Commons Sitting of 11 December 1893

POSTAL REGULATIONS FOR CIRCULARS.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware of the great risk and inconvenience caused by the permission to post circulars, &c, in open envelopes and the large number of letters that thus get wrongly delivered and destroyed; and whether he will in future insist that all such envelopes shall have such fastening as will prevent such inconvenience?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): The hon. Member will bear in mind that the innovation referred to was long pressed upon the Department, and there is no doubt that there is an attendant risk and inconvenience such as that to which he alludes; but very few complaints have reached the Department, and I fear there is no way of giving practical effect to the suggestion made in the last paragraph of the question.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider as to having these envelopes open at the side instead of at the top?—other letters would not drop in so easily then.
MR. A. MORLEY: I am afraid that would not be of much advantage. The coverings are of all shapes and sizes, and what is called the top of one might be called the side of another.

THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF IRELAND.
MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, although a large sum has within the last few years been spent on the erection and arrangement of the National Library of Ireland in Dublin, this Library is yet so far incomplete that one-fourth or more of the book shelves can, unless on bright summer days, be examined only by artificial light; and whether, in view of the danger involved
1018
in the use of hand oil lamps in such a Library, and the trouble which they occasion to the attendants in the search for books, the Government is prepared to arrange for such a system of electric lighting as will render the book-shelves available at all times?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham): The lighting of the book store at the National Library on dark afternoons is, no doubt, unsatisfactory, and the question of the best arrangement to be made will be considered by the Board of Works and the authorities of the Library.

LESSON BOOKS IN IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the use of the Board lesson books in the National schools, though nominally optional, is in reality compulsory, as the Board examinations are conducted on the texts of these books, and the enormous expenditure of public money in their production renders competition by private enterprise for the purpose of producing more useful and interesting books impossible; is he aware that one of the subjects for monitresses at their final examination, to qualify them for the lowest position of teacher, is 1,346 pages of the miscellaneous and worthless matter of these books, in addition to 287 pages of the girls' reading book, the use of which is supposed to be optional in the schools; is he aware that this whole system was most strongly condemned in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1868–70, and that they recommended that—
"The National School Board should refrain from preparing or publishing any school books for the future ";
will he direct a Return to be made of the number of applications by managers for the use of other than Board lesson books in these schools, and also a Return of the percentage of failures at the last July examination on this subject of the contents of the Board lesson books, as compared with the other subjects included in the examinations; and will he direct a searching inquiry into the entire matter, with a view to carrying out the reform so strongly recommended by the Royal Commission, and of thus bringing

1019
the Irish system into conformity with that prevailing in England?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.) (for Mr. J. MORLEY): (1.) The Commissioners of National Education state that the use of the Board's lesson books is not compulsory, but that it is necessary that books selected by managers shall be approved as suitable by the Board. In the absence of suitable alternative books, the examination of pupils and of teachers and monitors has been based on the Board's books, and the questions are framed to test proficiency in them. The Commissioners add that were other suitable books provided, the questions would still be framed to test the knowledge of whatever books might be in use. The expenditure on the production of the Board's books has been deemed necessary to enable the pupils to purchase them at prices within their means. As a matter of fact, these books are sold at cost price, and the Commissioners are reimbursed nearly the amount they expend. The production of the books is open to the public, there being no copyright—a freedom which is extensively availed of by publishers, and, as already stated, it is open to managers to use other books subject to the Board's approval, and to publishers to publish such books. (2.) The number of pages quoted in paragraph 2 is the total number of pages in all the Board's reading books, through which children have had to pass from time to time. (3.) It would exceed the usual limits of an answer to set out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, some of which have been in substance adopted. They did, it is true, make the recommendation which is set forth in the third paragraph, but this the Board have not considered it desirable to adopt. (4.) To the first of the two Returns mentioned in paragraph 4 there will be no objection if the hon. Member will move for it in the usual way. To grant the second Return would, as the hon. Member has already been informed in reply to a previous question, necessitate a considerable expenditure in time and money. (5.) I cannot at present state whether my right hon. Friend will consider the matter as one proper for such inquiry as suggested in the concluding paragraph.
MR. BODKIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commission to which I have alluded in my question did not report in the following words:—
"The use of these books is nominally optional, but it is in reality compulsory?"
I may say I put that in my question, but it was omitted by the Clerk at the Table. Does the right hon. Gentleman, in face of that Report, adhere to the view that the use of the books is not compulsory?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask whether the fact that the books are sold at cost price and delivered free at the schools does not practically stereotype their use in perpetuo in Irish schools?
MR. BRYCE: I am not sure that that is the case. In reply to the hon. Member for Roscommon, I may say that the Report he refers to was made some time ago. It does not follow that it applies to the present condition of things.
MR. BODKIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate any change since that date to show there has been greater freedom in the use of other books?
MR. BRYCE: A change has, in fact, been made, and the Board have expressed their willingness to allow other books to be used.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the books are not supplied at cost price and delivered free of charge? I was informed that was so by the Board.
MR. BRYCE: To ensure accuracy, the hon. Member had better put the question down.

HARE HUNTING IN ESSEX.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that William Burgess and three others who were charged with him (all being men of respectable position in long service) at Corringham, in the Petty Sessional Division of Orsett, in the County of Essex, on the 18th of August last, on the charge of using four guns for the purpose of taking hares, were the holders of licences to carry guns; that they were on the public footpath, proceeding towards Shelhaven Creek with the intention of shooting sea-fowl; that they were convicted of using guns for the

1021
purpose of taking hares, there being no evidence beyond the facts above stated, and were each fined £1 and 5s. 6d. costs; and that three of them were in default of payment taken to Pentonville Prison handcuffed, and confined until the fines were paid; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made in this case, with a view to the remission of the penalties imposed and to the securing effectual protection to the holders of similar licences?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): My attention has been drawn to this case. The defendants were the holders of licences to carry guns, but they were not on the footpath, whether it was public or no, but had spread out to the right and left of it, on private land, beating the saltings where there are hares, and the Magistrates came to the conclusion that the defendants were there for the purpose of shooting hares, although at the time neither the prosecutor nor the constable saw a hare. The three defendants, with one other, were taken to prison under the escort of two constables who, for precaution, handcuffed them. I cannot, upon the materials before me, take upon myself to differ from the conclusion of fact arrived at by the Magistrates who heard the evidence.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has any evidence to inform him of the fact that shooting is quite usual in this neighbourhood, and that no fewer than 20 people with guns were out there yesterday, shooting wild fowl? On what evidence did the Magistrates come to the conclusion that because people had guns they were necessarily after hares in a neighbourhood where they are rarely seen, as I am told?
MR. ASQUITH: I will make further inquiries.

THE DUBLIN AND TARSMONBARRY CANAL.
MR. D. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Westmeath, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Royal Canal between Dublin and Tarmonbarry has not for several years been kept in a satisfactory navigable condition, even when the head
1022
of water at Lough Owel was more than ample to supply the canal; whether the present owners of the canal, the Midland Great Western Railway Company, are bound by Section 36 of the local Act, 8 & 9 Vict., c 119, to maintain and preserve the waterway for the purposes of navigation; whether he is aware that in many places the canal is choked with weeds, and that for a very long period no dredging has been carried out by the Railway Company; and can he state when was the canal last inspected, and what steps he proposes to take to compel the company to clear the canal?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD or TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA, Sheffield, Brightside): I have communicated with the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland, who state that the Royal Canal has been kept in a satisfactory and navigable condition until last September, when the prolonged and unprecedented drought and the consequent fall of the water level in Lough Owel, which supplies the summit level of the canal, reduced the depth of the water in the canal for a distance of 15 miles between Killucen and Coolnahay to such an extent that this portion of the canal has since been only navigable by barges of light draught and modern design. That the company are now seeking Parliamentary powers to raise the level of Lough Owel for the purpose of impounding more water therein, to be drawn upon in time of drought. That the company have maintained, upheld, and preserved the canal navigation as required by Section 36 of the Act 8 & 9 Vict., c 119. That the canal is not, nor has it at any time, been choked with weeds. That five working barges with crews and appliances are constantly employed in dredging and cutting weeds along the line of the canal; and that the canal is constantly and regularly inspected from end to end by the company's officers.

THE EDINBURGH SASINE OFFICE.
MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in reference to the system of hours in the Sasine Office, whether the recommendation by the Ridley Commission of a day of seven hours for the Civil Service, as more economical than a day of six, was

1023
accepted by the Treasury; whether Lord Lothian recommended that in the Sasine Office seven hours should be substituted for six after the reduction of the staff; whether the staff has since been reduced from 92 to 72; whether the clerks are employed overtime in the Spring, when there is no over-pressure of work; and whether the engrossing clerks have, since the recent Martinmas term, been employed on the ordinary work of the commissioned staff, contrary to the Treasury Minute of 1881?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): The seven hours has, as a rule, been accepted by the Treasury; but on account of the special character of the work of the Sasine Office, as I have recently explained in this House in answer to a question, the application of the system of that office has not been carried out. My predecessor's remarks on the point will be found in Part IV. of his Minute of 1880, which was laid before Parliament. The staff is now maintained at 75, and overtime has only once been used—in the Spring of last year —to complete certain indices under pressure. Pending the introduction of certain changes in the system of registration, some engrossing clerks have given temporary assistance at the terms of Whit-Sunday and Martinmas, with great advantage in expediting the work of the office, and are paid by piecework.

ANTI-VACC1NATI0NISTS AT KING'S NORTON.
MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that one J. S. Fry, then residing in the King's Norton Union, was summoned by the vaccination officer of the Birmingham Union to appear before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction in Birmingham on 22nd September, 1893, and there fined under Section 29 of the Vaccination Act of 1867; whether the vaccination officer was authorised by anything in the Vaccination Acts in applying for a summons against a parent with a child living in another Union; and whether, when applying for the summons, he informed the Stipendiary that Fry and his child were not resident in the Birmingham Union?
MR. ASQUITH: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question. As regards the second and third paragraphs, I am informed that the vaccination officer of the Birmingham Union, in which the defendant's child was born, and where he still has a shop, served the notices on the defendant personally at his shop; that the defendant did not take the objection now raised at the hearing. So far as I can see, no illegality was committed by the vaccination officer, as it is open to anyone to prosecute under Section 29, but I am afraid I cannot give legal advice on points such as this.

GENERAL POST OFFICE, DUBLIN.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Carson), I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has entered into, or is about to enter into, an agreement with the Municipal Corporation of Dublin for the supply by them to the General Post Office, Dublin, of electric lighting; whether he has considered the relative cost of such supply, and the cost of creating and carrying on the supply by the Department as in London; and whether portions of the necessary apparatus for that purpose have already been erected at the General Post Office in Dublin?
MR. A. MORLEY: No proposal is under consideration for lighting the General Post Office in Dublin with electric light. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member is referring to the new parcel sorting office in Amiens Street, where the Board of Public Works are proposing to provide electric light.

BALTIMORE FISHERY SCHOOLS.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork County, West, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the late Father Davis made any Report or recommendation to the Congested Districts Board relative to the Baltimore Fishery Schools; and, if so, whether a copy can be presented to Parliament?
MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): I am informed that the rev. gentleman did make a Report upon the subject referred to, but that it is of a confi-

1025
dential nature, and that the Congested Districts Board cannot agree to its publication.

SNOW BLOCKS IN THE HIGHLANDS.
DR. MACGREGOR (Invernesshire): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, seeing that the public highway between Kingussie and Fort William was blocked by snow for four days, and no steps taken by the Road Authority to restore communication, whereby the Post Office was obliged to despatch the mails by a circuitous route at additional expense, whose duty is it to remove such obstruction; and will the Public Exchequer be refunded the extra outlay consequent on the neglect to keep the roads open for traffic?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am informed that the snow block occurred in the Lochabar district, and that the duty of clearing it rested with the committee of that district, who must be left to judge of the time and method of doing what is their own work. The Post Office Authorities report that even if the snow block had been cleared the service could only have been performed on the 24th ultimo, and not on the earlier three days mentioned.
DR. MACGREGOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the local committee refused to remove the block?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: That is a question which must be left to the local committee.

OUR LIFEBOAT SYSTEM.
MR. CROSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many lifeboat stations are under the management of the Board of Trade; and whether he will state the names of such stations?
MR. MUNDELLA: The only lifeboat under the management of the Board of Trade is that at Ramsgate Harbour. This boat was supplied by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, but the crew are paid by the Board of Trade.

WEIGHTS AND SCALES IN THE POST OFFICE.
MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the present contract for the supply of scales and weights to the
1026
Post Office Department, which was entered into four years ago, is determinable at six months' notice; and whether, with a view of the terms of the contract as to price, quality, and modern improvements, he will consider the desirability of putting an end to the contract and to invite fresh tenders?
MR. A. MORLEY: The contract in question came into operation on the 1st of December, 1889, and is determinable as stated by six months' notice on either side. The service is very well performed, and the prices are considered to be moderate. It is not proposed, therefore, at present to give notice to terminate the contract for the purpose of inviting fresh tenders.

ROADS IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to a letter which appeared in The Scottish Highlander of the 7th instant, signed by the Rev. Donald A. Macdonald, of Kilmuir, Skye, in which he states that he has recently visited the Park district of the Island of Lewis, and has no hesitation in saying that there is no locality in the Highlands where a public road is more urgently needed; and whether the Government propose to take the necessary steps to remedy this state of matters?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have seen the letter, and am well aware of the necessity there is for new roads in the Park district, as well as in other remote districts of the Highlands and Islands. But the hon. Member must bear in mind that a large proportion of last year's Government grant for footpaths in Ross-shire was devoted to those in the Lews.

THE WOODFORD PETTY SESSIONS DISPUTE.
MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the District Inspector was present at the proceedings for compensation by Mr. Lewis, J.P., at the Woodford Petty Sessions, which he purports to describe; can he state from, whom his first inaccurate Report was obtained; whether he consulted the associated cesspayers, who took part in the proceedings, before making that Report; whether, in view of the vital importance

1027
of the accuracy of the official information supplied to the responsible Minister for the information of the House, he will institute a strict inquiry in order to bring the person detected in furnishing an inaccurate Report in this case to justice; whether he is aware that the claim made by Mr. Lewis for compensation turned entirely on the question if the injury complained of was malicious, regarding which no evidence was given, and that both the associated cesspayers present were of opinion no malice had been proved, and so voted; whether the claim of Mr. Lewis would have been lost but for the casting vote of Mr. Tener, which Mr. Lewis secured by voting him to the chair; whether it is in accordance with the law for a Magistrate, as such, to take any part direct or indirect in a matter in which he is pecuniarily concerned; and whether, seeing that Mr. Lewis by his action as Magistrate secured his own pecuniary claim and Mr. Tener aided him in so doing, he will reconsider his decision and report these gentlemen to the Lord Chancellor?
MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The District Inspector was not present at the proceedings upon which he reported, nor was it his duty to be present. He interrogated two of his men who were in attendance at the Sessions before preparing his Report, which came from him as the proper channel through which official communications concerning the district in his charge are made. He states he did not consult the associated cesspayers, as they reside a considerable distance from Woodford, nor did he consult at the time either Mr. Tener or Mr. Lewis. The claim of Mr. Lewis did not, I am advised, depend on Mr. Tener having been voted by Mr. Lewis into the chair, as Mr. Tener was entitled and bound to take the chair irrespectively of such voting; and even if the claim had been rejected at the Sessions, it would have been competent to the applicant to renew his claim before the Judge of Assize, and to the Grand Jury to allow or disallow it. I have already stated that the mistake made by the District Inspector in his original Report appears to have been an innocent one, in reference to which I acquitted him of any improper motive, and I see no reason for taking any further notice of the matter.

ALTRINCHAM LEVEL CROSSING.
MR. MATHER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an account, published in The Altrincham and Bowden Guardian of the 6th December, of an alarming accident which occurred at the level crossing of the railway which passes through the populous town of Altrincham, a suburb of Manchester, when a locomotive engine dashed through the crossing gates, which were open for public traffic across the line at the time, imperilling the lives of many persons and injuring one of them; and whether, in view of the statement in the newspaper, supported by other evidence, that this level crossing is a constant source of inconvenience and of frequent peril to the inhabitants of Altrincham, he will use the influence of the Board of Trade to cause the Railway Company to take immediate steps to bridge the line, or adopt such measures as shall permanently serve the convenience and secure the safety of the traffic of the town across the railway?
MR. MUNDELLA: I have communicated with the Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway Company with regard to this accident. The company state that the gates at the level crossing were broken by being run into by a light engine, the driver of which whilst shunting having, unfortunately, disregarded the signals, which were at danger. The company also state that this is the first occasion for the last 20 years and upwards of any person being injured at this crossing, at which there is a convenient footbridge for passengers, though what were the circumstances which prevented Mrs. Ashmore from using it at the time are not known. As regards this particular level crossing which was sanctioned so far back as 1845, I have ordered an Inspector to examine and report upon it at once.

NIGER TERRITORY PROTECTORATE ACCOUNTS.
SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the accounts of the Niger Territory Protectorate are annually laid before Parliament; and, if so, under what title, or

1029
whether they are contained in the West Africa Papers presented by the Foreign Office on 21st September last but not yet printed?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): The accounts have not been published, but the totals of the Export and Import Duties for 1892 are given in No. 1215 of the Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance.

STATE-AIDED DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS ACCOUNTS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education will he explain why it is that, whilst the accounts of School Boards throughout the country are subject to examination and audit by officers of the Local Government Board, there is no Departmental check upon the accounts of State-aided denominational schools; and whether the Government will take such steps as may be necessary for having the accounts of all denominational schools in receipt of Government grants subjected to a Departmental audit?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Mr. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham): In the case of the schools to which the hon. Member refers, the Education Department, before paying the grant, require to be satisfied that the accounts of income and expenditure are accurately kept by the managers, and duly audited, and they also require that the accounts shall be published, and be open to inspection for a year. The Inspector also reports annually on the accounts, and inspects the vouchers. In view of the expense which must necessarily attend the employment of Government auditors for the accounts of voluntary schools, I think that there would be considerable difficulty at present in making such arrangements as are suggested by the hon. Member.

THE DEER FOREST COMMISSION.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the probability that some considerable time must elapse before the Deer Forest Commission is in a position to present its full Report, he will bring his influence to bear upon the Commissioners with the object of having an Interim
1030
Report issued at once in order to facilitate early legislation on the subject of their inquiry?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on the 10th ultimo:—
"The Commissioners, according to their last communication to me, did not propose to submit an Interim Report. They are not yet in a position to say when they shall be able to report, but they are satisfied, and I think most justly, with the progress which they have made in an inquiry which must be thorough over a very large area of Scotland."
MR. WEIR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when the Report will be presented?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: There is a Commissioner in the House who will give my hon. Friend the best information in his power. My hon. Friend will then see what portion of Scotland has already been gone over, and will be able to judge for himself how soon the Inquiry will be completed.
MR. MACFARLANE: Is there to be an Interim Report of any kind?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: No; the Commission unanimously decided that.
MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, under the circumstances, an Interim Report could contain any recommendations, and whether it would be possible without recommendations to pass legislation.
SIR G. TREVELYAN: That is the view that the Commission have represented to me, and I think it is a view deserving the greatest consideration.
DR. MACGREGOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the rate of progress hitherto made it will be several years before the inquiry is completed, and whether, if that be so, urgent legislation upon so important a matter is to be postponed?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: No, Sir. What I am aware of is quite the contrary. The hon. Member is mistaken.

DESECRATION AT ST. FINAN'S CHURCH.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the case heard at Waterville, County Kerry, in which Edward West, a member of the Constabulary

1031
Force, was identified by seven credible witnesses as having committed an act of desecration and destruction at St. Finan's Church, whether the Inspector General of Constabulary has taken the case into his consideration; whether, as the hearing at Waterville was abortive, and was not attended by any legal representative of the Crown, steps will be taken to have the evidence properly sifted at another hearing, in order to obtain a decision upon the merits of the case, and with a view to determine whether prosecutions for perjury should be instituted; and what action the Board of Public Works, as guardian of National monuments, has taken in reference to the case?
MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The Government have decided to institute fresh proceedings in the case referred to, and the Crown Solicitor will conduct the prosecution.

OIL FUEL FOR THE NAVY.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, on the trial of a heavy shale oil as fuel which was made in 1868 by the Admiralty with the Oberon boiler at Woolwich, it was found that 16 lbs. of water were evaporated for each pound of the oil consumed, whereas coal evaporated about 8 lbs. of water for each pound of coal; whether oil fuel has long been, and still is, successfully used by Russian vessels in the Caspian and Black Sea, and is now being used for locomotives by English railways; whether the use of oil fuel would very greatly increase the fuel carrying capacity of Her Majesty's ships, while doing away with the necessity for stoking and stokers; and whether, since the Oberon trial, any further trials of oil fuel have been made, or whether any are now being made or are proposed to be made by the Admiralty, with a view of ascertaining its adaptability to the use of Her Majesty's Navy?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH, Lancashire, Clitheroe): The results of the Oberon trial are somewhat ancient history, on which it would not be useful to go back. Oil fuel has since been frequently experimented upon by the Admiralty, and its adoption elsewhere is being closely watched, both in foreign countries and at home. Against such
1032
advantages as are suggested in the third paragraph of the hon. Member's question certain grave disadvantages must be set.

THE EVICTION OF MRS. PADIAN AT SUMMERVILLE.
MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the eviction of Mrs. Padian, of Summerville, County Roscommon, by Miss Hague, of Cloonahee; and whether this is a case in which the Congested Districts Board might interfere to secure the land for the tenants deprived of possession?
MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): It has not been possible to obtain a Report in reference to this question in time to permit of a reply being given to-day, and I must ask the hon. Member, therefore, to defer the question till Thursday.

CONTRACTS WITH FOREIGN FIRMS.
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the fact that the Admiralty have given a contract to a French firm, Messrs. Delaunay, Belleville & Co., of St. Denis, for boilers to replace those of the Sharpshooter; and whether it is intended to extend or continue this practice of giving orders for ammunition, boilers, and similar warlike stores to the manufacturers and workmen of foreign countries?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Admiralty have ordered, as stated, a set of experimental boilers for trial in the Sharpshooter. It is intended to continue the practice of obtaining from every available source (for experimental purposes especially) any articles likely to be of advantage to the Naval Service. A similar course is pursued by Foreign Governments with obvious advantage to British industries.
MR. HANBURY: Are these boilers patented in this country?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I must ask for notice of that question.

