desired to state why he should not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. Originally the Bill contained clauses to impose rates and charges. Those clauses did not now appear, and he understood no attempt would be made to re-insert them at any other stage of the proceedings. If that was so, one obstacle would be removed. If the Joint Docks Committee had been more willing to confer with the London Chamber of Commerce and other bodies probably no difficulty would have arisen, and some assistance might have been given in promoting the interests of a private company, the shareholders of which were fully entitled to consideration. Those whom he represented, however, reserved their right to protest, either at other stages of the present Bill, or in connection with other Bills, against any delay or prejudice which might arise to the general question of the inquiry into the interests of the port of London—a matter upon which the President of the Board of Trade had a very strong feeling, and which he (the speaker) hoped would ultimately be referred to a Royal Commission or Committee in accordance with an amendment he had put down upon the Order Paper, in relation to the Lighterage Rates Bill of the Joint Committee. His only other point was that, inasmuch as this Bill provided for additional capital or the rearrangement of capital, supposing such a Commission should ultimately lead to a general dock or harbour trust, not necessarily a municipal one, he reserved his right to object to the companies having any claim, in relation to this new capital or rearrangement of capital, to compensation. Subject to these remarks, he was quite prepared to treat the Bill as one for internal purposes only, and one which he hoped would be of advantage to the share- holders, and not inconsistent with the great trade interests of the port of London, which urgently demanded attention lest its trade should, owing to the dearness of the port, or the want of dock and river facilities and appliances, and better and more modern and up-to-date methods, be diverted to competing ports in England and on the Continent, as was now being done.

I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is not a new Bill, but one which has been before the House on many occasions, originally as part of a much larger measure, the Partnerships Bill, but since 1882 alone and very much in the form in which it is now introduced to the House. But although it has been before the House on so many occasions, and although it is backed by the practically universal opinion of the commercial world, it has never yet had the good fortune to be debated on its second reading. Obviously, I as a new Member of this House, have no right to claim any credit in connection with this Bill, but there are two Members in the House who have done so much for the measure in the past that I should like to allude to them. One is the hon. Member for Gloucester, who sat on the Committee which, in 1872, considered the principle underlying this Bill, and I am sure it will be a pleasure to him who has done so much useful work in an unostentatious way, and who has made so many friends, and, I think, no enemies, to see this Bill pass. The other hon. Gentleman to whom I desire to allude is the Member for South Islington, whoal so has done much for this Bill in removing misconceptions and in helping it forward both during and since the time he was president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. If I were addressing an assembly of purely commercial men I confess I should speak very shortly in regard to this question, but the House necessarily, and most properly, represents other important interests than those of commerce, and it will be only respectful to the House, and I shall be only doing my duty to the Bill, if I deal briefly with the history of the question, make out the case for the Bill, show what the measure will do, and reply to criticisms which, in the past at any rate, have from time to time been passed on the proposal. If in doing so I have to detain the House at some length, I hope the House will understand that it is because I desire to do whatever my poor ability will allow me to do in support of the Bill. I have said that this is no new subject to the House of Commons or to the commercial world. In the Committee to which I referred—the Committee of Trade Partnerships, which sat in 1872— consideration was given to the question with which this Bill deals, and also to other questions. At that time it was impossible for a firm to be sued in the firm's name for a civil debt. That gross anomaly and injustice was removed by the Judicature Act of 1873. But most of the evidence taken and most of the Report made by that Committee dealt with this question of the registration of firms. The evidence was preponderatingly in favour of the principles of the Bill the Second Reading of which I have the honour to move this afternoon. Evidence was given in favour of those principles by the representatives of the London and Westminster Bank, Baring Brothers, Smith, Payne and Smiths, and some of the country banks; by Stubbs' Agency (the great private inquiry agency); by Mr. Ryland, the well-known solicitor of Birmingham; and by two Members of this House whose authority in commercial matters at that time was very great—the late Mr. Samuel Morley and Mr. Duncan McLaren. There was, of course, some evidence against the principles of the Bill given before that Committee, principally by the late Lord Fairer (then Mr. Thomas Farrer, permanent secretary to the Board of Trade), Mr. Edmund Potter {the Member for Manchester), and the late Mr. Robert N. Philips. With the nature of that evidence and the objections which were made against the principles of this measure I will deal later, but I want to draw particular attention to the fact that Mr. Potter and Mr. Philips gave evidence at that time against those principles. That Committee sat in 1872, and both those gentlemen came from Manchester. At that time the country was enjoying a period of extraordinary prosperity. We are rejoicing now in a period of great commercial prosperity, but our present prosperity is nothing like so great as was that of 1872. In 1872 much of the great prosperity of the country was put down to the successful carrying out of the principles of Free Trade, and probably what is known as the Manchester school of thought was inclined to attach too much importance to what laissez faire could do in regard to the trade of the country. The principles of those who follow the doctrine of laissez faire are, of course, opposed to anything in the way of restrictions and registrations, whether in regard to trade or the conduct of our factories or any other question. I think this circumstance accounts to a large extent for the fact that Manchester at that time gave evidence against the principles of the Bill. Now the case is different. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce is in favour of the Bill. There are three Members of this House who are directors of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, each of whom, I believe, is in favour of the measure. In connection with the Committee of which I speak, a Report against the principles of this Bill was proposed by Mr. Potter but rejected by eight to three, and the Report as eventually carried was very definite in regard to the question we are considering. For the purpose of proving that I must read a few extracts therefrom. Paragraph 4 of that Report said—

"It further appears that the public registration of names and addresses of the persons composing trading firms would … without imposing any unreasonable obligation … be of much advantage to honest traders and to the public generally."

It goes on in Paragraph 5 to say—

"… your Committee are of opinion that no sufficient reason exists for registering the names of persons who carry on business in their own full names."

Then follows an opinion against the necessity of registering temporary partnerships and small traders, because the former are not strictly firms, and the latter mostly trade in their own names. Paragraph 6 says—

"Your Committee have arrived at the conclusion that it is expedient that the real constitution of all firms should be known, and that it is practicable to effect that object by a system of compulsory registration."

Paragraph 7 deals with the particulars which ought to be registered—particulars almost exactly the same as we ask for in this Bill. Paragraphs 8 to 12 deal with the machinery, and Paragraph 14 with the question of penalties. Finally, in Paragraph 15, dealing further with the question of penalties, this Report says—

"Nevertheless, some penalty must be affixed for neglect to register." "…. they recommend that non-registration by any firm may be pleaded in bar of any action brought by a member of a non-registered firm in respect of any debt or contract by such a firm. And, further, that the fees for registration should be on a rapidly increasing scale in reference to the time elapsed from the time when the registration should have been made."

I therefore claim the support of that Committee for the principles of this Bill, and I further claim the support of the commercial world. Ever since 1862 the Associated Chambers of Commerce have had this question before them almost year by year, and they have always passed resolutions in favour of such a proposal by a very large majority, while of late years the resolution has been introduced with very little debate at all and passed absolutely unanimously. I proceed now to deal with the case for the Bill. This Bill seeks to make compulsory the registration of the names and addresses of the person or persons who are in business for the purpose of profit, and who do not trade under their full or usual name or names. For example, if John Smith is trading as John Smith he need not register under this Bill; but if he is trading as John Smith and Company he must register. If John Smith and James Jones are partners trading together they may trade as John Smith and James Jones without registering; but if they trade as John Smith and Company, or as Jones and Company, or as Brown and Company, they must register. That is what the Bill seeks to do. The reasons for the Bill are, I think, obvious. In the first place, it will tend to promote commercial honesty. The Bill would make it much more difficult for a man to trade under several names for purposes of fraud. I am perfectly aware that one cannot make people honest by Acts of Parliament. But what Acts of Parliament can do is to remove temptations to roguery. Many men desire to be honest, but are weak; but if, when tempted to roguery, they find detection easy and permanent success improbable, they refrain. Secondly, I claim as the great advantage of this Bill that it will be an enormous aid to people in business who give credit. In regard to this matter the theorist, who always knows so much better than you do how to conduct your business, says, "Oh, you would never give credit without inquiry." But the fact remains that an enormous number of people in business do, and people who talk like that know, as a rule, very little of business. An enormous proportion of the business of this country is done by people without a knowledge of who are the partners of the firms with which they are trading. I have seen figures which show that of the private firms dealt with by a very large house, in only one-sixth are the names of the partners known. Englishmen in some ways are peculiar. They easily resent too searching inquiries about themselves, and if too searching inquiries are made of them they are inclined to say, "Oh, very well, if you do not trust me your competitor will," and they go elsewhere. I venture to say that a great deal of the business of this country is done without that strict conformity to law or to prudence which my ideal theorist is apt to advocate. I beg the House in this matter to be guided by the practically unanimous opinion of commercial men. In regard to this question I think I can confute my theorist out of the mouths of the very people whose aid he invokes. The theorist's argument is, "Oh, you would never give credit without inquiry!" Well, you must make inquiry either from the person about whom you want information, and if he happens to be a rogue that is very little use; or from the references whom he gives you, and who also, if he is an unsatisfactory person, are not likely to give you very much useful information, or from a bank. The process of inquiring from a bank is not very satisfactory. If the firm about whom you are inquiring happens to owe the bank money, it is obviously to the interest of the bank to make their credit appear as good as possible, so that the firm which is inquiring may give credit as far as possible. I know a case in which a great engineering firm in the North of England was making inquiries about a firm to which it was supplying machinery. They received a very favourable answer. But the firm in question failed almost immediately afterwards, and the engineering firm took the trouble to ascertain how this favourable information came to be given by the bank. The bank of the firm which failed said that they found that the great engineering firm of which I speak were supplying machinery to this firm, and they concluded that this great engineering firm would never do such a thing unless the firm were perfectly sound. That is a case showing the carelessness with which these inquiries are sometimes conducted by banks. The best method of obtaining information is from the private inquiry agencies to which I have referred, and these agencies are the very people who most want this Bill to pass. They are the people on whom the theorists rely, and to whom commercial people are referred for their information. Their reply is, as I will show directly, "Your Bill is a step, but only a step, in the right direction. To make our inquiries effective we should want an even more stringent measure." Mr. Fithian, the secretary of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, who has taken a great interest in this question, wrote recently to Stubbs' Mercantile Offices, which I believe are the largest inquiry offices in England, or even in the world. He received a letter from them, which is so important and so definite that I would ask the leave of the House to read one or two extracts therefrom. They say—

"We should, of course, heartily welcome such a Bill as a step in the right' direction, but … it appears to us that the penalty is quite inadequate, and the Bill as it stands at present drafted will not be really effective. The honest trader will register his firm readily and without making necessary the imposition of any penalty, but the fraudulent trader and the long firm will care nothing for the penalty of £1 per day. … Thus, Brown, the well-known offender, will call himself William Jones, and will not register. A trader from whom he seeks credit may search, and will find nothing registered, and may therefore reasonably assume that he is actually trading with William Jones and not with a man named Brown, who may have been convicted of offences of the gravest commercial kind."

Then they go on—

"In the daily course of our business we experience the danger which the present unsatisfactory condition of the law presents to the ordinary trader who in the ordinary course of his business has to give credit. One of the greatest difficulties that we as a trade protection agency have to contend with is to establish the identity of doubtful persons and firms engaged in seeking credit. It frequently happens that no satisfactory clue to the antecedents of a trading firm can be obtained in consequence of a change of trading title and the place of business. The difficulty is a grave one for us, and is full of pitfalls. A mistake in identity may involve us in a threat of an action for libel or slander by persons quite unworthy of credit, yet such actions must be defended, and there is no possibility of recovering costs, even though we may win the case. To all traders, as to an agency conducting a trade protection business, it is of the first importance that they should know the names of the persons actually seeking credit, or engaged in business involving credit."

They then go on to point out that in too many cases one member of a firm opens an account with a bank in his own name, and not in the name of the firm at all; cheques are drawn by this individual, although orders are given by the firm, and in many cases the name or names of the person or persons actually trading in that firm are never known to the public at all. I think this shows very conclusively that at present such inquiry agencies as I have mentioned have no moans of getting to know what they desire to know, and that the Bill is very badly wanted. If the Bill is passed most people—I trust all—who ought to register will register, and we should in time see if any extension was required, and, if so, what. Finally, I would lay stress on the fact that the existence of this register would save valuable time in making the inquiries in question, and that time in regard to such a matter as that of credit is absolutely of the essence of the question. I want to bring home the question of the necessity of the Bill still further to the House, and events which have occurred recently enable me to do so. In the first place, I may allude to the Money-lending Inquiry, and in alluding to that I should like to refer to the sad death of my predecessor in the representation of Oldham, the late Mr. Ascroft, who took such a prominent part in regard to that inquiry. The circumstances of that inquiry will be fresh in the memory of the House, and particularly will the House remember the case of Isaac Gordon. I am sorry to say anything disrespectful of the dead, but I hardly know how to bring this case home without referring to the case of Isaac Gordon. Three-fourths of the men and women whom Isaac Gordon helped to ruin wore deceived by the many aliases that he adopted. The Government have recognised the evil in this case, and have brought in a most stringent measure. I remember in regard to this question of money-lending a peculiarly flagrant case in reference to Members of the House itself. A firm calling itself Mundella, and Co. wrote offering to lend money to Members of the House of Commons. In that firm there was no Mundella at all, and they actually made use of the name of the late Mr. Mundella in order to make Members of the House suppose that he had something to do with it. That is a particularly gross case of the misuse of a name, and a ease in which unquestionably the firm ought to have been registered. I next refer to the question of the fraudulent contractors, in which the House and the country have taken so much interest of late. A certain gentleman was struck off the list of contractors to the War Office on account of frauds in connection with coal, and then under another name supplied bad hay. The Financial Secretary to the War Office, with whose troubles in this matter I am sure the House sympathise very deeply, said in the debate on the question^*—

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., page 1332.

