000 per annum on the upkeep of their docks. The conclusions to which he came, and the collective conclusions of the Committee, were: First, that it was the duty, if possible, of a port authority to acquire docks, and to
600
acquire these particular docks. Secondly, that the bargains had not been bad bargains, and that the confirmation of these bargains would be infinitely preferable to throwing upon the new Port Authority the risk of having in the end to take all the chances of which they had had so much experience under arbitration. On the whole, he was a strong supporter of this clause and the next.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he had very few remarks to make on this subject. He was really sorry that he could not emulate the enthusiasm of the Secretary to the Board of Trade with regard to this bargain. Everyone who listened to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, whether they agreed with him or not, must have heard them with enjoyment. The right hon. Gentleman's criticisms seemed to be of that illusive character, that whether they agreed with them or not they must enjoy them. He began by comparing the Government, of which he was so renowned a supporter, with gentlemen in the City who bought a strip of land and floated a gold-mining company, and then looked for gold. That was not the way in which he should be inclined to speak even of his opponents. The right hon. Gentleman was almost picturesque in what he said of a mediæval structure, and something which was like the Bastille—these were the warehouses, the Committee would notice. Having said this much about what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he was bound to repeat that he did not share the enthusiasm of the Secretary to the Board of Trade about his bargain. The hon. gentleman thought he had made an extremely good bargain. That was his idea. The way in which he looked at the question, and what he thought the Committee had got to conside, was this: First, was it necessary to buy the docks? There was considerable difference of opinion about that. The subject had now been carefully considered for a very long time. The Royal Commission which first took it up decided that it was necessary to buy the docks. The late Government, of which he was a member, very carefully considered it also, and they came to the same conclusion.

601
And now the present Government, with the experience which the others had gained, had also come to the conclusion that they could not hope to get control of the river or effect any radical improvement of the port without becoming the owners and controllers of the docks as well. In the face of that experience he was bound to say that he put aside the idea that it was possible to make any progress without attempting to buy the docks out. Having admitted that they had got to buy the docks, the next point was what was the best way to buy them—whether by agreement or arbitration. He thought there was something to be said in favour of arbitration. He was bound to say, and he said it with all respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if the Government of which he was a member had dared to propose to Parliament that they should make this bargain on their responsibility, and that somebody else, as the right hon. Gentleman said, was to provide the money, whatever the merits might have been there was not a man on the other side of the House who would not have opposed them in the strongest possible manner. He was sure of that. He did not know that much importance was to be attached to the fact that the present Government had a much more reasonable Opposition than had the late Government, and he was not at all sure that this was a sufficient ground for condemning the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had conducted his Bill. But he did say that if they were going to depart from all previous practice they should make perfectly certain that by their private bargain they were getting at least as good terms as they would get by arbitration. There ought to be no doubt on that point; he thought everyone would admit that. Was it quite certain that they were getting as good terms? He had the other day a deputation of gentlemen who were opposed to this Bill, and who told him that the docks could have been got £12,000,000 cheaper by arbitration. ["Oh!" and laughter.] Well, he got them out of the room as soon as possible after they had begun with figures so exaggerated. He thought there was not the slightest rea-
602
son to hope for a great reduction in the price. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington not only did not accept the issue as between private contract and arbitration, but he was satisfied that Gentlemen sitting on that bench had made an extremely bad bargain as it was. He said—"You ought to have gone and valued the undertaking; you ought to have put a value on the fixed freehold property, and then given ten years (or whatever it was) purchase for the business as a going concern." He was bound to say that as a buyer he would like to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, but there was one little difficulty about it. The seller would not do business with him on those terms. That was the only difficulty. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman could get over that, and he was not sure that his friends could not help him. They knew something of the methods employed with regard to the Licensing Bill. He therefore came to this business with the idea that the probability was that they had got a better bargain by agreement than they would get by arbitration. But when the right hon. Gentleman pointed out to them what a splendid bargain it was, he was afraid that he must have a little criticism on that aspect of the subject. The business was quite properly based for this kind of undertaking on its value as a going concern. What he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington had overlooked was this. Supposing it did go to arbitration, the usual and universal rule in an arbitration of this kind was to judge of the value of the property by the length of the maintainable income. There was a difference which was in favour of the Government. In addition to valuing it from the point of view of net maintainable income, the valuers would also have been bound to take into account the prospective value of the unused land. Therefore, so far as the method of arriving at the value was concerned, London and the country did undoubtedly get some advantage by paying only for the net maintainable income, if it was correctly arrived at, and not by having to pay for any value outside that which would have to be paid for in arbitration. The

603
whole point was, was this the net maintainable income? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said quite truly that Mr. Plender, the accountant appointed by the Government, was one of the best authorities on that subject who could be found in the City of London. He thought that was quite true. But in reading Mr. Plender's evidence, though he thought perhaps he was right in saying this was the net maintainable income, he was very optimistic about the future, and he thought he had conveyed that optimism to the Board of Trade. For instance, he gave the idea that a much larger income would be available in the future. He said that several times to the Committee. Then Lord Leith he thought it was, said—"On what is that view as to the future based?" Mr. Plender said—"In 1898 there was such and such an amount of trade as shown by the Board of Trade table, done in the Port of London. In 1907 that trade had increased enormously. That means an increased profit to the port in larger shipping dues." He wondered it aid not occur to the President of the Board of Trade that there was surely a very great fallacy in that argument. Taking the six years which were given as the basis of the profits the average of the last three years represented £40,000 less income than the average of the first three years. Yet if they took those figures on which the basis for the future was based, they would find there had been an actual increase in the second three years as compared with the first three years, and if that was the ground on which they expected those enormous profits in future, it ought to have applied to that period as well as the other. That was quite obvious. The hon. Gentleman talked about the three bad years. Did he forget the fiscal speeches for the last four years, pointing to those years of much golden trade as taking away all need of fiscal reform? Those years were big years of trade in London as well as the rest of the country. If he had been looking at those figures, simply judging by them as to whether or not this was a good bargain, he would, he was afraid, have drawn from them the conclusion that the outside
604
interests which were competing with the docks were rather gaining in the competition and the docks were rather losing. Then there was another matter. The engineering expert was asked—
"Are you satisfied that the docks are in a condition to enable them to maintain the income which they are making now?"
His answers were quite definite. A certain Member said—
"We ought to know a little more than that. We ought to know whether they are in a position to meet the changing conditions of trade, whether they are in a position, not only assuming that trade is to be done exactly in the way it has been done up till now, but assuming it is to be done in perhaps a different way to meet those charges."
This was the question—
"You did not give any consideration to that point of view when you examined the docks?"
The answer was—
"No, I cannot say I did pay any special attention to that."
The real fact was that in his opinion they had paid full value and rather more than full value for the docks, but that did not enable him by any means to condemn the Government. They had had experience in many other ways of arbitration, and, curiously enough, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to use as an argument against the Bill what had happened in regard to the Water Board, although they all knew the amount paid by the Water Board was the result of arbitration, and he, for one, believed, though it might be open to argument, that taking the cost simply they had got the docks cheaper by agreement than they would have got them if they had left it to arbitration. That was the whole essence of the case, and that was his opinion. But all the same, he thought it was a kind of proceeding which was pretty dangerous. Apart altogether from recrimination from one side of the House against the other, there was a great danger of mistake being made in this as in other trade dealings, and though he believed they would get on better by making a business bargain, he was not sure that it was a wise course for the Government to adopt, or he would be glad to see this precedent followed in similar cases. There was only one other word he wished to say before he

605
sat down. He would not condemn what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done in regard to the Bill, but he remembered on the Second Reading a good many Members contrasted the brilliant achievement which they had made with the poor result that the late Government achieved. Even now, if he had been responsible for bringing forward a Bill like this, he would first of all have tried to do it on an entirely different footing as regards finance. In making a big amalgamation of this kind one of the great savings which people hoped to make was getting their money cheaper, and therefore making a saving of interest. There was nothing of that kind here. The new docks were paid for not by capital, which they could borrow on cheaper terms, but by giving an equivalent income, so that they gained nothing from the point of view of cheaper money by making the amalgamation. The Bill, as the late Government proposed it, was to get get from the County Council a guarantee of the payment of the interest on the debt. Ha know some hon. friends very much disliked that proposal. He thought it right, and he thought it right now, for this reason: that the interes of the port and of the City were so intimately connected that anything which saved money to the port was a direct advantage to the City. If he had been in the position of the President of the Board of Trade he would first of all have tried to arrange it on that basis.
SIR H. KEARLEY: They refused to make any contribution whatever.
MR. BONAR LAW: I think not.
MR. MCKINNON WOOD: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that is so.
MR. BONAR LAW: I am speaking with some knowledge of what took place with the majority of the Council at that time.
MR. MCKINNON WOOD: I had the honour to be a member of the body at that time. I pressed the policy on them very strongly. The County Council, when the hon. Gentlemen was concerned in bringing in the Bill, supported him and
606
offered to give a guarantee. I was in favour of continuing that policy and pressed it on the County Council and they absolutely refused.
MR. BONAR LAW: I must accept that with some qualification for this reason, that the Motion which the hon. Gentleman pressed on the County Council was not merely a question of guarantee by itself, but the question of contributing something towards the expenses, which was a very different thing. That is my recollection of what took place.
MR. MCKINNON WOOD: I must make the matter quite plain. The guarantee was pressed separately on the Council quite independently of that, and refused absolutely.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid that probably the hon. Gentleman was right, but it was not his recollection. The average rate of money paid by big corporations like London, Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow was 3¼ per cent. If they had raised this £23,000,000 on the same basis it would have meant an annual charge of £749,000 instead of £802,000. That was to say it would have been a saving to the new Port authority of more than £50,000 a year. He was convinced, whatever the hon. Gentleman might think of what took place at the County Council, that the matter was never pressed from that point of view alone, and he thought the Board of Trade would have been wise to make a first effort to settle the matter on that basis.
MR. W. PEARCEsaid that looking at this as a question of balance of advantage, he felt obliged to vote for the Government Bill. He did this with some hesitation because, looking at the point of maintainable income, he felt it was still likely to be very much impaired. There were danger signals which the Board of Trade had not perhaps paid sufficient attention to. First of all, if he looked at the dock companies case, in their Bill of 1907, when they were proposing to provide a dock for £2,000,000 and they had to present a budget of what their financial requirements were likely to be, he found reading these

607
conditions, which were not dissimilar to the conditions that the new Port authority would have to face, they proposed to put dues on goods to the tune of more than £500,000. The London and India Dock Company themselves asked for an extra revenue from dues on goods of £270,000. He had taken the figure from the statement issued by the dock company. He felt, therefore, that when the Board of Trade assured the House that £180,000 was likely to be the limit of the port dues which would be levied, they were taking an exceedingly sanguine view, and he was afraid they did not realise the full danger to which the trade of London was likely to be subject. There was another danger signal. Looking at the figures that these three companies had been putting on one side for maintenance, repairs, and depreciation, he was certain they were altogether inadequate to the sums the new authority would have to spend. He felt that the maintainable income would be impaired by at least £100,000 which the new authority would find it absolutely necessary to spend in keeping the docks in the condition which, would then be demanded. Besides, the purchase had been in the air. It was only common prudence on the part of the directors to keep down their expenditure on this head as much as possible, and one would expect to find that these maintenance figures, on which very largely depended the maintainable income, had been kept at a minimum. He had not been able to check it, but he had seen it stated that in the old days the dock company themselves were accustomed to spend a sum roughly aproaching £200,000 instead of the £93,000 they had done in the last few years. He therefore felt that the present income could not be maintained, because of necessity there must be a dropping of the dues on ships and an increase in the cost of repairs and maintenance. He hoped the Government would be prepared at some portion of the Bill to put a limit on the port dues they proposed to raise. At present there was an unlimited liability on the trade and commerce of London, and the situation was so dangerous that unless the Government put some limit into the Bill, he might be obliged on the Third Reading
608
to vote against it. He understood, however, that the Government were likely to do that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That does not arise under this clause.
MR. W. PEARCEsaid that he wished to point out the other side of the case and state why he felt obliged to vote for the Bill. In the first place, if this Bill was refused there was not likely to be another Government Bill for a long while, and it would mean the hanging up of this question for an indefinite period. They had been waiting ten years for a new dock to accommodate big ships, because the present accommodation was fully exhausted. The dock companies were not able to undertake such work, and in consequence of this Bill for some time past various works right along the river had been hung up. The reason for this had been that the large wharves and large business enterprises had stopped their development expenditure because they had been uncertain whether the docks were going to be purchased or not, and therefore it was in the general interests of trade that the whole matter should be finally settled. He thought the Port of London had suffered by the general discussions on this question which had taken place during the last two or three, years, and if they had a new authority of reputation established, it might do a good deal to recover London's commercial position. It should not be overlooked that this Bill enabled the Port authority to get hold of the valuable vacant land in the present dock, and it was only by such arrangements as these that those sites could be obtained which were the most suitable for the purpose. There was a large tract of land adjoining the Albert and Victoria Docks suitable for dock extension, and, as a matter of fact, it was the only piece of land suitable for the purpose. Under the arrangements made in this Bill, that land came into the hands of the new authority. He spoke with a good deal of responsibility upon this question, because he had had much experience, not only in business, but locally, for he represented a constituency in the East End of London in which he had had

609
business relations all his life. Looking at this matter he had no hesitation in saying that to the best of his judgment—and he might say that he felt a great deal of anxiety on the question—he was bound to support the Government in passing Clause 3.
MR. MCLARENsaid the hon. Member for Dulwich had suggested that the Government would have done better and might have saved a lot of money if they had induced the London County Council to guarantee the port stock. Apart from the unwillingness of the London County Council to enter into such a guarantee he wished to make this point—the bargain entered into by the Government was not made upon a cash basis but on the basis of an exchange of stock. If it had been contemplated to issue stock upon the market and pay out the existing dock shareholders in cash there would have been a very considerable saving realised by the course which the hon. Member for Dulwich suggested. He would, however, remind the Committee that not only was it a very difficult time now to issue a large amount of stock upon the market, but if this had been done those present holders of port stock who re-invested in the County Council guaranteed stock would have had to put up with a smaller income, and that was one or the considerations which influenced the directors who were responsible for the conduct of the dock companies. Naturally it influenced their minds, because they believed their shareholders under the proposed arrangement would get an income exactly equal or nearly equal to that which they had been getting in the past. For all practical purposes the debenture holders and the preference shareholders of most of these dock companies had a well secured revenue, and if they had asked them to exchange their stock for one with a smaller revenue, even though it had been better secured by a County Council guarantee., it was very unlikely that they would have acceded to that proposition. Had they not acceded they would have had to give them a larger amount of County Council guaranteed stock in order to make their income equal to the income of the past. Therefore the saving that the hon. Member for Dulwich suggested could have been made might have been in
610
this way reduced to perhaps very moderate proportions. He was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Dulwich did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington either in the gravamen of his charge against the Government or in the remedies which he suggested. He thought the gravamen of the right hon. Gentleman's charge was very largely that the price given was excessive. The steps which the right hon. Gentleman suggested might have been taken were, in the first place, arbitration, and in the second place that the Government ought to have based the purchase on a capital valuation. He also complained that the Government had not acted as business men in the matter. He was aware that business men very often did resort to arbitration, but as far as his information and observation went they usually resorted to arbitration when they had a thing to sell and not when they had something to buy. He did not know whether any hon. Member knew in his own personal experience of an instance where there had been compulsory arbitration in which the seller of property had not got more than his full market value. He thought that, in this instance, as in the case of the Water Board, if the Government had resorted to arbitration, and more especially if they had resorted to compulsory acquisition and arbitration, they would probably have had to pay a largely enhanced price. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington said the valuation had not been made upon a capital basis. How were they going to value a dock on a capital basis? After all they could not value the site of a dock in the light of its being used ultimately for building cottage property or erecting factories. All they could do was to value the property as a dock, and the only criterion of the value of a dock was what it could earn. The money spent in the making of a dock was no criterion at all, and therefore the only possible mode of valuation was a valuation based on the income and not upon the capital value. He would urge upon the Committee that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington wished to prove his case, if he wished to prove that because of the price at which the docks had been taken over a burden was going

611
to be placed upon the trade of London, he had got to prove not only that the dock receipts would not increase but that they would actually diminish, because at present, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had shown, there was a profit, although it was a very slight one, on the transaction. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."]
MR. LOUGH: Not in the last three years, because the receipts show a positive decrease.
MR. MCLARENreplied that the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that in the last three years there had been very exceptional circumstances which had made the profit of the docks—or at any rate of two of the dock undertakings, namely, the Surrey and Millwall Docks—a great deal less than they would otherwise have been. The question had been asked why it was that in a period of unexampled prosperity there had been such a falling off in the earnings of these docks. He defied anyone to prove that any hon. Member of the Committee had ever said that the last three years had been a period of unexampled prosperity in the building trade, and it was well known that it was the building trade imports which formed a very large proportion of the dock revenues. He would also submit to the Committee that during the last three years there had been a great many disturbances in the corn-growing areas in the Baltic, in Russia, and in that portion of the world from which our corn imports were largely drawn, and which in the past had supplied the Surrey and Millwall Docks with a large proportion of their trade and revenue. He submitted that it was much fairer to take the good years with the lean years in striking an average of profits, and, therefore, it was quite fair to go back over a period of six years and not three years as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington had suggested. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to prove that this Bill would place a burden on the trade of London, it was incumbent upon him to prove that the average trade for the past six years was less, or that the working expenses would be greater than had been estimated. He
612
had suggested that a great deal of money would have to be spent is putting the docks into proper working order, but it was the universal experience of all those concerned in business of any kind that when they put money into improvements, be it a dock company, a railway company, or any other concern, the money spent was generally wisely spent, and generally led to a larger return than the old capital. He could conceive that if the new authority had to spend many millions in improving equipments and altering the docks, that capital would bring in a return exceeding the return on the old capital invested, and in that way would yield an additional profit to the Port authority. If it was urged that the trade of the docks would fall off, he would ask, where was that trade going to? Was it going to desert the docks and go to the river instead? The expenditure of money which the new dock authority would incur in improving the docks—if they had that total trade in the Port which was there at the present time—would surely enable them to keep the trade. Surely it might be hoped that the increased facilities which would be provided would attract increased trade, and that the trade would not be allowed to go away to other people. He had thought that the objections to this Bill which had come from the wharfingers and those interested in some of the riverside industries had been due to fears that the improvement of the facilities in the docks would have the effect of diverting a portion of the trade from the wharves into the docks. It was proposed to have an authority for controlling the Port which, perhaps, taken all round—and he was sure the right hon. Member for Islington would be the last to deny this—had the rosiest prospects of any port in the world. There was a vaster and a more constantly increasing population in London than in any other portion of the world. The Committee could hardly believe that any loss would be incurred by the new authority through a diminution in the trade of the Port of London.
MR. STEADMANthought the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade replied to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington in what he would describe as a rather

613
theatrical manner. He was astonished that the hon. Gentleman shielded his own position behind that of the late President of the Board of Trade. Mr. Gerald Balfour was a leading Member of the Conservative Party, and he could quite easily understand his position, but he could not understand the position of the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for this reason. Mr. Gerald Balfour was a member of a party whom Radicals outside always abused. They said to the people: "Oh! do not send them to Parliament; they are the party of privilege and monopoly. We are democrats, and we will support measures on behalf of the people." Well, he supposed the hon. Gentleman would go down to Devonport and say that to the voters On statements of that kind he got returned to the House, and when he had an opportunity of defending the administration of his Department he did not stand on his own merits, but fell back on an ex-Minister belonging to the Tory Party in order to shield himself. He was not a capitalist. He knew nothing about finance as compared with the majority of the Members of the House. When they were dealing with a matter of this magnitude it was always puzzling to know when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen get up to speak, how far they were financially interested in the subject before the House. That applied to both parties. There were two parties who in years past had been wrongfully abused, but only through the ignorance of the people who had been abusing them. One was the dock companies, and the other the Thames Conservancy Board. He said that without fear or hesitation, and he held no brief for the dock companies. The dock companies had done their level best to cope with the growing traffic of the river, but they had absolutely failed. An hon. Member spoke of St. Catherine's Dock and Commercial Dock—one at Wapping, and the other at Shadwell. At the Limehouse reach there was the West India Dock and the South Dock. When he was a young man those docks up the river were hives of industry. If the present President of the Local Government Board were to go down to the West India Dock, where he saw the right hon. Gentleman twenty years ago, to address, or attempt to address, a
614
crowd of dockers from the top of a hansom cab, instead of getting thousands round him as he once did he would not get hundreds. The South Dock was at one time a timber pond, and it was made into a dock in order to cope with the increased traffic on the river. Millwall Docks were built in his time. There was also the Surrey Commercial Dock. Well, the owners had no desire that the Government should buy that dock. He happened to know two of the directors of that dock. It was the best paying dock in the river. They had spent over a million of money in making a new entrance at the lower end. The south entrance was in the Limehouse reach, and the other in the Blackball reach. These docks ran quite parallel with what was known as the Isle of Dogs. In connection with the South Dock a lot of money was laid out some years ago in order to cope with the larger ships which were being built. The entrance was widened at the Blackwall end. The East India Dock was also a great work. They could not go there at one time without finding it crowded with ships. He went to that dock a few months ago, and there was not a ship at work in the dock. It was intended to accommodate the ships of the Castle Line, and on making inquiries he was told that the new basin could not accommodate the larger ships of that line. They were only doing one a week, instead of two. The ships were going to Southampton. He mentioned this to the hon. Member for Woolwich. He said to him: "There, Bill, you have the answer to the poverty in Poplar." Then they came to the Victoria Docks and the Albert Docks, which had been built in his time, and yet to-day they were years behind the other ports. That proved to him that the dock companies had invested their money and done their level best to cope with the requirements of the Port of London, but they had failed. He asked any one of the capitalists in the House of Commons—men who knew business, otherwise they would not accumulate money as they did—whether they would be foolish enough to purchase a business that was absolutely played out. Men did not make money in that way.

615
Why buy a thing because they had public money to handle which they would not buy if they were spending their own money? If he were to open, say, a grocer's shop in any district, and if he were doing a good business and making a decent living, the business might be destroyed through the competition of one of those gigantic companies which were formed nowadays. The working classes of this country had to fight for all they were worth against the combinations of capitalists. Wealth was the one thing which was socialised in this country to-day. If he were a grocer whose business was destroyed in the way he had indicated he could not come to Parliament for compensation. He would have to put up with it. For all the world cared, a man in these circumstances might starve outside or go into the workhouse. He did not want the President of the Board of Trade to take his word alone in regard to the docks. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to pay a surprise visit with one of his own officials to the West India Docks, or some of the other docks, in order to see for himself the state they were in at the present time He had nothing to say against the two experts who were employed by the Government, especially the actuary, but he did say as a mechanic that the engineer, however able he might be, could not in a period of fourteen days thoroughly overhaul the docks to ascertain whether they were in good working condition or not. The Thames Conservancy Board had been accused of neglecting its work with reference to the dredging of the river. Well, they deserved only a portion of the blame. He was a member of the Board and when the question of dredging was raised they were always mot with the cry, "We have got no money." Some years ago they were dredging below Woolwich. There was a factory on the river bank and the dredging was undermining the foundations of the factory. The owners got an injunction and stopped the work. The river could not be dredged even up to Blackwall, to say nothing of the channel near the Tower Bridge. At Blackwall they were met by the tunnel, and they could not get any more depth of water there than they had now. The river banks down to Silvertown were a mass of warehouses and factories. They
616
could not dredge the river there, because the moment they attempted it they undermined the factories, Now, they could get a depth of water of 35 feet at Gravesend; but the dock companies might say: "It is no use of us doing anything at all to our docks, because the Thames Conservancy do not give us the depth of water." His answer to that was that if there was a depth of water of 35 feet at Gravesend, the ships could not get into Tilbury at low water, because they had the sill to contend with, and they could not get 35 feet on the sill at low water. He was in hopes that this Bill would have compelled them to get that depth. He had the honour of being one of twelve members of the Thames Conservancy which visited the ports of Rotterdam, Antwerp, Bremen, Bremen-Haven, and Hamburg, and he said to his colleagues when they were at Antwerp on the River Scheldt: "That is what we want on the River Thames." They all admitted that it could be done. "Oh, but," said he, "we are bound hand and foot on the River Thames with the private monopoly of the dock companies." He knew that at Antwerp they had a small dock company in some form or other, but they had made the improvements nevertheless, and a good deal more. He knew of a man who bought recently London Dock stock at 90 which was going to bring in 3 or 4 per cent. interest. This was no fairy tale. An ordinary tradesman had to submit to competition and put up with the loss of profit. Why should not the dock companies do the same? It could not be supposed that the men who found the capital to build these docks did it to accommodate the shipowners. They did it because they knew there was money in it; and they had made their money. The fact was that these docks, like the railways, ought to belong to the State. What the dock companies ought to have done long years ago the State itself ought to have done, and not the big capitalists. The Thames Conservancy, with all its faults, passed a large plan for a deep water jetty, but it had to go up to the Board of Trade. That was where he objected to the inte ference of the Board of Trade. The Thames Conservancy could not pass a bye-law to regulate the traffic

617
on the river without submitting it to the Board of Trade.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really going very wide of the point, which is that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.
MR. STEADMANsaid that he understood that the point before the Committee at the present moment was Clause 3, which dealt with the purchase of the dock companies' undertakings. His point was that the Board of Trade were interfering too much with this problem. He wanted to know from the Board of Trade what right they had to create a new Port authority, and before doing so, to go and purchase the docks, to the tune of £22,500,000, in order to hand them over to the new Port authority, so as to be a load round their neck for years to come. He knew that that was like the Licensing Bill. They were saddling the new Port authority with these docks, just as they were hanging a burden on the necks of the tied-house men so as to compel them to pay a high rate of interest on the money going through their hands. His remedy for that was that the Board of Trade ought to have created the new Port authority and left the docks alone, or given the new Port authority the option of purchasing them if they wanted to do so. Bat failing purchase their object ought to have been to compete with the dock companies. Of all the Continental ports he had visited he was most struck with Antwerp. They had a fine large dock there and they were building a much larger one. Apart from the docks they had some miles of wharfage, and ships came up alongside the wharves on which there was the railway. The goods were transferred direct to the railway trucks or else into barges which had a capacity of carrying 2,000 or 3,000 tons. He wanted to see the Port of London succeed, and he hoped and trusted that this Bill, which the Government were bound to carry as they had made up their minds to it, would do all that they expected it to do. But he maintained that the real solution of the success of the Port of London was not the docks but deep-water jetties. He would let all the docks up the river alone and buy up all the land between the Albert
618
Dock and the Tilbury Dock and turn it into one gigantic dock. He would give the docks 35 feet of water with new entrances so that the largest ship afloat to-day might get into them. Besides that he would provide deep-water jetties that would accommodate the largest ships. That, of course, would mean millions of money. But the Belgian Government handed over to the municipality of Antwerp £8,000,000 for their improvements. The whole thing was managed by the municipality with the assistance of subsidies which the Government gave to the municipality. But they would not get that here, especially just now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had his sympathy, he could assure him. The right hon. Gentleman was in a bit of a tight corner just now. Still, he had faith in him. He knew the right hon. Gentleman had a large heart and would do a jolly sight more than he did if he had the means. Unfortunately, he had not; the means. In his judgment that was I the only thing that would remedy the unsatisfactory state of things that existed on the River Thames at the present moment. He was sorry to admit it, but the great curse of this country was cheapness. Competition was run so fine that it would not pay the big shipowners to have their ships lying idle for a tide before they could get into a dock. Wages were running on, and that meant a large loss on big vessels. When he was I at Hamburg he went on board one of the German boats, and a fine ship it was. But when they got to the river there was not enough water for the ship and they had to land in a tender. It was the same at Bremen Haven. But when they came to Southampton they found thirty-six feet of water and the biggest ships went there bang alongside the jetty without any waste of time. The passengers were landed, and the ship got her coal without delay. That was what they wanted in our London river. The President of the Board of Trade told him that the new port authority would have power to build deep-water jetties; but would they do it? Where were they going to get the money? He maintained that every penny-piece they put on dues in this port was going not to increase the trade but to take the trade