THE CIVIL WAR IN BRAZIL.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House

1033
any information as to the civil war in Brazil; and whether the report is accurate that the forces of Marshal Peixoto have been defeated in Rio Grande do Sul with heavy loss?
SIR E. GREY: The latest news received from Her Majesty's Minister at Rio shows that Admiral Gama has joined the insurgents. We have no confirmation of the reported defeat of the Government forces in Rio Grande do Sul.

THE NAVAL ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many naval and military commissioned officers respectively hold appointments in the Naval Ordnance Department; and whether the number of military officers in this Naval Department is in any way due to the deficiency of executive officers in the Navy; and, if not, what is the reason for it?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: There are 19 naval and 17 military officers in the Naval Ordnance Department. The number of military officers is in no way due to any deficiency of executive officers in the Navy. But at the time of the transfer of the Naval Ordnance Stores it was arranged at the instance of the Treasury that the military officers then holding appointments should be utilised. As vacancies occur in certain of these appointments, they will be filled by the promotion of warrant officers in the Navy.

SCHOOLS FOR THE BLIND AND DEAF.
SIR E. LECHMERE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having regard to the practical effect of the 13th clause of "The Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893," all existing schools for such afflicted children will be deemed as affording suitable instruction during the year 1894?
MR. ACLAND: The Education Department will endeavour to certify schools under the Act as soon as possible after the date at which it comes into operation (1st January, 1894); and with that object they propose to put themselves in communication at once with all schools or institutions now recognised by the Local Government Board for the reception of children sent by Boards of Guardians.
1034
The Act empowers the Education Department to certify only such schools as are conducted in accordance with the statutory conditions.

PAPERS ON SIAM.
SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Papers relating to recent events in Siam will be laid upon the Table before the adjournment for Christmas?
SIR E. GREY: It is not yet possible to name a date for the publication of these Papers. The Government are anxious to lay them as soon as the exigencies of the Public Service admit.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
COLONEL NOLAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Public Libraries (Ireland) Bill, which passed the House of Commons in June last and was afterwards introduced into the House of Lords, and has for some time past been in Committee stage in that House, cannot be further proceeded with by reason of the Irish Office having failed to state in terms the Amendments which that Office desired should be made in the Bill; and whether, as the Bill is a non-contentious measure, and passed the House of Commons owing to facilities given by all parties, he will, without delay, cause the Amendment desired by the Irish Office to be put down, and will make such arrangements as shall cause its passage into law to be facilitated this Session?
MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The hon. Member will recollect that until towards the close of the first part of the present Session the Chief Secretary understood from the hon. Member that he and his correspondents would prefer that the Public Libraries (Ireland) Bill should be dropped rather than it should be amended in the direction thought necessary by the Irish Government. However this may be, the Irish Government have done nothing to impede the progress of the Bill in another place, and it has always been and is now open to those who are promoting the Bill to take such steps as they may deem advisable for facilitating its passage.
COLONEL NOLAN: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy give a little more information as to the steps necessary to be taken?
MR. BRYCEThe best course would be for the parties interested to agree upon such Amendments as would make it possible for the Irish Government to assent to the Bill and would bring it into such a non-contentious shape as would insure its passing into law.

ALLOTMENTS AT BUSHEY PARK.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, having regard to the Hampton Local Board's request, made in accordance with Section 2 of "The Allotments Act, 1887," and as the Hampton Authorities are unable to find laud elsewhere than Bushey Park for allotments for working men, he is now prepared to find some portion of the land attached to Bushey Park for that object, in the same way as the late Government did out of the Home Park at Hampton at the request of the Hampton Wick Local Board?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bradford, Central): I am glad to say that I have been able to advise Her Majesty to comply with the request of the Authorities of Hampton, and to offer to them a field of 13 acres adjoining Bushey Park for the purpose of allotments, to be held by them under licence from the Crown at a reasonable rent.

IRISH LABOURERS AND ALLOTMENTS.
COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government would early next Session introduce a small equalising Bill, which would enable the Irish labourer and others to obtain those facilities for holding small plots of ground which are at present, or will be at the close of the Session, enjoyed by the same classes in England, through the various Allotment Acts and Allotment Clauses?
MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLET): I answered a similar question to this last week, and I am afraid I can only give the same answer now. If the hon. Member will study the English Allotment Acts and Clauses he will find that a Bill enacting them for Ireland could not be described as a small Bill, but must necessarily be somewhat compli-
1036
cated and likely to occupy a good deal of time. In the present state of Public Business I cannot make any engagement on the subject.

PAID MONITRESSES IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether paid monitresses are appointed each year, on the 1st July only, in numbers proportionate to the number of children attending each school; whether, after the 1st July, they are examined in a variety of subjects, including the lesson books of the Board, and on failure in those examinations are summarily dismissed; are the schools to which they were appointed thereby deprived of the assistance necessary for their efficient conduct for the residue of the year; and will he take immediate steps for the removal of this grievance?
MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The Board of National Education state that the appointments of paid monitresses are dependent on the fulfilment of other conditions which are subject to a limit fixed in proportion to the average daily attendance of pupils. Failure at any examination during the course renders a monitress liable to dismissal. Considerable allowance, however, is made for the answering, which is dealt with in an indulgent spirit. In the event of a vacancy, another appointment, should one be deemed desirable, can only be made on the recommendation of the District Inspector, and from July 1 following. The hypothesis is that every school shall have a sufficient staff to carry on the business of the school without the assistance of monitors, and the Commissioners state that adequate salaries are paid for such a staff. The Commissioners could not approve of a departure from the existing arrangements, nor could they recognise an absolute claim to a succession of monitors —namely, to the immediate replacement of a monitress who has failed by another.
MR. BODKIN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that these monitresses having been appointed, and all the necessary conditions precedent to appointment having been fulfilled, their failure in examination deprives the school until the following July of the assistance it was deemed necessary to afford in the first instance?
MR. BRYCE: As I understand the facts, the staff of teachers, even in the absence of monitors and monitresses, is supposed and intended to be adequate for the efficient maintenance of the school.
MR. BODKIN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the staff must be absolutely efficient without them?
MR. BRYCE: That may be going a ittle too far as applied to every possible case. If the hon. Gentleman will put any further question down, the Department will endeavour to answer it.

LIGHTS AT THE OLD HEAD OF KINSALE.
MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how the matter stands with regard to placing an improved light at the Old Head of Kin-sale; whether the Commissioners of Irish Lights have ever sent a formal application, accompanied by estimates of the cost, for the. placing of the electric light at that station; and, if so, what is the amount of such estimate; and whether the Board of Trade and the Trinity House have given their statutory sanction for the commencing of the work?
MR. MUNDELLA: I have replied to these questions in my answers to the hon. Member for Dublin City (St. Stephen's Green Division) on June 19th last and to the hon. Member for Londonderry City on August 25th last, in which I stated that in March, 1891, the Commissioners of Irish Lights applied to the Trinity House for the requisite sanction to the establishment of a fixed electric light at the Old Head of Kinsale, and that the Trinity House declined to give their statutory approval.

TRAINING SHIPS FOR THE NAVY.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of any contemplated increase in the strength of the Royal Navy, and of the desirability of affording Irish boys the same facilities for joining the Naval Service as are enjoyed by English and Scotch lads, the Admiralty will take into further and favourable consideration the urgent necessity that at present exists for a training ship in Cork Harbour?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him if it is a fact that some months
1038
ago he received a similar request from the Harbour Board, the Corporation, and the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Belfast, in which the advantage and great convenience of a ship in Belfast Lough, and the facilities afforded for communication with the West Coast of Scotland were pointed out? Under these circumstances, will he consider the claims of Belfast in this matter?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me a similar question on two or three occasions earlier in the Session, and I am afraid I can add little to the answers which I then gave—to the effect that there is no present intention of increasing the number of boys' training ships; but that, should any need for increase arise, the relative advantages of Cork and other places in the United Kingdom will be considered. Nearly half the number of boys entered in Ireland for the Royal Navy come from Cork. The actual numbers for 1892–93 are for the whole of Ireland 220, and from Cork 97. The Board of Admiralty have noticed with pleasure the number of boys thus supplied by the county which the hon. and gallant Gentleman represents. They have also very good reason to be satisfied with reports recently received as to the quality of boys supplied to the Royal Navy from Ireland.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether the facts stated do not constitute a strong case for placing a training ship at Cork, especially as Queenstown is the headquarters of the Royal Navy in Ireland?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is asking for an expression of opinion, and it is not usual to give that in answer to a question.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Are not the existing training ships over-crowded?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: If that question had been asked a year ago I should have been constrained to answer Yes; but since that time any over-crowding has been considerably diminished in consequence of the steps taken.

THE FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Order in Council of 9th May, 1891, related to Matabeleland, was made under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act and under the powers possessed by the Queen at Common Law over British subjects in uncivilised or semi-civilised countries outside Her dominions; whether it authorises the exercise of any jurisdiction over other than British subjects acquired otherwise than by concessions from their lawful rulers; whether there is any part of Africa, not a British possession, to which Orders in Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act do not apply; and whether the Order of 9th May, 1891, can be made the means of exercising sovereignty over the Matabele?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The Order in Council of the 9th of May, 1891, was made under the authority of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. The Foreign Jurisdiction Act authorises the exercise of jurisdiction over other than British subjects, and it contemplates the acquisition of jurisdiction, not only by Treaty and grant, but by usage and sufferance. As regards the third question, there are many parts of Africa, not British possessions, to which Orders in Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act do not apply. With regard to the last question, as I pointed out the other day, if it is decided to exercise active jurisdiction over Matabeleland proper, the Order in Council and the Charter provide the necessary machinery.

EVICTIONS ON LORD DOWNSHIRE'S PROPERTY.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of evictions were recently carried out on Lord Downshire's property near Hill-town, County Down; what was the date of the ejectments and of the notices under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1887 (if any) in these cases; whether he is aware that in one case the rent had been raised from 7s. 6d. to 23s. an acre, though the land chiefly consists of boulders and whins; and that one of the
1040
houses was fired after eviction, and a small child left by the police in the burning house; how many police were engaged on the evictions; and who will pay for their services?
MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): Four tenants were evicted on this estate on November 30 and 1st instant. In one case the eviction notice was served in March, 1888, in two cases in March, 1889, and in the remaining case in July, 1891. I am informed that the rent was not in any of these cases raised from 7s. 6d. to 23s. per acre, and that in no case does it exceed 16s. per acre. The land is no doubt poor. It is not a fact that a house was fired after eviction or that a child was left in the burning house; it appears, however, that at one of the houses some bushes and other materials were set on fire to fill the house with smoke and thus to cause annoyance to the bailiffs. Nine police were engaged on the first day of the evictions, and seven on the second day, and their expenses will be defrayed from the Constabulary Vote.

THE MILITARY AND THE FEATHERSTONE RIOTS.
MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will undertake that the Military Authorities shall promptly and thoroughly consider the grave observations of the Featherstone Inquiry Commissioners; first, that the smallness of the force at the Ackton Hall works was perhaps what rendered the taking of life necessary; and, second, that the question should be considered whether special and less dangerous arms or ammunition might be used by troops when employed for the purpose of suppressing riots?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL, Hanley): The hon. Member may rest assured that the observations and suggestions of the Commissioners are receiving, and will continue to receive, the most careful consideration of the Secretary of State.

THE FEATHERSTONE COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
MR. J. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say when the Report of the

1041
Featherstone Commission will be considered by the House?
The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper, and were answered at the same time:—
MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, having regard to the recommendation set forth in the Report issued by the Featherstone Inquiry that the law as to dealing with civil disturbances should be consolidated, he would take steps to have a Consolidation Act drafted for submission to the House; whether, in view of the recommendation of the Report, he will consider the advisability of modifying the arms to be used by the troops on occasions of apprehended public disturbance; whether he will make any recommendations to the Magistrates with regard to organising themselves in times of disturbance; and whether he has considered the advisability of directing any grant by way of compensation to the families of the two men who were killed at Featherstone, and who are found by the Report to have been innocent spectators?
MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government propose to give some portion of a day for the discussion of the Featherstone Inquiry Report?
MR. DODD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take, on consideration of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the late occurrences at Featherstone, to enlarge and improve the composition of the Local Authorities responsible in the first instance for notifying the necessity for soldiers or extra police to put down or prevent apprehended civil disturbances in the counties, by making such authorities more fully representative of all classes; and whether an opportunity could be afforded at an early date to this House for a short discussion on this Report?
MR. ASQUITH: In reply to this question, I would submit to my hon. Friends that the Government cannot come to any decision on the various points raised in this Report, nor can the matter in any of its aspects be adequately or profitably discussed by the House
1042
until we are all in possession of the evidence upon which the Report is founded, and to which its recommendations refer. When the evidence has been printed and circulated my hon. Friends can, of course, if they think fit, renew their questions to the Prime Minister, who will, I hope, be then able to be in his place.
MR. J. AUSTIN: When will the Evidence be printed?
MR. ASQUITH: The Evidence is being printed, and will be circulated without any avoidable delay.
MR. BYLES: May I ask the Home Secretary to give the House a little more information as to this question. Can he hold out any reasonable expectation that we shall have an opportunity of discussing the question before Christmas?
MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. The First Lord of the Treasury will answer it in a few days, I hope.

CHELSEA HOSPITAL FUNDS.
SIR F. FITZ WYGRAM (Hants, Fareham): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take into consideration the advisability of appointing in the coming Session a Committee to inquire into the funds and property of Chelsea Hospital and the claims of the out-pensioners?
MR. WOODALL: Two Committees, one in 1870, under the late Captain Vivian, and one in 1883, under the Earl of Morley, have reported very fully on the value of the property of Chelsea Hospital, and on the possibility of conferring on out-pensioners increased pensions analogous to those given to Greenwich out-pensioners at the time that Greenwich Hospital was closed to pensioners. The last-named Committee, after full consideration, came to the conclusion that the annual charge, to give out-pensioners the same pensions as the Greenwich out-pensioners have, would exceed the fee-simple of the whole Chelsea property. This was, moreover. on the supposition that that property had been purchased out of stoppages made from soldiers, and was therefore in the nature of a vested interest, which, however, the Committee were not prepared to admit. It appears to be well established that, even if the whole Chelsea estate were devoted to the purpose,

1043
the gain to the large body of out-pensioners would be very trifling, and would by no means be commensurate with the loss of an asylum for old age now enjoyed by a considerable number of in-pensioners. Under the circumstances it does not appear that any material additional information would be likely to be obtained by a new Committee on the subject.

COMMON LODGING HOUSES IN LONDON.
MR. BOULNOIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has determined to transfer all the powers now possessed by the Commissioners of Police with regard to the common lodging houses to the London County Council; and, if so, whether the police will have the right of visitation?
MR. ASQUITH: After carefully considering the objections raised by certain of the lodging-house keepers, I have determined to make this change. But the transfer will not take away from the police the right of visitation.

PAY DAY AT DEVONPORT.
MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have arrived at a decision as to reverting to Fridays as pay day instead of Saturdays at Bull Point, Devonport?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON, Dundee): In view of the Petition of the workmen at Bull Point to the effect that Saturday is an inconvenient day upon which to receive their pay, the Admiralty have determined to accede to their request to be paid on Friday.

THE SUEZ CANAL SHARES.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase there has been in the value of the 176,400 Suez Canal shares, purchased by Lord Beaconsfield for £4,000,000 in 1875, since June, 1893, when he valued them at £17,750,000; how much of the remaining purchase money (namely, £195,000) has been paid off since June, 1893; what is the probable amount of revenue, on the basis of the dividends of 1890, 1891, and 1892 that will be divisible among the share-
1044
holders of the Suez Canal in 1894; and whether, assuming the same amount of profits to be maintained, the British Treasury will, in 1894, receive 18 per cent. on the shares purchased in 1875?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): (1) There is no change in the value as previously stated, except that the period when dividends will accrue is nearer at hand. (2) £96,589. (3) I cannot state the probable amount of future dividend. (4) Though the dividend will rank in 1894, the first payments will be in the year 1895.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer, as to the third paragraph of the question, whether it will be £500,000 or £600,000?
SIR W. HARCOURT: I think I gave them before. Of course, it is a question of calculation whether the dividend of next year will be equal to past years. I could not state that.

MATABELELAND.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to telegrams appearing in the newspapers giving an account of several captures by the Chartered Company of large numbers of cattle from the Matabele, and if he can say whether these captures are in accordance with the ordinary usages of war, and who become the possessors of these cattle; whether he has noticed a telegram published 9th December, purporting to give the substance of a Report from Dr. Jameson to Mr. Cecil Rhodes, in which the former reports he has selected a township having a radius of four miles, and enclosing Buluwayo, and that he is about to mark off a second township of a similar area on the largest visible gold belt yet seen in the country; and whether it is to be understood by this that the Chartered Company has confiscated Buluwayo and these two areas, notwithstanding the notification of Her Majesty's Government to Sir Henry Loch that nothing in regard to the future settlement of the country by the Company must take place without the concurrence of the Imperial Government?
MR. S. BUXTON: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the telegrams

1045
referred to; and we at once addressed to Sir H. Loch a telegram pointing out that it was stated here in newspaper telegrams that Dr. Jameson was marking out townships in Matabeleland, one of which included the Buluwayo kraal, that patrols were continuing to seize large numbers of cattle from the Matabele, and that the Matabele were being prevented from sowing until they surrendered their arms. If these reports are in substance correct, we went on to say, Her Majesty's Government cannot acquiesce in such proceeding, nor in the continued seizure of cattle from people who have ceased to offer any effective or organised resistance; while it would appear that the final settlement of the question was being seriously prejudiced. We have instructed Sir H. Loch to communicate, as soon as he can reach him, with Mr. Rhodes, drawing his attention to these statements and our views in regard to them. We are also addressing the Company in London on the same subject, and do not doubt but that they will adhere to the promises they have given us on the matter. At the same time, it must be recollected that the Company, under their Charter and Concessions, do hold land and mineral rights in Matabeleland as well as Mashonaland; and it must be borne in mind, as I have already stated, that the population in Matabeleland is very sparse, and that the land is far more than sufficient for the needs of the present population.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I suppose the hon. Gentleman does not assert that that is the view taken by all the Members of this House—that the Company hold any rights in Matabeleland?
[No answer was given.]

PRISON STAFFS.
MR. BAETLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why no first-class clerks have been appointed to the prisons at Carlisle, Carmarthen, Brecon, Lancaster, and Derby, and no first-class storekeepers to Holloway and Stafford Prisons, as provided for in the Law and Justice Estimates for the current year; and whether he will publish the details of the staff of the various convict prisons in next year's Estimates, in similar manner to those of the local prisons,
1046
now that the two branches are amalgamated?
MR. ASQUITH: The offices in question are filled by storekeepers and clerks of a different grade to what is provided in the Estimates, but when vacancies or opportunities' occur men of a higher grade will be transferred to them. There will be no avoidable delay in making the necessary changes. Brecon has never had a clerk; it is a very small prison, and the services of a clerk have not been thought necessary. It has already been settled that the staff of the convict prisons shall be detailed in the Estimates in future.

BLOCKLEY SCHOOL, WORCESTER.
MR. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, notwithstanding a steadily decreasing average attendance of scholars, the managers of Blockley School, in the County of Worcester, are being called upon to enlarge school and class-rooms which have heretofore been approved by the Department as suitable and sufficient for a larger number of children than are in attendance?
MR. ACLAND: The managers of this school were informed in the last Annual Report that the schoolroom, which is only 9 feet 6 inches high, must be heightened, and that the smaller of the two class-rooms, which is only 12 feet by 8 feet 6 inches, should be enlarged. The managers can, of course, disuse this class-room if they prefer to do so, but it is plainly unsuitable for teaching purposes.
MR. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: May I ask the Vice President how it is that two years ago the accommodation was deemed sufficient by the Department, although the number of scholars in attendance was 25 per cent. higher than at this moment?
MR. ACLAND: As public opinion becomes more in favour of more suitable accommodation from a sanitary point of view, a Public Department has to extend its demands accordingly.

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGES.
GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has taken

1047
any action on the Report of the Board of Visitors on the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich?
MR. WOODALL: I beg to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that this important matter is receiving the closest attention. Besides the Report of the Visitors, an inquiry has for some time been proceeding into some of the arrangements at Sandhurst, which require reform, and the Secretary of State is desirous to give effect as speedily as possible to some, at least, of the suggestions made.

THE KILIA.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the statement in The Times of Thursday, 7th December, to the effect that the Russian Government claim to exclude the European Commission of the Danube from exercising their jurisdiction over the Kilia arm and mouth of the Danube; whether there is any foundation for this statement; if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps in reference thereto; and whether any correspondence has passed on the subject; and, if so, whether it will be laid on the Table of this House?
SIR E. GREY: I have seen the statement referred to; it was to the effect that the Russian Government had now declared it to be indispensable that the Kilia mouth of the Danube should be made navigable. No intimation has been received from the Russian Government of any intention to carry out this work. As to the jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube, I must ask the hon. Member to refer to the Treaty of London, of March 10, 1883, especially to Articles III., IV., V., and VI., where he will find details with reference to the Kilia branch fully set out.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand the hon. Baronet to suggest that the mouth of the Kilia is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Commission?
SIR E. GREY: This matter is governed by the provisions of the Treaty of London, 1883. They state the meaning very clearly, and I cannot add to the
1048
plainness of it. I must refer the hon. Member to the Treaty itself.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is not an answer to my question. Is the mouth of the Kilia excluded?
SIR E. GREY: If the hon. Member will refer to the Treaty, which was signed by six or seven of the great European Powers, he will get his answer from a far more authoritative source than I can be.

THE BETTERMENT PRINCIPLE.
SIR J. LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the great importance to the commerce of London that the approach to the Tower Bridge and other urgent improvements should be commenced at once, and to the desirability of securing as early as possible additional work for the unemployed in London, he will reconsider his decision not to assent to the appointment of a Joint Committee with the Lords to consider the whole question of betterment?
SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman's question contains a preamble and a conclusion, and I fail to recognise the connection between the two. The Preamble refers to a certain Bill which has been sent up from this House to the House of Lords. The Bill contained a clause called the Betterment Clause, and it was struck out after a discussion on the question of betterment in the other House. The Bill came back to this House, and the Amendment of the Lords was rejected. But the Lords insisted on the Amendment, and I understand it is impossible that the clause should now be reinstated in that Bill. Nothing can, therefore, be done by a Joint Committee to affect that clause and that Bill. The Government are asked whether they will reconsider the decision as to the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the whole question. The only answer to that is the one given by the Prime Minister the other day—namely, that the Government do not see the advantage of such a Joint Committee.

