Commons Sitting of 20 July 1897

QUESTIONS.

  INCOME TAX.
  MR. F. W. FISON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any reason why the benefits of the Act 18 and 19 Vict., c. 35, under which, in making Income Tax Returns, persons who have insured their lives, or contracted for deferred annuities with friendly societies, are authorised to deduct the amount of the premiums paid for that purpose, should not be extended

  557
  to railway servants, who, under the terms of any Superannuation Scheme sanctioned by Parliament, have made the like provision; and whether Her Majesty's Government could undertake legislation to extend the provisions of the above Act accordingly?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I have had this matter under consideration. I understand that in the Superannuation Scheme to which the hon. Member refers there is usually a provision for repaying to members, in certain circumstances, the whole of their contributions in a lump sum, and I do not see my way to proposing any legislation to allow persons to deduct from their assessable incomes annual payments to a fund to which any such regulation applies.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the report of the Inspector of Industrial Schools in Ireland, vide Report for 1893, page 17, also Report for 1896, page 12, as to the unsatisfactory results obtained from the working of the industrial school ship Grampian, at Belfast, as shown also in Parliamentary Return, No. 256, of 26th June 1896, on Industrial School Ships for five years; (2) whether lie is aware that of 320 boys discharged in five years ending 1895, only 48 were considered fit for sea life; (3) whether he is aware that lads are sent to this ship who are constitutionally wholly unfitted to be trained as sailors, and that the Naval Officer is quite powerless in the matter of rejection of such lads which the committee direct him to receive; (4) whether he is aware that the ship could receive double the number of boys now assigned to her, and if worked on proper principles could train numbers of good lads for the Mercantile Marine belonging to Belfast; and (5) will he apply to the Admiralty for the services of the Inspecting Captain of Industrial School Ships under the Home Office, that he may inspect the Grampian and report upon the class of boys placed on board for training and upon the adequacy of the training staff for the
  558
  work to be done, in order that the ship may do really efficient work in return for the large outlay incurred, and that unsuitable boys for sea training may be sent to the less expensive shore industrial schools and only healthy lads received on board the Grampian?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): My attention has been drawn to the Reports and to the Return referred to in the first paragraph. The facts are correctly stated in the second paragraph. As regards the third paragraph, I may observe that the standard of fitness required for admission to the Grampian is physical fitness for industrial training. Children committed under the Industrial Schools Act, especially those in a large manufacturing centre like Belfast arc, in many instances, neglected waifs with strong hereditary, taints, and such children, as a rule, are not fitted to be trained for a seafaring life. The Naval Officer has no voice in the matter of the admission of children. The ship could accommodate double the number for which it is licensed; but the vessel, I understand, is very old, and considerable outlay is entailed in keeping her habitable. I do not think any advantage would be gained by adopting the course suggested in the fifth paragraph, in view of the fact that the Executive Committee in charge of the Grampian have resolved unanimously to give up the vessel and provide accommodation for the lads on shore, for which, I believe, plans have already been prepared.

  CRETE.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why the proclamation of the Admirals to the people of Crete, on 11th February 1897, is signed by Admiral Harris as "English Rear Admiral," and why "Angleterre" was used instead of "Grande Bretagne."
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): If the hon. Member will turn to page 11 of the Paper (Turkey No. 9) recently presented to Parliament, he will find that the Proclamation of the Admirals in Cretan waters was signed in the translation by Admiral Harris, as

  559
  Rear Admiral in command of the British Naval Division.
  DR. CLARKsaid that if the hon. Gentleman would turn to page 11 of the Report on Turkey No. 9, he would find that the proclamation was signed by Admiral Harris as Rear Admiral, and that instead of it being signed by him on behalf of Great Britain, it appeared to have been signed on behalf of England.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that what happened is this: that the Secretary of the Committee of Admirals, who drew up the minutes of the matter, filled in the title of English instead of British Admiral.
  DR. CLARKsaid that the matter required some explanation, as there had been an illegal use of the term "English Admiral." If the hon. gentleman would read the proclamation, he would see that the various Admirals were distinguished as belonging to their various countries, but in the case of the British Admiral, it was given as the English Admiral. That was an illegal use of the term.
  MR. R. PIERPOINTasked whether there was any adjective in the French language which was the equivalent of "British?"
  [No answer was given.]

  ARMY ESTABLISHMENTS.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War to what extent the heavy cavalry, Royal Artillery, and infantry of the line quartered at home are now below their respective establishments; and, whether, as regards the infantry of the line, none are sent to the Mediterranean stations unless they are twenty years of age and have completed twelve months' service in the Army?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): On the 1st July the heavy cavalry were five, and the infantry of the line quartered at home were 1,389 below their establishment. The artillery were 179 above their old establishment, but 706 below the establishment to be reached by the 1st of April, 1898: Soldiers are sent to the Mediterranean irrespective of age, provided they have had three months service.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD - FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will furnish a Return giving particulars of the batteries and battalions present at Aldershot on the 1st July, showing the number of all ranks in each battery and battalion, the present establishment, the number of men and horses which under existing regulations will be left behind in the event of the battery or battalion being sent to India, and the number which will be required to raise each unit to war strength; the Return to relate to any day during the mouths of June or July which it may suit the convenience of the War Office to select for the purpose?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State will not object to give a Return showing for each battery and battalion which was present at Aldershot on the 1st July, the effective strength, the establishment, the number who would have to be left at home on account of length of service if the unit were ordered on war service, and the number which would be required to complete it for war service; but in addition some would have to be left behind as medically unfit. The number could only be ascertained by a medical inspection of all the men concerned; and this the Secretary of State is not prepared to sanction.

  PRISON WARDERS (PENSIONS).
  MR. J. G. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether his attention has been called to the question of the pension of warders who were attached to the prisons at the time of the commencement of The Prisons Act, 1877; (2) whether, prior to the passing of that Act, such warders were in many cases entitled to receive from the local authorities a pension of two-thirds of the amount of their salary; (3) whether in consequence of the interpretation placed by the Treasury on the Prisons Act, 1877, such warders are now in many cases in receipt of pensions considerably less than they would have received from the local authorities if that Act had not passed; (4) whether such a result is in accordance with the provisions of The Prisons Act, 1877, which provides that the officers attached to the prisons at the

  561
  time of the commencement of that Act should hold their offices by the same tenure and upon the like terms and conditions as if that Act had nut passed; and (5) whether Her Majesty's Government propose to remedy this state of affairs by legislation or otherwise?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool); The answer to the first and third paragraphs of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second that the warders were not entitled to a pension at the two-thirds rate, though in many cases the local authority, who had a discretion in the matter, actually gave pensions at that rate, The power of awarding pensions to (officers transferred under the Act of 1877 was intrusted to the Treasury, who held when the question came up for consideration that they had no power to award a higher rate of pension in respect of any service under Government than that allowed by the Superannuation Act, though they have consented to so much of the pension as was in respect of the years spent in the local service and was payable from local funds being calculated at the local rate, provided the local authority agreed. This decision has been uniformly acted upon by the Treasury for nearly 20 years, and I am not prepared to reopen the question.

  REPAIR OF HIGHWAYS.
  Mr. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a rural district council is liable to repair all highways, as defined by 5 and 6 Will. IV. c. 50, which had been maintained b the previous district highway hoard up to the date of its dissolution on the passing of The Local Government Act, 1891?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): When the powers of a Highway Board have been transferred to a Rural District Council under Section 25 of the Local Government Act, 1894, the District Council are bound to maintain any highways which the Highway Board were bound to maintain.

  ROYAL ARTILLERY.
  GENERAL LAUR FE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the proposed separation of the lists of Officers of Field and Garrison branches of the Royal Artillery will he carried into effect; whether, in the meantime, anti just after it has been decided to largely augment the force of Garrison Artillery, it is a fact that non-commissioned officers and gunners of the Garrison Artillery have been lately transferred to complete Field and Mountain Batteries sent on service; and whether, if such transfers have taken place, he will state what number of men have thus been taken from each of the Garrison Companies of Royal Artillery, and to which Batteries they have been posted?
  MR. BRODRICK: The detailed arrangements for the separation of officers of the Royal Artillery into mounted and dismounted branches are not yet completed, and the date for final separation cannot at present be stated. No noncommissioned officers or men have been lately taken from the Garrison Artillery to complete Field Batteries, but the Mountain Batteries are a branch of the Garrison Artillery, and when a Mountain Battery was recently sent to Crete, 100 men were detailed from ten garrison companies to strengthen the depot at Newport.

  MERCANTILE MARINE DESERTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the number of desertions from their ships while abroad of seamen of the Mercantile Marine approaches 14,000 in the year, and that the balance of forfeited wages (under Sections 221 and 232 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894) amounts to a considerable sum, and should be paid into the Exchequer; what have been the payments into the Exchequer under this heading in each of the last two financial years; and whether the administration of the property and wages of deserters in the Mercantile Marine could be carried out on some plan similar to that adopted in the case of a deceased seaman, and thus advantage the National Exchequer?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE, Croydon): I am aware of the large number of desertions from British ships abroad, but have no means of ascertaining the amount of deserters' wages which remain unpaid at the date of desertion, as masters and owners are not required to make any return of such wages. Such wages can only be forfeited by a court of law on the prosecution of seamen for desertion, and such prosecutions are now exceedingly rare. Any forfeitures under Sections 221 and 232 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, would be received by the Treasury on account of the Exchequer, and not by the Board of Trade; but I am informed that the Treasury are not aware that there have been any payments into the Exchequer under this heading during the last two financial years. Power to administer the property and wages of deserters on a plan similar to that adopted in the case of deceased seamen could only be acquired by legislation, and as seamen do not often desert when they have any large amount of wages due to them, and as some provision (as in the present law) would have to be made to compensate owners for losses and expenses consequent on their desertion, it is not probable that much advantage would be derived for the Exchequer from such legislation.

  ORDNANCE FACTORIES (FOREIGN VISITORS).
  MR. J. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if it is a fact that an expert officer in the service of a foreign Government was recently shown the process of filling shells with high explosives by a highly placed official in the Ordnance Factories; if such a proceeding is in conformity with the provisions of the Official Secrets Act; and, are corresponding facilities for obtaining important information granted to British officers by officials in the Government factories of Foreign Powers?
  MR. BRODRICK: The process referred to is a dangerous one, and is not, therefore, shown to ordinary visitors, but it is not secret, and the Official Secrets Act did not come in question.
  MR. GRETTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that information as to this process was systematically withheld from officers in the British Service?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir: I am not aware that such is the case, but I will make inquiries into the matter.

  ASPHALTE PAVING.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Vestry of St. Margaret and St. John resolved on the I4th instant, by a majority of seven, that French workmen should pave Victoria Street with French asphalte, in defiance of the petition of upwards of 300 ratepayers in that street, and of the whole of the omnibus proprietors and drivers plying through it; and, if, having regard to the unanimous opinion of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that such road paving is, by reason of its slippery character, dangerous to the public and cruel to horses during the eight damp and frosty months of the year, there is any moral or administrative influence he can bring to bear to restrain the Vestry?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have communicated with the Vestry since notice was given of this Question. They have not passed any resolution as to the nationality of workmen to be employed on the work referred to. No tender of the French Asphalte Company has been accepted. A memorial against the use of asphalte, signed by nearly 300 persons, was presented to the Vestry; but there are 1,092 rated occupiers in the street, and the owners of some of the principal blocks of property in the street have expressed themselves strongly in favour of the proposed work. The material to be used in the work has been in use for many years in Cheapside, Queen Victoria Street, Newgate Street, Holborn, and many other thoroughfares where the traffic resembles very closely that of Victoria Street; and I have no authority whatever to interfere in the matter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in some places like Leicester Square, where

  565
  asphalte has been long in use, it had been given up on account of the danger it had involved?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

  OMAGH ASSIZES (JAMES AND THOMAS MAGUIRE).
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on Thursday last, at the late assizes in Omagh, the Counsel for the Crown applied that the trial of James and Thomas Maguire should be adjourned until the next assizes, on the ground of the impossibility of having them tried again at the present assizes, and that Thomas Maguire was not put on his trial at the late assizes; (2) whether, seeing that that assize was for gaol delivery, it is proposed to keep Thomas Maguire in gaol in view of the fact that he was not tried; and (3) whether, in view of the fact that James Maguire has now been tried four times and Thomas three times, and have been acquitted in Belfast on the charge of murder, and that the only charge against them now is the charge of larceny, the Crown will immediately order the discharge of both prisoners?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. Thomas Maguire was not put upon his trial owing to the fact that the prisoners refused to join in their challenges and the number of jurors attending the assizes was not sufficient to enable them to be tried separately. Immediately on the termination of the trial of James Maguire, Counsel representing the Crown, when applying for an adjournment by my direction, stated that the Crown would consent to the discharge of both of the prisoners on their giving moderate bail for their appearance to come up and take their trial on getting notice, and the Judge accordingly made au order to the effect that the prisoners should be discharged on giving hail themselves in £50 and two sureties in £20 each. I have no reason to think that the prisoners cannot get bail to this amount, but should this turn out to be the case, the Government will take the
  566
  matter into consideration with a view of releasing them from further confinement.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the last paragraph of his Question. He wished to know whether the Crown really proposed to proceed further, and to try these men, who had already been tried one three times, and one four times, and who had been acquitted on the main charge. Did not the right hon. Gentleman consider that to try them again would be a case of persecution?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: No, Sir, I do not consider that it would be a case of persecution to try them again. If the men do not procure bail the matter will be considered by the Government. Of course if they do procure bail they will be released at once.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that Thomas Maguire had been untried at the recent gaol delivery, and therefore he wished to know whether he was not entitled to be discharged unconditionally.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: No, Sir, certainly not.

  PRADO MACHINE GUN.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has received a report as to the merits or otherwise of the Prado machine gun, to which the attention of the War Office had been drawn by Mr. Tankerville Chamberlayne; and if so, whether any further action in the matter is contemplated?
  MR. BRODRICK: A report on the Prado machine gun has been received, but it is not considered desirable to take any further steps with regard to it.

  GERMAN CARRIER PIGEONS.
  MR. JAMES ROCHE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the German War Department recently sent to this country over 1,000 carrier pigeons for the purpose of practising them in flights from this country to Germany for the service of the German War Department, the first of which flights took place from Dover on Saturday last; and whether,

  567
  if the English War Department desired to carry out similar manœuvres from the German shore, they would be permitted to do so by the German authorities?
  MR. BRODRICK: This question has not been lost sight of. The laws of Germany throw impediments in the way of flying foreign carrier pigeons in that country.

  ARMY MEDCIAL MESSES.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Secretary of State for War will be in a position to carry out the intention expressed by the Under Secretary when the Army Estimates were introduced last February of affording assistance to form Medical Messes at the large stations?
  MR. BRODRICK: Messes for medical officers have been established at the principal stations. The Secretary of State will be prepared to consider any case in which it may be represented that a Mess is still required.