"Although we were looking out for him in regard to coal, we were not looking out for him in regard to forage. It is very difficult in dealing with an enormous number of contractors to ascertain whether or not a contractor is trading under an alias."

Exactly; that is what the commercial world has been saying for forty years or more, but have not yet succeeded in convincing Parliament of it. In reference to this question of fraudulent contractors, I think for a man who deliberately defrauds his country in the hour of her need our language contains no words strong enough to describe him and our code of laws no punishment severe enough to inflict upon him. I am sorry that such a thing has been done, and above all I am sorry that any Englishman has been base enough to do it. But wherever you have war I an afraid you will have fraudulent contractors, and if our laws favour the taking of aliases they certainly will take aliases. The Government in regard to this matter—I do not allude to this Government only, but previous Governments also—if they have not refused to deal with have at any rate passed this question by. I think, perhaps, I ought to exclude the present Colonial Secretary, who was President of the Board of Trade in 1882, and approved the principle of this measure, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who also approved the principle in 1889. It is a melancholy satisfaction to anyone to say, "I told you so," and it is irritating. I do not want to irritate in this case, and therefore I will not say it; but I do hope that we may now claim the sympathy and support of the Board of Trade in regard to this matter. I have another instance of how the Government have been handicapped by the want of a register such as I advocate. In the last Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories there is a case in which one of the sub-inspectors reports as follows—

"I often have occasion to take advantage of Section 91, Sub-section 5 of the Act of 1878, when laying informations stating therein the title of the firm by which the occupiers are usually known; but some magistrates' clerks decline to accept informations made out in such manner, on the ground that in the event of a conviction and of default the name of the person or persons in default, and thus liable to imprisonment, would be required, and should, consequently, be disclosed at the time the information was laid. In one case during last year I was totally unable to procure the names as required by the clerk, and, as a consequence, proceedings in respect of neglect to limewash, which had been approved by Her Majesty's superintendent inspector, had to be abandoned."

I ask again, is it not scandalous that the law should be set at defiance, and then when the inspector tries to bring the firm to book he cannot do so on account of the partners not being known? We have the remedy in our hands. If the House would pass this Bill the partners in such a firm would have to register, and the law could no longer be set at defiance. I think I have made out a case for the Bill, and now I should like to refer to the condition of things in foreign countries. In the United States of America there is no such binding law as we are advocating here, but the custom is universal of posting the names of the partners of firms on the door of the office and on the invoice, memorandum, and letter forms, and the great commercial agencies in the United States have means of obtaining the information which they have not in this country. Over there it is sufficient to say that such and such a firm refused information, and it is like putting a bad mark against the firm; therefore, for all practical purposes, the information we want in this country is obtainable in the United States. In Germany there is a very stringent law. Every firm is compelled to register the proprietor or partners; any change has also to be registered, and those are published in certain papers. The law is strictly enforced, and the tendency is to make the law even more stringent. I mention these two nations first, because they are the two nations which we most have to dread in the commercial competition of the future, and, at any rate, the statement shows that the greater stringency of the practice in the one case, and of the law in the other, has not interfered with the serious competition which they have already brought against us in many of the great industries in which we are interested. In France the law is not so satisfactory. Registration has to take place, but the registers are in many cases not open, and there is no continuing register; there is no registration of the changes in regard to the partners of a firm. In Austria the law is quite as stringent as in Germany, and very much on the same lines. In Holland also that is the case. In some of our colonies such a law as we are proposing is in force, and the last of our colonies to adopt it is West Australia, which adopted it only last year. I do not press the example of foreign nations further than it can reasonably be pressed; I do not ask you to do what they do simply because they do it; but I do claim that in a matter of this sort the change we are proposing has the sanction of a large part of the civilised and progressive nations of the world. I will now examine very briefly the provisions of the Bill. Clause 3 is the interpretation clause, and in regard to that the form in which this Bill has hitherto appeared has been altered by the substitution of "trade name" for "firm" in some instances, because the word "firm" has a technical meaning under the Partnership Act. Temporary ventures, which caused us much trouble in the past as regards opposition to this Bill, are excluded by the words "for the purpose of carrying on any business in common with a view to profit." That, I think, would exclude a purely temporary venture between two or more people. Clause 4 is the operative clause, having for its purpose the effect to which I have already alluded. Clause 5 describes the nature of the registration that is to be enforced, and in regard to Sub-section (b) the "general nature" of the business has been put in, in order that the old reading should not be found inconvenient. Subsection (c) asks for the place or places of business, it is very desirable that all the places of business, by which I take it are included those places that have an office which transacts the business of the firm, should be in the district register. Clause 7 provides for registration before commencing business, for this reason: that in many cases people who are intending to begin business require large credit, and I think it is important that in such cases they should be registered. Clause 9 deals with the question of the registration of changes, and Clause 11 is the penalty clause, a clause which may perhaps—at any rate, it has in the past— give rise to considerable controversy. In 1882 the present Colonial Secretary, then President of the Board of Trade, approved the subject-matter of the Bill, subject to that penalty clause being dropped. It was thought to be sufficient—and I must acknowledge that the Committee of 1872 held that view—that non-registration may be pleaded in bar of any action. My own opinion is that it is not sufficient. If we want registration let us impose a penalty, however small that penalty may be. If we want annoyance, irregularity, and imperfect registration, let us leave it till firms want to bring an action. I am sure that that penalty clause ought to be adhered to; but in regard to that, as in regard to other matters, the promoters of this Bill do not desire to be stupid in any way, and would willingly accept any reasonable Amendment the House thought proper to make. Clause 12 deals with non-registration being a bar to action. Clause 13 deals with false returns, and returns knowingly made as false, making; it a misdemeanour with a serious penalty. Clauses 14 to 18 deal with the registers, and Clause 19 gives the Board of Trade power to make and alter fees, provided the fees are not in excess of 5s. for each registration. It only remains for me to deal with certain objections which have been raised to this proposal in the past. I have received many communications in, support of the measure, and only one in opposition, and that was from the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow. I believe the procurators in Glasgow are equivalent to the solicitors in this country. It is a curious thing, but I had to ask four Scotch Members before I could find one who could tell me what a procurator was. I therefore think there is some reasonable ground for asking for a dictionary of Scotch terms. The procurators begin by saying that this measure is uncalled for. That is an equivalent of the old objection that we have heard in regard to this Bill—namely, the argument whether the Bill is wanted, and, if so, on what grounds. I have endeavoured to show to the House the grounds on which the Bill is needed. As, to whether it is wanted I need only appeal to the unanimous resolutions of the chambers of commerce which have been passed for so many years in regard to. this question. It has been said in connection with another matter that traders, and capitalists are not the people who help revolutions easily. That is absolutely true. What other means have we of enforcing our view except that of passing resolutions and pressing upon the Government reforms which we desire to see carried out? It is said also that this measure would be very troublesome, that it would affect everybody—professional and business men, doctors, solicitors, engineers, architects, bankers, merchants, and tradesmen. It would affect them only if they were trading under other names than their own. Moreover, solicitors, doctors, bankers, and many engineers and architects are registered already. We have a register of shareholders in joint stock companies, and it is much less important to know who are the shareholders in joint companies than to know who are the actual partners in firms who are liable to the very last penny they possess for any debt they may incur. It is said also that this Bill would be very troublesome in regard to the swarms of small tradesmen who trade under old names. In most cases they could change their old names and trade in their actual names without doing themselves one farthing of damage. But if the old name is important, then I say, for the sake of the commercial world as a whole, they ought to register. The question of the temporary joint venture I do not know that I need dwell upon. The favourite example that used to be taken was that of two costermongers who bought a donkey between them for a temporary purpose. That donkey stood in the way of this Bill for a very long time, but I think it has now practically been removed. I need not go deeply into another question which is, perhaps, a serious one—namely, that of the law of partnership. I am told that the question of who is a partner in many cases is a very difficult legal point. In regard to this matter I may point out that the Bill docs not in any way affect the present law of partnership. But if the Bill has the effect, and I think it would have, of making people think a little more of whether or not they were partners, if it has the effect of clarifying the ideas of those people who are so doubtful as to what their position is, it would be an enormous benefit to them, and also a much needed reform for the rest of the commercial world. In conclusion, I have only to apologise for the length at which I have detained the House, and for the dryness of my speech, and I will conclude by begging the House to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill. I particularly ask the President of the Board of Trade, as well on account of recent revelations as on the broad ground of commercial morality and fairness of dealing between man and man—objects which are, I am sure, as dear to him as to any of us who promote this Bill—to assent on behalf of the Government to the Second Reading, and to allow the Committee stage to be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade. I have much pleasure in moving that the Bill be now read a second time.

As having previously introduced this Bill when the ballot was not so fortunate for me as it has been for my hon. friend, I desire to say a few words in support of the measure, and to acknowledge the ability with which it has been introduced to the House. I can confirm what my hon. friend has said, that the feeling of the commercial community, as expressed through chambers of commerce, has for a very long time been in favour of some measure, and unanimously in favour of this one. My hon. friend has an advantage in the particular moment at which the Bill has been introduced. The scandals in connection with War Office contracts have attracted a. large amount of attention to the undesirability of trading aliases, and though in those cases they were companies, the objections apply equally in the cases of firms which might be even more difficult to trace in consequence of the absence of registration. I thoroughly agree that much more legal notice of these transactions, so prejudicial to the interests of the country, ought to be taken, and perhaps it is not too much to say that such offences ought really to be classed as some form of treason. The next way in which the time of the introduction of the Bill is an advantage is in relation to money-lending. I received one of those circulars to which reference has been made, in which one was given to understand that a former President of the Board of Trade offered monetary assistance on almost any terms. That circular was very largely distributed, and I do not doubt was the means of doing much injury to those who entertained the proposal. I would like the House to consider that the presumption—and I think the proper presumption—is that a man is trading in his own name, or that a firm of partners are trading in their own names. That presumably is, and ought to be, the case. But it is perfectly true that in commerce it is absolutely necessary that there should be a means of trading in firm names, and that what is often the most valuable asset of a business should be capable of being transferred as one of the chief elements of the goodwill. 'Of that there is no question. I think the principle is the same with regard to the assumption of a name. I believe that legally persons may call themselves anything they think proper, but if they use such an assumed name for the purpose of obtaining credit, or even for the purpose of deceit or for the purpose of misleading people, then I think the privilege—for it is a privilege—should cease, or, at any rate, should be made conditional upon the opportunity existing for testing the accuracy of their assumptions and the true meaning or reason for which such names have been assumed. We know that the privilege is largely abused by long firms, undischarged bankrupts, and others, in a form which is more honest, but perhaps even more disadvantageous. I allude to the case where a firm has existed for a very long period, and then, silently and secretly, the capital is withdrawn by one of the partners, but the firm proceeds in business just as before. But its resources are very largely diminished, and certainly the opportunity ought to be at the disposal of old customers, at any rate, if not of new ones, of ascertaining what is the position of the now firm so far as its composition in respect of partners is concerned. Such cases are very dangerous and disadvantageous, as they are the means constantly of leading to credit being given when the means of sustaining that credit and meeting obligations have been entirely removed by the withdrawal of a partner or partners with his or their capital. I also think the trading community ought to have placed at their disposal facilities for knowing exactly with whom they are dealing, what risk they are incurring, and what are the possibilities or probabilities of obtaining payment. In these days of telegraphs and telephones dealings are almost momentary, and unless immediate facilities exist such as can be used by telegraph or telephone in case of necessity, there is no time to make the inquiries which are necessary, and a stop is put to a very large amount of business. Reference has been made to the experience of foreign countries. I think I am not misstating the general fact when I say that all commercial countries have some provision or other for dealing with this question. Illustra- tions have been given, but my hon. friend was mistaken in supposing that we have not one form of experience here which is valuable. We have the case of bankers. I have a letter from the Institute of Bankers, in which, instead of being opposed to such a measure as this, as I thought my hon. friend indicated, they, on the contrary, approve the proposal, and that proposal is in accordance with their own practice.

