said he thought the House was entitled to some explanation with regard to that Bill, which raised issues of importance which were not ordinarily raised by railway Bills. Questions of public policy were involved. The House was now beginning to take an intelligent interest in English railway matters, and he hoped to see that interest directed to Irish Bills. He had not risen for the purpose of opposing or obstructing this Bill, but he had a particular grievance. He was not opposed to railway amalgamation, particularly in Ireland; on the contrary, he thought it a public advantage for a large railway to take over a small one, provided, of course, that the public interest was properly safeguarded. But, so far as he could see, that was not done in this case. The Derry Central Railway was under this Bill being absorbed by the Northern Counties Railway. Now the latter railway, he understood, was one of the few well-managed lines in Ireland; its charges were moderate, its officials were civil and courteous, and it served its district well. However, there were some peculiar features in connection with the Bill. It seemed that the Derry Central Railway Company was indebted to the Commissioners of Public Works in the sum of £113,720 18s. 4d, in respect of a loan and interest, and under the Bill the Commissioners were to receive £85,000, while £28,720 was to be divided among the shareholders of the company and officials who were being deprived of their positions. The preference shareholders were to get 4s. 6d. for every £1 share, and the ordinary guaranteed shareholders 3s. 1d. Surely some explanation ought to be forthcoming of that. Again, he had to complain that in no clause was there any guarantee whatever that the public rights would be protected and safeguarded, or that greater facilities and better accommodation would be provided for travellers. It was simply a transfer of the line from one company to another, under certain financial arrangements, and he did think the promoters should vouchsafe some explanation to the House.

explained that the Government advanced £100,000 for the making of this particular line, but, unfortunately, the company had not been able to pay the agreed instal- ments, and the indebtedness had consequently risen to £113,720. The Government were bound to look after the interests of the taxpayers, and so they foreclosed, with the result that after considerable negotiations the Northern Counties Company had agreed to take over the line on the terms mentioned by the hon. Member. It was in the public interest, therefore, that this Bill should be passed; otherwise the Government might get no return at all on their loan. The Bill cited the maximum rates and charges which the company were to be entitled to charge as those which were fixed under the original Act.

That is what I complain of. I say those rates are too high, and ought to be reduced.

next referred the hon. Member to the agreement on page 11 in the schedule of the Bill between the Government and the Northern Counties Railway Company, and expressed a hope that the opposition to the Bill would not be persisted in.

said he did not feel at all satisfied that the rates, of this railway under the amalgamation scheme would not be raised, and great care should be taken to protect the interests of the public in this respect. Owing to the many amalgamations which had taken place in Ireland, railway traffic in Ireland had gone into the hands of very few companies, and competition had disappeared. This House should be very careful to guard against matters of this kind, and under no circumstances whatever—

Order, order! It is extremely unusual to discuss, upon the Second Reading, details such as rates, which, if they are considered unsatisfactory, can be amended at a later stage. The point the hon. Member is raising hardly relates to the principle of the Bill.

then said he would move as an Instruction to the Committee—

The hon. Member cannot move an Instruction upon the Second Reading.

I think it will perhaps be for the convenience of the House that I should now state the position of the Government in regard to this Bill. My hon. friend opposite has spoken of this Bill as being promoted by the Northern Counties Railway and the Government, but that hardly expresses the position which the Government are in. The Government are interested in the Derry Central Railway in consequence of a loan they made. By the aid of that loan the railway was constructed, and since its construction it has been purchased by the Northern Counties Railway under an agreement between the Northern Counties Railway and the Government. Unfortunately, the Derry Central Railway has been surrounded by another system, and it cannot get through by itself at all to the north or south, and it is not in a position, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my advisers, to work successfully as an independent line. The position is that the loan is outstanding, expenses are being incurred, and arrears of interest are accumulating. Therefore the Government had to consider what they should do under the circumstances. The debt is mounting up, and as it appeared to the Government that the line was not likely to be successfully worked as an independent line, we had to consider what steps should be taken to remedy the position in which we were placed. The Derry Central Company approached the Treasury in 1899 for a revision of the existing conditions, and the Treasury decided that they must cither sell their interest in the line or they must foreclose and sell the line itself. They were inclined to sell their interest, together with their rights, but they did not find it easy or possible to get a suitable purchaser. After having called for tenders to see what other companies would give, and having only one offer, and that a very inadequate one, they decided to foreclose, and now, as the mortgagees in possession, they have decided to sell the line to the Northern Counties Company. This Bill is promoted by the Northern Counties Company to carry out the agreement which, subject to the sanction of Parliament, they have made with the Government for the purchase of the line. We have three main interests to deal with. The hon. Gentleman opposite asks what is the position of the taxpayer who advanced the money. The position of the taxpayer is that he gets back £85,000 of the loan of £100,000 which he made, and he saves the loss of any further interest which he would otherwise have to put up with. As a matter of fact, the Government were advised by an independent valuator whom we sent down to value the line that £85,000 was a fair value of their interest in the line. The taxpayer gets back £85,000, he is secured against any further loss of interest, and he gets the full value of his interest.

But he loses £28,000.

That is not all a loss of capital, but it is partly arrears of interest, which under other circumstances he has no chance whatever of recovering. There is also the interest of the shareholders. We felt that the shareholders who had put their money into the Derry Central Company had some equitable right to consideration, and that it was in accordance with the practice in such cases of purchase or amalgamation that their case should be considered. We therefore arranged that £20,000 should be set aside for the shareholders of the Derry Central Company as compensation for losing all further interest in the line. We also provide that the secretary should have a small sum as compensation, and the hon. Member opposite did not dispute the justice of that as regards the distribution of this compensation among the shareholders. I think this is evidently a question for the shareholders themselves, and one in which we ought not to interfere, and, moreover, it is one upon which we have consistently refused to express any opinion. The only position we take up in the matter is that the Northern Counties Company, which is itself a considerable shareholder, shall have no part in the compensation. Then there is the interest of the public which is served by this line, and it is that interest which hon. Gentlemen opposite are parti- cularly anxious about. I say that, in my opinion, this line cannot be worked independently with any prospects of success. If hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would look at the railway map of Ireland they would see that it needs no elaboration to prove that it cannot be worked successfully as an independent line. I do not think, therefore, that there would be any prospect of the line being worked to the satisfaction of the districts concerned by the Derry Central Company if we had sold to them, as they are not a rich company, and they would have had some difficulty in equipping the line satisfactorily. We have, therefore, sold it to the Northern Counties Company, which is one of the best of the Irish railways, a line which, in the words of the hon. Gentleman opposite, is well managed, charges moderate rates, and gives a good service. I think that in doing this we have probably done the best we could for the district to be served by the line. We have, however, taken some precautions. In the first place, it may be true, and I know the allegation has been made, that the Northern Counties Railway, under the working of their agreement, have rather starved the line. Under the arrangement made in this Bill it will be no longer to their interest to starve the line, for this line will become part of their general system, and it will be as much their own line as any other part. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the schedule on page 14, which has been referred to by my hon. friend, he will see that we have taken further precautions. I refer to Clause 3 of the schedule, and not to Clause 2, which the hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned. Under Clause 3 the actual rates charged at the date of this agreement on the railway are not to be increased directly or indirectly without the consent of the Railway and Canal Commissioners. It provides, further, that the rates charged in respect of traffic conveyed on the railway shall, where higher, be reduced to the level of the rates charged by the purchasers in respect of corresponding traffic conveyed or carried under similar circumstances, and for similar distances on the Northern Counties Railway; and, lastly, that the purchasers shall afford at least the same facilities to the public as at present, and shall in no way or under no circumstances work or use the railway to prejudicially affect the full and free flow of traffic of every description over the same for and from Dublin, Belfast, Londonderry, Larne, and all intermediate points. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that while it is the duty of the Treasury to consider the interest of the taxpayers, who have made this line, we have not been unmindful of the interests of the district, and we have done all that we fairly could do to secure that those interests would be safeguarded by the agreement we have made for the sale of the line. I very much hope the House will read this Bill a second time, and if there be any questions in dispute I think they may safely be left for settlement by the Committee. I do not think the objections raised are such as ought to induce the House to refuse its assent to the Bill.

wished to know who would be responsible to this House for the precautions alluded to being carried out. The House ought not to part with the control of an Irish railway without serious consideration. There ought to be somebody in the House of Commons to answer complaints about Irish railways, for at the present time they had no department to which they could apply for information in regard to railway matters. He thought he was entitled to have some information from the Government as to how these precautions were secured.