  STORNOWAY MAIL STEAMER.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will take steps to continue the sailing of the mail steamer from Stornoway to Strome Ferry at 11 p.m. instead of at 1 a.m.: and, is he aware that the steamer leaving Storno-way at 11 p.m. arrives at Strome Ferry in time for the first train south, namely, 6 a.m., while on the other hand the delay resulting from the 1 a.m. sailings causes great inconvenience and loss to the population (30,000) of the Island of Lewis, and is seriously detrimental to the business of the merchants of Stornoway and to the fishing industry generally?
  THE SECRETARY TO THsE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): During May and June the mail steamer is timed to leave Stornoway for Strome Ferry at 11 p.m., for the rest of the year it leaves at 1 a.m. As the vessel is not due at Stornoway for Strome Ferry until about 9 p.m. and is occasionally later, a departure at 11 p.m. leaves but a very short interval at Stornoway between the arrival and
  568
  the departure of the vessel for the transfer of cargo from and to the ship and for coaling purposes, and the contractor is not willing that the period during which the departure takes place at 11 p.m. should be extended. The Postmaster General is aware that the 11 p.m. departure secures, as a rule, a connection with the 6 a.m. train from Strome Ferry to the south, but a continuance of this arrangement throughout the year is not at present practicable.

  NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the National Telephone Company insist upon their subscribers paying for the telephone service during the time (sometimes months) that there is practically no service whatever owing to some fault in the company's system; and, whether steps will be taken to protect the public from such extortion?
  MR. HANBURY: The subscribers of the National Telephone Company, equally with those of the Post Office, have to pay for their telephone notwithstanding the fact that the service may be interrupted owing to a fault in the system. The Postmaster General has no knowledge of any action on the part of the company which can be characterised by the term used by the hon. Member, and in any case it is a matter between the company and their subscribers, in which the Department is not in a position to intervene.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it was in order for an hon. Member to characterise by the use of the word "extortion" the state of facts mentioned in his Question?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The fact that the hon. Member thinks it is extortion, as I presume he does, would not make it in order to characterise the state of facts as such on the Paper, and it is not a proper phrase to use in a Question. ["Hear, hear!"]

  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, seeing that an animal subjected to a true

  569
  anæsthetic such as chloroform is insensible to pain, will he state whether there is any reason why the use of curare in the practice of vivisection should not be forbidden, especially in view of the fact that an animal under the influence of curare has been held by the highest authority, Professor Claude Bernard, to be acutely sensible to pain, notwithstanding the fact that it is so paralysed by the drug as to be unable to express its pain by sound or struggle?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: As I hive already stated, I am satisfied that curare is not used as an anæsthetic. There are cases however in which its use, along with the anæsthetic, is indispensable for the success of the investigation; but its use does not make the anæsthetised animal sensible to pain.

  BELMULLET UNION (FEVER OUTBREAK).
  MR. D. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Belmullet Board of Guardians, in their efforts to cope with the outbreak of fever in the union under their control, have had, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, to engage an extra doctor, eight trained nurses, and three local nurses; (2) will he explain on what grounds the Local Government Board inspectors, specially sent down front Dublin to investigate the nature and extent of the fever outbreak in the Belmullet Union, have called on the local Guardians to engage yet another doctor and to provide a further shed for nursing purposes on the island of Inniskea; (3) whether this additional demand has been complied with; and (4) what is the nature of the latest reports which he has had to hand of the fever epidemic in the Belmullet Union?
  MR. GERALD BAULFOUR: The Guardians, acting upon the advice of their Medical Officer and of the Local Government Inspectors, have engaged the services of an additional medical practioner for the special purpose of attending the fever patients on the island. Four trained and two local nurses are also employed attending these cases. With regard to the second paragraph, it appears that Dr. Lavan, the Medical Officer of the Workhouse Fever
  570
  Hospital and of the Binghamstown Dispensary District, was summoned to attend the Assizes at Castlebar. The Guardians were bound by the regulations of the Local Government Board to appoint a substitute during Dr. Lavan's absence, and this they have done. The additional shed was required to enable the convalescent fever patients to be separated from the sick; but this proposal of the Board has not been complied with by the Guardians. There are now 18 cases of fever and five cases under observation on the island. Seven of these patients have been removed from their homes to the temporary hospital on the island. No deaths have occurred from fever since the nurses took charge. The latest report as to the condition of the two sick nurses and two other cases of fever in the Workhouse Fever Hospital at Belmullet is favourable.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has now sufficient official information in his possession, as Chairman of the Local Government Board of Ireland, to say what will be the extra cost to the Belmullet Board of Guardians as a consequence of the outbreak of fever in the Belmullet Union; whether he can state exactly how much in the pound the ratepayers of the union are called upon at present to pay in the shape of county cess and poor rates combined, and whether he can say if the Local Government Board officials have formed any estimate as to the rate in the pound that must be struck at the end of the financial year in September?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The cost of the fever outbreak, to the beginning of last week, amounted to £156. This sum included all additional expenditure such as the cost of fitting up sheds, salaries and travelling expenses of doctor and nurses, and cost of relief, etc. The average poor rate over the entire union amounted to 3s. 11d. in the pound last year. I am making inquiry as to the incidence of the county cess. The Local Government Board are not yet in a position to form at, estimate of next year's rate.
  MR. CRILLYsaid that in connection with the question he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was true that Mr. James Mills, the chairman,

  571
  and three other members of the Belmullet Board of Guardians, had already resigned their membership of the Board, and that a special meeting of the Board had been called to accept the resignation of the remaining Guardians, so that the responsibility for the whole affairs of the Belmullet Union would be cast on the Local Government Board, and in that case whether the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he was taking any steps—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer. The hon. Member had better put his Question down for another day.

  MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF IRELAND.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any communication, at any time, passed between the Government and the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland as to the ability or readiness of the Great Western Railway Company to maintain a line of railway from Ballina to Belmullet in case the line was constructed at Government expense; and, if communications of this kind ever so passed, would he state their nature, and say if the Great Western Company have refused definitely to work such an extension of their existing system if it were constructed and equipped by the Government?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A railway from Ballina to Belmullet was under consideration in 1890. The communications that took place at that time between the Government and the Midland Great Western Railway Company were personal between the Secretary to the Treasury and the chairman of the company, but in the result, while the railway was constructed between Ballina and it was not continued to Belmullet. No intimation has reached me, either from those locally interested in the construction of a line or from the railway company, that the latter would be prepared to work and maintain a line, even if constructed and equipped out of public funds.
  MR. CRILLYsaid that, in view of fact that the House of Commons had authorised the construction of this line, and that it had been constructed out of
  572
  moneys provided by that House, and that it had been handed over to the Midland Great Western Company of Ireland, he should like to ask whether there was no opportunity or chance of discovering what the financial position of the company was in respect of this line?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the present line of railway from Ballina to Killala was constructed, a few years ago, out of moneys specially voted by Parliament, and after construction was offered to, and taken over by, the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland; and (2) whether he can inform the House what has been the financial gain or loss to the Railway Company as a consequence of accepting this gift of a free Government extension of their existing railway communication with North Mayo?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Midland Great Western Railway Company offered to construct, work, and maintain in perpetuity the line from Ballina to Killala in consideration of the payment by Government of a capital sum of £44,000. There are no means of ascertaining the information referred to in the second paragraph, as the company do not keep a separate account for this line.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he introduce a Bill in the ensuing Session of Parliament to prohibit pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary from taking part in sectarian processions or demonstrations, and to prevent Irish courthouses from being used for party purposes?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see no necessity for introducing Bills of the nature indicated in the Question.

  QUARRY BANK (MINING OPERATIONS).
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any report has been made to him with respect to the dangerous condition of the

  573
  dwelling houses of people resident at Quarry Bank; and whether any terms have been arranged in satisfaction of the damage done to the homes and properties of surface owners by the mining operations carried on by the proprietor of the collieries in question?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I find that in the report of the Medical Officer of Health of tie' district—a copy of winch has been furnished to the Local Government Board—there is an incidental reference to the subject, but I have no information as to whether terms have or have not been arranged. The matter is not one in which the Local Government Board have any jurisdiction.

  PLATTERS ROCK, HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what negotiations are now pending as to the removal of the Platters flocks in Holyhead Harbour; and when it is proposed to commence the work of removing the rocks?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have been and still am in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject, of the importance of which I am fully aware. I am not, however, yet in a position to say what the result of the negotiations will be.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had any information as to when the result of the negotiations would be announced?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid that I cannot say exactly when that will be.

  HOWELL'S CHARITY.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will direct or advise the Charity Commissioners to submit an amended scheme for the administration of Howell's Charity, with the view of rendering the existing endowments more available and beneficial for the education of girls in North Wales?
  THE FIRST LORD OF TILE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): As I understand the matter, the Government have no right to put the Charity' Commissioners in motion, nor
  574
  have they that right even if the Charity Commissioners could take the initiative in these schemes under existing legislation with regard to educational endowments in Wales. I do not think that the Government has anything to do with these schemes until they come before the Lord President of the Council in the ordinary course after they have been settled by the Charity Commissioners.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the South Africa Committee will be in the hands of Members?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I believe that in the ordinary course the evidence would not be available until early in August, but I will make inquiries and see whether its production can be hurried on in view of the Debate which in all probability will take place on Monday, although that day has not been actually allocated to the purpose.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSasked whether the evidence had not been printed from day to day?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not acquainted with the details of the management of these things, but I understand I hat the matter has to be remade up and reprinted for circulation.

  CYPRUS (GRANT IN AID TO).
  MR. DILLONasked the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposed to take the Vote for the grant in aid to Cyprus, which was postponed the week before last that it might be discussed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should be glad if an opportunity arose for the discussion of the Vote, but the condition of Supply is such that I cannot make any promise on the subject.

  WATER SUPPLY (BERMONDSEY).
  MR.CUMMING MACDONAsaid he desired to ask the President of the Local Government Board a Question of which he had

  575
  given private notice—whether he was aware that some of the residents in Bermondsey had been for the last three days (13th, 14th, and 15th inst.) without any water from the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company for household, sanitary, and factory purposes; and whether the local vestry had any power in the matter so as to compel this water company to provide a continuous supply of water for local purposes; if not, would he introduce a new clause in the Bill now before the House to that effect?
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Before that Question is answered, may I, Mr. Speaker, draw attention to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel, that questions affecting the individuals of the corporations should not be asked on private notice? ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: This Question has, I am told, been on the Paper, and notice of it has been given.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: But it has not been asked. [Cries of "Order, order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I quite agree that as a general rule in Questions of this kind notice should be given to persons affected by them. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Question did appear on the Paper, and it was at my request that the hon. Member postponed it. If the House desires I am prepared to answer it now. I have communicated with the company, and from their reply it appears that there were 5 or 6 isolated cases of complaint on the 13th, 14th, and 15th inst. I shall be happy to show my hon. Friend the statement which I have received from the company. As regards the particular case with respect to which a letter was forwarded to me by my hon. Friend, I may state that I am informed that the cause of the trouble originated from some person—not in the service of the company—having shut the private stop cock cock supplying their premises. No new clause such as that suggested by the hon. Member will be required, in my opinion, in the Bill now before the House for the object which he has in view. If that Bill is passed in its present form, it will give full powers to the vestry to institute proceedings against the company in precisely such a case as this if they are of opinion that there has been a failure on the part of the company to comply with the statutory requirements.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]
    [Progress, New Clauses, 13th July.]
    MR. JAMES CALDWELLmoved the following new clause, which stood on the Paper in t he name of Mr. HARRISON (Plymouth):—
    COMMENCEMENT OF ACT.
    This Act shall not come into force until the thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight.
    He said that this Amendment was suggested by the reply the Attorney General made to a new clause which he moved in Committee. He pointed out that a person might be under contract to provide new goods from abroad, and as the contractor might not be able to produce evidence that these goods were not made in foreign prisons, the officials of the Customs House would prohibit their importation. The answer of the Attorney General was that the importer of goods from abroad could protect him self by a clause in the contract. It was obvious that the importer must have the opportunity of putting that clause into the contract. The Bill would come into operation the moment it was passed, within the next few weeks, and as contracts were made on the faith of the existing law it was right that the contractors should have a reasonable opportunity of putting this new clause into their contract. Besides, the importer of goods from abroad should have time to discover whether or not the goods were made in foreign prisons. He was bound to have evidence for the Custom House officials that the goods were riot made in prisons, and proper time should be given him to obtain that information.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,)said that hon. Gentlemen Opposite regarded the Bill as an evil. They

    577
    thought there was no reason why English workmen should be protected from the competition of foreign prison-made goods. They thought the importation of foreign prison-made goods was an advantage, and they gladly opened their arms to that importation. Members on the Government side of the House regarded the Bill from a totally different standpoint. They considered that the importation of these goods was an evil, that it was an unfair competition with our people, and, holding that opinion, the Government could not possibly assent to a Motion which would postpone action under the Bill for nine months, when in the meantime the home markets would be flooded with prison-made goods. He did not believe there would be any of the disadvantages to contractors winch the hon. Gentleman seemed to apprehend. If a contractor could not get his goods from free labour abroad he would he able to get all he wanted in this country. This was no new matter. Every one had had full and fair warning that a Bill of this kind would be introduced.
    MR.T.LOUGH: When does the Bill come into operation?
    MR. RITCHIE: As soon as it has received the Royal Assent.
    MR. LOUGHsaid that surely some notice ought to be given to the importer. If nine months was too long, then let it be six months. The louse had been told that regulations would be laid down by the Commissioners of Customs, and the trades concerned ought to have an opportunity of becoming familiar with them before the Bill came into operation. Goods introduced for personal use, and not for sale, were not to he stopped; yet that might be most unfair to British labour; as, for instance, if a miller were to order 2,000 sacks for his own use.
    MR. G. W. WOLFFsaid that as to goods in transit, the Government had declined to amend the Bill until the Report of the Committee on the Merchandise Marks Act had been received. That Report could not be completed before the Bill came into operation, if there were to be no delay, and then amendment would be impossible.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid that he had made it quite clear that whether the Report of the Committee was or was not read an Amendment would be introduced to deal with the ease of goods in transit.
    SIR EDWARD GOURLEYasked whether the Bill applied to goods made in the prisons of Indian native States.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid that the Indian Government had been communicated with, and they offered no objection to the Bill provided that carpets made in Indian prisons might be introduced if they were not for sale.
    MR. J. CALDWELLsaid that he was not arguing in favour of the admission of prison-made goods, but in favour of the bonâ fide importer, who, although possessing the clearest evidence that his goods were not prison-made, might not be able to collect it in the time available.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid that it was not the importer who had to prove that his goods were not made in prison, but it was for others to prove that they were.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had not read his Bill. The Commissioners were to "have evidence." A hint would be given to the Commissioners that certain goods were prison-made, and the importer would then be required to prove the opposite. If a drastic Measure of tins kind were to be adopted the Government ought to allow notice to the importers.
    MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid that it was perfectly clear from the Debate that the President of the Board of Trade had made up his mind to pass this Bill without any Amendment, however reasonable and well-supported such Amendment might be. The right hon. Gentleman said that if Amendment were necessary, he would bring in an amending Bill as soon as possible.
    MR. RITCHIE: I never said anything about an amending Bill. The language of the Bill has to be extremely guarded, and therefore. I preferred to introduce the Amendment in another place.
    MR. DALZIELsaid that that was not so satisfactory as words: agreed to across the floor of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had said that everyone knew of and expected this Bill. But if traders had made arrangements according to the pledges made by irresponsible candidates at the last General Election, a good many of them would have been disappointed. It was usual for a Bill to take effect on the 1st January after it passed, and it was a new precedent to provide that the Bill should come into operation at once.