OUR NAVAL PROGRAMME.
COMMANDER BETHELL: In the absence of the noble Lord the Member for the Ealing Division

1049
of Middlesex, I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total expenditure in labour by the latest Return upon each of the six large ships (namely, the two battleships, one first class cruiser, and three second class cruisers) comprised in the new building programme of this year?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The dockyard expenditure to the 2nd of December has been as follows:— Battleships — Magnificent: Labour, £1,266; materials, £2,473. Majestic: Labour, £853; materials, £l,622. Second-class—Eclipse: Labour, £4,643; materials, £8,599. Talbot: £2,283 and £5,982 respectively; and Minerva: £3,582 and £5,094 — grand total, £36,397. Of these five dockyard ships the estimated provision and present anticipations of expenditure are:—Estimates, £251,451; present anticipation, £269,400. The House will thus see that the estimated expenditure on these dockyard ships will probably be exceeded. The Powerful, first-class cruiser, is to be built by contract. Tenders were invited some time ago. The contract will very soon be settled.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask, with regard to the three cruisers referred to in the answer, whether they are the ships referred to in the answers to questions given by the hon. Gentleman on August 17 as having been begun prior to that date?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I cannot say at a moment's notice, but I am certain that everything I answered was strictly accurate. I say that, because the hon. Member has impugned the accuracy of my answers in a way which I think is unusual in the House, and which I am sure the House generally will not support. The expenditure on the ships begins a considerable time before the keel is laid.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: What I want to know is whether the three cruisers—the Eclipse, Talbot, and the Minerva—are those on which in August last the right hon. Gentleman said money had already been expended? Were they commenced at that date?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I must ask for notice of the question.

PRECAUTIONS AGAINST OUTRAGES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether, in view of the outrage in the French Chamber on Saturday, the right hon. Gentleman will take such steps, by search or otherwise, of all parties admitted to the Galleries of this House, as will make a similar disaster here impossible?
MR. ASQUITH: That is a question for the Authorities of the House in con junction with the police. All that I think it right to say is that both are satisfied that every proper and necessary arrangement is being made.

THE EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.
MR. GOSCHEN: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer state to the House his intentions with regard to the East India Loan Bill, and fix a day?
SIR W. HARCOURT: It will be the first Order of the Day on Wednesday.

THE OUTRAGE IN THE FRENCH CHAMBER.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I desire to state that the Government are of opinion that this House will not be willing that the outrage recently committed upon the great representative Assembly of a friendly nation should pass without notice. I wish, therefore, to state that, with the approval of this House, a fitting communication will be made to the French Chamber and their President expressing the sympathy of the House of Commons on this occasion and their horror at the crime which has been perpetrated.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may perhaps be allowed to express, on behalf of my friends as well as myself, our entire concurrence in the step which the Government propose to take. We think that they have been well advised in taking this action. Though every man in this House, to whatever Party he may belong, has but one feeling on a subject of this kind, I should be sorry to allow the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to pass without some word of acknowledgment from me. I am sure that the great free

1051
Assembly within whose walls the outrage was committed may rest assured that behind the more or less formal message which I presume will be sent to them there is the warmest feeling of sympathy, respect, and regard of all those who in this country are carrying on similar work incidental to and incumbent on a free Assembly. I do not think it is necessary for us to add a single word to the suggestion which has come from the Government. We are unanimous on this question, and I am grateful to the Government for having taken the course which they have suggested.

THE PARISH COUNCILS BILL.
MR. MACFARLANE: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government propose to take any steps, and, if so, what, to expedite the passage of the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill through this House?
SIR W. HARCOURT: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will take all steps they think reasonable and within their power; and we shall hope, with the assistance of the House, to expedite the progress of the Bill.
MR. MACFARLANE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government do not propose to exercise the power which they possess of closuring certain clauses of the Bill after a fair discussion?
[The question was not answered.]

MOTION.
  ADJOURNMENT.

    TOWN IMPROVEMENTS (BETTERMENT).
    SIR J. LUBBOCK*SIR J. LUBBOCK, Member for the University of London, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely,
    "the refusal of the Government to concur with the House of Lords in the appointment of a Committee to settle, if possible, the question of Betterment, so that the improvements urgently needed in London may be undertaken without unnecessary delay;"
    but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, this question was one of urgent and primary importance to London; but, inasmuch as it affected the problem of the unemployed, it was also of interest to the country generally. He had introduced on behalf of the London County Council a Bill involving improvements estimated to cost £1,000,000. The Bill passed both Houses, except the consideration of the Lords' Amendments. The only difference now was as to the Betterment Clause, under which the officials of the Council thought they might get back something between £5,000 and £10,000. But, while rejecting the scheme of betterment proposed in the Bill, the House of Lords asked this House to concur in the appointment of a Committee to consider the whole question. Under these circumstances, considering that the improvements were so urgent, and that the amount expected from betterment was so small, he had urged the Council to proceed with the present Bill, fully accepting the implied promise of the House of Lords that they would fairly consider the question. This opinion was not merely his own. It was also the opinion of their Parliamentary agent, their counsel, Lord Farrer, and other high authorities. The majority of his colleagues were of a different opinion. The House might take it, therefore, as the fixed determination of the London County Council that they would make no improvements in London unless the principles of betterment were conceded. The next Council might be of a different opinion; but unless Parliament intervened, nothing could be done for the present. The Council had finally determined not to accept the Bill now before the House, but to bring in another next Session. That resolution was passed last Tuesday, and he, therefore, took the earliest opportunity of bringing the matter before the House. He did not claim to speak for the County Council. He had taken this step on his own responsibility as a London Member, in the interests of London, and he hoped and believed that he would receive the support of a large majority of the London Members. He was anxious to impress on the House the very great importance and urgency to London of these improvements which were sanctioned by the House. He would

    1053
    only deal with two of them. These were two of the principal improvements. The first was the restoration of Vauxhall Bridge. The Bridges Committee of the Council reported that the foundations of three of the central piers of the bridge were being gradually undermined. The Report said—
    "This action was for some time arrested by means of bags filled with cement laid along the outer edge of the cradle, and by the further deposition of 500 tons of slag around the piers, but a recent inspection has shown that the action of the tide is removing the protective works. The cutwaters of the piers are in a dilapidated condition. The ebb tide at times runs through some of the arches with a surface velocity of 7½ miles an hour, and is dangerous for navigation. Barges are occasionally carried on to the piers by the tide and both are injured. In several instances lives have been lost. With respect to the strength of the cast-iron arches, a concentrated live load of about ten tons upon the centre of one rib of the arch is as much as is admissible, as this load produces a tensional strain on the bottom flange of about two tons per square inch."
    They would see, therefore, that the bridge was in a seriously dangerous condition, and the Council had been obliged to limit the load allowed on the bridge, which was very inconvenient, while as to the lives of those who used the bridge they were, of course, responsible. The condition of Lambeth Bridge was nearly, if not quite, as serious, although it was not included in the present Bill. He now came to the most important matter, as many thought it to be—the case of the Tower Bridge. This great work was not far from completion, and would be opened for traffic next year. The southern end of the bridge would open into Tooley Street, but, according to the Report of the Improvement Committee—
    "From Tooley Street to the south there is no practicable communication except through very narrow and winding lanes, and the main usefulness of the new bridge across the Thames will be lost unless the traffic be provided with a direct and adequate street from Tooley Street into the Old and the New Kent Roads. When the bridge is opened and the street is made there will be a direct thoroughfare across the river from the districts living north and east of the Tower into Bermondsey, Walworth, and New Cross. Accordingly we came to a unanimous conclusion that the formation of a new street from Tooley Street (at the southern end of the approach to the new bridge) to the junction of the Old and the New Kent Roads at the Bricklayers' Arms could not be any longer postponed without serious inconvenience to the public."
    1054
    The City had spent out of its own funds £1,000,000 on the bridge, which, as the Improvement Committee urged, would be almost useless for want of any proper approach on the south side. When the grand bridge at Madrid was built, the King of Spain asked the French Ambassador whether he did not think it a magnificent work. "Yes, your Majesty," he replied, "but, if I may express my opinion, I would either sell the bridge or buy a new river." In that case both alternatives were equally impossible, but here, although the absurdity was equally great, the remedy was in their own hands. The County Council themselves felt the necessity for the approach. Although they were dropping the present Bill they were going to bring in another precisely similar next year. But it was obviously very important that the approach should be ready at the same time as the bridge, for otherwise Tooley Street would be blocked by reason of the construction of the new thoroughfare. Those interested in the trade of the Port of London felt very strongly on the subject. The London Chamber of Commerce had last Monday called a meeting, which was largely attended, to consider the matter, and the following resolution was unanimously carried:—
    "That this meeting of merchants, wharfingers' and manufacturers of South London urge the County Council to proceed as rapidly as possible with the necessary approaches to the Tower Bridge from the south, in order that the bridge, when completed, may be available for traffic."
    The Secretary of the Chamber had forwarded this resolution to him (Sir J. Lubbock) begging him to do what he could, and, considering the determination of the Council, the only way he could assist the reasonable request of the London Chamber was by urging the Government to agree to a Joint Committee with the Lords. The London Improvements Bill was not dead. It was still before the House; and if they could settle the question of betterment the Council would, no doubt, proceed at once with the improvements. He had shown how urgent these were; but from another point of view also, considering the present depressed state of trade, and the consequent diminution in the amount of work, this was a matter of much importance. According to the latest figures, the number of paupers was 10 per cent.

    1055
    higher than it was last year. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had thought the matter so serious that he had issued a special Circular on the subject. The Circular said—
    "I am directed by the Local Government Board to state that, having regard to the scarcity of employment which now exists, and the great probability of this becoming more general and being intensified during the winter months, the Board strongly urge the authority to mature any scheme for works required for their district as early as possible … and they trust that there will be no delay on the part of the authority in determining as to any works to be executed by them."
    Among the most suitable works, the Circular specially mentioned the laying out and paving new streets. If the President of the Local Government Board —whom he was sorry he did not see present at the moment—voted against the proposal, his Circular was a mere sham, and he was not acting on it himself. He might perhaps be told that it would not now be feasible to commence any improvements in time to relieve the distress this season, even if the Bill were passed this year. He was not sure of that, but, at any rate, the House would have done what it could in the matter, and they could then leave it to others to say whether they would carry that scheme into effect. He would point out to the House that if nothing were done now the probability was that this time next year they would be in a similar position. The House of Lords, after the way in which they had been treated with regard to a Committee on this question, would approach the question of betterment with the feeling that their reasonable suggestion had been rudely and uncourteously rejected. Who would suffer from these improvements being delayed? Not the House of Lords, but the people of London; therefore he would ask the Government to consider that in this matter they were punishing not the House of Lords but the people of London. He would very much prefer to have a Joint Committee of the two Houses than a Committee of the Lords alone, because the House of Commons would appoint gentlemen who had a disposition in favour of betterment, and who were well acquainted with the bearings of the question. Such a Committee would be more likely to arrive at a wise conclusion. Lastly, he would
    1056
    allude to the question of betterment itself. The total amount of betterment which the Council hoped to receive under the Bill was estimated by their own officials as under £10,000 on an expenditure of £1,000,000, and this small amount would not come in for years, if at all. But the Bill itself, mainly in consequence of this clause, had cost the Council £5,000. This Bill it was proposed to abandon in order to bring in another Bill next year, which would cost the Council another £5,000. To spend £10,000 belonging to the ratepayers in hopes of getting back something less a few years hence seemed a bad piece of business. In the interests of the people of London he was anxious to avoid such an absurd waste of public money. But his colleagues in the London County Council defended it on the ground that they were fighting for a principle. Was it in the interest of betterment to throw up the present Bill, and refuse to cooperate with the Lords in the appointment of a Committee? For his part, he could conceive no course more likely to prejudice betterment than to refuse the offer made and thrust upon the Lords the identical clause they had already rejected. Many hon. Members had said that they did not oppose betterment as a principle, but that they saw great difficulties in the working of it. He had never denied that there were difficulties. But he appealed to hon. Members who had doubts about betterment to support this Motion, which was, in effect, a Motion for a Joint Committee, so that the difficult points might be fairly considered. If their fears were justified the inquiry of the Committee would prove it, and by voting for the Committee they would not be committed to the principle of betterment. On the other hand, those who were in favour of betterment could surely have no doubt about supporting the Motion. If they were right in their belief they would be able to show that the fears of their opponents were visionary. No one who voted against the Motion could ever pretend that he was in favour of betterment, unless, indeed, his love of betterment was swallowed up by his hatred of the House of Lords. At any rate, the House would see who were the real friends of betterment and who really wished to provide work for the unemployed. He could well understand that

    1057
    the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the immense number of other matters demanding their attention, might not have fully considered this question. He brought forward this Motion in no spirit of hostility to the Government, but in what he believed to be the interests of London. If the Government found, and he believed they would, that the voice of London, as expressed by the Representatives of London, was in favour of the course which he advocated, then there could be no reason why the Government should refuse the request. If nothing was done, the responsibility, so far as Parliament was concerned, must rest on the Government. He would not, however, anticipate a refusal, and, at any rate, he urged it on them and on the House in the interests of betterment, on account of the urgency of these improvements, in the interests of the people of London, and in the name of the unemployed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I desire to discuss this question in the calmest and most temperate way, and without introducing, farther than necessary, any elements of provocation. I regret very much that my right hon. Friend should have thought it necessary to taunt those who differ from himself to say that the resistance to the Motion was provoked not by love of betterment, but by hostility to the House of Lords. [Cheers.] I know why that elicits cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am surprised at that kind of statement coming from my right hon. Friend, because if he desires to avoid the importation of Party spirit into this question, he should not make appeals to Party feelings by taunts of that kind. What we have to consider is this—What is the best course to pursue in order to secure the establishment of the principle of betterment? The right hon. Gentleman says that unless this principle of betterment is admitted the County Council will not proceed with this or other Bills, and that that is a fixed resolution which will not be departed from. My right hon. Friend must have observed that the cheers which he received throughout his speech came from those who are opposed to bet-
    1058
    terment. [Cries of "No!"] Well, we shall see. Certainly, the Party opposite divided against betterment on every occasion. [Renewed cries of "No!"] Well, they divided against the Bill which my right hon. Friend desires to have restored. To that extent I correct my statement. Now, I wish to ask the attention of the House to the course which has been pursued in this matter by the two Houses of Parliament, and what is the probability of the present proposal being likely to lead to a satisfactory settlement. The House of Commons had this Bill before them. They referred it to a Hybrid Committee, from which it came back to this House and was affirmed by a majority of nearly two to one —216 to 118. With the authority of that great majority the Bill was sent up to the House of Lords; and how was it treated there? You would have supposed that the House of Lords would have at least considered the question and referred it to a Committee to be examined with care and attention.
    Several hon. MEMBERS: They did refer it to a Committee.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I am going to state the facts correctly. They did refer the Bill to a Committee, but with an Instruction which prohibited the Committee from considering the question of betterment. That is the point of the whole thing. The House of Lords had this great principle of betterment sent up to them embodied in a clause, and refused practically to consider the question at all. When the Bill was brought to a Second Beading in the House of Lords this Resolution was moved by the Earl of Onslow—
    "That this House, before assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill, desires to express. its opinion that proposals for the assessment of capital value instead of annual value and the creation of new and arbitrarily-defined areas of taxation such as are contained in Clause 41 of the Bill ought not to be embodied in a Private Bill, but, if found just and equitable, should be based on general principles laid down by Parliament."
    Now, without commenting on the doctrine of that Resolution, what I am stating is that it prohibited the Committee from considering Clause 41 at all; and the Chairman of the Committee stated that after that Resolution the Committee did not and could not consider the clause. Though somewhat evasive in its terms, it had exactly the same effect as refusing a

    1059
    Second Reading to Clause 41. On what ground was that course taken by the House of Lords? They said that it could not be the subject of a Private Bill. If that is so, then it could not be the subject of any Bill brought before Parliament by the County Council— neither this Bill nor any future Bill. No further Improvement Bill, if this Resolution is maintained, can contain a clause dealing with betterment. That principle so laid down was condemned in the House of Lords itself by perhaps the highest authority there—the Chairman of Committees. Lord Morley said—
    "He was inclined to agree that it would be extremely difficult by a Public Act to lay down principles which would apply to every variety of case which might occur not only in London, but elsewhere. He was not at all sure that it would be desirable or safe to lay down general principles which would be at once adopted, without any experience having been obtained. On these grounds, and on the ground that the application of the principle in this case depended entirely on local circumstances, he thought it was a subject which might legitimately and rightly be left to private legislation. They would then have the advantage of the application of the principle in particular cases, and by the growth of experience they would gradually get such an amount of knowledge as to be able to lay down principles for universal application."
    That is an absolute condemnation of the Resolution which prohibited the House of Lords Committee from considering this Betterment Clause. Lord Morley indicated that it might, in future be desirable to consider generally the principles on which this clause should be founded. But he said that the best manner of proceeding was tentatively, by Private Bill, applying particular instances, and so arriving at a general principle. That was the view laid down. In spite of that advice the House of Lords passed this Resolution, and the consequence was that Clause 41 was struck out unceremoniously in Committee without any consideration at all either of the principle of betterment or of its application in this particular case. That was what happened on the 25th of July. The Bill was sent back to this House, with Clause 41 having been struck out in what I may venture to call a most unceremonious manner, without examination of the question of betterment or its application to a particular case. It came down to this House, which on August 10 affirmed the principle
    1060
    of Clause 41 by a still larger majority than on the first occasion, the numbers in the Division being 221 against 88. It went back again to the House of Lords for them to consider whether they would or would not insist upon the course they had taken in summarily rejecting the clause. Now the method by which the House of Lords dealt with the question is among the most singular I ever knew. One of the reasons given by Lord Salisbury for the rejection of the clause was that the opinion of the House of Commons upon this matter was not deserving of consideration. His Lordship said—
    "A thing called a Hybrid Committee was appointed to consider the measure."
    That is the manner in which the Leader of the majority in the House of Lords treated the majority of the House of Commons—"a thing called a Hybrid Committee." Surely we are the judges of the methods by which 'we proceed, and of the manner in which we examine these matters. The noble Lord went on to say—
    "Where the men were not selected on account of their impartiality."
    I wonder whether that mode of selection was ever practised in connection with Committees in the House of Lords, and I should like to know whether what we are now asked to assent to is "a thing called a Hybrid Committee" or not? I should have thought that a Joint Committee is the most hybrid of all Committees. Lord Salisbury also stated—
    "This Bill has been, not for the sake of money to be obtained by it, but for the sake of clandestinely and insidiously setting up a precedent, driven through the crooked backways of a Hybrid Committee, instead of being committed to a Public or Private Bill Committee in the public light of day, where all Bills that come before them are fully discussed."
    That is the way in which a proceeding of a majority of more than two to one in the House of Commons is to be treated when sent up to the House of Lords. Are we never under this Instruction to have a Hybrid Committee? Is it to be called a "crooked backway," and to be so treated by the House of Lords? I cannot conceive why the provisions of Bills of this importance should be so treated. The question arose whether or not it was possible in the House of Lords to replace Clause 41, even sup-

    1061
    posing that we had come to a settlement —could the Bill be resuscitated, and that clause be put in? The authority I quoted before—the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords—said "No." And there appears to be great force in that observation, because the House of Lords having refused to discuss this matter in Select Committee, where the opponents could have been heard, it would hardly have been right for them to pass the Bill "holus bolus" without examination in Committee. What is the use of denouncing the House of Commons for the crooked backways of Hybrid Committees when the House of Lords will not have a Committee at all, and when they pass a Resolution to prevent the question being considered in a Committee? On November 24th a Motion was made in the House of Lords, and the terms of that Motion were—
    "That it is desirable that a Committee should be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report whether, in the case of improvements sanctioned by Parliament and effected by the expenditure of public funds, persons the value of whose property is clearly increased can be equitably required to contribute towards the cost of the improvement."
    Well, Sir, we have already made up our minds on the point by a majority of two to one, and have declared more than once, and are prepared to declare again, that it is equitable. If the House of Lords is prepared to declare against that opinion let them say so. We have resolved that it is equitable, and we do not want to discuss that point with the House of Lords. We have made up our minds upon it. [Cries of "No!"] I am speaking of the majority of this House. I know perfectly well that there are gentlemen opposite who are against the principle. [Cries of "No!"] Very well, then, they do not want the principle called in question. At any rate, we do not. The right hon. Member for the University of London thinks that if this House sent to the Committee of the House of Lords we should be able to persuade their Lordships. Great is his faith. I have great faith in my right hon. Friend; but if we were to send him on the mission of attempting to persuade, say, the Duke of Argyll of anything which would limit the rights of property, I think we should be wasting his valuable time. I say we have made up our
    1062
    minds. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what would they think of a proposal to have a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider whether it was advantageous to have an Established Church? Would not the answer be— " We have made up our minds on that; we are not going into a Joint Committee to discuss that question." Or supposing it were proposed that we should have a Joint Committee to consider whether a system of Protection should be restored our answer would be—" We have made up our minds on that matter, and we are not going to take part in a Joint Committee to discuss it." If the House of Lords had desired, either by a Committee of their own upon the general question, or by going into Committee on the Bill to discuss whether the principle of betterment is good in itself or in its application, more light might have been thrown upon the matter, and it would have been seen what chances there are for dealing with the question. The last part of the Motion in the House of Lords was—
    "In what cases and under what conditions Parliament should sanction the levying of such contribution on Local Acts or Provisional Orders."
    I do not say that they are not matters that it would be very proper to consider, and I do not raise the same condition precedent to their discussion that I raise in connection with the first part of the Motion. Let us understand whether the principle of betterment is to be admitted as a sound principle or not. Let us settle that first, and then discuss its application. The whole of our system of private legislation is founded upon a series of Private Bills applied in particular cases, and we never attempted to codify that law until, upon the examination of particular cases, we found the principle that it was proper to apply. Therefore, as to the second part of the Resolution, if it is intended to lay down rigorous principles in a general Act which is to restrain the application by the County Council, or by any one else, of this principle of betterment in Local Acts, I should be glad to consider it. The view of the Government was stated by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords. Speaking on the Motion for a Joint Committee, and replying to the Marquess of Salisbury, he said, referring to the noble Marquess—

