Commons Sitting of 11 March 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CHELSEA WATER BILL.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONmoved, "That this Bill be now read a Second time." He explained that he made the Motion in his private capacity as a London Member, not speaking for the front Opposition Bench or in any way as a present or prospective member of the London County Council. When asked by the Council, he undertook the duty of moving the Second Reading. He had done so with some hope that, after the protracted and repeated discussions in the House, there would be a prospect of arriving at a general agreement. He would endeavour to deal with the subject with due moderation, and to avoid saying anything to aggravate the situation. There was no question of greater moment to the citizens and ratepayers of the Metropolis. Special attention had of late been drawn to the subject from the fact that there had been two or three occasions of late in certain parts of London of deficiency in the supply provided by at least one of the water companies. The Government, he understood, after lengthened consideration had come to the conclusion that they could not support the Second Reading of these Bills, and that made it more necessary for him to ask the indulgence of the House in stating the case for the promoters. Though the particular Bill before the House was that in relation to the Chelsea Company, the London County Council pledged itself to deal with the group of eight Bills upon one principle and system. It was scarcely necessary to discuss the question whether, as a matter of principle, it was advantageous and in the public interest that the water supply of a district should be under the control of the representatives of the ratepayers. In something like 45 out of 64 county boroughs the local authorities had the supply in their own hands, and it was quite certain that if any borough, except London, asked for leave to purchase its water supply, the House would immediately give its assent, of course on
  434
  a just and reasonable basis. The Secretary for the Colonies in his speech of last year dealt with this question of principle. He did not quote the words to bind the right hon. Gentleman to them, but they contained a general proposition to which the House would assent. The right hon. Gentleman, on the 24th March of last year, speaking on the Second Reading of these Bills, said:—
  "In this matter, so far as the main principle goes, I am entirely in agreement. I do believe that after the fullest inquiry you will always come back to this—that the water supply of a great city ought to be in the hands of a representative authority. If you make a purchase on a fair basis it is desirable in the interests of everybody that what is absolutely a necessary of life, what is one of the most important adjuncts to the sanitary condition of a great population, should be under the control of the representatives of the people. Therefore I agree with the County Council in what I believe to be their main object."
  He considered he was justified in quoting those words. But they were told that the complexity and difficulty of dealing with the London question, on account of the size of the metropolis, put it apart from this general principle, and that it ought to be dealt with on a different basis. In his opinion, however, that was a greater and not a lesser reason for dealing with the matter as one of urgency. The whole of the eight London water companies varied as to the quantity and quality of the water, as to pressure and constancy of supply, as to the rating and charge, and to the burden of charge, and as to the cost of administration and of profits. Roughly speaking, the richer parts were better served and at a cheaper rate than the poorer districts.
  MR. F. G. BANBURY: The charge per thousand gallons by the East London Company is much less than the charge per thousand gallons by any of the other companies. It is because the rateable value is lower that the percentage charged is higher, but the charge per head of the population is much less.
  MR. BUXTONthought the hon. Member would find from the statistics that the charge on rateable value, taken all round, was heavier by the East London Water Company than by the Chelsea Company, with which they were at present dealing. But he did not desire to dwell on that, for his contention was that in the Metropolis, as in large municipalities, the

  435
  charges for water ought to be uniform for all equal supply to all the inhabitants, and that any surplus should go in reduction of the charges made to the consumers. If they were to amalgamate the eight water companies, it was obvious that a considerable economy would be effected in the cost of administration, and in other ways by which the consumer would benefit. The cost of management of the London water companies varied from 4s. per head in the highest case to 2s. 1d. in the lowest, whereas the highest charge of any great municipality was 2s. 4d. per head, as against 1s. 2d., the lowest in a great municipality like Leeds. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, the London companies profited by the annual increase of the rateable value of the metropolis, "the unearned increment," because their charges were based upon it, and the result was that, without spending a single sixpence upon extra works, they received, he did not think it was an exaggeration to say, something like £10,000 a year extra profit without doing anything additional for it. If the companies were purchased the whole of that additional advantage would go to the ratepayers instead of to private companies. ["Hear, hear!"] It had been generally agreed that some change was desirable, and the Government substantially admitted that by the introduction of their Bill of last year. In introducing that Bill Lord James of Hereford said the Measure had been framed on the assumption that there existed a great and growing opinion that the time had come when the management of the water supply of the metropolis and the surrounding districts should be vested in the hands of a responsible and public representative body. That was the basis upon which the present Bills were introduced, and the County Council were further justified in their action in this matter by the Report of the Select Committee of 1891, presided over by the present Home Secretary, which recommended that the London County Council should be made the responsible water authority for London, and that when so constituted it should be required to purchase, either alone or in conjunction with the authorities of the outside area, the undertakings of the eight water companies. He therefore said that the London County Council, after the statement of the Government, and after the reports of the different Com-
  436
  mittees which had considered this question, were justified, may, were bound to, promote these Bills. In asking the House to assent to the Second Reading, he was not asking them to indorse the principle that the London County Council should necessarily be the future water authority throughout London. The House was in no sense of the term asked to indorse the principle of the authority proposed in these Bills. The question of the authority was open to the consideration of the Committee, and it was obvious that if ever an authority were created it would take over any powers conferred on the County Council by Parliament. The only principle really involved, and to which he asked the House to assent, was that laid down by the Colonial Secretary—that the water companies ought no longer to be private concerns, but in the possession and under the control of the representatives of the ratepayers in London and elsewhere. So the question to a large extent became one of urgency and one of terms. Last year the Bills were opposed because the Government intended to pass this Bill. But the Bill introduced by the Government had disappeared, and it was stated, with some authority, that the Government had no intention this Session to introduce anything in the nature of a comprehensive Bill to create a water authority. But the Government stated that they would appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the financial aspects of the purchase of the London water companies by the ratepayers; and to introduce a modern Measure of temporary control. The appointment of a Royal Commission was simply an excuse for further delay—[Ministerial cries of "No!"]—while, by the Second Reading of the Bills before the House the position would not be prejudiced, time would be saved, and the present authority in London enabled to initiate a purchase scheme. How could any Royal Commission at the present moment give any opinion which would be of value in the matter? The only question in doubt just now was that of the price which should be paid in the purchase of the water companies' undertakings. A Measure of temporary control would not carry the question of purchase any further than before, and the existence of the Royal Commission on the subject would tend to delay. In his opinion and that of

  437
  the County Council the matter was too urgent to be met by a dilatory plea of the appointment of a Royal Commission and a "modest" Measure of control. The Uncertainty as to the future of the water companies—whether they were to go on, be amalgamated, controlled, or purchased—was serious for the consumers and the water companies themselves. The Committee of last year, to which some of the Bills were referred, included a majority of the supporters of the Government; yet it unanimously expressed the opinion that the present position of the matter was not in accordance with the public interest, and things were in an anomalous position from which it would be to the public interest that the water companies and the inhabitants of London should be free. If the question which had so long been before Parliament were opened again, to be re-negotiated, it would be delayed for many years, and perhaps for ever. The objections to the Bill, apart from principle, were three, and related to detail, arbitration, and outside areas. The position of the debenture and shareholders in the companies in the event of purchase was a matter which might well be left to a Committee of the House. The real point after all was that of the price to be paid for the water companies' property, and the method of arriving at a price which would be just and fair on both sides. The County Council were willing to give a fair and just price. He admitted that the arbitration clause in the Bill of 1895 was hardly a fair or just one. [Ministerial cheers.] But that clause had disappeared, and the proposal now made was contained in Clause 7 of each of the eight Bills before the House. For himself and those who were promoting Bill, he might say there was no desire that the price to be given should be otherwise than just and fair. That was properly and fairly provided for in the clause to which he had referred. He could safely say that the London country Council was unanimously of opinion that this clause was just one as between buyer and seller. Last year the Government had said that in dealing with questions of this sort they ought not to introduce a new system of purchase, but ought to proceed on the well-recognised principle of the Lands Clauses Act. There was no doubt great force in that contention, but special circumstances might very well require special treatment.