619
away. London, at present, was the cheapest port in the world, and that was the reason of its great commerce; but if they put dues on goods they would destroy that trade, and after all the merchant did not pay these dues although he might do so at first hand—
THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this clause.
MR. STEADMANsaid he was sorry; but, after all, the dues fell upon the consumer, in his judgment. In conclusion all he had to say was that although he was opposed to buying out the docks, he was as earnest as the Government in his endeavour to improve the Port of London, and he wished the Bill every success which the Government themselves hoped for.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The debate has now proceeded for a good many hours, and I think the Committee is in a position very shortly to come to a decision on the question under discussion. I think that hon. Gentlemen who have listened to this debate must have been struck at the inevitable character of the purpose of the Government to carry the Bill through. At almost every step it has been forced upon us by overwhelming arguments and by the force of circumstances. The first question is whether the docks should be purchased or not. A Liberal Bill introduced by my right hon. friend, a Conservative Bill introduced by the late Government, and the Report of the Royal Commission—all equally affirmed the principle that the purchase of the docks should be an integral part of any scheme for the establishment of a real Port authority for London. If that be the first step to which I say we are driven by the practically irresistible process of circumstances, the next step is the sharp alternative between purchase by arbitration rather than by purchase by agreement. Of course, there are advantages on either side. But after having heard the admirable defence of purchase by agreement which my hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade has given to the House, and also having
620
heard the very generous admission of the hon. Member for Dulwich that upon the whole he was of opinion that better terms would be got by agreement than would be got by arbitration, the House is aware that at any rate we know exactly where we are after having purchased by agreement, and we are not exposed to any of those indefinite chances which are the result of arbitration, especially where the value of the property is subject to many varying and complex conditions. If then we are brought to have to choose between arbitration and agreement, we are drawn to the conclusion that agreement is the right way, and we come directly to the question now before the Committee. My right hon. friend the Member for Islington has his own views of the terms of the agreement, and as every one knows, he has explained those views very fully, but the Committee will realise that purchase by agreement means purchase by agreement. It means that the buyer and seller must come to an agreement about the terms, and if that is so, it is really not open to anyone to assert, as did the hon. Gentleman opposite, that these docks ought to have been purchased by agreement for much less. The method employed by the Government has been fully explained. An actuarial inquiry was made with full knowledge to ascertain the true value. Engineering inquiry was made, not in order to ascertain whether the docks were up to date, or whether they were perfect for the purposes suitable for a great city, but in order to ascertain whether the earning capacity of those docks relatively to the ascertained income was adequately maintained. It was conducted by an engineer whose authority has never been challenged, whose discretion was never impugned. During the inquiry for two or three months upstairs, no one was brought forward—no serious witness was brought forward, no engineer, and no one of experience in the management of docks came to impugn in any way the experience or opinion of Mr. Cruttwell, that the earning capacity of the docks had been adequately maintained and that there was no depreciation of the proper capital value. We are told that these docks are obsolete and have long been neglected, but they have had spent on them during the last

621
six years an average of £125,000 a year, and in the year 1907 no less than £127,000 was expended on the improvement of these docks. But it is no part of the Government case that the docks which have been purchased are in every respect up to date. On the contrary, every argument which is used to show that they were obsolete or obsolescent and unsuited to the needs of the city—to show that they had a hampering effect upon trade, is an argument which proves the urgency of the measure which we have under consideration. When my right hon. friend the Member for Islington tells us that in his opinion these docks are obsolete, that their gates are never opened and ships cannot get in—
MR. LOUGH: Some gates.
MR. CHURCHILL: When he tells us that some of their gates are never opened and ships cannot get in, that the warehouses are not opened and the docks are unsuitable for trade, when the right hon. Gentleman makes all these statements, they have not, I can assure the Committee, the slightest connection with the actual facts. In 1907, the London and India Docks alone disposed of over 7,000,000 tons of shipping and 11,000,000 tons of goods. But if these statements which are put forward by the right hon. Gentleman were as true as they are untrue, if they were as accurate as they are inaccurate, that would be the most powerful argument that could be advanced for the Committee's resolutely pushing forward with this Bill, which alone can effectually remedy such a deplorable state of things. When therefore, my right hon. friend speaks of a shady transaction, a shady business—
MR. LOUGH: I did not say that.
MR. CHURCHILL: I wrote down the words "shady business," and when he makes use of such strong language in criticising financial proposals put before the Committee in good faith on behalf of the Government, I should like to know where was the right hon. Gentleman when these proposals were put forward. The right hon. Gentleman has special business aptitude, he is connected with London and has a special knowledge of
622
it and London affairs. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government long after my right hon. friend's scheme was made public and the Bill was printed and laid before this House. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman come forward, if not publicly at any rate in the Government, to give them the advantage of his counsel in these matters? He saw these transactions and he saw these disadvantages. He saw these shady transactions take place, and not one single moment did he spare from his labours at the Education Department to lend a hand to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with this Bill. I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman has approached the subject this afternoon in a mood and with an expression that I think are not worthy of himself at his best. And when I turn from the question of the methods which we have employed, which really are not seriously challenged in any part of the House, to the price, I have only one observation to make to epitomise the discussion which has taken place. A price fixed by agreement will not enable you to make persons who possess existing properties accept an appreciably lower income than they have on the average been receiving. You will not get people to accept half or three-quarters of the income they have been accustomed to, but with that general reservation I say we have taken over these great properties substantially at their actual and real value. If you look at the income my hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade has shown, it appears that we have purchased for stock which will show £800,000 interest, a stock which will show a value of £809,000 a year. It is quite true that it is only just a balance, but it is not to be expected that any greater advantage than that could be gained. If you take the Stock Exchange value, the average market value for six years of the old stocks which are still extant, would be about twenty millions and a half, and if you compare that with the Board stock so far as we can accurately forecast it, it is not anticipated that the average value of that stock issued will be above twenty-one millions. I only ask that hon. Members will not accept statements

623
as wild as those of the right hon. Gentleman, and will consider that the margin of unthriftiness under this bargain must at any rate be exceedingly small—a million or two one way or the other, and which way is an absolutely disputable and arguable point. When the narrow and almost exact balance has been established between the old and the new stock which is created, let the Committee also remember that no account whatever is taken of the undeveloped land. I do not wish to go into that at length, but there are 750 acres of land situated in close contiguity to the docks, which will be of the greatest possible value. The average prices for which the land was purchased are known and they are very high. [An HON. MEMBER: £400,000.] Thirty or forty years ago £400,000 was paid for the land, and there has been the great appreciation of value which has attended urban sites. These lands were valued by the companies at £1,600,000. So far as the evidence goes the Government are inclined to think that this is more than the actual value, but if we take it at half, or £800,000, a figure markedly within the limits of actuality, it would be equivalent to a premium on the whole transaction of 3·74 per cent. That is the case for purchase in its simplest terms, that there is a practical equation as regards the benefits which the holders of the stock will receive and a balance in our favour of the undeveloped land with all its advantages, once adequate capital is brought to bear upon it. But I should not be dealing fairly with the Committee if I were not to face the argument which has been used, that even if an equal income has been exchanged, the holders of the old stock surrendered a precarious and fluctuating income for an absolutely certain one. I advise the Committee to realise, in the first place, that the extant stocks of the dock companies were of very varying value. There is, first of all, a group of £16,500,000 of preference debenture and other stock of the highest possible class, and it is not in the least-true to say that is precarious and fluctuating, because over the whole area of finance that security was established by payments extending over a long period of time. In the next category
624
you have between £5,500,000 and £6,000,000 of deferred and ordinary stock. For these we have paid the "B. stock" to the value of £220,000 a year. During the last six years the average annual interest yielded on this stock was £228,000 a year. So that even on this second class of commodity the bargain can be shown to yield a balance, a very slight balance, in regard to the interest payable on the port stock as against the income derivable under the old system. There remains only one class further of securities—about £1,000,000 worth of very junior securities. They are of uncertain value, but they are certainly of some value. That £1,000,000 worth of securities we have purchased by agreement for £342,000. It must be remembered that although some of those securities have not paid a dividend in the years immediately preceding the purchase they are nevertheless valuable and marketable commodities, and that the value of these securities on the Stock Exchange and in the market so far as it can be estimated is, I am informed, far in excess of the £342,000 which we have paid for them. Again, I say in estimating the value of these stocks it must be remembered that the stock holders of all classes are entitled to their share in the value of the undeveloped lands and what might come out of it, and that any scheme of arbitration would have to take into consideration their substantial claims in that important respect. I venture to submit to the Committee that the bargain that has been made is, first of all, the best that could have been made under the circumstances in which we stand. Of course I agree with the hon. Gentlemen opposite that it would have been a very good thing if the London County Council, the great London authority, had been able to come forward and lend its credit to guarantee the finance of the dock authority. I should have much preferred that. I should have very much liked to have seen that life between the London Port Authority and the London County Council grow in the future. But that was not open to us; the advantages of that course were not open to us. I have that from my right hon. friend. The House knows perfectly well

625
that if anybody could persuade a Moderate or Progressive majority of the London County Council to favour such a scheme it would be my right hon. friend. But his sweetness was wasted on the desert air. We, therefore, cannot be blamed for not having the advantage of their support. I will take occasion when we reach the next clause to relieve the anxiety which has been expressed with regard to the burden which will be placed on the trade of the Port, and I think I shall be able to show that the bargain which we have made is not a hard bargain, but on the contrary a thrifty one, and I think it will be not less easy to show that the fear expressed by hon. Members is unfounded. I should be out of order in referring to that now. What remains? Only this other point as it seems to me. I mean the future of the Port in its financial and commercial sense. We have heard the most gloomy prophecies and the most melancholy predictions. We are told the change is not desired by persons who have ignored the fact that the timber trade has been disorganised, that the building trade through high rates for money has been much depressed, and that the grain import trade has been much disturbed in the last few years; and that the companies have themselves reduced their profits by protracted and fierce rate wars one against another. We do not believe that the future of the docks of London and the Port of London will be dark or restricted. We claim a free hand for the Port Authority, and shall all through this Bill ask the House to put them in as good a position to face their difficulties and solve their problems as if they were a private concern in all that is legitimate and fair. If that is done, we have good hopes for the future. We count on the economies of concentrated management; we count on the revival which fresh capital and improvements only can give to the high-class shipping of the Port; we count on the utilisation of vacant lands and on the reopening of the Greenland Dock, and the steady development of that most valuable property which has as yet scarcely begun to form part of the Revenue; and lastly we count on London, on the steady and ever unbroken expansion of the trade and wealth of this great city, which we
626
believe must continue inevitably by every improvement in science, the continuation of peace, and the spread of civilisation throughout the world. I hope the House will now come to a decision on the purchase terms, that when they come to that decision on the purchase terms they will understand what it really means. Let us decide once and for all whether the bargain is a good or a bad one. If we decide that it is a bad one, then this Bill must go. The scheme which is put forward will be rejected, the large public works that are being constructed in consequence of this Bill will be arrested, the enterprise which we desire to be centred in the Port of London will be prevented; and the docks which we are told are obsolete will be left to obsolesce into obsoleteness. But I believe that the decision of the Committee will show that we have acted judiciously and thriftily on the lines on which Governments and individuals alike may go. I take it that the decision may be taken as governing the bargain, because, I must remind the Committee that all parts of the bargain are absolutely interdependent, and the pulling out of any one part of this arrangement must absolutely destroy the whole basis on which it was arranged. Twenty conflicting interests have been adjusted in one way or another, and it is not possible for me to vary the details of the bargain without destroying the whole edifice which has been erected with so much patience, labour, and skill by my right hon. friend. I hope the House will recognise this, and discarding the weak cries of pusillanimity and suspicion which have been raised in one quarter and another, affirm that by a thrifty financial operation the Port of London is to be set free to maintain the position of this great city in the commercial supremacy of the world.
MR. RENWICKsaid he had listened to the whole of the debate upon this Amendment, and while he quite recognised the ability with which the President and the Secretary of the Board of Trade had put forward the case of the terms upon which it was proposed to purchase these docks, he had failed to find, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman and one hon. Member below the gangway, that the case had

627
been put before the House as to whether these docks ought to be bought or not. He was not in the House at the time when the Bill was before the Committee, but he understood that before the Committee the principle of buying the docks was not allowed to be discussed. He was in the House during the last Parliament and took a keen interest in the Bills introduced by the late Government in 1902 and 1903 in connection with this important question. In 1903 he headed a deputation of shipowners to the then President of the Board of Trade. He also made a speech in the House on the question, and ever since then he had taken a very keen interest in this important subject. Although he represented a northern constituency he claimed to have as great a knowledge of the Port of London as any hon. Member representing London. His business took him down to the docks two or three times every week, and he knew something about the docks of London. He had not the slightest hesitation in associating himself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington in his declaration that it was inexpedient to saddle the Port authority with the purchase of these docks. He believed that the purchase would hang like a millstone round the neck of the new authority, and that the reason the Bills of the late Government failed to pass was the doubt in the mind of the House as to the expediency of purchasing the docks. Had anything happened in the last six years to render it expedient to buy these docks now? If it was inexpedient to buy them six years ago, it was more inexpedient to buy them now. They had to remember, and it was important that they should remember, that the trade of London was carried on in two departments. About half was carried on on the river, and half in the docks. He could not help wondering, if it was expedient to buy the docks where half the trade was carried on, why it was not expedient to buy the wharves on the river where the other half was carried on. If it was expedient in the one case, it was expedient in the other. They had heard from the President of the Board of Trade that the Government were getting a good bargain in buying these docks. They were buying them on the
628
basis of the revenue value of the docks, and thought they were getting them cheap, but nothing was cheap, or a good bargain, if it was not required. He maintained that they did not want these docks, and where they were being purchased on the basis of revenue, the Committee must consider whether they would get the same revenues. He maintained that they would not. He maintained that directly the new authority took possession of these docks they would be faced with a great expenditure, not only for improving the docks themselves, but for bringing the wharves and warehouses up-to-date. He could enlighten the right hon. Gentleman as to the state of certain parts of the docks and wharves, at the present time. His own firm had applied to the docks to put them in a favourable position for their business, and they had been told that they could not do so because the authorities were not prepared to put any money into the docks. They had had to meet the difficulty by putting up the buildings themselves and paying the expense. That was the position with regard to some of the docks, and he maintained it was the position with regard to them all. When the Secretary to the Board of Trade asked the Committee to approve the purchase, and instanced the Surrey Docks, it was only because the Surrey Commercial Docks were an excellent and up-to-date institution. But the remarkable thing was that the authorities of the Surrey Commercial Docks did not wish to sell to this Board. They had brought their docks up-to-date, and had done that in a much more economical way and far more cheaply than this new Board was likely to do. He could understand a Labour Member looking round the docks and saying: "Here is a field for expenditure; here is a field for work for the unemployed"; but he maintained, as he maintained six years ago in the House, that the way to develop the Port of London was not by increasing the dock accommodation, but by increasing the wharf and jetty accommodation in the river, because to all intents and purposes, where it was possible to have wharves and jetties, docks were out of it. Take the River Tyne, about which he knew something. They had there docks and wharves. The

629
principal docks on the River Tyne did not belong to the River Tyne Commissioners; they belonged to the railway company. The River Tyne Commissioners themselves had docks, which were regular white elephants, and they would like to get rid of them. They had a demand for increased accommodation for large ships, not by way of in creased dock space, but by way of riverside wharves, and he maintained that that was the proper solution of the difficulty that they have to deal with in the Port of London. He was not one who took a pessimistic view of the trade of London. He was quite aware that the trade of London went on increasing, and he said fearlessly that there was enough accommodation in the Port of London for the ships that came. They heard a good deal about large ships requiring more accommodation, but there were no ships coming to the Port of London of upwards of 600 feet in length. Take the Atlantic Transport Fleet, their vessels were 600 feet long. The P. and O. Company's ships were 550 feet, and those of the Orient Line about 500 feet. All these ships could be accommodated in the present docks. Were they willing to build new docks to accommodate larger ships? That would certainly be entering upon an enterprise, the cost of which would be enormously out of proportion to the revenue they would be likely to get. They were told that 700-feet and 750-feet ships require accommodation, but they were not likely to come to the Thames. The "Mauretania," the "Lusitania," and White Star ships were not likely to come to the Port of London, and if they did, who would propose to build a dock to accommodate them? What would it mean? They would have to build enormous docks with a great depth of water, and they would have to provide on one side of the dock nearly 300 yards of quay—for what? So that a ship might use it probably once in three or four months. If they were going to deal with large ships they would have to deal with them by constructing wharves in the river.
THE CHAIRMAN: I really think the hon. Member is out of order on the question before the Committee. I think
630
the hon. Gentleman is going too far afield when he talks about the accommodation of the future.
MR. RENWICKsaid he was endeavouring to show that the new Port authority ought not to buy these docks, but should turn to the scheme before the Committee as to how large ships ought to be dealt with. He maintained that if this large amount of money was to be spent upon the existing docks, it was not the new authority who ought to have to deal with them, but the present proprietors. When a private company lost a portion of its capital it applied to the Courts for leave to reduce its capital. They rarely found an accommodating Government, such as the dock companies had found at the present time, to step in and relieve them in respect of loss of capital. He maintained that the fact that the Surrey Commercial Docks Company had been able to keep their docks up to date threw the responsibility on the present dock owners to keep their docks also up to date, and if they were not going to do so, then it was no part of the duty of this new authority to step in and carry out those improvements themselves. If they wanted to give the new Port authority a fair chance, let them entrust them with the administration of the river, give it ample powers to extend the wharves and to build docks, if they liked, but not saddle them with an enormous outlay which he was absolutely certain they were face to face with if they were to bring these docks up to date.
SIR A. SPICERsaid he wished to make a few observations after the able speech of the President of the Board of Trade. There were one or two features of this subject which had not been touched upon, but which were really the crux of the whole question of the purchase of the docks, and he thought his remarks might be some reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle who had just spoken. He thought they must bear in mind that the Royal Commission, the late Government, and the present Government determined, when they considered this question, that the docks must be purchased as the property of the

631
Port of London, and he thought also, that they should bear in mind something of the history of the Port of London. They had to bear in mind that long before the docks they had a free river, they had free water; and when the docks were permitted to be built under legislative sanction free water was still retained. That was all very well so long as the docks had a monopoly, and then when that monopoly ceased, they still had the advantage of the protective policy under which this country was then, living, and which practically drew all the goods into the dock warehouses. But when free trade was introduced gradually goods left the docks to come closer to the actual market, and when, in 1866, Mr. Gladstone swept away practically all the remaining duties, with the exception, of course, of a few special ones, it went from that time very hard with the docks. Those who had since that time enjoyed the benefits of free water had to bear in mind that it was not all gain, and that, if they could go through that period again, they would realise that it would have been much better for them to have given up something of those privileges, and have enabled the docks to earn a sufficient income to extend their docks in harmony with the growth and size of the ships to be accommodated. From 1866 onwards the docks had been struggling against insufficient income. Though they, the users of free water, had for years had that advantage, they had had the great disadvantage that the larger ships had not been sufficiently directed to London, and that in some cases they had not been able to come, and consequently they had lost their share of the trade that those ships would have brought with them. He thought this was a point which had not been mentioned all through the discussion in Committee, and he thought it was a very important question for consideration. He had had to do with commerce in the City of London for forty-three years. He occupied, at the present moment, an official position in connection with commerce, and he honestly said that he would not willingly vote for any measure that would inflict increased burdens upon the commerce of London. He
632
knew the position of both sides. He knew that not only had every Government who had looked into the question thought it necessary to purchase the docks, but the whole history of the docks and the history of the port of London made it expedient in every way. With regard to the question if it was right to purchase, he replied yes. Whether they were buying in the right way and whether at the right price he frankly said that was one of his anxieties on the Committee, and if he criticised the Board of Trade it would be to say that he did not think that they were altogether frank enough with the Committee in the information they laid before it. He felt a good deal of anxiety from time to time, and anyone who had taken the trouble to read the evidence would see that anxiety brought out in the questions he asked, and he only wished, because he thought it would have been a good deal more satisfactory at the time, that a great deal more information had been placed before the Committee. They had bought the docks—he did not say at a great bargain, but he thought at a fair price—at a lower price than they would have done if the whole matter had gone to arbitration. But about the future. With the price that had been paid were they imperilling the future of the commerce of London? Let him give two figures which were brought before them in Committee, and which he thought were extremely interesting. The tonnage that came into the River Thames and went out in the year 1906 was 29,000,000 tons. Of that, 18,000,000 tons used the river alone and never went near the docks. The other 11,000,000 tons entered the docks and went out of the docks. But of these 11,000,000 tons only 2,500,000 tons paid dock charges, so that the whole revenue of the docks of London was obtained from the 2,500,000 tons out of the 29,000,000 tons. Of course, some would say that this showed that the greater part of the trade was done in the river. But, after all, they must have docks, and they could not get larger ships into the Port of London unless they had docks suitable to accommodate them. They must remember that. They had to provide sufficient capital, and on the present lines they had not allowed the dock companies to earn sufficient revenue

633
to raise the capital necessary to supply the dock accommodation. The hon. Member for Newcastle had raised the question of what happened to the docks during the last few years, during the time after the last Government Bill was withdrawn, a Bill which he should have been perfectly prepared to see passed. They had distinctly gone back because they had been doing nothing to provide further accommodation for the larger ships which he believed would come to London. He said that the figures which he had quoted showed that between 2,500,000 tons and 29,000,000 tons there was a splendid margin on which, if there was only a small charge made—and the charge would have to be very small—there would be sufficient to provide revenue for the purposes they required. He confessed that these figures were given to them by the representative of practically the only petitioner who really wanted to kill the Bill. Nearly all the other petitioners, as far as he understood the petitions, did not want to kill the Bill, but only wanted to get some extra privileges for themselves. The firm he referred to was William Cory and Company, who handled some 5,000,000 tons of seaborne coal out of 7,000,000 tons coming into the Thames, and who, did 90 per cent. of their trade in the River and used the docks for only 10 per cent. of it, It was a witness from this firm who gave the evidence that out of 29,000,000 tons that entered and went out of the Port of London, only 2,500,000 tons paid dock charges. It appeared to him that that fact was one of the most hopeful features in connection with the whole matter. While he fully realised the difficulty of the position, it was a little difficult to find exactly the condition in which those docks were. The evidence before them did not altogether reassure him, but he went to see the whole of the docks and he could not help thinking that if his right hon. friend the Member for West Islington had seen the whole of the docks right away from Tower Bridge to Tilbury, including the Surrey Commercial and the Millwall, he would not have given them quite such a doleful account of their present position. It was perfectly true that the warehouses of the upper docks were the main features, but they were uncommonly well built,
634
and were just as useful to-day as warehouses as ever they were. Considering the insufficient income that they had had he thought the dock directors and managers had simply done splendidly with the small funds at their disposal and the very fact that the dock companies had had to struggle for the last twenty or thirty years to pay even a small dividend, had produced a staff which, if properly used by the new authority, would enable them to bring this new enterprise to a success.
MR. MORTONsaid that to his mind it was to be deplored that there should be any attempt to rush through a Bill of this sort, that they should have had only ten minutes on the First Reading, that the Second Reading should have been closured, that they should have been denied on inquiry before the Committee, and finally at the fag end of an exhausting autumn session they were expected to rest satisfied with this discussion. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said they must have docks. Did he know anything about how the trade of the world was carried on? They had no docks in New York, and that was a big port where big ships went. They had no docks in Glasgow, or in Hamburg, or Rotterdam. It was an extraordinary thing that they found Members so utterly ignorant on this subject that they said there were docks in Hamburg when there were not. There were no docks at Bremen. [Cries of "Oh, yes."] He advised those people to go over the whole port with the authorities as he had done.
MR. THORNE: I was there three weeks ago.
MR. CROOKS: So was I.
MR. MORTONsaid then they were there on some other business. There were docks at Bremerhaven and he supposed that was what they meant. There were twenty-one miles between Bremen and Bremerhaven. Now he had shown the ignorance of his hon friends. When they went to the arbitration meeting at Berlin they were in such a state that they did