    1063
    "He has just intimated to your Lordships that, in his opinion, no more senseless proposal was ever put before Parliament than that contained in the Bill before your Lordships.
    "The Marquess of Salisbury: May I correct the noble and learned Lord? What I described as senseless was the principle that proximity to an improvement necessarily involved improvement.
    "The Lord Chancellor: I do not know that that proposal can be said to be of the essence of the Bill which came before this House. That Bill, at any rate, received the assent of the Commons and of the Commons' Committee, and after the rejection of the principle by your Lordships the other House insisted by large majorities in maintaining their position, that Clause 14 should be retained in the Bill; and now we are to ask the other House, whose proceedings it is alleged have resulted in a senseless proposal, to join with us in appointing a Committee to consider that senseless proposal. Not even the principle, which the Commons have affirmed again and again, is to be admitted, because the question is, not whether the scheme shall be carried out, but whether the principle is right at all. That seems to be a strong argument against the Joint Committee."
    That is our position. We are asked to go to a Joint Committee to discuss a question upon which I venture to say not only the County Council but the majority of the House of Commons have made up their minds. We are not going to change them. In my opinion, to go to a Joint Committee in the circumstances would not be a sensible course on our part. I decline to allow the responsibility in this matter to rest with the House of Commons. It rests with the House of Lords, which declined even to discuss in Committee the Bill involving the principle of betterment. We, by the method which has been so contemptuously described "as the thing called a Hybrid Committee," did our best to examine the question; we discussed it over and over again, and eventually sent the Bill to the House of Lords with the approval of a great majority. We therefore have done our best in every way to settle this question. The invitation to us now is to consider—
    "Whether, where the value of property is clearly increased by an improvement, the owners can be equitably required to contribute to the costs of the improvement? "
    An hon. MEMBER: Read on.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: That is the main and material part of the Resolution. This is not a question we are prepared further to deal with. It is not an open question. It is put forward by those
    1064
    who deny that the principle is equitable. We think that by accepting the Reference proposed by the Lords we should not improve the position of the principle of betterment. The Government, in, fact, believe that by assenting to a Joint Committee they would be assisting the House of Lords to destroy the principle of betterment altogether, and therefore they cannot assent to the course proposed.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Although I am not a London Member, I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments whilst I say something upon this question, in regard to which I think I have two claims upon the attention of the House. In the first place, I believe that I was the first Member of Parliament who advocated this principle of betterment, and I am, like the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, most anxious to see it properly settled. In the second place, although I have not a great and direct interest in the matter as it applies to London, I cannot but feel that the acceptance of this principle in the case of London will have most important results in the Provinces, and there are many of our Municipalities which are looking forward with considerable interest to the results of this discussion. I have, perhaps, another claim to be heard in that I have never said one word in criticism of, or opposition to, the London County Council, my feeling being that the County Council having been established as part of our system of representative government by the late Government, it did not become the House of Commons to be perpetually carping at that Body or interfering with its action. It seems to me that, like all Bodies to be trusted with responsibility, it was natural that it should make mistakes, possibly great mistakes; but I thought that it would be better to leave those mistakes to the judgment of the Council's constituency than to have constant Parliamentary interference. Having said that, I now say I find myself in the extraordinary position of agreeing with a good deal that fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I regret very much the position in which this matter has been placed. I regret the action of the House of Lords, and I am anxious to find out what is the best course to take in order to secure the

    1065
    establishment of the principle of better-meat. What is the course proposed by the Government? They propose to treat with contempt the invitation of the Lords to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the subject. I think it will be found that that is a most unusual course. I believe that it has never been taken before, and the very fact that it is unusual will give emphasis to the refusal of the House of Commons. It is, in fact, I will not say an insult, but the very strongest form of contempt that we could exhibit in this matter, to which we are asked to assent on the present occasion.
    SIR W. HARCOURTinterposed with an observation which did not reach the Reporters' Gallery.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not referring to my right hon. Friend, but to the facts. I think it is a contemptuous method of meeting a proposal by the House of Lords. Of course, the rejection or amendment of a Bill is fully within the constitutional powers of either House, and has not hitherto been regarded by the one as a mark of contempt by the other. But here is a proposal made by the House of Lords distinctly with the object of securing an ultimate and amicable settlement. It is an invitation to discuss, and our refusal is a refusal to discuss. I do not say that we should agree with the Lords. It would not be an insult to the House of Lords of course if, after the Committee had reported, we refused to agree with the Report, or if our Representatives disagreed entirely with the Representatives of the Lords. I will not say that the attitude proposed by the Government is an insult, but I say it is very strong action on their part to refuse even to meet the House of Lords in the discussion to which they invite us. I do not agree with the action of the House of Lords, and much regret it. I go further, and say I think it extremely unwise. I think it will certainly lead to the misapprehension to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has alluded. It was of course perfectly competent for them to consider in Committee the proposals of the Bill, and if they had considered them, it is probable that they would have made considerable changes which we might or might not have accepted. Unhappily, what they did, acting as I think under a misapprehension, was to preclude the con-
    1066
    sideration of this matter in Committee by passing a Resolution moved by Lord Onslow and carried before the Second Reading of the Bill. That Resolution referred to proposals for taxing capital value in arbitrarily defined areas. Well, it is not proposed to tax the capital value nor is it proposed to act in arbitrarily defined areas. I think it would be possible to show the House of Lords that they were mistaken as to the meaning and intention of the Bill. In view of that mistake, and of their premature action, I very much regret the course they have taken. It is not the object of my right hon. Friend, and certainly it is not my object, to prove that the House of Lords were wrong, and above all, it is not our object to punish the House of Lords for doing wrong even if it were in our power to do so, but it is our object to re-establish this question of betterment, and to put it in such a position that the principle can be applied. It is a matter of urgent necessity that it should be applied. If the course suggested by the Government is followed, we shall have met the olive branch of the Lords with contemptuous indifference. Is it probable that under these circumstances we shall find that House in a better frame of mind for dealing with this subject when it comes up again? Is it not certain that by taking the action we are now taking we are postponing the settlement of the question for 12 months or it may be for two years, or for many years —at any rate, until the House of Lords changes its opinion or can be aroused into giving up that opinion. Whichever of these objects is in view, considerable delay must take place before we arrive at it, and in the meantime not only the improvement which, as my right hon. Friend has told us, involves an expenditure of £1,000,000 is concerned, but four separate improvements, only one of which is identified with the question of betterment—for the London County Council themselves do not ask for betterment in regard to the other three—are to be indefinitely postponed. And this is not all, because, as I have already said, improvements in the Provinces are also being held back in order to see what is the final decision. My right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) has given the House a description of what occurred in the Lords. I must say I think that, through

    1067
    being very brief, he has given us a not altogether correct impression of what took place in that House. No doubt in that House, as in this House, there are men who are consistently opposed to the principle of betterment. The Duke of Argyll, I have no doubt whatever, is opposed to the principle altogether, but this is distinctly not the case with regard to the majority either in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons. That this is not the case in regard to the House of Commons is proved by what fell from my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) himself, because the moment after he had accused gentlemen opposite of being opponents of the principle of betterment he told us it was carried in this House by a majority of three to one. How could it have been carried by such a majority without the assistance of Members opposite?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It had the assistance of very few of them.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It would require a great many more than a very few to make a majority of three to one.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Many Members found it convenient to stay away.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am giving my right hon. Friend the advantage of all who stayed away, who, after all, cannot be considered very bitter opponents of the principle, and, having given him that advantage, I still say that a considerable number of men on the other side of the House voted in favour of the principle. What is more important, however, is as to the other House. Lord Kimberley, addressing the House, said—
    "The principle of betterment is conceded. The real difficulty is how to apply it."
    Surely Lord Kimberley is likely to have a better knowledge of the opinion entertained by the House of Lords than my right hon. Friend.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: He was referring to the Government.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: He was speaking of the majority. His argument was this: "You have conceded the principle; the only question is how to apply it. There is an honest effort in this Bill to apply it, and you ought to pass the Bill. Let me, on the other hand, call attention to the fact that the promoters of the Bill admitted that there was a difficulty in applying it. Their view,
    1068
    which was expressed very fairly by Lord Hobhouse, who represented the London County Council, was that some alternative should be found. Lord Hobhouse said—
    "Surely, then, the time had come when the County Council were entitled to know from their opponents what it was they wanted. Their opponents said themselves that the principle was just, and that there probably was some good method of applying it. Well, what was it? Were they to go on contriving methods until one appeared to which no objection was to be made? If they were to do that they would have to wait until the river passed away, and would never get their reforms at all."
    I think that shows that even in the Lords the principle was conceded, and the only question was as to the best method of applying it. I agree entirely with the claim put forward by Lord Hobhouse. I think the County Council had a right to ask the House of Lords, and to ask us, if the method they proposed was not considered just and equitable, to devise some other method. But that is precisely what a Joint Committee might give us, and that is precisely the object of my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Lubbock) in proposing this Motion to-day. Why should not those who think the Lords made a mistake, as I do, and those who think the Lords were wrong, as the Government do, give them the chance of retrieving their error? There is, you cannot deny, an olive branch held out to us by the Lords. [Ministerial laughter.] Well, you do not like that expression, and I will withdraw it. You cannot object to this? Lord Kimberley himself said that this proposal of a Joint Committee was a confession of error. You do not object to the Lords confessing their error, do you? Well, the right hon. Gentleman complains of the terms of the Resolution. I do not say the Resolution is one I should myself have drawn if I had been asked to frame it, but it is still enough to afford a bridge whereby a settlement of the matter may be immediately reached. What are the terms of the Resolution? In the first place, we are asked to settle the principle I admit, and we have settled that. Our representatives on the Committee would be instructed under no circumstances to discuss the principle, as we are pledged to the principle by a majority of nearly three to one. The principle being granted, the Lords ask under what condi-

    1069
    tions and circumstances should Local Acts embody that principle. That is a matter on which my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) omitted to inform the House. The Lords contended in the Resolution that this ought to be a matter for general legislation, and ought not to be dealt with in Local Acts. Well, they have handsomely given way. They now propose the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the conditions upon which the principles shall be embodied in Local Acts. My right hon. Friend says each Act should be treated separately by itself. That may be quite right as far as opposed Bills are concerned, but what about Unopposed Bills? What Rules are to be laid down for the guidance of the Chairman of Committees in either House on the subject? You must have some kind of general conditions laid down, although I quite admit that they neither ought to be nor can be very precise. That being so, the Resolution of the Lords is not open to the objection taken by my right hon. Friend. I think it would be very strange if, in face of the great interests at stake, the Government should still make it a Government matter to refuse the offer of the Lords when they have nothing to substitute for it, and to leave the Commons and the Lords to continue for perhaps an indefinite period at loggerheads on this question. If there were no practical issue, I should say we might very well maintain our possession of proud isolation, and refuse to meet the House of Lords even to consider the subject; but, having regard to the enormous interests at stake, I do think it is really a matter of common sense and of common justice to the interests concerned that the Government should not take up so extremely antagonistic a position to the proposal of my right hon. Friend.
    MR. J. STUARTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had cut the ground from beneath his own feet. Whilst he proposed that the Commons should appoint Representatives to serve on a Joint Committee he said that such Representatives would go into the Committee pledged in a certain direction.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg pardon. It may be that the hon. Gentleman and I differ as to what we consider
    1070
    the main part of the Resolution. In my view the first part is not really the main part of the Resolution, but I regard that as settled. It is on the second part of the Resolution—the determination of the conditions—on which I think we should go into the Committee unpledged.
    MR. J. STUARTsaid, he had been about to point out that what the right hon. Gentleman regarded as the main point of the Resolution could not be so accepted on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had himself said that the Representatives of the Commons would enter into the Committee pledged practically to the non-consideration of the question dealt with in the first part of the Resolution of the Lords. As to the second part of the Lords' Resolution, the opinion pressed by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords (the Earl of Morley) was that the advantage of considering the application of the principle of betterment to individual cases, and thereby providing for the growth of experience, would be to develop an amount of knowledge which would enable them to lay down principles of universal application in the future. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Lubbock) seemed to have embarked on a crusade to whitewash the House of Lords in the eyes of the people. No man could for a moment say that it was not the House of Lords who were at this moment hindering the Bill. He was pained to be in disagreement with his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Lubbock), with whom he had stood shoulder to shoulder on every Bill which had hitherto been brought forward by the London County Council. His right hon. Friend, however, did not at that moment represent the views of the London County Council.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK*SIR J. LUBBOCK, interposing, said, the London County Council had expressed no view on the question now before the House.
    MR. J. STUARTwent on to say that the two right hon. Gentlemen had stated that the Lords had been badly treated, and the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had spoken as if some contumely were being thrown on the House of Lords. The House of Lords from the beginning had shown that they did not care to understand the

    1071
    subject. They showed their anxiety in regard to this Clause 41 by discussing a number of things that were not in it, and then proceeded to turn it out in consequence. In this very month Lord Salisbury, speaking of the 41st clause, used the following words which he had taken from The Times:—
    "The principle of the 41st clause of the Bill which your Lordships declined to accept was that proximity is the one test of improvement, and that if you are near a public improvement it says that your property must have improved by that public improvement, and you must pay accordingly. A more senseless suggestion was never put—and that is saying a good deal—into a Bill presented to Parliament."
    He ventured to say that there was no one who had an iota of knowledge on the betterment question who imagined it was represented by that proposition, and no one who read the clause in the Bill of the London County Council would imagine that anything like that was for an instant to be found in the clause. He said the House of Lords were not treating them fairly when they did not take the trouble to inform themselves on the subject, and he thought it was time that the House of Lords informed itself of what the meaning of the proposal was, and how it should be dealt with. Let the House of Lords inquire whether the principle might reasonably and justly be applied, and, when they had done that, then they should see how it should be applied. Then his right hon. Friend said they would hang up the principle of betterment for a year, for two, or even three years. That, he supposed, meant if the London County Council came with the Tower Bridge Bill, as it intended to do, at the end of next year, the House of Lords would say—"We are not going to fight the House of Commons and the London County Council out with the clause again." Their view was that the House of Commons had completely decided on the question, and the wisest position for the House of Commons was to adhere to what it had decided, and let the House of Lords deal with the subject. That was the case with respect to the London County Council, but there was another course frequently recommended by some hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, who would bring the matter before the House of Lords at the beginning of the next Session in the Bill of the Corporation of Manchester.
    1072
    That Corporation had already given notice of a Bill for considerable street improvements, and in that Bill they introduced a Betterment Clause which would be found in The Gazette of November 21st. He need not go through the notification, which was practically identical with that of the London County Council. When the great Corporations of this country were coming before the House of Lords and the House of Commons with betterment schemes, there was plenty of opportunity for the House of Lords to inform itself and to decide for itself the points which the House of Commons had decided for themselves, and which the Lords now desired to throw into the melting pot. He had now noticed some of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) and, following him, probably the Member for West Birmingham, had brought it forward. He had passed over the statement that the Resolution of the House of Lords was an invitation to consider the question of betterment as a whole. It was not an invitation to do that, but whether it was possible to do what the House of Commons had resolved it was right to do. But his right hon. Friend discussed the Bill, taking the two great improvements, and threw out that it was necessary to go on with this Bill even though the Betterment Clause was not there, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out the question about the betterment did not affect the improvements now. But he spoke of the Vauxhall Bridge as in a seriously dangerous condition, and quoted a Report in which it had been stated that as the result of an examination of the foundation of the piers made by a diver, the bottom of the timber canals were found to be scoured out by the tide. Now, would the House believe it, that he omitted to point out that that examination was made in November, 1887, and since that time the ground had been filled by dropping heavy slag and other matter which had resisted the action of the tide, and which again in 1891 were examined and repaired, and the question now was whether they should proceed to repair them on that line? But as to the bridge being in a seriously dangerous condition, the right hon. Gentleman would mislead the House

    1073
    unwittingly he admitted, but he thought that impression should not be left upon the mind of the House. He inquired of the engineer of the London County Council to-day, and he understood him to say that the bridge was in no more dangerous condition than it had been in for a long time. Examined and reported on in 1887 and 1891, there was no danger of an accident; the only question was one of temporary expense, and when he asked the engineer if the load was limited, he replied there was scarcely a bridge over the river or in the country in which the load was not limited. Then he came to the matter of the Tower Bridge, which was a more important matter. There had not been a good commencement, but to talk of that being hung up in the air and left there unutilised and unusable was a perfect farce. The City spent £1,000,000 on that bridge. Where did they get it? Out of the Coal and Wine Dues which they had paid; and let him point out that the City opposed the Betterment Clause by which they desired to carry out the improvement, and so the City themselves were preventing the carrying into effect of this very Bill. There was one question raised with which he was bound to deal, and that was the question of the unemployed. He noticed the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) did not refer to it, and he took it the right hon. Gentleman was too well informed to refer to it; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) did refer to it. He (Mr. Stuart) had inquired about the Tower Bridge Bill to-day from the Chairman of the London County Council, in conjunction with the engineer and the valuer, and they put it at two years as the time absolutely required to complete all the arrangements before putting spade into the ground, so to speak, and they referred him to the evidence before the Tower Bridge Committee. Before that Committee evidence was given to the effect that before the bridge could be completed they would take about two years for the purchase of the property and acquiring it: it would take 12 months to provide the necessary accommodation for the working people who would be disturbed, and about another year for completion—in all, about four years to carry out the work. What
    1074
    had that to do with the present unemployed question? It was utter nonsense to say that the commencement of the Tower Bridge Bill would affect the question of the unemployed in the present winter, which was the question before them, and it would not affect the question in the next winter; therefore, they could not say this was a case coming under the Circular of the President of the Local Government Board. Let them take the Vauxhall Bridge: supposing the Bill to effect the Vauxhall Bridge improvement were passed to-day, the work could not be begun under the most favourable circumstances until some time in February, and then it would be chiefly skilled work, and could not be expected to absorb more than 100 or 150 of that class of the unemployed, and that would be a miserable few; and, therefore, he asked, was it right to import into their discussion the question of the unemployed? What they were doing was defending the betterment principle as generally affecting the ratepayers of London, and it was no use to say they should undertake these improvements without having secured this betterment principle. They, therefore, considered it better to stand by their principle, and send the Bills back to the House of Lords. Certainly the question of the unemployed depended on the capability of the ratepayers to spend their money, and there was no time when there had been greater distress than now, or when more notices were issued for the nonpayment of rates, and if they could not help these ratepayers they would not be able to undertake expenditure on behalf of the unemployed. By safeguarding the ratepayers out of those sources of income that justly ought to come to them they would be able to deal better with the employed than in hurrying on works of this kind that did not affect them in the least. One word more and he had done, and that was as to the smallness of the amount of betterment on this Tower Bridge Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had too much knowledge to bring up this as an argument against their position. The question was one of principle, and though they were to spend £5,000 or £10,000 in obtaining the adoption by both Houses of Parliament of the betterment principle in

    1075
    this Bill, small though the amount of money, in his opinion and that of the majority of the County Council and Members for London it would be well spent. Lord Morley, on the 25th July, spoke of the question being an important one, which would extend largely not merely in London, but elsewhere. There they had the real crux of the question; it was because they were here defending a great principle, capable of extension, that they were now asked to throw this document into the melting pot and then go to the House of Lords and bring them once more to say whether this was a right thing on which they had already made up their minds. They threw back on the House of Lords any accusation made upon them on this account and left the circumstances of the case to speak for themselves, confident the people of London would see perfectly clearly that it was the House of Lords who were cutting down the reform they desired.
    MR. BOULNOISsaid, that after the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart),who was a Leader of the Progressists, perhaps they would allow him, as a Member of the Moderate Party of the London County Council to say a few words. He desired, in the first instance, to state to the House that the attitude of the Moderate Party of the London County Council all through this question of betterment, which had extended since the establishment of the London County Council, had not been one of uncompromising hostility to the principle of betterment. They believed and had stated in the County Council that some form of taxation for an improvement which was carried out at the public expense was just and equitable, and he believed he was right in saying that expressed the view of his hon. Friends on that side of the House, but the minority of the County Council had objected that it was not right to apply a principle of this kind to the particular Bill that was under discussion, because they believed what was acquired by betterment was absolutely infinitesimal. His hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) had said this was not an argument against it. He (Mr. Boulnois) maintained that it was, because he could tell the House, though his right hon. Friend the Member for the London University (Sir J. Lubbock)
    1076
    spoke of £10,000 the London County Council would get out of this, it was only half that sum, and when that was capitalised the amount it would produce was some £150 a year, and some considerable portion of that increment might not come into operation for some 40 years; therefore they considered this was not a case in which betterment should be made a great principle. Those of them who contended the principle of betterment should first be settled were not surprised that the House of Lords took that view, and declined to take this particular case of the Tower Bridge. His right hon. Friend the Member for the London University had been a most consistent advocate and supporter of betterment all through, and those Radicals, as he might call them, Lord Farrer and Lord Hob-house, were both consistent supporters of betterment. Both Lord Farrer and Lord Hobhouse, who spoke in favour of betterment in the House of Lords, voted in favour of Lord Morley's Motion. Lord Farrer, in a speech delivered at the last meeting of the County Council, said that the conduct of the House of Lords in rejecting the clause was ignorant as well as unwise, nevertheless he agreed to accept the Bill without the Betterment Clause. He could not help thinking that Party politics had interfered in this matter. Lord Farrer, as a Party politician, said he rejoiced when the House of Lords rejected the Bill, as he thought no better bit of electioneering had ever been done for the Liberal Party, but when it came to a question of how to obtain their point, he thought it better to vote as a Londoner and a member of the London County Council than as a Liberal politician. The Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council evidently considered the proposition that there should be a Joint Committee a practical one, because they instructed their Parliamentary agent to advise them whether the Bill which was still before the House of Lords could be kept alive until the Joint Committee had reported, and the County Council, on a Motion made by the hon. Member for Walworth, whom he was sorry not to see in his place, resolved to ask the Government to introduce a Public Bill dealing with the matter. Therefore, they might safely say the London County Council considered that the matter could be dealt with apart