I did not mean to convey that impression.

I think the possibility of even a misapprehension on that point should be removed. We have had other cases given, and it is not needful for me to pursue that point further. My hon. friend said that he had had only one letter in opposition to this Bill. There is one class, if I may judge from letters directed to me when I had charge of the Bill, which has been opposed to it, the commercial interests of which I do not think ought to be very strongly regarded. This class consists of persons of high social position who carry on business—honourable business—as greengrocers and the like, but who do not care about the fact being generally known. If there are such persons, and there are many, I would remind them that our nobility is very largely recruited from trade, and so far from being ashamed of carrying on an honourable calling, they ought rather, like other people engaged in commerce, to be very proud of it. At any rate, I do not think we need deviate from what is a good proposal in order to consider such interests. They have no reason to be ashamed of trade, and I do not think that we need consider that interest. Publicity is by no means a modern commercial principle, and it has been embodied in the new Companies Act for reasons which apply equally to the present proposal. I hope the Government will, after the many appeals that have been made to them, sanction and support the principle of this Bill. Certainly there will be some need of carefully considering the details in Committee. I do not agree with the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading, that small traders—a class with very limited resources—should be compelled to dispense with the use of the names under which they have been carrying on business. On the contrary, it would, I think, involve a serious sacrifice and loss on their part. Again, with regard to compelling a firm to trade under the full Christian names and surnames of the partners, I can quite understand that that might be a very cumbersome proceeding in trade transactions, and that, too, is a matter which will have to be considered in Committee. Still, with the principle of the Bill I believe we are all in hearty sympathy, while I do not think there is any real or practical objection to the details which could not be overcome in Committee, and I therefore hope the measure will soon become the law of the land.

I believe that few, if any, Bills have appeared on the Order Book more often than this. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading stated that it had been brought forward a dozen times; as a matter of fact it has been before the House on fifteen separate occasions, although on only one did it reach a Second Beading, and then the debate turned on the partnership clauses which were embodied in it, and not on the question of the registration of firms. The history given by my hon. friend was a not uninteresting one. He carried it back as far as the year 1872. Really, however, the history of this Bill dates only from 1879. In that year the Partnerships Bill was brought in by the late Mr. Sampson Lloyd. That Bill was divided into five parts—three of which had reference to partnerships, the fourth to limited partnership, and the fifth to the registration of firms. The Bill was drafted by Sir Frederick Pollock, and had on the back of it the names of Lord (then Mr.) Herschell, as well as the late Mr. Gregory, who in his time was one of the highest known authorities on commercial matters. There was no discussion that session, as the Bill was introduced too late, and at the General Election in 1880 Mr. Sampson Lloyd lost his seat. It devolved on me in 1882, as president of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, to re-introduce the Partnerships Bill, and having had the good fortune to obtain its Second Reading,† I assented to the Bill being sent to a Select Committee upstairs, where a

† For Second Reading Debate (22ml Feb. and 24th March, 18S2) see The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cclxvi., page 1355; and Vol. colxvii., page 1958.

certain amount of evidence was taken mainly on the partnership question. Not much was said with regard to the registration of firms, but it was decided by the majority to eliminate Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill dealing with limited partnerships and the registration of firms. In the following year these two subjects were brought in as separate Bills, and although on twelve occasions since then we have had a Registration of Firms Bill there has been no opportunity of debating it or obtaining a Second Reading for it. The various Bills were in charge of Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, the hon. Member for South Islington, and others. So much for the history of the Bill up to the present time. I think the House will agree it is now high time to consider the Bill on its merits. I have never heard any real objection to the full names and addresses of the persons who carry on business under a trade name being registered. The Bill only applies to persons who do not trade under their own names, and I do think it will afford some security against fraud. What better security can you have than the imposition of a money penalty? The proposed penalty of £1 a day is not excessive, and what other security against long firm frauds could be found? It has been said there is no demand for this Bill. But I hold in my hand a letter from a large firm in the north of England stating that they do business with 4,000 firms, and they do not know who the persons are who constitute those firms in more than 10 per cent. of the whole number. Is that a reasonable state of things? They cite a case in which they had large transactions with a merchant for many years. He retired, and was succeeded by his son; no notification of the change was sent to them, and in two years the son became bankrupt, with the result that they incurred a heavy loss. Such a thing could not occur if this Bill were passed. Similar provisions to those of this Bill are to be found in the Money-lending Bill, which has twice received the unanimous support of the House of Lords, and I hope will soon become law. "Why should persons who trade in another name not be registered as a protection against fraud? I see no means of preventing fraud except through the provisions of this Bill. I hope the Bill will not be shelved by being sent to a Select Committee. Let it be sent to the Grand Committee on Law or Trade, as the delay which would ensue from its being sent to a Select Committee might prevent this very necessary Bill being passed into law during the present session.

It may be a refreshing change for the hon. Member who introduced this Bill if I approach the consideration of it in a somewhat more critical spirit than has as yet been displayed. I am far from desiring to oppose the Second Reading, but I shall feel bound to do so if the suggestion of my hon. friend behind me, the Member for Gloucester, that the Bill shall not be sent to a Select Committee, is insisted upon. No doubt the principle which actuates the promoters of the Bill is an excellent one. Someone has said that part of the work of the wise is undoing the work of the good, and, without going quite so far as that, I must say I think it may be necessary to alter and strengthen this measure a good deal before it can be made a really good one. Before we can do that we must take evidence from the very important section of the community which will be affected by it, and such evidence could not be taken unless the Bill is referred to a Select Committee. Very often proposals of this nature have the effect of letting rogues slip through the meshes, while at the same time they inconvenience and put to expense the honest trader. I have been in business a long while as a member of a private firm, and it may not be out of place if I describe how such a Bill as this would affect us. The names of our partners appear in certain well-known books in London, and whenever the death of a partner occurs a circular is issued to everyone who deals with the firm. We therefore should not be affected except by the small fee which will have to be paid, but undoubtedly the enforcement of a Bill such as this would involve a very considerable outlay, and we ought to carefully consider what the machinery shall be, and to make sure that it will not cripple honest traders. We must if possible stop rogues from trading. What is the system that obtains in other countries? I believe that in the Latin countries whore the Code Napoleon is in force the principle is carried a great deal further than in this Bill, inasmuch as if a man—say, William Smith—goes into business with his sons and trades under the title of "William Smith and Sons," if he dies his firm cannot go on trading under that title unless there is actually a William Smith interested in the concern. I believe that many frauds in business are committed by firms being allowed to trade under impersonal and showy names, which sound well and carry with them a sense of confidence to which they are by no means entitled. I fear that this Bill would not put a stop to practices of that kind. With regard to the fine which it is proposed to impose, I think it is perfectly right that there should be a penalty, and I am not at all sure that it should not be heavier than the Bill suggests, and for this simple reason: the Bill will not stop firms from avoiding registration, if they wish to do so, except so far as it may disentitle them to the power of claiming as plaintiffs in an action at law. Firms which are likely to be in the position of defendants in such actions would probably be glad to avoid registration, and such firms could only be got at by means of the penalty clause, as, naturally, they are willing to remain unregistered and so be "ungetatable" at law. I quite agree with the hon. Member for South Islington in what he said on the question of goodwill, and I hold that many small shop-keepers would be seriously injured if they had to give up the names under which they had traded for many years. Then there is the question of the noble greengrocer which has already been referred to—of the nobleman who finances small shops on the sly. I do not know that it is very often done, but it is a question whether or not it is. desirable to allow a man to finance a business, though his name does not appear over the shop, and whether it would be any public advantage to discourage the putting of capital into a business on conditions that may constitute a partnership though the name does not appear. There are good reasons why trading should not be carried on under the name of a person who is not a partner; but if a man's name is concealed from the public it cannot be said that it is used for the purpose of obtaining credit, or for any fraudulent object. We know it is possible for a man to put capital into a business on the condition that he shall receive a certain share of the profit without his being constituted a partner in law. It is a simple juggle which any lawyer can carry out. I am afraid that the Bill will not get at the actual rogue. Take the case of the fraudulent contractor. There is nothing in this measure which would prevent him changing his name and trading under another style so long as he did not make the change for the direct purpose of fraud. If you are going to make this Bill a success you must consider whether you should not carry it further and insist upon the names of all partners in the business being use din full in all transactions. I think something should be done, too, to prevent people changing their names when it can be shown that they have brought themselves within the law and make the change solely with a view of escaping the consequences of their misconduct. There are various other points of doubt and difficulty in this Bill. Still, there is enough in it to justify its being carefully considered by a Select Committee, which should be in a position to take evidence from the very large interests affected. If this course is agreed to I will support the Second Reading, and I hope I shall get an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that the Bill will be so referred.

I have no hesitation in saying that I entirely approve of the principle of this Bill. It deals with a matter which has engaged the attention of public Departments as well as of the House of Commons for a great many years, and I think I am right in saying that the opinion of the mercantile community is practically unanimous in favour of the principle. At the Board of Trade we have received a good many representations on this subject in a like direction. There can be no doubt that in the existing state of the law scandals may and do arise through trade being carried on under names that inspire creditors with a confidence the firms do not deserve. I am therefore prepared, on behalf of the Board of Trade, to support this Bill. But with regard to the details, I think it is necessary that there should be a closer examination of them than is possible in Committee of the whole House. The lion. Member who moved the Second Reading named several features of the Bill against which criticism has been legitimately directed, and I cer- tainly should like to see some further examination into these matter's. With regard to the question of registration, it is a somewhat serious proposal that the registration should not only take place in the district where a firm carries on its principal business, but that it should also be effected in every town or district where the business is carried on. This would add considerably to the expense, and it might very well be considered whether the object of the hon. Gentleman is not sufficiently achieved by making the registration compulsory in the place where the main business of the firm is carried on. Then, again, there is the provision which makes it necessary that the name of the firm shall be used in every transaction. I am not prepared to say it is not necessary; but, on the face of it, it does seem rather hard that a firm should be able to get out of any bargain it had made because its name is not distinctly shown in that particular transaction. This might afford a loophole for putting an end to bargains which one party or the other might have reason to regret having entered into; and the question certainly is one as to which further examination is necessary. The loss which might be sustained by a small trader through having to change his name is, I think, a very real one, and I do not believe that the difficulties likely to be caused by this provision of the Bill will be so easily overcome as the hon. Member for Oldham seemed to think. Then, again, it is a question how far this Bill affects the law of partnership. Further, the Committee have a right to know what is likely to be the cost of enforcing the Bill, and some estimate should also be forth- coming as to the number of firms likely to be affected by it. Then there is the question of the date of its coming into operation. The Bill, I see, provides that the Act shall come into force on the 31st January next. That also is a matter which requires to be looked into, because it seems to be a rather early date for making what may prove to be a great change. Still, I am in favour of the Bill. I believe the general feeling of the commercial community is that a Bill of this nature should be passed. But I must press the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill—having regard to the difficulties I have indicated and to those pointed out by the hon. Member for Hertford, who has a very special knowledge of matters of this kind, and having regard also to the general fact that this Bill does propose to make a very considerable alteration of the law of the land in connection with commercial matters—to agree to its being sent to a Select Committee with a view to evidence being taken. Reference has been made to the fact that there was a Committee in 1882; but, as a matter of fact, it was not a Committee on this subject.

The Committee sat in 1872. The 1882 Committee was on the Partnerships Bill.

I have not referred to the Report of the Committee of 1872, and I cannot, therefore, say how far it examined into this question. In any case 1872 is a very long time back—matters have changed considerably since that time—and assuming there was an examination then on the general question, I still think it desirable that the details of this Bill should be dealt with by a Select Committee. I do not think that the case which the hon. Gentleman so ably advocated will be prejudiced by the adoption of this course. The Committee need not sit long, and the examination might be concluded in plenty of time to enable the Bill to go to a Grand Committee this session.

It is a proof of the very strong desire of the commercial community for something of this kind that there has been no opposition to the Bill, but only some criticisms on details. I can confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the desire of the commercial community that the question should be dealt with. That has been fully brought out, and I therefore need not dwell upon it; still, I confess to having some doubt as to the difficulties which may arise in a measure of this kind, although they have been largely removed by the extremely lucid and practical speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, who made out a strong prima facie case for it. The question is, should the Bill be sent to a Select Committee? Now, it proposes an important change in the law. In America, in several of the States, the practice is what it is desired to do by means of this Bill, although it is not necessarily the law. But here we have no legal provision and no practice. It must be remembered, too, that our law of partnership is extremely technical, and it is hardly possible that this Bill will not affect it. There are a good many legal questions of considerable difficulty which arise on the Bill, and it is far better to deal with them at once than to run the risk of having later on to pass an amending Bill. On the whole I am not inclined to quarrel with the decision of the President of the Board of Trade, and if the Select Committee were to sit at once I think it would be quite possible for it to report in time for the Bill to go before the Standing Committee this session. I hope that, if necessary, the Government will give the Bill a helping hand.