    579
    Contracts were made for six or nine months, and many contracts made under the existing law would not have time to run out before the Bill came into operation. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he expected the chief information about the importation of prison-made goods from our representatives abroad. How could they get that information in the time available?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONdeclared that the only conclusion which could be drawn from the Government's refusal to accept the Amendment was that they either believed the Bill would practically be a dead letter, or they wanted, by refusing to make any alteration, to avoid the Report stage. He believed it was unprecedented, except in the case of a financial Bill, where obviously the Act ought to come into force immediately the Queen's Assent was given, to make a Measure operative at once. A Finance Act was different, because if an interval were allowed, the goods on which taxation was to be levied would be imported during the interval in order to escape the new duty. ["Hear, hear!" from Sir H. VINCENT.] Ho understood the cheer of the hon. Member, but it was idle to suppose that a large amount of prison-manufactured goods would be introduced between the time the Bill was passed and its coming into force. Germany could not produce a larger amount of those goods than under present conditions, so that the delay would not encourage importers to bring in an extra amount of those goods.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: —Ayes, 87; Noes, 182.—(Division List, No. 309.)
    MR. LLOYD MORGANmoved the following new Clause:—
    RIGHT OF APPEAL.
    "Where the Commissioners of Customs have detained goods under this Act, the importer of such goods may apply to the County Court of the district wherein the goods have been detained in a summary manner, according to rules to be made under the County Courts Act 1888 to determine whether the goods so detained by the Commissioners are proved to have been made or produced wholly or in part in any foreign prison, gaol, house of correction,
    580
    or penitentiary, and the judgment of the Court m such question shall be final and binding on the Commissioners of Customs."
    If the Government were unable to adopt this Amendment here, he hoped that they would see the necessity of adopting the clause when the Bill reached another place, because it seemed to be fashionable now to reject Amendments in the House of Commons in order to give the House of Lords an opportunity to do a little work. It would not do to assume that this Bill would be a dead letter, and inoperative as soon as it passed. The House was bound to assume that everything would be done to see that the law was obeyed, and that the provisions of the Act were carried into force. It would thus be the duty of the Commissioners to take all precautions to prevent the importation of foreign prison-made goods. They would have to inquire minutely into every question of this kind and give a decision. The attention of the Commissioners might be called to a consignment of goods which was alleged on behalf of the Custom House authorities to be made in some foreign prison. Immediately the Commissioners would hold an inquiry and take evidence; but the Bill did not say what kind of inquiry should be held, or what kind of evidence should be taken. They were not bound by any rules of law with regard to the evidence they took. Thereafter they decided the question, but there was no appeal. The Commissioners had unfettered discretion in the matter, and the importer had no means of protecting himself. It was not fair to say that an importer could protect him self by means of a contract, because questions of law would arise as to where the contract was made, and whether the exporter was to be sued in a foreign country or here. The new clause would facilitate this matter and give protection to bonâ fide goods.
    Clause read the First time.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)thought that the hon. and learned Member must have expected to find that his clause was inconsistent with the Bill, and that there was not very much chance of its being accepted. According to the

    581
    scope of the Bill, the Commissioners would decide on certain materials which would satisfy any business man as to whether the goods had or had not come from a foreign prison. It was not proposed that the proceedings before the Commissioners should be fettered by the legal and technical rules of evidence. No sensible man, in the conduct of his affairs, would conduct them by the legal rules of evidence; if he did, he would soon become acquainted with the Bankruptcy Court—before many years were over. The Commissioners could satisfy themselves by letters and documents and other evidence as to whether the goods came from a foreign prison. It was proposed, however, by this clause to give from the decision of the Commissioners an appeal to a Court of Law, and that the burden should lie on the Commissioners to establish in a Court of Law, according to legal rules of evidence, that the goods had been made in a foreign prison. This would create a state of affairs totally inconsistent with the enactment in the Bill, while the clause would tend very much to hamper the action of the Commissioners.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Solicitor General must have misapprehended the constitutional question involved in the new clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that in this country people ought to be satisfied with the decision of the Commissioners given on evidence brought to their notice in the most informal way, and that a citizen should not have an appeal to a Court of Law in order to protect his rights. No man was bound to take the absolute decision of a Government Department which deprived him of his legal rights as a citizen. For the first time the Government were introducing a novel principle and interfering with a constitutional right.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought that the answer of the Solicitor General afforded the strongest reason in favour of the new clause. They had tried to get some guarantee that the evidence on which the Commissioners would act would be sound and trustworthy, and not a mere letter from a rival competitor. They did not care two straws as to how much prison-made goods were stopped; they wanted to see them stopped; but they did object
    582
    to the checking of trade in trying to do this. Their desire was to prevent the Custom House authorities from acting without fair consideration and on the mere assertion of some one. If they were going to allow the Solicitor General's suggestion that a Custom House officer was to act on a letter, there could be no doubt that grave injustice would be clone to lots of people who were perfectly innocent of attempting to import prison-made goods, or to do anything but carry on his trade in the most legitimate manner possible. The Solicitor General's remarks proved how serious were the proposals of the Government, and how much needed this proposed clause was. ["Hear, hear!"] He therefore hoped the Motion would be pressed to a division.
    MR. DALZIELsaid his hon. Friend, in the presentation of an important argument, had gone a little too far in his assertion that hon. Members on that side of the House were in favour of the principle of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] That was an opinion expressed in a moment of enthusiasm [laughter, and "Hear, hear!"]—which was hardly justified. It seemed to him that the Solicitor General had laid down a peculiar doctrine when, speaking as one of the heads of the English Bar, he told them that goods might be forfeited and contracts upset, and that everything might be done, not on the mere contents of a letter, but on what he termed evidence unfettered by legal rules. It was certainly a strange doctrine that a man's goods might be forfeited and that no opportunity should be given him to explain that they were not made wholly or in part in a foreign prison, and therefore not liable to forfeiture. He urged that the proposed new clause was a very reasonable one, and ought to be accepted. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that it was possible for a mistaken decision to he given by a Commissioner. It might be given on incomplete evidence supplied by our representatives abroad, which might be supplied at a moment when there was no opportunity for the real proprietor of the goods to give information. But when once the decision had been given, there was to be no appeal, and the goods were to be forfeited beyond recovery. That seemed to him to be a very harsh proceeding. There was to be no appeal even in the case of delay, before

    583
    the goods were actually forfeited, the owner could not appeal to any summary Court to get them set free; and it might be the case that the contract for delivery could not be completed and the contractor found himself cast in heavy damages simply because of a mistake on the part of the Acting Commissioner. Therefore the proposal of his hon. Friend was a most reasonable one, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would alter his mind even now, though he was afraid there was not much hope. He trusted, however, that he would consider the argument which had been advanced, and give effect to them by an Amendment in another place. If only in recognition of the efforts the Oppositon had made to improve the character of the Bill—[laughter]—and to assist the right hon. Gentleman in passing what he, at all events, regarded as an important Measure—[laughter]—he ought to give them some small compensation and thus show, after all, that he realised the value of their assistance. [Laughter.]
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be Read a Second time."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 100; Noes, 189. (Division List, No. 310.)
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be Read the Third time To-morrow.

    METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
    [Progress, 14th July.]
    Clause 2,—

    METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.

      POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO AID WATER CONSUMERS.
      A local authority may aid any water consumer in obtaining the determination of any question which appears to the local authority to be of interest to water consumers with respect to the rights, duties, and liabilities of any of the metropolitan water companies, or otherwise with respect to the supply of water given and the charges made by the metropolitan water companies; and may take such legal
      584
      proceedings as appear to the local authority necessary or expedient for the protection of the interests of water consumers with respect to the matters aforesaid.
      MR. CHAPLINmoved to add at the end of the clause,—
      "A local authority aiding any legal proceedings under this section may, if the Court thinks fit, be made a party to the proceedings, and shall be liable for costs accordingly."
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid this was the most important clause in the Bill—in fact, the only clause of value. He wished to know how far is would be operative in cases of deficiency of water supply which were not due to the fault of the consumer and perhaps not actually due to the fault of the water company. The other day there was a deficiency in one of the metropolitan parishes which was due to certain climatic causes, and more recently still there had been a case where the deficiency was due to some fault in the pipes, for which fault some outside party was responsible. If the companies would be liable under this Bill for deficiencies due to causes of that kind, the Bill would be of some value. The inconvenience caused in such cases could seldom be assessed pecuniarily, because there was generally no actual monetary loss caused by the deficiency. But the inconvenience caused was nevertheless very real, and some remedy ought to be provided. He wished to know, therefore, whether, when there was a deficiency which was not directly due to the action of a water company, the ratepayers were to have any redress?
      MR. CHAPLINexplained that the object of the clause was to enable local authorities to support private individuals in cases where a water company had disregarded any of its statutory duties. When there had been any breach of a statutory duty, complaint could be made to the local authorities, and the ratepayer who made the complaint could then be supported by the power and influence of the local authorities. The Railway Commissioners would have to judge whether there really had been a breach of statutory duties, and if they held that there had, they could exercise their powers, which were considerable, to compel the performance of those

      585
      duties. He did not doubt that this power which was to be given to the local authorities would be a great and important weapon for compelling the due performance by the companies of their statutory duties.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 3,—

      EXTENSION TO WHOLE WATER AREA AND ADAPTATION OF METROPOLIS WATER ACTS.
      The Metropolis Water Act 1852, and the Metropolis Water Act 1871 shall, as respects the metropolitan water companies, extend to the whole of the area within which any of the companies is authorised to supply water, and for the purpose of the said Acts as so extended, reference to that area shall he substituted for references to "the metropolis" and "the limits of this Act," and as respects any area outside the administrative county of London a reference to the council of a county or county borough shall be substituted for a reference to the metropolitan authority, and so much of the said Acts or of ally local Act as is inconsistent with such substitution shall be repealed.
      SIR JOHN BRUNNERmoved after the words "any of the companies is" to insert "or may hereafter be."
      MR. CHAPLINsuggested that the words "for the time being" would be preferable.
      SIR J. BRUNNER, by leave, withdrew his Amendment.
      MR. CHAPLINmoved to insert the words "for the time being."
      Amendment agreed to.
      SIR J. BRUNNERmoved after "be," the penultimate word of the clause, to insert "and is hereby."
      Amendment agreed to; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 4,—

      DEFINITIONS.
      In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
      The expression "metropolitan water companies" means the water companies specified in Section three of the Metropolis Water Act 1871.
      The expression "water consumer" means any person who is supplied with water
      586
      by any of the metropolitan water companies, or who pays or is liable to pay any money charged by any of those companies, for or in respect of the supply of water, whether under the name of rent, rate, or otherwise, and includes any householder or owner or occupier of a house entitled to make a communication with the mains or pipes of any of those companies.
      The expression "local authority" means the council of any county, borough, or district, the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the City of London, and any vestry, district board, or local board of health in the county of London.

      SIR J. BRUNNERmoved after the words "Metropolis Water Act I871," to insert the words,—
      "namely: the New River Company, the East London Waterworks Company, the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company, the Company of Proprietors of the West Middlesex Waterworks the Company of Proprietors of Lambeth Waterworks, the Governor and Company of Chelsea Waterworks, the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, and the Company of Proprietors of the Kent Waterworks."
      He explained that the object of his Amendment was to obviate references to the Act of 1871.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. CHAPLINmoved to insert after the word "companies,"—
      "provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the terms of any agreement between a water company and a water consumer as to the supply of water."
      MR. LOUGHasked for an explanation of the Amendment. It appeared to him that its effect would be to neutralise sonic of the advantages which consumers hoped to derive from the Bill. Very few people understood the water companies' agreements. He had never been able to understand his.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid it must be evident to the Committee that it was desirable that any agreements entered into between the water companies and consumers should not be affected by the Act.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought the Amendment might be carried out to such an extent as to reduce the advantages which the Bill gave to consumers. He had many agreements brought to his notice

      587
      in which the water companies tied their consumers hand and foot in many ways, and he did not think such agreements ought to be exempted from the operations of the Bill.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid he was afraid he must adhere to the Amendment, but he thought hon. Members opposite might rest assured that the Amendment would entail no hardships on consumers.
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid that in his opinion the operation of the Bill limited—as it was in its present form—would be still more re stricted if the new clause were adopted.
      MR. F. G. BANBURYsaid he understood the clause was to apply only to agreements for the supply of water to farms, hotels, and hospitals. It was not to apply to agreements to supply water in the ordinary sense for domestic uses, and if a consumer thought that by continuing an agreement with the company he would be deprived of any advantages of the Bill he could terminate that agreement.
      MR. JAMES STUARTasked whether the operation of the clause would be restricted to agreements made before the Act came into operation. [Cries of "No, no!"]
      MR. C. J. DARLINGsaid it was clear that the clause would apply not only to existing agreements but to any agreements that might be entered into in the future, and if it were not restricted to existing agreements he should vote against it.
      *MR. EDMUND BOULNOISsaid that so far as the water companies were concerned they would not object to the insertion of words in the clause limiting it to existing agreements. The clause only applied to agreements with large corporations, hotels, hospitals and public baths and wash-houses and unless it was inserted in the Bill, such. agreements might be disturbed. He moved to insert after "agreement" the words "existing at the time of the passing of this Act."
      Amendment amended by inserting after the word "agreement" the words "existing at the time of the passing of this Act."
      MR. LOUGHsaid it was something gained that the clause should apply only
      588
      to existing agreements, but the Amendment had not entirely removed his objection to the clause. It seemed to hint that the object of the clause was to introduce a contracting-out clause. The Bill created an authority to whom consumers with a grievance against the water companies could appeal, and now it was proposed that any agreement made between consumers and companies should stand between the consumers and that authority. He thought it was not right that those agreements should be excluded from the benefits of the Act.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he could not understand why the Government persisted in this Amendment. If an agreement was favourable to the consumer he ought to have the opportunity of bringing it up before the Commission with a view to seeing that it was carried out.
      Question put,
      "That the words 'Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the terms of any agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between a water company and a water consumer as to the supply of water' be there inserted."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 196 Noes, 104.—(Division List, No. 311.)
      On the question "That the clause, as amended stand part of the Bill,"
      MR. ERNEST GRAYasked whether the words just added would prevent any consumer who was taking a supply of water under an agreement from approaching the new Court.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid that the words would not have that effect, because they referred to agreements outside the statutory duties of the Company.
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 5,—

      SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT.
      (1.) This Act may be cited as the Metropolis Water Act 1897.

      (2.) This Act shall come into operation on the first clay of November next after the passing thereof.