  438
  That Act was intended for purchases of land chiefly by railway companies and local authorities, and, after all, the question of the land was in this case by far the smallest interest involved. This purchase was not one that could be adequately dealt with under the Lands Clauses Act, for he was informed that, looking to the limitation contained in the Act, and to the practice that prevailed in interpreting that Act, circumstances that ought to receive due weight in this case could not be entertained by the arbitrators in considering the price. Take two points. It would be necessary to consider the question of how far, under the statutory obligations of the companies, the present needs of London in regard to water supply were adequately supplied, and how far future requirements would involve additional expenditure by these companies. That was an essential question, and it was one which they were advised could not be taken into account without some alteration of the Lands Clauses Act. They believed that under the Lands Clauses Act it would not be possible for the arbitrators, dealing as they did with present income as the real basis on which they assessed a claim, to capitalise the purchase price of the different companies on just terms. In one case a company might be spending an inadequate sum upon filtration and supply, and matters of that sort, while another company might be spending a much larger sum for improving the supply that was given to the ratepayers. Those two points ought necessarily to be taken into account in considering the value. Then there was another objection, namely, to the custom which had grown up under the Lands Clauses Act. Under the Lands Clauses system, as it had been interpreted by many arbitrators, there was a practical direction to the arbitrator that he was not only to take into account the actual value, but to give something for incidental injury, which was usually in round numbers an increased sum 10 per cent. This was given to the individual for disturbance and for satisfaction of sentiment, but there was no sentiment connected with a water share. These were matters in regard to which the Committee to which the Bill was referred would have full power of deciding what was a full and fair value. The London

  439
  County Council did not in any sense desire that the price should be other than a fair and just one, but they were determined, as far as they could, to protect themselves from extravagant claims, and from exorbitant prices being given to the water company's shareholders. Then as to the important point of the outside areas and the outside authorities, the House would remember that last year the President of the Local Government Board and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, had referred at some length to this matter. The former had said that there must be co-operation between the council and the outside authorities. The Secretary of State for the Colonies had said that they must take into account the outside authorities, and must consider the question of sentiment. He had said that it was no good riding rough-shod over them, or pressing a Bill to which they objected. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. But this year, and even within the last few weeks, there had been, he was glad to say, a considerable development in this direction. As regarded these outside areas and outside authorities the London County Council had come to a provisional agreement with every one of them, with the exception of the Middlesex County Council. [An HON. MEMBER: "A very important one!"] He admitted that that was an important exception, but he believed, if the Bill were passed on the understanding that they should come to an agreement, the County Council would also be willing to come to terms. [Col. LOCKWOOD: "Essex."] He understood that they had come to provisional terms with the Essex County Council. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hertfordshire."] He believed that as a matter of fact some satisfactory negotiations had been come to with Hertfordshire, but practically they were not consumers of water that came to the metropolis. The point he was dealing with was the question of these authorities as consumers of water, not purchasers. He himself thought, as he knew by experience as a fisherman, that they took too much water from Hertfordshire. With the exception of the county of Middlesex, the other authorities had come to provisional agreements which would ultimately become regular agreements.
  COL. LOCKWOODsaid he did not think the hon. Member
  440
  was right about Essex. He understood that the agreement was not signed, and that they refused to sign it the other day.
  MR. BUXTONsaid he was glad of the interruption, as he did not wish to mislead the House. But he understood that the position as regarded Essex and other authorities, was that they had made provisional agreements, and were ready practically to abide by the decision of the House of Commons if this matter was settled. The position this year was very different from what it was last year, as the outside authorities were substantially prepared to support the Second Reading of the Bill, with the idea that the matter should be properly considered in Committee. With regard to the question of arbitration, they suggested what they believed to be a fair proposal. Then, in regard to the outside area, they were in a more advanced position than last year. As to the question of the authority, the House would not bind itself by reading the Bill a Second time to any particular authority. All the Second Reading would mean was, that the House was in favour of dealing with the question by the purchase of the water companies. He submitted to the House a complete and definite scheme of purchase. If the Government were not prepared to accept the scheme of the Bill for the settlement of the question, he hoped they would introduce some other plan which would have immediate application, and not approve of any policy of delay, which would only increase the ultimate cost of the settlement of the question to the ratepayers, and probably do great damage to the efficiency of the water supply of London. [Cheers.]
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDmoved to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." He said it was only on public grounds that he opposed the Measure. On the last occasion the question was before the House the Leader of the Opposition had suggested he was interested in the London water companies. He wished, therefore, to state distinctly that he did not hold a single debenture or a single share in the London water companies—["hear, hear!"]—and the only connection he had with them was, that he endeavoured to make them pay as much as possible to the Thames Con-

  441
  servancy. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it was a pity that the London County Council should have disregarded the decision, averse from their scheme, which the House of Commons arrived at last year, in a full House and after prolonged debate. The London County Council had also brought in their Bills with a full knowledge of the fact that the Government were not favourable to their scheme. Lord James of Hereford had declared in the House of Lords last year, on the introduction of the Bill for creating a Metropolitan Home Counties Water Trust,
  "that it was not expedient, to transfer to the London County Council the great business of administering the water supply, both within and without the Metropolis, as now furnished by the eight companies."