I find myself in very hearty accord with the general principle of this Bill, and I therefore desire to support the view that it should be sent to a Select Committee, by which alone, in my opinion, the matters of importance which are raised by it can be properly dealt with. I do not think the hon. Member for Oldham need fear that it will delay the Bill. The Grand Committee on Trade, to which he suggested it should be referred, is already pretty well occupied, and I do not think would be able to deal with the Bill before Whitsuntide. But if a Select Committee wore appointed it could complete the taking of evidence before that day, and it would then be quite possible for the Grand Committee to deal with it, and for it to be added to the Statute-book before the end of the session.

As one of the representatives of a great commercial community, may I say that so far as I have been able to ascertain, the feeling of the Commercial community of Liverpool is strongly in favour of the principle of this Bill. But in dealing with questions of this nature, affecting so complicated a subject as the law of partnership, it is desirable that they should be thoroughly and carefully examined by persons who are experts, and I therefore support the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I hope, however, that its further progress may be expedited, and that the appointment of the Committee will not involve any great delay.

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken with so much sympathy as regards the principle of the Bill that I am very glad to accept his offer to refer it to a Select Committee. I hope the Committee will be able to report this session, and that the Government, if there is a reasonable chance, will give the Bill a helping hand.

The Bill which I now introduce to the House is not in a sense a very large one. It is not a new Bill, because the Bill has been before the House on many previous occasions, but no opportunity has ever before arisen for having a Second Reading discussion upon it. I ask the House to consider the desirability of exempting certain institution, established for the purpose of training imbeciles, from rating. These institutions are as follows:—Earls-wood, the Royal Albert Asylum at Lancaster—with which I am to a certain extent personally connected—the Eastern Counties Asylum, the Western Counties Asylum, and the Midland Counties Asylum. These are large, well-appointed institutions; they are purely philanthropical; no one receives any profit out of them, and they are supported to a great extent by voluntary contributions, and to a certain extent also by contributions from boards of guardians; because where an imbecile child is under the care of a board of guardians they oftentimes send it, partly on philanthropic grounds and partly with a view to relieving the rates, to one of these institutions and make a certain payment for it. There is a peculiarity about these institutions. They receive contributions from the large districts to which they minister, and they contribute in rating only to the particular union or towns in which they are situated. When the Royal Albert Institution was established it was outside the area of Lancaster; but Lancaster has since been extended, and the institution is now, included. The assessment committee, however, deals very fairly with it, and there is no serious complaint as to the oppressive character of the rating. Still, there it is, and it is felt to be a matter which hinders the work of the institutions. As the House is aware, the subject of exempting certain institutions—not only such as this Bill deals with, but also hospitals—has met with a good deal of support; but even if it were thought right that hospitals should contribute to local rates, there would still be a ground, on the principle already adopted by the House, for exempting these training institutions. The Voluntary schools are exempt under 60 Victoria, cap. 5; Sunday and Ragged schools are exempt under 32 and 33 Victoria, cap. 40; houses, buildings, and land used for the purposes of science, literature, or the fine arts are exempt under 6 and 7 Victoria, cap. 36; and in Ireland similar institutions are already exempt. These institutions are not, properly speaking, hospitals so much as educational establishments. Medical treatment is, it is true, a large element in their system, but they are really educational institutions. The only patients received are those capable of improvement. Those unhappy beings who are not capable of improvement are not received, and if they come on probation they are sent back when it is found that they are incapable of improvement. I claim that these institutions are really educational institutions. Our claim for exemption is not based on the fact that they are medical institutions, but that they are places for the training and education of imbeciles, in. order that they may be fitted, as far as possible, for such duties as they may be able to perform in life; and it is a great matter for satisfaction to know that some of the children trained in them are developed so-far as to be able to take care of themselves, and even some are able to earn their own living. This subject of exemption of these institutions has been more or less under the consideration of Parliament for several years. On the 12th March, 1895, a deputation representing several institutions, and including the Duke of Norfolk and the Marquess of Bristol, waited on Sir John Hibbert, the then Secretary to the Treasury. Sir John Hibbert said he could not take an active part in promoting a Bill on the subject, but he strongly recommended that the claim should be pressed forward, and he also stated that he would use his best influence with the Local Government Board to get something done. Well, we have not yet succeeded in getting anything done. We claim, however, that these English institutions should be placed on the same foot- ing as similar Irish institutions. The districts in which they are locally situated derive great benefit from them, and I believe if a new institution were to be established on a basis of absolute exemption from rates there would be keen com- petition between towns to have it placed within their area. It is not necessary to elaborate the Bill further, and I offer it to the consideration of the House.

I congratulate my hon. friend on having at last found an opportunity of placing this Bill before the House. I have been associated with my hon. friend for some years past in endeavouring to secure its discussion, but we never previously succeeded in getting it on the Order Paper at a time which would permit of its discussion. I represent on this occasion the Eastern Counties Imbecile Training Institution, which is supported by five counties in the east of England, and which is doing very good work. It seems to me absolutely unjust that this institution and similar institutions, carrying on the work of educating and training imbecile children, should be required to contribute to the local rates, because if they did not exist the local authorities would have to perform the duties discharged by them. That is the chief ground on which we bring forward this Bill, which has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not think it would have been brought forward were it not for the arbitrary way in which some local authorities assess these institutions, My hon. friend did not specially complain of arbitrary rating, but it nevertheless exists in connection with some of these institutions. Earlswood, which is the largest, provides 700 beds and has 150 acres of land. Its present assessment is about £3,000, and the rates amount to about £600 a year. The Royal Albert Asylum has 600 beds and 105 acres of land. That is assessed at £1,300, and the rates amount to £137. The Eastern Counties Asylum has five acres, and its rates last year were more than £300. That shows that the rates are of considerable moment to these institutions. The deputation to the Treasury to which my hon. friend referred, pointed out that the ten- dency to exempt similar institutions from rates had been recognised for several years, and that several towns had exempted hospitals from improvement and other rates. On that occasion Sir John Hibbert, than whom no one knew more about local taxation, or had a wider experience of Government departments, approved of the principle of the Bill, and I think it is something for us to be able to quote his advocacy of this matter as a private individual. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman who now represents the Local Government Board will agree with what Sir John Hibbert stated with regard to this Bill, and that he will be able to give it his support. Sir John Hibbert, of course, did not compromise the Government, and spoke merely as a private member. I will conclude by asking the sympathy of the House for this Bill. I believe it to be an absolutely just measure, and I commend its principle to the consideration of the House and the Government.

I should be sorry, even in the few minutes in which I desire to address the House, to appear to be criticising this Bill in any way. As a matter of fact I have been asked to speak on behalf of the Association of Poor Law Unions, who have very properly given this Bill their careful consideration, and to point out that according to the views of that association the Second Reading of this Bill does not seem entirely opportune. They do not desire in any sense to be antagonistic to the Bill on its merits, but they think that until the whole matter of exemptions from rating has been more carefully discussed, it would be a pity that this Bill should pass into law. I am asked to urge the promoters of this Bill and the Government to postpone further proceedings on it until there has been a proper consideration of the whole question of exemptions from rating. Now, the particular institutions embraced in the. Bill are no doubt partly supported from the rates, but they are also largely charitable; and if this Bill became law, all charitable institutions, hospitals, and such like, would demand the same exemption from rating. It is absurd that the London Library in St. James' s is exempt from rating, and that these institutions, doing a great educational and charitable work, are not. Such an anomaly as that is perfectly indefensible. While I rise to- day to express some doubt of the opportuneness of the Bill becoming law, speaking for myself I cordially approve of the idea that such institutions as these should be exempt from rating. I trust, therefore, when the Government express their views through my hon. friend sitting below me, they will do what they can to promise that this matter shall have a very careful discussion. The question of the rating of hospitals was raised earlier; in the session.† I myself do not like, to use a popular phrase, to give myself away on this important question, until I have been more of its general merits. But the more I look into the question, the more I am convinced that we ought not to have special exemptions from rating, but that the Government should formulate a scheme laying down what institutions should be rated, and what should not be rated. Therefore, I hope that my hon. friend who introduced the Bill will not think the Association of Poor Law Unions is inimical to it, but only anxious to secure that symmetry in rating which is so desirable.

My hon. friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill opened his speech by saying that the question is not a very large one, but he admitted that the principle of the Bill is of considerable importance.

What I said was that the principle of the Bill was not a new one.

I know that it is not, but the principle is one of considerable importance. No one can fail to sympathise with the objects of the institutions which are carrying on this work, and nothing I shall say to-day will detract from their value in any way whatever. At the same time I think the House ought to realise that this question of exemption from rating is a very large and serious one. The law at the present moment is that wherever there is a beneficial occupation of any property, that property should be rated; and that principle is applicable whether or not the property is occupied for charitable purposes. I am aware that certain exceptions have been made to the ordinary law, but

†See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., page 1189.

the House can readily see that the principle of exemption from rating is one that can he very easily carried too far. The House ought to remember that every exemption places an additional burden upon the general ratepayer. I think it right to point out these facts before the House comes to any decision upon the Bill. Undoubtedly of late years a very considerable feeling has been aroused with regard to some institutions that are held to be exceptionally dealt with in this matter. Only this session my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board received a large and influential deputation representing hospitals claiming exemption from rating. It was one of the largest and most influential deputations that ever waited on any Minister of the Crown, and repeat that it is impossible not to sympathise with the object that deputation had in view. After that deputation was received a question was put in the House asking what the Government meant to do in the matter, and the First Lord of the Treasury stated in reply ^* that the subject was one of considerable difficulty, and that before arriving at any conclusion in regard to the exemption of hospitals from rating it would be necessary to have an inquiry by a Select Committee of the House, and he undertook that that Committee would be appointed. What the Government propose to do in regard to this Bill is this: They quite see the force of the contention of my hon. friend, who has put the claim for exemption of these institutions on educational as much as on charitable grounds, quoting the precedent of the Voluntary schools. The Government quite see the force of that contention, and I am authorised to say that in reference to the Select Committee these institutions will be included, and that therefore that inquiry will cover institutions for imbeciles as well as ordinary hospitals. No matter how much the House may sympathise with these institutions, and recognise that they may be as-handicapped by being rated, we must see that if the principle of exemption is admitted in their case, it will be pressed home in others, and if the door is once opened we may depend upon it it will not be easily closed. For these reasons, and from no lack of sympathy with the

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., page 1189.

imbecile institutions, I would ask my hon. friend to consent to the offer which the Government now make in, order that the question as it affects all these institutions should be referred to the Select Committee. If the House accepts that view it is perfectly impossible to pass the Second Reading of this Bill, for that would be practically to prejudge the question.

I hope that the promoters of the Bill will accept the very reasonable proposition of the Secretary to the Local Government Board. This question of exemption from rating is very serious to all local authorities, and as year after year goes by we have continually brought before us in the House and in the country reasons why particular institutions should be exempted from rates. I quite see that unless some very hard-and-fast rule is laid down in this regard, we shall soon have everybody in the country exempted from rates. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board said truly that there was no difference between these institutions, so far as rating is concerned, and hospitals and other kindred institutions.

I do not admit that.

I know my hon. friend does not admit that, but I entirely agree with the Secretary to the Local Government Board. I do not think a stronger case can be made out than that on behalf of hospitals, but I must not be understood to say anything derogatory to, or to take exception to the principle of the Bill which my hon. friend has introduced. I think all these institutions are deserving of the most generous treatment at the hands of the Government, because, obviously, they must exist, and, if they are not maintained by voluntary subscriptions, sooner or later they must become a permanent charge upon the rates. I think that the suggestion made by the Secretary to the Local Government Board is deserving of acceptance by the promoters of the Bill. It will avoid any controversy upon the question, and, above all, will avoid the question being prejudiced. I hope that this Select Committee will be appointed at once. [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] I hope the members of that Committee will not be partisans of any particular class of institutions, but gentlemen who by their knowledge and experience are qualified to enter into the discussions, which must necessarily be of a technical character, and require some acquaintance with questions of rating. We are very apt in this House to let our sympathies run away with us in matters of this kind, and unless common sense is brought to bear upon them we may be carried too far. I trust that a satisfactory solution of the question may be arrived at.

I hope that the case of Scotland will not be omitted from consideration by the Select Committee, and that the inquiry will cover all parts of the United Kin dom. There is one point of considerable importance which ought to be included in the remit to the Select Committee, and that is that the area of rating is not always coincident with the area which is benefited by the institution. That is really a difficulty at the present time where local authorities have the power to grant exemptions from rating. Not infrequently it occurs that the benefits of an institution extend far beyond the limits of the particular district which the local authority rates for. Therefore it is impossible for the rating authority to do justice to their own ratepayers by granting that institution exemption from rates whose benefits extend far beyond the exemption locality. In such cases exemption would benefit all parts of the country at the expense of one locality. That is an important matter, and therefore I hope it will receive full consideration.