      MR. WARNERmoved to leave out "November" and to insert "September."
      MR. CHAPLINhoped that the Amendment would not be pressed, as he was advised that some time was necessary for the new tribunal to make its preparations. If the Bill came into operation as soon as the hon. Member desired, the ordinary tribunals of the land would not be sitting.
      MR. WARNERsaid that this new Court was not one of the ordinary tribunals, and it would have no preparations to make. Besides, ample time for consideration would be given, because no case could come before the Court until some weeks after the passing of the Bill.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said that practically nothing could be done by the new tribunal before November. It would, moreover, be necessary for the Commissioners to frame one or two rules, in order that the best and cheapest method of hearing cases might be secured. The result would be the same whether the Bill come into operation in September or in November.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONmoved at the end of the clause to add,—
      "and shall continue in force until the first day of November, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine."
      He thought it was desirable to mark this Measure as a temporary Measure on the face of it, in order that it might not be pleaded that the Government had taken any effective action by this Bill to solve the water question, and because, if the life of the Bill were limited, it would be an inducement to the Government to fulfil their pledges on this subject at the earliest possible moment. This little Bill ought not to affect the future solution of the water question, whether by purchase or control.
      MR. CHAPLINwas of opinion, and all the information which reached him convinced him, that the effect of this Bill would be by no means small, and in these circumstances he could not for the life of him see why they should tie their hands by accepting such an Amendment. If the Bill was to do good, as he believed it would, why should they put an end to its existence in 1899 when no human being could possibly foretell what was
      590
      going to happen. At the same time the Government withdrew from no pledge they had given with regard to the water supply of the metropolis.
      MR. LOUGHfelt bound to support the appeal of the right hon.. Gentleman, and asked his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON, since the Government said they did not see the faintest chance of carrying out the pledges of the Queen's Speech within two years, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. CHAPLIN: I do not admit one single word the hon. Gentleman has said in regard either to the fulfilment of pledges or the inability of the Government to carry them out.
      MR. FLYNNobjected to the withdrawal of the Amendment. He did not believe that the cause of the water supply of London was advanced by the pusillanimous tactics of so-called Radicals—[laughter]—who came from certain districts of London. As compared with Cork, the water supply of London was a disgrace. [Laughter.] This spirit of compromise was useless to the hon. Member's own side and was not appreciated on the other.
      *MR. WEIRasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would pledge the Government to deal with the London water supply as a whole within the next two or three years? Once this Bill was placed on the Statute Book there it would remain.
      Question put, "That those words be there added."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 96; Noes, 204.—(Division List, No. 312.)
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      MR. LIONEL HOLLANDmoved the following new Clause: —

      NO RECOVERY OF RATES WHEN WATER IS NOT PROPERLY SUPPLIED.
      "When in any quarter in which, owing to insufficiency of supply or pressure, fracture of mains, or any other cause than the default of the water consumer, water shall not have been supplied to any premises on every day in

      591
      accordance with the law, the owner or occupier of such premises may complain to the Railway and Canal Commission that such deficiency of supply has occurred; and the Commission, if satisfied that the complaint is well-founded, may order the company to repay to the water consumer the proportionate Part of the quarter's water rate paid for the days on which the supply was insufficient."
      He said that the new clause was consonant with the scope and purpose of the Bill, and was so reasonable an extension of it that he trusted the Government would be able to give favourable consideration to it. In his judgment the general principle of the clause could not be objected to. In no other legal relation in life had a man to pay when the consideration failed, and in the ordinary sense it would be absurd to suggest that a. man should pay for what he did not receive. But it was argued that the relationship between the water consumer and the companies was a peculiar one, that it had been set up by Parliament, and ought not to be disturbed to the detriment of the companies without compensation, because it was on this basis people had invested their money in the water companies. It should be borne in mind, however, that Parliament had allowed the supply of water to the metropolitan area to drift into a monopoly. ["Hear, hear!"] That was not the original intention of Parliament; in fact, it was contrary to the original intention. The original intention was that there should be a competitive supply in every district, but by the insertion of provisions in Private Bills which had received the sanction of Parliament, the companies had found it to be to their convenience to create a monopoly in each district which a company served. The existence of this monopoly threw a great responsibility on Parliament, and Parliament had never hesitated to vary the terms of any monopoly which had received its sanction when any of those terms appeared to be onerous or contrary to the public good. The charges of water companies were altered from time to time as a condition of further powers, and on this point there could be no distinction between a Private Bill and a Public Bill. The only point they had to consider, then was whether it was a fair and just condition to impose on the consumer that he should pay for what he did not
      592
      receive. ["Hear, hear!"] The provision he was suggesting would be of considerable utility, for it would safeguard the consumer's position and stimulate the companies to take every precaution to ensure a regular and full supply. He would give one illustration on this point. The frost of 1895 was felt with especial severity in South London, and Major Scott, who held an Inquiry for the Local Government Board, reported that a great deal of inconvenience, discomfort, and risk to health was caused from. January to the middle of April; that the consumers' connection pipes were sound, and that they had a real grievance and cause of complaint against the company. He further reported that a proportion of the pipes of the Lambeth Company were laid at a depth wholly inadequate to protect them from frost—["Hear, hear!"]—so that, whatever expense the frost threw upon the company, and whatever quantity of water they pumped into the mains, as a matter of fact seine consumers were deprived of their water through causes that were avoidable. To take an extreme case. In Rotherhithe there were cases of a deficient supply for 111 days, and the company's pipe was only 17 in. below ground. In Lambeth there were cases of a deficient supply for 98 or 99 days, and in one case the company's pipe was only 11 in. below surface. The vestry could summon a private consumer if his communication pipe was not laid at a sufficient depth; and in March last year a Lambeth consumer was brought to the police court and forced to increase the depth of his pipe. But this law could not be enforced against the company. In East London they had a bad time during 1895, through both frost and drought—the frost occasioned a deficient supply from the end of January to the middle of April; and the drought from the middle of June to (he was told) September. The Local Board Inquiry exonerated the East London Company from blame for the failure through drought. While fully accepting that decision, and admitting that the company had been perfectly willing and ready to build reservoirs, he did contend that if the companies had at an earlier period agreed to some scheme of amalgamation, so as to make the system of supply throughout London more complete, that drought

      593
      might have been avoided. ["Hear, hear!"] In August the President of the Local Government Board received a deputation which urged upon him to put pressure upon the New River and Grand Junction Companies to help the East London; and in his reply he pointed out that the New River Company were already doing all they could in justice to their own consumers, while as to the Grand Junction he said the difficulty was this—that the East London Company had a main connected with the Grand Junction works, but it was already full of water and could carry no more. He had been told, as a matter of fact, that had there been a second connecting main the Grand Junction could not have afforded to give much more water. But whether that was the case or not, it showed that if the companies chose to go to the expense of amalgamating their supplies and connecting their systems they would he able to meet the deficiencies of one district with the surplus of another. Indeed, when a meeting was held in East London and this argument was used in favour of an entire alteration in the system of supply, a journal interested in the water industry triumphantly replied that it was not a good argument, because any of the mains put down could be connected so as to make a complete system throughout London, and this would present no difficulties which the water companies could not deal with. All that this clause suggested was that the Commissioners should be able to encourage them to overcome these difficulties. ["Hear, hear!"] So much for drought and frost. The other excuse for not giving a sufficient supply was accident and the necessity of making repairs. But the case of the consumer was much stronger in the case of accidents, for no manufacturer who had contracted to supply goods would expect his customer to accept that as an excuse for failure, especially if the customer had prepaid. ["Hear, hear?"] His argument, shortly, was this. That Parliament, when it sanctioned a monopoly, preserved the right of varying and altering the terms in the public interest. That in the case of water companies what was practically an absolute monopoly had been created. That it is essential to the health, comfort, and convenience of the people of London that their water supply
      594
      should be sufficient and adequate, and that the companies were bound to incur every necessary expense to secure an efficient and constant supply. Then he submitted that the ordinary sense of justice was against a man being obliged to pay for what he did not get; and lastly, that the Commissioners should be enabled to make the interests of the companies identical with their duty. For these reasons he hoped the Government might be able to look with favour on his Amendment. He should like to add that he believed most sincerely that if the companies were desirous of maintaining their present position they would be very unwise if they did not agree to make concessions such as would remove a great cause of irritation and sense of injustice. The time must come when terms of control or terms of purchase would have to be settled by that House; and he should imagine, for the sake of their own shareholders, that the companies would be well advised to meet the consumers half way and endeavour to secure their good will. He begged to move.
      Clause read the First time.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid no one who had heard the statement of the hon. Member could complain of the manner in which he had submitted his proposals to the House He had addressed to them a reasonable, temperate, and able argument in support of this clause—[cheers]—and he frankly owned that there was a great deal to be said upon the merits of the case. The hon. Member told them—and few would differ from him—that any water consumer must deem it hard to have to pay for water he never received. ["Hear, hear!"] He then reminded them that whenever Parliament conferred monopolies upon public companies it always reserved the right to alter the terms of those monopolies if it thought fit. There, again, he admitted the full force of the hon. Member's observations. That was one side of the case. He wanted the Committee to listen for a moment to the other. As he explained in introducing the Bill, the principle by which the Government were guided was to give greater facilities for enforcing the existing duties imposed by statute upon the water companies. The Government did not intend to alter

      595
      the existing law by this Bill, or to increase the obligations of the water companies, and it would be inadvisable for them to enter upon any such course at the present moment, when a Royal Commission had been recently appointed, and was even now inquiring into all these questions. The new clause, he might also point out, would make a great alteration in the position of the water companies. No notice of such a change had been given to them; they had been given no opportunity of being heard on the point and of urging objections to the proposal. To accept the clause would be to depart altogether from the principle of the Bill as introduced. The idea of the Government was to give greater assistance to the consumer by creating another tribunal in his interests and by bringing to his aid all the power of the local authorities in the metropolitan area. Upon the understanding that the law regulating the duties of the companies was not to be altered, their representatives had refrained from opposing the Bill in that House. There was another circumstance to be considered. There were many ocasions when a deficiency in the supply was due to causes over which the companies had really no control and for which they were not to be blamed. There was, for example, the case of prolonged frost or drought, and mains were sometimes injured seriously by the traffic, the company being blameless. Yet in this clause no account was taken of these things. [Mr. HOLLAND: "Yes, for a discretion is given to the Commissioners."] He agreed that the word "may" might be held to import some discretion in the Commissioners, but doubted whether the water companies would consider the question to be thereby satisfactorily settled. Cases in which pipes and mains were injured by frost owing to their being laid at an insufficient depth would, he believed, come within the purview of the Commissioners' powers. There would be great practical difficulties in the way of carrying out the provisions of this clause. It would, for instance, be very difficult to determine in many cases what proportionate part of the water rate represented the days—only two or three perhaps—during which water had not been supplied. It must be remembered that in the case of small tenements the whole water rate for the
      596
      year did not amount to more than 6s. or 7s. When the Royal Commission should have reported, he had no doubt that it would be found that there were a great number of questions concerning the water supply which deserved and required the fullest consideration, but there was no reason that he knew why they should select the particular question raised in this Amendment for legislation on that occasion. His hon. Friend had expressed the opinion that the time undoubtedly would come when the question of purchase must be considered and decided by Parliament. He would remind his hon. Friend that the Government had never pledged themselves to a policy of purchase. It was a matter upon which they had reserved their judgment, and the question whether it would or would not be advantageous to adopt a policy of purchase in the interests of the ratepayers had been specifically referred to the Royal Commission. He mentioned this subject because he did not wish it to be supposed that he assented to the views expressed by the hon. Member.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONcongratulated the hon. Member opposite on the ability and moderation of his speech. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) agreed with the view of the hon. Member that it was an anomaly that a consumer of water should have to pay for water that he did not consume; that, whatever might be the cause of the deficiency, he should have to pay the same rates when there was a deficiency as he paid when there was a proper supply. But the right hon. Gentleman said that that was not the proper time to raise the question, and that it ought to be deferred until the Royal Commission should have reported. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman on that point; in fact, some of the right hon. Gentleman's own statements had strengthened him in his opinion that this was the proper time for considering the question. The hon. Member opposite had pointed out that this question was closely connected with that of the purchase of the water companies, and the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not pledged to the policy of purchase. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the Chelsea Water Bill was under consideration the other day, he expressed views which were

      597
      very favourable to purchase. The Committee would see by the Government's treatment of this Bill whether they really meant to improve the position of the metropolitan water consumer. With the exception of Clause 2, there was nothing in the Bill at present which would put the matter on a better footing than it was on now, but if this clause were accepted the position of the consumer would certainly be greatly improved. On two occasions recently the East London Water Company had ceased in some cases to supply water at all, and in other cases it had only supplied a very limited quantity. A state of things of that kind continued for a considerable number of months in two successive years, but all the time the company was exacting the same water rates as before. The right hon. Gentleman said that the water companies were often not to blame. He did not deny that. What he said was that it was unjust that the whole of the loss and inconvenience in such cases should fall on the consumer. He thought that the companies ought, at any rate, to bear sonic of the loss and inconvenience caused by a deficiency in the supply. If the clause did not give the Railway Commissioners sufficient discretion in respect of the apportionment of damages in such cases, an alteration could easily be made in it. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were practical difficulties in the way of carrying the clause into operation, and instanced eases in which the rates were very low. He doubted, however, whether for any house in London the water rate did not exceed the small amounts mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. He did not see that even in that ease any difficulty would practically arise. It was simply a question of a mathematical sum. The advantage of the clause was that it would induce the Water Companies to take more trouble than they did at present to provide a constant supply. If the clause were accepted it would make the Bill an advantage to consumers, but otherwise he was afraid the measure would be a mere mockery and a sham, which simply created an expensive tribunal and gave the consumers no advantages.
      *MR. BOULNOISsaid the Committee had little idea of the enormous wilful waste of water on the part of consumers
      598
      in the Metropolis, notwithstanding all the agencies of the companies to prevent it; and no doubt if a clause were inserted in the Bill giving them power to bring consumers who wasted water before the Commissioners, and have orders made that such consumers should pay the cost of the waste, the companies might be disposed to make concessions in other ways. But he would point out that the Water Companies assented to the Second Reading of the Bill on the distinct understanding, which was expressed at the time, that their rights would not be disturbed by the Bill. If they did not, believe that their rights would not be disturbed they could have prevented the Measure being brought in as a public Bill. He thought the clause would place the companies at the mercy of every schemer, because it would be extremely difficult to decide in many cases whether the insufficiency of the supply were the fault of the Company or the fault of the consumer. The hon. Member for Bow had said the companies ought to have done more in the way of the interchange of water, or the amalgamation of water supplies. The companies could only have done that at considerable cost, and hitherto the companies had not received that treatment at the hands of the House of Commons which would encourage them to apply for Bills and spend a large amount of money for the purpose. Indeed when some of the companies did come to Parliament their Bills were defeated by Members opposite, and it was only recently that the companies got extended powers and increased capital. The hon. Member for Poplar had said that in cases of insufficiency of supply it was only fair that the companies should bear some of the loss. The companies did bear some of the loss. Owing to the prolonged and intense frost of a few winters back the companies had to spend enormous sums of money in lowering their mains. In the case of his own company the expenditure was £25,000. The companies had no control over the communication pipe of the consumer—they could not compel the consumer to place his communication pipe three feet under ground, which was practically to what the mains had been lowered; and was the company