  Then why had they brought in eight Bills when one Bill would have sufficed? He believed it was done in the hope that they would ultimately oust the water companies from their position by putting them to enormous costs. ["Hear, hear!"] It was indeed a monstrous thing that the water companies should be called upon year after year to defend, by means of the ratepayers' money, the rights given them by Parliament, when that money might be employed towards the reduction of the rates; and those rights had to be defended against a public body with an unlimited supply of public money. [Cheers.] He saw it stated that that body had spent £66,000 on Parliamentary proceedings during the last four years; and it was nothing less than a public scandal that the public, who held the shares of the water companies, should have, as ratepayers, to bear their share of that expenditure and have their dividends reduced in consequence of those proceedings. [Cheers.] It was stated in the Queen's Speech that the Government were going to deal with the London water question; and he thought it was the duty of the House to see that Measure, before it placed on the water companies the enormous cost of fighting the Bills of the London County Council before the Committees upstairs. But if, from any cause, the Government Measure were not brought in this Session, he had introduced a Bill which met the difficulties of the case without bringing in any fresh element of discord; and the London County Council had attempted to get that Bill disallowed on a technical
  442
  point before the Standing Orders Committee. There were only two important reasons why any alteration in the present system of water supply in London should be made. The first was security against the chance of water famine in the future; and the second was economical management with a view to saving expense to the ratepayers and consumers. Neither of those points was met by the Bills of the London County Council. ["Hear, hear!"]They simply introduced new elements of discord in raising the question between the inner and the outer circles, and trampled upon private rights in a manner never dreamt of except by the London County Council. [Cheers.] In regard to his first point, the prevention of a water famine, no amalgamation of the undertakings was proposed, and there was no plan for making the water supply interchangeable, and, for all practicable purposes, the public would obtain no advantage by the purchase. Then, with regard to the question of economy, which, as it affected the ratepayers, ought to be the main consideration, he found, from a Parliamentary Return quoted in all article on the water supply of London and other large towns, in The Times of January 18th, that the working classes and water consumers occupying small houses paid a lower rate in London than in great towns where the municipality managed the supply. For houses of the rateable value of £10 the water rate was, in Birmingham, 10s.; in Manchester, 11s.; in Liverpool, 13s. 6d.; while in London it was only 9s. 9d.; [Cheers.] For £20 houses the water rate was, in Birmingham, £1 10s.; in Liverpool, £1 5s. 11d.; in Manchester, £1 1s.; in London, 19s. 7d. For £30 houses the rate was, in Birmingham, £2 10s.; in Liverpool, £1 17s. 2d.; Manchester, £1 11s.; and in London, £1 9s. 8d. That showed that, in regard to water supply, the working classes were better off in London than in any provincial town. [Cheers.] Then there was the question of the purity of the water supply; and in regard to that important question purchase would place the consumers at it distinct disadvantage. The purity depended on filtering, which required constant care and watching. At present the officers had the fear of the County Council before their eyes. They knew they were supervised by a watchful

  443
  and not too friendly critic. But if the supply was controlled by the London County Council, who would criticise them? [Cheers.] Then came the question of quantity. The companies were bound to supply sufficient quantity as well as quality; and there would have been no water famine in East London last summer were it not for the action of the London County Council. It certainly would be a singular action to take the control of those who knew and desired to do their duty, and give it to those who had prevented that duty being fulfilled. ["Hear, hear!"] But those eight Water Bills were not the whole story. What about the additional supply Bill of the London County Council? It might be said that it was dropped; but if that were so, what about the present proceedings of the London County Council? Did not they show that the London County Council still intended to persevere with their Welsh scheme? On the 5th February 1897 the Water Committee of the London County Council reported in favour of the continuance by the engineer of the surveys in relation to the Welsh scheme of supply, and the Water Committee recommended that, for that purpose, the services of Mr. Rumsby at a salary of £250 a year, and three other gentlemen at salaries of £200 a year each, should be retained until the 31st March 1898. Previous to that, on the 27th October 1896, notwithstanding the Report of the Royal Commission as to the quality of the water, the London County Council directed chemical examination of the water to be made for a period of six months, at a cost of £10 per week in order to prove that, notwithstanding that the water is constantly analysed on behalf of the Government by Dr. Frankland, that the water they propose to purchase at the cost of £40,000,000 is objectionable in quality, and must be superseded by a new source of supply. Now, what was the cost of this proposed second supply? According to the London County Council's own estimate, it was 55 millions—38 millions for cost of construction, 15 millions for storage, and two millions for expenses. As Chairman of the Thames Conservancy, he had naturally studied the subject very carefully, and he had no hesitation in saying that the whole supply necessary for London could easily be obtained, if it was taken
  444
  at proper times and in a proper manner, from the Thames. The storage of the water in the reservoirs was the proper system to adopt. If it were taken from the Thames when the water was above a certain height no inconvenience would be caused; and as to its purity, the additional powers for purification given to the Conservancy by Parliament secured that water from the Thames was as pure as it could be found anywhere. The Chairman of the Water Committee of the London County Council, in a Report drawn up in 1894, estimated the financial cost of the purchase of the present water companies at 30 millions, and found that
  "to provide annual expenditure and repayment of capital, the present water rates, over the whole area of Water London, will have to be increased by at least 30 per cent."
  And "the London ratepayer," added the Report,
  "may find that in a very few years he has to incur an expenditure of some £20,000,000, in abandoning altogether the Thames as a source of supply, and his rates will be raised in respect of this by a further sum of 6d. in the pound."