    1077
    from any particular improvement scheme. But that was not all with regard to the County Council. Even the Progressive Party in the Council were not agreed on the principle of betterment, because a few meetings ago a resolution was carried in the Council referring the point to the Parliamentary Committee of the Council, whether there should be an area of betterment at all. There was an area of betterment in the Bill of 1893, which was erroneously called the limits of deviation, but which were drawn in a very arbitrary manner under the Bill. If a man had two properties, one of which was bettered and the other worsened he could not set off the worsement against the betterment. The Bill, as originally introduced by the London County Council, contained a clause to the effect that if the County Council had to pay compensation for the property they had to take, they might set off betterment against worsement upon other property belonging to the same man in the same district. That appeared to him to be a very one-sided arrangement, but eventually the clause was withdrawn. The question of how far the set-off should be allowed required consideration, and could profitably go before the Joint Committee such as was suggested. After all, was not this a Party question? The London County Council did not desire betterment so much as they desired to have a dig, if he might use that expression, against the House of Lords. Mr. Arthur Arnold, in a speech he made on this subject, said they wanted to put the onus and opprobrium of the rejection on the House of Lords; and another fiery spirit in the London County Council said they wanted a good fighting question to vote against the House of Lords. He maintained that the question of betterment was not fully understood in this House, and it was not at all understood by people out-of-doors. There was a vague idea that the rates would be relieved by betterment. An expression had been used like "bosh." He believed that might be a Parliamentary word, though he thought it would better come as a London County Council word; but, at all events, it was rather ridiculous to say that London would be greatly relieved by betterment. A Joint Committee, by calm and temperate discussion, would be able to determine the whole question, and it would do much to enlighten Londoners and facilitate a
    1078
    settlement of the question. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) had alluded to the fact of the Corporation of Manchester coming with a Bill in which the Betterment Clause was introduced, and stated that other Corporations would do the same. That was all the more reason why there should be a Joint Committee to consider the whole question of betterment. But the matter really rested with the Government. Lord Kimberley, in the House of Lords, used these words—
    "I do not think that the House of Commons will concur in a Joint Committee, and therefore the Government are not prepared to support it."
    Would not the Government put an end to this deadlock that was existing; would they not come forward and act as mediators between the House of Lords and the London County Council, because if they did it was quite certain the House of Commons would at once concur in the appointment of this Joint Committee? He sincerely hoped they would do so, because they would then see that the much-needed improvements on which they were all agreed would ultimately be carried out to the benefit of the ratepayers, the unemployed, and all London.
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, that from a public and business point of view it was impossible to over-estimate the importance of the subject of this Motion. In the City and elsewhere the very strongest feelings prevailed on the question. At a recent meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce a resolution was adopted urging the London County Council to proceed as rapidly as possible with the necessary approaches to the Tower Bridge, in order that when completed the bridge might be available for traffic. If there was one feature more noticeable than another at present in the streets of London it was the great congestion of traffic, and it was most noticeable on the bridges, where it was a source of the greatest danger and of delays. It was therefore most essential that the approaches to the Tower Bridge should be proceeded with by the County Council, in order that the public might obtain the benefit of the bridge with as little delay as possible. He deprecated the introduction of any political feeling in the matter, because it tended to produce

    1079
    friction which would undoubtedly put off the solution of the present difficulty and thereby delay the commencement of those public works which were so essential in the interest of London. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had imputed to all hon. Members on the Opposition aide of the House an indiscriminate opposition to the principle of betterment; and if he was not mistaken, the hon. Member for Hackney had also charged them with being actuated by a motive to delay the Bill. Nothing could be more unfounded than those statements. For his own part he had voted consistently for the principle of betterment, and he had done so because his experience of municipal life was that whenever it was a choice between the interest of the vendor and the interest of the community, the vendor had always benefited, and the community had had to bear the burden. He thought that a most improper state of affairs, and if there were no equitable solution of the difficulty he would be disposed to give the preference to the interest of the community rather than to the interest of the individual. But what they desired to find was a solution which was fair and just and equitable to both parties, and they felt that in this principle of betterment, properly and carefully applied, they had such a solution. Manchester had been referred to in the course of the discussion. He was aware that many improvements in cities and boroughs had been delayed, and some had never been undertaken at all, because of the absence of this principle, which underlay all these matters, and the constant experience of many of them was that Corporations were called upon to buy large and unnecessary quantities of land in order to preserve their pecuniary interests in the future. There were several objections to that system. One was that it might involve a considerable loss to the Corporation; and even if it ended in profit, it was more or less a matter of speculation, and it was most undesirable that Public Bodies should be associated with anything like land jobbery. What was desired was that some guiding principle of action, fair to the individual, just to the private owner, and not inequitable to the community, which had to bear so many burdens in rates, should be arrived at. He had heard it argued that the London County Council should be prohibited from
    1080
    proceeding by means of a Private Bill To do that would be to prevent a great deal of useful action on the part of the County Council in carrying out public improvements. Their desire should be to make not the worst but the best of their Municipalities, and to forward reforms in that direction. He would remind those who took exception to Private Bill legislation on the part of the County Council that it was one of the provisions of the Bill introduced by the Conservative Government in 1888, and that it was under and in accordance with those provisions that the present steps were being taken to give increased powers to the London County Council. On the other hand, though he thought the action taken in another place in the matter was not completely justified, there was a great deal to be said in favour of the consideration of the subject by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The principle of betterment was accepted, but undoubtedly there were grave difficulties in the application of the principle in frequent cases, and these ought to be carefully considered. The hon. Member for Hackney had said that this particular public improvement in London would not be expedited by the appointment of a Committee. But he would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that as it was still, happily, a part of the Constitution that both Houses of the Legislature should agree, it would be far better to appoint a Joint Committee to discuss the difficulties of the application of betterment, and so facilitate the carrying out of the various public improvements contemplated in London. He thought, on the whole, it was wise that they should avail themselves of the experiences of the past in these matters, and that, benefitting by such experience, they should lay down beforehand, if possible, some general rules for the guidance not only of the County Council of London, but of other Municipal Bodies. The hon. Member for Hackney had said, again, that this was not a question of the unemployed. Some Members of the House had had the opportunity of meeting a deputation of the unemployed a short time previously, and the men urged, and he thought urged with reason, that this question had an effect on the employment of labour. There were numbers of people in London seek-

    1081
    ing, not charity, but work, and though the provision of work, merely because there was a want of employment, was to be condemned, still, when the opportunity arose, when work for the advantage of the community might be placed within the reach of the unemployed classes, it was their duty to avail themselves of such opportunities by every means in their power. There were many important works of improvement in London delayed, or which might be delayed, owing to this difficulty over the question of betterment, and he believed that if the difficulty was not removed it would result in the greatest social trouble and inconvenience. It was not a question of want of employment this winter only, but, he feared, for many winters, and every obstacle to employment ought to be removed beforehand so far as practicable. It was, therefore, their duty to come to some agreement on the principle of betterment, and thereby remove a serious obstacle from the path of public progress. It was for these reasons—because he approved of the principle of betterment, and was desirous to see it applied on a really just and equitable basis; and because he was anxious that its general application in the interest of the community should not be impeded by any reactionary feeling, but expedited in the interest of the unemployed classes who wanted work, which might well be supplied them for the good of the community, that he supported the Motion to forthwith refer the matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses, which he felt, under all the existing circumstances, to be the best and most expeditious course—the course of prudent progress.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that as a London Member he had heard with regret the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it seemed to him that these remarks were actuated more by a wish to increase the difficulty with the House of Lords that by a statesmanlike desire to reconcile the two bodies of the Legislature on this most difficult subject. The question of betterment was a very difficult one. The London County Council had had experience of the difficulties arising out of this principle of betterment. In 1890 they had brought forward a measure which proposed
    1082
    betterment within a certain area. That was the well-known Strand Improvement Scheme. It was rejected by a Committee of that House, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and which, more or less, intimated that in their opinion the principle of betterment should only be applied to those owners who had frontages to new streets. A similar fate had befallen the Bill of 1892 which related to the Cromwell Road Bridge, where a certain radius was taken as the betterment clause. In this year the London County Council had brought forward the present measure, confining the application of the betterment principle to the more limited area of the limits of deviation; and before the Committee of that House they had admitted the practical difficulty of this application of the principle. The learned counsel for the London County Council admitted that it was possible that they had not hit upon the exact mode of dealing with this important question. That showed that the County Council itself was uncertain as to the application of this novel principle, and was perhaps the strongest argument for the appointment of a Committee of both Houses to consider not only the principle, but the application of the principle. He agreed with those who thought that the language of the Resolution of the House of Lords might be improved, but that was no reason why they should refuse to consider the request of the other House, or create a difficulty instead of trying to come to terms with them on this question. The mere language of the Resolution could hardly justify the House in adopting a position of hostility. It could not be said that he (the hon. Member) was hostile to betterment. He had spoken in favour of the principle of betterment, but he did not believe that betterment would prove of that enormous advantage to the people of London which some of the County Council seemed to think. He was in favour of the principle of betterment, but he saw great and practical difficulties in the way of a judicious application of the principle, and he was afraid it would result in great disappointment to the people of London. The County Council themselves had used very extraordinary arguments in the matter. He held in his

    1083
    hand a paper which bore on the back the names of the Parliamentary agents of the London County Council, in which they said that hitherto the County Council had relied upon recoupment, which had given them the whole value of the improvement, while betterment would only give them half. That was a very inconsistent argument on the part of the County Council. He was himself not at all sure that, as a general rule, recoupment was not the better principle to apply to improvements. In many cases it had repaid three-fourths of the cost and in one case the whole. Betterment was a new principle; it was difficult to apply, and therefore it ought to be fully and carefully considered by one of the strongest Committees which could possibly be formed. Two Committees of the House of Commons had rejected it, although one had accepted it. He believed the other House had not adopted a very politic course in dealing with the Bill, but it was not irrevocable. The very fact that the other House had declared their willingness to discuss the matter in a Joint Committee showed that they were desirous to come to some common agreement; and he did not think that the objection of the London County Council to the terms of the Resolution recently passed was any reason why the Commons should refuse to meet the other House on the question. He could understand that the Government were anxious just now to have an additional quarrel with the House of Lords. But, speaking as one of the Members for London, he should protest against this mere Party political interest being thought of more importance than the carrying out of improvements which were really necessary in the interest of London. The expenditure of a large sum of money would benefit the unemployed, and if the County Council took years to begin works like these it was not that expeditious body which some of its admirers represented it to be. The approaches to the Tower Bridge and the works at Vauxhall ought to be taken in hand at once. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham said that Vauxhall Bridge works were urgently necessary. The Member for Shoreditch denied this, saying that the Parliamentary Committee of the County Council reported that the works were not urgent. But in April of this
    1084
    year the Parliamentary Committee said—
    "The rebuilding of Vauxhall Bridge is a matter which must be regarded as of immediate importance."
    At present the difficulty in the whole situation was not caused by the House of Lords. It was really caused by the action of the Government in refusing to consent to a Committee to consider the difference with the House of Lords. It was all very well for the Government for Party reasons to endeavour to throw the responsibility on the House of Lords; but he believed the people of London would see through it. At all events, some of the members of the County Council were not satisfied with the action of the Government. Mr. Costello, a very active member of the County Council, and a Radical candidate at the last General Election, at a recent public meeting, said—
    "He could not allege that any Member of the Cabinet was hostile to the London Progressive programme; but they had obtained no useful reforms, nor was there any prospect of any hope of advance in the future."
    Mr. Costello also said that he was feeling that the London Progressive party ought to make it "hot for the present holders of power at the next General Election." If the Government stood in the way of London improvements a good many people would make it hot for them at the next General Election. The Government were making a mistake in endeavouring to keep up this quarrel with the House of Lords. The House of Lords had expressed their willingness to discuss the matter in a Joint Committee and he thought that proposal ought to be accepted by the Government.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he could assure the hon. Member for North St. Pancras that the people of London were very much more anxious to obtain betterment than join issue with the House of Lords on this question. The real question which the majority of the House, who had passed two Resolutions in favour of betterment during the present Session, had to consider was, how the principle of betterment could be applied with the greatest possible expedition. It seemed to him that the various hon. Members who had addressed the House, and in particular the hon. Member for South Islington,

    1085
    had ignored the real issue. The fallacy running through the whole of that hon. Member's speech was that he assumed that the appointment of the Joint Committee would be the most rapid way of bringing the principle into operation. But both that hon. Gentleman and others had found it expedient to utterly ignore the terms of reference by which that Committee would be bound. It was very well to say that the principle of betterment was accepted. The principle was accepted; but if that was so, how absurd it was to appoint a Committee, part of the reference of which was to consider whether or not the principle was equitable! The Committee might never consider the question of the practical application of the principle at all, because they might decide on the first point — namely, that the principle was inequitable. The hon. Member for South Islington, who spoke with weight upon this question, objected to proceeding in this matter according to the method which had always been adopted in regard to similar legislation—namely, that, first, the question should be worked out by means of Private Bills. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham asked how would it be in regard to Unopposed Bills. All experience, however, led to the belief that for a long time to come no Bills which involved the principle of betterment would be Unopposed. The right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham had represented the situation by a figure of speech—that the House of Lords was holding out the olive branch. He could not imagine a figure of speech which was more singularly inappropriate, and he would rather say that the House of Lords was setting a trap into which the House of Commons was invited to enter.
    MR. WHITMOREsaid, he considered the last phrase of the hon. Member a most infelicitous one. The whole object of this Motion was that Londoners should be able to get on with their public improvements. The House of Lords had set no trap at all. As one of those who voted against the last Bill before the House of Commons in the earlier part of this Session, he might say he never had any feeling of hostility to the principle of betterment. Like many other hon. Members, he only
    1086
    thought it would be well there should be some more general inquiry into the principle than could be afforded by a Private Bill. He was anxious that a large and general inquiry should be made into the application of the principle, and now they had the opportunity of doing that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked what would be thought of a proposal to appoint a Joint Committee to consider the question of the Disestablishment of the Church, but that question was absolutely irrelevant. An obvious answer was that there were no such vital differences of opinion about betterment as, of course, existed with regard to Disestablishment. The London "Progressives" had promised enthusiastically to make of London a new heaven and a new earth, but where now was the enthusiasm of the "Progressives" for London improvements? London improvements were to be hung up in order that the Progressive Party of the London County Council might play a small part in a paltry political game. He was sorry the Government had opposed the proposal made by the House of Lords.
    MR. W. AMBROSEsaid, he had heard with great astonishment the reasons that had been given for not assenting to the Motion. The real reason was obvious. The object was, in the coming conflict, which could not be long delayed, to get up an agitation against the House of Lords and to connect that Chamber with the delay in London improvements and the want of employment in the Metropolis. He appealed to the Government whether an attempt of that kind was worthy of them. The fact that there were in London so many unemployed was a strong reason why the Government should accept the olive branch held out by the House of Lords. The principles of all our Private Bill legislation had been settled by general Bills, and it was surely better in dealing with betterment to follow the established precedent than to leave principles to be laid down by Private Bill Committees. Many who said they were for betterment did not realise what was meant by it and how the principle was to be applied. In the case of the Strand Improvement Scheme, it was proposed by the London County Council to levy con-

    1087
    tributions upon the Temple Station of the Metropolitan Railway and upon property on the Thames Embankment; but when the witnesses came to be cross-examined the claim to rate property on the Embankment was made to appear so ridiculous that it had to be abandoned. In the cases of Vauxhall Bridge and the Tower Bridge there were allegations of betterment which were denied by the owners of the property. There might be cases in which private property was "bettered" by public improvements. He did not deny that he had generally been opposed to the particular schemes of betterment which had been previously before the House. He did not say that he was opposed to the principle of betterment, but he wanted to see a case in which it could be properly and fairly applied, without injury; in other words, they had yet to have the principle defined. The words of the Resolution certainly did not define it, for they left everything open. He hoped the Government would see their way to meeting the House of Lords upon this question.
    MR. BARROWsaid, he represented the constituency on the south of the Thames which was most interested in the southern approach to the Tower Bridge. The road from the bridge almost immediately entered Bermondsey, and went through it until it reached the Old Kent Road and the New Kent Road. The bridge had been in contemplation and in course of erection for some years. A considerable majority had been elected to the Vestry of Bermondsey for the purpose of insisting on the principle of betterment; and the representatives of Bermondsey formed a part of that majority at the London County Council which supported the application of the betterment principle. There was no chance of moving that majority in Bermondsey, which, anxious as it was to have the approaches to the bridge improved, was not willing that the work should proceed until the principle of betterment had been accepted. This feeling prevailed in spite of the high local rates reaching 7s. 6d. in the £1, and the great inconvenience to which Bermondsey would be exposed. That was the answer of Bermondsey to those who wanted to know what London
    1088
    would say to the action of the House of Lords.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the course of this Debate some London Members have gone into details of the improvements dealt with in the Bill which was the origin of this controversy. I am not fitted by my knowledge, nor by my position, not being a London Member, to follow them into these details; but I think it must be admitted by those who have listened to the Debate that issues of a wider character and of more important bearing have been raised by many of the speakers. Some gentlemen who largely agree with my views on this question appear to think we are inflicting a slight upon the House of Lords by the course we are pursuing. I do not think the House of Lords will suffer much by the slight; and it certainly is not in the interests of the House of Lords I have to speak to-night. Neither is it in the interest of the dignity of the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was highly indignant with the House of Lords in general, and with Lord Salisbury in particular, because Lord Salisbury, in speaking for a majority of the House of Lords, described the Hybrid Committee which sat upon the question in this House as "a thing"— "a thing called a Hybrid Committee." [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] Well, this was the phrase on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt and re-dwelt; that was the poisoned arrow that inflamed his blood; what he felt to be so intolerable was that it should be called "a thing."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: "A crooked backway."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Whether it deserved to be called "a thing" or "a crooked backway" I will not determine, but it is not the machinery by which we do our best work on controversial questions that have to be determined by impartial consideration. What is a Hydrid Committee? How does it differ from an ordinary Committee? It differs, in fact, in this: that it makes not even a pretence to impartiality. An ordinary Committee of this House, upon which Parties are represented in proportion to their numerical strength in this House, has some slight pretension to be a really impartial tribunal for dealing with the question submitted to it.

    1089
    the hon. Member for South Islington, But a Hybrid Committee never has that character. Why? Because everybody you put upon it, either personally or through his constituents, has a direct interest in the decision to be come to. Whereas you fence round the constitution of the ordinary Committee dealing with a Private Bill by the most elaborate provisions so as to prevent any private interest coming in to disturb the impartial verdict of the tribunal, we throw that principle to the winds when we are dealing with a Hybrid Committee and deliberately make it a partial tribunal. Whether it is proper to describe such a tribunal as a "thing" or a "crooked backway" I do not care to inquire, but it is not an impartial Committee of the House of Commons; and those who look for an impartial representation of the House of Commons have a right to pass by the verdict of a Hybrid Committee in a manner which perhaps would be wanting in any great respect if it dealt with the more ordinary and more important decisions and reports arrived at by Select Committees. I pass, therefore, from the question of the dignity of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, both of which, I think, are features we may leave on one side, to what is after all of more importance. What defence have the Government made for their conduct in refusing what has never been refused before—namely, to join the House of Lords in a Committee? It consists of persistent, certainly not deliberate, but equally persistent misrepresentation of the House of Lords on this point. I listened attentively to the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, and I venture to say that they have given an absolutely misleading account of the attitude of the House of Lords in general and of their specific action in this particular ease. I will give three cases. The Chancellor of the Exchequer based the main part of his case upon the statement made by Lord Morley that the proper way of dealing with this question was to admit the principle of betterment to a long series of Private Bills, and out of the experience which the working of them would supply gradually to evolve some genera] system of Private Bill legislation on this subject. That is the version
    1090
    of Lord Morley's attitude given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I said he recommended it for consideration.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I have accurately stated the version given by the right hon. Gentleman. But I find that Lord Morley stated, and on more than one occasion, that in his opinion it was necessary, in order to have this particular Private Bill legislation, that certain general principles of legislation should be laid down; and he deliberately stated, and recommended to the House of Lords, that the proper machinery for obtaining those general principles of legislation, which were the necessary and proper preliminary of Private Bill legislation, was this very Joint Committee against which the right hon. Gentleman has the courage to quote Lord Morley himself. That is the first point on which the attitude of the House of Lords has been very grossly exaggerated.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I never represented that Lord Morley was against the Joint Committee. On the contrary, I said he recommended it, but that the House of Lords refused to take his advice when they passed a Resolution saying that the subject ought not to be dealt with by Private Bills at all. I did not say he was against it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All the principles underlying Lord Morley's speeches were to the effect that, though Private Bill legislation might be the proper way of dealing with these questions of betterment, that legislation should be preceded by laying down certain broad principles on which the Committees of the two Houses ought to act. I pass from Lord Morley to the general attitude of the House of Lords in regard to betterment. On this point, as far as I can understand from what took place there, the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the Lords as he has misrepresented those who sit on this side of the House. Throughout the whole of his speech he reiterated over and over again that those who wished this Joint Committee and those who had voted against the Second or the Third Reading of this Private Bill were opposed to the principle of betterment. Nothing can be further from the fact. I believe that the majority of gentlemen on this side of the House have only one difficulty in regard to betterment, which

    1091
    is, how to carry it out. And if they could see any machinery by which that end could be attained they would be as anxious to see the principle introduced into our Private Bill legislation as anyone on the other side of the House. I speak merely judging from the utterances of my hon. Friends behind me, and I have only the same means of judging the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman has stated his view that the House of Lords are opposed to the principle of betterment. I can find no statement made by any of their Lordships which bears out that view. The only Peer besides Lord Salisbury and Lord Morley who was mentioned as being an opponent of betterment has specifically stated in a speech in the House of Lords that he was in favour of the principle of betterment. I mean the Duke of Argyll. He said that—
    "No one would acknowledge the principle of betterment more readily than he did."
    It is not fair, therefore, in the total absence of any evidence on the subject at all, to allege that the Lords as a body, collectively or individually, are opposed to the principle of betterment. That is the second misrepresentation of the right hon. Gentleman; and what is the third? It has reference to the actual terms of the message from the Lords. A great deal has been made of that message. It was the staple of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and it was a very important element of the speech of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. Supposing that that view of that message was the correct view—and I think it was not—it still does not absolve the Government from, at all events, attempting to come to some arrangement with the House of Lords on the subject, by objecting to the first half of the proposal and assenting to the second half. It is perfectly competent and in accordance with the practice and procedure of this House to express partial concurrence with the message of the House of Lords. If the Government have a partial concurrence, why do they not express it, and see whether the Lords take up that impracticable attitude of which they are so freely accused? No, the reason why the Government do not express partial concurrence is that they do not want to have any concurrence at all. They wish to pick a quarrel, and it would be most in-
    1092
    convenient to them and their supporters to take any steps by which the appearance of a quarrel might be avoided. I am inclined to think that the message of the House of Lords is not open to the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman puts upon it. I read the first half of that message as meaning that the House of Lords desire to inquire whether there is any equitable machinery by which the person, the value of whose property is increased by an improvement, can be made to contribute to the cost of the improvement. I believe that that is their meaning; and if that is their meaning, the whole argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer falls to the ground. We are not asked to give up our principles about betterment.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Where is there any mention of machinery in the message?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have given my explanation of the message. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that you must give it in other words, or it would not be an explanation. That is my view of what the words mean; and the words are certainly capable of that construction. Any lover of peace like the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, I should have thought, have grasped at what he thought to be even a strained interpretation of the words rather than plunge Parliament into a gratuitous controversy about a matter of urgent public importance. So much for the misrepresentations with which the Government have chosen to defend their action in this matter. Now, I passed to the alleged ground of policy urged by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, who represents the London County Council. He tells us that the action of the London County Council is animated purely and solely in this case by a desire to defend what they call the betterment principle. I never heard yet that the way to defend a principle was absolutely to decline to discuss the methods by which the principle was to be carried out. If I may so without disrespect to my Irish friends, that is the most Irish way of proceeding. [An Irish MEMBER: They are not friends of yours.] The friendship may be one-sided, but it is none the less firm. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman will feel that the oddest method ever suggested of defending a