635
not know Bremerhaven from Bremen. Whether that was on account of seasickness or of drinking too much tea he could not tell, but they had proved that they Were utterly ignorant of what they saw there and how they saw it. Practically at Southampton the business was done at the wharves. When he told them what his hon. friends did not know yet, that the White Star Line ships had been removed from Liverpool to Southampton—from docks to where they did not use docks—he had proved up to the hilt that they did not want docks. There was a rumour that the "Mauretania" and "Lusitania" were both going to Southampton. In Antwerp they had some docks and they were building others. He found that the Government there and the municipality and harbour authorities had settled on a new scheme of fortification, and part of the dock scheme was no doubt part of the fortifications. As a matter of fact the making of the business of Antwerp had been at the quays and wharves, and not in the docks at all. The hon. Gentleman was by this time convinced. He should think that it was possible to do business with the very largest ships without having docks at all, and every authority he had been able to consult agreed that where it was possible to have deep water-jetties, wharves or quays, that was the most suitable and the most economical for their business. The hon. Gentleman had tried to make a point about the amount of tonnage that did not go into the docks, and that which did go in but did not pay dues. It was quite true that of the twenty-nine odd million tons that came into the Thames 18,000,000 never went into the docks at all, and of the 11,000,000 that did go in 8,500,000 was loaded into barges and never put on the dock wharves at all, and might be just as well unloaded in the river. Therefore what his hon. friend proposed was that this 8,500,000 tons, to help the authority out of the scrape that they had got into should be called upon to pay dues. That, to his mind, would be a most absurd proposal. It was only fair to consider the case of
636
Antwerp where they had some docks. Our Consul-General in his report said—
"I mentioned that in that year the spaces allotted to vessels were re-arranged, and the most regular lines of steamers were given good berths on the river, thus avoiding the necessity of their entering the docks and the loss of time therein entailed."
He went on to say—
"It has been mentioned to me that against the wish of shipowners they have been driven to put their ships into the docks when they wanted to use the quay."
And that was what probably would have to be done in the Thames. They would have to endeavour to take the business away from the wharves and quays for the sake of getting profits for the docks. That had been condemned very strongly by the shipowners who used Antwerp, and our own Consul said distinctly—
"While not in any way wishing to suggest that what is the case at Antwerp would necessarily apply to other great ports, it must be stated that berths on the river quays at this point are much more sought after than berths in the docks."
He went on to say—
"It is recognised by shipowners that river quay berths are superior to and more advantageous than dock berths at Antwerp. At Antwerp it is undoubtedly a fact that as regards saving of time and facility of manœuvring large vessels the verdict is greatly in favour of river quayage."
He went on to show that the business of the Port of Antwerp had undoubtedly been made up at the quays, and not in the docks, and that all shipowners practically now were anxious to have accommodation at the quays instead of in the docks on the ground that it was more economical. The President of the Board of Trade had accused the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington of making a wild speech, but he thought the speech of the President himself was a great deal more wild than the right hon. Gentleman's. He could understand him, but he could not understand the President at all. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that the Royal Commission and the late Tory Government and the Liberal Government had come to the conclusion that they ought to purchase the docks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer

637
made a speech a little over a year ago in which he said that he was not going to purchase the docks, and at that moment, at any rate, he had concluded not to purchase. The right hon. Gentleman went on to tell them that he did not care about any further reports of experts because all they wanted to make use of was this question of fixed income. Now the question of fixed income was looked upon differently by different authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade just now stated that the profits would amount to £809,000. As a matter of fact the figures sent round to them as coming from the Joint Committee stated distinctly that the last year, namely, the year 1903, showed that the net profits were £765,101. In 1905 the figures was £665,107, and in 1906 the total was £739,872. Those were the figures for the three years. For the other three years the amount went up in one year to £850,000. He was taking the three years, which was the best way of looking at it. How they could claim the profits to be £809,000 he confessed he could not understand, but he thought he would be right in calling it very wild arithmetic. These figures showed a loss of £45,000 at least in the payment of interest alone on the new stock, because they had to pay interest whether they liked it or not if this bargain was carried out. There was no doubt there would be a loss of £45,000 to £50,000 on that transaction. Looking over the accounts of the dock companies he found that they had never made any allowance for depreciation or sinking fund, or anything of that sort, and undoubtedly there would have to be some allowance in this respect in any calculation for the future. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to think it was absolutely necessary that his expert engineer should let them know anything about the matter beyond a general statement that it might produce a certain income if it went on as before. What he should like to know was whether that engineer had made a report in writing. He knew it was asked for by the Committee, but the Board of Trade refused to give that report. He wanted to know why they should not have that report so as to know what the engineer's
638
opinion was as to these docks. There must be some reason for keeping back that report, and he took it that it was being kept back because it was unfavourable to the Government's proposition. If the Government would only produce that report it would settle that matter, and he hoped that even now for their own credit the Government would produce a report of their own engineer.
SIR F. BANBURY: Does the hon. Member say that that report was demanded by the Committee and refused?
MR. MORTONsaid he knew the report was asked for on the Committee, but he did not know whether "demand" was the right word to use. It was asked for and the Board of Trade objected to producing it. It had been asked for in the House since then by his right hon. friend the Member for Islington, and it was refused on that occasion. As far as his recollection went, when people were promoting companies, and more especially when they proposed to buy property, they made no secret of the report of the engineers or experts they employed. Such reports were generally produced and sent abroad with the view of getting people to put money into the company, and they were always given as independent reports for people to judge for themselves. Having got this report, he wanted to know why the Government refused to produce it. He thought he was right in assuming that it was rather against them. In fact he could not understand any respectable professional man, desirous of saving his own professional reputation, ever making a report in favour of buying docks at the price mentioned here. He knew from his own personal experience that these docks were not in good order and they did and would want a large sum of money spent upon them before they could be brought up to date. He hoped the Government would reconsider that particular point and let them have that report, in fairness to Mr. Cruttwell himself and in fairness to everybody concerned in regard to this particular matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made a speech just now, but neither in

639
his speech nor in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade was any attempt made to show why they should purchase the docks at all. He knew the Parliamentary Secretary finished up his speech with a fine flourish such as he had often heard used by company promoters, but it was not convincing, because he told them everything would depend upon what would happen at the end of the year when there would be a fresh balance sheet which they had not seen and which they could not see yet. He told them that bad trade had had something to do with the falling-off in the trade in the river. He did not think that bad trade had affected the river at all yet. He knew that tonnage kept increasing, and it could hardly be true that bad trade was affecting the trade of the Port of London when the tonnage was on the increase. They could see this from the dues paid to the Thames Conservancy, which were increasing. He could go back a good many years, but he did not know any year when the business seemed to be going back on the river except during the war between Russia and Japan. At that period owing to the sudden removal of the Japanese vessels from the Thames they lost a little in tonnage dues in that year, but it was made up afterwards on the ending of the war. Therefore, he was not satisfied that there was anything at all in that proposition. Some hon. Members spoke about gross revenue being over £2,000,000. He could not understand what the gross revenue had to do with the matter at all, because they had to do with the net revenue of those docks and what it was likely to be by-and-bye. Then they were told that they objected to arbitration. Those who did not want anything to do with this business at all and did not desire to purchase the docks, had never said that they ought to settle this matter by arbitration or by agreement. He could understand purchasing docks if, like Glasgow, Hamburg and other places, they would thereby get command of the port. By purchasing the docks in London they did not get command of the port at all, because they left the biggest percentage, amounting to 18,000,000 tons of business, in the hands of the owners of the wharves
640
and jetties, and they really commanded the river trade. If they were going to buy the whole lot of them up, he could understand it, but nobody had proposed to buy up the wharves and jetties, which were estimated to be worth over £100,000,000, and nobody was likely to make a proposition of that kind without seriously considering the matter. He was opposed to this clause, because he objected to purchase on the one hand, and to the price to be paid on the other hand. His opinion was that the Board of Trade had arranged to give not only more money than the docks were worth, but actually more money than they cost to construct. In his opinion they did not require these docks at all for the purpose of working the port business. If they wanted a really up-to-date dock they had better go and build it, and instead of spending £23,000,000, with another £5,000,000 to put the docks in repair, they had much better build an up-to-date dock capable of taking any vessel that could possibly come to it. If they wished to have such a dock, then build a first-class up-to-date dock such as that which was suggested in the neighbourhood of Grays, where the promoters offered to build a dock which would take all the ships that were wanted for £5,000,000. Supposing he put that at £8,000,000. If for that sum they could get a really good first-class dock capable of taking any ship or dealing with any business, surely it would be a right and proper thing to, build a dock of that sort, and not pay over £23,000,000 for obsolete and useless docks. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] Was it not a fact that if they would only look after the river and promote the construction of deep-water jetties and quays they would give the traders what they want—a cheap port?
And, it being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

UNEMPLOYMENT—THE ADMINISTRATION OF RELIEF GRANTS.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONrose to move the adjournment of

641
the House for the purpose of calling attention to the difference between the statement of the Prime Minister regarding the future administration of the Unemployed Workmen Act and the Order issued that day by the Local Government Board. He said hon. Members on those benches had been somewhat, surprised at the delay which had taken place in the issuing of the Order changing the regulations under the Unemployed Workmen Act in order to bring the regulations into harmony with the speech of the Prime Minister. When they found from the Press that morning that the Order had actually been issued, they were much more alarmed than at the delay to find that it was, in their judgment, inconsistent with the impression which had been left on all sections of the House by the Prime Minister's declaration. He desired to state accurately what the right hon. Gentleman said, and he would quote from Hansard the words of the right hon. Gentleman. He said—
"When you are dealing with a special emergency like this, I am satisfied, as I believe everybody who hears me is, that you may stretch the limits which quite properly from a business point of view would be imposed when conditions were more nearly normal. Further, with regard to the special conditions under which this grant is administered, we propose they should be relaxed in two important particulars—first, so as to allow assistance to be given in proper cases to persons who have been receiving Poor Law relief during the last twelve months, who are at present excluded; and in the second place—and I think this equally important—so as to remove the disqualification of persons who have been assisted under the Act in each of the last two years. With those three modifications, elasticity in the character of the work and the removal of the disqualification in respect of Poor Law relief and assistance during the last two years, I believe the main objection which has been taken and the main criticisms of the present administration of the grant will be effectually removed."
He felt quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman would make no attempt to depart from his own words. The interpretation put upon the language—and he thought he was speaking for all sections of the House—was that the two disqualifications set up by the old Order under the Act would be removed, and, for the time being, actually done away with. He claimed the indulgence of the House in order to read two paragraphs in the new Order. The new Order
642
provided that the distress committees might, if they thought fit, entertain an application—
"In the case of an applicant who fails to comply with the first of the conditions mentioned, if the distress committee have satisfied themselves that the case is capable of more suitable treatment under the Act than under the Poor Law, and that it is in all other respects one which they may properly entertain. In the case of an applicant who fails to comply with the second of the conditions, if the distress committee have satisfied themselves that his case is deserving of exceptional treatment and is in all other respects one which they may properly entertain.
When he first read the Order in the Press that morning he came to the conclusion that possibly some permanent official of the Local Government Board had bungled; and it was with considerable surprise that he heard the President of the Board at Question-time, declaring that in his judgment, or in the judgment of his Department, this was the best way to carry out the engagement of the Prime Minister. But the aspect of the matter became worse when they turned to the covering letter that was sent with the Order to distress committees. In that letter the definite and conclusive statement was made that the provisions of the Order did not remove the existing disqualifications, but gave to the distress committees a discretion whereby they might waive the disqualifications in proper cases. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite might think that this was the best position to take up. But he contended that such an interpretation was impossible if they were to accept the Prime Minister's declaration both in the letter and in the spirit. What the party for whom he spoke suggested was that this Order should be withdrawn, and that a new Order should be issued in complete harmony with the Prime Minister's declaration. If that course were adopted, they made the further request that, having regard to the delay which had already taken place, the fresh Order should be issued as soon as possible, and that it should be made retrospective, so that no further hardship should be imposed upon the unemployed who were now being denied the relief which the House intended they should have. He hoped the Government would deal with the question in the spirit in which he had

643
dealt with it in bringing it to the notice of the House. He begged to move.
MR. W. THORNEseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Arthur Henderson.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. As-QUITH,): I do not in the least complain of the action which the hon. Gentleman has taken, or of the manner—the moderate and reasonable manner—in which he has presented his case to the House. I meet it at once by the frankest possible admission that the language which I used was in the sense in which he has interpreted it, and as, I believe, it was universally understood. The situation was this. These two regulations excluded from the operation of the Unemployed Workmen Act persons who had been in receipt of Poor Law relief during the past twelve months, and also persons who during the past two years had been employed on work provided by a distress committee. These two restrictions were imposed, as I think for good reasons, in times of normal and not exceptional distress. But, as I said in my speech, we are now dealing with very exceptional distress, when persons who, through no fault of their own, have fallen within one or other of these two categories might fairly make a claim for relief from the disability they imposed; and I certainly contemplated and intended to convey to the House and, as I think, did actually convey to the House, that the relaxation—which was the expression I used as regards one disqualification—and the removal—which was the expression I used as regards the other—should be general and universal. I am not quite sure that I am not somewhat to blame myself for the use of the words "so as to allow of assistance to be given in proper cases." I think it is the use I made of these words that possibly has led to misapprehension and misconstruction elsewhere. What I meant—perhaps I ought to have said so in a more explicit form—was, of course, that the local authorities were to continue to exercise
644
a proper discrimination in these two cases; that if a man has received Poor Law relief during the past twelve months, or work during the past two years, that was not to give him an indefeasible title to get relief, but that it was not to be a bar or disqualification to relief; and that subject to this, those who are entrusted with the responsibility of administering this grant were to exercise a power of discrimination. But there has been a misapprehension of my words. I can only repeat that my language might possibly have been plainer, though it was fairly plain; but that is the sense in which I intended it to be understood by the House; and I have always considered that when I, or any other Minister, have given an assurance of that kind, it ought to be construed and given effect to, not only in the letter, but in the spirit. I have talked over the matter with my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, and he agrees with me that the phraseology of this order ought to be amended. These two disqualifications are no longer to be a bar. That is not a matter for local discretion. My right hon. friend assures me that this amendment will be made without any delay, and the moment this amended order comes into effect all applications which have been refused on the ground that they fell within these disqualifications can be renewed and treated on their merits. With that assurance I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid that, having regard to the very satisfactory Answer given by the Prime Minister, he asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PORT OF LONDON (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.
Postponed proceeding on the Question, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill"—resumed.
MR. MORTONsaid the hon. Member for Gloucester had told them that no one who had investigated the problem could come to any other conclusion than that it would be impossible to create a new port authority which should not be a dock authority or owner of the docks. He was not proposing to criticise the Committee or their conduct, but the Committee upstairs and their Chairman decided distinctly, in the first place, that the principle of purchase should not be considered at all, and they afterwards decided that the question of the amount of purchase would not be gone into either. They said that they were not arbitrators and they left it entirely to the Board of Trade. They wanted an independent inquiry, and he did not know whether it was too late to get it now. They ought to have had a complete, full, and independent inquiry before some Committee of the House of Commons, and until they got that, and had an opportunity of arguing the matter they would not be satisfied. He wanted to say, in conclusion, that the Board of Trade proposed to give five or six millions more for the docks than they were considered to be worth to the public previous to the Report of the Royal Commission. Some of the shares that they were now going to give 75 for, were quoted then at 19, and previous to that they were quoted at a still lower figure, and probably if they had been put on the market it would have been found that they were not worth anything at all. So far as the public was concerned, it was proposed to give a much larger price for the docks than would have been given previous to that unfortunate Report which had been made so much use of to increase the price of the stock of these companies. He hoped they would get Mr. Cruttwell's Report which he had asked for. Unless the Board of Trade produced it they would not be satisfied that the Board of Trade had got a good case, and they would be entitled to say that their own experts had condemned them. His hon. friend the Member for one of the Hackney divisions, who was a Member of the Committee, had suggested that there was only one corporation which was against the purchase of the docks. All he knew was that the Corporation of the City of London petitioned against purchase of the docks as being wrong and
646
improper, and he could mention other corporations and companies which petitioned in the same sense. It was an unfortunate fact that some people who ought to know better at the present moment had the mad idea of buying everything with other people's money, and paying for it in paper, forgetting that that paper must be honoured by the people of London. When they were told that no money was going to pass, that was only deceiving the public. He had shown that they did not want the docks at all. He had shown that all over the world the development now was, and in the future would be, deep-water jetties and quays. In all up-to-date ports in this and other countries they insisted on these. He found a clause in the Report of the British Consul-General at Antwerp which was important. That official said that it was an undoubted fact that as regarded the saving of time and facility of manœuvring large vessels the verdict was greatly in favour of river quays. That proved that in the one port where they had got docks the traders were all in favour of quays. He would not take up the time of the Committee by reading it, but he just mentioned that he had a long list of the names of between thirty and forty individuals and firms and owners of ships, including Sir Thomas Sutherland, of the P. and O. Line, Sir Alfred Jones, the Allan Line, etc., who were all in favour, so far as the Thames was concerned of jetties and deep-water wharves or quays. He contended that if they were going to spend £23,000,000 on these useless docks, they would have no money left to develop the port as it ought to be developed by means of deep-water jetties and wharves. On the contrary, it would be the duty of the new authority to discourage the competition so far as they could of the wharves and jetties for the purpose of making as good a balance-sheet as they could for the docks. That was bound to happen, and they would find that the new authority would oppose the construction of quays in the interest of the docks. Another point which he wished to make was that the Board of Trade, with their insane idea of the purchase of these docks, used their influence to oppose the construction of deep-water jetties at Long Reach, and the company only

647
got their scheme through by reducing it to a very large extent. The Board of Trade said that the syndicate or company which was going to build the jetties ought to go to Parliament, but the Board of Trade knew that if the syndicate went to Parliament an immense expense would have been incurred to meet the opposition of the dock companies. Fortunately, the Thames Conservancy over-ruled that, and the syndicate had at last got leave to go on constructing deep-water jetties; and near Gravesend, and lower down the river at Thames Haven and other places, every accommodation necessary for the Port of London would be provided in the cheapest and best possible manner, and in a way which would not make the Port of London a dear port. He should like to impress on the present Liberal Government, which had boasted so much of its free trade principles, and which had been put into power on account of them, that they should not support those trusts, companies and speculators which would tax the food of the people of the country for their own selfish ends.
SIR H. KEARLEY: I thought my hon. friend was acquainted with the statement made by the Joint Committee that every investigation made for them should be treated as confidential. I put it to my hon. friend, what sort of position he would feel himself in if he were an owner of property which was going to be investigated, with a view to possible purchase, and found that a report of the investigation which was to be treated as confidential was afterwards disclosed? The dock companies themselves had not the Reports. They were got for the information of the Board of Trade, and it would be a gross breach of trust on the part of the Government if they were to reveal their contents.
MR. MORTONsaid that all he could say in answer to the hon. Gentleman was that the Board of Trade had no business to make a secret bargain with these dock companies at all; and as they were dealing with public money they ought to have this Report. They thought they came to a right conclusion as to why it was that the Report was kept back.
MR. BARRIEpointed out that Government departments like the Board of Trade ought not to have any secret documents in a matter of this kind, and he ventured to submit that the House had a right to have all the information which they had collected presented to them when they were asked to sanction a purchase involving a sum of something over twenty-two millions sterling. They had had nothing from the Secretary to the Board of Trade that justified the House in accepting the statement that these statements were denied to the House because the Reports were confidential. Dealing with the larger question involved in the third clause of the Bill, he could not help thinking that they were asked to consent to this arrangement in the spirit of conceding a triumph to the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than that of approving of a good bargain. He thought those who had taken part in the debate must have recognised that the Government seemed to realise that they were asking the House to approve of an improvident bargain. The President of the Board of Trade assured the House that the margin over market value could not be more than one or two millions sterling. He ventured to submit that the margin of the large sum which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned was a quite safe sum, and that from his point of view there was not a less margin than that. He quite agreed with all that had been said about the docks they were now asked to purchase being antiquated and not abreast of the times, and that the new authority in taking over the business of the most important port in the world, was doing so on terms which would permanently tie their hands, that they were not provided under this Bill with the money necessary to bring the port up to date, and that in consequence the great port of London would be permanently handicapped. He had no desire to trespass upon the time of the Committee, and he did not wish to support any resolution which would result in the destruction of the Bill. At the same time, he thought he was entitled as a private Member to say that he considered the bargain which

649
they were asked to ratify was an improvident one, and one not best calculated to advance the future prosperity of the Port of London, and that it was a bargain which the House was entitled to consider at greater length, and with greater information from the Government.
SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid he should like to say a few words as a Member of the Joint Committee. He had listened with great interest to the criticisms which had been made upon the Bill, but if the Committee would forgive him for saying so, the Members who had taken part in the debate very largely had started exactly where the Committee started their labours. All these figures and arguments that were now adduced were present in the minds of the Committee, and they being business men, they naturally occurred to their minds. Not a single critic of the bargain had ever been able to suggest anything to put in its place.
MR. MORTON: We say, do not purchase at all.
SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid the only alternative was that the Bill should be dropped entirely, the purchase abandoned, and the whole matter abandoned for ten or fifteen years. Nobody pretended that that state of things could go on. They made a brave attempt on their side of the House to settle the difficulty, but they did not succeed. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was more successful. He went to the docks companies and said in effect—"We have a large majority behind us. I believe we shall be able to carry a Dock Bill if you like to take the terms I offer. You will have a chance of getting your money back and it will be a fair exchange." The dock companies thought the matter over very carefully and terms were arranged. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took, no doubt, a great deal of responsibility on himself in suggesting this novel way, but on the other hand the alternative was arbitration. Look at what they had had in regard to arbitration, not only in the case of the Water Board, but in a similar dock, viz., that of Singapore. The people there expected
650
to get something like £11,000,000, and they got £22,000,000. It was astounding to both vendors and purchasers. A few months ago the tenant was going out of a large house in a West End Square, and wanted £400 for the fixtures. The new tenant said he would only give £200, but the arbitrator gave £605. There were other arguments against arbitration, not only the uncertainty, but the certainty, for it was a curious thing that wherever the public bought public works of this kind they had to pay through the nose. Then there would probably have been a tremendous delay—three or four years—before the arbitration was finished, and in addition there was the expense. Therefore, he thought the Government were very wise in driving as hard a bargain as they could, and buying these docks outright. Hon. Members told them that they need not have troubled about the docks. How could any responsible Government have allowed that to take place? They would literally have starved the docks to death. They came to the conclusion that it was absolutely impossible to leave the docks out when forming a Port authority. They all came to the conclusion that it was impossible to come to any other decision than that the docks would have to be purchased. And suppose-they were not, there would be the question immediately of buying another dock. After all the Port authority would have the best docks in the river. Hon. Members talked about these docks being effete. The London Docks and the St. Catherine's I Docks were all in full use, and the short sea traders were using them. It was true that there were only 13½ feet of water over the Thames Tunnel at the time of low tide, but the vessels got up and the docks were built for these ships of a certain size, while the larger docks were down the river, and they had Tilbury for the largest ships of all. An hon. Member had said they would be able to buy land down the river and make docks, but he did not consider the tremendous cost and the tremendous time it would take. Then he had talked about building docks suitable for the largest ships. That was exactly what the London Docks had been doing, but the ships got larger and larger. They had to have larger and deeper docks. He came to the Committee with his mind entirely against the Government, but

651
he listened very carefully and he came to the conclusion that the docks had to be purchased, and that the scheme of the Government was the best one under the circumstances if they were to deal with the docks in the present decade. If the matter went on for ten or fifteen years some other solution would have to come about, but under present circumstances he thought the Government had done well.
MR. BARNARDsaid it was just because they did not want to go on for ten or fifteen years that many persons there approved of the Government taking this course. The docks had always been the whole impediment, and they had been standing in the way of the solution or endeavour to reform too long. Who was there objected to it? So far as he knew, the shipowners were not objecting. He did not understand why the London County Council was alleging the slightest objection to what was going to be done. He did not understand that the Corporation of London had passed any vote against it.
MR. MORTON: May I read the Resolution?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think these interruptions are at all necessary.
MR. MORTON: We had better get the facts now than argue it upon false premises. I can read the Resolution.
MR. BARNARDsaid that, at any rate, he had not heard either of the Members of the City rise in their places and object. The Chamber of Commerce
had not said a word against it, and the chairman had spoken in favour of it. As to arbitration, the question there was one of maintainable income. It was necessary to ascertain what was the income that was earned, and how much outlay was necessary to maintain it, to protect it, and to render it possible for it to continue to be earned. Several speakers had alluded to the Water Board, of which he had the privilege of being chairman. They purchased their undertaking through arbitration at a cost of £230,000, the expense of that arbitration, and for four years the Water Board that had paid under that arbitration £47,000,000, or something like it, for the properties they secured, had traded without a deficiency upon the decision arrived at. The accountant who was their adviser in the matter of the Water Board, who looked the whole case up for them, was the accountant who had been advising the Government on this question, and he thought under these circumstances, as the Water Board had been able to trade in the way it had for the last four years, that was sufficient to enable any impartial man to form the opinion that the Government had taken a wise and statesmanlike step. There had seldom been so great an undertaking as the Water Board and these docks, and he heartily applauded the proposals of the Government. He thought it was the best, and he believed it would be the cheapest course, and the sooner the work was got on with the better.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 180; Noes, 19. (Division List No. 376.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Beck, A. Cecil

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

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bell, Richard

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

Agnew, George William

Bellairs, Carlyon

Bryce, J. Annan

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bertram, Julius

Bull, Sir William James

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Balcarres, Lord

Bowerman, C. W.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brace, William

Byles, William Pollard

Barker, Sir John

Branch, James

Cameron, Robert

Barnard, E. B.

Brigg, John

Canston, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Barnes, G. N.

Bright, J. A.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Beauchamp, E.

Brodie, H. C.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Brooke, Stopford

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Clough, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Clynes, J. R.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

Lehmann, R. C.

Seaverns, J. H.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Seely, Colonel

Cowan, W. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Cox, Harold

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crooks, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sherwell, Arthur James

Crosfield, A. H.

Lynch, H. B.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Curran, Peter Francis

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

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

Duckworth, Sir James

Maclean, Donald

Soares, Ernest J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

M'Crae, Sir George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Micking, Major G.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Mallet, Charles E.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Fell, Arthur

Markham, Arthur Basil

Summerbell, T.

Fenwick, Charles

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Sutherland, J. E.

Findlay, Alexander

Marnham, F. J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Massie, J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Gill, A. H.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Molteno, Percy Alport

Tillett, Louis John

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Morse, L. L.

Verney, F. W.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Gulland, John W.

Myer, Horatio

Wardle, George J.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Napier, T. B.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Nicholls, George

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Nolan, Joseph

Watt, Henry A.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nuttall, Harry

White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whitehead, Rowland

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Partington, Oswald

Wiles, Thomas

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wilkie, Alexander

Hills, J. W.

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

Wills, Arthur Walters

Holt, Richard Durning

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

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

Hooper, A. G.

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

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Robinson, S.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Kekewich, Sir George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rogers, F. E. Newman

NOES.

Baldwin, Stanley

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Stanier, Beville

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

O'Grady, J.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Radford, G. H.

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

Gardner, Ernest

Renwick, George

Jenkins, J.

Rowlands, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Steadman and Mr. Morton.