  This was the London County Councils own estimate, which was not likely to be put too high; and all this enormous increase was to be undertaken simply to gratify the vanity of the London County Council, and this would be further indefinitely increased if the advocates of "free water" prevailed, in which case the whole cost would fall on the ratepayers; and he would like to know at what rate would the London County Council be able to borrow the £100,000,000 necessary to carry out this scheme? At present the charges of the water companies were statutory, and could not be increased; and any new works might diminish dividends. But there would be no limit to the charges which the London County Council might impose. Moreover, they would be bound to make provision for the redemption of capital, from Which provision the Companies were exempt. This gave a prospect of a 4d. rate for the old supply and another 4d. rate for the new supply, besides the 6d. in the pound for the Welsh scheme, and the ordinary rate increased by 30 per cent. Another important fact was that the dividends of the companies were limited to 10 per cent. Anything

  445
  above that went in the reduction of the price of water. Four of the companies had reached the limit; three were on the verge of it, and only one was much below it. Therefore the consumers had a very valuable property in these companies, which would be totally lost if the County Councils bought, the undertakings. The Bill, therefore, could not benefit the public either in greater certainty of supply or in economy; and although that should settle the question, there were further objections in respect of area and private rights. The area covered by the companies was 620 square miles. The area of the London County Council was Only 122 square miles. London was nearly filled up, and its outside area was growing daily. The County of Middlesex—the most important of the areas surrounding London—was utterly and entirely opposed to this scheme in any shape or form. Unless absolutely compelled by Parliament, it would not consent to any arrangement whatever with the London County Council. The counties of Essex and Hertfordshire were also opposed to the scheme. To get over the difficulty, an attempt had been made this year to bribe the outside areas, but the more the scheme was looked into the less it would be found to bear discussion. The offer to give a proportion of the water to the outside districts was utterly unworkable, and would be a glaring disadvantage to both parties; and as far as the district authorities were concerned, some of the provisions of the Bill were inconsistent with the powers conferred on them by the Public Health Act 1875. But, the result of the Bill, if carried, instead of promoting amalgamation, would be that instead of eight water authorities there would be 30 or 40 all round London. That might be a pleasent prospect for engineers and secretaries, but, it would be decidedly bad for the public. Lastly, as to the position of the debenture and shareholders. The scheme of the Bill was to give the London County Council possession of the works and books, accounts and documents of the company on three months' notice, expiring in March 1898, or March 1899, at the option of the Council, quite irrespective of whether the purchase money had then been paid or even arrived at. The proposal that a notice should have the effect of vesting properly was not only fundamentally opposed to the provisions
  446
  of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, which required payment to be made or secured before possession was given, but was also contrary to the elementary principles of justice. Let the House imagine a vendor going to arbitration when his property, books, accounts, and documents were in, the custody of his opponents. But that was not all. These Bills not only dealt, inadequately with the case of officers and servants, but obliged them to enter into the service of the purchasers before the purchase was complete; so that possibly they would have to apply their energies in counteracting, the claims of their old employers to honest compensation. As to the question of arbitration, the hon. Member who moved the Bill admitted that the principle of 1895 was improper, but he would not then undertake to withdraw it. Now the County Council and each company might agree on a single arbitrator, or each side might appoint one, and a third might be added by the High Court. These three arbitrators were to sit together. No umpire was appointed, so the award must be unanimous. If the arbitrators were not unanimous, a lengthy and ruinous arbitration would be simply wasted. But, if the arbitrators agreed, why were they not to act under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, under which all railway and other companies had acquired their property? The Act had stood the test of 50 years, and had proved sufficient for the transfer of 100 millions' worth of property. The hon. Member for Poplar had explained that, it was not fair to give the companies the 10 per cent. compensation given to private people whose properly was taken. The Shareholders of the companies were private persons. Why should they not have their full rights?
  MR. BUXTON: I said that there was a material difference. In one case a private individual is dispossessed of his house or land and is put to some considerable inconvenience; and it is recognised by custom that such a case is entitled to compensation. But in the other case—that of the shareholder—so long, as he has full compensation for the value of his shares, there can be no claim for sentimental or material injury.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid that the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts were employed when the purchase of the

  447
  water companies of Liverpool, Birmingham, Northampton, Lincoln, Wolverhampton, and Middlesbrough was carried through; and when these Bills were last discussed, on March 25 1896, the President of the Local Government Board and the Colonial Secretary were very strong on the question. But in what position does this Bill leave the unfortunate debenture, and shareholders? The London County Council had been advised that the arbitrations might last for several years, and, in the meanwhile, the shareholders were not empowered to transfer their holdings. Thus the market value of perhaps 40 millions of property would for years be unsaleable. And these shares, be it remembered, were largly held by the poor people of this country. ["Oh!"] The debenture stock is a trustee stock, of which its security will be absolutely taken away, as not only its interest, but, the shareholders will only be entitled to dividend so far as either the London County Council or outside authorities may carry on the various undertakings so as to yield a profit, and there is no provision to oblige them to continue them at all. The fact was, what the London County Council called equitable treatment, was regarded by plain folks as barefaced robbery. He hoped the House would reject a Measure which was unfair to the consumers, unfair to the ratepayers, unfair to the companies, and unfair to the outer areas alike.
  MR. W. R. BOUSFIELD, in seconding the Amendment, said that, apart from the question of the County Council being the water authority, he was very much in agreement with those who desired that this matter should be speedily dealt with, and he adopted to a considerable extent the arguments of the hon. Member for Poplar. For instance, he agreed that the management of the water supply of the metropolis should be in the hands of a representative authority—[Ministerial cheers]—that the differences in different parts of London required to be equalised, alike in regard to charges and the supply per head of the population, and also as to the urgency of the
  448
  question. He regarded it as a matter of the greatest urgency that the question should be promptly dealt with, and they had reason to believe that the Government itself shared that view. If he and others on the Ministerial side had reason to believe that the Government took that view, they would, notwithstanding their great objection to the County Council being the water authority, have been prepared to support the Second Reading of those Bills. [Ministerial cheer and cries of "No, no!"] He desired it to be understood that he had not the slightest objection to the London County Council as a council. It was quite true the present constitution of that body did not entirely please him, but he had never railed at it; it was the creation of their own Party, and he had sufficient confidence in the ratepayers of London to believe that they were perfectly capable of electing a County Council thoroughly competent to discharge the municipal business of the metropolis. The question of areas, in his opinion, was still a dominant factor in the situation. Notwithstanding the fact that certain agreements had been come to as between the County Council and bodies outside, it hardly required all argument to show that it world be absurd to allow the London County Council, which only represents 120 square miles, to control the water supply of an area of 620 square miles. He had never seen those agreements; was the hon. Member for Poplar prepared to make one of them public?
  MR. BUXTON: If the Bill passes Second Reading, the agreements would go before the Committee in due form. [A laugh.]