Any aggrieved person has his remedy, and he will not need the assent of the Government or of any Government department.

said that they had been told that there would be other opportunities to consider their grievances, and that this was not a question of great public utility. But he maintained that the House of Commons should insist that some person representing the department of the State responsible should be there to see that those arrangements were properly enforced. At the present moment they could get no redress for private grievances in regard to railways in Ireland. They were told by the Clerks at the Table that they should go before the Railway Commissioners, but the Railway Commissioners had no standing in this House, and he declined to be shunted about by the Clerks at the Table.

said that the hon. Member would have other opportunities of raising grievances of this kind. Details could not be gone into upon this occasion.

said that a Member of the House of Commons was entitled to see that any law passed by Parliament was enforced, and he maintained that they should not give a Second Reading to a Bill without getting some assurance that the arrangements made in that Bill would be carried out.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. He thought the Treasury had made a very fair bargain, under all the circumstances. The Treasury would get £65,000, where, without this agreement, they would have got nothing.

said the Treasury would receive £85,000. The £20,000 for the shareholders was in addition to the sum paid to the Treasury.

said that that made the case better than he thought, and therefore that the Treasury had made the best possible settlement by arranging for the purchase of the line by the Belfast and Northern Counties Company. He wished, however, to draw the attention of the House to one matter which would require consideration. If there was one line of railway in Ireland that had been badly managed, and was a nuisance rather than an advantage to the country, it was the Derry Central Railway. Many a long and weary hour he had spent at Magherafelt Junction. What he wanted to direct attention to in the agreement of purchase by the Belfast and Northern Counties Company was that the latter were not required to give any better facilities to the public than the Derry Central had done. Of course, it would be to their interest to do so, but if they did not agree to do that he would oppose the Bill when it came down from Committee.

agreed that the interests of the taxpayers had been fairly well looked after in the agreement, but he thought the shareholders had some ground of complaint against the Government. When the Government advanced £100,000 to the Derry Central Company, that seemed a guarantee to investors that the railway was going to be a success, whereas it appeared that the Government were aware that the undertaking could not possibly be successful.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to bring any more women and children into the camps of concentration; and, if so, whether in view of the overcrowding in some of the existing camps, the Government will establish in Cape Colony new camps, well supplied with water, near supplies and charitable aid. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether women now in camps of concentration in South Africa who are separated from their children will be allowed to rejoin them.

The number of people whom it may be necessary to bring into camps of concentration depends entirely on military considerations. The position of any new camps must be determined by Lord Kitchener, but the proximity to water and supplies will undoubtedly be considered. Cases of women separated from their children will be treated with all possible consideration, but I think in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member it is not known by the mothers where their families are situated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 10th instant, when the War Office announced Lord Kitchener's denial of the report concerning the alleged surprise of General Beyer's commando, Reuter's Telegram Company telegraphed to their agent at Cape Town for the full facts, and on the 14th instant were advised by the Cable Company that their message of inquiry had been stopped by the censor; and will he state under what circumstances this telegram was suppressed, and what action has been taken by Lord Kitchener in regard to the person who communicated from Pretoria on the 5th of June the report, the truth of which has been denied by Lord Kitchener.

I am not aware of the action imputed to the censor. Lord Kitchener has warned the agent to be more careful, but is of opinion that the case is not one for suspension.

Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the other information asked for in the question?

I do not think the matter is sufficiently important for further inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House if the Boer general Prinsloo and the force of more than 4,000 men who surrendered with him in 1900 were all detained as prisoners of war and deported to St. Helena or elsewhere.

The majority of the men who surrendered with General Prinsloo were detained as prisoners of war, and are now in Ceylon.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received official information as to the sanctioning by the High Commissioner for South Africa of the use of the lash in punishing natives under magisterial orders in the Transvaal, and has had an opportunity of discussing this and other matters affecting native interests with Lord Milner; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House correspondence or proposals as to the provisions for the supply and control of native labour in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, or otherwise inform the House as to the contemplated arrangements before these arrangements are allowed to be enforced.

(1) I have discussed the subject referred to in the first question with Lord Milner, who fully shares my strong objection to the indiscriminate or excessive use of the lash as a punishment. He informs me that the proclamation just issued alters the previous practice by reducing the maximum number of lashes and by limiting the offences for which the punishment can be given, and it also makes necessary in most cases the sanction of a higher authority before the punishment can be inflicted. It is, therefore, a great improvement on the law of the late Government of the South African Republic, and I am informed that the legal adviser of the Government—Mr. Solomon—has already issued a circular to magistrates warning them to be sparing in the use of the lash. (2) The question of native labour is under consideration, and it is probable that nothing will be settled till Lord Milner returns. There is no correspondence which can be laid.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, either from the terms of their enlistment or from their training, Baden Powell's Police are available as a military force outside the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies; if not, what precedents exist for making two-fifths of the cost of maintaining a colonial police force a permanent charge upon the Imperial Exchequer.

(1) The South African Constabulary, by the terms of enlistment, are available for service in any part of British South Africa. (2) The present arrangement of charge is not permanent, and the Imperial Government will be relieved of its share when the numbers are reduced to 6,000. Meanwhile the additional 4,000 has been raised for Imperial service during the continuance of the war.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the Second King's Royal Rifles on their return from Ladysmith to Rawalpindi were compelled, firstly, to outfit themselves at practically their own expense, and, secondly, to provide themselves with a new kit to replace that left behind and lost at Pietermaritzburg, he will make the amendment of the Army Order of this year in reference to this matter retrospective, and order a refund of the amounts expended.

The circumstances have not been reported to the War Office, but inquiries will be at once addressed to the Indian Government. If the facts are as stated a refund will be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the fourteen non-commis- sioned officers and men of the Dublin Fusiliers mentioned in the list issued by the War Office on the 15th instant as having rejoined have done so only within the past few days, can he state where they have been detained since the release of the body of their prisoners by the Boers in June, 1900; and will the arrears of their pay in respect of the period since they were reported missing, namely, seven on 30th October, 1899, and seven on 15th December, 1899, be now paid to them.

These men probably rejoined their battalion many months ago, but the fact of their having so rejoined had not been reported from South Africa until last week. Prisoners of war who rejoin are paid all arrears of pay as soon as they have passed through the usual court of inquiry, and there is no reason to suppose that these men have not received their back pay.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the evidence of the Duke of Connaught before the Committee on War Office Organisation, which shows that articles such as bedsteads, ladders, tables, bags, and brushes are now sent from Woolwich to Ireland, though similar articles could be procured at a cheaper rate in Ireland; and, seeing that the witness recommended that these articles should in future be procured in Ireland, and that the shipbuilding and repairing work done in that country should henceforward be increased, whether he has taken or proposes to take any steps to ensure that these recommendations will be acted upon by the War Office.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. I shall be glad if the hon. Member will refer to my reply to a similar question put yesterday by the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin.^*

complained of the absence of the Chief Secretary, to whom the question was addressed.

^* See page 548.

The question has absolutely nothing to do with the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It deals with matters affecting solely the War Office and the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of sanctioning the issue of a daily ration of beer to troops at sea when returning from South Africa.

May I ask the noble Lord whether, if this allowance is made, the authorities will also consider the desirability of encouraging habits of total abstinence in the Army by issuing non-intoxicating liquors?

Troops returning from South Africa are able to purchase a daily ration of a pint of good beer for one penny.

Is the noble Lord aware of the extent to which the illicit sale of abominable liquor goes on on board the transports?

No, Sir.

I will give him some evidence.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state why men of the First Class Army Reserve Garrison Artillery quartered at Portsmouth are not permitted to proceed on continuous working furlough, although such permission is granted to those serving under like conditions at other stations.

This is a matter entirely for the general officer commanding the district, who is guided in these matters by the requirements of his garrisons. There is no intention of interfering with his discretion in these matters.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will grant a monthly Return of the number of recruits to the cavalry, artillery, infantry, and Militia, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 525.

No, Sir. I am endeavouring to carry out the recommendations of the Committee which has recently reported on the War Office organisation and to minimise Returns. I cannot, therefore, consent to the hon. Member's request.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state what decision has been arrived at as to the participation of warrant officers of the Navy in the promotions and honours now being awarded in connection with the South African campaign.

I beg leave to refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to his previous question by the Secretary of the Admiralty.^* The formal steps requisite for establishing this new decoration are being taken, and effect will be given to the decision at the earliest possible date by publication in the London Gazette.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the estimated respective cost of completing the works now in progress and those which have been temporarily suspended at Gibraltar.

The particulars asked for are not at present available. The whole of the work at Gibraltar is let in a single contract. Elaborate calculations would be necessary to ascertain the amount already expended and remaining to be expended in respect of the particular works referred to in the hon. Member's question. I may say that, roughly speaking, £2,000,000 is about the sum required to complete all the works, some £300,000 of which would

^* See preceding volume, page 441.

be spent upon the items proposed to be deferred.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that wheels and axles and other material for the use of the Indian State or Guaranteed Railways have been ordered from Messrs. Krupp and Company, Essen, and shipped at Hamburg for Calcutta by foreign vessels, and that tenders for railway wagons have been ordered in Austria and shipped at Trieste for Calcutta by foreign vessel, whether he can state the quantity in tons and value so ordered; and whether he will grant a Return showing the quantity in tons and value of all the railway material for the Indian State and Guaranteed Railways, and whether purchased at borne or abroad, and shipped in British or foreign vessels, for the last five years 1896 to 1900, inclusive, if moved for.