    1093
    principle is to say, "We will not discuss it at all, or help to further its application. We will keep it as a principle in a museum in a glass case, incapable of application, and never to be applied at all." So does the hon. Member for Shoreditch defend the cherished principle of betterment. Of course, even the most naive of us see through this device. This is not a question of betterment; this is not a question of London improvements—not a question of unemployed. It is a political question from beginning to end. The majority of the London County Council and the Government are acting in harmony not for the good of London, but for the good of the Gladstonian Party. And though the right hon. Gentleman has not been so indiscreet as to say so, that has been practically admitted, I am informed, by members of the London County Council themselves. I am a strong opponent of the Government, but I am a sympathetic opponent. I feel for their difficulties. I know that if they are deprived of the pleasure of quarrelling with the House of Lords they will be in a most embarrassing and difficult position. I recognise that this is their last card. I fully and frankly admit that this is one of those reckless speculations by which impending bankrupts retrieve their position. I think the Government are in this case asking us to sacrifice too much. It is not fair that the London ratepayers, that the London business man, and all who are interested in the commercial prosperity of London and in the free traffic of the streets—that all those classes, and in addition those who might possibly obtain employment, of which they will now be deprived—should all be sacrificed to the mere tactics of Party. That is going too far, and I cannot help thinking that when the inhabitants of the Metropolis discover, what is tolerably plain to us, that their interests are being entirely thrust aside in order that some larger scheme of public policy may be carried out, they will show their resentment in a practical form, and that it is possible on this subject at some future time the Government may be more malleable than they are at present. Whether the Government have made a good or a bad Party calculation in thus seeking a quarrel with the House of Lords my right hon. Friend was justified in bringing this matter before us, and enabling us, in
    1094
    the interests of London in the first place, and in the interests also of those great Municipalities of the country which wish to have some principle on which to apply betterment, to secure an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the unprecedented and the ill-judged course which the Government have thought fit to pursue.
    MR. WEIRexpressed the hope that the Members of the Government would stand by the London County Council to a man. They had been told by the right hon. Member for the London University that the olive branch was held out to them by the House of Lords. They were really asked to go on bended knees to the House of Lords. He objected to doing anything of the kind, and what the right hon. Baronet had described as the holding out of the olive branch seemed to him very much like an invitation into the spider's web. He denied that there were any Party politics in this question. What the people of London desired was a revision of taxation, so that owners of land should contribute their share towards any improvements which might be made. In the constituency which he had the honour to represent on the County Council there were 12 houses which were let on lease at a ground rent of £5. On the termination of the lease the ground rents were raised to £80 a year for each house, and the tenants had to pull down the old houses and build new houses at a cost of £6,000 apiece, the ground rent being raised from £60 to £960 a year, whilst £72,000 had been expended on the houses, the whole of which the landlord would secure on the termination of the lease. The people of London were dissatisfied with this system of legalised landlord robbery. The people of London, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had made up their minds, and would settle this matter at the next Election. The proper policy for the London County Council to adopt was to send this matter up next Session, and every Session; and if the House of Lords refused to accept the principle of betterment, so much the worse for the House of Lords.
    MR. MACDONAsaid, the Bermondsey Vestry had voted in favour of the scheme of the

    1095
    London County Council, but the people of Rotherhithe had voted in exactly the opposite way. He disapproved of the action of the London County Council in keeping six millions of money from the starving unemployed of London, whom he should take every opportunity of informing of this policy of the County Council.
    MR. E. G. WEBSTERsaid, those who had heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would go away with the idea that this House had affirmed the principle of the Bill brought before the House. But they had never had an opportunity of deciding the main question. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the House of Lords had not grasped or fully understood the question of betterment. But did the House of Commons, or did the County Council? They had had several Bills before the House. In one it was contended that by proximity to a place that was going to be improved and altered another place was bettered. That was not the principle of betterment. The principle of betterment should be that if they found that property was not bettered, but "worsened," that should also be taken into account. The London County Council had not given one single public improvement to London, although in the past they had had various public improvements which gave work to the la-Souring classes. By this dog-in-the-manger policy of the County Council they were not allowing this working classes of London to find employment. It was very easy to say that this bridge improvement was a small matter, but it was a principle which ought to be affirmed by the House of Commons. It was very necessary that the County Council should wake up to their duties in London, and give the London people improvements and the working classes that labour which they were entitled to receive from the County Council.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 177.—(Division List, No. 377.)

  ORDER OF THE DAY.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 274.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 9th December.]
    EIGHTEENTH NIGHT.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 13 (Public property and charities.)
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Jeffreys), he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name, and which he understood the Government were willing to accept.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar) signified assent.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, line 36, after the word "charity," to insert the words "not being an ecclesiastical charity."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. HANBURY MR. HANBURY (Preston), said he had to move—
    In page 10, line 37, after the word "shall," to insert the words "on or before the publication of notice of the proposal in accordance with the provisions of 23rd & 24th Vic. chap. 136."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he would suggest instead that they should insert, "or before the publication of the scheme."
    MR. HANBURYsaid, his object was to make the matter specific of reference to the Act, not only as to the Council's having due notice, but also as to their having facilities to take objection if they wished to enter any.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that was his object also. Publication was required by the Act, and these words would cover it.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, the object of his hon. and learned Friend and that of his hon. Friend behind him was the same, and he was sure his hon. Friend would agree, if necessary, to the Amendment on the Report stage. But he (Sir R. Webster) did not think the reference to the Act rendered the proposal objectionable. It did not

    1097
    tie the House of Commons down, and he thought they should introduce some reference to the Act for the purpose of showing the machinery which they wanted to put into operation.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, there were more Acts than one dealing with the intention of the Government. He would not, however, raise any objection now, as the matter could be further considered for the later stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he had next to move—
    In page 10, line 38, after the word "Council," to insert the words "and where there is no Parish Council, the chairman of the parish meeting."
    It seemed to him that, if a village had no Parish Council, it should have some source of information—public information regarding these schemes. The Government would understand that these schemes were not even communicated to the Vestries, and so it might happen that they would not be communicated at all to the people of the villages where no Parish Council existed. He thought all villages should be treated alike in the matter of public information on these subjects; and it was a very fair proposal that a communication should be made in the manner he proposed. He begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, line 38, after the word "Council," to insert the words "and where there is no Parish Council, the chairman of the parish meeting."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the general plan was to give certain powers or make certain provisions in favour of the Parish Councils, but there was much in what the hon. Gentleman had said. He was not quite sure that this was the most convenient place to deal with the point, but he agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and would allow the Amendment to pass.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he had to move—
    In Clause 13, line 39, after the word "expenditure," to insert the words "and by the consent of the parish meeting."
    1098
    The effect of the Amendment was that the Council should either oppose or support the scheme by consent of the parish meeting.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York, W. R., Rotherham)said, the Parish Council was really the proper Body to deal with the question, and it would thwart and complicate matters to adopt these words.
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, the Amendment referred to the draft scheme. If the Charity Commissioners had a charity brought before them in an ordinary manner with six trustees, the Parish Council could step in and appoint seven. The parish meeting should have a right of looking into the whole question.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, the referendum, to which Members on his (the Conservative) side of the House attached some importance, might be usefully applied in parochial matters on this question. Parish Councillors might be elected on some question of, say, a footpath, and afterwards a scheme might be brought forward regarding some parochial charity which might vitally affect the administration of that charity. He did not see why action regarding the charity should be taken in a hurry. There should be an opportunity for consulting the parish. When a scheme was to be settled for a term of years, he thought it should have adequate consideration, and he believed they might avail of this opportunity for working the referendum might be taken advantage of with good effect.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was afraid the Amendment would not secure the object which the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had in view. What was the parish meeting to do? It was to give its decision, its consent, or its opposition, regarding the scheme— whether it was in favour of it or opposed to it. But whether the people supported a scheme or opposed it, the Charity Commissions might refuse to take any notice. They cared very little about the localities. The only way to secure the hon. Member's object was by another. This

    1099
    Amendment, he feared, carried little weight.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he was aware the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings) had an Amendment of his own on the Paper; but this did not interfere with it, as he might seem to think.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Oh, no.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, the two Amendments dealt with totally different matters. He did not wish the Parish Council to enter into engagements and spend money without the consent of the parish meeting. He understood the right hon. German the Vice President to say that the Amendment would thwart and complicate the working of the Parish Council.
    MR. ACLAND: The Charity Commissioners.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, very well, the Charity Commissioners. He did not think any difficulty could arise from getting the consent of the parish meeting. He did not see what the objection could be.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was meeting this question as he might do. It was reasonable to ask that the various views of the Council should be under the control of the parish meeting. Individual members of the Council might favour one course and the parish meeting another. The question was of great importance, and he thought the Committee might possibly consider some way of dealing with it.
    MR. WHARTONsaid, there was one matter the Committee had overlooked. Some few days ago the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler), whom he did not see in his place, told them that on all important occasions a poll would be demanded and taken. If there was one occasion more important than another it was, surely, the time when a charity came up for consideration. That was an occasion when they should certainly try to summon every one, so as to ascertain the sense of the parish.
    MR. ACLAND: I will accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he bad a suggestion to make to the Government
    1100
    regarding lines 40 and 41 of the clause, and the words—
    "And shall for that purpose have that same right as any inhabitants of a place directly affected by the scheme."
    He understood the sub-section to give the Parish Council the power to object, and also to appeal to the Court of Chancery, whether the amount was under £50 or over £50. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the inhabitants had only got power in respect of charities up to £50. The Government, therefore, would fail, by including these words, in attaining the object they had in view.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, whatever the hon. Gentleman's reading of the words might be, they intended to include amounts over £50. He was under the impression that the sub-section, as it stood, was sufficient for the purpose; but if the hon. Gentleman suggested that that object was not secured, they would be prepared to consider the matter.
    MR. HANBURY MR. HANBURY moved—
    In line 40, after the words "oppose the scheme," to leave out to the end of the subsection.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the Members of the Government should have some opportunity of consultation on the question, and he could only promise that the matter would be dealt with on Report. The Government fully intended to meet the case the hon. Member had in view, and he would suggest to him that he should withdraw the Amendment and allow them to consider the question.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, there should be some general words in the enactment relating to the rights of the inhabitants, and, as the Government had promised to consider the matter, he would suggest that the Amendment be withdrawn.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he would like to point out that under the clause they were materially lessening the power of the inhabitants of a parish. At present any few persons could deal with the Charity Commissioners, but under this clause it seemed to him they must have a majority of the Parish Council.
    An hon. MEMBER: It does not matter.
    Mr. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, such a provision, dealing as it did with proceedings at law, might have a serious effect in a small parish.
    Mr. BOUSFIELDsaid, before the Amendment was withdrawn he would like to take the opportunity of making a suggestion on the question of drafting. This was an Act which was intended, and he hoped would be understanded of the rustics. Why, then, should they not make their meaning plain, and that in the shortest way possible, and in the fewest possible words? Here was an example—and it was only one of many to be found throughout the Bill: Instead of saying plainly " It is intended " to do so and so, the sub-section said—
    "Shall for that purpose have the same right as any inhabitants of the place directly affected by the scheme."
    Then they had to go not to one, but to a number of Acts of Parliament to find out what were the rights of the inhabitants affected. This was one of the places—and there were a number in the Bill—of which advantage might be taken to put in what was intended. If too many lines were likely to be occupied by setting forth the rights here they might be indicated in a Schedule.
    Mr. JESSE COLLINGShoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would have regard to this question of restriction of expenditure. In cases where the amount was above £50 the parish, as a parish, had no rights at all, and in cases below £50 any private person might move in the matter.
    Sir R. WEBSTERsaid, that to assuage the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman he might tell him what happened. In cases of above £50 it was a certain number of trustees who had to put the Charity Commissioners in motion. What, however, was generally done was to send to the Attorney General, who took the matter up. Steps were not undertaken, as a rule, unless the charity was wealthy, and then motion was not made at the expense of individuals. The same risk had been run in the past as would be incurred in the future.
    Mr. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the parish, no doubt, would bear the expense in that case, but in a case where the charity was not very large the whole fund might be swallowed up in law costs, and any additional expense there might
    1102
    be would have to be borne by the parish. As to the trustees taking the matter up in cases above £50, it must be a majority of the trustees; but supposing the majority would not move. A large charity would be able to bear the cost. During the term of office of the late Attorney General a charity the income of which was £850, was dealt with in this way, and almost a year's income was expended on the trial. In the case of a small charity worth about £50, however, there could not be much law, but the expenses might easily swallow up the total fund. If there was further expense, that would fall on the ratepayers. It seemed to him that unless this was guarded against in a most careful manner the parish might be ruined by law costs.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ACLANDsaid, he begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, as follows:—
    In page 10, line 41, at end, add,'' The accounts of all parochial charities shall annually be laid before the parish meeting, and the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act, 1855, shall apply with the substitution in Section 44 of the parish meeting for the Vestry, and of the chairman of the parish meeting for the Churchwardens. The term of office of a trustee appointed under this section shall be three years. The provisions of this section with respect to the appointment of trustees shall not apply to any charity until the expiration of 30 years from the date of the foundation thereof."
    The second part of the Amendment provided that a trustee should hold office for three years, and not for life as at present. This seemed to the Government a reasonable term. The third part of the Amendment fulfilled the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board on Thursday, when, in speaking on an Amendment of the hon. Member for Fulham, he said that on the question of the living donor they were not prepared to provide for variable lives, but were prepared, in order to meet a variety of speeches made on the subject on the other side of the House, to take the period of 30 years.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Sir R. WEBSTERsaid, that while the Amendment was an attempt to meet

    1103
    certain of the objections which had been raised, he did not think it should be assumed by the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members on that side thought that it went far enough. There were three points in which it did not go far enough. The first was as to ecclesiastical charities, which should be excepted specifically. The second was, whether it was wise to lay down a hard-and-fast rule as to the term of office of a trustee, and alter the period from life to three years? They desired to have men of experience, and it would be a serious thing if in all charities they were to tell the trustees that they were only to hold office for three years. As to the term of years after the foundation from which the section should apply, the question was one which must be decided later on, but he would at once indicate that he did not consider the term sufficiently long. No doubt in putting it down the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to meet objections raised on that side of the House.
    Sir J. RIGBYsaid, he did not see why the objection should not be met in regard to ecclesiastical charities. The Amendment dealing with that point would be accepted. As to the term of office of the trustees, it was the invariable practice of the Charity Commissioners at the present time to lay down a limit. He could point out instance after instance where that had been done.
    Sir R. WEBSTER: Not limited to three years.
    Sir J. RIGBYsaid, that sometimes the limit was five years, sometimes three, and sometimes seven. When the Government were considering the matter they had thought three years better than five. However, it was not a question of election, but of a resolution of the Parish Council, and when the three years came to an end, if the Council were satisfied with the trustees they could re-appoint them as a matter of course. He would say nothing as to the third part of the Amendment at present.
    Mr. HANBURYsaid, he begged to move the omission of the word " parochial " in the first line of the Amendment, for the reason that, so far as he recollected the statement of the President of the Local Government Board, " parochial charities " were to be charities limited entirely to one parish. There
    1104
    must be some definition of the word "parochial." If the charity was in one parish the accounts would go before the Parish Council, but if it was in two parishes the accounts would go before the Vestry of each parish, which would be a ridiculous thing. As to the Amendment in regard to saving ecclesiastical charities they were in this awkward position: ecclesiastical charities included all denominational charities—those of Roman Catholics and Nonconformists, which were of an ecclesiastical nature. He did not see why Roman Catholic and Nonconformist charities should go before the Vestry. Those interested in such charities would prefer them to go before the Parish Council. It was all very well for the charities of the Church of England to go before the Vestries. The word "ecclesiastical," it seemed to him, should be limited. He, however, now moved to omit "parochial."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word " parochial."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'parochial' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    Mr. CONYBEAREsaid, he thought the accounts of all charities affecting a parish ought to be published, in the interest of everyone concerned.
    Sir M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hardly saw how the original Amendment could work if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston were agreed to. It would involve submitting to the parish meetings the accounts of all charities in existence.
    Sir J. RIGBYsaid, the words were taken from the very careful legislation in the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act of 1855, providing in considerable detail for the manner in which the accounts were to be rendered. With regard to those cases that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bousfield) suggested should be set out in the clause, or in a subsequent Schedule, to carry out the suggestions would extend the Bill by a page or a page and a half, and the clause would not be more clear when that was done than it was now. The word "parochial " charities was used many times without definition, being not a term of art, but a well-understood word. Per-

    1105
    sonally, he did not see why the accounts of all charities in the parish should not go before the parish meeting. It was a very proper tribunal to see them, if nothing more. The word would be defined later on in regard to area, to show that it was not confined to a single parish, parishes having been and charities being still dealt with by the body of Overseers representing the entire ancient parish. The parochial charity would mean what it had always meant, except in so far as it was proposed to extend its meaning in that way.
    Mr. HANBURYsaid, that if "parochial " was to include charities extending beyond one particular parish, then, clearly, some words would have to be put in after the words "the parish meeting," because the clause contemplated the accounts being placed only before one parish, meeting. He took it that they should be laid before all the parishes affected. The words "of the parishes affected thereby" would perhaps meet the difficulty.
    Mr. BOUSFIELDsaid, that if the Bill was to make sense and be consistent, there should be some definition of the word "parochial." Was it intended that a charity should belong to one parish? [Sir J. Rigby: No.] That showed the necessity of having a clear and precise notion as to what a parochial charity meant. Under Sub-section 3 the inference was that a parochial charity was not necessarily a charity confined to one parish, for the words were:—
    " In the case of every parochial charity, the benefits of which are confined solely to inhabitants of the parish."
    It was impossible satisfactorily to get to the end of the clause without knowing precisely what "parochial charities" meant.
    Mr. CONYBEAREsaid, the difficulty would be met by inserting the word "such" before parochial.
    Mr. HENEAGEsaid, they had been on this question for more than a week. They had been endeavouring day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute, to get some assistance from Her Majesty's Government in order to know what they were dealing with in that matter of parochial charities. The Government either would not or could not tell them. He believed they could not, because they had not made up their minds. If the
    1106
    hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bousfield) thought that in a few moments he could elicit from the Solicitor General what the whole House had failed to get out of him in many days he was very much mistaken. All they could do under the circumstances was to muddle on in the dark, and delay was the necessary consequence. This clause was an utter muddle, and he believed that long before they got to the Report stage they would find it necessary to turn it head over heels.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CONYBEAREsaid, that hon. Members on his side of the House objected to the Government accepting this Amendment. He was not satisfied with the answer of the Government that the accounts of ecclesiastical charities should be submitted to the Vestries. To his mind, all these charities should be published for the information of the Parish Council. He had no desire, however to further the professed wish of the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Heneage) to delay the Bill, therefore he would con-tent himself with this protest.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    Mr. HANBURYmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by adding, after the words "parish meeting" in line 2, the words "of any parish affected thereby." It was, he said quite clear that parochial charities might be charities extending beyond one particular parish, and in such cases it would be absolutely necessary that the account of these charities should be submitted to the various parishes affected thereby.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry) moved the following Amendment to the proposed Amendment:—
    In line 2, after the words " parish meeting," to insert the words "and the names of the beneficiaries of dole charities shall be published annually in such form as the parish meeting think fit."
    He said, the matter might seem a small one, but he attached considerable importance to it as being one under which a principle lay. His object was to

    1107
    secure that the names of the recipients of a doled charity should be scheduled and placed before the parish meeting when the accounts were placed before it. The first point he wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman was this: that if these were public charities every parishioner ought to know how they were dealt with, but he could not possibly know how doled charities were dealt with unless he saw a list of the beneficiaries. If such a list were published every parishioner would be able to point out those who were receiving the charity and who ought not to receive it, and others who were not and who ought to receive it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the reason why this property should be placed in the hands of the Parish Council was because it was public or common property. "He did not altogether agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was public or common property; it was to a certain extent public property, but it was specialised, and there were only few in the parish who participated directly in the actual benefits of the dole charities. That was to say, that although they were for the good of the whole parish directly, only comparatively few had the advantage of receiving the doles. He said that publicity would be a safeguard to the recipients and to the parish. Anyone who had had any experience in the Poor Law would bear him out that there was a danger of mixing up parochial charities and Poor Law relief. They ought to be kept separate, and if they were not there was great danger of injury to the poor. It had been laid down to be against the law that anyone who was in receipt of Poor Law relief should also receive charity money, and any administrators of charity money who gave such money to those who were in receipt of Poor Law relief were violating their trust, and the Charity Commissioners would interfere and prevent them using the charity money in this respect. They all knew it was often done, and he had often had in his experience cases in which he had been obliged to point out to the Poor Law Guardians that they were giving money to those who were in receipt of charity money. That was against the law, but how were they to be sure that the law would be carried out? It was good policy not to allow
    1108
    charity money and Poor Law money to intermix. But how were the Poor Law Guardians to know if the names of the recipients of public charity money were not published? He pointed out that there was great difficulty in properly managing trust money of this sort, especially when it was placed in the hands of a Public Board. These difficulties were not so aggravated under the present system because the present trustees were quasi-private; that was to say, the present trustees were nominated by the founder; they were selected by himself; they were the interpreters of his wishes, and to them was left discretion; therefore the money was not looked upon so much as a public charity, as being alms given through the bounty of a founder through the hands of his own trustees. But Parliament had altered all that, and created new trustees, and had done so without any regard whatever to the wishes and discretion of the founder. The consequence was that the new trustees were no longer the almoners of the founder, but of the parish. He believed that half a million of money was to be placed in the hands of these public trustees, and there was a risk of their dealing with the money in a way that would demoralise the parish and divert the charity from the direction the founder desired it to go in. If a large amount of money in respect of a public charity was badly distributed it might have the effect of lowering wages in a parish. He would take an illustration from the Poor Law and point out the effect of giving public money as a method by which wages were lowered.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is material to this Amendment. The only question is as to whether the names of those receiving the charities shall be published.
    Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, his argument was that if they published the names of the beneficiaries they would prevent the giving of this money in a way which would have the effect of lowering wages, and, therefore, in the interests of the proper administration of the charities, it was advisable that this publication should take place.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 2, after the words " parish meeting," to insert the words " and the names of the beneficiaries of dole charities shall be published