  MR. BOUSFIELDpointed out that a knowledge of the provisions of those agreements was of enormous importance at the present stage. Unless one knew the principle on which the whole of the undertaking was to be divided between the central and the outside areas, it was obvious, injustice might be done to the citizens of London. He wanted to know what the outside authorities were prepared to pay for the share they would have in the undertakings upon the basis of their prospective value. Unless the

  449
  County of London was to be treated on that basis, it would be far better to go, not for purchase, but simply for control.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,), who was received with Ministerial cheers, said that it would be for the convenience of the House, and would probably save time if he stated the course which the Government intended to take upon the Motion before the House. The position of the London water question, in one respect at all events, appeared to him to have considerably changed from what it was a year or more ago. The hon. Gentleman deprecated further delay, and pressed upon the House the extreme urgency of the question, and in one sense, no doubt, his statement was justified. The recurrence of a water famine in two successive years in the East End of London, following as it did failures in supply in other parts of London in consequence of prolonged frost, undoubtedly did bring home to the minds of water consumers in London in the most unpleasant manner the importance of this question to them, and these occurrences gave rise to demands, sometimes very exigent, for legislation that would prevent a repetition of these failures in future. He sympathised entirely with that demand and assured the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the Government, were endeavouring by every means in their power to meet it. It was right the House should be remainded of what it was that led to the water famine in 1896. There was no escape from the conclusion that the famines that occurred in East End of London were caused by the want of sufficient storage for the water supply of the East London Company, and that insufficiency of storage power was due to the action of the London County Council in the year 1893. ["Hear, hear!"] The East London Company, who had foreseen the necessity for making further application for storage, and were prepared to do so, in that year introduced a Bill for the purpose. But that Bill was opposed with all the power they could bring against it by the London County Council and, although they were warned of the danger of their course, and although it was pointed out to them by no less an authority than the Chairman of Committees that they would incur great responsibility, the County Council insisted on
  450
  throwing out the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, in 1894, the East London Company in the fulfilment of its duty came before Parliament with another Bill on the subject, and again it was opposed by the London County Council, and not only by the Council, but by the President of the Local Government Board at the time—Mr. Shaw Lefevre. ["Hear, hear!"] On that occasion, however, happily the London County Council and the President of the Local Government Board were defeated, though only by a majority of one. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Bill had been defeated on that occasion he trembled to think what might have been the consequences to the inhabitants of the east of London last year. ["Hear!"] The happy consequence of the defeat of the Council was that to-day the position was altogether different, for the works contemplated in that Bill had been rapidly proceeded with, and he was informed that in a few weeks from now the works would be completed, and when completed the storage power of the company would be absolutely doubled. ["Hear, hear!"] Prior to March 1896 the East London Company possessed reservoirs to store 600,000,000 gallons. At the commencement of this year they had, as a consequence of the Bill which had been so bitterly opposed by the Council, increased the storage to 1,000 minion gallons, and within the next few weeks the storage will be increased to 1,200 million gallons. ["Hear, hear!"] As the result, he was told that anything in the nature of a recurrence of a water famine became exceedingly remote. That was not all. Another Bill was brought forward by the same company only the other day for the purpose of still further increasing the storage power, and that Bill had been read, he was glad to say, a Second time, and would, he hoped, become law at no distant date. Under this the storage power of the East London Company would be increased to nearly 2,500 million gallons. Under such circumstances, it might be said apprehension of a recurrence of a water famine disappeared. He mentioned these facts to the House, not because he desired in any way to minimise the importance of the subject, but because he thought it was only right and due to the House that it should be placed in possession of the information he had on the subject, for it might be a factor of some importance in determining the

  451
  decision on the present occasion. With regard to the Bill which the hon. Member had asked the House to read a Second time, the policy of the County Council, so far as he could gather from the speech of the hon. Member, appeared to be as follows. They were to acquire the property by purchase of eight different London water companies, subject, however, to agreements which he understood had been made with the representatives of all but one of the water areas outside the jurisdiction of the County Council. There appeared to be some difference of opinion on that point with hon. Members behind him.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODexplained that he had consulted the Essex authorities and found that, though technically right, the hon. Member was practically wrong.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid the effect of these agreements appeared to be this. While the County Council would maintain and control the supply within the limits of their jurisdiction, and also that of the areas with which no agreements had been made, yet the supply within the other areas in respect to which agreements would be made would be managed and controlled by the authorities who represented them. So far as he knew, it had been the object of all parties in the House to have one area for London; but under this Bill there would be a number of areas and a number of different authorities all severed from each other. The policy of the County Council, in fact, as between its own area and the areas outside seemed to be a policy of severance and separation. So far as he had any knowledge of the subject this was a new departure—["No, no!"]—an entirely new solution of the water difficulty of London. Although, undoubtedly, it was a possible principle that representative authorities should be invested with the control of their own water supply, if it could be shown that the proposals were businesslike and practicable, it was unfortunately alleged by competent authorities that the proposal was open to two of the greatest possible objections. It was contended by many authorities on the subject, first, that this was not a practicable scheme, and, secondly, it was urged that it would be most injurious to the ratepayers, and particularly to those within the limits of the jurisdiction of the County Council. With
  452
  reference to the first difficulty, it was urged that the mere physical difficulty of separating all these sources of supply, the mains, the pipes, and the whole machinery of distribution, would be enormous and expensive, and when the great number of different authorities were taken into account, all of whom would have to be dealt with, he was told the scheme would end in a chaos of confusion. Such was the objection taken to the first part of the proposal. Secondly, it had been pointed out that the burden on London ratepayers would be increased, because only the outside areas would have an opportunity of reaping any increase in returns from the increased consumption of water by a rapidly-growing population. He owned that these were objections of great importance, and it was manifest, he thought, that before they gave their sanction to any of these proposals they must be carefully examined and cleared up. They were told that the promoters were perfectly agreed, and that a committee was the proper tribunal. He had considered the matter, and there were objections which he desired to point out to the House. Who were the parties to appear before the Committee? They had the companies on the one hand, as a matter of course, and on the other the representatives of the County Council and the outside areas. How, under the circumstances, the interests of the ratepayers were to be represented he did not see. [Cheers.] Of course that House might give them a locus standi, but the ratepayers would have to do it at their own cost, at an expense which no private individual ought to be expected to incur; it was notorious that in the County Council itself there was the widest difference of opinion, and although the decision to proceed with these Bills was taken by a small majority, there was a powerful opposition. It would be impossible for that powerful opposition to be heard before the Committee. Quite apart from this, there were wider and broader questions to be considered which they would have to consider. Let them reflect on the object which they ought to have in view in dealing with the companies. First there was the point that the water to be supplied was of proper quality; the second was whether it was of adequate quantity, and that a failure of supply should be rendered as far as pos-

  453
  sible impossible. The third point was that it should be supplied as cheaply as possible to the ratepayers. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading objected to the present quality of the water on the ground that it varied very considerably, and he also said that the wealthier part of London was charged more cheaply than other parts. On that point he was emphatically contradicted, and with regard to the quality the Commissioners reported:—
  "We are strongly of opinion that the water supplied to the consumer in London is of a very high standard of excellence and purity and suitable for all household purposes."
  ["Hear, hear!"] There was no reservation with that statement.