      599
      to be held responsible if the communication pipe got frozen? He trusted the Committee would reject the Clause.
      MR. C. E. SCHWANNsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had argued that if in case of drought and frost the consumer was occasionally deprived of his water supply the company should not be held responsible. Any municipality outside London would be scandalised by such a proposition. They conceived their duty to be to see that the wants of the communities they served were supplied. As a consumer and ratepayer in London he trusted the Committee would accept the Clause.
      *MR. ERNEST GRAYcordially supported the Clause. Anyone familiar with the difficulties and troubles experienced in the East of London in regard to the water supply during the years 1895 and 1896, knew well that there was no question on which the small householders felt more strongly than on the question involved in this Amendment. While the drought continued demand notices were presented to householders in East London to pay for that which they had never received. The argument of the hon. Gentleman was that while the Amendment was perfectly justifiable this was not an appropriate opportunity for pressing it. It seemed to him that every opportunity was an appropriate opportunity for doing right. He contended that the Amendment was just and fair to water companies and consumers alike. He was surprised that the water companies objected to it. If the water companies had any desire whatever to renew their lease of life they would readily have adopted some such amendment as this. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Marylebone he should say that, to contend that the fact that one consumer wasted the water was a sufficient excuse for charging another for what he did not receive, was a ridiculous argument. He would certainly punish those who wilfully wasted one of the necessaries of life, but it was a monstrous proposition that the companies should place on the shoulders of the careful man costs that were due to the negligent man. The small householder had additional cause for irritation in the knowledge that while he had to pay for what he did not receive, the large consumer, who drew
      600
      his water through a meter from the main, paid only for what he received. The company which served the Chelsea district had already had the sense to put this amendment into operation, and nothing had more enhanced their popularity than the slight remissions which they had made in the demand notes.
      MR. BANBURYsaid that he lived in the district and had had no remissions.
      *MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that that was because the hon. Member's supply had not run short. If it was within the power of the company to assess these remissions, it ought not to be beyond the power of the Commissioners. The complaints which had been made for years back had given assurance to the companies that this demand would be made as soon as Parliament dealt with the Water Question. He hoped the Government would leave hon. Members free to vote as they liked on this Question.
      MR. BANBURYsaid that the Amendment was drawn in such a way that it would be most unjust to the companies. Suppose a constant supply of 26 gallons a day were provided, and by reason of drought, the company were only able to supply 20 gallons, they would not be allowed to charge for the 20 gallons at all. Therefore the result would be that the company would be driven to supply no water at all in such circumstances.
      MR. B. L. COHENsaid that he regretted the speeches of the President of the Local Government Board and his hon. Friends, who spoke for water companies. He had stood up for water companies when they had been unjustly attacked, though he was neither a director nor a shareholder, and if he did not believe that the present Amendment would be conducive to the interests of the companies, he should not support it. On the whole he believed that the administration of the water-supply of London had been advantageous to the consumers and creditable to the managers; but the relations between the consumers and the companies were at present just a little strained; and he could conceive nothing which would more promote harmony between them than the recognition by the companies of the principle that they should not charge for what they do not deliver. The President of the

      601
      Local Government Board said this was not a Bill to alter the law, but only to give greater facilities for enforcing it. The title of the Bill was: "A Bill to amend the Law respecting the London Water Companies," and clause 3 altered the law in terms. The financial difference to the company would be very slight.
      SIR J. SAVORYsaid that there had been some bitter attacks on the water companies, and he wished the House to remember that there was another side to the question, as far as the New River Company was concerned at any rate. During the severe frost of 1895 not one of that company's mains was frozen, and if many consumers were deprived of the supply, it was because the pipes connecting the houses with the mains had frozen, and with those pipes the company had nothing to do. But the company provided a number of stand pipes for the convenience of those who were suffering from their own neglect. During the whole of that period the mains were fully charged with water. The water companies had been attacked and often with extreme virulence in this matter, and he should like to assure hon. Members that the directors of the water companies were anxious to the utmost of their power to discharge the duties intrusted to them. He was quite sure the House of Commons was not alive to the onerous conditions imposed upon water companies which discouraged them from further extensions which would be of great use to their undertaking. ["Question."]
      *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That question does not arise.
      SIR. J. SAVORYsaid he only rose to contradict some of the statements made.
      MR. STUARTadmitted that the New River Company, which the hon. Gentleman represented, satisfactorily fulfilled their obligations, but that fact only lent additional point to the necessity for some such clause as this. The clause would never require to be put in force against the New River Company. But there were companies in London whose pipes were rotten, who allowed their water to run to waste by their own default, whose mains were laid so close to the surface that they were constantly freezing, who were to blame for the water not reaching the consumers. He could not see why the
      602
      clause was to be postponed until the Royal Commission had reported on the question whether purchase was the proper thing or not. What had that todo with the propriety or otherwise of people paying for what they did not receive? The clause would not injure any company which was acting properly, and, on the other hand, it would bring a fine upon those who were acting improperly or whose plant was insufficient and inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman was surrounded by a phalanx of water directors, but if they were fulfilling their obligations the clause would not make their position a penny the worse. The main object of the Bill was to compel water companies better to fulfil their obligations. One of their obligations was to supply water for which they were paid. An hon. Member opposite said that if the companies were not to be paid when they supplied twenty gallons instead of twenty-six, what they would do would be to stop the supply altogether. Well, it was easy to amend the clause. He had no wish that the companies should be unjustly treated, and power might be given to the Committee to compel the consumer to pay such proportion of the rate as they thought fit. The remark of the hon. Member, however, only illustrated a very extraordinary state of facts, namely, that if the London water companies could take such action, as he dared say they could, it was because the Metropolitan water companies were in a different position from any other companies. This was a point on which there was great unanimity of opinion in the House among Members who were not connected with the water companies. What he complained of in the President of the Local Government Board was that he made this question hang on the question of purchase, whereas it had nothing to do with purchase. He appealed to the meeting to allow the House to vote upon this matter as it would, for if he did he thought they should have an expression of opinion which would show the right hon. Gentleman that this question was not likely to be suspended until purchase was settled.
      MAJOR H. F. BOWLESsaid that one point appeared to have been overlooked. There were water companies in other parts of England, and, though the water companies might not be

      603
      supplied with water on occasions of drought or burst pipes, they had, nevertheless, to pay their rates when the corporations sent in the demand notes.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that this clause seemed to him to be the very touchstone of the sincerity of the Bill, which proposed to bring the companies under the jurisdiction of the Commission of general misdoing. This was a matter to which the Government ought not to exercise the influence of their majority; the question involved was one of carrying out the principle of the Bill.
      MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid that he was in sympathy with the view that the consumer should not be asked to pay for what he had not used. The consumer in paying for the water he consumed should be charged by meter; that was the only fair way of levying a charge for water. He thought, however, that as it stood the Bill was in favour of the consumer. The new clause was, in his judgment, a little premature, and it would be better first of all to give the Bill a fair trial.
      Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 134.—(Division List, No. 313.)
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONmoved the following new clause: —

      RETURN OF ACTIONS TAKEN.
      There shall be laid before Parliament each year a return of all actions taken before the Railway and Canal Commission under this Act."
      Clause Read the First and Second times and added.
      Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 323.]

    MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford)moved "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    MR. H. C. STEPHENSmoved to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months." He said he could assure the House that he was in no way opposed to military manœuvres —[a laugh]—on the contrary, he greatly desired that they should become a settled branch of military training, but in his opinion nothing would tend more to make military manœuvres unpopular and impair their prospects than to pass a Bill with unsuitable machinery to be worked under impossible conditions. He had put down the Motion with great diffidence; but there was great danger that the Bill would not receive in Committee the patient and careful consideration it required, and as it was an Act that would be constantly at work—at least he hoped so—[laughter, and "Hear, hear!"]—it was all the more desirable that it should be made a good and workable Bill. Confining himself to what, in his point of view, were Second Reading objections, he wished to touch upon the quality of the administrative machinery, the nature of their powers, and the provisions for compensation. The administrative powers, which were serious and extensive, were centred in the Military Manœuvres Commission. That Commission would prove to be not as fair as it appeared to be. The members appointed by the War Department were not to exceed one-half of the whole Commission; but in actual working, seeing that the representative Members were to be appointed by the county and borough councils, it was certain that these members would not act except when the district they represented was affected, so that the military members would always be in a large majority. The Bill was thus open to this objection—that in appearance it was very different from what it would amount to in action. The Military Manœuvres Commission was to be intrusted with very important powers. It would be for the Commission to decide what land, roads, and water supplies were to be used by the forces. Critical questions might arise and some machinery ought to be provided for an appeal from the Commission's decision. The Commission was to determine what persons ought to receive compensation, but as it often happened that many persons had a common interest in the same

    605
    land, he doubted whether that tribunal would be competent to dispose of the complicated points that would inevitably present themselves. If the claims of any member of a group of persons who were entitled to compensation should be ignored by the Commission there was no machinery provided in the Bill to enable such a person to have the omission rectified. Claims for compensation for destruction of game and loss of sporting rights would practically be frequently made, but the Bill was so drawn that it was doubtful whether they could be entertained. That was a point which ought not to be left ambiguous. If the Government would give ample time for the consideration of the Bill he thought that it might be put in good working order, but should it be rushed through in its present imperfect state the rights of individuals would be endangered, and the popularity of military manœuvres would be seriously jeopardised. He concluded by moving the Amendment standing in his name.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSseconded the Amendment. He said that anyone who read this Bill and compared it with the Bill of last year must admit that the present was the better Measure. The opposition to the Bill of 1896 had thus been justified by the transformation of the Measure. He doubted, however, whether it was wise to provide that manœuvres were not to be held in the same area more than once in five years, because there could be no doubt that certain areas were peculiarly adapted to manœuvres. The Bill provided that three months' notice of intended manœuvres should be given to local authorities. That, in his opinion, was too short a time seeing that county councils only met once a quarter. With regard to the composition of the Commission he urged that district councils in areas affected by the Bill ought to be represented upon it. They thought it very desirable that the majority, not the minority, of the Commission should be elected. If not, the Secretary of State, through his nominees, would have practically a majority upon the Commission. He objected to the extraordinary powers given by this Bill to the Commission; it was proposed that they should be enabled to make regulations in reference to the procedure, and the time limit, and the
    606
    mode of compensation. He suggested that the House of Commons should have the opportunity of criticising such regulations as were made. He recognised the change which had been made as to this Bill, and hoped the right hen. Gentleman would accept his suggestion.
    On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLspoke in opposition to the Bill, every line of which, he said, infringed every principle that was dear to the Constitution and to popular liberties. It was an absolute infraction of the Bill of Rights, and contrary to all the ideas of liberty in England for soldiers in time of peace, and when not under martial law, to be simply drafted into any locality, to be put on private property, occupying fields and farms, thus disturbing not only the ordinary operations of husbandry but of trade. Surely Members could not know the contents of the Bill to which they were assenting. It was a Bill, as he had said, opposed to constitutional right, its tendency was to substitute military power for popular rights, to make the War Office master of the people. There were ten clauses in the Bill, every one of them a glorification of illegality, and most insidiously did the draftsman accomplish his purpose. No preamble set out the object of the Bill, though an inkling of what was intended appeared in the statement on the back. In that it was stated that the Bill was to facilitate military manœuvres, its effect would be to suppress popular right. One of the worst features was the pretence of guarantees and protection against illegalities, mere paper guarantees, for the War Office would be master of the situation. There was a series of carefully constructed clauses, purporting to show that all the rights of the people were to be considered, and that it would be for the people themselves to receive or not the army proposed to be placed in their midst; but the real gist of it was that the War Office, without in the slightest degree really consulting the people, regard a certain locality as a sort of Naboth's vineyard, and, coverting it, would get it, no matter which way the wishes of the people went. But all things were to be

    607
    done "decently and in order," and there was a display of paper safeguards. There was to be an Order by the Queen in Council, but before that Order was made, before the Queen and Council had anything to do with it, a draft Order would be prepared by some ambitious War Office clerk, and this was to be submitted to the County Council for the locality, and this draft Order, when submitted to the County Council, was to be laid before the Houses of Parliament for 30 days, and would be acted upon unless both Houses presented addresses against it. A beautiful appearance this had, but it was all an impudent pretence. Though the draft Order was objected to, it could still be enacted by Order in Council, and this would still be valid, though in its initial stages it were opposed by every member of the County Council. Against the will of the War Office there would be no power of the county to modify it in any particular. So much for the first safeguard. As to the laying before Parliament, that was a mere soporific to satisfy the popular idea. He had never known such a draft Order objected to, nor did he know that it would be effective. The Queen in Council of course was a relic of the old established Privy Council, but there were certain statutory powers given to the Queen in Council, and this was a mere pretence. Having got the Order, the military authorities would proceed to declare a. state of martial law over the rights of property in a locality, and martial law, as lawyers said, was no law at all. Every right of property would be assailed. On lands and fields the authorities would have power to construct works and execute military manœuvres, the military could supply themselves with water from any authorised supply, they could dam up running streams, and stopping mill power could temporarily destroy the whole industry of the country side, by this precious Act of a Constitutional Government. Other provisions indicated the high-handed character of this proposal. The rights of way on roads and footpaths could be interfered with. With a maximum of cunning and a minimum of skill the draftsman had constructed the clauses apparently with a copy of the Irish Coercion Act before him. At their own sweet will two Justices of the Peace, on the application of a commissioned
    608
    officer were to give authority to stop a public right of way. These two magistrates might be selected from any part of the county; they might be men whose character might be under investigation by the Lord Lieutenant, and, like the Irish removables, their continuance in office might depend on their willingness to accommodate the military authorities. Then there was the Military Commission, to which reference had been made in an apologetic tone. The Commission would have the power of saying whether these great powers placed in the possession of the War Office should be exercised in a locality, and whether certain rights of objection should be allowed. It would be a sham Commission—the actual authority through its nominees, would be with the War Office. The Government had had many Commissions, and Lord Salisbury's remarks upon Commissioners he would not repeat. They applied in this instance. It might be that not a man on the Commission had close connection with the district where the manœuvres were to take place. These manœuvres might take place over three or four shires, but the Bill did not show from what County Councils the representatives were to be elected. And even if they were the very best men, their election was a mere sham, because they were overwhelmed in the voting by the official agents of the War Office. Every line of the Bill invaded some general principle, and they saw here the absolute disingenuousness of the thing; for of the men to whom this power was arrogated to hear claims, three formed a quorum, and the whole of the three by the nominees of the War Office who might decide everything before the representatives of popular rights could put in an appearance. Having shown the constitution he then came to this blasphemy of anything like judicial procedure. This Committee could make the various rules for determining what lands and roads are in the meaning of the Act, and it had to hold at least one public meeting to hear the claims of any person who was affected. If a man went to the Committee and represented that he would be subjected to such and such loss, they would answer that that might be true, and that they were very sorry for him, but they could not help it. If the man said he would appeal, then he would be