I am bound to state that it would be ungenerous on the part of the promoters of the Bill to oppose the position which the Government have taken up. We maintain, of course, that these institutions are in a distinct position from that of hospitals in regard to the very large area which these institutions serve, coupled with the fact that the area of taxation is a very small one, and, further, we put their educational character in the forefront. I understand my hon. friend is prepared to consider the terms of reference to the Committee, in the sense of preserving the distinction between the case of these institutions and that of hospitals. The only course left for me is to ask leave of the House to withdraw the Bill, which I now do.

This Bill comes from the Association of Municipal Corporations, which takes a very great interest in the question, but the promoters also include representatives of other districts. I appeal to all those who take an interest in the improvement of local government to sanction what I venture to say will be an effective and really useful administrative reform. This Bill has already passed in exactly the same form in another place, ^* and inasmuch as the Amendments proposed on behalf of the Government by Lord Harris in the Upper House have been accepted and embodied in the Bill, it may be said to have the sanction of the Government itself. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board—who, I know, has knowledge and sympathy, for he showed the one and expressed the other to a deputation which waited upon him—will support the measure. The Home Office has expressed its approval of the Bill; and the Leader of the House himself, in a discussion on the question as it arose in relation to both the London Government Bill and the Irish Local Government Bill, not only said that a reform was required in the machinery of the Borough Funds Act, but he himself distinctly suggested that a general Bill should be introduced applicable to local government generally both in England and Ireland. The need for this reform is almost beyond question. The machinery of the Borough Funds Act is cumbersome, costly, and injurious to the best interests of the ratepayers, and to the cause of public improvements. The proposals which are made by the Bill, so far from removing any protection to the ratepayers, on the contrary make their control even more effective, because more considerable and real. It is not intended to withdraw from the ratepayers any checks which are useful which have existed before, and which in some

^* The Borough Funds Bill (1898) passed through all stages in the House of Lords. Refer to The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth] Series], Vol. lx. (Second Reading); Vol. lxi. (Committee); Vol. lxxii. (Report and Third Reading).

form or another ought to remain. It removes the possibility of the constant occurrence of intolerable abuses in connection with municipal administration, especially one which enables a single person to impede a useful improvement by demanding a poll and putting the borough to a great expense, and frequently causing great delay in municipal administration. I will state to the House what checks the Borough Funds Act provides in the interests of the ratepayers which will remain when this Bill is passed, and it will be seen that they are sufficiently numerous. In the first place, ten days notice has to be given of any special meeting of the council to consider any proposed action. A resolution in favour of either promoting or opposing a Bill in Parliament must be passed by an absolute majority of the whole council. Then it must be three times advertised; and in the case of promoting a Bill the resolution must be confirmed at another meeting of the council, after which seven days notice has to be given, and in the meantime representations may be made to the Secretary of State or to the Local Government Board, and the proposal must have the approval of one or other of these authorities, who may direct a local inquiry before that approval is given. That shows that there are a multitude of checks which still remain. The only thing on this part of the subject we propose to alter is the proviso in Clause 4 of the Borough Funds Act, which states—

"Provided further that no expense in promoting or opposing any Bill in Parliament shall be charged as aforesaid, unless such promotion or opposition shall have had the consent of the owners and ratepayers of that district, to he expressed by resolution in the manner provided in the Local Government Act (1838) for the adoption of that Act."

Now, that is the only part of the Act which is proposed to be repealed. All the other checks of which I have spoken will remain. I emphasise that fact, because our position has been misunderstood in some quarters. I may say that the legal validity of that proviso is open to doubt, because it is held to have been repealed by subsequent enactments. But what is the resolution to which that proviso refers? It is a resolution to be passed at a meeting of the ratepayers, which may or may not be effective. It may be a quiet meeting, or, as my experience tells me, a very disorderly meeting, preventing any real discussion. It may be crowded, or attended by only a few persons. It is really a survival of the hustings so far as actual discussion is concerned, and is an antiquated method of doing that business which requires, and ought to have, the gravest consideration. It is a matter, in fact, of chance whether the resolution is carried or not: and one object of this Bill is to remove that element of chance and secure the certainty of effective control. Again, at present any one ratepayer may demand a poll. Boroughs have been put to the expense of from £600 up to £1,000 by the demand of one single individual. I do not say that in many cases that individual may not have been perfectly well advised; but in numerous instances a cantankerous person has, from a mere whim, put the borough to an expense which is out of all proportion to his individual requirements. Let me ask next, what is the machinery for obtaining the sanction of the ratepayers? It is, again, as antiquated as the hustings. Toting papers have to be distributed through the town, and have to be collected after a certain period. That system has been altered in regard to other branches of local government, and I do not see why it should not be altered in connection with municipal government. Moreover, the papers may be tampered with between collection and scrutiny. There was a time when the ballot was not approved of, but that time has gone by. The Ballot Act is now applied to Parliamentary, municipal, parochial, and school board elections. The system is uniform by making a cross. But the Borough Funds Act requires that the initials of the persons objecting should be applied to the voting paper. It so happens that in the voting under the Borough Funds Act people constantly put a cross instead of their initials, and thus their votes are rendered nugatory. Again, in other elections people put initials instead of a cross, and they lose the benefit of the franchise. This initial system creates great confusion where it is desirable that uniformity should exist in casting votes. I would next mention the recognition which has been given to the evil of the present system, and the protests that have been made against it would like to read what was said by a great municipal authority, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies. It will be recollected that me right hon. Gentleman was three times mayor of Birmingham, and addressing the House on the 15th July, 1882,^* he said—

"I will not detain the House by going into history of that Act[the Borough Funds Act], the but I must altogether deny the statement of the hon. Member, that it ha^* worked well in the opinion of those who, I think, are best qualified to judge. On the contrary, there is no provision in the Municipal Acts which is more resented, and in my opinion properly resented, by corporations than this. It the corporations are really representative of the interests of the ratepayers—as in my contention, and as I think the experience of the past thirty years is sufficient to show—then I say you are bound to trust them wholly, and it is an unconstitutional proceeding to submit all their opinions and decisions to a meeting of ratepayers."

Well now, this Bill does not go so far as the right hon. Gentleman. The ratepayers having had the privilege of deciding in open meeting, it is not pro-posed to take away all control from them, but it is proposed to give control in a more effective form. In fact,, it is on constitutional grounds that it has been determined to retain the control of the ratepayers. I should like to read what the First Lord of the Treasury said on this matter. In the course of a discussion in Committee on the London Government Bill, on the 9th May of last year, he said—

"I think, probably at no distant date, Parliament will take in hand the system which the right hon. Gentleman very justly describes as cumbersome, and will effectively simplify it. That reform would, of course, apply to the London boroughs, as it would to the country boroughs. I do not think we can in this Bill attempt to begin this system of reform; I should prefer a general Act to be passed, applicable to all boroughs."†

The Solicitor General on the same occasion said—

"Surely the proper way of dealing with it [the Borough Funds Act] was by a general! reform of the law."

The hon. Member for Stockton took part in the discussion, and made some observations as to the necessity of some provision of the nature of those contained in this Bill; and I may venture to say that the opinion of the House generally is strongly in favour of this Bill. I see my hon. friend the Under Secretary for

^* Of this speech (on The Electric Lighting Bill) a condensed report is given in The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. celxxii., page 572.

† For this and subsequent extracts, see The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. Ixxi., pages 184–189.

the Home Office in his place, and I should like to say that on behalf of his Department he has expressed himself very sympathetically, and declared that his Department will give its approval to this Bill. I will cite one other authority -the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean. Although he had some doubts as to the success of the new London boroughs, he thought that the cumbersome machinery of the Borough Funds Act was extraordinarily costly, was out of date, and ought to be improved. Let me ask the House for a moment longer to consider what is the substitute which is proposed by the Bill. I repeat most emphatically, because there has been some misapprehension, that it is not proposed in any way to lessen, but rather to strengthen the control of the ratepayers. The House has heard the checks upon premature or ill-considered action. First there must be an advertisement for two successive weeks in a local paper stating the nature and object of the Bill which it is proposed to promote or to oppose. The title of the Bill has to be given, and the date of its deposit must be stated, and for twenty-one days any ratepayer is to have access to it at the town hall or other central place, and is to be at liberty to take extracts from it freely for his information, without any fee. I come to the point which I think is the chief reform in this matter. Instead of one there must be 100 ratepayers entitled to demand a poll, or one-twentieth of the whole constituency, whichever of the two may be the larger. I admit that that is a most drastic proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies thought that the council ought to do it without reference to the ratepayers. We, however, take the proposals of the Government made through Lord Harris, and are quite content that 100 ratepayers or one-twentieth part of the constituency should be entitled to demand a poll. I venture to say, however, that in Committee this is to be regarded as a detail, and we shall leave it in the hands of the House. All we desire is that in principle there shall be a real demand by a substantial body of the constituency before a poll is granted. A form is given with full details and explanations as to the mode in which the poll is to be taken, so as to facilitate everything. I now pass to another reform proposed by the Bill, to which no exception, I am sure, can possibly be taken. Under the existing system the ratepayers have to say yea or nay to the Bill. It is a matter of the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, or no Bill at all. That seems to me to be an extraordinary mode of putting the matter before the constituency. There is a tendency in the present day to divide Bills into parts. That, I think, is desirable. There may be one part for housing, another part for baths and wash houses, and another part for parks, etc. Now one part may be open to objection but all the other parts acceptable but the constituency has to reject the whole, and the result is that instead of one poll, it may be three will! require to be taken. The next and last reform which is proposed to be made is that the poll is to be assimilated to those of all other elections, and instead of having to put initials which puzzle a great many people, the ordinary form of indicating the vote by a cross is to be adopted, and it is to be applied to one clause or part of the Bill in favour or against. Then if the result of the poll is against the measure, or any clause or part of the Bill, the council or governing body of the urban sanitary authority is under compulsion to withdraw that particular part or clause. The only additional provision I desire to mention is that a proper provision is made that if a measure is rejected the costs up to the date of the rejection are to be paid out of the borough fund. I say up to that time, because we all know that there are certain costs to be paid in the early stages of these measures. I repeat this is an administrative measure seeking reform. It is no revolution whatever, and so far from taking the control from the ratepayers, it gives them a real and effective control instead of giving it to one ratepayer to effect that which they do not desire, and to throw ridicule on the whole proposals; the voting of the past is to be substituted by a modern and effective method. If the House approves this principle, the details can be discussed on the Committee stage, because I should propose that this Bill should be sent to the Standing Committee on Law. I therefore trust the House will allow the Second Heading to take place to-day, and that the Bill may eventually find its place in the Statute-book.

I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I should like to suggest one or two improvements upon it. I do not think any serious complaint can be made by any municipality in the country in respect to the checks that are placed upon them in the promotion or opposition of Bills in Parliament under the Borough Funds Act, when we take into consideration the fact that out of £253,000,000, the indebtedness of our local authorities at the present time, no less than £120,000,000 or £13(), 000,000 is for remunerative purposes under powers obtained through the promotion of Bills through this House. I have no desire to oppose the municipalisation of some of our industries, such as water, gas, tramways, and electric lighting, and such like schemes; but I think, in the interest of the ratepayers, whenever a Bill is proposed to be promoted the utmost publicity should be given to the Bill so that the ratepayers might have some knowledge of the intention of the council. A Bill may involve expenditure of from £100,000 up to £1,000,000. Some corporations have expended more than the latter in the execution of gigantic waterworks; and when a municipality proposes to mortgage the interest of the ratepayers for a measure of that character, I contend that the rate payers ought to have some knowledge of i what is contained in the Bill. The point in dispute between me and the mover is in the use of this publicity. I am under the impression that the proposals of the { fourth clause in this Bill will not cure the evil of which he complains. There is a great improvement in that clause, because in former Bills it was proposed to take one-twentieth of the electors. Under this Bill there is a provision to give power to 100 electors, and then, after they have signed a request to the mayor, they can demand a poll. Now, here is where the danger lies. You can in any town obtain 100 men who will undertake to sign a requisition to the mayor to demand a poll, because the ratepayers have sometimes the greatest misconception as to what is contained in a Bill. Therefore, I should Like to preserve the right, which now exists, that before the promoters can proceed with a Bill there should be a public meeting of the ratepayers at which the Bill should be discussed. I know of a case of a Bill promoted in the present Parliament where, if this clause had been law, and the public meeting had not taken place, a poll would have been demanded, and the ratepayers would have been put to the enormous expense of a poll, but owing to the meeting being held and the measure being explained in a most explicit manner by the speaker, all opposition was done-away with and the Bill was promoted. That was one case, and would be the casein almost every town in the country. I must say there is a great tendency in all local bodies and municipalities to promote Bills without any legitimate cause. It is well known to everybody who has experience of municipal work that very often municipalities promote Bills at great cost to the ratepayers when they could obtain the same powers by a Provisional Order; and if it were not for the checks which the ratepayers have hitherto had many such Bills would have been promoted. lit this measure there is a great improvement. I believe in Clause 4 so far that I would take away the right for one man to demand a poll, but I would restore the right of public meeting; with this improvement in the clause the 100 ratepayers, after the public meeting, if they still objected, ought to have the right to demand a poll. I quite agree with what is said as to the method of taking, the poll; the present method is an antiquated and obsolete ^* one, and I also agree with the improvement in Clause 7, which is due to the hen. Member for Huddersfield, which provides that if a section of the ratepayers succeed in opposing successfully a particular part of any Bill, the whole Bill shall not be lost, but that the part which is not opposed may be proceeded with. The Bill, with the exceptions I have pointed out, is a great improvement on the existing law, and I would ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board in his reply to give some guarantee that the right of public meeting should be restored to the ratepayers of the country.