  MR. BUXTONsaid he had no intention of saying that the water generally was impure.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, with regard to the quantity of water, Lord Balfour's Commission stated that from the existing sources there was available 35 gallons per diem for a population of 12 millions of people. As to the third condition, cheapness, he would be a bold man who would be prepared to say that the policy of purchase would be an economical policy in the interest of the ratepayers. ["Hear, hear!"] He had a very shrewd suspicion that the very opposite would be the case if the policy of purchase were carried out. Before they gave their sanction to purchase there must be an inquiry into different matters, such as what would be the financial result to the ratepayers. On this point they were almost completely in the dark. Then, should there be one area and one authority, or more than one? In particular, was this policy if severance and separation practicable and feasible? It must be remembered that there were two main lines of policy. There was the policy of acquisition on the one hand, and there was the policy of control on the other. They might consider as to the last-named whether additional control over the companies could be exercised with advantage. Another matter of importance was how far it was practicable to connect together any two or more of the water systems, and in that way obviate the danger of any water famine in the future. What the Government proposed to do was to oppose the Second Reading of the Bills—[cheers] and if the Bills should be defeated, then
  454
  they should appoint a Royal Commission—[ironical cheers]—to carry out the inquiry into the matters he had indicated. They thought the Commission should be a small one, and as to the precise terms of reference, he should be prepared to place them before the House shortly. This Commission, he thought, might report in a reasonable time. Meanwhile, they thought that something might be done by the introduction of a Measure this Session to strengthen and improve the position of the water consumers in the metropolis. It had been a common cause of complaint on any failure to fulfil their obligations on the part of the companies that it was extremely difficult and sometimes impossible for the water consumer to get adequate redress. They thought if means were, given to the aggrieved consumer for obtaining redress more easily than at present, that would be a great advantage and boon to him pending the inquiry. He could not then give the details of the methods they proposed to adopt, because to do so at that moment would be out of order, but they proposed to lay them before that House shortly. He had indicated to the best of his ability the alternatives which the Government intended to propose to the Second Reading of the Bills, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that, in opposing these Bills, he was actuated by no spirit of animosity towards the London County Council. ["Hear, hear!"] What the cost of carrying out the proposals contained in the Bills would be to the ratepayers of the metropolis he could not say, but he had heard it stated that night by his hon. Friend behind him that if the London County Council were to attempt to carry them out they would be embarking upon an expenditure of between £70,000,000 and £100,000,000 of money. That would necessarily cast an enormous additional burden upon the ratepayers, and such a burden ought not to be imposed upon them without a careful inquiry by a tribunal before whom those representing the ratepayers might be heard. For the reasons he had given, although he greatly regretted that he should now, for the second time within a short period, have been brought into conflict with the London County Council, he felt that he had no alternative but to oppose the Second Reading of these Bills.["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid that he had heard with much regret that the Government intended to throw out these Bills. To refer this question to a Royal Commission for further inquiry would be to hang it up for a considerable time, while it would undoubtedly strengthen the position of the London water companies against the public. He was surprised, and much regretted, that the Government should now propose to do over again what had already been done. He, however, could scarcely wonder at the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to refer this question to a Royal Commission when he remembered that in the earlier part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman had asserted that the proposals made by the London County Council in these Bills were absolutely new. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken in that assumption. ["Hear, hear!"] During the last 15 years the London water question had been inquired into by commissions and committees of all kinds, and only recently, in 1891, the question had been considered in all its aspects by one of the most important Committees of that House that had ever sat, and which had been presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary. That Committee went into precisely the question into which the right hon. Gentleman now proposed that inquiry should be made, and it was upon the Report of that Committee and of another Committee that the present Bills were founded. ["Hear, hear!"] The arbitration clause was specially based upon the Report of those Committees. Whatever faults might be found in these Bills might easily be pointed out before the Committee upstairs, and be dealt with by them in the event of the Bills being read a Second time. Having framed their Bills upon the recommendations in the Reports of those Committees, what was the next proper step for the London County Council to take? It was to lay those Bills before the House of Commons, a course which they were then taking. In his view, in the circumstances of the case, the Government ought to permit these Bills to be read a Second time in order that they might be sent before a Committee upstairs, who could examine into the proposals embodied in them and see how far they would operate for the bene-
  456
  fit of the public. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the ratepayers of London and of the outlying areas ought to be heard before Committee. Was there ever such an extraordinary statement made before? Surely the London County Council were the representatives of the London ratepayers, and were the only persons who ought to be heard on their behalf. ["Hear, hear!"] Had private individuals been heard in the case of the Bill for the supply of water to Birmingham? Certainly not. It was only the Town Council and the County Council that were heard as the representatives of the ratepayers. He submitted that it would be idle to refer all the questions relating to the London water supply, that had been inquired into over and over again, to a Royal Commission, who would have to go over all the ground again. Why should that House follow the Report of a Royal Commission if they were going to disregard the reports of their own Committees which had been appointed by their predecessors? A Royal Commission would have no better means of investigating the circumstances, and could have no better sources of information than the Committees of that House had had, or than a Committee of that House would have if the Bills were read a Second time. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was necessary to inquire how the proposals in that Bill would affect the ratepayers financially. That would entirely depend upon how much the London County Council were going to give the water companies for their undertakings, and who was to manage those undertakings when the purchase had been effected. No one could so well decide how much should be given for the undertakings as a Committee of that House, and it would be for the ratepayers to determine how the undertakings should be managed. Now that the fate of the Bills was sealed, he did not think that it would be worth while to discuss the details of the proposals which they contained. It had been stated that the actual charge for water was less in other places than it was in London. In Birmingham the charge for a £37 10s. house was £2 17s.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I mentioned the small houses of £10, £20, and £30 a year.
  MR. STUARTsaid that when a comparison was made between London and Birmingham, it was necessary to say with what company in London the comparison was made, because the charges of some companies in London were practically double those of others. He would like to point out that one or two mistakes had been made in this discussion. It had been said that 30 or 40 authorities were to be established under the Bill. That was not so. There would only be 7 or 8. In the next place they had been told that 55 millions of money was to be spent by the County Council on some Welsh scheme. That sum was erroneous. It would be nothing like it. But that did not affect the question of purchase, because if water was required from a distance, that was a question of fact the House would have to determine whatever was done on the present Bill; and whether it was the County Council or the companies who had to get water from a distance, it would have in the circumstances identically the same effect, namely, that the people who got the water would have to pay for it. The statement had been made that the County Council were constantly harassing the water companies—["hear, hear"]—and that they had spent £66,000 in Parliamentary work. He had no doubt that figure was correct, though he had no means of verifying it; but he would like to point out that this was only the second time they had introduced a Purchase Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] All their other business with water companies had consisted in criticising and dealing with their Bills and in almost every case, he thought he might say in all cases, when those Bills had come before a Committee, they had carried the demands they had made—["hear, hear!"]—and in doing so, they had saved the people of London an enormous amount of money. Last year he sat on a Committee which worked long and laboriously, and that Committee was convinced that water concessions would have to be made. They reported to the House pointing out how bad it was for London that the present position should continue, and they showed the positions of water companies with reference to purchase, and expressed the hope that the question might be fairly settled. That was because they were conscious that large concessions would have to be made, and if they were to be made to private