I understand that one of the Indian railway companies has recently ordered thirty-one locomotive tenders from Messrs. Krupp, and fifty goods brake vans from a Hungarian firm, the total value of the two orders being £26,066. I cannot give the weight in tons. As regards the second question, I can at once furnish my hon. friend with the information he wants so far as State railways are concerned.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received an intimation that the Federal Cabinet of Australia is unanimously in favour of a revision of the oath taken by the King in reference to Catholics.

I have not received any communication from the Federal Cabinet of Australia on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has sanctioned, or proposes to sanction, the suggestion of Sir Lloyd Mathews, in his memorandum of 19th January, 1901, printed in Parliamentary Paper, Africa, No. 4 (1901), for procuring native labour for Zanzibar and Pemba from the British East Africa and Uganda Protectorates on contracts for three years or longer, to be entrusted to Zanzibar merchants or a company empowered to draft such labour in gangs to wherever it may be required, and solely responsible for the wages and upkeep incident to it; and whether His Majesty's Government has received information as to the deportation of slaves from Pemba to Muscat since the Anti-Slavery Decree of the Sultan of Zanzibar; and, if so, whether any, or what, steps have been taken to prevent such deportation during the past three years by the action of His Majesty's warships in watching the coast.

His Majesty's Government have not sanctioned, and do not, as at present advised, propose to sanction, the suggestion in question. All the information received by His Majesty's Government regarding the deportation of slaves from Pemba has been laid before the House in slave trade papers, which also contain reports from naval officers as to the operations of His Majesty's ships.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the concession made in November, 1899, by the Porte to a German syndicate represented by the Deutsche Bank for the construction of a railway from Konia to the Persian Gulf, to expire in 1906, whether he has any official information to the effect that since the concession was made the German syndicate has asked that a kilo-metrical guarantee should be given to them by the Porte, and that the Porte has proposed to raise the present tariff on imports with a view to providing the sum required; and if he has any information that an English syndicate offered in 1899 to construct the line to the Persian Gulf without a kilometrical or other guarantee. I beg also to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information relating to the convention between the Porte and the Russian Government, of April, 1900, under which the Porte has agreed to grant no concession for the construction of railways in the north-eastern parts of Asia Minor except to Russian companies, and will he state whether any Papers will be presented to Parliament on this subject and the other railways communication in Asia Minor.

May I ask whether the noble Lord can say what line the railway mentioned in the first question proposes to follow; and in regard to the second question whether the Russian Government has any intention of constructing the railways themselves, and whether the Turkish Government are forbidden not only to grant concessions for these railways to foreign companies, but to make them themselves with foreign financial assistance.

I cannot answer these latter questions without notice. It is believed that a preliminary agreement was made between the Porte and a German syndicate for such a concession as is described in December, 1899, but no information has been received that the concession has been definitely granted or its details settled. It is understood that a kilometric guarantee was contemplated as one of the conditions of the concession, but it is not known that any progress has been made towards settling the point. The Porte has proposed to raise the present tariff on imports, but no intimation has been given that this measure was intended for the purpose of providing the sum required for the guarantee. The Public Debt Commission would have a first claim upon any increased revenue so obtained. His Majesty's Government are not aware of an offer having been made by an English syndicate to construct the line in question without a guarantee. Whatever agree- ment has been made between the Porte and the Russian Government is of a confidential nature; and His Majesty's Government have no information which could properly be made public.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division of Yorkshire, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the Anglo-German agreement, Germany is acknowledged by His Majesty's Government to be entitled to the same rights and privileges in the Yang-tsze region as Great Britain, except as regards railway enterprises.

By the Anglo-German Agreement it is agreed that the ports on the rivers and littoral of China shall remain free and open to trade and to every other legitimate form of economic activity for the nationals of all countries wherever the signatory Governments can exercise influence.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Great Britain has formally informed the Powers that she will not consent to China increasing the duty or duties on opium and rice to pay the indemnity.

We have stated that the imposition of any tax on rice or cereals now free would be very impolitic, and, as far as we are aware, this view is shared by the other Powers. It is not proposed to make any change as regards the duty on opium.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many retired naval and military officers there are at the present time holding consular appointments worth £200 a year or over, and who have not passed any examination in foreign languages.

There are twelve ex-naval and military officers holding ordinary consular appointments at the present time who have not, within the knowledge of the Foreign Office, passed an examination in foreign languages. But it does not follow that they are unacquainted with foreign languages.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's vice-consul has been recently withdrawn from Konia; and, if so, whether, in view of the commercial interests involved, steps will be taken to fill the vacancy as soon as possible.

The British vice-consulate at Konia was abolished in February last, after communication with His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople and Consul at Angora. British interests in that district are not such as to require the supervision of a consular officer, and, so far as our information goes, there are no other reasons for which the presence of a representative of this country in the district would be desirable; but if the information of my noble friend is different we shall be very glad to consider it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any information with regard to the murder and robbery of Mr. Robert R. Emett, an English mine manager, at Zacualtipan, Mexico; and if he will instruct His Majesty's representative in Mexico to take such action as will prevent the recurrence of the frequent and unpunished murders of British subjects in the mining districts of Mexico.

His Majesty's Government have no information on the subject, but inquiry will be made of His Majesty's Minister at Mexico.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the difficulty which has arisen in construing the Customs House rules in relation to the coal duty, he can state if it has been definitely determined upon whom the liability to pay coal duty rests in the case where the seller has sold coal free on board at a British port, and the purchaser has resold the coal for delivery, cost, freight, and insurance at a foreign port; also, in the case in which the first seller has sold the coal free on board at a British port and the purchaser has resold the coal to a second purchaser free on board at the same or another British port, and this purchaser has in turn resold the coal for delivery c.i.f. at a foreign port; whether a uniform practice with regard to charging the liability to pay coal duty in the cases named has been adopted at the Customs Offices at all British ports; and whether, in the event of there existing such a uniform practice, he can state what it is for the information of those engaged in the export coal trade.

was about to put a question on a cognate subject, but was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker.

Under Section 139 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and by analogy with the provisions of that Act respecting the importation of dutiable goods and the exportation of drawback goods, the exporter of the coal free on board must pass the entry for it and pay, or give bond for, the export duty. The exporter need not do this in person, but may employ for the purpose any agent he likes, be it the middleman to whom he has sold the coal or anyone else. Whom he employs is a matter for arrangement between vendor and vendee, not for the decision of the Customs. It is immaterial, from the point of view of the Customs, how often coal once placed free on board changes ownership before it leaves this country, or before it is landed in another. The person responsible for placing the coal free on board is also responsible for passing the entry and paying the duty at the time of its being so placed free on board. The difficulty to which the hon. Member refers has arisen, not between the Customs and exporters of coal, but between vendors and vendees or their agents.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now prepared to make any statement of the intention of the Government to reduce the export upon small coal to 6d. per ton.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the fact that very strong opposition has been expressed by patent fuel manufacturers, and also that notice of Amendments has been given on the Committee stage of the Bill, he will defer coming to any decision until he has heard all the pros and cons of the question.

That is exactly my position. I have no statement to make on this subject, except that the report, which I understand appeared in the press, to the effect that I intended to propose the reduction suggested, is quite inaccurate. All I have ever said was that if the trade asked me for such a reduction and proposed a reasonable and workable definition of small coal, I would consider it; but I see great difficulty in arriving at such a definition.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in regard to the payment of income tax by the Crown, the same course will be taken as was taken by her late Majesty.

When Sir Robert Peel introduced the income tax in 1842 he was authorised by the late Queen to announce to Parliament that Her Majesty would pay income tax on the Privy Purse and on Class III. of the Civil List. It was so paid during her late Majesty's reign. We have advised that a similar course should be taken now, and that course will be followed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a report of the watch committee of the Walsall Town Council of last month forbidding the chief constable, on his own initiative, to take out summonses without first consulting the town clerk; and whether, seeing that such an arrangement is unusual, he will take steps to prevent the chief constable in this case being hampered in his endeavour to enforce the licensing laws in the borough.