I cordially support the Second Reading of this measure. It proposes to substitute a reasonable method of obtaining the opinion of the ratepayers for the clumsy method now in force. Anyone who has seen the law in operation must admit that anything more unsatisfactory than the present method it is impossible to imagine. The idea that at a meeting of ratepayers for the purpose of con- sidering a measure a single voter can put such a town as Liverpool to the expense of about £1,500 for taking a poll is monstrous. In addition to that there is the absurdity that the opinion of the ratepayers can only be expressed on a Bill as a whole, and not on a particular part. Now I understand if this Bill comes into force, instead of the present clumsy method, it is provided that there shall be a poll only on the application of one hundred ratepayers, or one-twentieth of the whole number, whichever is the least, and this expression of opinion must be obtained not by filling up a house to house paper, but on a vote taken in the ordinary way. There will also be a provision which does not exist by which, if the proposed Bill is defeated, the expenses up to that point shall be borne by the borough funds. I think this Bill is sound in principle and deserves support.

As one who has long taken an interest in this subject, I should like to say a few words in support of the Bill introduced by my hon. friend the Member for South Islington. It appears to me that the tendency of this House in recent years has been to withdraw the referendum and to rely entirely on the decision of the town council. This has been the case in respect of the establishment of public libraries. Until recently it was the law that public libraries could never be established in any borough throughout the country by the vote of a mere local authority without the opinion of the ratepayers was first taken at a public meeting, and then by the common law poll. This House has, however, recently said that the local councils were competent to deal with matters of that character, and so abolished the referendum, and the Parliament now leaves the local bodies with full responsibility. If that principle is sound, then in a case of this kind where the law has hedged round the interests of the ratepayers with all these safeguards, I do not think it is likely that the local authority will be able to get a Bill promoted in Parliament without it has a great consensus of opinion in its favour. The Bill introduced by my hon. friend is for the purpose of doing away with some absurdities and anomalies. I do not lay much stress on the vote of 100 ratepayers instead of one before the poll can be demanded: in my opinion the great improvement which the Bill introduces is that which prevents any persons, because they do not agree with ore clause of the Bill, throwing the whole Bill out. Any persons who have had as much municipal experience as myself know that in all these omnibus Bills, any cantankerous ratepayer, or any organised body of ratepayers can prevent 19-20ths of a Bill becoming law because they disagree with the l-20th part of it. I think no good really arises from the abolition of the public meeting, which on the one hand is a great safety valve, and on the other clears away much misconception. So far as that detail is concerned it is one which my hon. friend will, I hope, consider when the Bill comes into Committee. I hope the Secretary of the Local Government Board will give a sympathetic reception to this Bill, which will allow the ratepayers to express their assent or dissent with any measure which may be promoted in an effective manner. Let the measure be passed in such a form that where any strong objection is shown to one part of any local measure by the ratepayers the other part of the Bill shall not be sacrificed.

The great principle of the Borough Funds Act that there should be some application to the principle of the referendum I believe to be an entirely sound principle, and I should be very sorry to depart from it. Town councils or authorities of that class have an immense amount of administrative authority, but no legislative authority. Legislation is outside the province of town councils, and where they seek new powers from Parliament they ought to seek a mandate from their constituents. The Borough Funds Act, I believe, does not work satisfactorily. Public meetings in many cases degenerate into a mere farce, and the conduct at such meetings has been such as to throw ridicule over the whole of the proceedings. But I certainly object to any law which allows one ratepayer to put the borough to the expense of a poll which, unless it is highly organised, does not ascertain the real opinion of the community. I welcome this Bill because it removes the objections I have often seen in my experience to the working of the Borough Funds Bill, and it preserves a principle which I desire to advocate—that there be a referendum in case of any town council applying for new powers or modification of existing powers After long experience, and what I have seen in the Committee rooms, I have good ground for approving and praising the action of town councils; but I have always found that some town councils do sometimes try to magnify their importance by seeking powers beyond what are necessary. Every new power is a restriction on the freedom of the subject. It may be desirable or otherwise, but in many cases it is a question which will not bear discussion, and the Committee have often acted with great wisdom when they refused to grant the powers which were sought. In my opinion this Bill will be a great improvement on the existing law and will remove many difficulties of administration from which we suffer at present.

My hon. friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill correctly apprehended the attitude of the Government towards it. It is a wise and necessary amendment of the law, and the only note of discord is that which is struck by the hon. Member for Stockton. The point the hon. Member dealt with, however, was one of considerable importance. He was afraid that under this Bill the publicity which we all admit to be necessary, before any scheme ought to be passed, for ascertaining the minds of the ratepayers would be seriously interfered with. The law at present ensures first of all full discussion by the corporation itself. First of all there is the advertisement—that is not touched by this Bill; then there is the discussion in the corporation—that is not touched. Then follows the public meeting; under the present Bill that meeting would, no doubt, disappear. I am very far from suggesting that at these public meetings the matters brought before them are not properly or adequately discussed. Sometimes that is so, but sometimes it is not; but the idea of allowing a single voter in a public meeting to put the whole community of a town or city to the expense of a poll is and I think I do not go too far in making use of the expression—an absurdity. Under the present Bill one hundred ratepayers can demand a poll, and in that respect the Bill is much more reasonable than the present law. The details of the Bill will all be dealt with by the Committee on Law, to which my hon. friend proposes to send it, and I am certain will be properly dealt with. The Bill provides an improved machinery for taking the opinion of the ratepayers; it protects their interests, and does away with a most antiquated system of government, and I shall certainly support the Second Reading.

was of opinion that those who had spoken on the Bill before the House would agree that it was an improvement on the Borough Funds Act. It was not many years since that proposals were made to abolish that Act altogether. Those who represented borough constituencies were sometimes expected to speak as if they represented in this House their municipal councils alone, but it was their duty sometimes to stand between those bodies on the one hand and the electors on the other. It occurred to him, therefore, that it was the duty of Borough Members to watch carefully Bills of the character of that before the House. In a Bill of this kind they ought to be careful to see that the rights of the inhabitants at large should not be lost sight of. He did not intend to suggest that the present law was satisfactory, and he was prepared to assent to modifications, but he thought the Bill gave the town council too much control in putting into force the regulations of the Borough Funds Act. He did not think they could say they were taking steps to get a fair representation of the opinions of the inhabitants of a borough unless they gave the same facilities for going to the poll as in the case of municipal or Parliamentary elections. Certainly that was not efficiently provided for in the Bill. Then the conducting of the elections was left entirely in the hands of the mayor and corporation. The Bill did not state whether the voting was to be by ballot, and it appeared to him to be a case in which it was pre-eminently desirable that the Ballot Act should be put in force. The electors in voting on a question of large additional expenditure might not be quite free to give an unbiassed judgment. In this House Members gave their votes openly, so that those who sent them to Parliament might have the opportunity of challenging their opinions on all subjects, but the electors voted in secret. So far as he knew at present there was no considerable number of Members, if there were any, who would desire to alter that system of voting. In his view the voting under this Bill ought to be by ballot. What might happen? He would state the sort of case that had come under his own observation. Some proposal was brought forward by the Town Council, and it was submitted to an excited public meeting. It might be that a considerable section of the population thought the proposal very good and that it ought to be sup- ported. It might also be that a large body of the more thoughtful and better qualified electors in the constituency took the other view, and that at all events the proposal, whatever it might be, should be postponed for a time for further consideration. While holding that opinion, they might be inclined to avoid, if possible, giving public expression to it. Under the protection of the ballot, which it ought to be made clear that they have under this Bill, they would have the opportunity of exercising their deliberate judgment free from any feeling of apprehension. He hoped also it would be made clear that the method of carrying out the election would not be left to the mayor and corporation to settle, but that it would be embodied in the Bill. These were points which could be discussed if the Bill went to a Committee, though he thought it would be more fair to have the measure considered in the whole House. There were many points of detail which he was rather disposed to think required careful consideration. It would be a misfortune to have the public meeting abolished. The preliminary ventilation of public opinion by a public meeting was frequently of the greatest benefit. There was another portion of the Bill which had been dealt rather lightly with—treated in fact almost as a matter of course. He doubted whether it was so much a matter of course as some were inclined to think. He alluded to the form proposed in Schedule No. 3 for putting the question before the electors. He had a little doubt as to the policy of dealing piecemeal with a Bill under this proposal. On the whole, he was disposed to take a favourable view of the Bill, but he thought it was a doubtful measure in certain respects. He desired to reserve his judgment on the details until they came to be considered. He thought the Bill ought to be considered in Committee of the whole House.

I think the proposal to refer these questions to a public meeting is an extremely valuable portion of the Bill, and I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton when he says he should be sorry to see that principle abandoned. At the same time I agree with my hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board when he says the law as it stands now is capable of improvement. My hon. friend has said that one crank could stifle legislation, or, it might be, cause expense in opposing it. That of course is quite true. There are always some people, whether you call them cranks or faddists, who form some peculiar idea which is singular to themselves, and who are ready to go any length to further a particular idea, and unfortunately this kind of people are just the people who would attend a public meeting, which the ordinary elector, unless extremely interested for or against a particular project, does not take the trouble to attend. The crank or faddist is sure to make a point of attending a public meeting in order to promote his particular fad. I therefore think it would be right to put some restriction on the power of public meeting. If the hon. Member desires to retain the right of public meeting, and at the same time make it a more efficient arrangement, the question is, how can that best be brought about? Though the Bill is a step in the right direction I think it will require some amendment in Committee. I do not think an advertisement in a newspaper for one day in two successive weeks is sufficient. It may be put in a corner of a newspaper, and it may escape notice altogether. If we desire to retain the public meeting we should take some better means than that of informing the; electors of the borough that some project is on foot. Then, with regard to the number of ratepayers necessary to demand a poll, the Bill provides that it shall be 100—rather a large order. It would be very difficult, I think, except in boroughs where the ratepayers are particularly enthusiastic in attending to their duties, to get together 100 ratepayers to consent to any particular reform. These are, perhaps. questions to be dealt with in Committee, but I think that the preservation of public meeting is so valuable that before we proceed to pass the Second Heading of the Bill we should express our opinion on this particular point in it, which really strikes at the root of the whole matter. I hope, therefore, that whether the Bill goes before a Com- mittee of the whole House or the Standing Committee on Law, steps will be taken to ensure that the ratepayers shall know without looking in a local newspaper to find out what is going on, and what is going to take place, and that a more reasonable number shall be required to demand a poll. I think one hundred is too large. Then I observe by Clause 12, Section 4 of the Borough Funds Act of 1882 is to be repealed. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether the Bill proposes to do away with the opposition altogether, and prevent the ratepayers from opposing the Bill.

That is not the proposition. That has been held to be an inherent right on the part of bodies who are affected, and really it is quite a secondary question.

I do not object to that. All I wanted to understand was how the matter stood. I shall vote for the Second Reading if a division is taken, and I hope steps will be taken in Committee with regard to the few points I have referred to.

I am strongly of opinion that it is very desirable that a public meeting should be held. It is true that there is to be an advertisement in a newspaper, but it is not everybody who sees these advertisements. The general body of the ratepayers are not members of the corporation, and they have no means of expressing their opinion or criticising the Bill that is proposed to be adopted by the Corporation. Therefore it follows that there ought to be a public meeting as is at present the rule, and then those who choose to attend can express their opinions and very valuable information may be obtained in that way. If that course is taken it does not follow that the Bill submitted for consideration is not good and desirable in many respects, but there may be clauses or propositions in it that are not so valuable and ought to be thoroughly considered before the Bill is brought before Parliament. Under these circumstances I do not see how you are to do away with the public meeting, and I hope that when this Bill comes before the Committee on Law, or whatever Committee it may be referred to, that they will consider that point and leave the inhabitants and ratepayers of the various burghs the right to express their opinions. I shall be very glad if the result of this Bill is to improve the manner in which Bills are brought forward, and I hope that there may be a saving of expense. It is quite possible that when this Bill comes before the Committee Amendments will be introduced, especially with regard to the holding of public meetings, which will make it a very useful measure. I observe in the Bill, and it is rather peculiar —rather putting the cart before the horse—that after advertisements have been issued any person who objects is to send in notice requiring a poll. It is very strange that you are to send in notice of a poll before having an opportunity of discussing the measure, when explanations might render a poll unnecessary. I hope when the Bill comes back from committee it will be considered a good Bill, but there are Amendments which I think might be useful.