  458
  companies at this stage, their effect on the price that would have to be paid for the present undertakings, let alone any further undertakings, as improved by them, was certainly a very serious item for consideration. ["Hear, hear!"] The result of that night's Debate and of the resolution of the Government would be to add many millions to the sum which London would have to give for these undertakings in the future. He could only beg the House to support the Council in the division on this Bill, and he hoped that those Members on the Unionist side who so disliked the County Council, might still come round to vote for the Bill. He was convinced that the House would find no other authority except the County Council possible. ["Hear, hear!"] It was but beating the air to imagine that any authority but the existing representative authorities, who were concerned in their own localities, could be created. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKthought he would be expressing the feeling of the majority of London Members when he said that they had heard with much satisfaction the statement of the President of the Local Government Board. The result of the discussion, instead of taking millions of money out of the pockets of the London ratepayers, would, in his opinion, save them from a very heavy loss. As a general principle it was most undesirable that local authorities or governments should undertake great commercial transactions or become great employers of labour, and those who wished them to do so were bound to prove their case. The hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch, and the supporters of these Bills, had not given any sufficient reason for embarking upon this gigantic speculation. ["Hear, hear!"] The House would probably be of opinion that, as a rule, municipalities should not enter into business or commercial transactions, and that it was also undesirable that they should become great employers of labour. The question then arose whether there were any special circumstances which rendered the purchase of the water companies desirable. He thought, on the contrary, there were special reasons which justified them in asking the House to throw out these Bills. He did not oppose them from any jealousy of the London County

  459
  Council. On the contrary, if purchase was carried out, they must, he thought, have the control, or, at any rate, a preponderating voice. They had, however, already very heavy duties, and no special acquaintance with the subject. Nor was he opposing the Bills in the interests of the water companies; he was not a shareholder in any of them, and he was speaking entirely in the interests of the ratepayers. Other cities might or might not have been wise to acquire their water supply, but every case must be examined on its own basis. Now, in the case of London all the companies, with possibly one exception, were limited to a maximum dividend of 10 per cent., and this was generally obtained, or very nearly so. Moreover, in the Metropolis they were face to face with the necessity of either having to go to a distance for a large additional water supply, or of spending several millions sterling on storage reservoirs in the Thames valley. This was not so much owing to the fact that more water was required, as because the difficulty of maintaining the purity was becoming greater and greater with the continually increasing population in the Thames and Lea valleys. If the municipality did not buy up the water companies, the duty and expense of obtaining the new supply would fall upon the companies. On the other hand, if they were bought up by the London County Council, then the additional burden would fall upon the rates. It was sometimes said that the water companies ought to be bought up, because water was a necessity of life; but so was bread, and so were many other things; and the point was whether their water supply, in the hands of the water companies, was as large and as pure as it was likely to be in the hands of the London County Council. The difficulty of maintaining the purity was very considerable, and very careful filtering was necessary. The present filtering was conducted by the water companies, and was carefully watched by the officials of the London County Council. But if the London County Council became the owner of the water supply, who would there be to watch over that body? ["Hear, hear!"] So far as purity was concerned, therefore, the argument was rather against than in favour of purchase. Passing to the financial aspect of the question, he said those who advocated
  460
  purchase did so no doubt under the belief that they would get their water cheaper. He did not believe this. He would ask the House, for instance, to consider what would be the effect to the ratepayers of buying up the West Middlesex Company. It was limited to a maximum dividend of 10 per cent.; everything over and above that must go in reduction of the price of water. The company was now paying a 10 per cent. dividend, and had already reduced the price of water to its consumers. If, therefore, the circumstances of the company improved that would not increase the dividends of the shareholders, but would reduce the price charged to the water consumers. On the contrary, if the company were compelled to undergo large expenditure, the burden would fall not upon the ratepayers, but upon the shareholders. If, however, they bought up the West Middlesex Company, then, if the profits increased they would gain nothing more than under the present system; while, on the other hand, they would be in a worse position if there were increased expenses. Moreover, if the companies were bought up the persent ratepayers would not only have to pay for the water, but for the amortisation of the stock. The longest time allowed by Parliament to the London County Council, even in the case of purchase of freehold land, was 60 years, and if the London County Council had to amortise the stock within 60 years, it was evident there would be a heavy additional burden on the present ratepayers. Those who had not gone thoroughly into the question were dazzled by the 10 per cent. dividends paid by the companies; but, of course, the purchase of the West Middlesex and the other companies would have to be on the basis of the present profits, and anyone who looked at the figures would see that those who purchased water companies' stocks and debentures at present prices could only obtain two and three-quarters or three per cent. for their money. It was true that the London County Council could borrow at two and-a-half per cent., but adding on the expenses of management, etc., the price came to about £2 17s. 6d., so that the margin was extremely small. Moreover, there are other objections to the Bills now before the House. In the first place they effected no consolidation, because while, on the one hand, they abolished

  461
  the eight water companies, on the other hand, they created more than eight water authorities. Moreover, as the mains were now laid with reference to the boundaries of the companies, they would have to be rearranged with reference to the boundaries of the local authorities, which would involve a very heavy expense. ["Hear, hear!"] Then, again, the London County Council had made an arrangement with Surrey, and, he believed, with some of the other counties, in which they gave them the option of purchase for two years after the price was fixed. This, he maintained, was a very one-sided bargain for the people of London, because if the purchase were a good one, the outside areas would take the advantage of it; while if the price paid were too large, the outside areas would throw the whole burden upon the ratepayers of London. He asked the House therefore to throw out these Bills, though he did not say that matters should be allowed to remain as they now were. He suggested, in the first place, a careful inquiry as to the probable financial effects of purchase; secondly, a London Water Commission should be constituted, with powers, mutatis mutandis, similar to those of the Railway Commission. Such a commission would act as a court of appeal between individual consumers and the companies, and would deal with any questions of doubtful or illegal charges, or other complaints, which it was difficult or impossible for an individual to press with effect or success. There was, however, another point which was important to watch in the interests of the ratepayers—namely, that of unnecessary or wasteful expenditure, extravagant salaries or wages. These could not be dealt with by an outside body; therefore, it seemed to be necessary, in the third place, to place on the board of each company representatives of the ratepayers, to watch and protect their interests, as was done in the Indian railway companies and other cases; and fourthly, to limit the right to make back dividends within reasonable limits, as had been done with the gas companies, in which case it was fixed at six years. In this way the question of price did not arise. The companies would be left with their present responsibilities, and all conflict with the outside authorities would be avoided. It had been said that the representatives
  462
  of the ratepayers might be in a minority on the Board, but the other directors would have no different interests; and if the directors representing the public had any reason to complain, Parliament would no doubt intervene. He firmly believed that the effect of purchase would be substantially to raise their rates for many years to come. It was a gigantic speculation, and one undertaken moreover with very little consideration. On the other hand, under the system of control, which he suggested as an alternative, they would avoid all risk, and at once, or almost at once, secure a reduction of the water rate. [Cheers.]