My attention has not been called to this particular borough, but I am aware that similar directions have been issued by watch committees in some other boroughs. I cannot say that such a direction is not within the powers of the watch committee, but evidently it is a matter which requires the exercise of the utmost discretion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the working of the Food and Drugs Act, under which a seller may be prosecuted on the sole ground of the analysis of a local public analyst, who is liable to error, and the public analyst himself may be prosecuted on the grounds that his analysis is wrong; and whether he would consider the expediency of introducing legislation to assimilate the working of the Food and Drugs Act to that of the Fertilisers Act in respect of having the analysis of the local analyst revised by skilled analysts of the Local Government Board before proceeding to a prosecution under the Act.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he is aware of the frequent cases of injustice due to the existing law regarding prosecutions under the Food and Drugs Act, whereby sellers can suffer material damage from a prosecution at the instance of local inspectors, although the prosecution is subsequently withdrawn; and also that claims against local authorities by those so injured through unfounded charges are dismissed in the law courts as being irrelevant; and whether his attention has been called to a recent case of such a nature—Aberdeen—in which a firm of aerated water manufacturers suffered unmerited and serious loss.

Perhaps I may answer both questions together. The case giving rise to them appears to have occurred in Scotland, and I have no jurisdiction under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in that country. My attention has, however, been called to the matter referred to, but I do not think that sufficient ground has been shown for legislation.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will say what is the present position of the inquiry of the Departmental Committee on the use of preservatives and colouring matter in articles of food, and when the Committee is expected to complete the evidence and present their Report.

The Committee have completed the taking of evidence and are now considering their Report. I hope that it will be presented during the present session.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to complaints from Canada that British magazines and periodicals mailed to Canada are taxed at the rate of eight cents a pound, while United States periodicals can enter at one cent per pound; and whether, as this rate is driving out British publications by American competition, the Postmaster General can see his way to reduce the rates now charged.

The hon. Member would seem to be under the impression that there is some special rate of postage in this country on magazines and periodicals for Canada; but that is not so. The rate is that, which is uniformly charged on all book-post matter posted in this country, whether for destinations outside it or for the United Kingdom itself—namely, ½d. for every two ounces. The Postmaster General can see no reason why an exception from this universal rate should be made in favour of periodicals for Canada, and a general reduction would involve serious and unwarrantable loss. The rate of one cent per pound on magazines and periodicals sent from the United States to Canada is understood to involve a loss to the United States revenue. The rate is part of an old established arrangement between the Dominion and the States, whereby the domestic postage rates of the one are applied to all classes of correspondence for the other.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Board of Inland Revenue has issued a note order to its officers, to the effect that the Board do not propose to take upon themselves the duty of prosecuting money-lenders who fail to register themselves as required by the Money Lenders Act, 1900, and that offences of that nature need not therefore be reported; will he give the reasons for issuing such a note, and say how, in the absence of action by the Board of Inland Revenue, this Act will be enforced.

The officers of Inland Revenue have no special means of discovering infringements of the provisions of the Acts which are not possessed by the police and general public, but I think they should be instructed to report all cases which come to their knowledge to the Board of Inland Revenue for submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I am communicating with the Board of Inland Revenue to this effect. The Director of Public Prosecutions will be prepared to undertake the prosecution of any cases under the Act which may properly form the subject of proceedings, whether brought to his notice by the Inland Revenue or otherwise, as in the case of any other criminal offences.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ending the 31st December, 1900, and the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal; and will he also state the number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day, and the average cost to the depositor of each such telegraph notice.

The number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank during the year ended 31st December, 1900, was 167,389, and the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal was about 1s. 3d. The number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day was 11,609, and the average cost to the depositor of each such telegraph notice was about 9d.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state how much of the £2,000,000 voted by Parliament in 1899 for the improvement of telephonic communication throughout the country by the Post Office has been expended; whether any portion thereof has been expended elsewhere than in the London area, and, if so, where; what will be the cost of the London exchange, and what is intended to be done with any balance unexpended; and when the new postal telephone system for London, which it was stated last session would be opened by the end of 1900, will be available for the public, and what is the cause of the delay, and what the charges to subscribers will be.

The expenditure already authorised by the Treasury under the Provision of the Telegraph Act, 1899, for works in progress, or about to be undertaken, amounts to £813,040. Of this amount £677,945 is for the London exchange system, and £135,095 for the development of the other parts of the Post Office telephone system in various places, but especially in the north-east of England and in South Wales. The actual payments for new works brought to account up to the 31st March last amount to £269,941. It is not possible at this stage to state definitely what the final cost of the London exchange system will be, but the whole sum of £2,000,000 authorised by Parliament will be expended in such extensions of the Post Office telephone system as seem most urgently necessary, whether in London or elsewhere. The delay in opening the more important exchanges of the London system has been due to the scarcity of skilled labour, the difficulty of getting materials for contractors, the necessary restrictions on the opening of streets to avoid excessive interference with traffic, and the difficulty of constructing exchanges in buildings in use for other Post Office work. Full particulars of the rates and conditions of the service will be brought before the public at an early date, and it is hoped that it will be available in some parts of London in the autumn.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post-master General, whether, in view of the scientific interest attaching to comparative statistics of mortality from phthisis, he will grant a Return showing the mortality and superannuations from hat disease in the Post Office, distinguishing between the various occupations, he outdoor and indoor staffs, London and the provinces, and the various ages of the employees.

It would be difficult to give all the details referred to, but it may perhaps suffice to say that the average annual number of deaths from phthisis in the past three years was forty-seven, and the average number of established officers (men) in the United Kingdom in those years was 52,146, showing a death rate of ·9 per 1,000.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving a larger amount of detail in the annual Report of the Postmaster General.

I will communicate with the Postmaster General on the point.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can give Returns showing approximately the number of pupil teachers from country schools examined at the King's Scholarship Examination in December last, the number placed in the first class, and the proportion this bears to the total number in the first class, and in the second and third classes; also a comparison of these numbers with those of the Queen's Scholarship Examinations held in 1880 and 1890; and, seeing that country schools are at present placed at a disadvantage, whether the local authorities, which the recently-introduced Education Bill proposes to create, will have the power to establish and maintain central classes for country pupil teachers in secondary schools and elsewhere.

The Board of Education can give the Return asked for in respect of the examination in December, 1900, if the hon. Member will move for it. It is impossible to give it for 1880 and 1890, because no distinction between town and country schools was then made in the Department. The answer to the second paragraph is "Yes."

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will state what is the present position of the inter-departmental inquiry into the labour of children of school age out of school hours, and when the inquiry is expected to be completed and the Report presented.

This is a Home Office question, and should be addressed to the right hon. the Home Secretary.

Then perhaps the Home Secretary can give me the information?

I know the Committee is pursuing its inquiry, but I am unable to say when it will report. If the hon. Member will put down the question, I shall be glad to inquire.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that in the last annual issue of the Judicial Statistics for Scotland, deeds recorded in the Sasine Office are not shown for the years subsequent to 1898; and will he explain the cause of this delay in the publication of the Register of Deeds.

The hon. Member's question is based upon inaccurate information. The last issue of the Judicial Statistics for Scotland was published in October, 1900, and contained (page 175) the Returns from the Sasine Office for the year 1899. The Returns for 1900 were obtained from the Register in February this year, and will be published as usual towards autumn.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, in view of the fact that many of the old oaks in Richmond Park are decaying, will he say whether arrangements can be made for the planting of oak saplings.

A large amount of tree planting is done each year in Richmond Park. For instance, last year 100 young oaks and 250 forest trees were planted. If the hon. Member likes to see the Return of the number of trees planted annually for the last few years I shall be happy to show it to him.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Government intend to introduce a Supplemental Estimate for the structural alterations and drainage works which are being undertaken at Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace.

Yes, Sir; necessary works of considerable importance are being undertaken at Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, and a Supplemental Estimate will be introduced to meet the cost.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, in view of the proposals for altering the Mall in the neighbourhood of Buckingham Palace, whether he could arrange that there should be a public exhibition of the designs before they are finally approved.

Should any decision be come to in regard to the memorial of Queen Victoria which will involve an alteration of the Mall, I think I can undertake to exhibit the proposed design for the information of the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the trial of the Rev. Edmond O'Leary, C.C., at the Limerick Petty Sessions, on Friday the 7th instant, on a charge of using threatening language to Dr. Long, in consequence of which a crowd gathered; whether he is aware that during the week Dr. Long was attacked when visiting a house in Thomondgate to attend a Protestant patient, and that, after the Bench had adjudicated on the case against Rev. E. O'Leary, the Rev. Father Shanahan, P.P., said while Dr. Long continued in Limerick the same scenes would occur; and whether the Government will take adequate steps to protect Dr. Long in his rights as a British citizen.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the house at which the interview took place was the house of a Catholic?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.

I wished, Sir, to ask that, because the question on the Paper is inaccurate.

May I ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called to the fact that the resident magistrate who adjudicated in the case is stated to have advised the people from the Bench to give no employment to Dr. Long—

Order, order!