I would not have taken part in this debate had it not been for this question of public meeting. I believe there is a certain amount of opposition to the Bill in the constituencies by reason of the right of public meeting being left out. In the course of this debate my hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board has most emphatically and distinctly said that the right of public meeting is to a certain extent unnecessary. He gave that as his opinion. That, no doubt, will now be the opinion of the Government when the Bill goes into. Committee, and that position, unless we try to shake it to-day, will be maintained, and the right of public meeting will not be provided for in the Bill. This is a question which ought to receive very great consideration from the House. If the right of public meeting can do no good it certainly can do no harm. It very often happens that discussion does a great deal of good, that opposition is done away with, and that the position is very much simplified. I hope when the Bill emerges from the Committee on Law that it will contain a provision retaining the right of public meeting.

The abolition of the public meeting would very materially change the procedure under which this House has dealt with Bills coming from public bodies. It has always hitherto been the custom, I believe, in the case of public bodies that a public meeting should be held. My hon. friend, who is so well acquainted with these matters, will be able to inform us whether there are any proposals that may be brought forward without such a public meeting. In case of all the Bills which I have personal knowledge of it is absolutely necessary that there should be a public meeting.

There is the Public Libraries Act.

I thought my hon. friend would be able to inform me. I think he acknowledges that there is an exception. There is another reason which I think makes it all the more important that the right of public meeting should be retained, and that is that in large boroughs a poll must involve considerable trouble and expense, and it is very probable that a public meeting would obviate the necessity for a poll. If the citizens gather together in a common hall and have an opportunity of expressing their views, they might be satisfied that a poll was not necessary, whereas if there was no public meeting there might be some people who would endeavour to get up a poll and thereby involve the ratepayers in considerable cost. For that reason, as well as the fact that we should be breaking through an old Parliamentary custom, I hope we may be assured that, if this Bill is read a second time to-day, the right of public meeting will be retained when we see it again in this House.

I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I have no intention to occupy the attention of the House on this occasion. On the 3rd May last year we had a full day's debate on the Bill,† and had it been loft to the Scotch Members it would have gone upstairs. On that occasion there were forty Members who voted for the Bill and

† See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series]. Vol. lxx., page 1225.

fifteen against it, showing the intense and strong desire on the part of the people of Scotland to have this put upon the statute book. This is one of the great social questions which the people of Scotland have set their minds upon, and in many places they have already adopted the arrangement proposed in the Bill. The truth of the matter is that the prohibition of the issue of licences within the area of these parishes has been exercised not by the will of the people, but by the, will of the landlord. What is wanted is that the same rights that landlords have over their properties should be given to the ratepayers within the area in which they live in respect to the licensing question. The Bill I hold in my hand refers to three different points. The first point is prohibition within areas in the hands of the ratepayers by a two-thirds majority; in the second place there is in the hands of the ratepayers, if they are so disposed, the power to limit the number of licences within their area; and in the third place, if they do not wish any alteration of the law, the right to say that matters should remain in statu quo. There is no doubt that if this Bill was. put on the statute book many places in Scotland would act upon it. In my own constituency there has arisen within the last ten years a suburban district where there are between 8,000 and 10,000 inhabitants. If a few individuals are in favour of applications which are made for licences, great hardship is entailed upon the ratepayers of the district in opposing these applications. To the credit of the justices of the peace it should be stated that they have listened to the ratepayers hitherto and refused to grant licences within the area. What is the result in that area? The result is that the whole area is inhabited by a class who do not want to live in the neighbourhood of a public-house. They are very desirous, and naturally desirous, to prevent the place from becoming a slum land, as is the case in most places where public-houses are put down. With those few remarks I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

I rise to second the motion. When the Bill was discussed last year only fifteen ventured to record their votes against it. We only claim that which has been granted years ago to most of the colonies, of the British Empire. In Canada they have had for many years some sort of local option; in the Australian colonies, in New Zealand, and in Cape Colony they also have had popular control of this traffic. One of the reasons advanced last year for; the opposition to this Bill was that the Royal Commission appointed by the Government had not then issued its Report. A Report, or rather I should say a dual Report, has since been issued. Lord Peel issued a Minority Report, which recommended that at the expiry of a period of five years there should be granted to Scotland, in respect of its advanced temperance sentiment and the demands of the people of Scotland, such a legislative measure of popular control. That is what we seek by this Bill. While it would give to those areas which are so far advanced as to be able to put in force the enactments in this Bill power to prohibit the sale of liquor, it would give to larger areas the power to restrict the increase of the number of licences. By the recommendation of the Minority Report it is suggested that there should not be more than one licence for 750 in urban and one for 400 of the population in rural districts. Were that the law of the land there would be a very great decrease in the number of public-houses in our large cities; but as a matter of fact under the law as it now stands the licensing authority, and especially the appeal court from the burghal authority, being quite irresponsible, and having no constituency to answer to for their conduct, are constantly being urged to grant additional licences, and the result is that in considerable areas there is still a steady increase in the number of these licences, 'notwithstanding that every demand for additional licences is met by petitions and representations in the licensing court appealing to the justices not to grant such additional licences. I think no argument is needed in support of this very reasonable Bill of my hon. friend, and I have much pleasure in seconding it.

Both of the hon. Members who have just spoken have given, as a reason for introducing such an important measure as this in so short a space of time as seven minutes, that it was discussed last year. But the Bill was defeated last year, and if they wished to alter the opinion of the House, surely it would be more courteous to the House to advance arguments to show that the House was wrong in defeating the measure last year, and ought to alter its opinion this year. I fail to see, although I have listened attentively to the hon. Gentlemen who introduced and seconded the Bill, any reason to induce the House to alter the determination at which they arrived last year. It is true, as the hon. Member who seconded has said, that the Royal Commission has reported; but the Commission has not, so far as I can see, made matters very much clearer by its Report, and it has made confusion worse confounded. Therefore I do not think that argument is a very great one on which to induce the House to depart from the decision at which it had arrived. When one comes to look at the Bill, one finds that this is practically local veto pure and simple—that is to say, it is open to all the objections which can be urged against local veto. No doubt it is a very great thing to promote temperance, and I am quite certain there is no Member in this House who is more in favour of temperance than I am myself. [Laughter.] Certain Members opposite may laugh, but I do not see why they should laugh, because I think everybody on both sides of the House is of the same opinion, that the temperate man is very much better in i whatever walk of life he may chance to live, and therefore if we can by example, or any other way that does not interfere with the liberty of the subject, promote temperance I am sure we would be willing to do everything we could in that way. The question here is not whether we should by example and precept endeavour to promote that which we believe to be an excellent object, but whether we should by Act of Parliament and by force prevent people from not only using but obtaining in any form all refreshment. One of the arguments that have been used is undoubtedly a very strong one, and that is that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. It is not essential to the rich man that there should be a public-house in his neighbourhood. He can in his cellar store that amount of alcoholic liquor which he may deem to be good for himself, but the poor man is not in that position. He, as a rule, consumes liquor in what I may call a legitimate form, because I consider that the drinking of alcoholic liquor, provided you do not take too much, is not only legitimate, but is sometimes beneficial. I am afraid that the hon. member for Cockermouth, whom I see opposite, will not agree with those views, but at the same time I think those views are held largely by a number of people, not only in this House, but in this country, and therefore they deserve some consideration. The alcoholic liquor consumed by the poor man is generally in the form of beer, and we all know that you cannot store a small amount of beer in your cellar, because if you do the result is that the beer becomes Hat and is not pleasant to drink. At the same time he has no room to store a large cask, and therefore he is dependent on the public-house to enable him to obtain that refreshment which, I think, as long as he takes it in moderation, he is entitled to obtain. What would be the result of passing this Bill? Probably the result would be in some localities, where there happened to be a considerable number of teetotalers—I do not wish to say a word against the teetotaler, he is a very estimable man—that the provisions of this Bill would be put in force. But if you went into another locality where there were not so many teetotalers, the provisions would not be put in force, and therefore you would have anomalies arising at once. The ordinary man living in a locality where the pro- visions were not in force would be able, if thirsty, to have a pint of beer, but if the same man, to follow the exigencies of his trade, were to go into another locality where the provisions of the Bill wore in force, he would find that he was prevented from having the glass of beer which he had always been accustomed to. I am reminded by my hon. friend below me that there would be no provision for visitors to a district. We know that there is at the present moment a great increase in the number of people who travel on bicycles. That is, I think, a form of recreation which everybody must admit is extremely good for the people of this country. It is of great assistance to people who, before the use of bicycles, were not only unable to see so much of their native country, but who were unable to obtain that exercise which is so good for all of us. Cyclists would be unable to obtain that refreshment which, in the mind of every reasonable person, they are certainly entitled to obtain. This Bill bristles with contentious subjects, even in the first few lines of it. There is another question which is not, perhaps, so clear as the matter with which I have been dealing, and it is a question upon which opinions are very much divided—I allude to the question of compensation. I believe that there are among the ranks of the temperance party those who sympathise with the principle of compensation, but among the temperance party there is not a unanimous opinion as to what should be done in regard to this question of compensation. This Bill practically provides no compensation whatever for the abolition of licences. That, I think, is a very serious matter, and I can hardly conceive that the House of Commons will,, on a Wednesday afternoon at five o'clock, after a discussion which cannot possibly last longer than an hour, allow such a proposal as this to pass. I see my hon. friend the Member for Norwood has just come into the House, and I should be delighted to hear whether he is in favour of taking away publicans' licences and giving them nothing in return. I know he is an ardent temperance advocate, but I do not think he will support this proposal. This Bill provides that—

"(a) A majority of two-thirds of the votes recorded are in favour of a prohibitory Resolution as defined by this Act; or (b)) A majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a limiting Resolution as defined by this Act."

As licences are granted annually, publicans would receive no compensation of any sort or kind. The licence can be repealed at any moment. But, on the other hand,, when the publican invested his money in a public-house he did it under the impression that, provided he did not transgress the unwritten law which governs these matters, and provided he conducts his business in a proper and decent manner, his licence would not be taken away. That is the general principle on which licences are granted in this country, and though there is no legal right to the licence beyond the year for which it has been granted, I think it would be little short of confiscation if those licences were taken away by a new law which, at any rate up to the present, has not had the greatest amount of favour shown to it. At the last General Election one of the chief points upon which the election turned was a Local Veto Bill. I believe there were other questions, but the question of cold water for the working man was one of the great questions upon which the election turned, and I do not think the cold water programme at the next election is likely to lead to a return of hon. Members opposite. As to the question of the abolition of licences altogether, Clause 2 is very clear upon that point. It says—

"While a prohibitory resolution is in force in any area, no licence shall be granted or renewed for a sale of intoxicating liquors within that area."

Apparently, as far as I can make out, not only will there be no new licences granted, but a considerable number, amounting to 25 per cent., are to be taken away without compensation of any sort or kind. I will not go into the matter further, because I do not think the details of the Bill are the immediate questions before the House. The question is whether or not we shall pass a Local Veto Bill for Scotland. The only argument I have heard in favour of the Bill is that a certain number of Scotch Members are in favour of it. But we have not yet given Home Rule either for Scotland or Ireland, and questions of this sort are decided not by the Members from any particular district, but by the Members elected by the country at large. Because a majority of Scotch Members voted last year for a Local Veto Bill, that is no reason why we should pass this measure into law. If we were to pass this Bill for Scotland it would be said that what is good for Scotland is good for England. I am not a Scotch Member, but as an English Member, and knowing that in England the vast majority of the electors are against this Bill, I consider it my duty to make the protest I have done, and I shall certainly vote against the Bill if a division is taken.