Jowett, F. W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Snowden, P.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause 12:
MR. RENWICKsaid he rose for the purpose of moving Amendments the object of which was to exclude goods carried coastwise from the operation of the Bill. There were many and weighty reasons why coastwise goods should be excluded, and he would
654
endeavour as concisely as possible to put those views before the Committee. In the first place, it was somewhat incongruous to describe, as it was described in the Bill, "the export and import of coastwise carried goods." The Customs did not recognise the export and import of goods coastwise. The meaning of export was the sending of

655
goods to other countries, and the meaning of import was the bringing of goods from other countries to this. It had not been the custom of the Customs hitherto to tax goods carried coastwise, yet that was what this clause of the Bill meant to do. It meant that goods carried coastwise were to be taxed. The clause did not say what amount of tax was to be paid on those goods. That was left in a vague way to a Provisional Order to be made hereafter. That was a very serious thing for these goods, because the Committee ought to recognise that goods carried coastwise meant that they were carried in competition with the railways. Low rates were accepted for goods so carried. He had in his own experience known goods carried nearly 700 miles coastwise for about 1s. a ton. If goods were carried that distance at those rates there was no room for any tax upon them. He might be told that it was very easy to collect the tax from the owner of the goods, but it was an absolute impossibility to do so in this case, because owing to the competition of the railways an exceptionally low rate was charged, and the goods were sent in very small parcels, upwards of 1,000 different parcels being sometimes carried in one ship. He did not know any possible machinery by which the dues on those goods could be collected from their owners. If goods were imported from across the sea they had to be reported to the Custom House, and they had to be passed. The manifest had to be handed to the Custom House and the Customs took good care that the dues were, collected. When a coastwise ship came into port the Customs did not know what was in that ship. No one knew what was in it but the captain. That showed the difficulty of collecting dues on these goods. If a tax was placed upon goods carried coastwise, what did it mean? It meant that in these times of the combination of railway companies they were going to put them under a disadvantage and play into the hands of the railway companies. If ever there was a time to keep our great waterways open, now was the time, and no tax should be placed upon goods carried by sea which was not put upon goods carried by rail. If goods
656
were sent by rail from Manchester no tax was placed upon them, but if they were sent by water, dues were to be charged upon them. He could understand that the railway companies would be pleased to see these dues placed on goods carried coastwise, but he quite conceived, if the representatives of the great ports were alive to the importance of the matter, that they would support the Amendment he had moved. What the owners of coastwise steamers feared was that, owing to the development of the port—not because of the development of the river, but of the docks—a large amount of money would be wanted, and that the goods they carried would be taxed to find a large proportion of that revenue. It might be news to hon. Members to know that in many cases these steamers did not discharge in the river at all but in the docks. They paid no dock dues, but by arrangement they paid a lump sum for the use of the wharves and warehouses in those docks. They paid no dues and there was no machinery for for the collection of taxes upon the goods they carried. He contended that, if the Committee passed this clause, they would be doing a great injustice to the ship-owner who carried his goods coastwise. Owing to the competition of the railway companies, the rates were cut down to the lowest possible point. The coasting ships supplied an alternative route to traders largely to their benefit, yet the proposal of the Bill was to put a tax upon those goods. Supposing the tax was 1s. a ton and 1s. a ton was the rate at which the steamers carried the goods, they were going to put a tax of 100 per cent. on those goods. That was an outrageous proposal. If they were not going to put 1s. a ton tax on the goods, what were they going to propose? Would they propose a limit, because unless a limit were imposed, it would be impossible to contract? There was nothing whatever in the Bill as to what the rate was to be, and he contended that no port could develop its trade if they were going to put even a 20 per cent. tax on the goods carried. He hoped the Committee would hestitate before they allowed any tax to be placed upon goods carried coastwise; but, if they decided that it was necessary to tax

657
the goods, then they ought to have a definite proposal as to what the maximum amount of that tax would be.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 16, line 3, to leave out the words 'or coastwise.'"—(Mr. Renwick.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. CHURCHILL: I hope when we get to a later stage of this Bill very shortly to give my hon. friend some reassurance as to the limit of the dues to be placed upon coastwise goods. I agree it is a necessary part of our case that if the dues, as is intended, are to be insignificant, they must be extended over the whole trade. I think it would be a great pity for us to pick and choose and exempt particular categories of trade altogether from the operation of the exceedingly moderate and almost insignificant dues which will ultimately be levied. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think that I wish to dispose of the important matter he has raised in a cursory fashion. As a matter of fact, the whole of this subject will be open to be discussed further upon the Provisional Order. I trust, therefore, we may leave the question till the time when the Provisional Order which will be solely concerned with these matters is discussed, and that for the present my hon. friend will be content with the assurance that before the debate proceeds much further I will move an Amendment imposing some top limit upon dues which may be placed upon coastwise and other goods so as to remove that question altogether from the area of anxiety and discussion.
SIR C. CORYsaid he was requested by his constituents, most of the traders of whom received their goods coastwise, to support the Amendment. They felt that it was a great hardship that coast steamers should pay dues on the goods they carried in competetition with railway companies. It might ruin many of the coast lines and also make the cost of the carriage on goods dearer. It was some consolation to hear that the President of the Board of Trade would impose a
658
"top" limit, but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way not to levy the dues at all. Otherwise, he certainly thought he ought to levy them on goods carried by railway as well.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 16, line 7, after the word 'such,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment proposed—
"In page 16, line 10, after the first word 'the' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
MR. HOLT MR. HOLT (Northumberland, Hexham) moved to leave out paragraph (a), in order to call the attention of the Committee and the Board of Trade to its phrasing. It seemed to him to contain a rather cast-iron description. If they read the wording of the clause they would find that the Port authority were absolutely precluded from charging different port rates in respect of the use of different parts of their premises. It seemed to him rather unreasonable that they should be prevented from charging a different scale of rates for different docks. It might be an advantage to coax trade in an unpopular dock by giving a small concession in rates, and he thought if the Board of Trade gave the Port authority a certain amount of liberty to differentiate in the rates between the different docks it would be an advantage. He would like some assurance on that point, and if the right hon. Gentleman was able to give him an assurance he would be pleased to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 16, line 15, to leave out Paragraph (a)."—(Mr. Holt.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'different' in line 16, stand part of the clause."
MR. CHURCHILL: The object of this proviso is to prevent the Port authority from imposing adverse discrimination between, we will say, the trade in the docks and the trade in the river with regard to the levying of dues on goods. I agree with the hon. Gentleman it is not necessary to insist in every respect upon that arbitrary rule. Although no adverse discrimination could be permitted you might give the Port authority power, if they like, to coax a certain part of the trade without prejudice to other ports, by a beneficial adjustment. My hon. friend only put his Amendment on the Paper to-day, and I must consider a little the way in which this can best be given effect to on Report. The wharfingers would be anxious with regard to any alterations of this character, but, if it can be done without prejudice to other interests, I should be glad to incorporate his suggestion in the Bill and give the Port authority an opportunity of giving some advantage which would perhaps involve some slight departure from strict uniformity.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 16, line 16, after the word 'different' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment proposed—
"In page 16, line 31, after the word 'maximum,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment proposed—
"In page 16, line 37, after the word 'maximum,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
MR. DICKINSON*MR. DICKINSON (St. Pancras, N.) moved to add at the end of sub-section (2) the following words: "Provided that if at any time it is necessary to raise by means of such rates a larger sum than two hundred thousand pounds
660
in any year, the Port authority shall not be entitled to raise such larger sum except in such manner and from such sources as Parliament shall determine, and it shall be the duty of the Port authority to apply to Parliament for the necessary powers accordingly." He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington in the action he had taken in regard to the rejection of Clause 3, but the right hon. Gentleman had referred to some observations which he made on the Second Reading in which he commented somewhat adversely on the terms of the arrangement that had been made by the Government. Nothing that had since transpired had affected his opinion at all that the financial prospects of the new Port authority were not so brilliant as was represented by the Government. He based his observations, not upon the average of the six years, but upon the last year, and he thought under the peculiar circumstances of this transaction the figures relating to more recent years were really a better guide than those which extended over the six years. When they dealt with the matter from that point of view it was evident that it was very doubtful indeed whether the Port authority, when they came into their work, and especially when they had begun to borrow money for the purpose, would be by any means in so comfortable a position as had been suggested, especially by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Taking these figures it was perfectly clear, inasmuch as the last year showed profits of something like £27,000 below the average on which this agreement had been based, that it was more likely that there would be a loss upon the transaction than a gain. But especially was that so when they regarded particular circumstances of the year 1907. In that year the trade of the country had gone up to almost extraordinary proportions, and the import and export trade in London was far larger than it had ever been before; £333,000,000 worth of trade came in and went out of the port as against £314,000,000 in the previous year, and the question was whether that improvement would continue in the next year. He was interested but rather astonished

661
to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that he expected the gains of the dock companies for the present year would turn out as satisfactory as they were expected and would show profits which would be up to the mark of the figures on which this agreement was based. The Board of Trade figures of the last ten months tended to show quite a contrary result. There had been a falling off of over 10 per cent. of the trade of the country, and if this were to happen with regard to the docks and if that were to be reflected in the profits of the dock companies it would show a very considerable falling off below the amount which it was expected would accrue. He only mentioned these figures because they justified the apprehension which was very largely felt outside, and felt by many who represented London constituencies, that after all there might be a very considerable demand at no very distant period upon the new resources from which the Port authority would have to draw its funds. Under this section these resources would be the new dues upon goods. The Port authority would continue to receive the income which had been received by the Thames Conservancy, the dock companies, and others, and in addition would have a certain new revenue which they would raise in the last resort from the dues imposed under this section. He thought this apprehension was not only justifiable under the circumstances, but it was one against which they ought to be very careful to guard themselves. Many of them had felt all through the controversy that it was a very risky experiment to put any dues upon goods in the Port of London at all. So far was that the case that when the former London County Council was dealing with the matter it volunteered not only to give its guarantee so as to ensure a very large saving in the cost of raising new capital, but also offered to contribute as a free gift £2,000,000 for the deepening of the river. They were anxious to avoid the risk of putting on the trade of London anything in the shape of dues upon goods, because no one could foresee what the effect would be. It might be very serious. Trade could be very easily driven away from the port, and there were many trades in London of
662
which they were informed that a very slight increase in the cost of raw material and other things might bring about a removal of the trade. London had to experience very keen competition indeed from two sources. There was, first of all, the competition of other English ports, and, secondly, the competition from foreign ports. With regard to other English ports it had been very noticeable that during the last twenty years the trade of ports which supplied London, such as Southampton, Harwich and Dover, had gone up at a very much larger rate than the trade in London itself. In twenty years the trade of London had increased by 23 per cent. In Harwich, which was every day growing more important for the supply of material and food and other things for London, it had gone up by 70 per cent., and in Southampton it had gone up no less than 100 per cent. There was no doubt that the sea-borne traffic in London did incur very keen competition by the rail-borne traffic from Southampton, Harwich and Dover. The goods brought from these towns would not pay any of these new dues upon goods leviable in the Port of London, and, therefore, it was quite within the bounds of possibility that the already dangerous competition London had to meet from these ports would be accentuated by the imposition of this new taxation. Then the competition from foreign ports was also very keen. That was due chiefly to the fact that foreign ports had been subsidised by their Governments or their municipalities so that they were able to provide accommodation without putting an undue burden upon the traders who used them. That was the reason why the former London County Council had been willing to bring the financial resources of the rates of London to help the port in the same way as Antwerp was helped by the Municipality and by the State. It might be that the increased amount of money which would be required to be raised from dues on goods was so great that it would be better for the people of London to put the balance upon the rates of London rather than to increase the dues on goods and thereby possibly endanger the trade. It was far more important to Londoners that the trade of the port should be

663
maintained, even at the cost of contributing either in the shape of rates or taxes or in some other way. This was the reason why he submitted the Amendment. It proposed that there should be a limit placed upon the Amendment which could be raised in the shape of dues on goods, and if that limit was exceeded the Amendment proposed that Parliament should be again asked by the port authority to consider, not merely whether they would increase the maximum rates of charge on goods, but whether they could not find other sources from which the money could be obtained for carrying on the port. The Bill provided that the Port authority, with the consent of the Board of Trade, should at any time be able to approach Parliament by means of Provisional Order for the purpose of altering its rates, but that, in his opinion, was not exactly what they wanted. What they wanted was that Parliament should reconsider the whole question if ever the necessities of the case arose. He had suggested that the limit should be £200,000 a year. That figure was arrived at by reason of the evidence given by the representatives of the Board of Trade to the effect that if this agreement was carried out, and if the new Port authority had to borrow £4,200,000, it might require to raise from dues on goods a sum not exceeding £180,000. Under the Amendment as proposed there would be an obligation on the Port authority to obtain new powers if the limit was exceeded, and Parliament would have the option of deciding where the money should come from. He felt certain that if this was agreed to it would set at rest a great deal of very legitimate and justifiable apprehension in the trading community in London, and he had some hope from what the President said that this Amendment, or one in some slightly altered form, might be acceptable to the Government.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 17, line 3, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that if at any time it is necessary to raise by means of such rates a larger sum than two hundred thousand pounds in any year, the port authority shall not be entitled to raise such larger sum except in such manner and from such sources as Parliament shall determine,
664
and it shall be the duty of the port authority to apply to Parliament for the necessary powers accordingly.'"—(Mr. Dickinson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILL: There is no risk whatever, in my opinion, of the dues imposed on goods in pursuance of this Act creating any appreciable burden upon the trade and prosperity of the Port of London. At the same time, I think the Amenment of my hon. friend raises a point of substance, and I am anxious on behalf of the Government to give it all possible consideration. I recognise that outside this House some apprehension may have been created in the minds of consumers and traders by the mere repetition of the phrase "dues on goods" from the feeling that they might rise to an almost unlimited extent, and there is no sort of accurate appreciation of the insignificant scale of dues contemplated by the Bill. The Committee will be surprised to learn that the maximum dues contemplated to carry out the machinery of the Port of London Bill are not 10 per cent.—they are not 1 per cent.—they are at the very outside less than one-tenth per cent. of the value of the whole volume of trade of the Port. As the matter of fact, the percentage is less than one farthing in the £ or 2s. in the £100 to meet the requirements of the whole Port of London and to raise the amount necessary to carry out this Bill. Therefore I do not think any serious apprehension need be felt. It is quite true that the dues need not necessarily be imposed over the whole area. There would be power to vary and modify dues so as to make them adapted to each class of trade, and that is a discretion which, in my opinion, does not make it worse, but better, because it is to their interest to cater for trade and custom and modify their dues within the exact limits necessary to secure the prosperity of the port upon which their own success absolutely depends. I do not like the actual wording of the Amendment of my hon. friend, because I think £200,000 is a limit which might unduly impair the security for the great financial operation which is the centrepiece of the Bill. We must remember that the financial

665
operation is a bargain settled by agreement, and the security for the execution of it is in part the power of levying dues on goods. The Board of Trade take power to screw up the dues on goods to the level when the financial obligations of the bargain shall have been satisfactorily discharged. Therefore I think £200,000 would be too narrow a limit, although I should very much doubt whether it would ever be reached in practice. I have considered how I could allay the apprehension of my hon. friend and others, and I think I can insert into the Bill a provision that the dues on goods should never exceed a thousandth part by value of the trade of the Port of London without recourse being had to Parliament. It is a very simple calculation, and if my hon. friend will withdraw his Amendment I shall be glad to move to add at the same point where he proposes to insert his Amendment, the following words—"If in each of two successive years the aggregate amount received from port rates on goods exceeds one-thousandth part of the aggregate value of the goods imported into and exported from the Port of London in that year, it shall be the duty of the Port authority to take the necessary steps to prevent a continuance of the excess, including, if necessary, an application to Parliament to provide them with further means to meet their financial obligations." In choosing the expression "one-thousandth part" I have endeavoured to select a phrase which will most easily and most popularly allay apprehension to the outside public who are not able to study the details of this Bill.
MR. SEAVERNSsaid he was glad to hear the statement of the President of the Board of Trade on this important point. He regretted somewhat the exact form in which the official Amendment had been put down, because it would appear that excessive expenditure beyond the proposed limit might continue for two years before any steps were taken to remedy the misfortune. Nevertheless, he believed that in proposing this Amendment to the Committee the hon. Gentleman had dealt with what had
666
been hitherto probably the most serious blot upon the whole Bill. The object of the Bill was to provide a certain amount of money for the improvement of the Port of London, to improve the channel and the dock accommodation for the benefit of all the interests which were congregated in that port. The principle of the Bill was to secure from the payers of dues on goods almost the entire amount which was necessary for these improvements. The shipowners contributed a small portion of the necessary additional revenue by a method of levelling up tonnage dues in one dock to the level of the dues which exist now in the other two docks, and the owners of barges contributed an insignificant sum in the form of the registration fees on barges. But apart from these sources of revenue the entire revenue was derived from the payers of dues. This was a very serious matter in the event of any possible mismanagement or incompetence on the part of the Port authority, and in the event of the financial arrangement between the Government and the dock companies proving less advantageous than the Government expected. He was bound to say that he thought it rather characteristic of the House that this matter, the interest of the traders of the Port of London, was the very last interest which received the consideration of the House. The interests of the shipowners had been as they always were in all matters of legislation most carefully and sympathetically considered; the interests of the wharfingers were considered as well as those of the riverside manufacturers. Even the owners of dock stock and the future owners of port stock had receiven the most generous and sympathetic consideration from the Government, but it was quite in accordance with the usual practice that the very last interest which came before the House for generous consideration was that of the traders of the Port of London. He was surprised that the Committee upon the Bill did not appear to recognise the necessity of doing something to safeguard that great interest, and he was indebted to the hon. Member for St. Pancras for having placed this Amendment on the Paper. He was glad that the Government had accepted the principle of the Amendment.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid the President of the Board of Trade proposed that the maximum limit should be one-thousandth part of the aggregate trade of the port. That would work out at about an annual sum of £300,000.
MR. CHURCHILL: Rather more.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he understood that the Board of Trade had estimated that the utmost amount which would be required to be raised in the form of these dues was £180,000. If that was their estimate, why should they fix a maximum limit so very considerably over the amount required. It seemed to him that this maximum was much too high.
MR. CHURCHILL: I have to keep in mind two things. I want to give an assurance to the general traders and consumers of the Metropolis of the very minute, not to say microscopic, character of the dues to be levied on goods. I also want to give an adequate security that the interest on the port stock will be properly defrayed, and I have to choose some point which leaves a considerable margin far more than we actually need, or which we are likely to need, so as not to impair the security of the port stock. I have tried to find the most convenient phrase which gives the maximum of assurance in one direction with a minimum sense of security in the other direction.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid this was a point of importance, and he had always felt that some provision of this kind was absolutely necessary. The Bill was originally framed on the assumption that it would be self-supporting, and the most that would be required was a sum of £180,000. One reason why it was extremely essential that there should be some limit on the amount of revenue to be raised upon goods was that it was a kind of revenue that might easily be transferred from the dock interest to the river interest. The possible effect of any deficiency in the revenue as compared with the estimate might be that the Port authority in its anxiety to make London a cheap port for ships
668
as regarded docks would insist upon heavy dues on goods, thus putting the burden on the trade of London. He agreed with the President of the Board of Trade that it would hardly do to put a fixed limit of £200,000 into the Bill, because a certain amount of elasticity was essential in the interest of the port. Once they had made the bargain, whether it was right or wrong, about the port stock, it was in the interests of the port that it should be regarded as a good security, and they could not achieve that unless they had some margin to fall back upon. The advantage of the proposal which the Government had made was that it gave a security that the dues were not going to be of an excessive amount without an appeal to Parliament. He had not had any correspondence on the subject since this Amendment was proposed, and he did not know whether it would satisfy the traders as a whole; but speaking for himself, and judging the proposal on its merits, he thought it was as far as the Government ought to go, and he trusted it would be accepted. There must be some rough and ready method which he had in his mind as to the way in which it should be arrived at. There ought to be some method by which people would be able to understand how it was arrived at. All that he suggested was that it would be an advantage to have in the Bill itself a clear understanding as to the method by which this calculation was to be made.
MR. HOLTpointed out that the possibility of raising this revenue was the real security on which the Port authority could borrow, and the larger the power they had of raising revenue the cheaper would be the rate at which they could borrow.
MR. LOUGHasked whether the one-thousandth part applied to each item of goods as it came along, or would there be any power reserved to levy more than one-thousandth in any class of goods.
MR. CHURCHILL: There would be greater security if we could say that a one-thousandth part is to be uniform over the whole area; but I cannot say that, because I think it would be in the interest of the different classes of goods that they

669
should be treated from the point of view of helping them as much as possible, and of putting the burdens where they can best be borne. I think there ought to be that power of adjustment. If I took the one-thousandth part as the maximum, I could not degrade it and make it only an average. If it were to be an average, the minimum I think necessary would be infringed upon. Therefore, I cannot guarantee that in any particular case it will not be more than one-thousandth. But there is the tremendous assurance that the security should not be more than one-thousandth part and that the Port authority will put it in the most ungalling manner on the innumerable classes of goods that come into the port.
MR. RENWICK: I wish to get an answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dulwich. Does this one thousandth part include coastwise goods?
MR. CHURCHILL: No.
MR. DICKINSONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 17, line 2, at the end, to insert the words 'If in each of two successive years the aggregate amount received from the rates on goods exceeds one-thousandth part of the aggregate value of the goods imported into, and exported from, the Port of London in that year, it will be the duty of the Port authority to take the necessary steps to prevent the continuation of the excess, including, if necessary, an application to Parliament to provide any further means necessary to meet its financial obligations.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. LOUGHsaid it was no use to traders in one class of goods to tell them that traders in another class were treated with fairness and liberality, and if his right hon. friend was going to claim that the Port Authority had the right to levy as much as it pleased on one particular class of goods and let others go scot free, he was laying down a proposition that created great difficulty. He could not see why the word
670
"average" should not, be used, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say that on no class of goods should a certain margin be exceeded. As it was the Port authority might—though, of course, they would not—levy the whole sum upon a few classes of goods.
MR. MYER: With reference to the last part of the Amendment, does the right hon. Gentleman mean that to form a guarantee to the holders of the stock?
MR. CHURCHILLexplained that the point fixed being reached, the Port authority would reduce the charges or would have to come to Parliament to ask for funds from some other source, and their whole affairs would come under the scrutiny of Parliament. Confidence must be placed in the authority that it would do the best in the interest of the undertaking.
MR. B. S. STRAUSasked whether the Amendment now proposed would interfere with the trans-shipment trade. He was sure that the President of the Board of Trade would not in the least desire to interfere with that trade.
MR. CHURCHILL: My hon. friend will see that it could not possibly interfere with it.
MR. STRAUSsaid the Amendment as worded would not exclude goods which only came into the port for trans-shipment. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that the subsection would not include such goods.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that goods brought in for trans-shipment were already exempted by the machinery of the Bill, and that exemption would not be affected by the Amendment.
MR. BONAR LAWthought it must be clearly stated in the subsection whether coastwise goods were to be excluded or not.
MR. CHURCHILLagreed to amend his Amendment by adding after "goods" the words "to and from parts beyond the sea."
Amendment to proposed Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, after the word 'goods,' to insert the words 'to and from parts beyond the sea.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 16, line 7, after the word 'such,' to insert the word 'port.'"
"In page 16, line 10, after the first word 'the,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
AN HON. MEMBERsaid he was asked by his constituents to move to omit subsection (4).
Amendment proposed—
"In page 17, subsection 4 to be omitted."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to 'them' in line 42, stand part of the clause.
SIR H. KEARLEY: The object of the subsection is to prevent evasions of the payment of port dues which may be practised under certain conditions. For example, it is quite possible for a cargo of coal to come to the Medway and get exemption from the Port of London dues; and that the ship should then turn round in the Medway and come up to London without paying the dues.
AN HON. MEMBERsaid that the ports down the river were outside the London area and ought to be exempted from the payment of port dues. Why should not coasting vessels going to the Medway take goods to any other ports without paying dues? It seemed to him very desirable to encourage the coasting trade, because it gave employment to seamen who were a very valuable asset to the Navy.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 17, line 5, after the second word 'of,' to insert the word 'port.'"
"In page 17, line 11, after the word 'any,' to insert the word 'port.'"
"In page 17, line 42, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. HOLTsaid that the formidable subsection which stood on the Paper in his name and which he now proposed was copied verbatim, except for the necessary alteration, from the clause in the Mersey Dock Act, under which the dues on coastwise cargoes were collected. The object was to enable the Port authority to enter into an arrangement with the owners or masters of coasting vessels to compound for their dues instead of collecting them on each separate ship as she came into port. The whole coasting trade of Liverpool was carried on under this clause. The Member for Newcastle had spoken of the difficulties in the collection of dues on coasting vessels; and he agreed with him, unless some power was given to the Port authority to enter into an arrangement such as was suggested in the Amendment. He understood that the Board of Trade had not had yet time to consider the Amendment; and if he had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that it would be considered, he would be very glad to withdraw it in the meantime. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 18, line 5, at the end, to add the words '(5) The Port authority on the one hand and any owner or master of or agent for any vessel in the coastwise or short sea trade to or from the Port of London, or any person or person interested in goods, merchandise, or cargo carried by any such vessel on the other hand, may from time to time enter into and carry into effect, vary, and rescind agreements or arrangements with respect to the mode of calculation or payment, or the time of payment, of rates payable to the port authority in respect of all or any goods, merchanise, articles, or things forming the cargo, or part of the cargo, of any such vessel. Provided always, that in case the Port authority shall at any time make any such agreement the owner or master of or agent for any vessel engaged in like manner, or any person interested in goods, merchanise, or cargo carried by any such vessel, shall be entitled, the circumstances being the same, to require the Port Authority to enter into a like agreement or arrangement with him or them upon the same

673
terms, to the intent that no agreement shall be made by the port authority under this provision partially or in favour of any particular person, vessel, or cargo.'"—(Mr. Holt.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that this was an Amendment which looked formidable, but was either rather innocent or very wicked. It proposed to give power to traders to compound for their dues by paying in advance to the Port Authority a certain sum, and then at the end of the year, if the account was overdrawn by so much, the difference was made good, or if it was underdrawn, the difference was carried to the credit of the trader. He believed that a discretionary power which would enable the Port Authority to enter into such an arrangement might be very useful. But, if the compounding was to be made by traders on a large scale, and no repayment of the balance was to be made at the end of the year, it might be made the ground of an undue preferential advantage being given, which was a great cause of anxiety in any port, but still more in the port of London, where the river and the docks were to some extent antagonistic. He understood from his hon. friend that what he wished to do was to take an innocent and not a wicked course. His own impression was that the Port Authority could already under the Bill do what was desired, but if they could not, some words could be adopted later so as to give effect to the very useful and innocent procedure suggested.
MR. HOLTsaid that after that declaration by the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. LOUGHwished to osk the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the trans-shipment of goods imported into the Port of London for trans-shipment and not charged dues. He wanted to ask the right hon.
674
Gentleman how much he meant by "trans-shipment." He was sure that the Secretary to the Board of Trade knew what a mighty trade the Port of London did on a very narrow basis in transshipment—in importing goods from foreign parts, and especially from British Colonies, which were almost immediately exported to other parts of the world. If those goods had to pay both import dues when they came in and export dues when they went out, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman, however small he made the charge, he would strike a great blow at this trade of trans-shipment and transfer it to some cheaper port. In the Amendment he aimed at goods being exempted from dues if trans-shipped within three months after their arrival at the Port of London. But he was not wedded to three months; one month would do, or any definition of trans shipment which would cover distribution from the Port of London, especially of Colonial goods, and not interfere with the great trade done under that head. Although merchants and brokers might be interested to a large extent in this business, yet there was a greater British interest involved in it; he meant the great shipping interest. Take the case of tea importation. The tea came almost entirely from India and Ceylon. A very large amount of it was brought to London in order to be sent on to the United States, Canada, and Russia. He recognised that in subsection (b) of the clause an endeavour had been made on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to avoid the difficulties on this question of dues on goods which arose from the definition of trans-shipment being too narrow. That was the only question he had to raise, and he would be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could assure them that some liberal interpretation would be put upon the word "trans-shipment" so that this great and important industry would not be injured.
SIR H. KEARLEY: There are certain cases about which there are no difficulties; they are purely trans-shipment cases. Goods are brought to a port on an optional bill of lading which gives the owner of them the opportunity of making up his mind before the