    609
    told that there was no appeal. Rights of property, rights affecting a man's comfort, a man's life, a man's prosperity, were all to be swept off by a Committee which might consist of only three, and those three War Office officials who might happen to reside in the neighbourhood. He said this was a monstrous This Bill not only destroyed the rights of property, not only made the power of the individual as nothing, not only ruined and annihilated the old English axiom that a man's house was his castle, but, when a man wished to defend his rights, it punished him for doing so by two wretched removable magistrates. It invaded popular rights; it was a distinct subversion of all the principles which they generally held dear in the constitution, and it contained a series of regulations which were mere paper regulations made with the intention of deceiving—a clumsy and impudent intention because there was not the least probability of its success. He had dealt with the Bill as it affected England, but it also applied to Ireland.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid there was no difficulty about that, if the hon. Member did not wish it to apply to Ireland. It was entirely for the Trish Members to decide.
    MR. MACNEILLsaid he would consider the Bill as it was, and would show the good intention of the Government in regard to it towards Ireland. This was a most insidious and most impudent piece of draftsmanship. In the application of this Act to Ireland it laid down, Poor-Law Guardians were to stand in the place of the County Councils in England, and thus the Poor Law Guardians were to represent the elective element in reference to these manœuvres which would be represented in England by the County Councils. Who were the Poor Law Guardians? A considerable number of them were not elected at all, so that they might have these manœuvres in Ireland under the influence of the squireen and the out-of-elbow landlords. The Bill showed that the Government were really inaccessible to any sense of constitutional feeling, and that they thought that, with their mechanical majority, they could carry anything. He should support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid he did not know how far the hon. Gentleman who had
    610
    just spoken represented the views of the Irish Party in the House, but the strength' with which he had spoken about the Bill, and the evidence which his speech afforded that he had not regarded it either from the point of view of those who proposed it or Of the actual words as they stood on the Paper, made it necessary for him to point out that if his objection were taken from the point of view of those whom he represented, the Government would have no special object to gain by pressing upon Ireland provisions which it would be more to her advantage than disadvantage to accept. ["Hear, hear!"] Last year, when the Manœuvres Bill was before- Parliament, it was intimated to him in the ordinary manner, that it was desired both by Ireland and Scotland that it should extend to those countries, and, accordingly, provisions to that effect were introduced into the Bill of this year. But it must be clearly understood that the Government were not prepared either to sacrifice the Bill, or the advantages which could be got by holding manoeuvres in Great Britain, by pressing upon the Trish representatives advantages in respect to the quartering of troops in that country which might not be desired by those representatives. [Cheer.] It should he remembered that of all things—and he spoke from some experience—nothing was more difficult than to remove from any part of Ireland a body of troops which had been quartered there—["Hear, hear!"]—and he might say also, that there was no part of the Kingdom in which manœuvres were known to be so popular as they were in Ireland. Only recently he had had a communication from the Field-Marshal commanding the troops in Ireland (Lord Roberts) in which he informed him of the very handsome way in which he had been met, not merely by the owners but by the occupiers of land, in the small summer drills which had been carried out there. Though, of course, it was always open to any one man, whether he was an owner or occupier, who might prove recalcitrant to do away with a good deal of the advantages of the manœuvres, he must say that in Ireland there had been a disposition to show that, when they came, the troops were welcome. ["Hear, hear!"] It would be quite impossible to carry on manœuvres on a scale as large as they desired to do if there had to

    611
    be separate agreements, which would amount to many thousands, to enable the troops to go over their lands, but at the same time it would always be possible for the Government, though they would do it with reluctance after what occurred last year, to make a concession to the Irish representatives in this matter and to confine these large manœuvres to Great Britain. ["Hear, hear!"] Both his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and the hon. Member for Denbighshire spoke in no sense in a hostile spirit to the Bill. On the contrary, they welcomed the Bill, though they found fault with some of the provisions, which they thought, in sonic cases, were not sufficiently stringent. There was, however, one note which was common to his hon. Friend behind him and to the hon. Member for Donegal, and as to which he wanted to say a word. They both assumed that the Military Manœuvres Commission would be more or less under the control of the War Office. That was not only not the case, but it was absolutely the reverse of the case. In the Bill of last year—a Bill which was founded exactly on the Bill which passed that House three times mid which was worked without any friction whatever in 1871, 1872, and 1876—power was given to the Secretary of State to appoint what representatives he chose to serve on the Military Manœuvres Commission. Some exception was taken to that, and they had met that objection entirely in the present Bill. They had provided that all the representatives should be local. Some were members of the county council, who were nominated by the local people themselves, and the remainder, who could not be the majority, were to be nominated by the Secretary of State if he chose to nominate that number, which he was very unlikely to do. It was not at all certain that the local representatives, who might be gentlemen of great experience in some things, would be all occupiers of land in the district in which the manœuvres were to be held, and the object in securing to the Secretary of State this power of nominating sonic members to act with these local gentlemen was to give him the opportunity of putting on local men who were occupiers of land and who would be willing to co-operate with them and take
    612
    some interest in these proceedings. The hon. Member for Donegal spoke of the Members of Boards of Guardians in Ireland as being necessarily nominated members. Boards of Guardians had fixed upon these boards because they understood that they would be the persons to whom the Trish Party would look with more satisfaction than to others.
    MR. MACNEILLexplained that he meant to contrast, boards of guardians with elected councils. He wished to show that boards of guardians were not wholly representative.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid the Government could only use the organisations at hand. If any better organisation were set up, and he hoped that next Session one would be formed, it would be used for the purpose of military manœuvres. The desire of the Government was to get the best representation of the district they could without imposing on the district a special election for the purpose. They believed that in Ireland the manœuvres would be popular. They were not in the least desirous that the War Office should dictate their own terms in Ireland, or in England, or in Scotland either; all they desired was to see that the interests of every one affected were really guarded by the Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey was anxious there should be an appeal from the proceedings of the Commission. It would be most undesirable under all the circumstances to set up any Court of Appeal on a subject of this kind. Then his hon. Friend was desirous that they should have some consideration with regard to compensation. The clause had been drawn in the widest possible manner. They had not limited themselves to any description of right. They had taken on their shoulders the responsibility for any damage done by the troops and by those who accompanied the troops, whether under their control or not. All rights, whether sporting, common, or of any other character, were provided for by the Bill. They did not anticipate very heavy charges under the clause. Previous Acts had been worked without very excessive compensation, and the best proof that they had been worked fairly and equitably was that there were no appeals, and that at the end of all no grievances

    613
    existed—[cheers]—but the troops received invitations from every district to return. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Devonshire asked that the Commission should include representatives of district councils. Some district councils represented as few as 200 inhabitants, while others represented as many as 100,000 people, and therefore any general law which gave representation to district councils would lead to enormous representation in some districts and very small representation in other districts. The intention was that the Commission should not be a Parliament, but a business-like body who would meet a few times, draw up necessary rules, hear appeals and settle matters to the satisfaction of all parties. He thought that in practice it would be found that the three months' notice provided for by the Bill would be fair and equitable, and, in conclusion, he said that what the Government asked for was the mininum of sacrifice on the part of private individuals in order that a great public service might be rendered. The House annually voted £18,000,000 for the maintenance and the training of our troops. Probably the cost of manœuvres in a single year would not amount to more than £1 in every £180 or £150 voted. He thought it would commend itself to every man in the House that the training which every nation in Europe found it necessary to give its troops ought not to be denied to our troops for such a fractional sum, to be asked for, not every year, but perhaps once in three or five years, and over which Parliament would have absolute control. [Cheers.]
    MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELLsaid this Bill was very different from the Bill of last year. He therefore did not look upon this Bill as he looked upon the former Bill. If the Government attached importance to this Bill, why did not they introduce the Bill at a more seasonable time? ["Hear, hear!"] The principal similarity between this Bill and the Bill of last year was in the name. It was a very had name. [Cries of "Oh!"] He was very glad that he and others opposed the Bill of last year. It was because of their opposition that they had not got the Bill of last year. They had now got a Bill totally different to that of last year. If last year's Bill had been
    614
    a good one, they could not have defeated it. But he took the present Bill to be a successor of the old Bill. He so far congratulated the Under Secretary for War that this Bill did not require the opposition given to the Bill of last year. The hon. Member had climbed down to another branch, and on this lower branch he was more secure. This would not be opposed as the Bill of last, year was opposed, but there were details winch would require careful consideration, if they had sufficient time. He would remind the Government that the Bill must not be rushed through, they must have sufficient opportunities of examining into it. There were a good many clauses of the Bill which required serious consideration, they were not going to put forward objections simply as obstruction, and he hoped the Government would not use the clause in order to prevent these objections being considered. ["Hear, hear!"] Why did they object to the Bill of last year? It was because they looked upon it as an unconstitutional Measure. This Bill was not an unconstitutional Measure, therefore he dill not feel the same objection to this Bill that he felt to the Bill of last year. He specially referred to Clause 4, and expressed his pleasure that the Government had seen their way to draw the Lord Lieutenant from the Commission. He still thought there was room for improvement, particularly in Sub-section (c). The punitive clauses in this Bill were far better than those in last year's Bill; but he thought there was still room for improvement in Subsection (3) Clause 7, which spoke of any person who entered or remained in any camp.
    *MR. SPEAKER: To discuss the question whether the word should be "enter" or "enter and remain," is a most unusual course in a Debate on the Second Reading a Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. LUTTRELLsaid he hoped the Government would see their way to amend the punitive clauses. He took the Bill as it now stood as one which could in Committee be turned into a harmless Bill, though he could not call it a useful one, and he should not feel it necessary to object to it in principle. He hoped, however, that the Government would give consideration to the

    615
    Amendments which came from the Opposition side of the House, and that both sides of the House would approach it with a desire to improve it where necessary.
    MR. JOHN DILLONsaid that his objection to the Measure was that it embodied a policy which would tend to increase the spirit of militarism in this country. The Under Secretary for War made an eloquent appeal to the House to pass the Second Reading, because the Government were only endeavouring to follow the example of the great military Powers of the Continent, whose troops sooner or later we should have to meet in the field. He utterly objected to following that example. There was a section of people in this country, a growing and increasing section led on by some of the most distinguished military officers, who had advocated for years the doctrine that if Great Britain was to be safe from invasion, it could only be rendered safe by following to the full the example of the great military Powers of the continent. The leader of the army had over and over again advocated the adoption of the principle of conscription by this country. He regretted the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary as an indication of the growth of that spirit; for what did the right hon. Gentleman say? He based his appeal to the House, on the necessity of following the example set by the military authorities of the Continent.
    MR. BRODRICK: I did not say anything of the kind—I said we had no right to deny to our troops the same training that continental powers gave to their troops, having regard to the fact that they might at some time have to meet them in the field. ["Hear, hear!"]
    Mr. DILLONurged that once the right hon. Gentleman began to argue on the principle that the troops of Great Britain might have to meet the troops of Continental Powers in the field, he would be carried by the irresistible force of logic to the adoption of the principle of conscription. The right hon. Gentleman, replying to criticisms advanced from his own side of the House, said that this Bill was not introduced in the earlier part of the Session, because the First Lord of the Treasury had purposely delayed its introduction until he was certain that he could give adequate time for its discussion.
    616
    But Irish Members had been told that there was not an hour to discuss absolutely essential Irish subjects. He could propose to the right hon. Gentleman three or four subjects to which he could more usefully devote his time. It was an outrage that when useful Irish legislation was waiting for time to be given to it, the First Lord of the Treasury should declare that he had time for an unnecessary and mischevious Measure like this. The Under Secretary for War, in criticising some observations of his hon. Friend the Member for South Donegal, said that in Ireland the troops were not unpopular. The right hon. Gentleman also said that when it was proposed to remove the troops from any town a great outcry was raised by the traders. He admitted that as a rule the troops in Ireland were not unpopular, because they were kept apart as a rule from party complication and from attacks upon the people. In regard to the other point, it was only natural that when the Irish people contributed their fair share, and, indeed, more than their fair share, it was not unreasonable that there should be a general desire among the traders in country towns, where trade was stagnant and poverty deepening every year, to obtain some benefit in the expenditure in connection with bodies of troops. He did not himself believe that troops by being stationed in a town brought any real prosperity to that town, but when they found large cities like Manchester and other towns in Lancashire struggling for regiments to be quartered in them on account of expenditure, it was not surprising that poor, poverty-stricken Irish towns should wish for troops being quartered in them. He would make a fair offer to the right hon. Gentleman. If the Government would consent to transfer to some useful expenditure in Ireland the present cost of garrisons there, then he would advise the withdrawal of all the troops from Ireland, and would wish them God speed, and for his own part he would never wish to see a soldier again in Ireland. But, of course, it stood to reason that so long as the taxpayers of Ireland had to pay more than their fair share to the Exchequer of the country they should be

    617
    entitled to their fair share of the expenditure on the Army and Navy, if they did not get the money in some more useful shape. Everyone knew that in the case of the Army, Ireland, owing to political reasons, got a reasonable portion and, indeed, more than a reasonable portion of the expenditure on the Army. But in the ease of the Navy, Ireland did not get one-tenth of what she was entitled to. Therefore the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman in answer to the Irish objection to the Bill was outside the mark. He also objected to the Bill because he objected to any increase in the spirit of militarism, and to proposals which tended to bring about conflict with the armies and bloated armaments of Continental Powers. But apart from the spirit of the Bill, the Debates were extremely objectionable. He admitted, however, that the Under Secretary had introduced into it a great many Amendments which, from the Irish point of view, modified the Bill, so that it was not at all so dangerous or extreme as the Bill of last year. It was, for instance, on the suggestion of the Irish Members that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced representation of Boards of Guardians. In regard to the compensation clauses it appeared that if a farmer failed to come to an agreement with the Arbitration Commission as to compensation, he was entitled to go to law to recover his compensation, and such a provision would mean that the poor Mall who required compensation would have to do without it. Then, again, a small majority of inhabitants of a district might, against the wishes of large minority, be the means of bringing into that district an immense military force, and encamping them upon the properties of that minority. For a party like the Tory Party, so extremely jealous of the rights of property, that was a large order, and he hoped it would be altered in Committee. He had heard hon. Gentlemen opposite exclaim violently against proposals of a much milder character from the Radical Party.
    618
    To turn a body of soldiers loose in a district for two or three months, without asking leave or paying regard to the objections, was about as extreme an invasion of the rights of property as could be imagined. Such a Bill ought to be carefully and jealously scrutinised before it was passed by the House.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUsaid that his constituents regarded this Bill with much more favour than that of last year. There were, however, one or two Amendments which he wished to move in Committee. If the Leader of the Opposition were in the House he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that manœuvres in the New Forest district, under adequate restrictions, would be welcomed anion!, the inhabitants by all true lovers of common law and forest rights, as well as by those interested in the Army. He should cordially support the Bill.
    MR T. P. WHITTAKER (York, W.R., Spen Valley)objected to such a controversial Measure being introduced so late in the Session. Truly the Government had learned much since last year, for they had cut down the Bill of last year by two-thirds. The opposition to last year's Bill was therefore justified by the present one; for if the former were necessary, the latter must be insufficient; and if the present Bill were sufficient, that of last year must have been far more than was necessary. The Bill was extremely specious, for it seemed to yield a. great deal to popular representation and influence, while really there was no protection even for majorities. There was no power given to any of all the Councils before which the proposals were to be laid to stop them. The roads could even be stopped for 48 hours, with the sanction of two justices of the peace. There might be twenty justices opposed to the stopping of the roads, but that would make no difference. And there was no provision that the two consenting justices should be local they might be two of the officers.