I rise with considerable pleasure to second the proposal which has just been made by the hon. Member for Peckham, because I think that a Bill of this kind should have something more than a seven minutes introduction. I was very much amused. at the arguments which seem to carry so much weight in Scotland. The hon. Member opposite complains that there is a rising suburban district in Scotland containing between 8,000 and 10,000 people, all of whom object to these licences, and on account of this we are asked to abolish, without compensation, a number of the licences which are held by people in that district. I do not wish to say a word against my brethren in another portion of Her Majesty's dominions, but I cannot see that this is a grievance which the House ought to be called upon to remove. The arguments of the hon. Member who seconded this proposal were even more extraordinary. He spoke of the Minority Report of Lord Peel's Commission in justification of this Bill. It seems to me an extraordinary argument to urge that the Report of that Commission justifies what is proposed by this Bill. The abolition of existing licences because a resolution may be carried to that effect in any particular locality is an extraordinary proposal, for even the Report alluded to said that these licences should be allowed to run a certain number of years. It is an extraordinary thing that a Minority Report, which has not received the support of this House, should be brought forward in support of a measure which goes much further in the direction of abolishing existing licences without offering any compensation. The whole principle of local veto has been rejected as far as London is concerned. I am only an occasional visitor to Scotland, but I shall be a still less occasional visitor there if this Bill is passed. It may be that a cyclist or an Englishman, who cannot afford the expense of Scotch hotels, may find himself in a suburban district of Scotland, and he may be compelled to go more than a Sabbath day's journey to get to some place where there is a refreshment bar at all. That is one of the strongest arguments against the principle of this Bill in many constituencies, for people might find themselves in the West End of London working during the day, and because the people living there—who enjoy the possession of this world's riches, and are able to provide all their requirements in their own establishment—object to licensed houses in their midst, there would be absolutely nowhere in that locality for these men to obtain refreshment. If you take away from the licensed victuallers the opportunity of providing refreshments, the business will not be carried on, and the working man has no right to have cold water or weak tea forced upon him. I know the hon. Member for Cockermouth would like to abolish all the bars we at present possess. Why should the people of Scotland be treated differently to the people of England? It has been said that forty Scotch Members voted for this Bill upon a previous occasion, that some stayed away, and that only fifteen voted against it. It is an extraordinary proposition that Scotland is to be treated differently because less than half of the Scotch Members pledged to this principle, and hoping to secure the support of the extreme temperance faction, came and voted for a Bill on a Wednesday afternoon, which in the present state of political parties had no possible chance of getting beyond a Second Reading. We must deal with the details of this Bill. Even if some of us do agree with the principle of local option and my hon. friend the Member for Norwood does—I am quite sure that those who agree with the principle on this side of the House would be the last persons in the world to do an act of injustice to publicans, even though they be Scotchmen. What is it that this Bill proposes? It proposes to take a poll in a certain area. This Bill is very badly drawn, and it took me a considerable period to discover what an area was. When I referred to Clause 6, Sub-section 2, I discovered what an area was, and I venture to say that on Clause 1 alone we tome to a principle which must be better explained, and which, when we discussed this question with regard to England, had practically to be abandoned. Now what is an area? We have to go to the sixth clause to find it, and it says —

"In the case of a burgh——"

We call it "borough."

Well, you do not spell it "borough." If the word "borough" is the legal definition of it, at all events, south of the Tweed, we spell "burgh" in a different manner. I must apologise to hon. Members for Scotland for not understanding their language. The second section of Clause 6 says—

"(a) In the case of a burgh or police burgh not divided into wards, that burgh.

"(b) In the case of a burgh or police burgh divided into wards, a ward of that burgh."

Here we come to the gross inequality, injustice, and absurdity of a measure of this character. Take a small town divided into three or four wards. We may find in the ward described by the hon. Member who proposed this measure, that a ward with 6,000, 8,000, or 10,000 suburban inhabitants will carry a resolution against licences. The next ward may be described as a slum, and I imagine the slum is where the poor people live. In this matter my sympathy is with the poor people, for the rich can look out for themselves. We should have the suburban ward people with no licences, and the people in the slums with a great many more licences than is good for them. And why? Because up to the present every effort made on this side of the House to reduce the number of licences and to compensate those who would have been turned out has been met with stolid opposition from Members opposite. If the friends of temperance reform had met the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade in 1888 in the spirit it should have been met in, hundreds of thousands of pounds would have been spent in extinguishing licences in our boroughs, and in removing that class of drink shop which every hon. Member on this side of the House is as eager to abolish as those who sit on the other side. I do not want to see the smallest holder and the poorest man turned out with absolutely nothing for him to receive. This measure is simply an attempt to get behind the minority Report of the Royal Commission, and it is trying to do what even the most extreme temperance advocates had not the courage to propose when they had the opportunity—it is trying to do something by a side wind which they have not the courage to do in the, face of public opinion. That is the first defect which we recognise in England, and it is a principle which, in every constituency, stands condemned. If you are going to have the constituencies divided as they are divided in London, into wards, what will occur where a ward has its boundary in the middle of the street or at the corner of the road? Take the Goswell Road for instance. There you may have one side in Clerken-well with licences, and the other side of the road without licences. I venture to say that the position would be equally as absurd in Scotland as in England. The Member for Peckham who spoke just now said the beer got flat when it was kept in the house. I did not know that the favourite Scotch national beverage was beer, but I have no doubt its con- sumption is growing in Scotland, because as people get more education they find that wholesome beer is better for them than strong spirits. It would be an absurdity in one of these wards, where the centre of the street is the boundary, say in one part of the thickly populated portion of Edinburgh, or Glasgow, or the model city of Perth, to find licences on one side of a street and on the other none at all. This means that in the poorest parts of the city, where there is a large majority against the abolition of licences, you would be practically doing what one knows goes on in prohibition counties in America. That is, you would be driving to certain houses the very worst class of people you can possibly have, namely, the people who roam about and drink from one place to the other. They run special Sunday trains to escape the Sunday Closing Act in Swansea, for they are considered to be bonâ fide travellers, and this produces scenes which are disgusting to right-minded persons. If it is only to prevent these anomalies, I do ask the House to hesitate before it proceeds to give even a Second Reading to this measure. This Bill has been brought forward without any authoritative backing behind it. We have been told what was done on a certain Wednesday afternoon a year ago. The resolutions carried in this House, and Bills which have survived a Second Reading on a Wednesday afternoon, are very much like the good resolutions with which we are told a certain place is paved. The majority of the measures brought in on a Wednesday afternoon are generally got rid of with the knowledge that they will either become hardy annuals, or else disappear altogether from the political horizon. Let us take the third sub-section, which provides—

"(c) In the case of a county, a parish, whether wholly within one county or not, or where such parish has been divided into wards for the purpose of the election of a parish council, a ward of that parish."

I have had, of course, some experience in trying to construe Acts of Parliament, and this clause looks to me as though it would give plenty of employment to the advocates of Scotland to find out what it means. What do these words mean? I venture to say it will puzzle the Court of Sessions to define this section, and when they have given their decision there will probably have to be an appeal to the House of Lords, and I cannot see what is to happen to the county. This section must have been drawn by someone with an elementary knowledge of law. When we come to a growing district, partly rural and partly urban, with which we are so familiar in the south, and which is ceasing to be rural and becoming more urban, in what position are we? There are the parish council and the county council areas, but what does a ward of a parish mean there? This shows to my mind that this Bill has really been put before the House, not with the view of testing a principle, but simply to see how far the House will go on a Wednesday afternoon, for it leaves the real crux of this question without further consideration. Let me now come back to the second section, which is one dealing with an important principle. It provides—

"While a prohibitory resolution is in force in any area, no licence shall be granted or renewed for the sale of intoxicating liquors within that area."

This Bill has the same defect as the English Bill in this respect: that it puts it in the power of all legally qualified medical practitioners to sign prescriptions enabling people to get intoxicating liquors from the chemist. I remember that the late Mr. Gladstone spoke with great eloquence upon the privations of Scotch students, and of the number of highly qualified and gifted young men who came from humble homes in Scotland and qualified themselves at the evening classes of Scotch universities. Just look what a temptation to them this proposal would be, for they would be practically able to set the law at defiance, for anyone who has got the ordinary legal qualification in Scotland is to be allowed by this measure to sign a prescription by which a person can get intoxicating liquors from a chemist under another name. Therefore those who live in a prohibited area will by this method be able to got as much for a shilling as they want from the chemist instead of getting it at the proper place. That is opening up a new channel about which we, ought to be very careful, for under the garb of medical treatment we are giving people intoxicating liquors. I remember a book which was given to me upon the evils of intemperance, and it was a work which had the sanction of the hon. Member for Cockermouth. This book pointed out that one of the great evils of intemperance was the growing tendency on the part of the medical profession to prescribe intoxicating liquors under the garb of medicine. To the man who was accustomed to a moderate or an immoderate use of stimulants the very first tiling the doctor would say is, "This man must have these stimulants." The prescription would he signed, and intoxicating liquors would he brought in. This is a real danger, not only to morality but to health, and to that fair dealing between man and man which, in the liquor traffic as well as in everything else, ought to be one of the first and primary considerations when dealing with this question by Act of Parliament. With regard to the second clause, we come to what my hon. friend who has just spoken very truly said was the crux of the question. There is not the slightest proposal to give any compensation to those persons who lose their licences. These licences are to be taken away by the mere brute force of numbers. The second sub-section of Clause 2 provides that —

"While a limiting resolution is in force in any area, licences shall not be granted in the area to a number in excess of three-fourths of the number exiting at the date of the poll."

If the limiting resolution stood alone in this Bill I should not offer a very active opposition. But there is no such suggestion, for although we understand that the number of licences would be reduced by one-fourth probably the real object of this measure is to get rid of licences altogether. It goes on to say that —

"For the purposes of carrying the resolution into effect—(a) The grant of ordinary licences at the general yearly meeting for certificates at which such resolution comes into force (whether in respect of premises previously licensed or not) shall be subject to the law relating' to the grant of new licences."

That is, that every existing licence will have to be considered upon its merits, and there comes in the gross unfairness of this proposal. One-fourth of these licences have to be pushed on one side, and that means that the magistrates will have to consider who are the men who are to he deprived of their licences. Who will they be? Do you think they will he the holders of large licences, who have the largest establishments, and who have the greatest amount of capital? I think it will be the small men who will be driven out, on the ground that the smaller the licensed premises the more dangerous they become; for if they take away the licence from large premises they will be involving in financial ruin a number of persons and depriving them of employment in the trade. We come now to what is called "absolute discretion." I am not so well versed in the licensing laws of Scotland as of England, and I do not understand what the proposers of this Bill mean by Subsection (b) in Clause 2, which says—

"The grant of any licence at that meeting, and also, while the resolution is in force, the grant of any new licence within the limited number, shall, if not otherwise in the absolute discretion of the licensing authority, be in their absolute discretion."

We have had very little explanation of this proposition, and I would like to know if there is in Scotland a number of houses in the same position as the beer-houses before the Act of 1868, or does this subsection deal with every holder of a grocer's licence? I hope that the proposers of this Bill will let us know what they mean by the details of this measure, and not throw it before the House with- out explanation. With regard to the poll, I cannot understand what will be the position of the unfortunate returning officer, and what will be the position of the magistrate, for the requisition must be signed by the electors presenting it. Subsection 3 of Clause 3 provides—

"A requisition must he signed by the electors presenting it. An elector may sign requisitions for both a prohibitory and a limiting resolution; and where there are requisitions for both such resolutions, the poll on them shall be taken together."

I would like to ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh whether he approves of that proposal.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put "; but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

This Bill is a gross attempt to get behind the recommendations of the Minority 'Report of the Royal Commission. It is an attack upon the trade, and nothing else, by men who believe that the consumption of any form of alcohol is wrong, and it would have been far more honourable of the promoters to have said so. Having secured a sufficient number in favour of the prohibitory resolution, the limiting resolution is only a make-believe to obtain the support of honest temperance reformers like my hon. friend behind me and others who sit on this side of the House. That has not been put in to work, and the idea is absolute prohibition, the effect of which will be to open out those channels of illicit purchase which any of us who have had any experience of Radical clubs in the metropolis know are considerably worse than the worst managed public-houses in the country. My attention has been drawn through the clergy to the way in which these clubs are selling drink to the wives and children of the members during the prohibited hours when public-houses are closed.

Are the Conservative clubs closed?

The hon. Member for Stepney evidently does not know that all Conservative clubs are closed at a respectable time; but I do not want to discuss this grievance now with the hon. Member for Stepney. I may say that I shall only be too pleased to attend a temperance meeting with him, and to point out what an enemy to temperance so many of his supporters are. But I am not going to be drawn away into a discussion of my friend's friends' misdeeds in the metropolitan area, and I come back to the limiting area. I will deal now with what is going to happen on the day of the poll. The Bill provides—.

"On the day on which a poll is taken for the purposes of this Act all premises licensed for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquors shall remain closed during the whole of the day of polling."

I must say that if I had any of my small savings invested in licensed houses I should support this clause, because I am perfectly certain that the ordinary man, deprived of drink, would register his vote most emphatically against those people who shut up public-houses on a certain day. I think myself that this would be a great blessing, because we know that all the mischief is done against us at election times by unscrupulous people in public-houses. I remember that upon the last occasion when I was engaged in a contested election we were told that the only place where mischief was being done was where there was an application of English rather than Scotch liquors. Before dealing with the penalties under this Act, I want to ask the hon. Members who proposed this measure what they have to say with regard to what they call the further poll which is not to take place before the expiration of three years from the date of the resolution coming into force. I venture to think that, unless the Lord Advocate can throw more light on this Bill than the promoters have done, we shall never get so far as the first poll——