675
ship arrives whether he will trans-ship them on arrival to Newfoundland or elsewhere where there is a particular merchant who happens to want the goods. That is what we mean by a trans-shipment case in the ordinary sense, and that is capable of definition. That is pure transshipment, but what my right hon. friend wants is something more extensive, and he wants us to declare it on the face of the Bill. We cannot meet him in that particular. My right hon. friend wants the exemption to apply to goods which have been moved to any quay, wharf, jetty, or warehouse, and are exported in the same condition in which they have been imported within three months after their arrival in the Port of London. He wants that to be declared to be trans-shipment. Let me take as an illustration. A merchant in London has practically no Colonial or American connection for certain goods, but three months after he has obtained a consignment he receives a casual export order and he sends the goods. My hon. friend says that is trans-shipment, but I do not think it is. I do not judge the case at all as to whether that particular parcel of goods should get a rebate, because it would have paid the duties in coming in three months ago. Probably it should be recoverable, but the only persons who are capable of deciding that are those upon whom will be cast the responsibility of drawing up the Schedule, which it is provided that the Port Authority shall submit to the Board of Trade. No doubt the clause gives an authorisation that it shall be settled, but as far as we are able at the moment to see, it would be highly dangerous for us to endeavour to extend it beyond the words of the Bill.
MR. LOUGH: What words?
SIR H. KEARLEY: If my hon. friend refers to the proviso in Clause 12 (b) he will see that it applies to cases of goods sent here for trans-shipment only. That is a tight definition which the Port authority may draw, but the words "or which remain on board the ship in which they were imported for conveyance therein to another port" leave it more elastic and open. I hope my right hon. friend is satisfied with that explanation which I gave before the
676
Committee upstairs and will not press us for a definition. I do not think it is possible to do it. I should like to see someone do it, and I should like to see my right hon. friend draw up a definition.
MR. LOUGHsaid his hon. friend had shown a sympathetic disposition. He admitted that he had raised a good point, and told him that some effort would be made by the people who drew up the Schedule to meet it. Therefore, he would not press the matter any further.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
MR. LOUGHsaid that here again he did not want to trouble the right hon. Gentleman, but he would like a little explanation and he hoped he would give it to him in the same sympathetic spirit as he extended to him a moment ago. He did not know what the latter part of this clause was about, but as far as he could make out generally from the clause it appeared that one of these small dock companies, which the right hon. Gentleman had brought under Clause 3, might have purchased a house and not been able to pay for it and given a sort of security. If they did not pay the interest the person from whom they bought it might, under the mortgage, resume possession. The object of the clause was to reserve the right of such seller against the Port authority. He thought it a pity that a clause of this sort should be thought necessary. Surely the credit of the Port authority would be much better than that of the small authority which they had bought up, and would it not be better if the clause ended at the point where his Amendment came in and to leave the moneys secured on the Port fund. His object was to ask for some explanation. This seemed to him to be one of those unnecessary and humiliating restrictions which the Board of Trade had imposed upon the Port authority. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 19, line 11, to leave out from beginning of line to end of subsection."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. CHURCHILL: So far from being a humiliating restriction proposed by the Board of Trade on the Port, authority this is a definite liberty granted by the Board of Trade to the Port authority. The Port authority will be in possession of the property of several people who are now in business, and will take over their assets and their liabilities, and this clause will give the new authority a definite power to pay off those liabilities by coming to some arrangement with some of their small outstanding creditors, or mortgage holders, to issue port stock privately instead of having to go to the open market and pay them off in the ordinary way. I am advised that that will produce economy. It is merely a permissive authority to the Port authority to discharge its liabilities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 17:
MR. FELL MR. FELL moved to add to the purpose for which the Port authority may borrow money that of "constructing a lock or locks across the river bed." This, he said, was in pursuance of a power obtained under Clause 2 of the Bill upon which the right hon. Gentleman agreed that under the powers given to the Port authority for construction they should have power to construct locks. As a sequence to that it was necessary that they should have power to borrow money to construct a lock or locks. It might be that the words of the Bill were sufficiently wide to cover this, but as he thought that was doubtful he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 20, line 1, at end, to insert the words 'constructing a lock or locks across the river bed.'"—(Mr. Fell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILL: When the hon. Gentleman moved earlier in the Bill to insert the words "lock or locks," I
678
agreed that the words might be an improvement to the Bill. But whereas the words moved then was an improvement these words if inserted here would be a restriction. We are not here dealing with specific works. What we are dealing with now are general works, and if we were to insert the word "locks" here I am informed that, owing to the intricacies of the law, it would be held to be a presumption against other works not stated in the Bill. It would not add to the freedom of the Port authority to construct locks, but would spoil the drafting of the Bill and would have the definite effect of narrowing its scope.
MR. FELLsaid the last, thing that he wished to do was to restrict the power of the Port authority, and it was with the object of making the matter clear that he moved this Amendment. He had seen so many unfortunate things happen owing to the omission of words from Acts of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman told him that the effect of this Amendment would be to restrict the powers of the Port authority he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18:
MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH moved to leave out paragraph (a), which, he said, meant that if any holder of port stock of any kind of the value of not less than £500,000 in respect to the interest on which the Port authority had made default for a period of not less than three months would be able to get a receiver appointed against the Port authority. That was a very humiliating restriction. Surely the Port authority should have better credit than to have a Receiver appointed against them if a trifling incident occurred and the interest could not be paid for three months. That was the sort of thing that might happen any day in a great body like this, working a very great business. He really thought that the people who had a claim for interest against the Port authority ought to be satisfied without this. He believed this

679
particular clause was put in at the request of the dock company. It was not drawn by the Board of Trade, but the greedy dock companies who were not satisfied with the high price they had got for the docks. Not content with the dues on goods, imposed by the right hon. Gentleman on their behalf, they wanted the right to put a receiver in if the interest was overdue. No Member present got his interest up to date and he did not see why the dock companies should. This was a paragraph that should be struck out. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 21, line 38, to leave out paragraph (a)."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. CHURCHILL: No one could possibly quarrel with my right hon. friend because he is in opposition to our measure, because he expresses himself so pleasantly that his opposition is almost more satisfactory than his support. I must say in this case I think my right hon. friend has convinced the Committee that very little answer from me is necessary on this point. We have to consider the possibility of these great financial operations, involving £22,000,000, and we are trying to prop up the security in every way we can. The more the port stock is propped up the cheaper it will be for the authority to borrow for any undertaking in the future. When we are told by my right hon. friend it would not be a serious thing for a great authority like this to be three months in arrear with its legal obligations to its stockholders, I must say I think my right hon. friend takes an unduly lax view of the punctilious regard for financial obligations which always characterises the business men of this country.
SIR F. BANBURYhad no desire to intervene in a domestic quarrel, but he reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for Islington had compared the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a fraudulent
680
mine promoter earlier in the afternoon, a comparison, much as he disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, he himself would not have dared to make. He was glad the President of the Board of Trade did not think there was much in that. The right hon. Member for Islington had evidently not read this clause when he stated that a receiver was to be appointed if the interest was in arrear for two or three days, because the clause said three months, which was a very different thing. Inasmuch as the Port authority would consist in a great degree of the people who used the docks and to whose interest it would be to obtain as small charges as possible for goods entering the docks, this was the least that could be done if the Government desired to keep up the security of the Port authority, which it was essential to do if fresh money was to be borrowed for other matters. Under these circumstances, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. MORTONdid not see that this clause was necessary in any way. Directly the Port authority had bought the docks, it did not matter whether the price of port stock went up or down. This was a condition made by the dock companies, and that was why it was put into the Bill. Whatever might be the market value of this stock they would be perfectly secure. It would not affect the Port authority at all. Nor did he think it would affect the borrowing of fresh capital. He did not see how this was to prop up the port stock very much. He thought it was a sign of weakness on the part of the Government. They were right to allow it to go in, because they had no faith in their own scheme, and therefore had taken power to put the broker in by-and-bye, and get money from anybody and anyone to pay for the dec's.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH moved to leave out subsection (5). This was a very important Amendment, although he did not propose to press it if he got a satisfactory answer from the right hon.

681
Gentleman. The Committee were in a very remarkable position so far as this Bill was concerned. The Opposition took no intelligent interest in it whatsoever. But this matter was of great interest, and he hoped the Committee would tolerate those on the Ministerial side of the House who took an interest in it. This was a most important clause. He did not quite understand what it meant himself. If it meant that the Port authority should not be allowed to borrow any money in excess of £5,000,000 apart from that coming from the docks, it was an undue restriction. According to the Report of the Royal Commission, £4,500,000 or £5,000,000 would be required for the docks alone. Those who had listened to his remarks earlier in the evening would remember that he attached great importance to the deepening of the river. Was the whole of the expenditure of the new Port authority to be confined to buying the docks, in the first place, and in the second putting those wretched places in order? Surely a further £2,000,000 or £4,000,000 should be allowed for deepening the river for those ships that would come up. This was a great restriction if it meant that no money was to be left for that purpose, and that the whole of it must be absorbed in buying and repairing the docks. He did not think this section was a fair one. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 22, line 18, to leave out subsection 5."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. CHURCHILL: I am in agreement with my right hon. friend in considering the £5,000,000 an exceedingly moderate amount to borrow, having regard to the large works this authority will undertake in buying and improving the docks. But my right hon. friend will agree with me that there must, at least, be some restriction. I also think it must be remembered that before we added to the limitation of the amount that might be raised on loan it was very necessary to have a recurring check on new borrowings without having recourse to Parliament. But if it is
682
the feeling that a little more latitude may be given in this respect—if the right hon. Gentleman expresses the general opinion of the Committee in this matter—I shall be very glad to leave it to the Committee. But I will not take upon myself the responsibility for extension. We have fixed £5,000,000, I am content with that. If the Committee likes to give more latitude and presses this Amendment to a division, I shall certainly not oppose it.
SIR EDWIN CORNWALLsaid the right hon. Gentleman in this matter had lost sight of the fact that the Thames Conservancy had put forward a Bill to double their dues on ships to enable them to deepen the river. Under this Bill the power of the Thames Conservancy was extended. Therefore he thought there was no necessity here for an increased fund.
MR. HOLTurged the Government before they accepted the Amendment to consider what the effect on the Port authority would be: £5,000,000 was a very good sum to raise on the security of the Port authority. They should start with great confidence in them, and everyone would be sure that the Board of Trade would find the best possible means to manage them. But this was an absolutely untried institution. It had no record behind it, and it seemed to him that if they gave unlimited borrowing power to an authority which had not been tried and had no record behind it they would have much less credit and be able to borrow money on less favourable terms than if they had a borrowing power of a more restricted character.
MR. CHURCHILL: I think thy Committee has expressed its opinion, and if my right hon. friend presses this Amendment to a division, he will not obtain much support. I myself do not object and I showed some inclination to follow his lead, but I am afraid we should be a very small party. That being so, I strongly recommend my right hon. friend not to tempt fortune in the division lobby.
MR. MORTONhoped the Committee would not agree to any such extension. It would be a very good thing if the

683
Port authority had to come to Parliament when they wanted to borrow more money. It would give the House an opportunity of considering whether they were going on all right or not. The Committee must not forget that the repayment of these loans would be a tax on the food of the people; therefore Parliament should have every opportunity of considering the matter before they went beyond the £5,000,000 limit. So far as the dredging of the river was concerned, it was possible that if the double tonnage dues were continued, there would be sufficient funds to carry out the whole of the work that could be carried out on the river at present. £400,000 was being spent now to give 30 feet at low water up to Gravesend, and if the double dues were continued there would be enough money to do all the dredging it was possible to do.
MR. LOUGHwas glad to be able to respond to the appeal the right hon. Gentleman had made in such a sympathetic spirit. In reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, he might say he would not object to a £7,000,000 limit. He did not wish to do away with all restrictions, but he saw his friends who opposed this proposal wanted additional cost thrown on the authority. Under the circumstances he would relieve his right hon. friend from the humiliation of going into the lobby.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 19, 20, and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH moved to omit subsection (2). He did not know whether on this Amendment he would receive any support or not, but these little Amendments which did not keep the Committee very long proved at all events that he had read and studied the Bill. This clause was to provide that the Board of Trade should have an estimate of the receipts and expenditure of the Port authority during the financial year "whether on account of property, dues, loans, or otherwise." He agreed with that, and there was nothing in his Amendment
684
which went against it. But under subsection (2) the Board of Trade might demand that there should not only be an estimate every year, but every half year or even a shorter period. That was rather an unnecessary restriction, and it would throw unnecessary cost on the Port authority. Every object would be secured if an estimate was given every year. The subsection (2) said—
"If the Board of Trade are satisfied that the receipts of the port authority on revenue account in any year are likely to be insufficient to meet the charges payable out of revenue in that year, or that the receipts of the port authority on revenue account in the last preceding year were insufficient to pay the charges payable out of revenue in that year, they may make an order," etc.
How could the Board of Trade be satisfied? It simply meant that any gossip might go down to the Board of Trade and say: "Have you got your eye on the Port authority?" Was the Board of Trade to be at the mercy of any gossip? If the right hon. Gentleman could make a sympathetic answer or this point, he would not impede the progress of the Bill; but this was a most restrictive section, and he did not know on what it rested. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 25, line 3, to leave out subsection (2)."—(Mr. Lough).
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. CHURCHILL: I agree with my right hon. friend that this particular provision comes into the category of restrictive clauses, but I do not think it does much harm. I do not think the Board of Trade would act upon it, and if they were to act upon it on such very insufficient grounds as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, my faith in the House of Commons is such that I believe they would not fail to see that these conditions should not be used in any unnecessary or vexatious manner. But it does seem to me clear, having regard to the great responsibility with which the Board of Trade is charged in this Port of London Bill, that we should not be compelled to sit still and fold our hands, but that we should have power if necessary to move the Port authority

685
to discharge ordinary obligations. It is part of the general financial structure of the Bill on which the bargain rests, and I certainly do not feel able at this stage to put it away or withdraw it, because it might derange the whole fabric of our financial arrangements. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not dwell too much on the very cautious and elaborately circumspect character of the provision, but will recognise that it will be worked in a perfectly satisfactory and businesslike spirit.
MR. RADFORDsaid that, having regard to the extraordinary purchase proposals which were referred to in the earlier part of the Bill, it was not to be wondered at that the right hon. Gentleman should have provided that in certain contingencies the whole concern should be handed over to the receiver in the interests of the share holders. He was not surprised that in order to make both ends meet the Board of Trade were taking power to compel the Port authority to increase its dues should that contingency arise. In his opinion the contingency of the Port authority's being unable to meet its expenditure and finding itself in the hands of the receiver was by no means a remote one. Having regard to the whole structure of the Bill, he did not think the speeches that had been made from the Treasury bench in regard to these and other matters would allay the grave anxiety felt by business men in London in regard to the whole of the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for Limehouse told them he was going to support the purchase clause, and he congratulated the Government upon getting his support, because he placed the estimated deficiency at from £100,000 to £200,000 per annum. That being the case, he condoled with the Government on having charge of a measure of this sort which was to set up an authority not unlikely in their own opinion to come into the hands of the Receiver and which was not likely to pay the interest on its stock. In these circumstances the future of the Port of London was a matter of the gravest apprehension, because if dock dues had to be increased, London at once would
686
become a dearer port, and the whole object of this Bill, which was to make the Port of London cheaper and more convenient for shipping, would have failed, and the end would be worse than the beginning. If this clause indicated the real apprehension of the Government, he hoped it was not too late to reconsider the whole business and consider whether it would not be better to drift on as they were doing rather than set up a concern which was expected to gravitate towards bankruptcy.
MR. MORTONsaid the Port authority under this Bill would be placed in such a humiliating position that they could neither move nor turn without the consent of the Board of Trade. It had been proved by experience that they got the best boards and less liability to corruption when they made them as independent as possible. He supposed this sub-clause was put in to make the dock companies' stock secure against all comers. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman had been ordered to put this provision in by the dock companies, and therefore it was no use objecting.
MR. LOUGHasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 23:
MR. LOUGHsaid the object of the Amendment he wished to move wag to secure that the receipts for goods discharged or taken on board ship in the river should be kept separate from those receipts for goods discharged or taken on board in the docks. He had some reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 25, line 28, at the end to insert the words 'Provided also that all receipts in respect of goods discharged or taken on board in the river shall be shown separately from the receipts from vessels which enter docks.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILL: The Government are willing to accept this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
MR. SEAVERNSsaid his Amendment dealt with a dull and an uninteresting point, but it was nevertheless a matter of the greatest possible interest to the payers of dues in the Port of London, because a right of appeal to the Board of Trade in the case of oppressive action or of reasonable complaint as to the mode in which the Port authority's business was done was given in regard to the charges levied. This right of appeal was rendered far more necessary by the provisions of the Bill, because hitherto the traders of the Port of London had in some instances been able to put one dock company in competition with another whereas in the future they would be in the position of being obliged to deal with an amalgamation of the dock companies. This Amendment had been drafted by the London section of the Timber Trade Federation of the United Kingdom, the Section being a very large contributor to the revenue of the new Port authority. Something like 50 per cent. of their imports were delivered in the docks and payed large charges for landing, warehousing, and storing. The same reason which had led this federation to press for this Amendment applied with equal force to many other trades in London, including the flour and coal trades. The Amendment he had put on the Paper provided that there might be a complaint to the Board of Trade not only when the Port authority was acting in a manner which was unfair and oppressive, but also when there was reason to complain of the mode in which they carried on their dock or warehousing business, or of the charges made in respect thereof, whether levied directly or indirectly, or whether under the maximum or not. Many of the charges levied by the dock companies were not statutory charges at all. He had an
688
account from the Surrey Commercial Dock Company covering charges amounting to £176, and out of that only £129 represented statutory charges, the remaining portion representing charges which might be perfectly legitimate so far as the dock company was concerned, but for which there was no provision in the statute and which he thought were accurately described as indirect charges. With regard to the timber trade, there was one form of indirect charge which was very oppressive to that trade, and it was that the dock companies were in the habit of charging rent upon the timber from the time the bulk was broken, and this placed upon the importer of timber a heavy additional charge which was not statutory and which was not itemised in the accounts. Those were the reasons why it was thought necessary to press for the addition of the words "directly or indirectly." The suggestion that the charges might be complained against, whether under the maximum or not, was due to a fact which was well known to everyone who had daily connection with the trade of the port, viz., that for many years past there had been constant, invariable, and very annoying friction between the importers of goods and the dock authorities, and it was desired by making the wording of this Amendment very clear and explicit that it should be laid down beyond all doubt or question that importers should have a right of complaint where the charges were within the maximum or above the maximum. If this liberty was not accorded it might very well be that the maximum charges of to-day would be stereotyped, and the last state of the importers would be far worse than the first. He would like to point out that the wording adopted in this Amendment had a very strong precedent in Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, of 1894. He was sure the President of the Board of Trade was fully acquainted with that section, which expressly provided for exactly such cases as were intended to be covered by the Amendment, and it employed the words "directly or indirectly" in the same sense. He felt that the Amendment merely put in clear and explicit terms what he believed was the desire and intention of the Government in this matter. It was a very important

689
point in the minds of many traders in the Port of London, and he pressed the Government most earnestly to adopt it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 28, line 4, after the word 'business,' to insert the words 'or of the charges made in respect thereof, whether levied directly or indirectly, and whether under the maximum or not.'"—(Mr. Seaverns.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILL: I am inclined to think that the essential part of this Amendment is already provided for in the clause which enables complaints to be made to the Board of Trade in the event of the mode in which the Port authority carry on their dock or warehousing business being unfairly oppressive. They are very general words, and it is very probable that they include what the hon. Member for Brixton desires. I shall be very glad to meet my hon. friend if I can.
MR. SEAVERNS: We are advised that the words of the clause do not cover my point.
MR. CHURCHILL: I am desirous of meeting my hon. friend, but I am afraid his words are too wide in their meaning, and I cannot accept his actual words. The hon. Member for South Islington has given notice of an Amendment after the word "business" to insert "including charges made in respect of such business." I think those words meet the point of the hon. Member for Brixton, and in some respects they go further than his Amendment.
MR. SEAVERNSappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to add the words "directly or indirectly." He had already explained to the Committee why he asked for those words to be inserted, and the entire object of his Amendment was to allow this right of appeal.
MR. CHURCHILL: I could not possibly accept those words, because they are far too wide.
MR. SEAVERNSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 28, line 4, after the word 'business,' to insert the words 'including charges made in respect of such business.'"—(Mr. Wiles.)
MR. CHURCHILL: The next Amendment I have to move deals with complaints which may be made against the Port authority in cases where there is any increase in charges as compared with the charges existing at the passing of the Act or in regard to the way the authority carries on its warehousing business. We have had representations from various trading associations that some of the existing charges press unduly upon them, and we have endeavoured to meet the views of those organisations and associations. I have every reason to believe that the Amendment will largely meet their views. The lowering of charges to one particular trade very often prejudices other interests. For example, the wharfingers might think their business was being affected seriously or undercut if this lowering of the charges were to take place, and the result of the lowering of the rates under this section might lead to a lot of aggrieved parties asking for an opportunity of being heard.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 28, line 14, to leave out from the word 'complaint' to the word 'to,' in line 15, and to insert the words 'is made on behalf of a trade or a section of a trade by the London Chamber of Commerce or any other representative association interested in the trade of the Port of London or relates.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. WILES: What does "representative association" mean?
SIR A. SPICER: Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment standing in the name of the Member for Islington instead of his own? It is the one which meets with the approval of many of the trades, and I would beg him to accept it.
MR. LOUGH: I think the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is a good one, but I would suggest that it should be so altered that complaints might be made to the Board of Trade "by any person" as well as on behalf of a trade. Why should a person who is aggrieved and who wishes to appeal to the Board of Trade have to go to a Chamber of Commerce or any other association unless he likes to do so? Why should he not have the right of appealing individually. He might be establishing a new business or have some interest in regard to which he did not wish to court publicity, and I do not see why the individual should not be as completely protected as an association. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should introduce into his own Amendment after the word "made" the words "by any person." I think that would be a great improvement.
MR. SEAVERNS: May I say I hope the Government will maintain their own Amendment instead of that in the name of the hon. Member for Islington? I think it would be difficult and awkward to require a body or an institution to go first to the Board of Trade and secure a certificate. I think that would lead to absurdity of procedure.
MR. MORTON: Who is to decide what is meant by "any other representative association interested in the trade of the Port of London?" I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to kindly explain that.
MR. LOUGH: I want to move to amend the Amendment by inserting after the word "made" the words "by any person or."
MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot accept the word "person," I think we must be very careful in this matter. I think the complaint ought to come from a recognised responsible trade, a trade association, or the London Chamber of Commerce.
Question put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR EDWIN CORNWALLhoped the Board of Trade would not be too ready to accept the words suggested by his hon. friend the Member for Islington. It seemed to him that the Board of Trade should issue a certificate authorising certain bodies to make complaints under proper conditions. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would consider the form of words which should be inserted without committing himself to-night to the form on the Paper. He did not say what the form of words should be. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could bring up an Amendment on the Report Stage which would meet the case. There was no precedent in any Statute so far as he was aware for what was now proposed to be done. [Cries of "Yes."]
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was informed that these words were not infrequently inserted. Of course, he agreed that the charges ought not to be very great. There was very little difference between the two Amendments, but he was advised that it would not be objectionable to introduce those few words in the Bill.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"After the words 'Port of London' to insert the words 'which obtains a certificate from the Board of Trade that it is a proper body to make such complaint.'"—(Mr. Wiles.)
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 28, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'as compared with the charges existing at the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Wiles.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 28, line 18, after the word 'fit,' to insert the words 'after giving any persons appearing to the Board of Trade to be interested an opportunity of being heard.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27:
MR. CARR-GOMM*MR. CARR-GOMM moved to insert, after the word "labour," the words "and that no such offices, waiting-rooms, or employment registers, shall be established and maintained inside the area of the dock premises." He did so in order to raise a very important point as to the access to these offices, waiting-rooms, or employment registers. He asked the Government to make it clear to the Committee that there was nothing in this clause which would prevent any officials of the trade unions, should it be necessary for them to exercise the right of visiting these places. The Government had said that the employing of labour by means of registers was under their consideration. It seemed to him that under this Bill, the establishment of those offices and registers, by subsection (2), giving the Port authority power to make bye-laws with respect to admission to them, would be putting the control of them very largely in the hands of the employers, and that that would be very prejudicial to the success of the movement. After all, no fewer than 25,000 labourers in the Port of London would be influenced by this subsection, and if this subsection were passed as it stood, it would be very dangerous indeed. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 28, line 33, after the word 'labour' to insert the words 'and that no such offices, waiting-rooms, or employment registers shall be established and maintained inside the area of the dock premises.'"—(Mr. Carr-Gomm.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CROOKSsaid he was not quite in love with the clause, because he thought that the waiting-rooms should be outside the door to enable the members of the trade unions and other associations to get in touch with the men. Nothing was more pitiable than to see these men standing outside the gates. It would be a very serious matter if these officials were shut out absolutely from contact with the men seeking employment.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)said that the object of the clause
694
was most valuable, since one of the greatest evils in connection with the docks was casual labour. He would remind the Committee that since this Amendment was put down, it had been decided to admit another labour member on the Port authority, and it should be left to the dock authority to regulate this matter of the register offices and waiting-rooms. He quite agreed with the statement that one of the worst features of the employment of casual labour was the men kept standing outside, and he thought it would be best to give power to the Port authority to deal with that.
MR. CARR-GOMMsaid that after that explanation he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the Amendment which stood in his name was really only machinery in consequence of departmental agreement.
Amendment propased—
"In page 32, line 14, at the end, to insert the words '(2) Sections fourteen and fifteen of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847 (which relate to the construction and maintenance of works for the accommodation of the officers of Customs), shall apply to the Port authority in respect of any new docks constructed by them in pursuance of the powers conferred by this Act as if they were incorporated in this Act, and shall also, as from the appointed day, apply to the Port authority in respect of all docks transferred to the Port authority by this Act which were constructed in pursuance of any special Act with which those sections are not incorporated: (a) As if those sections had been so incorporated; and (b) as if any watch-houses, boat-houses, huts, or weighing materials provided before the appointed day at those docks by any predecessors of the Port authority for the accommodation of those officers had been provided in pursuance of the obligation imposed by those sections. Provided that nothing in this provision shall prejudice of affect any right, or authority, or liability of the Commissioners of Customs, or the Commissioners of Works, under any agreement relating to any such watch-house, boat-house, hut, or weighing