    619
    Then as to the Manœuvres Commission, the War Office was to appoint half the members. Two were to be appointed by the Council of each county, and one by the Council of each county borough. How were the county boroughs concerned? Parliamentary and municipal boroughs were to have no representation in England. But in Scotland, Royal boroughs, Parliamentary boroughs, and Police boroughs—some of which were no bigger than villages in England—were to have representatives. There would be considerable difficulty in securing the attendance of all these representatives, but the War Office would take care that their representatives attended, and so the War Office would always be in a majority on the Commission. The Commission might act, too, by three of its members. There was nothing to prevent three representatives of the War Office being appointed to act for the Commission; and practically, therefore, the manœuvres would be in the hands of the War Office. It was provided that a public meeting was to be held, but the decision of the meeting mattered nothing, even if it was a unanimous vote against the whole thing. It was a most specious Bill. It gave the people an opportunity of expressing their opinions, but only an opportunity; it gave them no power whatever. All the powers were extremely arbitrary and the punishments were somewhat heavy. In order to get a compensation a farmer might have to bring a lawsuit, and was a wrong to the farmer. Then, or the general principle, he was not at all in favour of flooding districts of the country with tens of thousands of military men. The planting of soldiers in a district was a great social and moral curse. [Cheers.] They were a nuisance to the whole district. ["No!"] Yes, turn up the Parliamentary returns that exhibit the morality of the towns of this country, and it would be seen that the lowest by far, in point of morality, were the military towns. [Cheers and counter cheers.] He also objected to the Bill that
    620
    it was only one other phase of growing militarism. The military expenditure was growing, and the influence of the military was growing, and he regarded it as a serious danger. The War Office was continually grasping at more power. Then it appeared that if the representatives front Ireland did not like the Bill the Government would give it up for Ireland, but he understood that the justification for the Bill was that it was required for the training of the troops. Then did not the troops in Ireland require training? [Cheers.] If the Irish Members were to have this power, why not give the power to the county councils in England and Scotland to say whether they wished to have manœuvres in their area or not? If that power were given, the greater part of his objections to the Bill would be removed.
    *DR. TANNERsaid he agreed that the Bill was a material improvement upon the Bill of last Session, but Irish Members did not care for the flaunting of military manœuvres in the face of their country. Even the poor people who eke out a precarious livelihood on the barren hill-sides were not to be bought in order that an English Army might exercise manœuvres over their lands. If the Government wanted those manœuvres let them hold them in localities where the military interest might predominate, among the shoneens, the little magistrates, the little people who had daughters to be married, and who wanted manœuvres in the hope of getting one of their great flock off their hands. [Laughter.] These people knew perfectly well what these manœuvres meant. [A laugh.] There would be manœuvres, but there would also be matrimonial manœuvres. He thought that when the discussion on this Bill was read in Ireland the question asked by the people would be, "Were the Irish Members right or not in opposing the Measure?" He believed that from Cork to Derry the people of Ireland would reply "Yes," and that they were

    621
    right in offering an uncompromising opposition to a Bill which only tended to bring increased degradation to their beloved country.
    *MR. WEIRcould not understand why a Bill of this importance had been brought forward at so late a. period of the Session. He could not refrain from thinking that there was at the War Office a craze for military display. But the Government should not forget that the country depended for its defence in the first instance on our Navy, and that we could not possibly compete with the great armies of Russia, Germany, and France. If our Navy should be shattered we should be in a sorry plight indeed. He could understand the proposal if it were intended to send our troops to vast tracts of unoccupied land in the North of Scotland; or, say, to the Island of Lewis—[laughter]—where the cost would be small, and where the soldiers would interfere with no one, instead of quartering them amid a thick and busy population in districts in England. This he considered not only to he a costly proceeding, but almost a crime. The Bill gave the Commission power to encamp soldiers and to construct military works in any district. The hon. Member for Hornsey referred to the power to dam up any stream and take water. Now this was a most important matter, for many industries depended on water supply, and if the water supply was cut off it would be extremely serious—it would mean a large number of persons thrown out of employment, and the British taxpayer would have to bear their losses. Then, again, cottagers would be affected by the right of stopping up roads within a specified limit. Children would not be able to attend school—[laughter]—their fathers would not be able to go to their work unless they stole across the fields, when they would be liable to arrest for trespass—[laughter]—and if a doctor was required to attend a case of illness, they would be unable to get at him without giving 48 hours'
    622
    notice to the military authorities. [Laughter.] He would not occupy the time of the House further at that late hour—["hear, hear!"]—but he must protest strongly against the Bill in its present form, and he trusted the Government would he prepared to accept such Amendments as would make the Bill a better and a fairer Bill.
    MR. DALYwas sure the right hon. Gentleman must be proud of the compliments paid him on account of the improved state of the Bill this Session as compared with last, and since it had improved so much in 12 months, he thought after postponement for another year it would be a wonder in Ireland. [Laughter.] It reminded him of good whisky that Improved with age. [Laughter.] The best thing the right hon. Gentleman could do with the Bill would be to quietly allow it to die a natural death, mid let them hear no more of it this Session. The reason why he objected to the Bill was that it was brought on at the fag end of the Session. It was said to be a small affair, but a Bill of ten clauses, introduced within a fortnight of the House rising was not a small Measure to get through all its stages this Session. The right hon. Gentleman must see that there was a very fair share of opposition to the Bill. As far as he was concerned, he did not oppose the Bill in the way that some of his hon. Friends had opposed it. He was opposed to the Bill on the line that it was one of those Measures which ostensibly applied to Ireland as well as to England, and when it came to the scratch, Ireland got none of the money, and it was all spent in England. He also objected on another ground—viz., that this had been a barren Session as regarded Ireland. If the tune the Bill would occupy was given them to review the conduct of the Government and the way in which they had treated Ireland, it would be much better spent. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, after consultation with his colleagues, would consider it desirable to withdraw this Military Manœuvres Bill,

    623
    as Irish Members on both sides all felt that it was necessary to discuss the way in which the Government had treated Ireland. Not a single Bill for the benefit of Ireland had been passed through the House this year. [Cries of "Order!"] As to the damming up of water, why, the officer in charge of these military manœuvres might order a large river to be dammed up, with the result that the whole country might be flooded and crops destroyed. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but it was only the other day that they heard a great deal of mourning on account of something happening in a neighbouring county, where a flood occurred and a wonderful amount of damage was done to the farms in the district. They had no proof that under this Bill an officer might not dam up any river in this country or in Ireland—[laughter]—and flood the whole of the crops in the neighbourhood. It was a very serious consideration, and on the Second Reading of the Bill precautions should be taken to prevent any such thing occurring. It was far better to have these matters discussed now than after the Bill had passed into law. Clause 3 placed a great deal of power in the hands of the magistrates. Any person going through Ireland would know what great hardship it would be to the people that on 12 hours' notice one of the principal roads of a district might be blocked. It would paralyse trade. Further, the heavy traffic would throw serious burdens on the cess-payers of the locality. Taken altogether, the Bill as it stood would be a most injurious one. Perhaps, with further modifications, it might be made a good Bill, and if allowed to stand over for another 12 months it would no doubt become a perfect model. It did not from any point of view deserve the support of Irish Members, and he cordially supported the Motion for its rejection.
    MR. EUGENE CREANthought the Government would do well to be more careful about the
    624
    feelings of the people than about the wishes of the military. This Bill Contained very obnoxious clauses. He wished to know whether military officers would be permitted to dam up a stream upon which a village depended for its water supply. Interference with the water supply would in many places in Ireland dislocate industry, as it would prevent the mills from working, such a thing ought to be prevented, and safeguards ought to be introduced into the Bill. The elected Poor Law Guardians, as distinguished front the ex officio Guardians who would favour the views of the military, ought to be represented on the Military Manoeuvres Commission. The ex officio Guardians did not represent the people.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to adhere to the question before the House, and also to refrain from repetition of arguments that have been used many times.
    MR. CREANsaid that the reason why he wished to see elected Guardians on the Commission was in order that the interests of country districts in Ireland might be protected.
    MR. STEPHENSsaid that as the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he would be willing to consider Amendments in Committee, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. MACNEILLand other Irish Members objected.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Quest ion."
    The House divided: —Ayes, 170; Noes, 26.—(Division List, No. 314.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a Second time.
    MR. BRODRICKmoved "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, Etc."
    MR. DILLONsaid that this was an eminently contentious Measure, and when it had been proposed to refer Irish Bills

    625
    to a Standing Committee the First Lord of the Treasury laid it down that no contentious Bill should be referred to a Standing Committee. He appealed to hint to be consistent.
    THE FIRST LORD OF TIE TREASURYreplied that some of the strongest declarations in favour of the Bill had been made by the Leader of the Opposition, the former Secretary for War, and the right hon. Member for the Forest, of Dean, as well as by Members on the Ministerial side. Such a Bill could hardly be called contentious.
    MR. WHITTAKERsubmitted that a contentious Bill like this should not be taken out of the hands of the House.
    DR. TANNERurged the Government to let the Bill pass through Committee of the whole House. This would save time.
    MR CARVELL WILLIAMSjoined in the protest against the reference of this Bill to the Standing Committee on Law or any Committee. He did so on general grounds. This Bill seriously affected the liberty of the subject and contained novel proposals. It appeared to him that it the Bill passed certain portions of the country would from time to time, be as much in military occupation as if they wore visited by an invading army. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, he thought that very little time would be gained by referring the Bill to the Standing Committee as it would inevitably have to come back to the House for further discussion.
    *SIR, C. DILKEremarked that the last speaker had said that the proposals of the Bill were destructive of the liberty of the subject and novel. The Bill of last year, to which very strong objection was taken, was copied word for word in all these points from the Act passed by Mr. Gladstone's Government in 1871. [Cheers.] He was a resident in a district to which that Act applied, he was present at the manœuvres which were held under it; there never was a hitch throughout the whole proceedings, and not one of those difficulties which were apprehended last year really occurred. ["Hear, hear!"]" It was admitted by all who opposed the Bill of last year that almost all their objections had been met in the Bill of this year, and yet they were now told that this was a gross violation of the liberty of the subject, and that the proposals were novel! [Cheers.]
    *MR. WEIRobserved that it was because the Bill was a highly contentious Bill that he considered it should be dealt with in that House, and nut sent to a Committee upstairs.
    MR. EDWARD STRACHEYas one of those who supported the Government in the Second Reading of this Bill ventured to appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury, and to ask him whether it would not be possible and desirable to refer this Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade instead of to the Committee upon Law. It seemed to hint that the Bill could be much better dealt with by the Committee upon Trade, because upon it, agriculturists who were certainly to a large extent interested in the Bill were represented, whilst the other was a legal Committee. The Bill, he would observe, did not bristle with points of law.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYadmitted there wits something to be said for the contention of the hon. Gentleman, but on the, whole the difficulties were more legal than agricultural difficulties. Both Standing Committees contained a large number of gentlemen interested in agriculture, and it would be open for them to appoint 15 others specially competent to deal with this subject. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU, as representing farming interests that would be concerned by this Bill, expressed the opinion that the Committee of the whole House would he the proper Committee to deal with it, rather than a Committee upstairs. Very serious interests with regard to commons would arise, and he did not think the Committee on Law would be as good a tribunal for considering such questions as a Committee of the whole House. ["Hear, hear!"]
    DR. CLARKcontended that the only possible way of dealing with the work of Parliament was by devolution of this kind, and having a Bill like the present sent to the Committee upstairs.
    MR. MACNEILLhoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the appeal made to him from his own side of the House. Of course the reference of the Bill to the Law Committee would be a pleasant short cut for the Government, and the Irish Members would he got rid

    627
    of; but this would destroy the whole value of the machinery of Grand Committees, making the Committee no longer a tribunal for special investigation, but utilising the machinery for Party purposes. These Grand Committees were constituted for the purpose of bringing together Members particularly interested in certain subjects, and having technical knowledge thereon. To refer such a Bill as this to the Law Committee would be an abuse of power. He did not know that in the long run, and looking at this from a party point of view, he should very much object, for the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would not always occupy their present position, and they were raising a precedent that might in the future be used against them with great effect. On a matter dealing with law, in which. Irish Members were interested, the right hon. Gentleman refused the reference to the Law Committee, because he said the Bill had large bearings. How, then, could he justify the reference of this Bill to such a Committee, there being no legal technicalities in it? He could not do so; he was simply making use of the Committee as a machine to carry through a Measure to which very earnest opposition Was offered.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 36.—(Division List, No. 315.)
    Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, Etc.

    NAVAL WORKS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
    Clause 1,—

    POWER FOR ADMIRALTY TO CONSTRUCT SCHEDULED WORKS.
    Without prejudice to any existing powers, the Admiralty may forthwith proceed to construct the works as specified in the schedule to this Act at the places therein mentioned, and for that purpose may acquire such lands and execute such works as they may deem expedient.
    MR. DILLONasked what were the full force and meaning of the opening words,
    "without prejudice to any existing powers, the Admiralty may forthwith proceed to construct the works as specified in the schedule"?
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIHALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said that it was only to preserve to the Admiralty any powers they possessed under the Act of last year, and the Act of previous years.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2,—

    ISSUE OF MONEY FOR WORKS MENTIONED IN SCHEDULE.
    In addition to any sum authorised to be issued under any other Act, the Treasury shall issue out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof such sums not exceeding in the whole six hundred and fifth-four thousand pounds, as may be required by the Admiralty for defraying the costs of the works specified in the schedule to this Act, subject to the terms and conditions in Sections three and five of the Naval Works Act 1896, and those sections shall be construed as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to this Act.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3,—

    APPLICATION OF SURPLUS INCOME OF YEAR 1895–6 FOR EXPENSES OF SCHEDULED WORKS.
    The surplus set apart under Section four of the Naval Works Act 1896 may be applied in paying any sums authorised to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund by this or any future Act for the purpose of the works specified in the schedule to this Act, whether included or not in the schedule to the Naval Works Act 1896.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4,—

    SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the Naval Works Act 1897.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    SCHEDULE.
    HEADS OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURE.

    Works.

    Total Estimated Cost. 1897.

    Expected Date of Completion.

    Estimated Expenditure to 31st March 1897.

    Estimated Expenditure for the year 1897-98.

    1

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    (a.) Enclosure and Defence of Harbours—

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Gibraltar

    …

    …

    1,026,000*

    1899–1900

    344,072

    320,000

    Gibraltar, Commercial Mole

    …

    …

    669,000†

    1900–1

    —

    150,000

    Portland

    …

    …

    650,000‡

    1900–1

    173,340

    200,000

    Dover(including £35,000 for Fixed Machinery)

    …

    …

    3,500,000

    1907–8

    3,485

    200,000

    (b.) Adapting Naval Ports to present Needs of Fleet —

    Deepening harbours and approaches

    …

    960,000§

    1899–1900

    518,559

    200,000

    Keyham Dockyard Extension (including £175,000 for Fixed Machinery)

    …

    3,175,000

    1903–4

    88,204

    450,000

    Portsmouth Docks

    …

    …

    375,000

    1897–8

    369,096

    5,904

    Gibraltar Dockyard Extension (including £63,000 for Fixed Machinery

    …

    2,674,000

    1899–1900

    123,597

    250,000

    Hong Kong Dockyard Extension (including £40,000 for Fixed Machinery)

    …

    575,500

    1903–4

    3,000

    100,000

    Colombo Dock

    …

    …

    159,000

    1902–3

    —

    15,000

    **Pembroke Jetty, &c., (including £20,000 for Fixed Machinery)

    …

    …

    110,000

    1899–1900

    200

    30,000

    **Portsmouth-Widening caisson

    …

    …

    60,000

    1898–9

    —

    30,000

    **Haulbowline Improvements (including £14,500 for Fixed Machinery)

    …

    …

    64,500

    1899–1900

    8,294

    15,000

    (c.) Naval Barracks, &c.—

    Chatham Naval Barracks

    …

    …

    390,000

    1900–1

    7,741

    150,000

    Sheerness Naval Barracks (including £20,000 for Fixed Machinery)

    …

    …

    220,000

    1900–1

    —

    75,650

    Portsmouth Naval Barracks

    …

    …

    595,000

    1909–1

    —

    100,000

    Keyham Naval Barracks

    …

    …

    160,000

    1900–1

    —

    500,000

    Chatham Naval Hospital

    …

    …

    341,000

    1900–1

    26,200

    50,000

    Walmer Marine Depot

    …

    …

    20,000

    1897–8

    17,654

    2,346

    keyham Engineers' College

    …

    …

    30,000

    1897–8

    15,961

    14,000

    Dartmouth College for Naval Cadets

    …

    196,000

    1899–1900

    —

    100,000

    Magazines (including £25,000 for Fixed Machinery)

    …

    …

    485,000

    1899–1990

    14,000

    150,000

    Haslar Zymotic Hospital (including £500 for Fixed Machinery

    …

    …

    68,500

    1899–1900

    —

    10,000

    Haulbowline Zymotic Hospital (including £25,000 for Fixed Machinery)

    …

    10,500

    1898–9

    —

    5,000

    (d.) Superintendence and Miscellaneous Charges

    …

    …

    790,000

    —

    47,458

    70,000

    £

    17,304,000

    —

    1,760,861

    2,742,900

    £4,503,761║

    * Estimate reduced by £48,000 for Dolphins replaced by Commercial Mole.