    1109
    annually in such form as the parish meeting think fit."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
    Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. ACLAND: The fact is, that really in essence this power already exists where the full powers, which the Charity Commissioners have under the Act of 1855, are carried out. They can demand an account of all the payments made; and if any complaint has been made, they can demand all payments in detail, so that already, in certain cases where there is complaint, they can obtain an account of the funds paid to the beneficiaries, and thus ascertain who the beneficiaries are. That really accords very much with what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and we accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. J. GRANT LAWSON Mr. J. GRANT LAWSON rose to move the following Amendment:—
    "To amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words " three years " in line 5, in order to insert the words, " six years, but of the. trustees first appointed as aforesaid one-half, as nearly as may be, shall go out of office at the end of three years from the date of their appointment, but shall be elegible for re-appointment."
    He understood from the President of the Local Government Board the other night that, with regard to the term of office of the trustee, he was quite open to receive suggestions as to what the period of office should be. Much to his surprise, before the adjournment for dinner, the Solicitor General said that the invariable practice of the Charity Commissioners was to make the term of office three years.
    Sir J. RIGBY: No, no; the term of office limited—not three years.
    Mr. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid that, at any rate, the proposal of the Government was that the term of office of a trustee should be for three years, and the Amendment ran absolutely on the lines of the last schemes of the Charity Commissioners, in every one of which the term of office was for six years. It might be asked, why did he suggest that one-half of the trustees should go out of office every three years? The reason was that that was also the suggestion of the Charity Commissioners. They usually divided their trustees into three sections,
    1110
    and they adopted the system of retiring by sections. Their scheme usually was that one-third should retire every two years, but it appeared to him that the retirement of some of the trustees every three years would be quite sufficient. Whenever they retired, and fresh trustees were put in their place, the whole of this property, whether land, securities, or of other descriptions, had to be transferred to the names of the new trustees, and he was much afraid that a great deal of the charity money would go in the costs of such transfers. It was very desirable that there should be a continuity of policy in a body of trustees, especially if land for farming formed a portion of their property. He wished to secure that all the trustees, when they were in office should remain in for six years, but at the same time he wished to secure that they should be subject to popular control. Therefore he suggested that one-half of the first trustees should retire at the end of three years, and after that every one should hold office for six years. He begged to propose the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 5, to leave out the words "three years," and insert the words " six years, but of the trustees first appointed as aforesaid one-half, as nearly as may be, shall go out of office at the end of three years from the date of their appointment, but shall be eligible for re-appointment."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'three years' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    Mr. ACLANDsaid, he had taken some pains to ascertain the practice of the Charity Commissioners, and he should like to point out that whereas in some cases where Vestry or School Board ratepayers were appointed the period might be long, there was a particular reason for that. In cases in late years where the Charity Commissioners had elected on trusts the representatives of popular bodies such as members of Local Boards, School Boards, or Town Councils, the term had been three years wherever the wish had been expressed that this should be the term, but in the case where the ratepayers of a parish were elected he thought it would be very obvious why they had frequently given longer periods of five or seven years. It was because where the ratepayers of a parish were

    1111
    elected a special poll might have to be taken, and it would lead to considerable expense. He knew of one case in connection with, an endowed school where the expense was something like £50 or £60. Obviously anything of that sort would be a warning to the Charity Commissioners that, if possible, the term should be extended. The only question now before the Committee was whether the trustees should sit for three years, as they did already in connection with the Charity Commissioners' schemes, or whether they should not follow such schemes? Popular bodies other than those under this Bill were elected for three years. Popular bodies in the case of this Bill were elected for one year. They had not taken one year, but three, because where the representatives of popular bodies had asked for a term of three years the Charity Commissioners had given three years; therefore he thought this proposal of the Government, which extended the period of one year—which was the ordinary life of a Parish Council—to three years, was, on the whole, a fairly reasonable term.
    Mr. W. LONGsaid, it was probably owing to the constant changes of right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill that from time to time the arguments of the Government had not been quite consistent. The President of the Local Government Board had frequently declined to admit that either the Local Boards or the School Boards were to be regarded as popular Local Bodies in any sense of the word, and hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House had been told they were not popular representative bodies, because they were elected on a restricted franchise. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the representatives of the Local Bodies had all been appointed for three years.
    Mr. ACLAND: When they expressed their desire.
    Mr. W. LONGsaid, the only comment he desired to make was that as these representatives were themselves elected for three years it naturally followed that that would be the line they themselves would recommend. But this was not a question of what the Local Authorities, whether popular or restricted, had recommended, but what was best for the administration of the charities. In
    1112
    the cases where the charities held land for farming purposes it was essential that they should have that continuity of policy which they could only get when the whole of the administrators did not go out at once. It was true that the whole of the trustees did not go out, but it would be to the elected trustees in future to whom people would look with special interest, and on whom would devolve special responsibility. If, therefore, they turned them all out at once, the administration of these charities would be confronted with dangers. Attacks had been made against the clergy as trustees, against the squires as trustees, and against the large farmers as trustees; but not one hon. Member had the courage to specify one single parish or one single trustee which was the object of attack or indicate one single charity in respect to which injustice had been done. [Ministerial cries of "Question!"] That was the question. The basis of the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the charities had been unfairly administered. But the moment Members on the Opposition side said a single word in defence of those who were attacked they were met by cries of "Question!" The Government proposed to upset the existing arrangements in regard to the charities by replacing the old trustees with new trustees. The Opposition said that if elected trustees were placed on these old Boards of Trustees, the Government, at all events, should give some small degree of continuity to the policy of the Boards by not turning all the trustees out of office at once, but allowing half to retire and half to remain. There was nothing whatever in the Amendment which was inconsistent with the principle of representation and popular control. But all that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted was to carry their Bill, no matter what it contained. [Cries of "Question! "] That was the question. Did hon. Gentlemen want to make this a practical reform, or to stick to a hard-and-fast rule and to refuse all Amendments simply because they were moved from the Opposition side of the House?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am surprised at the heat which the hon. Gentleman has introduced into the discussion. The Government have assented to several

    1113
    Amendments moved from the other side. I think I put the matter very fairly with regard to the present Amendment.
    Mr. W. LONG: It is not with the Government we are quarrelling; it is not with the President of the Local Government Board or with the right hon. Gentleman, who is courtesy itself, that we are quarrelling, but with the supporters of the Government, who invariably interrupt us when we are speaking—a course which, to say the least, does not tend to facilitate the progress or the Bill.
    Mr. HENEAGEsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool, that they had nothing whatever to complain of, either from the President of the Local Government Board or from his right hon. Friend now in charge of the Bill. Indeed, if these right hon. Gentlemen had been left in charge of the Bill the Committee would not have been discussing Clause 13 now, for it would probably have passed on Thursday last. The question now before the Committee was, What was the best term for which the trustees appointed by the Parish Councils should sit? In his opinion, the Amendment would secure two desirable objects; it would preserve continuity of policy, and would enable the Parish Council to change its trustees if it thought fit. The Government, by introducing Sub-section 3 into Clause 13, had entirely changed the Bill. They had imparted to the Bill a sectarian spirit which it would not otherwise have had—
    Mr. J. E. ELLIS: We are not discussing Sub-section 3 now.
    Mr. HENEAGEsaid, he was perfectly in Order in pointing out the effect which Sub-section 3 would have on the first elections of Parish Councils. Owing to that sub-section the men returned at the first elections would be returned on sectarian grounds in order that trustees of certain religious views should be secured for certain charities. But a good many of the men elected at first might be found to be not fit for the work, and those who elected them would be desirous of changing them at the first opportunity. Therefore, he was in favour of the proposal that one-half
    1114
    of the trustees should retire in three years, while continuity in the policy of the Board of Trustees was secured by the other half remaining in office for six years. If the Government saw their way to accepting the Amendment they would do much to get rid of a great deal of the friction which would be caused by Sub-section 3.
    Commander BETHELLsaid, the Vice President of the Council had stated that on account of the presence of co-optated trustees on, the trust, the three years' proposal of the Government would not matter much, so far as the preservation of continuity was concerned. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that the President of the Local Government Board had told the Committee on Saturday more than once that about 75 to 80 per cent. of the charities come under Sub-section 2, where, in certain cases, all the trustees left office and had their places taken by trustees appointed by the Parish Council. The right hon. Gentleman would, therefore, observe that in by far the larger number of cases the continuity of policy which he thought would be preserved by the co-optated trustees would not, in fact, be preserved. On the contrary, all the trustees, except the Vicar, possibly would have to leave office on the passing of the Act, and trustees elected by the County Council would take their places.
    Mr. H. L. W. LAWSONsaid, that the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool had made a most provocative attack on hon. Members sitting behind the Government, accusing them of a want of courtesy, and of attacking the trustees under the existing charities, which was not only uncalled for, but, to a large extent, utterly unfounded. He, himself, in discussing the present question, inside or outside the House, had never made any attack of that sort on the existing trustees, and exactly the same course had been taken by hon. Members who sat around him. They, therefore, had every reason to complain of the charges which had been levelled at them by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division—
    Mr. W. LONG: I did not make any attack on the hon. Member. I vas referring to the interruptions which pro-

    1115
    ceed from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. Whether he is one of them or not I do not know; but if he is not one of them, perhaps he might use his influence to prevent the interruptions .
    Mr. H. L. W. LAWSONsaid, there had been only one cry of "Question!" and on that the hon. Gentleman had founded an attack on hon. Members sitting on the Government Benches. With respect to the Amendment, he thought the best way to secure continuity of policy would be by the re-election at the end of the term of three years of the men who had done their duty. He was sure there would be no desire to throw these men on one side at the end of their term of office, and replace them by new men. The adoption of the Amendment to the Amendment would, in his opinion, introduce a very complicated and mischievous system.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that nobody denied that the Amendment would secure continuity of policy, and one reason which made its adoption more necessary was the mode of election of these trustees. They were to be elected all at one time and by the same body, and the consequence of a very small change of feeling on the part of the electors would be that the whole of the elected trustees would be thrown out and an entirely new body put in their place,
    Sir R. WEBSTERsaid, that hon. Members opposite had thought fit without the slightest necessity to attack the hon. Member for Liverpool. He had himself witnessed over and over again gentlemen sitting behind the Government Bench who had taken no part in discussing the Amendment. Members more or less connected with right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench called "Question" when there was nothing to quarrel with. He would ask hon. Gentlemen whether any hon. Member had brought a fairer judgment to bear on the Bill than the hon. Member for West Derby, who had again and again proposed Amendments for which he had been thanked by the President of the Local Government Board? With regard to the term of years, might they not arrive at some compromise? Speaking of schemes settled in the Court of Chancery, he
    1116
    rather thought six or seven years was the rule, but by way of compromise he suggested that five years might be accepted, with an arrangement that one-half of the trustees should go out at half the term.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am anxious to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am willing to accept four years as the term of office of the elected trustees, half the number to retire at the end of two years, this of course being understood to be subject to no technical difficulty being found to stand in the way later on.
    Mr. LEES KNOWLESsaid, he did not know why the Vice President of the Council should have suggested four years instead of six, considering that the practice of the Charity Commissioners, in cases where trustees were appointed by popularly elected bodies, was to make the term of office six years, and one-half of the trustees to go out at the end of three years.
    Mr. ACLAND: I offered four years because the late Attorney General asked for a compromise.
    Mr. LEES KNOWLESsaid, he thought that five years had been suggested by the right hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, and for his part he did not see why the term of six years should not be retained. In the last Report of the Charity Commissioners it would be found that it was provided that the trustees of the London parochial Charities were to be elected for six years, but that one of the two trustees appointed by the London County Council and the London School Board respectively—two popularly Elected Bodies—should retire at the end of three years. There was another precedent for the system proposed in the Amendment—that in the Local Government Act of 1888, of which the present Bill was the corollary. Under that Act the Aldermen of the County Councils were elected for six years, and half of them retired at the end of three years. He thought, therefore, it was highly desirable that the term of six years should be accepted, especially as the longer the term of office the greater would be the interest taken by the trustees in their work, while the provision for one-half the trustees going out of office at the end of three years would secure that

    1117
    overlapping of continuity which was most desirable.
    Mr. STOREYsaid, that before the hon. Gentleman who last spoke had got on his feet he thought the compromise had been accepted. But after that speech he thought the Government were right in saying that every compromise meant further discussion, though, indeed, he would make compromises with the hon. Gentlemen opposite, because he did not see any other way of getting on. The late Attorney General had proposed five years, but that could not be the term, as one-half the trustees would have to go out of office at the end of half the term.
    Sir R. WEBSTER: The Vice President of the Council did not accept the provision' for one-half the trustees going out of office.
    Mr. ACLAND: We do accept that provision.
    Mr. STOREY: If the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks for his Party, surely that is a very fair agreement to come to?
    Mr. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that if the Government accepted four years and two years he would agree to the compromise.
    Mr. ACLAND: We will take four years and two years.
    Mr. HANBURY: I think it will be necessary to provide some means by which half the trustees are to retire at the end of the two years.
    The CHAIRMAN: The best course is for the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment and move it again with the alterations.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    In line 5, to leave out the words "three years," and insert the words " four years, but of the trustees first appointed as aforesaid one-half, as nearly as may be, shall go out of office at the end of two years from the date of their appointment, but shall be eligible for re-appointment." —(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)
    Question, "That the words 'three years ' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Question, " That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. FISHER Mr. FISHER (Fulham) moved to amend the proposed Amendment—
    In line 8, by leaving out all after " charity," and inserting " founded by any single donor, living at the date of the passing of this Act, unless the consent of such donor has been obtained, nor shall it apply to the case of a charity founded by more than one donor until after the expiration of forty-two years from the date of the passing of this Act."
    He was sorry that owing to an unavoidable cause the President of the Local Government Board was away, because he could not help thinking that he would have been able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. At the same time, he had some hopes also of being successful with the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill in the plea he was about to make for a measure of justice to living donors, in order to secure that this should not be interfered with. The President of the Local Government Board had said—
    " It is a very strong measure to interfere with the wishes of donors whilst donors are living, or with the intentions of those donors who have passed away within a short time,"
    and the right hon. Gentleman had gone on to say that the only justification for such an interference would be to prevent the immediate perpetration of some public evil. Therefore, in the opinion of the President of the Local Government Board it was unjustifiable to interfere with the expressed intention of a donor whilst a donor was alive except on the ground of public policy. Then what ground of public policy could possibly be adduced for interfering with the intentions of a donor of a charity given, he admitted, for general parochial purposes, but a charity which when given was intended by the donor to be administered by those who were in religious sympathy himself? He would like to know also what ground of public policy would justify any interference in those charities, by which money which had been given by certain people still alive would be handed over to the Parish Council and directed from the purposes for which it was originally intended?. He had put down his Amendment, because he had not observed that the President of the Local Government Board, though he used this strong

    1119
    language, had put clown an Amendment to meet the case. He was not, however, particularly wedded to the Amendment, and he should be glad to accept any other Amendment which would cover his object. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government were prepared to enact that the clause should not apply to any property until after the expiration of 30 years from the date of the foundation, which would protect all existing interests. He had had a great number of letters from living donors on this subject, and these letters, unless the Government accepted his Amendment, would not be very pleasant reading to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he certainly thought it would be a very wrong thing indeed to interfere with the intentions of a gentleman, who was a Member of this House, who had given a charity for certain purposes. But owing to the foundation being for general purposes, under this Bill, if passed, that foundation would be taken by the Parish Council for the purposes of administration. But he was going to put a case to show that the 30 years would not cover all cases of real hardship. He had a letter from a gentleman who was formerly a Member of this House, and in that letter this gentleman stated that in the year 1862 he gave a considerable sum of money to the parish in memory of his father who had lived in the parish for many years, and had been one of the Churchwardens. This gentleman gave the charity on trust to the Vicar and Churchwardens, thereby intending that the administration of it should remain in their hands, as they were the persons with whom he was in religious sympathy. This gentleman wrote—
    "The 30 years have gone, and here, while I am alive, you allow the Parish Council absolutely to come in and take this charity, and they may—I do not say they will, but they are in a position to—divert this charity for other purposes than those which I intended."
    The right hon. Gentleman shook his head.
    Mr. ACLAND:.There is no power whatever to divert it.
    Mr. FISHERsaid, this was a charity left for almshouses to be administered by the Vicar and Churchwardens, and no doubt—and he saw no harm in it—they
    1120
    would give a preference to Church people. ["Hear, hear!"] Hear, hear! but why should they not? It was left in memory of a father who was a Churchman and a Churchwarden; but he presumed that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who probably detested the Church of England, thought it monstrously unfair that a member of the Church of England in honour of his own father should leave a charity to be administered by people of his own Church, and that though all creeds might be admitted, a preference would be given cœteris paribus to those who were members of his own Church. Would not the minister and deacon of any other body do the same? What pharisaism it was to pretend the contrary! It was only human nature, and no honest man could deny it. The limit of 30 years would not meet this case. But why was it to be 30 years? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) laughed. If the right hon. Gentleman ever had the generosity to leave, which might be doubted, any money to a charity— [" Order, order! "] Why did the right hon. Gentleman laugh? [Cries of "Withdraw!"] He would not withdraw. Why did the right hon. Member laugh? He had received many letters from donors who thought they were doing a great injustice, and it was not a laughing matter to them. Surely, apart from their religious views, they were entitled to some sympathy. There was no precedent for 30 years; but there was a precedent for 42 years, that being the period under which Municipalities were allowed to undertake certain improvements, and not being able to find any other precedent he had proposed to amend the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment by putting in the term of 42 years. Even in the case of the precedent he had found the Municipality, at least, paid for the venture, it would have to pay a fair price, but under the proposal of the Government they were to take the charity and put it after 30 years in the hands of men who might, at all events, apply it to totally different purposes to which it was intended. All he would say was that these living donors were extremely incensed at the proposal that was made by the Government. They said, and it was a reasonable contention, that where

    1121
    these bequests were of ancient date, though they might have been given to the Vicar and Churchwardens, there was some ground for presuming that those gifts, although given to the Vicar and Churchwardens, were not intended to have any denominational administration, but in the case of living donors they might at least ask them as to what their intentions were when the charity was given. He said they ought to respect that form of religious belief, and they would otherwise not only be doing a great injustice to the living donor but would dry up the springs of charity. There would be scores of persons who would not in years to come give any charities of this kind. The would point to neighbouring parishes where the Parish Council had given a different application to a charity, and they would say, "No; we will keep the money in our pockets; we are not going to give money which under this Act may be diverted from the particular purpose we desire." The Government were striking a deadly blow at the interests of the poor by infringing this principle. After the words used the other night by the President of the Local Government Board, he hoped they would accept his Amendment, or that they would accept one that would embrace a wider area, such as that of the hon. Member for Wigan (Sir F. S. Powell.) He, therefore, moved his Amendment in the hopes of covering all cases of hardship, and to respect the opinions of living donors who considered that their intentions should not be interfered with, except on the grounds of public policy.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    In line 8, to leave out all after "charity, and insert" founded by-any single donor, living at the date of the passing of this Act, unless the consent of such donor has been obtained, nor shall it apply to the case of a charity founded by more than one donor until after the expiration of 42 years from the date of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Fisher.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. ACLANDsaid, the hon. Gentleman moved on Thursday night an Amendment which corresponded very much with the present proposal. The hon. Member had made no
    1122
    specific reference to the latter portion of his Amendment, and in its present form the Amendment was not one which the Government could accept. The Amendment provided that the section should not apply to
    "a charity founded by more than one donor until after the expiration of 42 years from the date of the passing of this Act."
    MR. FISHERsaid, he meant living donor, and he quite agreed that the word "living" ought to have been put in.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, that in the course of the Debate on Thursday upon the Amendment which was now brought up again, the President of the Local Government Board recognised to some extent the principle which the hon. Member raised, and though his right hon. Friend said that he did not believe in the principle of variable lives, he undertook to move the insertion of words that the provision of this section with reference to trustees should not apply to any charity until the expiration of 30 years from the date of the foundation thereof. The Government by inserting the words he had himself moved had therefore gone a long way to meet the point upon which hon. Members felt so strongly. The hon. Gentleman had alluded frequently to the term of 30 years, and practically he believed it covered the whole of the hon. Gentleman's case—["No, no!"] If it covered the life of the living donor, it would certainly cover the whole of the hon. Gentleman's case. At any rate, the Government went a long way towards meeting the the case of the hon. Gentleman. There were one or two other points he wished to allude to. The hon. Gentleman had confined himself to a single donor, but did he really think they required a clause dealing with a single donor, and excluding, it might be, two sisters, or, say, two or three members of a family who jointly desired to found a charity? The moment they did that, they got into the question the Prime Minister pointed out of a large number of donors who might be subscribers whom it would be difficult to get at. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Charity Commissioners regarded the attempt to deal with donors in the way proposed by the Amendment as attended with the most serious administrative difficulties,

    1123
    and that was the reason why preference was given to a term of years. The hon. Member spoke of diversion several times, and did so in such a way as to suggest that to some extent he was under a misapprehension. This clause applied only to the appointment of trustees, and diversion by them in the legal sense would be a breach of trust. He admitted the force of the case put by the hon. Member up to a certain point. The hon. Member did not quote the case of an ecclesiastical charity, which would not come under the Act, but he quoted a case of money left for the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish, not for the benefit of members of the Church of England. The hon. Member said it would only be human nature that the Vicar and Churchwardens should give a preference to members of the Church. Although that might not necessarily be a breach of trust, yet he could imagine cases in which it would come proximately near to a breach of trust if the number of members of the Church of England was comparatively few, and there were many members of other bodies, and the charity was left for the benefit of all. If the charity was for the benefit of the members of a particular body, then it could not be diverted at all, in the sense in which the word was ordinarily used, without a breach of trust. Where the donor had narrowed the charity in the matter of administration, but not of preference, it might be slightly varied as between one set of people and another. The question seemed to be narrowed down to the difference between 30 years and the life of a donor, and, having regard to great administrative difficulties, the Government felt that, in making a concession, they had strong grounds for preferring a term of years.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHthought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not attached sufficient importance to the variation which a new body of trustees might make in administration, though acting legally in the terms of their trust. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House had alleged outside the House rather than in it that the present trustees had administered these trusts unfavourably to persons who
    1124
    were not members of the Church of England, and surely they on that side of the House, while not admitting the fact to be true in the past, might consider that a variation in the trustees might lead to a variation in the trusts unfavourable to those who were members of the Church of England. The point they really had to deal with in discussing this Amendment was what the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had practically admitted to be the equities of the case. The right hon. Gentleman explained that in the view of the Charity Commissioners the Amendment of his hon. Friend would; be practically unworkable, and he had put before the Committee that the terms of 30 years was not in the mind of the Government an unalterable term, and that an extension of that term might probably cover the cases of the living donor. The right hon. Gentleman had in his mind, for instance, the Amendment placed on the Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Sir F. S. Powell). Fifty years would, he supposed, in practice cover all cases of the living donor, but what he wished to call the attention of the House to was that from one point of view the Amendment proposed by the Government was better for them than the proposal of his hon. Friend. The proposal of the Government practically exempted all charities whether founded before or after the passing of this Act for a period of 30 years from their foundation, whereas the proposal of his hon. Friend only exempted charities founded by any donor, living at the date of the passing of this Act, for a certain period. From his point of view the importance of this matter went somewhat beyond either the Amendment of Her Majesty's Government or that of his hon. Friend, because what was to be the effect of this clause in the future. The effect of the clause as proposed to be amended by the Government was that any charity founded after the passing of the Act, as well as any existing charity which was not more than 30 years old, would be exempted for that time from the date of its foundation. But suppose that a donor founded a charity after the passing of the Act, he would be face to face with this position: he would know that he could only