695
materials made before the passing of this Act between the Commissioners of Customs, or the Commissioners of Works, and any predecessors of the Port authority.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
Clause 42:
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the following Amendments were made in consequence of representations made to the Board of Trade by the Office of Works and Admiralty. It secured them against damage caused by dredging. It was felt that they should be in the same position as the London County Council.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 33, line 1, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'any property of any Government Department or.'"
"In page 33, line 4, after the word 'of' to insert the words 'the department or'."—(Mr. Churchill.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. E. H. LAMB MR. E. H. LAMB (Rochester) moved to insert, the words "Essex, Kent" after the word "or," in order to provide as in the case of Middlesex and Surrey that in regard to any works of dredging or deepening carried out within fifty yards of a bridge belonging to the Essex or Kent County Council the work should be done under the supervision of and to the reasonable satisfaction of the county council engineer.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 33, line 8, after the word 'or' to insert the words 'Essex, Kent.'"—(Mr. E. H. Lamb.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILL: I am very glad indeed to meet the wishes of my hon. friend, and I in some respects recognise the urgency of his claim on behalf of Kent.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47:
MR. CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL moved after the word "tonnage" to insert the word "port," which he said was consequential.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 35, line 35, after the word 'tonnage,' to insert the word 'port.'"—(Mr. Churchill.)
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
Clause 50:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 36, line 27, to leave out the word 'and,' and to insert the words 'but there shall be no adjustment of or concerning capital expenditure incurred prior to the appointed day below the city stone at Staines Bridge, nor with respect to the offices of the Conservancy, on the Victoria Embankment, in the County of London, or the superannuation or compensation of officers or servants transferred to the Port authority, and the Conservancy and their property shall be free and discharged from all liability in respect thereof.'"—(Mr. Barnard.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,): The clause which the hon. Member proposes to amend is the ordinary adjustment one. With regard to the first question as to the city stone at Staines Bridge, that appears to be superfluous, as all expenses incurred in that part of the river are charged on the lower navigation fund, and all the debts are transferred to the Port authority, so there is no adjustment. Then in regard to the other part, these servants may be transferred, and some adjustment may be necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD R. CECILasked what was the meaning of the final two lines in this

697
section to the effect that the provisions as to borrowing and the application of capital sums should not apply to the Watermen's Company.
MR. CHURCHILL: This Bill, I am afraid, makes great inroads into the powers of the Watermen's Company. It takes away a great deal of their power, and gives it to the Port authority. It certainly must be regarded as a Bill which reduces very substantially the powers of the Watermen's Company, and for that reason it is not desirable that borrowing powers given to the Port authority under the Bill should be extended to the Watermen's Company.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 60 agreed to.
MR. BONAR LAW: Before we take the new clauses, might I venture to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to go home after a very fair day's work. All the time I have been in the House I have never seen—and I am perfectly sure the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me—a Bill which has gone through, not only with so little attempt at obstruction, but with every effort to help its progress on the part of the Opposition. It is not too much to say we have refrained from making speeches on questions in which we are interested. We have now been sitting up on three nights, and the Prime Minister himself said we should not be kept late to-night. I think, therefore, we may reasonably appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to go home now. I beg formally to move to report progress.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to press his Motion at this stage and only moves in order to elicit the
698
intentions of the Government with regard to the further progress of the Bill. I trust he will allow us to proceed up to a certain point. I can quite see the reasonableness of his appeal that we should not sit very late, and the Government certainly do not complain of the attitude of the Opposition. I am not sure that most of the time has not been occupied by hon. Gentlemen who mostly support the Government. I am sure the criticisms which have emanated from the Opposition have been quite fair and relevant, and that they have not been made with any idea of obstruction; but still I think it is important that we should make further progress with the Bill. This will not be the last opportunity for criticising the Bill in detail, because there will be a Report stage and there will then be opportunity for further reference to any matter which may not have been fully ventilated. I think my right hon. friend has met the Opposition in one important particular. He has shown every disposition to afford opportunity both to criticise the Bill and to discuss important provisions at a reasonable period of the day. We have had a very lengthy debate to-day on what, after all, is one of the most important provisions of the Bill, and I do not think there is anything very important left. I trust the hon. Member opposite will allow us to proceed with the discussion, and then we will see later how to proceed. There is no disposition on the part of the Government to keep the House late, but I hope at present they will allow us to go on up to a certain point.
SIR F. BANBURYasked the right hon. Gentleman to say to what stage. He pointed out that on the new clause there was an Amendment standing in the name of an hon. friend, who, under the impression that the Motion for adjournment would last longer, had left the House and not returned. It was an important Amendment which ought to be discussed, but it was not unreasonable of his hon. friend to go away under the circumstances. They had sat till after twelve o'clock, and if the right hon. Gentleman would allow them to go home they would not take advantage in any way to delay the Bill.
MR. BONAR LAW: I have no desire, and my hon. friends have no desire, to prevent the Government getting their Bill through if we thought it could be done in a proper manner. My suggestion is that the right hon. Gentleman should allow us to finish now at the end of the existing clauses. We would not object to the subsequent clauses being taken at the same time as he proposes to take the Report stage.
LORD R. CECILsaid it was a fact that the hon. Member for Bury was absent and that he had Amendments down to the new clause in the interest of the London County Council, of which body he was a member. It was only right he should be able to put their views before the House, and he thought it would be desirable if the Government could see their way to allow them to rise now and to proceed with the discussion of this new clause on another occasion. It was a question of considerable importance. He did not think it a very good plan to begin a controversial matter after twelve o'clock at night and it would not be a good example to the Opposition if, when they were reasonable as on this occasion, they were not treated with more conisderation.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am very loth not to respond to an appeal from an Opposition which has been so very fairly and reasonably conducted, but I would again earnestly impress upon the Opposition the desirability of proceeding with this clause.
MR. BONAR LAW: May I make another suggestion? There seems to be very few Amendments down on the Schedules. Would it be agreeable to the Government to take the Schedules now and leave the new clause till afterwards?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Do I understand the hon. Member that the Bill should be taken without the new clause, seeing it is regarded, I will not say as controversial, but as one which should receive discussion under better opportunities? That is a reasonable proposal that we should go on to the schedule. As far as we are concerned
700
we are prepared to withdraw the new clause and move it on Report, so that it will come first for discussion. It will be the first matter for discussion on Report stage.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BONAR LAW: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will move the new clause in the Committee Stage?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No. What will be done will be this, that this new clause will be withdrawn at the present moment. Then it will be put down on the Report stage and the same procedure will be gone through as in Committee.
MR. BONAR LAWasked whether they did not miss the opportunity for discussion?
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he knew that was quite correct because he was caught that way himself the other day. If they took the new clauses on the Report stage the new clauses were always taken first; they were then read a second time. He was under the delusion that after that they went through the Committee stage, but he was called to order by Mr. Speaker for having that delusion, and it was pointed out to him that the House could not be in Committee with the Speaker in the Chair. Therefore, they got the disadvantage of Report stage of only being able to speak once. They lost all their chance of speaking more than once. The right hon. Gentleman knew that was a very valuable asset and was going to say nothing at all. If that were conceded it was nothing at all because they had discussion on the Report stage under any circumstances, and the only result of the right hon. Gentleman's action was to abandon discussion now to get what they always had under any circumstances on Report stage.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am still willing to meet the hon. Baronet, and after all, there is a good deal of substance in what he says now—as is generally the case. I think the Government might

701
meet the Opposition by moving to recommit these new clauses after Second Reading and then putting the House into Committee.
MR. BONAR LAWassented to this.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There will be a Committee stage on those clauses after the Report stage.
THE CHAIRMAN: Then I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not move his new clauses.
MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
MR. MORTONintimated that he wished to move a clause to the effect that notwithstanding previous Acts any rates, dues, tolls, fees or other charges leviable under the present Act should be chargeable to and payable by the Crown upon the same conditions as they are chargeable and payable by other bodies or persons. The hon. Member said he knew he could move the clause on Report stage, but he wanted to know why his Motion should be treated differently from that of the Opposition. He did not call that at all fair, as not giving him an opportunity of being able to deal with it in the same spirit as the Opposition. But, of course, if the Government chose to treat him unfairly in that way, and to deal differently with one hon. Member and another, he could not help it.
MR. BONAR LAWsuggested that the hon. Member should ask the Government to treat his clause in the same way as their own, provided the clause got a Second Reading.
MR. CHURCHILL: I shall be very glad indeed to do that and treat the hon. Member in exactly the same manner as we treat the new clauses which I have to move. Whether we can adopt his new clause or not is another matter.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other Member who has given notice of a new clause desire to move?
MR. MORTONsaid he had another new clause and he suggested that it be treated in the same way.
Schedule I:
MR. MORTON*MR. MORTON moved an Amendment so as to take away from the authority the power to appoint persons from outside to the working committees. The Schedule provided that the Port authority might appoint such working committees either of a general or special nature, and consisting of such number of persons and either wholly or partly of members of the Port authority as they thought fit. By that proviso the Port authority might pack all the committees with certain parties from outside on the understanding that they would vote as they were told. The only protection was in the words—
"provided that a majority of the members of every committee shall be members of the Port authority."
But that would not prevent a mere clique in the committee getting a majority if they could put enough strangers on. He would like to know why strangers of this sort, representing nobody at all but themselves, should be put upon the committees at all. He did not desire, if the bargain was made, to delay the Committee, and therefore with a view of trying to find what this meant he would move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 49, line 18, to leave out the words 'persons, and either wholly or partly of.'"—(Mr. Morton.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think the Committee will refuse to allow the Port authority power of co-optation.
MR. MORTONsaid it was never allowed anyone else.
MR. CHURCHILL: I think if the hon. Member, with his long experience, casts his mind wider and farther back he will be able to recall cases where power is given.
MR. MORTONsaid he did not quite understand. It was all very well to say there were precedents. He did not know if there were, but if so, they were very bad. What he would like to say was that they in the City of London would have a good deal to do with this Port of London business. They had always objected to that sort of representation in every case. No representative body of any consequence nowadays was allowed this sort of members. The county councils and the municipal bodies were allowed to appoint aldermen, but surely they did not want to repeat that. Everybody knew that having those nominated members called aldermen had been a sham and a fraud throughout the whole time of its existence and had very often enabled certain parties to pack the bodies just as they liked by getting these extra men in. He hoped that the Government would agree to the Amendment and consent to make this little alteration so that they might have the assurance that this Port of London authority would be as representative as the rest of the Bill had made it. This proposal at the end altered the constitution altogether by putting on strangers, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would concede this little improvement. He was sure it was an improvement.
MR. CHURCHILL: The Royal Commission recommended that the authority should have the power of appointing certain members from outside. There may be some committees of a highly expert and technical character, and it is desirable that there should be a member attached to such a committee who would not be of such a representative character as a member of the Port authority, but who would be of great value in guiding the committee on technical matters.
SIR WILLIAM BULLinstanced Trinity House and the Thames Conservancy as having similar powers.
MR. MORTONsaid the Thames Conservancy had no such powers. They were all elected by somebody outside. He thought that the fact that the Royal Commission recommended this was of no consequence at all. It
704
was of much more importance that they as a Liberal Party had always recognised that the members of all these institutions should be representative, representing the people. That was the whole policy and foundation of the Liberal Party, but by this proviso to the Schedule, the committee might be so packed that they would never get at the opinion of the properly representative members at all. The Royal Commission did not affect him. Royal Commissions were generally wrong, and did not do much good, and he should stick to this Amendment as far as he could.
Amendment negatived.
MR. MORTON*MR. MORTON moved an Amendment to make all the meetings of the Port authority open to the public unless otherwise determined by the majority of the members present and voting on that question. He said that such a proposal as this, where adopted, had been found useful. Sometimes those so-called public bodies excluded the public and the Press. What he desired was that there should be always at these meetings at least some representatives of the Press, so that the public might know what went on. With regard to the Thames Conservancy, when he joined it some years ago the doors were shut and the Press excluded, but very shortly after the Conservators were induced to allow the Press to be present, and it had very much improved the body. He copied the words of his Amendment from the Standing Orders of the Court of Common Council, where it had been in force for hundreds of years. It had always been found to work well. It made the normal conditions of the meetings open to the public, but gave the body absolute power at once to close them if they had any business which it was thought necessary to transact with closed doors. The old custom in the House of Commons was that any person might get the House cleared of strangers by calling out "I spy strangers," but of late years the custom had been exactly what he recommended, namely, that somebody must move to exclude the public, and

705
the majority of those present settled the question by vote. All over the country it had been found not only absolutely right and proper, but an improvement on the procedure that the Press and public should be allowed to be present. There was the recent experience of the London County Council, who knew something about what ought to be done in these matters. When they commenced the education business they closed the doors of the education committee. They were strongly recommended, however, considering the nature of the business the committee had to do, and how separate it was from the other business of the Council, to open their doors. They in this House even opened the doors of the Committees, so that there was nothing extraordinary in the proposal. A great many of the large municipalities in the country opened the doors at their committee meetings to the public. He would not detain the House though he could give a long list of institutions which allowed the Press and the public to be present. The best men on the London County Council and outside were all in favour of the meetings of the schools committee being open to the public. They had been open for a good while now, and no harm had been done. Surely, then, they might ask that a public body like the Port authority whose principal business would be to look after the docks and holders of stock, should sit with open doors. It would have to deal with one of the greatest businesses in any part of the world, and if the meetings of any public body ought to be open to the public and the Press, it should be those of the Port of London authority, who were concerned with so many interests, and about whose proceedings the public had a right to know.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 50, line 11, at end, to insert the words 'All the meetings of the Port authority shall be open to the public unless otherwise determined by the majority of the members present and voting on that question.'"—(Mr. Morton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot accept the Amendment. An identical Amendment was moved before the Joint Committee
706
on behalf of the Corporation of London, and was objected to by the Committee. It is believed that an Amendment of this kind is entirely without precedent in any similar case. It certainly does not exist in the case of the Mersey, the Tyne, or the Clyde. There is a danger which we have noticed that when the Press are present there is a tendency on the part of some members to make long speeches, and it is thought that the proceedings of the Port authority are likely to be more expeditiously conducted if the meetings are held in private.
MR. MORTONsaid in answer to the right hon. Gentleman that when, between the years 1892and 1895, they were considering the Local Government Bill of that time, the House of Commons, which was apparently more Liberal and democratic than the present, inserted a similar clause at his request with regard to the meetings of the parish councils. He was sorry that the present House of Commons did not appear to be either so democratic or so wedded to the old Liberal institutions and procedure as were their predecessors. He would have thought that a Liberal Government would have gladly accepted a proposal of this sort.
Amendment negatived.
MR. HOLT MR. HOLT moved an. Amendment to omit paragraph (3) of the proviso of Part II. of the Schedule, all words after the second "authority." He said it seemed that this method of voting on a matter in which members were personally interested arising in the ordinary course of the Port authority's business, might prove in practice to work considerable injustice, and be impossible to carry out. He did not know exactly what the meaning of the clause was, but he should like to put it this way: after all, the members of this Port authority would be sent there by electors with their eyes open. They would not be sent there with the idea that they had no financial interest, but expressly because they had a large financial interest themselves in the Port. Suppose there was a warehouse committee, and a discussion arose as to the way in which grain had been stored in the warehouses, was

707
it to be contended that the representative of the grain trade was to be debarred from voting simply because it happened that he had a certain amount of his own produce stored there? The real question surely was whether the interest of the individual member was merely incidental, whether he was voting in the interest of his trade, as a whole, and in the interests of the people who sent him there. His vote ought not to be disallowed merely because he himself had an interest in the particular matter which was being voted on. On the other hand, if it were a matter which affected merely himself, of course, he ought not to vote. They might be quite certain that a body constituted as this body would be by leading merchants of London, men of honour and position, could settle such matters for themselves. It would be very soon found out whether a man had got on the authority to vote to put sixpence in his pocket, or to vote in the interests of the trade he was sent there to represent. He would suggest to the Government that they should make this clause fairly free and easy, and not bind it down by hard and fast regulations, but leave it to the discretion of the body themselves.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 50, line 42, to leave out from the word 'authority' to end of paragraph."—(Mr. Holt.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule.
MR. CHURCHILL: I shall be quite willing to accept this Amendment.
MR. MORTONsaid he would like some explanation with regard to this. It was a most dangerous thing to allow any member of an authority to vote where he might be directly or indirectly concerned. In the City of London they insisted on this matter so strongly that in the protection of their rules of procedure they went right up to the House of Lords to enforce them. They were not allowed to be interested directly or indirectly in any way in a contract. It was very little to say they
708
should not vote on matters with which they were themselves concerned, and he trusted the Government would not give way on the point.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. DICKINSON MR. DICKINSON moved an Amendment to provide that the members of the Port Authority should go out of office on 1st April, 1913, instead of 1st June, 1912. His reason was this: There were to be four members on the Port Authority to represent the London County Council, and they would—with the exception of course, of the members who represented the City—be the only members who represented the people of London. Under the provisions contained in the Bill there would be this curious condition of affairs: The London County Council was elected for three years, and the representatives on the new Port Authority were also to hold office for three years. Inasmuch, however, as the statutory dates for the election of the London County Council were in 1910 and 1913 the members appointed to represent the Council on the new authority would be appointed at the very end of the tenure of office of the Council. The result would be that practically during two and a half years of the tenure of office of the Council that body would be represented on the Port Authority by members who had been nominated by the previous Council. Such a state of things, he thought, would be very undesirable, and he was seeking by his proposal to prevent it. A further suggestion he had to make was that the London County Council's new representatives should be elected in 1910, but he would first move the insertion of April, 1913, in place of June, 1912.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 51, line 29, to leave out the word 'twelve,' and insert the word 'ten.'"—(Mr. Dickinson.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Schedule."
MR. CHURCHILL: I am quite willing to accept that Amendment.
SIR A. SPICERsaid he should like to point out to the Committee that there was a good deal of discussion in the Joint Committee with regard to giving an extra year, and the members of that Committee thought it would be a great mistake to make the extension, as they considered the period named in the Bill quite long enough in the case of a nominated body. The date in the Bill was originally 1913, and the Joint Committee deliberately reduced it by one year, because they thought the time sufficiently long for the term of office of the first nominated body.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. DICKINSON MR. DICKINSON moved to insert after the word the Committee had just agreed to, "and in the case of members appointed by the London County Council 1910." That meant, he said, that the first election of members of the County Council would take place in 1910, immediately after the formation of the new County Council.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 51, line 29, after the word last inserted, to insert the words 'and in the case of members appointed by the London County Council 1910.'"—(Mr. Dickinson.)
MR. HOLT, on Part IV. of the Schedule (Provisions as to Election of Elected Members), moved to leave out subsection (1) (a) Any one who read the Bill, he observed, would find that the latter part of subsection (1) was more or less a contradiction of subsection (1) (a) Subsection (1) provided that—
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, elections of elected members shall be held at such times and in such manner, and in accordance with such regulations, as the Board of Trade may by order direct; and those regulations may contain all things necessary, preliminary, or incidental, to the election. Provided that, in proscribing the manner in which elections are to be conducted and votes are to be recorded, the Board of Trade shall have regard to the desirability of elections being so conducted and votes being so recorded, whether by allowing the voter to record a vote for a number of candidates in order of preference, or otherwise, as to secure that so far as possible the several
710
interests concerned shall be adequately represented on the Port authority."
He supposed "adequately represented" meant represented in proportion to financial liability, and that surely ought to be the basis of representation of the different interests on the Port authority. But subsection (1) (a) told them the regulations might provide that, subject to duly qualified candidates presenting themselves, certain interests—those who paid dues on ships and those who paid dues on goods—should be equally represented. On referring to the proceedings of the Joint Committee, he found that this was put in because it had been observed that the custom had grown up in Liverpool of dividing the representation equally between the payers of dues on ships and the payers of dues on goods. He would point out, however, by way of explanation, that the reason the custom grew up in Liverpool was because these parties were paying an equal amount of money. There was no reason why they should be equal other than that they were contributing an equal amount. He considered that to lay down that the two parties ought to be equally represented without binding them to bear an equal share of the burden was not a fair thing to do. If they wanted to induce people to bear their fair share of the burden of the expense of the port in a cheerful spirit it was just as well to let them understand that they would not get representation on the Port authority unless they were willing to bear that share. Therefore he thought subsection (1) should be allowed to stand by itself without qualification.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 52, to leave out lines 33 to 37, inclusive.'"—(Mr. Holt.)
Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
MR. CHURCHILL: I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. The clause is an agreed clause. It was inserted after a good deal of discussion, and is regarded as a most valuable clause. The object is to enable the

711
Board of Trade to exercise a moderating influence and as far as possible to preserve a just balance of representation on the Port authority. I hope my hon. friend, whose views are very valuable and important, will not consider that every deviation from the excellent precedent provided in Liverpool is necessarily to be expunged from the Bill.
MR. HOLTwas willing to respond at once to his right hon. friend's appeal. The right hon. Gentleman had met them all very fairly, but at the same time the provision of this clause ought to be carefully borne in mind, and people who paid dues on goods should remember that if they were to have half the representation they should not make too much fuss if they asked to pay half the bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 54, line 32, after the word 'craft' to insert the words 'or other person.'"—(Mr. Holt.)
MR. SEAVERNS*MR. SEAVERNS moved to omit from Part IV. of the Schedule subsection (17), which reads: "For the purposes of the first election under this Act 'dues' shall include dues of such classes and in respect of such services only as may be prescribed." He desired to call the attention of the Committee to the last subsection in Part IV. of the Schedule, because, though it was a comparatively innocent looking little paragraph, i raised a question of considerable importance. The effect of the paragraph, as the Committee would see, was to leave in the hands of the Board of Trade the privilege of adjusting the franchise so as to give the Board complete control of the first election to the Port authority. He thought that was a very dangerous and a very unwise power to place in the hands of any Government Department. The power of the Government Departments was continually on the increase. He believed it was generally exercised wisely, but the increase of power ought to be viewed rather jealously by the House of Commons. This Amendment
712
was looked upon as one of very great importance, because, as he understood, before the Joint Committee a representative of the Board of Trade said he was very doubtful whether the payers of landing, storing, and delivering charges on goods in docks would receive voting powers in respect of those charges. Considerable controversy arose on this point, and eventually the Committee cut down the privilege proposed to be asked for by the Board of Trade by limiting it to the first election. He submitted that the privilege should not be enjoyed by the Board of Trade even in the case of the first election, and he hoped the Government would see their way to withdraw this objectionable paragraph.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 55, line 28, to leave out subsection (17)."—(Mr. Seaverns.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
MR. CHURCHILL: This subsection was divided upon by the Joint Committee after prolonged discussion to decide what payments should be treated as dues and qualify for votes at the first election. The Board of Trade must be trusted—they have already been given so much power, that if they are untrustworthy the Bill must be absolutely a failure—to prescribe the payers of dues in order that injustice may not be done to particular classes.
Amendment negatived.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 369.]
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at four minutes before One o'clock.

FAIRFAX PEERAGE.
Several witnesses ordered to attend the Committee for Privileges on Tuesday next, and produce documents.

BARON KILMAINE.
Petition of John Edward Deane, Baron Kilmaine in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
The Marquess of Linlithgow sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th September, 1908.

  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 582. Straits Settlements; Report for 1907.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST (ARGENTINE REPUBLIC)).
  The Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 26) Warrant, 1908, dated 31st October, 1908: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Joint Committee on the Companies (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.], the Post Office Consolidation Bill [H.L.], and the Statute Law Revision Bill [H.L.], That the Post Office Consolidation Bill [H.L.] ought to be allowed to proceed: The said Report (with the Proceedings of the Committee) to be printed. [No. 223.] Minutes of Evidence laid
  458
  upon the Table, and to be delivered out; Bill reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended. [No. 224.]