    † The total estimated cost of the Commercial Mole is £700,000, including £31,000 for superintendence under item (d).Four-sevenths of this sum is to be repaid by the colony of Gibraltar in the form of an annuity of £14,000 per annum for 57 years from the opening of the Mole, to be credited as an appropriation in aid of Navy Vote 10.

    ‡ An expenditure of £40,543 was incurred during 1893–4 and 1894–5 in erecting dolphins on the line of the breakwater, and was charged to Vote 10 in those years. This is in addition to the Estimate of £650,000.

    § Exclusive of the cost, of dredging plant purchased prior to 31st March 1895.

    **Transferred from Navy Vote 10 for 1896–97.

    £

    £

    ║ Total estimated expenditure to 31st March 1898

    4,503,761

    Amount already provided, viz:—

    Expenditure out of Navy Votes (8 and 10) prior to inclusion of works in Loan Acts

    239,761

    3,849,761

    Provision in Act of 1895, £1,000,000, less £140,000 lapsed

    860,000

    Provision in Act of 1896

    2,750,000

    Amount to be provided by this Act

    £654,000

    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONproposed after column 4, to insert new column 4a—
    4A.
    Estimated Expenditure from 1st April 189G to 31st March 1897.
    The column which he proposed to insert appeared in the Schedule of last year's Bill. Last year a distinct and positive statement of the amount of the estimated expenditure during the preceding financial year, and the column was inserted in compliance with the promises and pledges made by both parties. The column did not appear in the present Bill, and all he proposed to do was to insert the column so that each year the House should have before it a distinct statement, not of the progress made with the works as a whole up to date, but of the progress made during the past twelve months.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was not the desire of the Admiralty to conceal from the House of Commons the amount of progress made or the amount of money which had actually been expended. It was only because it was thought this column was unnecessary that it was omitted from this Bill. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, but he would be happy to give the hon. Gentleman the figures he required in the shape of a Parliamentary return.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONdid not think the hon. Gentleman's proposal was at all sufficient. A separate Parliamentary Paper might never come to the notice of a single Member of the House, and what was wanted was a statement on the face of the Bill each year which would put the House in possession of the necessary knowledge every time it was asked to renew this grant.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DILLONmoved to omit the item as to Dover Harbour, complaining that the sum set apart for that harbour was excessive. Here they were going to give 31 millions out of 17 millions to one harbour on the southern coast of England, which was amply provided for;
    632
    while a miserable £60,000 was to be allotted to Haulbowline. He had never heard from the Admiralty any justification for this expenditure. Why should Dover have this 3½ millions, while Haul-bowline had only £60,000? He thought that it was an enormous waste of money. The English harbours on the southern coast, for the Fleet, were far superior to those on the opposite coast of France. What share was Ireland going to have in this expenditure of 17 millions! It was a monstrous thing that only £60,000 of the £17,000,000 proposed to be spent, was to be expended in Ireland. He did not claim the construction of large unnecessary harbours on the coast of Ireland for the accommodation of the British Fleet, althomdh he believed that from a material point of view such an expenditure might be very useful; but he did claim that a fair amount of this money, which would he about £2,000,000, should be spent in some useful purpose in Ireland. If the opinion of the Admiralty was that Ireland had become so poor a country that. it was not worth while to spend money on defensive harbours, then the harbours were urgently needed for fishery purposes. The only way in which he, as a private Member, could emphasise his desire that a fair suns should be spent in Ireland was by trying to set free a portion of the money proposed to be taken by this Bill, and with that view he proposed the omission of this amount.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square)said the hon. Member objected to the expenditure on Dover because it was English, and because Ireland would receive no advantage from it. The same fallacy underlay both arguments of the hon. Gentleman. This expenditure was not proposed because it would benefit a particular English town. It was proposed because Dover was, in the opinion of the highest authorities, who advised the Admiralty on such subjects, the best strategic position for the British Navy; and in that way the expenditure was for the benefit of the United Kingdom and for Ireland as well as for England. He objected to the phrase, "English expenditure." It was British expenditure for British purposes and for the whole of the United Kingdom. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *MR. WEIRsaid that as a Scotch Member, he regretted to see that not a farthing was to be spent in Scotland, vet Scotland was absolutely unprotected. For his !tart he \\amid rather see the money proposed to be spent on Dover devoted to the building, of four first-class warships.
    DR. CLARKsaid that he predicted last year that the Vote for the Dover Works which was then asked for would be doubled; and it had nearly been doubled this year. This was a very old question. After the work had been begun by convict labour, the technical advisers of the Admiralty advised then; to drop it. Now, by the advice of the technical advisers, the work was to be begun again. A dock at Cork Harbour would be of great use, but at Dover there were no natural conditions which would make the work valuable. Anything which was done would be at great cost, and would not be as useful as if it were done at other places near where the cost would be less. There was no general traffic at Dover, and the dock could only be for naval purposes. Not a single argument had been urged in favour of this expenditure.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The House assented to the principle when it was proposed by the late Government.
    DR. CLARKsaid that the late Government were worse than the present Government in that respect. However, as both Governments were in favour of this policy, they, the small minority, could only express their strong disapprobation.
    *DR. TANNERthought Members could only come to one conclusion with regard to this Bill, and that was that it was intended as a threat to France. The Haul-bowline money would not have been given to Ireland were it not that this country was afraid of America. A policy of funk had inspired all these items. He wanted some definite assurance as to the amount of money that would really he spent under this Bill. A great deal of money had been recklessly spent in previous years, and instead of being afraid of foreign countries, and being satisfied with the large harbours at present existing from Falmouth to Sheerness, we went out of our way to provoke France by creating these works. The whole thing was infected by a policy of funk.
    634
    The Government should not be afraid. Let them do what was just, right, and honest ill the sight of God and man.
    MR. W. ALLANheld a different opinion from that of the advisers of the Admiralty on the subject of harbours. If they had large, heavy iron-clads, armed with heavy guns, there must be harbours and docks. To bring vessels from the Irish Sea up to Plymouth was, in his judgment, a fatal policy. He would now take the right lion. Gentleman to task about the harbour at Dover. The right hon. Gentleman had stated by whom he was advised, but he did not say who had made up the Estimate. A very good firm, Messrs. Coode, Son, and Matthews, had completed the survey and plans, but who hail made the Estimates? He wanted to look at the Bill from an engineering point of view, and he wanted the First Lord of the Admiralty to tell him this. The memorandum at the back of the Bill said,—
    "Complete survey and plans have now been prepared by Messrs. Coode, Son, and Matthews, and concurred in by the Civil Engineer-in-Chief of the Admiralty";
    but what he wanted to know was who had 'wide out the Estimate of £3,500,000?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: In the first instance, the Estimates were made by the surveyors; they were then checked item by item by the Civil Engineer: and they were then examined by the Admiralty itself. The Admiralty is, of course, responsible for the Estimates. Every single item has been gone into, quantities taken out, and Estimates made for so much work; in fact, everything has been done that is usually done in the case of every work undertaken by the Admiralty, and we are responsible for this, as we are responsible for every other big work in our Department. This is not an Estimate put down is the original two millions was put down—taken from a narrow survey. This is the result of actual hard work, taken year after year, conducted by the best surveyors we could find, checked by the best engineering ability, and examined by the whole light of the experience we have at our command. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. ALLANsaid he was glad to hear the explanation, and to learn from it that

    635
    the Admiralty took the whole responsibility for these Estimates. His experience, extending over some years, was that the Civil Engineer was called in to make out his plans, take out his quantities, and make up his estimate, but now the Board had not asked for that, but the Admiralty had taken the responsibility.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The hon. Gentleman does not understand me. That has been done. As I said, the surveyors made out the Estimate in the first instance; they took out the quantities; their calculation was checked by the Civil Engineer, and the Admiralty, of course, take the responsibility of their work. The thing has been done in the same manner in which all these works have been done.
    MR. ALLANwas glad to hear that, and he would tell the right hon. Gentleman that, instead of £3,500,000, a great deal more would be wanted. These Estimates were always under the mark. Another point the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers had omitted. It was no laughing matter, but a very serious one. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to have 610 acres at low water. Let him tell the right hon. Gentleman that the moment he had made this harbour at Dover it would fill up again. The set of the tides around the North Foreland was such that the harbour was bound to silt up, and they would have to be continually dredging it to get a sufficient draught of water. Let the right hon. Gentleman ask his advisers whether they had taken that into consideration? He did not wish to see the right hon. Member become the father of a big botched job. The right hon. Member in matters of this kind ought to be more national. It was not a question of threatening France or America, but of where we were to put our ships if they happened to be damaged. The right hon. Gentleman's advisers apparently overlooked the fact that there might be battles in the North Sea. What did his advisers know about the matter? They had never been in action with an ironclad navy. They were more accustomed to wooden ships, and they had been wrapped up in canvas. They knew little or nothing about steam. They had never been in war, and did not understand how ships could be damaged by shell fire. If they did they would certainly advocate
    636
    the construction of harbours for repairs on the coasts of Scotland and Ireland. He recommended the right hon. Gentleman not to listen to his advisers at all, but to come to that House with a big, bread harbour scheme, saying it was necessary for the preservation of the Empire.
    SIR FRANCIS EVANS, who observed that the Leaders of the Opposition had apparently all gone home to roost—[Laughter]—thought that this was a very proper policy, and that the construction of a harbour at Dover was very necessary.
    MR. CREANasked whether the sum asked for would complete the works at Dover? He was verb- pleased that the Amendment had been Alloyed. They were not there to fool away their time—[cries of "Divide!"]. They on that side had not spent their time in dining outside the House and coining back to obstruct useful discussion, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would not interrupt. Was it the intention of the Admiralty to finish the Haulbowline Docks with the amount of money estimated?
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that question did not arise.
    MR. CREANsaid the expenditure on the Dover works was wasteful. The money would be better spent on improving existing docks and harbours. at present protected. This harbour was not protected, and would cost three times the amount of money estimated to make it a. temporary harbour. The money proposed to be spent on a temporary harbour should be spent on a permanent harbour. He hoped the hon. Member would press his Motion to a division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes, 121; Noes, 19.—(Division List, No. 316.)
    DR. TANNERsupposed that Dover Harbour was suggested out of fear of France; an Irish harbour out of dread of America; and this Chinese harbour from jealousy of Russia. Probably in a few days the Continental press would show how thoroughly foreign nations enjoyed the situation, seeing the country

    637
    taking immense precautions cast and west against the retributive justice that must follow the aggressive policy England had so long pursued.
    SIR FRANCIS EVANStook advantage of this opportunity to protest against the exclusion of South Africa from the Bill.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYexplained that surveys at Simon's Bay had been ordered and were in course of being carried out. As these surveys had not been completed it was not found possible to insert provisions for contemplated works in the present Bill.
    SIR FRANCIS EVANSsaid he had been informed that it was the case that some surveys were in progress at Cape Town, but he thought it right to put the ease of South Africa a little more prominently before the Committee, for it was a matter of very great importance. It was the more aggravating just now when the Premier of cape Colony had promised the gift of a first-class ironclad to the British Navy. There was not between the Cape and Australia a graving dock that could accommodate a first-class battleship. The statement of the First Lord was that surveys were being made at Simon's Bay, but he wished to point out that surveys had already been made at Canetovm which would sufficiently answer all that was necessary for getting out the Estimates for a graving dock at Capetown. They were practically in this position, that in case of war not one single one of the mercantile steamers that might be engaged in the transport of troops from one part of the Empire to the other could dry-dock south of the Line. He regretted that in thinking of the various interests of the Navy in time of war a matter of such great importance as this had been entirely overlooked. It was true that they were doing something now, but he thought greater speed might be used in building this graving dock than appeared likely to be the case from the statement of the First Lord.
    Schedule agreed to, Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Thursday.

    POOR LAW BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    Clause 1,—

    PROVISIONS AS TO POOR LAW LOANS.
    A loan raised after the passing of this Act under Section two of the Poor Law Act 1889 shall be repaid within such period, not exceeding sixty years, as the guardians or managers with the sanction of the Local Government Beard may determine, either by equal yearly or half-yearly instalments of principal or principal and interest, or by means of a sinking fund.
    (2.) The sinking fund shall be set apart, invested, and applied in accordance with the Local Loans Act 1875 and the Acts amending that Act, and for the purpose of such application the prescribed rate shall be a rate not exceeding three per cent. per annum. Provided that the guardians or managers shall not invest in their own securities.
    (3.) Where any such loan has been contracted to be repaid by annual isntalments, it may, with the consent of the lenders. he repaid by half-yearly instalments.
    (4.) Guardians and Managers may borrow money under the said Section two, without the consent of the Local Government Board, for the purpose of repaying any outstanding part of any loan borrowed either before or after the pawing of the Poor Law Act 1889, which they have power to repay.
    (5.) Any money so borrowed shall be repaid in the manner directed by this Act and within the same period as that originally sanctioned for the repayment of the loan, unless the Local Government Board consent to the period for repayment being enlarged, but that period shall not exceed sixty years from the date of the original borrowing.
    (6.) For the purpose of this section the expression "outstanding" means not repaid by instalments, or by means of a sinking fund, or out of capital money properly applicable to the purpose of repayment other than money borrowed for that purpose.
    DR. CLARKsaid that he regarded this as a valuable Bill, and he should be glad to see it pass. He would, however, like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill why they still kept the 60 years' limit for borrowing?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.)was understood to say that the Local Government Board would not often allow repayment of loans for the purchase of land under 60 years.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Remaining Clauses and Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    Clause 1,—

    POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS.
    The Secretary of State may, by order, subject to the conditions as to the making of an order under Section six of the Cotton Cloth Factories Act 1889, make regulations for the protection of health in cotton cloth factories, and may thereby require any additional readings of the thermometers, and make any consequential alterations in the schedules to that Act, and the regulations when made shall have effect as if embodied in that Act.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON, in the absence of Mr. ASCROFT (Oldham), moved after the word "regulations," to insert the words
    "for the purpose of giving effect to such of the recommendations contained in the report, dated the seventeenth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, of the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State on the twenty-eighth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, to inquire into the working of the Cotton Cloth Factories Act 1889, as he may deem necessary."
    Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2,—

    SHORT TITLE AND CONSTRUCTION.
    This Act may be cited as the Cotton Cloth Factories Act 1897, and shall he read as part of the Cotton Cloth Factories Act 1889, and that Act and this Act may be cited collectively as the Cotton Cloth Factories Acts 1889 and 1897.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the. Bill; Bill to be considered To-morrow.

    SUPPLY [19TH JULY].
    Report deferred till Thursday.
    PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Tomorrow.
    OUT-DOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
  DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th May] further adjourned till To-morrow.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [5th July] further adjourned till Tomorrow.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES [COMPENSATION].
  Resolution reported.
  That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. of compensation for any damage caused by Military Manœuvres, or by any operation incidental thereto, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to facilitate Military Manoeuvres.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put.
  House Adjourned at Five Minutes after One o'Clook.