I will reply to the question on the Paper. Yes, Sir; the bench, consisting of five magistrates, decided unanimously to dismiss the charge, on the grounds, apparently, that the words complained of did not amount to a threat, and were no more than words of rudeness or incivility, and that the reverend gentleman was not responsible for the acts of the crowd. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. Dr. Long visited a Protestant who had for two months been a lodger in the house of a Roman Catholic. In consequence of the attack on Dr. Long two persons were summoned for assault on 7th June, and bound over in £5 for a month. (The prosecution of two other persons for riotous behaviour on 2nd June had been deferred for a month.) In reply to the third paragraph, the Government will continue the police protection which has been given to Dr. Long since 14th January. (The police reported at that time that Dr. Long's action was often injudicious, and that he seemed disposed to court an exhibition of hostile feeling. I directed on 22nd January that, although Dr. Long's conduct was injudicious, protection must be continued.) I ought to add, in justice to the police, that Dr. Long occasionally evades protection, and that it is, so far as I know, only on such occasions that he has suffered from the hostility of the crowd.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on cross-examination Dr. Long acknowledged that his life was not in danger?

Order, order! The hon. Member cannot be allowed to go into this.

I wish to ask is it not a fact that Dr. Long is a professional proselytiser, and whether he uses his position as a medical doctor for that purpose?

Order, order!

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the question which my hon. friend desires to put is in order. This case was tried, as the right hon. Gentleman said, by a bench of magistrates, and I respectfully submit that the question is in order. That question is, whether Dr. Long did not admit on cross-examination that he was engaged in proselytising in the City of Limerick.

That was not the question asked. It was whether he was not a professional proselytiser.

Do I understand you to rule it out of order?

Yes; I think it is out of order. It does not arise out of the question on the Paper, which has been fully answered. To comment in justification of the case for either the defence or the prosecution is out of order.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend Dr. Long to confine his attentions in future to the bodily ailments of his patients, and to leave their souls alone?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the conduct of Dr. Long in distributing in the city of Limerick religious tracts; and whether, with a view to prevent offence to members of the Roman Catholic religion and the provocation to a breach of the peace of the poorer Roman Catholics, steps will be taken to prevent him from continuing to carry on these practices.

It is to be regretted that Dr. Long, or rather that the society which employs him, should—conscientiously—think it right to afford gratuitous medical attendance, with the avowed object of making converts in the midst of a Roman Catholic population. But in this, as in other cases of sectarian or agrarian conflict in Ireland, the duty of the Government consists in preserving the peace and prosecuting those who break the law, and does not extend to the prevention of actions which, however injudicious, are not in themselves illegal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that Dr. Long in the course of the trial admitted he was a proselytiser?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution from the Armagh County Council condemning the action of the Great Northern Railway Company in failing to provide the necessary facilities to Ulster fruit growers; and, seeing that consignors frequently wait for hours before their perishable goods are forwarded, too late for market, and that choice fruit is conveyed in trucks previously used by cattle, and having regard to the rates charged, whether he will cause the Department of Agriculture in Ireland to inquire into and report upon these matters with the view of remedying by legislation or otherwise the alleged grievances.

The resolution has been received, and inquiry is now being made into the matter by the Department of Agriculture.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state who it was appointed Mr. Hickson resident magistrate, and what were his qualifications for the appointment.

Perhaps I may be permitted to reply to this question. Mr. Hickson was appointed, temporarily, as resident magistrate in September, 1888, and a year later he was placed on the permanent staff He is a barrister, and had served for twenty-one years as an officer of the constabulary prior to his appointment to the resident magistracy. The appointment was made by the Lord Lieutenant of the day, Lord Londonderry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Gentleman recommended boycotting about ten days ago?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that Mr. Lane, who has recently been appointed temporarily as Inspector of Fisheries in Ireland, has been for years a member of the firm of Messrs. Lane an Co., Brewers, Cork, whether he can state what special training or experience he has had of deep sea fishing; and whether, in making a permanent appointment, the custom in Scotland of appointing a man who has had practical experience of the fishing industry will be followed.

Mr. Lane was associated with Mr. Green in the survey of the West of Ireland Fishery Grounds, undertaken some years ago by the Royal Dublin Society, and he also afforded material assistance when the working of the fisheries was started by the Congested Districts Board. The question of making a permanent appointment has not yet arisen, and I must decline to commit the Government to arrangements which it may be necessary to make at a future date.

When the right hon. Gentleman makes a permanent appointment will he see that the new inspector has a practical acquaintance with the work of the office?

I consider that Mr. Lane has practical knowledge.

asked whether the Chief Secretary considered that assisting at a survey constituted sufficient practical knowledge.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to bring in a Bill this session to reform the law relating to committals to reformatories in Ireland.

I believe it is the intention of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to re-introduce the Youthful Offenders Bill at an early date. This Bill, as I have already stated, contains clauses affecting committals to reformatories in Ireland.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill which he mentions was not included in the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury as to the Bills which the Government intended only to proceed with this session?

I made no such statement.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps he has decided to take to remove the alleged evil effects to industrial schools of the circular dated October, 1898.

On the 12th instant a circular letter was issued by Government to magistrates in petty sessions informing them that representations had been made that in some instances magistrates so interpreted the circular of October, 1898, as to influence the exercise of their proper discretion in the application of the provisions of the Industrial Schools Act, and pointing out that that circular was issued in consequence of the abuses then existing, but not with the object of in any way discouraging proceedings on behalf of the classes of children for whose benefit the provisions of the Act were intended. I have forwarded a copy of the circular of the 12th instant to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several thousands of appeals have been lodged against the Belfast revaluations on the ground that they are generally too high, also that the Black-rock, county Dublin, Urban District Council have successfully appealed against the valuation made by the Commissioner of Valuations of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway running through their district; and whether, having those facts in view, he will consider the advisability of taking measures to assimilate the Irish system with that prevailing in England, where the local authorities are the rating authorities.

I am afraid I cannot add to the replies to similar questions which the hon. Member addressed to me on the 19th and 21st February last.^*

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the reason for the delay in commencing the building

^* See Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. lxxxix., pages 484 and 703.

of the new post office at Enniscorthy; whether the responsibility rests with the Post Office, or the Treasury, or the Irish Board of Works; and why the promise given by him that the works should be commenced this month is not to be fulfilled; is he aware that the existing post office at Enniscorthy has been condemned by the sanitary authorities; and that the employees there carry on their work, under conditions of danger to health, in one small room without sufficient light or ventilation; will he give the dimensions of this room, the number of employees occupying it, details of the business dealt with there, and the number of sub-post offices served from Enniscorthy post office; and will the Post Office compensate any of their Enniscorthy employees who suffer in health from the conditions mentioned; and have complaints reached the authorities under this head; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, the authorities will adhere to their promise, and call for tenders for the construction of the new post office immediately.

The tenders for the erection of the new Crown Post Office at Enniscorthy have been called for and are to be sent in by the 25th instant. In the meantime arrangements have been made for moving, the business to temporary premises, which have lately become available, and where better accommodation will be afforded for all branches of the business. The dimensions of the principal room in the old post office, which was provided by the postmistress, were 18 ft. 9in. by 11 ft. 10 in. by 8 ft. 7 in., and for three periods of fifteen and thirty minutes respectively during the day the number of persons in it was seventeen. During the rest of the day the number varied from one to five. All the usual branches of business were carried on there, and the number of sub-offices under Enniscorthy is nineteen. It is not known that the premises were ever condemned by the sanitary authorities; the ventilation was not good, but no complaint was received as to the light. There is no reason to suppose that the health of any of the employees has suffered from the conditions mentioned, and only one complaint on the subject has been received.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to a memorial to the Postmaster General from the clergy, representative laity, and magistrates of Killadoon, county Sligo, asking for the establishment of a rural post and money order office in the town-land of Ballinfull in that district; and whether, in view of the present state of the postal arrangements, steps will be taken to have the grievances alleged in the memorial remedied.

The Postmaster General has received a memorial asking for the establishment of a post office at Ballinfull. The matter has been carefully inquired into, but the Postmaster General is sorry to find that, in view of the high cost of the postal service in the district as compared with the amount of correspondence, the circumstances do not justify the establishment of an office at Ballinfull. There is a letter-box at that place, and stamps can be purchased from the postman.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any, and, if so, what arrangements have been come to with a view to improving the postal service between Waterville and Cahirciveen, county Kerry.

A service to Waterville has been established for the present season by the coach which leaves Cahirciveen on the arrival of the 6 p.m. mail train. Half the expense of the service has been contributed locally, the charges for conveyance by the coach being double the sum which the Postmaster General would have been justified in paying. As the hon. Member has already been informed, the expense of providing additional services at Waterville out of the season would be prohibitive.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state what percentage of the postmen employed in Ireland are on established pay, and what are the similar percentages in England and Scotland respectively.