CHILDREN BILL.
Report of Amendments received.
THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP)THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP) moved to amend subsection (1) of Clause 1—
"(1) Where a person undertakes for reward the nursing and maintenance of one or more infants under the age of seven years apart from their parents, he shall, within forty-eight hours from the reception of any such infant, give notice in writing thereof to the local authority,"
by inserting, after the word "parents," the words "or having no parents." He explained that a point had been raised as to whether orphans could be said to be maintained apart from their parents, and the object of his Amendment was to remove any doubts that might exist.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 9, after the word 'parents,' to insert the words 'or having no parents.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments to Clause 9 agreed to.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE moved to add at the end of Clause 14—
"14. If any person over the age of sixteen years who has the custody, charge, or care of any child under the age of seven years allows that child to be in any room containing an open fire grate not sufficiently protected to guard against the risk of the child being burnt or scalded without taking reasonable precautions against that risk, and by reason thereof the child is killed or suffers serious injury, he shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds,"
a proviso to the effect that it should be a sufficient defence to a charge under this clause if the defendant proved that a person over seven years of age was left in charge of such child. He had only put down this Amendment in order to indicate what might be a reasonable precaution; but if His Majesty's Government, after consideration, preferred the clause as it stood he would not press his proviso.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 8, after the word 'pounds,' to insert the words' Provided that it shall be a sufficient defence to a charge under this section if the defendant proves that a person over seven years of age was left in charge of such child.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. In their opinion a child, say, of five left in the charge of a child just over seven would not be very much safeguarded. The Government thought the provision as it stood would sufficiently meet the case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend subsection (2) of Clause 17—
"(2) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to have caused or encouraged the seduction or prostitution (as the case may be) of a girl if he has knowingly allowed the girl to consort with, or to enter or continue in the employment of, any prostitute or person of notoriously immoral character,"
by adding, after the word "girl" where it first occurred, the words "who has been seduced or become a prostitute." He explained that the subsection, as amended by Lord Alverstone in Committee, would make a person guilty of having encouraged the seduction of a girl if he had allowed her to consort with a prostitute or other person of notoriously immoral character, whether seduction had resulted there from or not. He did not suppose that the Lord Chief Justice intended that this should follow from his Amendment. The words now proposed to be inserted were to make it clear that the girl must have been seduced or become a prostitute before the charge could be made under subsection (1).
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 3, after the word 'girl,' to insert the words 'who has been seduced or become a prostitute.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD ALVERSTONEsaid that, in his opinion, the subsection absolutely implied this. But if the noble Earl thought the insertion of the proposed words made it clearer he had no objection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMPexplained that the object of his next Amendment, which was down in the same terms to various other clauses, was to make it quite clear that the power to revoke or otherwise modify an order of the Court might be exercised by the Court which made the order or by any Court of similar jurisdiction.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 18, after the word 'and,' to insert the words' that Court or any Court of like jurisdiction.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment to Clause 22 agreed to.
Consequential Amendment to Clause 23 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH moved to add, at the end of subsection (1) of Clause 25—
"(1) The Secretary of State may cause any institution for the reception of poor children or young persons supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, and not liable to be inspected by or under the authority of any Government Department, to be visited and inspected from time to time by persons appointed by him for the purpose,"
the following proviso—
"Provided that such persons shall be either inspectors or assistant inspectors of reformatory and industrial schools, members of the medical or nursing professions, or persons of discretion and of experience in the management and training of children."
Their Lordships would remember that the original wording of Clause 25, which was altered in Committee, was to the effect that the officials of certain societies engaged in the care and protection of children should be empowered by the Secretary of State to act as inspectors of voluntarily maintained institutions for the care of children. He moved an Amendment to the clause whch the Government did not see their way to accept; but they met him, or at least considered they had done so, by altogether omitting the last part of the clause which mentioned these particular societies. He could not see that this concession on the part of the Government had really made any difference, because the Secretary of State would

461
still have the power, if he chose, to appoint officials connected with voluntary societies, however untrained, unskilled, and absolutely ignorant of the proper management and treatment of children they might be. It had been suggested to him that the word "skill" would be better than his word "discretion." He was not at all set on the word "discretion." if the House preferred "skill," but unless some such words as he proposed were inserted there would be a very great temptation to appoint the first official recommended by a particular society for the purpose of inspecting these institutions. The work of inspection was a very delicate matter, but under this clause they were asking one voluntary society to inspect the school or institution of another voluntary society. That was a very dangerous precedent, and he hoped their Lordships would support him in securing the insertion of words providing that the persons who should be appointed for this purpose should be fit and proper persons possessing some knowledge of the management and training of children. He had, in the Committee stage, freely acknowledged the absolute disinterestedness and zeal of these officials. He did not wish to say one word except in praise of them, for he had been himself connected with many of these institutions and knew how public spirited the officials were. But, as he had pointed out in Committee, the more determined and the more interested a man or woman was in carrying out a particular line of conduct the more chance there was that that man or woman was not possessed of a judicial mind. The power to be given to these inspectors was not a nominal one; they could enter the institutions in question at any hour and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent them camping there if they chose. They were to be given a search warrant if there was the least obstruction, and might easily stay the night on the plea that they had not finished their search. He did not desire to prevent inspection, but to secure that the persons appointed were fit and proper persons and had some knowledge of children. Why were the Government so strongly opposed to the acceptance of some such words as he proposed? He could only
462
put it down to one reason—that of economy. He protested against the Government wishing to carry out inspection on the cheap. If the thing was worth doing at all it should be done well, and they ought not to have amateurs sent in.
Amendment moved—
"In page 17, line 20, after the word 'purpose,' to insert the words 'Provided that such persons shall be either inspectors or assistant inspectors of reformatory and industrial schools, members of the medical or nursing professions, or persons of discretion and of experience in the management and training of children.'"—(The Earl of Meath.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the noble Earl's Amendment seemed rather to be directed against any inspection at all. But apart from that, he would remind the House that when the noble Earl moved a similar Amendment in Committee, he, on behalf of the Government, offered a compromise which the noble Earl accepted. Yet on the Report stage the noble Earl moved his Amendment again. If all compromises were so treated it would not be very encouraging to the Government to make concessions. The provisions for appointments by the Home Secretary were not unusual in legislation of this kind, and he did not think that their Lordships need have any fear as to the discretion of inspectors so appointed. There was also a good deal to be said with regard to the wording of the Amendment. After all, what constituted the nursing profession? What they wanted was people of discretion rather than people of skill. He hoped the House would agree to maintain the compromise arrived at. As the clause stood, it gave the Home Secretary full authority in the choice of visitors and placed no limitation upon him. If the noble Earl insisted on his Amendment, the Government would have to take a division.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understand the noble Earl to rely upon some compromise said to have been reached between himself, and, I presume, parties on this side of the House, but we are quite unaware of any such compromise, and we must refuse to be bound by anything which prevents us

463
from considering this clause upon its merits. I think the noble Earl rather misrepresented my noble friend on the cross benches when he told us that my noble friend was altogether opposed to inspection. I did not gather that from his speech. What I gathered from him was that he was very strongly opposed to inspection by persons who might not be qualified for the duty of inspection. Now, what does this clause do? It empowers the Secretary of State to have these institutions visited and inspected from time to time by any persons whom he may choose to appoint for that purpose. It gives an absolutely free hand to the Secretary of State. I fancy we have all of us in our experience of public life become aware of the existence of Secretaries of State holding very extreme views on particular subjects, and what is there to prevent such a Secretary of State appointing for these duties persons holding extreme views on this subject and otherwise not specially qualified? As my noble friend truly said, these ad hoc inspectors will have very wide powers and a very delicate task to perform, and I do not think it unreasonable that we should stipulate that the selection of such amateur officials should be to a certain extent fenced in by precautions. I am not prepared to say that my noble friend's words are perfect. It might, for example, be desirable to omit the reference to membership of the nursing profession. But of this I feel pretty sure, that we shall improve the Bill by adding to it some such words as those which my noble friend has proposed. If, therefore, he goes to a division I shall certainly support him.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): The noble Marquess opposite has said that no compromise took place, but, so far as my recollection goes, I certainly understood that a general agreement had been reached on the earlier stage. If I remember rightly, what happened was this. In the Bill, as introduced, there was a stipulation that the Home Secretary might appoint, and by the
464
phrasing of the clause he was almost urged to appoint, officers of certain societies to inspect these various private homes. The noble Earl on the cross benches took exception to that. He maintained that such people were not always discreet, and he proposed something very much on the lines of his present Amendment. In order to meet the views of the noble Earl my noble friend the Lord Steward dropped altogether the allusion to the particular charitable societies whose inspectors were to be used for this purpose, and left full discretion to the Home Secretary. That is how the clause now stands. Nobody took exception to that course at the time, and therefore, I think we have a right to assume that something in the nature of a compromise was reached. Now the noble Earl brings up his Amendment again. We cannot accept his Amendment, because we consider it to be essentially futile. Apart from the point which my noble friend behind me made that there is no such thing as the nursing profession, what is the use of inculcating upon the Home Secretary of the day the duty of appointing persons of discretion? Of course, he will not appoint persons whom he believes to be persons of indiscretion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There are the words "and of experience."
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am coming to that. Of course, the Home Secretary will only appoint persons who are, in his opinion, discreet; but if other people think them indiscreet, what is the remedy to be brought to bear on the Home Secretary in relation to a particular appointment? Again, who will be considered persons of experience in the management and training of children? All persons who have children of their own, I conceive, would believe themselves to be in that position. Therefore, the only persons who would not be experienced would be the unmarried and the childless. I really think the Amendment is not of a practical character, and I shall certainly support my noble friend in dividing the House if that course is necessary.
LORD ALVERSTONEsaid that when Lord Meath moved his Amendment in Committee the Lord Steward offered to strike out from the clause the words that had been referred to. He (Lord Alverstone) then remarked that if it were found necessary to add a proviso to secure the object desired, it could be brought up on Report. There was certainly no suggestion of a compromise.
THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid he also took part in the discussion in Committee, and was not conscious of any compromise.
EARL CROMERurged the noble Earl to omit from the Amendment the words "of discretion and." The proviso would then read "persons of experience in the management and training of children."
LORD HENEAGEhoped the noble Earl would also omit the reference to the nursing profession.
THE EARL OF MEATHsaid he was in the hands of the House, and would be quite willing to agree to his proviso being amended in the way suggested.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'or nursing professions,' and to insert the word 'profession.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'of discretion and.'"—(Earl Cromer.)
On Question, That the Amendment as amended be added to the clause.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 60; Not-contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Wharncliffe, E.

Kenry, L. [E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Marlborough, D.

Newcastle, D.

Falkland, V.

Kenyon, L.

Rutland, D.

Hood, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Somerset, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kinnaird, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Bath, M.

Lawrence, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Llangattock, L.

Normanby, M.

Macnaghten, L.

Salisbury, M.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Alverstone, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Ashbourne, L.

Poltimore, L.

Amherst, E.

Atkinson, L.

Rosmead, L.

Camperdown, E.

Balfour, L.

Sanderson, L.

Cromer, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Borthwick, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Eldon, E.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Halsbury, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Colchester, L.

Tennyson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Waleran, L.

Morley, E.

Heneage, L. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hindlip, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Craven, E.

Blyth, L.

Granville, E.

Boston, L.

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Lytton, E.

Burghclere, L.

Russell, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Coleridge, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Eversley, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Farrer, L.

Carlisle, E.

Airedale, L.

Glantawe, L.

Carrington, E.

Allendale, L.

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

Chichester, E.

Armitstead, L.

Haversham, L.

Lyveden, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Hemphill, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Herschell, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lochee, L.

St. Davids, L.

Swaythling, L.

Lucas, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Weardale, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON, in the absence of Viscount Hill, moved to amend the proviso to Clause 40 (Forfeiture of Tobacco)—
"Provided that such constable or park-keeper shall not be authorised to search any girl so found smoking."
so that it would read—
"And such constable or park-keeper shall be authorised to search any boy so found smoking, but not a girl."
Amendment moved—
"In page 23, line 32, to leave out the words 'Provided that,' and to insert the word 'and'; and in the same line to leave out the word 'not,' and in line 33, to leave out the word 'girl,' and to insert the word 'boy,' and after the word 'smoking' to insert the words 'but not a girl.'"—(Lord Belhaven and Stanton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPaccepted the Amendment.
Drafting Amendments to Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend subsection (1) of Clause 57—
"(1) Where a youthful offender, who in the opinion of the Court before which he is charged is twelve years of age or upwards but less than sixteen years of age, is convicted, whether on indictment or by a Court of summary jurisdiction, of an offence punishable in the case of an adult with penal servitude or imprisonment, the Court may, in addition to or in lieu of sentencing him according to law to any other punishment, order that he be sent to a certified reformatory school,"
by omitting the words "Court of Summary Jurisdiction" and inserting the words "Petty Sessional Court," The difference between the two Courts was that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in certain cases acted with a single magistrate, whereas a Petty Sessional Court acted with two. It was thought desirable that in these cases there should be two justices present.
Amendment moved—
"In page 29, line 6, to leave out the words Court of Summary Jurisdiction,' and to insert
468
the words 'Petty Sessional Court.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE moved to amend subsection (f) of Clause 58—
"(f) Frequents the company of any reputed thief, or of any common or reputed prostitute other than the mother of the child; or,"
by deleting the words "other than the mother of the child." As the subsection stood, a mother known to be a common or reputed prostitute could not be deprived of the custody of her child. He understood that the Home Office were of opinion that the child would be sufficiently protected under the other subsections of the clause, but he was satisfied that His Majesty's Government did not know the terrible suffering and injury to little children that occurred through their being in the company of this class of woman, even though she were the child's mother. The horrors were unspeakable. He knew of cases of little children between the ages of five and seven who had been ruined for life physically by what their mothers had allowed to be done to them; and he thought it was terrible that under this Bill, which was going to do so much for children, it should be impossible to deprive a notorious prostitute of the custody of her child. On the last occasion the subject was before the House the Government defended the subsection on the plea that the company of the child had a refining influence on the mother. This was a Bill, not to reclaim the mothers, but to save the children; and he knew from his experience as a Judge that for one case in which the child reclaimed the mother there were ninety-nine cases in which the children were ruined, morally and physically, by abandoned mothers. He therefore moved to omit the words "other than the mother of the child." If the subsection were thus amended, it would still be left optional with the magistrates not to take the child away if they thought its company would

469
have a reclaiming influence on the mother.
Amendment moved—
"In page 30, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'other than the mother of the child.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the clause generally gave power to the magistrates to take a child from a mother who by reason of "drunken or criminal habits," or for any other reason, was unfit, in the opinion of the Court, to have charge of the child. The Government were unable to accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord; but they were willing to strengthen the provision in subsection (d) by the insertion of the words "or of being a common or reputed prostitute."
THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid that the words suggested by the noble Earl would not have the desired effect if subsection (f) was left unamended.
THE EARL OF CREWE: It is perfectly clear that if the words go out in subsection (f) the offer of my noble friend behind me (Earl Beauchamp) falls to the ground. The view that the Government have taken is that there are undoubtedly cases of the kind mentioned by the noble and learned Lord opposite, where horrors of an almost indescribable kind may occur to young children from the fact of their being in the company of a prostitute, that prostitute even being their mother. But, on the other hand, it is a very hard thing to say, which the Bill would practically say otherwise, that the mere fact of a woman leading an immoral life is a sufficient reason for depriving her of her child.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: "May" deprive.
THE EARL OF CREWE: True; but I think that is the implication which would be enveyed in the Bill, and that is a length to which I think your Lordships would be unwilling to go. There may be a great many mothers who, unfortunately, lead immoral lives but yet are fond of their children and, so far as they can be, are good to their children;
470
and if it is understood that the mere fact of frequenting the company of any common or reputed prostitute is a reason for the child's being taken away I think it will be found that a great many magistrates will assume that they are directed by the Bill to take a child away from an immoral mother in every case. That is a course which His Majesty's Government would deeply regret.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I cannot help thinking that the words which have been offered to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice in subsection (d), which are very good words as far as they go, will be of no avail if subsection (f) remains unaltered. If we amend subsection (d)—
"Is under the care of a parent or guardian who, by reason of criminal or drunken habits is unfit to have the care of the child,"—
but leave (f) as it stands this is what will happen. A child will be found in the care of a mother who is a common or reputed prostitute, and thereupon the Bill will apply; but if other words remain in the Bill further down especially exempting the case where the prostitute happens to be the mother of the child the effect of the earlier words will be entirely neutralised.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)said there was no difference of opinion between their Lordships as to the object aimed at. The point was really how best to do it. He thought the two paragraphs in the clause would naturally stand together. If the mother were unfit to have the custody of her child, it could be taken away. There would, however, be another opportunity of considering the point if that view turned out to be erroneous. For himself, he could not help thinking that their purpose would be served by the acceptance of Earl Beauchamp's suggestion.
THE EARL OF HALSBURYwas sorry to disagree with his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. A magistrate might come to the conclusion that, by reason of her conduct, and so on, the mother was unfit to have charge of the child, but he would find later on in the clause that the case of the mother was

471
especially exempted. The magistrate would, therefore, construe the clause as preventing him from finding that the mother was unfit because the mother was especially exempted by subsection (f).
LORD ALVERSTONEexpressed his willingness to consider any Amendment on the point which the Government might put down for the Third Reading stage, but said he really could not withdraw his Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that in view of Lord Alverstone's decision, he should not move his own Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELDdesired, with all his heart, to support the plea so bravely put forward by the Lord Chief Justice, and said he could, from his experience as a parish priest in the slums of our large towns and also from the testimony of many clergymen, corroborate what the noble and learned Lord had said as to the evils arising from allowing a mother of this class to retain custody of her child.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend subsection (2)—
"(2) Where a child apparently under the age of twelve years is charged before a Court with an offence punishable in the case of an adult by penal servitude or a less punishment, the Court, if satisfied on inquiry that it is expedient so to deal with the child, may order him to be sent to a certified industrial school,"
by inserting, after the word "Court," the words "of Assize or Quarter Sessions or a Petty Sessional Court." The object was to do away with the power of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction when it was not sitting as a Petty Sessional Court to order a child charged with an offence to be sent to an industrial school.
Amendment moved—
"In page 30, line 22, after the word 'Court,' to insert the words' of Assize or Quarter Sessions or a Petty Sessional Court.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
Consequential Amendment to Clause 58 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend Clause 60, which was inserted in Committee on the Motion of Lord Lytton, viz.—
"Where under the provisions of this part of this Act an order is made for the committal of a child or young person to the care of a relative or other fit person named by the Court, in any case where such child or young person has been charged with an offence before the Court making the order, such child or young person may be placed under the supervision of a probation officer in like manner as if he had been charged with an offence and dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907,"
by leaving out all the words after "named by the Court" in order to insert other words. The object of the Amendment was to extend the operation of the clause, not only to those cases where an offence had been committed, but also to the case where a child or young person though not an offender was brought before the Court as coming within the many categories mentioned in Clause 58, subsection (1), which would enable the Court to send him to an industrial school.
Amendment moved—
"In page 32, line 30, to leave out from the word 'Court' to the end of the clause, and to insert the words 'the Court in addition to such order make an order under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, that the child or young person be placed under the supervision of a probation officer. Provided that the recognisance into which the child, if not charged with an offence, or the young person is required to enter, shall bind him to appear and submit to the further order of the Court.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
Consequential Amendments to Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to add at the end of Subsection (2) of Clause 68, which ran—
"Every child sent to an industrial school, shall, from the expiration of the period of his detention, remain up to the ago of eighteen under the supervision of the managers of the school,"
words which he explained were left out in Committee owing to an Amendment by Lord Kinnaird being taken by mistake as accepted by the Government. He hoped there would be no objection to the restoration of the proviso, the object of which was to secure that a

473
child sent to an industrial school for purely educational purposes should not be liable to supervision after attaining the age when education ceased to be compulsory. Without that provision, they would be practically treating as a criminal a child who had not been guilty of any serious offence.
Amendment moved—
"In page 30, line 41, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'Provided that this sub section shall not apply in any case where the child was ordered to be sent to an industrial school for the purpose only of enforcing an attendance order made in consequence of his parent, guardian, or other person legally liable, to maintain him neglecting to provide efficient elementary instruction for him.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD KINNAIRDsaid he regretted that the Government proposed to reintroduce this clause. The class of children sent to industrial schools under the subsection was found to be identical in character with the other children in the schools. It was undesirable to make a distinction with regard to supervision amongst the different children in the same school. The supervision was of a benevolent and parental nature, and for the benefit of the children, and there seemed to be no reason why these children should be deprived of this benefit. The after-care of children who had been sent to industrial schools was a most important part of their training and protection. After they left the schools the Home Office rightly required that the managers of the schools should keep in touch with them for three years, and report as to their conduct. Recognising the difficulty which the managers experienced in befriending and protecting these children, Parliament, in 1894, passed the Industrial Schools Act Amendment Act, under which most of them were placed under friendly supervision for two years after leaving the school. But the Act provided that if the children had been sent to the schools under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1893, they should not be under supervision on leaving. Nevertheless, the Home Office still required reports upon them. The result had been that often in the same school there were some children who would not be under legal supervision on leaving, and some who
474
would, and yet identically the same class of children, perhaps even brothers and sisters. The managers held that if their supervision was for the good of the children, and that was generally admitted, and if they were to be required to report to the Home Office annually concerning the children, and it was right that they should, then they ought to have the same powers of control if they saw one of the old boys or old girls going to the bad. They ought not to have their hands tied by this exception, which had for so many years hindered them in their good work. The law had been found to work well as far as they had been allowed to exercise it, and there was no justification for this exemption clause, for there was the best possible evidence that the children so exempted were the same class and needed supervision as much as the other children. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not agree to the re-introduction of the words which had been omitted.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHquestioned whether the Government were not making a mistake in trying in any way to create the impression that the supervision which took place with regard to a child after it had left the industrial school was in the nature of police supervision. This was what would be done by making the proposed distinction. The supervision which the managers gave to children after they had left industrial schools was eminently to the interest of the children, and he was sorry to see the supervision branded in this way.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend Clause 70, which provided that—
"If any youthful offender or child detained in or placed out on licence from a certified school, or a person when under the supervision of the managers of such a school, conducts himself well, the managers of the school may, with his own consent, apprentice him to, or dispose of him in, any trade, calling, or service, or by emigration, notwithstanding that his period of detention or supervision has not expired; and such apprenticing or disposition shall be as valid as if the managers were his parents."
He asked their Lordships to insert after the words "calling or service," the words

475
"including service in the Navy or Army." He said that although the words "calling or service" were sufficient in themselves to cover service in the Navy or Army, it was thought well that the managers should have this specially brought to their notice.
Amendment moved—
"In page 38, line 28, after the word 'service,' to insert the words 'including service in the Navy or Army.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
Drafting Amendments to Clause 72 agreed to.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved the omission of subsection (2) of Clause 74. The subsection ran—
"Where a child is ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school it shall be the duty of the local education authority of the district in which he resides (to be specified in the order) to provide for his reception and maintenance in a certified industrial school suitable to the case, having regard to the requirements of this Part of this Act."
He said this point was raised in Committee by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Donoughmore, and the more he considered it the more serious and important he regarded it, and he felt bound to press with all the energy he could the impolicy of the proposal in the clause as it stood. The principle with which he was dealing applied to reformatories and industrial schools, but reformatories were in a different position, and therefore he would limit his remarks to industrial schools. His object was to restore the Bill to its original shape as introduced by His Majesty's Government in the House of Commons. The change of which he complained was made in the Grand Committee, and it was vital to the interests of local education authorities. When a Bill was sent to Grand Committee it was entirely withdrawn from public observation; the proceedings were not reported, and the persons concerned did not know what was going on. The result in this case had been that in the Grand Committee a most serious change had been introduced which placed a very heavy financial burden on local authorities, while at the same time it fettered their judgment and power of
476
action. Originally the subsidising of voluntary industrial schools was left to the discretion of local authorities. They could subsidise or not; they could impose conditions and terms, and they were not responsible for the whole cost. Now, by this Bill the local authorities were not given a discretion to subsidise these schools within certain limits, but had the duty placed upon them of providing for the reception and maintenance of the children sent to them. That which was formerly a right was thereby converted into a duty. He thought it would be agreed that the words "provide for his reception and maintenance" threw the whole burden of maintenance upon the local authority. It might be said that subsection (8) of this clause still kept alive the power of making bargains; but what was the use of that power when the duty of bearing the whole cost had been thrown upon the local authority? Children were brought forward to be sent to industrial schools, not at all solely or mainly on the initiative of the local education authority. The Report of the London County Council for the year 1906–7 showed that there were charged by the police, 756 children; by officers of the London County Council, 523; by private individuals, 322 children; and by parents, 134 children. Their Lordships would, therefore, see that the large majority of the cases were bodies who, under this Bill, would have to pay. Moreover, the magistrate had absolute power to name the school to which the child should be sent, provided that school was willing to take him. This removed altogether the discretion of the local authority in the matter of the school. He understood that there was no need for any agreement between the local authority and the managers of the school, because when the school took the child they made a demand upon the local authority whose duty it became to pay. The local authority became chargeable with the whole financial burden, but had not one word to say as to the measure of local expenditure. It would be quite within the power of the managers of a school to raise the salaries of their staff and otherwise to increase the cost, and then to send in the bill to the local authority.

477
The great mass of improvements in industrial schools during the last twenty-five years had been the result of the pressure which great public authorities had brought to bear by coupling the requirements for greater efficiency with more liberal grants. The Home Office had shown no initiative in regard to these improvements, but had followed in the steps of the local authorities. Before Mr. Legge became the inspector, the Home Office were perfectly satisfied if the standard of education in industrial schools went up to the Fifth Standard, and were quite content with the most inefficient and stupid modes of industrial employment, such as wood-chopping, which did not in any way fit the child to earn his living in the future. Many of the industrial schools used to carry out strictly their name by putting the children to work half-time when other persons would have been summoned for so doing. All this had been improved as a result of the action of the local authorities, who had insisted upon a more enlightened curriculum, and upon the children not beginning industrial training until they had received the first elements of education. Again, it was often found that there was neglect in the proper selection of persons to whom the children should be licensed, and over this and other important matters connected with the future of the children a rigorous supervision had been exercised. The stimulus in bringing about the desired reform was liberal grants. In London, the grants had been increased at three separate periods, and now the London County Council had introduced a scale of grants which might go up to 10s. per child. In Committee, the Government had given a very good character to the Home Office; they were told that the Home Office were prepared to look in a broad and liberal way at the question of finance, but the latest evidence showed that the Home Office and the Treasury between them were prepared to do nothing of the kind. An Inter-departmental Committee, appointed in 1905, reported in favour of a considerable number of increases of grants from the Treasury; the great mass of those were rejected, and only a few small additions allowed. He had no
478
hesitation in saying that if the Treasury could throw upon the local authority the statutory obligation of bearing the whole cost in this case, they would have a very active disposition still further to restrict their grants. The fact that a school possessed the Home Office certificate was not in the least an assurance that it was a fit school to which to send children. It took a long time before the Home Office actually withdrew its certificate. Local authorities might have knowledge of schools whore the discipline was harsh, the life inert, the teaching dull, the methods superannuated; yet they might be compelled to send children to those schools. He was not now, or at any time, opposed to the maintenance of voluntary industrial schools; on the contrary, he recognised that there were certain qualities of voluntary management which a public authority would make a great mistake not to take advantage of He found in the recent Blue-book, like a fly in amber, an extract from a speech he made a little while ago at an industrial school anniversary at Macclesfield on the proper attitude of the State towards industrial schools. Therefore he did not stand before them as one hostile to voluntary industrial schools. But what would be the effect of this Bill? They were putting the burden of payment on one set of people, and the power of spending on another. A more profligate policy of waste he could not imagine, and it was all the more extraordinary as coming from a Liberal Government who had been occupied for some years in denouncing the shortcomings of Mr. Balfour's Act in relation to the voluntary schools. By that Act voluntary schools were undoubtedly put on the rates, but the local authority had complete financial control. He was not saying that the powers of control were sufficient. But here the safeguards for financial control embodied in Mr. Balfour's Act were utterly disregarded. He would utilise these observations as a warning to the Government that they should at any rate be consistent with themselves, and not denounce in connection with an elementary school what they proposed to do to a very much worse extent in connection with

479
industrial schools. Industrial schools were very often more intensely denominational than ordinary schools; and if they were allowed to increase the salaries at their own discretion this would be, in many cases, equivalent to an endowment of the convent or order at the expense of the ratepayers. He earnestly hoped their Lordships would not strike this blow at local self-government by imposing upon persons who had not been consulted an obligation which hitherto no one had ever contemplated could reasonably be placed upon them. Voluntary industrial schools as compared to those under public management were about five to one, except truants schools and day industrial schools. It might be said that if a public authority did not choose to pay for the children in these voluntary industrial schools the public authority might build schools of its own. He would be very sorry to see that; he would regret to see voluntary schools not utilised to the utmost when they could be, by judicious co-operation between the public authorities and the school managers. Moreover, did they think it likely that the Home Office would sanction the establishment of new schools when the existence could be shown of four or five thousand available places in schools under private management? If the clause passed in its present form the voluntary managers would be able to spend what they pleased and compel the counties to pay what they demanded.
Amendment moved—
"In page 41, lines 13 to 18, to leave out subsection (2)."—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Government were obliged to adhere to their decision on a similar Amendment moved in Committee. He ventured to think that Lord Stanley had taken a somewhat exaggerated view of what was likely to be the effect of the subsection. A large number of local authorities already took advantage of the power which they possessed, and the chief alteration made by the subsection was that it compelled the other authorities to make arrangements and to provide for the reception and maintenance of children ordered to
480
be sent to certified industrial schools. The practical result of the subsection would probably be that the local education authority would make such conditions with the managers of the school to which a child was sent as they thought right. They could, and probably would provide for their representation on the board of management and for the price at which the child should be taken. The subsection was not nearly so violent as the noble Lord seemed to think. The local education authority would also be entitled to be heard before the magistrate as to the choice of a school. That the obligation imposed by the subsection should be put on the local education authority was strongly urged on the Government on the Second Reading and afterwards, and it was inserted in Committee on those representations. The provision had met with approval in many quarters and he hoped their Lordships would allow it to remain.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREpointed out that the old practice was that the magistrate made the order for the child to be sent to a school and that the local authority had the right to select the school; but under this provision the magistrate would actually select the school. It seemed to him a very considerable and far-reaching change to say to the authority, "You must provide the money, but you shall not have the right to veto the school. You shall only have the right to try to do so."
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved an Amendment with the object of securing the representation of the local authority on the governing body of the school. The change which this Bill made consisted in taking away from the local authority the absolute right of selecting the school and substituting for that merely the right to protest before the magistrate against the school selected. Their Lordships had decided not to alter that, and therefore that would be the position in the future. But he felt that if that was to be the case, and if the local authority were not to have a controlling voice in the selection of the school, they should at any rate be assured of