    1125
    entrust his charity to private trustees, or, being a Churchman, to the officers of his own Church for a period of 30 years, and that after that period the trustees would be outvoted by a majority appointed by the Parish Council. A donor might wish that a charity should be in the hands of persons belonging to his own Church or denomination, to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants of a parish. That would be exactly what he would not be able to secure. How could he do it? He could not do it by leaving it, as had been the practice hitherto, in the hands of the Churchwardens of his Church or of trustees privately nominated by him. He could only do it by making it an ecclesiastical charity, or, in other words, confining his benefaction to members of his own Church or denomination instead of giving it generally to the inhabitants of the parish. Would that be for the advantage of the parishioners at large? He could not imagine that hon. Members on either side of the House would desire to narrow in that way the possibility of charity in the future. By the legislation the Government were now proposing they would drive persons who would give or leave money in charity from devoting it for the purpose at all, or they would drive them to devote it to purposes which, under this Bill, would be called ecclesiastical. The hon. Member for Sunderland approved of the idea that persons should be deterred from giving or leaving money in charity at all, and the Prime Minister the other day laid stress upon the view that these benefactions were utterly mischievous. He was quite certain that was not the view of the pariehioners in the rural parishes, but the last thing they would wish would be that donors should be deterred by legislation from leaving money for the general advantage of the parishioners in future, whether by way of doles or in any other way. If the Government were unable to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend—and he confessed that it did not, from his point of view, cover the case—what he would suggest was that they should adopt the term of years proposed by the hon. Member for Wigan, and also add at the end of the clause the words—
    "Or to any charity founded after the date of the passing of this Act."
    1126
    He believed if they did not insert some provision of this kind the result would be found out before very long by those very persons in the rural parishes they desired to benefit, to be most mischievous to them as absolutely stopping the flow of charity to the rural parishes, or confining it solely to what, under this Bill, would be held to be ecclesiastical purposes for the benefit of one Church or denomination.
    SIR R. TEMPLE, in supporting the Amendment of the Member for Fulham, greatly regretted that the Government did not seem inclined to listen to the powerful appeal that had been made to them by the right hon. Member for Bristol. He ventured to assure them that if the clause passed in its present form there would be a number of influential persons in all the villages of England who would feel a sense of rankling injustice. There might be a ground for interfering with the arrangements made by those who were dead, though he did not admit it; but to interfere with the arrangements made by the living was nothing short of naked and undisguised spoliation; it was interference with public rights and confiscation of what was virtually private property. As to what had been said as to the term of years, he would point out that 30 or even 42 years would not cover the living donors; 50 years, as proposed by the hon. Member for Wigan, would be necessary for that purpose. He hoped Churchmen on his .side of the House would adopt a more just and generous attitude towards their Nonconformist brethren than they seemed to be inclined to adopt toward Churchmen in this respect. He earnestly hoped the Government would think twice before they passed this matter as it stood at present, for if they did it would not be allowed to rest here, for he and his friends would exhaust all the forms of the House in their resistance to what they considered to be rank injustice.
    MR. STOREYwas one of those who believed that all charity by , way of doles was pernicious. What the poor in. the North of England needed and demanded was not charity at all, but justice, and when justice had perfect sway there would be no more need for

    1127
    charity from either side of the House. As to the Amendment, he wished to point out how little was the matter they were now disputing about. In this matter of charities, they on that side had surrendered all ecclesiastical charities and all parochial charities which applied to more than one parish. Might he represent to his hon. Friends that in surrendering they had surrendered all the future? because everybody could see that if he wanted to leave a benefaction to his parish in the way of dole (which was not likely) all he had got to do was to leave it to his parish plus two or three houses in the next parish, and then immediately his benefaction would be out of the Bill for evermore. If that be true, there was he, a living man, who did that the day after the Bill passed, and there on the other side was a living man who gave a benefaction a year ago, and they refused to that man, living, the right to say how he intended that benefaction, and by whom he intended it to be applied. He could not accept for himself what was not given to others. Having gone so far it was not worth while to waste time over such a miserable point as that on which the Committee was disputing. He thought the Government might adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bristol leaving out the provision that the Bill should not deal with any charity founded after the passing of the Bill.
    MR. TOMLINSONobjected to the proposal of the Government to exempt charities for 30 years from their foundation. That meant that every charity which had been founded for something less than 30 years would carry on its work until the .30 years expired with a rope round its neck. His view was that if they put a period of years in, it should be not from the foundation of the charity, but from the passing of the Act, and if it was fixed from the passing of the Act, it gave a definite period in which people would have time to ascertain what was best to be done. For his own part he should not feel so strongly on this matter if dole charities alone were concerned. But that was not the case. The charities which it was most important to preserve were the parish rooms, which had been built by Church people, out of Church
    1128
    money, but which were to be excluded from the category of ecclesiastical charities. These rooms had been founded by and at the cost of Churchmen, not in any narrow sectarian view, but for the moral and social improvement of the parish in which they lived, and the principal ground upon which he felt so strongly about the clause was that the effect of the Bill would be to deprive the Church of the control and management of these parish rooms.
    MR. ACLANDwould like to ask of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol or some responsible Member of the Opposition if there was a fair prospect, if the Government made a compromise on the term of years, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fulham would be withdrawn. If the Government were willing to make a concession going beyond a generation of 30 years might they hope to get the matter settled?
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, of course he had no power to bind anyone, but he would suggest that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan was accepted, and the Government added at the end of section the words—
    "nor any charity founded after the passing of this Act,"
    the object which his hon. Friend had in view would be met.
    SIR F. S. POWELLhoped the hon. Member for Fulham would withdraw his Amendment. He believed the best course to adopt was to fix upon a definite term of years.
    MR. FISHERobserved that the Amendment on the Paper of the hon. Member for Wigan, fixing "fifty" instead of " thirty," years did not meet the case of the living donor at all, but he would withdraw in favour of that Amendment if the words suggested by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol were added.
    MR. COURTNEYsuggested that the Government might arrive at an agreement with the Committee by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, if there was a fair prospect of settling the question the Government would be perfectly willing

    1129
    to split the difference as to the term of years, and accept 40 instead of 30. He hoped that that offer would be accepted as a reasonable compromise.
    SIR R. WEBSTERdid not think it necessary to import the split-the-difference argument into this discussion, which, after all, was not founded on much reason. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, although he could not accept the addition about future charities, that if this Amendment were withdrawn he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan. [Mr. ACLAND: No.] He thought they might fairly ask for that, term of years which would practically give them the donors charity for the longest term.
    MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid, there were two points to be considered—the case of living donors, and the case of non-living donors. It seemed to him the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would only cover cases of donations made within recent years by non-living donors, and would, not cover gifts of which the donors were living. It was most important to deal with the case of living donors. The point might be very well met if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the first part of the Amendment after the word "single" as far as the word "obtained." This would meet the case of the living donor. It would then read—
    "Any charity founded by any donor living at , the time of the passing of this Act, unless the consent of such donor has been obtained."
    When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, he said that the proposed Amendment did not include the case of two sisters, joint donors; but, if the word "single" were omitted, that point would be met, and the case of living donors would be covered. It was not a question of a term of years —30, 40, or 50. He (Mr. Knowles) did not care what length the term fixed upon was, as long as they provided for living donors. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the first part of the Amendment, they could discuss the question of the term of years afterwards. The matter was, after all, extremely simple.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought he observed signs in various parts of the House that the Committee desired to come to some conclusion upon this rather difficult question. They (the Opposition) held that 30 years was too short a period in which to leave undisturbed the wishes of a deceased donor, and that it would be better to make the period 50 years. [Cries of "No!"] He thought that would meet the wishes of the House. [Cries of "No!"] Well, that was his suggestion. Then, the living donor certainly deserved some consideration. An unfortunate man who, out of public spirit had given his worldly goods for a public object, and should see his gifts diverted by the Legislature to some other purpose [Cries of "No!"]—who should see it administered by an alien machinery, would certainly deserve commiseration. What he would suggest was that they should have a period, be it 40 years or 20 years, during which a living donor's charity should remain undisturbed, and that this period ought to begin from the date of the passing of the Act. Then the living donor who had given his money 10 or 20 years ago for a public purpose would know that from the time of the passing of the Act he would stand in the same position as if he had only given his money at the time of its passing. He did not know whether he had made this clear to the Government, but he thought he had, and he was sure the House would be satisfied if his suggestion were adopted.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would be agreeable to a fixed period of 50 years. He would meet him for adding 10 years to his previous offer, and he would, therefore, say 40 years after the passing of the Act.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID): Will the right hon. Gentleman bring up the words? Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?
    MR. FISHERsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was now concurred in, as he understood it was, by his friends, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "thirty," and insert the word "forty."— (Mr. Acland.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he would suggest that the following words should be added at the end of the Government Amendment:—
    "Or in the case of charities founded by donors living at the time of the passing of this Act until the expiration of 40 years from the passing of this Act."
    He begged to move these words: "That those words be there added."
    MR. ROBYsaid, in the case of a donor who founded, a charity 40 years ago and who was still living, is it intended that he should have 40 years more?
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, such a donor was protected by the words.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. BOUSFIELD: Sir Julian Goldsmid—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Does the hon. Member desire to do anything?
    MR. BOUSFIELD: Yes, Sir. I wish to move to add words to those just agreed to. These words would not apply to one case—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. Member can propose nothing until the Amendment, as amended, has been added to the Bill.
    Amendment, as amended, added to the Bill.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, he desired to add words—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order! There are a number of Amendments on the Paper, and they must be taken in their order.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Without questioning your ruling, Sir, I might venture to point out that, as I understand it, my hon. Friend wishes to move a separate sub-section to follow on after the words that have just been added.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me the words?
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, certainly; they had been rather hurriedly drawn up, but he desired that they should be added. They were—
    "Nor in the case where the disposition of the trust is in the absolute discretion of the first trustees during the lives of such first trustees or of the survivors or survivor of them."
    This Amendment was intended to meet such a case as he had personal knowledge of, as where a large sum of money had been left by will for the benefit of a particular parish to certain trustees named in the will, the nature of the trust not being mentioned in the will, but disclosed to the trustees during the lifetime of the donor, and the way in the which they should spend the money being left to the discretion of the trustees. He did not think that case would be met by the words already added.
    MR. MELLOR, having returned to the Chair, asked if the hon. Member would be good enough to bring up the words?
    MR. BOUSFIELD: Certainly, Sir.
    Question proposed, " That those words be there added."
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he sympathised with the object his hon. Friend had in view, but he must recollect that the arrangement just come to was a compromise between gentlemen holding somewhat different feelings on the question, and the essence of a compromise was that each party should give up something. The Government had already made a substantial concession, and he would ask his hon. Friend to recognise the fact that they (the Opposition) were bound to pay them back.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, under the circumstances, he did not wish to press the Amendment; but the subject-matter of it suggested itself to him as a practical point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MAJOR DARWINsaid, he begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Droitwich (Worcester) Division (Mr. R. B. Martin), who was absent. The Amendment was—
    In page 10, line 41. at end, insert—" (6) No member of a Parochial or District Council shall,

    1133
    so long as he occupies a seat thereon, or for 12 months afterwards, receive either for himself, his wife, or child, any share or participation in any dole or charity of which he by virtue of his office shall be a trustee."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ACLANDsaid, it would save time and trouble, perhaps, if he would point out that the Government were willing to insert words of their own to meet the case referred to.
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he had also an Amendment on the Paper on the subject.
    MAJOR DARWINsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment which he had moved.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add, as a new sub-section, the words, " (6) Whilst a person is a trustee of a parochial charity he shall not, nor shall his wife or any of his children, receive any benefit from the charity."—(Mr. Acland.)
    Question proposed, " That those words be there added."
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, there was just one point — the limitation during the time of trusteeship only. He thought it was desirable the Amendment should be extended in that respect, and he would suggest that they insert, after the word "charity," the words—"and for a period of 12 months afterwards."
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, those words had been considered by the Government, and they had not thought that they were words which ought to be inserted in the Amendment. There was no such imposition of a retrospective disability on a trustee who had ceased to act as trustee in the case of any other charities. The trustees appointed under this Bill might be poor people. A man might meet with a disaster in life and become an object of charity. The man might resign his trusteeship in consequence; and, if he did, why should he be the only person in the parish who should not receive some benefit from the charity?
    SIR R. WEBSTERthought it was important in the interests of economy and the right distribution of the charity that some stronger safeguard should be introduced in the sub-section, and that the term should be longer than that proposed
    1134
    by the Government. He begged, therefore, to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment—
    After the word "charity," to insert the words, "and for a period of 12 months afterwards."
    Question put, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 150.—(Division List, No. 378.)
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, it appeared to him that the Amendment of the Government hit the wrong man. They were preventing trustees from receiving benefits for themselves and their families, but the ordinary Common Law of the land said that a trustee should not make a profit out of his trust. The man they wanted to hit was the person who appointed the trustee. He, therefore, proposed to embrace within the scope of the Amendment
    "The member of the Parish Council who appointed the trustee."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    After the word "trustee," to insert the words, "or the member of the Parish Council appointing the trustee."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he should like to ask whether the hon. Member would treat a, member of a Town Council in the same way as he now proposed to treat a Parish Councillor?
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSON: All Councillors who appoint trustees.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he did not think it was necessary for him to argue this matter. It would not be desirable to adopt a special disqualification, which would apply in the case of a man who would hold office at intervals, it might be of four years or two years. He could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there was no application in the right hon. Gentleman's allusion to Town Councillors, because he was not aware that they, in general, had the right to appoint trustees of charities. They were conferring a new right in the case of the Parish Councillor. When a

    1135
    new right of this kind was conferred on Town Councillors then would be the time to provide a disqualification in their case.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he had no desire to discuss the clause as a whole at any length, but it was far too important to be allowed to pass into the Bill without comment. During the Second Reading Debate the Government declared that they had no intention of dealing with ecclesiastical charities, or of touching in any way the operations of the Church of England. But that principle had been seriously infringed. In fact, the Church had been treated in a way in which no other religious denomination had been treated. Other Religious Bodies were allowed to keep their charities in the hands in which they had been placed, but this was not the case with the charities of the Church, on which great injustice had been inflicted. During the progress of the Bill it had over and over again been stated that those interested in the Church considered that one of the most valuable charities or means of influence "which of recent years had been adopted in the parishes was that of parish rooms. Well, if the clause now stood as it did when originally brought in, and the donors of the parish rooms had been allowed to retain the control of them in the persons they had appointed as trustees, a great part of his objection to the clause would have been removed. The Opposition had a right to hold that the Government should have yielded on this matter, and should not have taken away both the Churchwardens from the trusteeship of these rooms, whilst charities belonging to other denominations were left untouched. The Solicitor General had argued that the Churchwardens had a civil as well as an ecclesiastical function, and therefore they should be divested of everything which could not be called in the strictest sense ecclesiastical. That was considered by Church people a great hardship and injustice. It was said that they had no right to complain, because the Parish Councils would not use their influence adversely to the wishes of the founders. If that were so what reason
    1136
    was there for changing the trustees? He hoped that the Committee would divide on the Question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that before they parted with this clause, which had been and was so very interesting, he should like just to say a few words. The section was left in such a condition that it could be held up as a model of confusion and contradiction. A week ago they were going on swimmingly, when, arriving at Clause 13, there was a fresh Amendment sprung on the Committee. There had been nearly a week's discussion on it, and there was now hardly anything of it left. He trusted that the hon. Member for Rugby would remember that he had been the means of exhausting several days of the time of the Committee with little or no practical result. Whatever results there were, indeed, would be of a mischievous character. What would it do? It would have the effect of largely increasing the number of ecclesiastical charities, because liberal-minded donors, who would be quite willing to leave charities or make bequests for the general benefit of the parish, would now be induced to leave their benefactions directly to the Church. Another result of the clause would be to produce friction and bad blood in the parish. He was much obliged to the Government for dropping the 4th subsection, which sought by a side wind to largely extend the powers of the Charity Commissioners. He was glad that in consequence of the opposition which was threatened, and certainly would have been carried out to the bitter end, the Government had consented to drop the sub-section. It must not be forgotten, however, that they intended to do this great injury to the rural districts. The Government sought to make it appear that they were anxious to place the management of local charities in the hands of parishioners, and that the Opposition had been preventing them from doing it. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; that, no doubt, was the object; but after spending or wasting a week's time over it, that object was not yet secured. Then there was the unjust proposal which the Government endeavoured to force on the Committee, that while they permitted any other religious denomination to leave

    1137
    charities to their ministers and the stewards of their respective chapels, they denied that right to the Church. The result of that would be, as he had stated, to increase ecclesiastical charities. It would not be difficult to show the object the Government had in view in wasting time, and for the sake of which they threw over the President of the Local Government Board and violated every pledge they had given on the Second Reading. They had not gained much by their electioneering tactics of tickling the ears of the parishioners. The clause as it stood would give the parishioners less and do them more injury than in the form in which it was originally introduced.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, but I desire briefly to express my view of the proceedings which have occupied the last five days. The discussion of this clause began on Tuesday last. It lasted Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and up to the present hour to-night. Hon. Gentlemen opposite regard that as a very great waste of time. ["Hear, hear."] But who, may I ask, is responsible? There is a parallel to what has occurred on this Bill, and the parallel is to be found in the measure proposed by the late Administration for conferring local government on the counties of England in 1888. If any hon. Gentleman will look back at the Bill he will find that it then took just about the same time to get through the same amount of business as our discussions on this Bill took up to Tuesday last. If there was any complaint made of the undue length of time that was taken up on this occasion that complaint must react with equal force against hon. Gentlemen on the other side. On Tuesday our proceedings began to drag more slowly. Was there anything in the action of the late Government like that which has characterised the action of the present Government with respect to this Bill? Let the Government take warning by the length of time they took to force through the Amendments introduced in absolute breach of the most solemn pledges. I recollect that 1888 the Government of that day, rightly or wrongly, against the will of their own supporters—almost the unanimous will of their own supporters
    1138
    —adhered to the proposal they had made that the management of the police should be vested in a Joint Committee. Suppose they had acted like the Government opposite and broken their word and departed from their solemn obligations, and bad kept the police in the charge of the Quarter Sessions, what course would have been taken by gentlemen opposite? I do not believe that the Bill would have been allowed to take the form of law. We should have been accused of a scandalous abandonment of public pledges and public faith. No pledges were ever given in more clear and specific language than those of the present Government, and never were pledges more shamelessly abandoned, without excuse and without justification, without a shadow of cause, without any motive we can discover, except that the right hon. Gentleman's supporters from behind made it very inconvenient, and that his colleagues beside him made it more inconvenient still to keep them. With no other motive than that the Government came down, and in the face of their own speeches made not many weeks before, threw over every pledge they had made. The Government have been treated well. Never has a Government carrying out such a policy been treated with such leniency. Unless they take this lesson to heart, and treat us with the unflinching honesty of purpose which has been usual with Governments on both sides of the House, the passing of this Bill will become absolutely impossible. We agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill because we were told that it would not spoliate the Church, and that the principle was one we could assent to. Then, after having obtained our assent to the Second Reading, the Government in Committee, without warning, changed the whole complexion of it in relation to the Church of England. I am not going to add another word to what I have said; time forbids it. But I feel that I should have failed in my duty if I had not expressed briefly, but I trust not obscurely, what I think of the action of the Government.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 90.—(Division List, No. 379.)
    It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    RAMSGATE HARBOUR.
    Copy presented,—of Statement of the Receipts and Payments made by the Board of Trade for the year ended 31st March, 1893, and Account of Stores [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANK (MONEY ORDERS AND TRANSMISSION OF WAGES).
    Accounts presented,—of Deposits received and repaid during the year ended 20th November, 1892, and Statements as to Money Orders issued and paid from 1855 to 31st March, 1893, and as to Receipts and Payments in connection with the Transmission of Seamen's Wages from 1878 to 31st March, 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    EAST INDIA (CONTRACT LABOUR).
    Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 5th December; Mr. Schwann]; to lie upon the Table.
    MOST - FAVOURED - NATION CLAUSES (COMMERCIAL, No. 17, 1893).
    Copy presented,—of Return of Most-favoured-Nation Clauses in existing Treaties of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Foreign Powers, stating the period when terminable, and showing whether they apply to the British Colonies, in force on the 1st August, 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    TREATY SERIES (No. 17, 1893).
    Copy presented,—of Agreement between Great Britain and Germany respecting Boundaries in Africa. Signed at Berlin 15th November, 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    SIAM (No. 1, 1893).
    Copy presented,—of Despatches from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris relative to the Agreement between Great
    1140
    Britain and France for constituting a Neutral State between their Possessions in Indo-China [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, No. 1,318 (Peru) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
    Copy presented,—of Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest, No. 310 (Chile) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    MANUFACTURE OF CHINA AND EARTHENWARE.
    Copy presented,—of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Potteries Committee of Inquiry on the Conditions of Labour in Potteries, the injurious effects upon the health of the workpeople, and the proposed remedies; with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Tables.
    LEAD.
    Copy presented,—of Report from the Departmental Committee on the various Lead Industries; with Minutes of Evidence, Appendices, and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    CHARITIES (COUNTY OF LONDON).
    Return ordered, " showing those of the Charities applicable exclusively within any parish or other subordinate area within the County of London, the Trustees of which have omitted during the five years ending on the 25th day of March, 1893, to transmit to the Charity Commissioners Copies of the Annual Accounts of the Charities, as required by Law, giving in each case the names and addresses of the Trustees of those Charities so far as known to the Commissioners."—(Mr. Howell.)

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"— (Mr. Marjoribanks,)—put, and agreed to.
    House adjourned accordingly at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.