The present proportion of established to unestablished postmen is not known, and could not be ascertained without incurring more expense than would appear to be justifiable. But in 1897 the established postmen were in Ireland 54 per cent., in England and Wales 68 per cent., and in Scotland 73 per cent. of the whole number, and there is no reason to believe that these percentages differ much from those at the present time. The reason why the percentage is low in Ireland is that, owing to local circumstances, it is not practicable to make up a larger number of full daily duties justifying established situations.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that at this time of the year the great school boards throughout the country usually make their arrangements for the coming evening school session which commences in September; whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the present instance the school boards find themselves unable to proceed with any prospective plans because of the judgment of the Courts of Queen's Bench and of Appeal known as the Cockerton Judgment; and whether, seeing that the Education Bill now before the House of Commons cannot become law in time to permit of these necessary preliminaries being fixed, the Government will give the school boards an assurance that the auditors of the Local Government Board will be instructed to remit any possible surcharge of any items of expenditure rendered immediately necessary for the carrying on by the school boards of the evening school session of 1901–2 on the lines of the session of 1900–1.

I think it is true that at this time of the year the great school boards throughout the country make arrangements for the autumn and winter sessions. I believe, however, that it will be quite practicable for them to defer their arrangements until a later time or to make special arrangements.

What special arrangements does the right hon. Gentleman refer to?

It would be quite practicable to make some arrangements with the local authorities if they like.

Is not that unduly anticipating the successful passage of the Bill?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the provisions of a measure for old age pensions now before the French Chamber; and whether he will have the provisions of this measure printed and circulated for the information of Members of this House who are interested in this question.

I understand that it is the fact that a measure on this subject is under discussion in the French Chamber. If it passes into law I shall be very pleased to take the course suggested by the hon. Member.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the same course with regard to the measures which have been passed by certain colonial legislatures?

I have not made reference, but I believe that some of these Acts have already been made available. I understand that the hon. Gentleman desires these earlier Papers to be brought up to date by the addition of any later Papers of a similar character.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will cause formal inquiry to be instituted as to the need and demand for the appointment of a Minister of Commerce in connection with a consultative committee to be chosen by chambers of commerce.

I have to thank the hon. Gentleman for sending me an interesting article on the subject; but the Government do not think there is sufficient evidence at the present time to justify them in making the inquiries which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether there was a renewal of the rioting yesterday in one of the shipbuilding yards in Belfast, in the course of which certain Catholic workmen were ill-treated, and an engine-house, where they were employed, attacked with showers of stones and bricks by a large crowd, and whether, finally, the Catholic workmen escaped from the building by the roof; whether there were any police present, and whether, in view of these continued disturbances in this shipbuilding yard, the right hon. Gentleman will order the police to patrol the yard.

On seeing the newspaper paragraph on which I think the hon. Gentleman founds his question—

The Times.

Yes, The Times. I telegraphed to the Commissioner of Police, and he wires this morning as follows—

"On yesterday during meal hours some slight disturbances took place on the premises of Messrs. Workman and Clark and Messrs. Harland and Wolff, but no one was seriously injured. On Sunday evening a Catholic excursion returned to Belfast, when all was quiet, except at the Great Northern Railway Station. A young man named Robert Scott assaulted one of the excursionists, whose name appears to be unknown, by kicking him on the legs. The police promptly arrested Scott, and yesterday he was convicted of riotous behaviour and fined the full penalty of 40s., and was ordered in addition to find bail in two sureties of £25 each, or to be imprisoned for six months. On the morning of the same day (Sunday) a few missiles were thrown at a Catholic excursion boat going to Rothesay, but they failed to reach the boat."

The Commissioner concludes by saying—

"The city is comparatively quiet. Yesterday's Nationalist papers allege that on Sunday some Gaelic Leaguers were brutally assaulted at the Giants' Ring, four miles from Belfast. A police report, now received, shows this to be an exaggeration. Some twenty Gaelic Leaguers went to the Giants' Ring to play hurley, when a man named Grey, on whose land the Giants' Ring is situate, warned them off. They refused to leave. A crowd of Grey's sympathisers assembled, and an altercation ensued, ending in blows. Stones and sticks were also used. Four of Grey's party were injured, but only one of the Leaguers was injured, and none were seriously hurt. Bernard M'Kenna, the Harbour Commissioners' employee, who was beaten on Tuesday, 11th, as previously reported, has identified his first assailant on the occasion, one Robert Mac Veigh, whom the police arrested. Mac Veigh was brought before the magistrates yesterday, and remanded without bail. On yesterday seven men and a woman were charged with riotous behaviour in different parts of the city on the previous day. The riotous behaviour consisted mostly of the use of party expressions. Six persons were fined 40s., and two of these were ordered to find bail in addition. The two remaining persons were ordered to find bail merely."

The Commissioner at Belfast wires—

"All the labourers, including Catholics, have returned to work to-day at Musgrave Channel, with few exceptions."

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the information he has given, one portion of which—namely, the return of the men to work—is satisfactory to everybody. The question I asked, however, was confined entirely to what took place in the shipyards yesterday, and what I want to know is whether any person has been made amenable for the disturbance in the shipyards. He mentions a number of persons made amenable for the disturbances in the streets. I want to know whether anyone was made amenable for what occurred in the shipyards, or does he allow them to pass altogether? Will he order the police to patrol the yard?

I do not intend to allow these disturbances to go on. I gave the hon. Member the case of one man who was fined 30s. and bound over to keep the peace. I am still con- vinced that to order the police into the yards would not be the best process to adopt to put down the disturbances.

The police were not present yesterday.

I have no information on that point.

May I ask the Member for one of the Divisions of Belfast if he has any objection to the police going into his shipbuilding yards?

Order, order! That question cannot be asked of the hon. Member for East Belfast.

May I ask what Votes will be taken on Friday?

I propose to take the Scotch Estimates.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Second Reading of the Education Bill will be taken?

No, Sir, I cannot answer that.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say before when it will not be taken?

It will not be taken this week.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrange ments to take Irish Votes on Friday week?

I will take note of the hon. Member's desire. I do not know of any rival claim, and if there be none I shall be very glad to meet the hon. Gentleman's wishes.

said that, as far as the amount of the Civil List was concerned, he took no exception whatever; he begrudged no amount that might be necessary to maintain the dignity of the Crown, but the point which he wished to press on the House was the inexpediency of paying the members of the Royal Family by hereditary revenues instead of by payment out of the Consolidated Fund. In a constitutional country the people were the rulers, and the King ruled by the will of the people. The hereditary revenues of this country were really the revenues of the State, and he thought it was far more appropriate that those revenues should be managed by the State, and that the King should receive a fixed sum in cash than that he should be in the position of having to farm what was really the property of the State. Now the revenues he referred to were the Woods and Forests, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. As regarded the first, the Committee had recommended that they should be managed by the State as formerly, and not by the Crown. But why should a distinction be drawn in the case of the Woods and Forests as against the other revenues? It might be said that in this case the revenue was not an increasing quantity, while in the case of the two duchies it was. He believed that in connection with both the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall there was a considerable investment in property in London, and in the course of a very few years numbers of leases would be falling in. He did not begrudge the increased revenue. That was not the principle he was contending for; what he advocated was a money payment to the King, whatever the value or prospective value might be, and the State management of these revenues. He submitted it was most inexpedient that the King or any member of the Royal Family should be in the position of holding property in the City of London, and consequently of standing in the relationship of landlord, with the subject for the tenant. It was no use saying that the Duke of Cornwall, as owner of the Duchy of Cornwall revenues, could afford to be generous in dealing with the property of the Duchy. A limited owner could not be expected to be generous; he must necessarily make the most he could out of the revenues while he was in the position of a limited owner; and surely it would be much better for the State to be the owner, as it could afford to await the future development of the property in a way which a limited owner could not. It would be most unseemly for the Duke of Cornwall, as owner of property in London, to have in his capacity of landlord to order evictions, and to be concerned in any of the other disputes which cropped up in the relationship of landlord and tenant. Things might be done in his name which would be a scandal. Hence it was he favoured a fixed money payment in regard to these revenues. And then when they came to the taxation of land values they brought the King and the Duke of Cornwall into relation as to how their interests would be affected by a debatable question of that kind. Of course he recognised that the Bill had to pass in its present shape, but he was availing himself of the opportunity of the Third Reading to impress upon the Government the expediency of reconsidering this whole matter. It could be done in the future, and it would be very much better both in the interests of the State and in the interests of the property of London that it should be dealt with by the State than by a limited owner. He had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Duchy of Lancaster would pay property tax in London the same as any other subject in the realm, and he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said "Yes."

Yes.

said that then another little difficulty came in. How was the King to pay property tax in respect of his landownership? Was he to pay the property tax and the local rates the same as anyone else?