481
representation on the board of management of the school. The noble Earl the Lord Steward had said that the local authority would be able to arrange for this in making the contract. He wished he thought so. If a school chose to stand out and decline to allow representation, the local authority would, nevertheless, if the magistrate accepted that school, have to pay though they might be absolutely ignorant of the conditions under which the school was conducted. As Lord Stanley had shown, practically all the improvements that had been made in industrial schools had been due to the pressure of local authorities; but under this Bill that power of pressure disappeared. Local authorities were placed in a much weaker position in making their bargain. The Liberal Party had provided an exact precedent for his Amendment in the Elementary Education Act of 1893 dealing with blind and deaf children. Clause 3 of that Act provided that—
"The terms of contribution approved by the Education Department may include provision for the representation of the contributing school authority on the governing body of the school to which it contributes in cases where such representation appears to the Education Department practicable and expedient."
This was an exact parallel, and as it came from the forefathers of the present Government he hoped his Amendment on the same lines would be accepted.
Amendment moved—
"In page 42, line 42, after the word 'provision,' to insert the words 'and in cases where it appears to the Secretary of State practicable and expedient the contract shall provide for the representation of the local authority on the governing body of the certified school.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Home Office were not of opinion that this was a necessary Amendment, and therefore, he could not accept it. The local authority could make out the conditions of the contract which they would come to, and the position of the local education authority and of the managers of the school was the reverse of that which the noble Earl seemed to imagine. Instead of the local education authority going cap in hand to the managers, he thought it far more likely that the managers of the schools would be anxious to have
482
the children, and to have them at a reasonable price. In return for that undoubted advantage there was no doubt at all that they would be perfectly willing that the local authority should be represented upon the governing body. In the opinion of the Government it was better that this matter should be left to mutual arrangement between the local authority and the representatives of the school.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid the noble Earl the Lord Steward had completely misread the Bill if he supposed that the power of contracting was of any use at all. It was not the local contributing authority who selected the school. What determined the admission of the child was the wish of the magistrate, the consent of the parent, and the willingness of the school to receive. The power of contracting was a very useful one when it was a voluntary act, but it was useless here because the two parties were not negotiating on equal terms. The local authority could not come to an arrangement as to how much they would contribute, for the Bill provided that the local authority should pay the whole cost.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My own knowledge, I confess, is imperfect, but I am anxious to understand what the point made by the noble Earl opposite and the noble Lord behind me actually is. I understand that their argument is that the magistrate consigns the child to a particular school, and it then becomes imperative on the local authority to send the child to that particular school whereby the power of bargaining on the local authority's side disappears.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Is valueless.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The local authority, as I understand, will send the child to a school at which it has paid, or is prepared to pay, for a place for him or her; but if the local authority does not pay for that place it is in no way bound to send the child to that particular school. That being so, I should have thought that a very considerable bargaining power remained to the local authority. There is nothing in the Bill, either explicit or implicit, as

483
it seems to me, which really gives the power which is ascribed by the noble Earl opposite to an order to send a child to a particular school.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid there was not so much between the Government and himself as appeared. The opinion of the Government seemed to be that the dangers he apprehended could not occur under the Bill. Having secured that admission he was satisfied, and would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Consequential Amendment to Clause 75 agreed to.
Drafting Amendments to Clause 108 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved the insertion, in Clause 108, of a new subsection enabling the Local Government Board to transfer from the Metropolitan Asylums Board to the London County Council any buildings for the purpose of remand homes under Section 4 of the Youthful Offenders Act, 1901, the buildings to become places of detention for the purposes of Part V. This was, he had understood, an agreed Amendment. But he had that day received a communication from Lord Middleton concerning it, and if it were necessary to make any further change it could be done on Third Reading.
Amendment moved—
"In page 62, line 25, after the word 'county,' to insert the following new subsection: (12) The Local Government Board may by order transfer from the Metropolitan Asylums Board to the London County Council any buildings provided by the Metropolitan Asylums Board for the purpose of remand homes under Section 4 of the Youthful Offenders Act, 1901, together with any liabilities incurred by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in connection with such buildings, and on such transfer the buildings shall become places of detention for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and the order may also provide for the transfer of any officers employed by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in connection with such remand homes, and for securing to such officers any rights as to pension or otherwise to which they may be entitled.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved the addition of a new subsection to Clause 111. Its object was, he said, to secure that where a mistake had been made with regard to the age of a child the proceedings should not be delayed but should proceed irrespective of the mistake.
Amendment moved—
In Clause 111, page 63, line 36, after the first "and" to insert the words "a Court of Summary Jurisdiction so sitting in this Act referred to as a juvenile Court.
"(2) Where in the course of any proceedings in a juvenile Court it appears to the court that the person charged or to whom the proceedings relate is sixteen years or upwards, or where in the course of any proceedings in any Court of Summary Jurisdiction other than a juvenile Court it appears that the person charged or to whom the proceedings relate is under the age of sixteen years, nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the Court if it thinks it undesirable to adjourn the case from proceeding with the hearing and determination of the case.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert, at the beginning of Part VI., the following new clause—
"Where a woman is convicted of the murder of her infant, and that child was under the age of one year, the Court may, in lieu of passing a sentence of death, sentence her to penal servitude for life or any less punishment."
Their Lordships would remember that he moved the insertion of this new clause in Committee, but postponed it until this stage on the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. He did not wish to enlarge upon it. The considerations for and against this new clause lay within a small compass. In point of fact the death penalty in such cases had become obsolete, and since 1849, though sentence of death had often been passed, it had never been carried into effect, with the result that it was repellant and revolting to those who knew that the sentence would not be carried out, and it was horrifying to those who, being ignorant, thought the sentence meant what it declared. If it could be included among beneficial or harmless conventionalities it might remain, but he found himself in unison with the Home Secretary in the opinion that it was neither beneficial

485
nor harmless, and interfered with the due administration of justice. Where there was no choice between conviction and acquittal juries were very much disposed to acquit a mother of the murder charge. In Scotland, where juries had the alternative of conviction for culpable homicide, there had in twenty years been no conviction for murder in such cases, and in England juries took refuge in verdicts of concealment of birth. That showed the feelings of the juries in those painful cases. Moreover, a good many people would not give evidence at these trials. The consequence was that the administration of justice was obstructed. When they overtaxed any commodity they produced smuggling. In like manner, when they over-punished people they defeated their purpose of bringing the guilty to justice. One of the arguments which had been advanced against his Amendment was that it set up two standards of the sanctity of human life. But all that his Amendment proposed was to enable the Judge not to announce a punishment which, by common consent, ought not to be inflicted. It had also been said that it was not fair to put Judges in the position of having to decide whether the sentence should be one of death or penal servitude. He should have thought it would be an alleviation of the painful position the Judges were now in of being obliged to pass sentence of death if the jury convicted. His Amendment gave the Judges the right, if they thought fit, to extend mercy in the sentence, as the Home Office extended it in the actual punishment; and he submitted that the Amendment was quite appropriate to a Children's Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"After Clause 113, and at the beginning of Part VI., to insert the following new clause: 'Where a woman is convicted of the murder of her infant, and that child was under the ago of one year, the Court may, in lieu of passing a sentence of death, sentence her to penal servitude for liie or any less punishment.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ALVERSTONEsaid that when he spoke on the last occasion he had only had two hours to consider his noble and learned friend's Amendment. Since
486
the Committee stage he had given this matter his most careful consideration, and he was sorry to say he felt obliged to ask their Lordships not to accept the Amendment. He would be glad to consider a scheme for the reform of the law, whereby this difficulty—the painful character of which he fully recognised—of having to pronounce the death sentence in cases where it would not be carried into effect might be removed, but it was impossible to do it by an Amendment to the Children Bill. He could understand the application of some such a clause to the case of a poor girl who in the frenzy of delivery killed her infant; but he feared that if the clause, as it stood, were adopted, the worst murders of infants—the killing of infants of three or six months old by deliberate starvation and ill-treatment—would become of much greater frequency. If his noble and learned friend thought that by this clause he would get rid of the sentence of death in cases where the Home Office did not allow it to be carried out, he was greatly mistaken. There were, of course, numbers of cases besides those of infanticide where the same difficulty arose. He could not imagine anything worse than to leave to the discretion of the Judge the question whether or not the death sentence should be imposed, particularly in the case of the murder of every infant up to the age of one year. It should depend upon the law, and not upon the view of the particular Judge. If the Amendment were adopted there would be what would be known as hanging Judges and non-hanging Judges; there would be Judges who would think it right to pass sentence of death and others who would not. The Lord Chancellor had pointed out one way in which their object might be achieved, by allowing a verdict, of culpable homicide to be returned. If that were right, let them assimilate the law of England to that of Scotland in this matter. Personally he had always felt that it was wiser to have the difficulty dealt with by the prerogative of mercy exercised through the responsible Minister.
THE LORD CHANCELLORasked that he might be allowed to say a few words by the indulgence of the House. He was glad his noble and learned friend

487
thought that some remedy was necessary, but none had been suggested, and the only remedy was that which was recommended to their Lordships, after the most careful consideration, by the Home Secretary and himself. If the House thought a year was too long, he was willing to modify the clause by inserting some shorter time, say three months. He recognised that the necessity of passing sentence of death would still exist in other cases where it was obvious from the circumstances that the sentence would not be executed. These were cases which could not be classified, but that difficulty did not arise in regard to the cases referred to in his clause. He could assure the House, not on his own authority, but on the authority of those more qualified to judge, that the present system seriously interfered with the administration of justice.
THE EARL OF HALSBURYconfessed that it was with considerable reluctance that he differed from his noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack. He was quite aware how earnestly and carefully the Lord Chancellor had considered this matter, and regretted his inability to concur in his view. His noble and learned friend had stated that the law as it stood did mischief. He was not quite certain that his noble and learned friend had not very much exaggerated that mischief. He felt that the adoption of the Amendment would do infinitely more mischief. It was quite true that for a very long period it had not been usual to inflict the death penalty in such cases as they had in mind; but was it desirable to make a general proclamation that the death penalty would never be inflicted for these murders? The fact that the death penalty might be inflicted was intended as a deterrent, and he thought it would be a very questionable proceeding to make it the law that the death penalty could never be inflicted. He thought that the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and of the other Judges—for in this matter the Lord Chief Justice represented the feeling of the other Judges—who had actual experience in the administration of the criminal law, was of overwhelming importance in a point of this
488
kind. Their Lordships would be taking a very great responsibility upon themselves if they ran counter to the opinions of the Judges who were daily engaged in such matters. He was a little surprised that no reference had been made to the fact that within his memory it was not compulsory upon the Judge to inflict the death penalty; he might record judgment of death, but need not inflict the sentence. He remembered well the discussions that took place on that matter. One of the important arguments against it, and which carried with it the Legislature, was that the discretion of exercising the sentence to put to death ought not to be committed to the Judges, and partly for the reason stated by the Lord Chief Justice. He had the utmost respect for the Judges, most of whom were personal friends of his own, but they had peculiarities, and should not have the power of determining whether or not the death sentence should be passed. When it was the practice for the Judge to have discretion either to pronounce sentence of death or simply to record it, the arguments against that were so cogent that, he believed without any opposition, the law was repealed. With regard to the Amendment now before the House, if the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and the Judges had been the other way, he would have felt bound to yield his opinion to theirs, but, inasmuch as he had come to the conclusion that the Lord Chief Justice was right, he should vote with Lord Alverstone and against the Amendment if they went to a division.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARKpointed out that the question before the House was not one of extending or contracting the area of the death penalty, but whether it was desirable that a sentence of the most solemn kind should be publicly pronounced when not only would it not be carried out, but when every one present in Court, except, perhaps, the poor prisoner, knew it would not be carried out. Personally, he must leave the question to those more skilled in legal matters, but if the Lord Chief Justice did not join with the Lord Chancellor in this attempt to remedy an admitted defect in our procedure, he hoped Lord

489
Alverstone would feel in his conscience that some responsibility rested upon him to take action in some other way.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid this was a Bill to safeguard the lives of children and to benefit children. The Amendment, though meant in the best possible spirit, was not calculated to enhance the security of the lives of children. The Amendment taken by itself might have the effect of weakening respect for the lives of very young children. In the first few months of the lives of children, before they could do anything to help themselves, it was a very grave step to do anything which might take away that solemnity and sanctity which should be attached to life. The Amendment would thrust upon the Judges a most painful duty and responsibility. The evil of these death sentences being passed had, he thought, been exaggerated, for over and over again, in cases of infanticide, juries, instead of bringing in a verdict of guilty of murder, brought in merely a verdict of concealment of birth. While perfectly ready to examine a well-conceived and well-considered measure of reform, he was unable to support the new clause on the ground that he did not think it should find a place in a Bill dealing with the protection and welfare of children.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The discussion of this Amendment has been almost entirely confined to legal members of the House of the very highest authority. I do not propose to add anything to what has been said by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who, I think, has stated his case as clearly, as fully, and as temperately as it can be stated. I merely rose to ask a question on a point of fact. I understood Lord Halsbury to quote the Lord Chief Justice as having said that he was stating not merely his own opinion but that of the Judges as a whole. I did not hear that fall from the Lord Chief Justice.
LORD ALVERSTONEsaid that he had consulted all the Judges at present in London, and they entirely agreed with the view he had expressed on this subject. He believed, however, that Lord Coleridge entertained a great objection to the sentence of death being passed and not carried into effect, though he did not know that the noble and learned Lord was in favour of the option being given to the Judge.
LORD COLERIDGEsaid that a sentence which was never carried into effect ought not to be passed, and the reasons in favour of not passing in public a sentence which was never carried into effect were surely stronger when that sentence carried with it the great ceremonial solemnities of passing sentence of death. Whoever had passed through the experience of passing such a sentence knew well that he had discharged a very grave function indeed, and to deprive that function of its solemnity was to deprive it of its reality as well as of its efficacy as a warning. Though he could not vote against the Amendment, he recognised that there were very grave objections to the placing in the power of the Judge the decision whether or not he should pronounce the sentence of death. The sentences in the case of women dealt with by this clause were never carried into effect, and he did not think that in these particular cases the Judge should feel bound to take upon himself a personal responsibility not given by the law which he must discharge according to the verdict of the jury. Though he recognised the gravity of the reasons urged by the Lord Chief Justice, he thought that in this particular class of offences the danger indicated would never arise; and therefore, on the whole, he would vote for the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, "That the new clause be there inserted."
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 36; Not-contents, 42.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Carrington, E.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Chichester, E.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Craven, E.

Allendale, L.

Granville, E.

Armitstead, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Coleridge, L.

Herschell, L.

St. Davids, L.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Lochee, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Farrer, L.

Lucas, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Glantawe, L.

Lyveden, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

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

Marchamley, L.

Stanmore, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Haversham, L.

Pirrie, L.

Weardale, L.

Hemphill, L.

Poltimore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Plymouth, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Newcastle, D.

Russell, E.

Colchester, L.

Somerset, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Heneage, L.

Bath, M.

Falkland, V.

Hindlip, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Goschen, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Salisbury, M.

Hood, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Knaresborough, L.

Camperdown, E.

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

St. Aldwyn, V.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Eldon, E.

Alverstone, L.

Sanderson, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Hardwicke, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Morley, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved the omission of Clause 118. This clause, he said, dealt with the children of vagrants, and provided that such children who were of school age might, in certain circumstances, be taken from the vagrants and sent to an industrial school. There were, of course, vagrants of various kinds, and his attention had been particularly directed to the case of gypsies, which differed from that of other vagrants. Subsection (1) of the clause enacted that—
"If a person habitually wanders from place to place and takes with him any child above the age of five, he shall, unless he proves that the child is totally exempted from school attendance or that the child is not by being so taken with him prevented from receiving efficient elementary education, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding with costs twenty shillings, and shall for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the descriptions of children who may be sent to a certified industrial school, be deemed to be not to be exercising proper guardianship over the child."
That subsection threw upon the vagrant parent the onus of showing that the child was receiving sufficient elementary education, and it applied to children as young as five years. Subsection (2) provided an exceedingly summary and rather drastic way of enforcing this provision. It ran—
"Any constable who finds a person wandering from place to place and taking a child with him may, if he has reasonable ground for believing that the person is guilty of an offence under this section—
492
that was to say, that his child was not receiving efficient elementary education—
"Apprehend him without a warrant, and may take the child to a place of safety in accordance with the provisions of Part II. of this Act, and that Part shall apply accordingly as if an offence under this section were an offence under that Part."
That subsection actually gave power to a village constable to enter a caravan of gypsies and immediately arrest, without warrant, a parent, if he thought his child was not receiving efficient elementary education, and also take the child away. He was informed by those who were acquainted with the affection which gypsies had for their children, and their resentment of interference, that any attempt to enforce this subsection would provoke a great deal of disorder, and possibly lead to riot or bloodshed. He had been informed that gypsies had shown themselves willing to take advantage of education for their children if, for instance, arrangements could be made by which the children could be educated chiefly in the winter months, when the gypsies were not travelling about. It had been suggested that there was no great hardship in the provision, because the gypsy or other vagrant could find some relative with a fixed abode who would take the children. That was a very easy and convenient departmental view, but the probability

493
was that the pure-blooded gypsy had no settled relatives, and, in case he had, he would have to pay a substantial sum for the keep of the children; so that he lost the society of his children, and had to pay what, to him, would be a considerable sum for their support. He did not propose to press for the omission of the clause at this stage, but hoped the Home Office would consider the matter, and see whether it would not be possible to deal with the problem of the education of such vagrant children by methods of conciliation rather than by force.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 118."—(Earl Russell.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. The real point was that the machinery of the Education Acts broke down when it was a question of trying to get these children into school, because by the time the ordinary procedure was followed, the gypsies had moved to a place outside the jurisdiction of the authority. Therefore, it was essential that the constable should have power to deal with the matter summarily. His Majesty's Government attached a good deal of importance to the clause. Their hope was that the children in question might be boarded with relatives during the winter months, and, if so, one of the chief objects of the clause would be attained.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREasked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consult with the Home Office as to whether the very great power given in subsection (2) might not be restricted to a more responsible person than a constable. He suggested the substitution of an inspector of police or a sergeant.
LORD FARRERhoped the Government would retain the clause as at present drafted. He did not think anyone not living in semi-rural districts round large towns knew the extent of the evil. These vagrant children were simply brought up to a life of crime. He had been told by the police in his own district that certainly 50 per cent. of the crime there was accounted for by vagrant
494
families. They were not the gypsies of the old kind, with whom he had a certain amount of sympathy; there were extremely few of the old gypsies felt. He failed to see why the children of vagrants alone among English children should escape the Education Act. It seemed to him that the arguments of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment were directed rather against the Education Act of 1870 than against this particular clause. Canal-boat children were under similar difficulties, but their education had been provided for in very much the same way under the Canal Boats Act. It would be quite impossible to deal effectively with these children without some such drastic clause as that under discussion. The law at present was being evaded, and it was the unanimous wish of the county councils that the clause in the Bill should remain.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think this is a question of some difficulty, because we all, even the noble Lord who has just sat down, have a certain sympathy with the genuine gypsies who carry into this very unromantic age some flavour of a more attractive life than that which is led by many people in this country. But, on the other hand, there is an admitted evil, and none of us go so far as to say that because a man chooses to live in a van rather than a house and prefers to wander about the roads he should therefore be excused from the liability of having his children educated. My noble friend the Lord Steward will, I am sure, consider this point very carefully before the next stage, and see whether any means can be found of meeting the objections raised by the noble Earl with reference to the somewhat drastic proposal in the clause, though I do not think it will be very easy to do so for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord who spoke last. It is very difficult to devise any half-way house between immediate action by the constable and round-about action which is altogether ineffective. But my noble friend will consider the matter with the Home Office, in the hope of arriving at some solution.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas glad to hear the sympathetic way in

495
which the noble Earl the Leader of the House had treated this difficult matter. They all had some sympathy with the gypsies, who were happy in their own way, and were intensely attached to their children; and it struck him that to give power to a perhaps too zealous policeman to take a child of these people away, perhaps a little child of five, because, in his opinion, its education was not being properly attended to, might be inflicting considerably more hardship than their Lordships would really desire. The difficulty had been freely stated by the noble Earl who had just sat down. There was no reason why these children should remain uneducated. He hoped that, if the clause were passed into law in its present form, it would be tenderly administered, though he did not feel that the village constable was the person he would trust to administer tenderly a provision of this sort.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid this was a matter which had greatly interested the county councils, and in the early part of the session he introduced a Bill dealing with it. He had not, however, proceeded with the Bill, because one of the chief points in his Bill, the education of these wandering children, was being dealt with in this particular measure. While he admitted that his proposals were in a way less drastic than those in the present Bill, still he was sure the Government had framed this provision after much consideration and that they were warranted in their action by the necessities of the case. While vagrant parents were allowed to wander about it was impossible for any attendance officer to carry out the law. It was necessary to stop their peregrination, and the provision in the clause seemed to him suitable for the purpose. He did not think there was any probability that the power would be hardly used, or that the vagrant would be arrested unless he proceeded to wander after being warned that he was required to bring his child before a magistrate and answer for the offence he had committed. He hoped the clause would stand, even if it were necessary to modify it in some particular.
EARL RUSSELLwithdrew his Amendment, in view of the satisfactory assurance
496
from the noble Earl the Leader of the House that the matter would be considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to omit the words "or nurse" from Clause 119, which ran—
"If any person gives, or causes to be given, to any child under the age of five any intoxicating liquor, except upon the order of a fully-qualified medical practitioner or nurse, or in any case of sickness, or apprehended sickness, or other urgent cause, he shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding three pounds."
It was proposed to omit these words on the ground that they were unduly vague. If they inserted before the word "nurse" the words "fully qualified," the objection was that there was no body of recognised qualified nurses in this country. On the other; hand, if the word "nurse" were not qualified there was nothing to prevent any one who might call himself or herself a nurse giving intoxicating liquor to the child. In these circumstances, it was thought better to omit the two words altogether. There would still be adequate safeguard in the clause.
Amendment moved—
"In page 66, line 13, to leave out the words 'or nurse.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the noble Earl is quite right in omitting from this clause the reference to nurses. I almost wish he would have a little more courage and omit the clause altogether. It seems to me one of the most extraordinarily foolish provisions that could be put into the Bill. It is a clause which renders liable to pains and penalties any person who gives any intoxicating liquor to a child under the age of five except in case of sickness or apprehended sickness. Does the noble Earl think that any conviction is likely to be possible when either of these excuses can be pleaded by the person who gives the intoxicating liquor? The excuse will be that the child was not feeling very well or that it was expected that the child was not going to be very well. It seems to me that this is a specimen of the kind of vexatious and superfluous legislation of which I am

497
afraid a great many examples are to be found in this Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: It is quite possible that the number of convictions under this clause may not be very great, but it is an unfortunate fact that a very large number of children are brought up on stimulants. They are also brought up on other classes of food which are just as bad for them. A large number of children are given a share of whatever is going at the family meal, including stimulants. I think if this is made an illegal practice it will call the attention of such parents, who act out of thoughtlessness rather than out of desire to do mischief, to the fact that it is extremely reprehensible and dangerous. Therefore the clause does seem to me to serve a useful purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Making our statutes into sermons.
Drafting Amendment in Clause 131 agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHexplained that his Amendment to Clause 131 was designed to secure that in Scotland the officers of local authorities should have the same power as the officers of similar local authorities in England and Ireland to institute proceedings for a certain class of offences. He did not see why there should not be this power in Scotland. Probably the noble Earl the Lord Steward would reply that the whole system was different in Scotland, that they had in that country a system of public prosecutors who were paid by salary, and that if this power were given to the local authority a claim would immediately afterwards be made for the payment of the fines to the local authority, which would cut into the Treasury's right to take the fines. He did not propose, at that late hour, to raise a discussion on the point; but he would be very glad to have an assurance that those who controlled the procurators fiscal would see that in this matter the law was administered with promptitude and efficiency.
Amendment moved—
"In page 73, line 27, after the word 'magistrate' to insert the words 'Provided further that a prosecution for an offence under Part I. or Part II. of this Act may be instituted by the inspector of poor or any other person authorised by the local authority.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he was authorised by the Lord Advocate to assure the noble Lord that the procurators fiscal would be specially instructed in the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Verbal Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to leave out subsection (21) of Clause 131.
Amendment moved—
"In page 75, line 34, to page 76, line 15, to leave out subsection (21)."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHasked whether the precise effect of this Amendment would be to leave the law exactly as it stood at the present time in Scotland. The subsection would undoubtedly have seriously altered the law of settlement, and would have made the particular parish in which the child sentenced to the industrial school happened to be at the moment of arrest liable for all time to defray the expenses. He desired to make sure that the acceptance of the noble Earl's Amendment would not only leave the law of settlement in these cases in the same position as it was, but place local authorities in Scotland in exactly the same position in relation to the Treasury as local authorities in England. If so, he would not move the later Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid he was authorised to assure the noble Lord that local authorities in Scotland were in precisely the same position, in the connection which he mentioned, as the local authorities in England and Ireland; and also that the Bill made no change in the law of settlement in Scotland.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved the insertion of a new subsection, which he explained had been adjusted in consultation with those interested in the matter.
Amendment moved—
"In page 79, line 5, after the word 'order,' to insert the following new subsection: '(26) The immediately preceding subsection shall apply to the Aberdeen Reformatories and Industrial Schools Act, 1885, as if it were herein re-enacted with the omission of the portions thereof under the headings (b) (c) and (d), and with the substitution of the last-mentioned Act for the Glasgow Acts.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday the 24th instant, and to be printed as amended. [No. 225.]
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.