Yes.

said that the right hon. Gentleman replied "Yes"; but was His Majesty to pay the property tax and the local rates direct, because in the case of the Crown he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that it was not likely that he would pay them direct, as being assessed on the value of the property. In the case of Crown property an equivalent sum was given, but the principle of the taxation of Crown property for either the property tax or the amount of the local rates was not admitted; and that question would be sure to arise in the future. He was not objecting to the amount given to the King or to the members of the Royal Family to maintain the dignity of their position. That had been settled by a Committee of this House, and he saw no reason for disturbing the settled policy of the country. Neither would he ask that a fair share of any increased revenue which the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall might hope to get by the falling in of the leases in London should not be set aside in the next twenty or thirty years for the benefit of these duchies. But he did object that, as they had taken the ground revenues of the Woods and Forests, they ought also to take the ground revenues of the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and give a certain fixed sum to meet these, and not put the King or any member of the Royal Family in the invidious position of being a ground landlord.

I agree with my hon. friend that if we do maintain the existing system in regard to Crown lands, it should be made applicable to the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, and that these should be directly administered by the State in the same way as the Crown lands. I do not entirely agree with him, however, that because the Committee upstairs reported in a particular direction it necessarily follows that good sound Radicals in the House of Commons should follow the leading of the Committee. For my part, I have addressed the Committee frequently and somewhat exhaustively on the successive stages of this Bill, and I should not have troubled the House with any remark this afternoon had it not been for certain observations which fell from the First Lord of the Treasury when the Bill was last before the House in regard to the right of property possessed by the Sovereign in the Crown lands and the hereditary revenues. The First Lord of the Treasury said that if the Sovereign does not voluntarily surrender the revenues of these Crown lands he has got a perfect right to maintain them himself, and that he may spend them as he best pleases. If I remember rightly, the right hon. Gentleman goes as far as to say that the Sovereign possessed the Crown lands precisely in the same way as anyone else possessed a life interest in any property that may have accrued to him. I say that that doctrine has never been pushed so far by any Minister of the Crown. A Conservative newspaper the other day said, "It is desirable that the Sovereign should retain in his hands the power to bargain with a niggardly and dis- affected Parliament." That is to say, if these properties increased in value, the Sovereign for the time being may be encouraged to declare—"I will not take this money, but I will seize hold of these Crown lands, and thus exercise pressure on a niggardly Parliament." There are one or two historical points which support my contention that the Crown lands are part and parcel of the hereditary revenues of the country. Before the Revolution there was not the slightest difference made between the Crown lands and the hereditary revenues which went to the personal expenditure of the monarchy. When James II. was evicted from the throne, if the Crown lands had been his personal property they would have belonged to James III.; but that right was not recognised, and his right of property in the Crown lands lapsed When William and Mary were elected to the throne it was stated in the Parliamentary records, when the Civil List was voted, that—"The Civil List is a just sense and acknowledgment of the great things His Majesty had done for the country." There was no pretence at that time on the part of King William or Queen Mary that the Crown lands were their private property. Then, on the death of King William, when the throne came to Queen Anne, Queen Anne was not regarded as the heir of King William in any sort of way or on any sort of theory; she did not inherit it through King William. It is stated in the Parliamentary records that—"Your Commons have freely and unanimously resolved to give and grant, and do give and grant herewith," a certain Civil List. Here there was no pretension for a moment that in any sort of way, direct or indirect, Queen Anne had any right to any moneys except those voted by Parliament. What was granted to King William and Queen Anne? They were granted sums of money from "the hereditary duties of Excise and Post Office, from the revenues of the Crown lands, and from some small branches of the Revenue." No distinction was made between the Crown lands and the smaller branches of the Revenue or the other great branches of the Revenue, the Post Office and the Excise. If it be contended that there is some special right in the Sovereign to these Crown lands derived from old times, and that he has a right to refuse to surrender them, then you must go on logically and maintain that the Sovereign has a right not only to the Crown lands, but to all the great sources of the Revenue such as the Excise, Post Office, etc. That is why I say that the historical position taken up by the First Lord of the Treasury is preposterous and absurd. I happen to be no lawyer, and when the First Lord of the Treasury made that statement I said to my hon. and learned friend the Member for Dundee, "Get up and contest it." He explained to me afterwards why he did not get up; it was because he did not know what he was to contest. And yet he is a lawyer! I see my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire, who is a great authority on constitutional law, and I should like to know what he thinks of the matter.

I will tell you.

Very well. George I. and George II. had the Crown lands revenues voted to them on the same conditions precisely as they were voted to William and Mary and Queen Anne; but when George III. came to the throne he introduced into the preamble of the Civil List a surrender, not of all the revenues of the Crown, but a surrender of the Crown lands. He did not make a surrender of the smaller or the greater revenues. I maintain that it is absurd to say that that constitutes a personal title in the Sovereign to the Crown lands. It does not make a title in any sort of way. I am glad that my right hon. friend will address the House on this subject, because he is a learned pundit on the subject, and I think he will agree with me that a title to property cannot be acquired by surrendering it. I take my statement from the Finance Committee's Report of 1872, which was a Committee of the Treasury. I defy anyone to read that Report fairly and impartially and not agree that I am in the right, and that the First Lord of the Treasury is in the wrong. I have opposed the Civil List, not because I think that the Sovereign ought not to have a sufficiency of money to live in decent magnificence, but because I think the amount of money proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government in the Bill is in excess of what is required. We are told that we ought to vote this amount because we should not put any restriction on Royal hospitality. But we are placing a restriction; if we are to be logical we ought not to fix a sum, but to give the Sovereign a right to draw an unlimited credit on the Treasury. We vote, however, what we deem is sufficient and adequate for the hospitality which the Sovereign is expected to exercise, and for the ceremonial duties incumbent upon him from his position. I have seen it stated that certain supporters of the Government regard it as something almost criminal, something traitorous to venture to move the reduction of the amount that is asked for by the Government for the Civil List. I can only say that times have very much changed for the Conservative party, because after the great Revolution it was the Whigs who proposed a Civil List, and it was the Tories who opposed them. What did the Tories say then? They said the Whigs were "hired slaves and corrupt instruments" because they proposed the Civil List. Under these circumstances it seems rather curious that a Radical should be attacked for doing something monstrous when he follows the lines laid down for him by the Tories of a former generation. The fact is, we have got into very servile days; there is no question of that, and days of reckless extravagance. When any sum is proposed to be provided for the Navy, for the Army, or for the Court, we tumble over each other in our zealous approval of it. I am opposed to all this lavish expenditure on the Army and Navy, or armaments, and on the Court; and as long as I have the honour to be a Member of this House I shall do in the future what I have done in the past in regard to the Civil List and other demands made on the public purse for the Court and the Royal Family. I am quite ready to give them a reasonable sum. I believe the late Sovereign carried out her official duties in a way that was perfectly satisfactory to the country. I have shown in Committee that we are positively increasing the amount of the Civil List and at the same time reducing the charges on it, with the result that the Civil List is swollen to something enormous. It now amounts to £110,000; but, besides that, there are the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, which bring it up to £170,000. Anyone has only to look through the different arrangements made to see that the reductions which have been made in different classes will not go to the benefit of the country, but to the benefit of the Civil List. I shall certainly vote against the Bill, not that I think for one moment that there ought not to be a Civil List, but because I think the Government ought to take back the prosent Civil List and bring in another more reasonable.

My hon. friend has invited me to express an opinion on this subject, and to deal with a statement which I have not heard—a statement made, as he alleges, by the First Lord of the Treasury. I was not in the House on that occasion, and, therefore, I must make my observations on a statement reported at secondhand by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Northampton. If it be correct that the First Lord of the Treasury has asserted that the hereditary estates of the Crown are held by the Sovereign personally, in the same character as any private person holds his estates, then I absolutely dissent from that doctrine altogether. The Crown holds the hereditary estates, as it holds all its prerogatives and all its rights, as trustee for the State and the people. That is the situation of the Crown with reference to hereditary estates. If I had thought that this question was to be raised I would have read to the House extracts from an extremely able and trustworthy work, Mr. Spencer Walpole's "History of England," where he deals with the Civil List, and where he states expressly the absurdity of such a doctrine that there is a personal and private right in the hereditary revenues of the Crown. The constitutional practice is accurately stated in that book. If the estates are personal property to be bargained away by Parliament, why should the proprietor receive and the public give more than the estates yield, which has been the case on all occasions on which the Civil List has been settled? Parliament grants the Civil List solely out of consideration for what appertains to the dignity of the Sovereign of these realms. If the hereditary estates yield less than that, the House of Commons is not governed by that consideration to give a smaller Civil List. If they yield a great deal more the House of Commons is not bound to give a great deal more in the form of a Civil List. Of course, if it were true that these estates could at any time he resumed by the Crown, they could only be resumed, as my hon. friend has properly said, subject to the obligation under which the Crown lies of maintaining the civil charges of this country, which, I believe, which be a very bad bargain for the Sovereign. But it is quite plain that a right which has never been exerted for a century and a half is not likely to be asserted now. No doubt the technical form is retained, as in the exercise of many other prerogatives of the Constitution. A great many rights are asserted, and properly asserted, in the name of the Crown, but to deal with the hereditary estates of the Crown as if they were the estates of a private individual would be an entire error and, in my opinion, absolutely contrary to the constitutional principles of this country.

There is one matter which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to enlighten us on before we proceed to a division. I find in the Report presented to the House in 1899, in connection with grants to the Royal Family, the following paragraph: "The revenues of the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster were not included in the surrender of the hereditary revenues." The question I want to ask is, why was an exception made in the case of these two estates when the Crown lands were being surrendered in exchange for a very generous Civil List? Why should estates which are now yielding something like £130,000 a year be reserved, apparently as private property, by the Crown? I join issue with the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark in his statement that the present Civil List is not too large. I need not remind the House that from my point of view any Civil List would be too large; but admitting the necessity for a Civil List, I submit that the amount proposed to be given is exorbitant. When this matter was last under discussion a statement was made as to the enormous income enjoyed by the President of the United States. I have taken the trouble to learn the actual sum paid to the President of the United States, and I find it is 50,000 dollars, or about £10,000 in British money per annum; and yet the President of the United States rules over seventy millions of people, whereas the King of England rules over only fifty millions. The President has to maintain a state consistent with the dignity of his high position, and, although the cost of living in America is not less than in England, he yet finds £10,000 amply sufficient. If that can be done in America, why not in England? Are all the functionaries who attend on the Court necessary to the maintenance of the dignity of our ruler? The many supernumeraries who attach to the Court add neither dignity nor grace to the proceedings connected with royal functions. May I point out also that the sum voted for the Civil List does not exhaust the amount spent by the nation on royalty. The total amount of the Civil List is £548,000, but in addition to that there is spent on the upkeep of royal palaces £18,000, on royal yachts £23,000, and further, there is the income from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster of £130,000, making a total of £719,000. It would be an abuse of language to say that that is a moderate sum to pay for the duties performed by His Majesty the King at a time when, as I have said before, the nation is entering upon a period of trade depression, and when hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of His Majesty's subjects—the life of every one of whom is quite as valuable as that of the King—are living not only on the verge of poverty, but actually in poverty itself. It is an outrage upon all our forms of government to propose a sum of this kind for the maintenance of the head of the State. I shall vote against the Third Reading, because I think the amount is too large, and because it is the only way open to me of entering my protest against the continuance of a hereditary ruler over a nominally democratic people.

It was not my intention to take any part in this debate, but as several references have been made to the question of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, I should like to say a few words on that subject. It seems to me that the Civil List Committee acted with great wisdom in not taking into account the increase in the revenues of the Crown. If, on the one hand, it left out the increase in the revenue from Crown lands, on the other hand it left out the increase in the revenue from the Ddchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. I concur very much with what fell from my hon. friend the Member for Mid-Lanark, that at some future time it may be desirable to apply to the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster a similar principle of commutation to that which has been applied to other Crown lands. But that question does not arise on the present occasion. It is not a question of urgency, and does not form any part of the present Civil List arrangement. Moreover it is a question which requires very great consideration. With reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Northampton as to whether the King is or is not bound to surrender the Crown lands on his accession to the throne, that has been very clearly dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. Surely that is a question of no great practical importance, although no doubt it is one of historic interest, because it is perfectly obvious, apart entirely from the question whether the King could or could not refrain from surrendering these revenues, that if he did not he would incur liabilities infinitely greater and more onerous than the benefits that would be derived from retaining them in his own possession. Therefore the question is not of great practical importance. The hon. Member who has just sat down asked why the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster had not been surrendered in the same way as other Crown lands. There is, no doubt, some difference of opinion as to the precise status of these estates, and it seems to me that these properties have been differentiated to some extent from Crown lands, but on the other hand they certainly cannot be regarded as private property. If they had been private property in 1688 it is perfectly clear that they would have been put in a very different position. Moreover, the Duchy of Lancaster is represented by a Minister, and it is quite evident that that property is not on the same footing as any ordinary private property. If the Duchy of Lancaster cannot be properly classed with other Crown lands, it is perfectly certain that it is not the private property of the Sovereign, not being the subject of bequest. As to the precise terms of the will of John of Gaunt there is a great difference of opinion between historians. It seems to me, therefore, that there is a strong reason why this question should be fully considered, and some attempt made in future years to assimilate the conditions under which the Duchy of Lancaster is held to those of the Crown lands. It is clear that there are a number of difficulties which surround the subject, which would have to be met, and that is a good reason why it should not have been considered by the Committee upstairs, and that the Civil List should be passed without importing into it a question very much wider in its bearing and its scope. No doubt there is one current of opinion which holds that the amount of the Civil List is too large, and another which considers that it is by no means excessive; but I think, having regard to the increase of population, and the calls upon the Sovereign and his responsibilities in one way and another under the conditions which now prevail it is only right and proper that the matter should be considered with the utmost regard to the convenience and dignity of the Sovereign. I think the amount at which the Committee arrived was a fair amount, and it certainly was arrived at after sufficient consideration had been given to all these matters. At the same time, I do wish to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are other matters with regard to the revenues of the Crown which deserve careful consideration at a future date, and I hope that during the period the right hon. Gentleman occupies his present position he will be able to devote some time to this complicated question.

There are only two points upon which I think it is necessary for me to occupy the time of the House. In the first place, the hon. Member for Northampton has attributed to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury a statement which I am sure he did not make, with regard to the position of the hereditary revenues of the Crown. I understood the hon. Member to say that my right hon. friend stated that the hereditary revenues of the Crown could be dealt with by the Sovereign precisely as if they belonged to a private person.

What the right hon. Gentleman said was that it belonged to the Sovereign in the sense that if he did not surrender his life interest he had a perfect right to retain it, and in that case he could spend it as he liked.

I said he held it as the Sovereign, and that is so.

The hon. Gentleman has only repeated to-day, as he has on previous occasions, his view as to the historical position of these revenues. I do not think it at all necessary to follow the hon. Member into that question. I am content with the Parliamentary title to those hereditary revenues which was certainly conferred on the present King by the Civil List Act of the late Queen. By the second section of that Act it was enacted that those hereditary revenues "from and after the decease of her present Majesty shall be payable and paid to Her Majesty's heirs and successors." Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire said, the King takes those hereditary revenues subject to the performance of the duties which belong to the Crown. How far that implies or involves the maintenance of the civil administration of the State is a matter on which I do not think I should be quite prepared to accept what fell from the right hon. Gentleman; but it is really nothing more than an academical discussion, because, as a matter of fact, His Majesty, on the advice of the Government, has followed the action of his predecessors, and surrendered those revenues on the condition that a suitable Civil List is provided for him. In my judgment, it seems absolutely clear, by the second section of the Civil List Act of the late Queen, that it was perfectly open to His Majesty, if he had so desired, to retain those revenues in place of having a Civil List provided for him by Parliament. Now a question has been raised as to the position of the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. I do not think it can be alleged that those revenues are on the same footing as the hereditary revenues of the Crown. There is a clear distinction, because nobody could contend that the performance of any public duties attached to the possession of the revenues of the two Duchies. On the other hand, there is a distinction between them and the private property of the Crown, such as Osborne and Balmoral. The question has been raised whether the revenues of those two Duchies ought or ought not to be surrendered by the Sovereign and the Heir-Apparent. That matter has been very carefully considered from time to time, and I believe was discussed at the time of the accession of her late Majesty, and it was decided then that it was better for every reason that those estates should remain the appanage of the Sovereign and of the Heir-Apparent, as they had been for many generations, and many hundreds of years. I differ entirely from the view that it is contrary to public policy that the Sovereign or Heir-Apparent should own the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall.

I think it would be contrary to the public interest that they should be in the position of landlords having tenants under them.

I differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, I think it greatly for the public advantage that in both cases the Sovereign and Heir-Apparent should themselves have some personal experience of the duties and rights and position of an owner of property, whether in the country or in London, and we all see what an admirable example our present King has set in that capacity to his subjects.

said the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rendered it unnecessary for the debate to be prolonged, for he had explained away the false impression which existed in the country. The words of the First Lord of the Treasury had been universally misunderstood by the press—namely, that the Crown lands were in some peculiar sense the private property of the Sovereign. It was the invincible ignorance of the press which led to this. He agreed that the second section of the Civil List Act of the late Queen did convey a reversionary interest in those lands to the present King. On this subject he quoted a statement written twenty years ago by one whose authority would be acknowledged by the whole House. This writer stated that—

"It is a fallacy that the Crown lands are in some peculiar sense the private property of the Sovereign…. The title of the Crown to the Crown lands is indisputable, but it is only entitled to them subject to the somewhat onerous obligation of defraying the whole of the ordinary expenditure of the State…. The reversionary interest of the heir to the Crown is saddled with an annual burden of 70 millions. It is therefore practically valueless, and may be disregarded."

That burden was now 140 millions. The writer he referred to was the accomplished and learned lawyer who drafted this Civil List Bill.

Who is that?