  SIR SAMUEL MONTAGUsaid that he desired to support the Bill. He wished to correct a statement made by the right hon. Baronet, as to the financial policy he had put forward. The right hon. Gentleman thought that, by doubling the debt of London, they would lower the price or raise the interest. But the right hon. Gentleman had lost sight of the fact that they would not be creating any fresh debt. The people would only part with their shares against Metropolitan Consols or cash to be re-invested; it was a kind of conversion, which would not affect the price of the new security. The trustees who held water stock would take the new stock. The people who could get the money by buying out the companies were the very people who world invest in the stock of the County Council. He believed that, if his constituents were polled, they would be in favour of this monopoly being taken out of the hands of private companies. Their sufferings had been too severe to be readily forgotten. The heat of last summer and the cold of the previous winter alike diminished the water supply, yet the ratepayers had to pay the full water rates for which they were liable. The President of the Local Government Board spoke of the enormous extension of storage which would prevent any deprivation of water; but storage did not affect the winter supply in time of frost. Besides, the residents in the East End of London believed that the mains were not placed at a proper depth to prevent freezing during a severe winter. His constituents also believed that the water from the Lea was not

  463
  always of the purest quality, or that the quantity was sufficient for the requirements of the increasing population of the district. The important question was whether they were to promptly acquire this monopoly from the companies at a fair price; and secondly, whether the County Council should be the controlling water authority. He maintained that the financial operation must be of advantage to the ratepayers, because in no conceivable circumstance would any arbitrator in the case of an industrial undertaking with varying dividends give compensation, or a price on a basis to yield only 2½ or 2¾ per cent. The arrangement would, therefore, be beneficial to the ratepayer, while there would be a saving, through consolidating the administration of the different companies, in directors' fees and in the salaries of officials; and that seemed to him to be the main argument for amalgamating the companies. They got all these advantages, whatever the controlling power might be. The majority of the County Council was willing to undertake the work, and he maintained that they ought to trust the County Council to make the experiment. If the Council were overweorked let it come to Parliament and have the franchise increased. This would be a better alternative than to leave this monopoly of a necessary of life in the hands of the companies.
  MR. WHITMOREjoined issue with the hon. Member who had suggested that the ratepayers of London should allow a bare majority of the County Council to make an experiment in the management of this great business of water supply. Was the House prepared to do that? What was the County Council? The hon. Member practically admitted that the present body was overworked.
  SIR S. MONTAGU: I did not say one way or the other.
  MR. WHITMOREsaid the hon. Gentleman suggested that the present members were insufficient to carry on the work of the County Council, and he inferred from that that he was in favour of increasing their numbers.
  SIR S. MONTAGUhad no knowledge whatsoever of the work of the County Council, and in his observations he was
  464
  only answering arguments which had been put forward.
  MR. WHITMOREsaid that, as one who had some slight knowledge on the subject, he might inform and enlighten the hon. Gentleman on that not unimportant part of what ought to be the knowledge of a London representative. The London County Council was at the present moment undoubtedly overworked. He had never said a word in disrespect of the London County Council as an institution, always wishing it to be entirely independent of politics, but hon. Members on both sides of the House who knew anything of its workings must admit that it was a body saturated with Party spirit. ["Hear, hear!"] Was there any sign that that Party spirit was likely to diminish in the future? Did hon. Members really think that a body so political and partisan could properly and fairly, and in a businesslike way, discharge the great proposed addition of duty which would be entailed by making it responsible for the water supply of London? ["Hear, hear!"] As a proof of the extent to which the Council had become a political body, he pointed to the bye-elections at Haggerston and Whitechapel, where gentlemen had, he said, been selected as candidates on both sides, not because of their connection with the localities, or of any knowledge of municipal affairs, but because of their politics, and who obviously desired to make the County Council a stepping stone to something else. Let him give another illustration. He did not suppose there was another administrative body in England which would, like the County Council did two days ago, have deliberately selected the less worthy of two candidates for the chair.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he was travelling from the question.
  MR. WHITMOREobserved that his object was to point out that the County Council was saturated by Party spirit, and that Members of that House as representing the ratepayers of London would make a great mistake if they added to its functions the great business of managing the water supply of London. For his part he rejoiced that the Government were going to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire

  465
  into the many questions affecting the management and supply of water in London. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not agree that by so doing they were going to hang up the matter. He believed and hoped that that Commission would make its Report in a reasonable time, say, within the limits of one year, and those of them who were now gladly assenting to the appointment of such Commission did so in the clear hope and on the clear understanding that it would be appointed without delay, its labours conducted with every expedition, and its Report, if possible, presented within the compass of a year. There were real reasons why a new Commission should be appointed, as he conditions had vitally altered since the last Royal Commission sat, and it was also important to know approximately what was likely to be the amount of money which under a policy of purchase they should have to pay. When Lord Cross, in 1880, mentioned a definite sum London unanimously scouted the idea of giving any such sum as that then named for the purchase of the water companies. But that was the only definite sum that ever had been named for their purchase. He had always opposed the policy of purchase in the dark, and had always been anxious that they should not embark on any such policy without further inquiry. He was glad that the Government had taken the course which had been announced by the President of the Local Government Board, which he was sure would have a good result, and which, he hoped, would lead to the adoption of remedies for all the real and practical grievances under which ratepayers and consumers of water in London might now suffer. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CHARLES HARRISONsaid he was not going to follow the hon. Member for Chelsea by entering upon all the topics in his speech, but must mention that the present candidate for Whitechapel was for three years a member of the London County Council and a Member of this House, and was connected with the constituency he was seeking to represent on the Council. It had been urged during this Debate that the London County Council ought not to be allowed, as the municipal authority, to purchase
  466
  under these Bills the water undertakings of the metropolis; and one of the arguments used, was their conduct in reference to the East London Water Bill of 1893, in causing its rejection, with the result that the water famine was produced, owing to the reservoirs not having been allowed to be constructed by reason of the rejection of the Bill of 1893. As a matter of fact the works were authorised by the Bill of the next year, and there was but one year's delay. To this day the reservoirs and works were not completed so as to be in operation, three years and upwards after the passing of the Act. But the water famine occurred before three years expired from the year 1893, and, therefore, even if the Bill had passed in 1893, the water famine would have occurred all the same, and it had no relation or connection whatever with the rejection of the Bill of 1893. But these were small matters in comparison with the great question of whether the London County Council was to be allowed, as every other municipality was allowed, to be the purchaser under these Bills of its water undertakings. Whatever might be the views of the President of the Local Government Board, and of the Government at the present time, the President of the Board of Trade, in 1891, then the President of the Local Government Board said, during the discussion of the Water Commission Bill:—
  "The London County Council had had imposed upon it all at once a very difficult task, and no doubt it had made some mistakes; but, nevertheless, he had perfect confidence that the London County Council, if entrusted with the water supply of the Metropolis, would perform its task ably and well, and without a particle of anything approaching jobbery."
  [Cheers.] Now the Government said that they had not sufficient information, and desired, before allowing these Bills to proceed, to have advice about financial results, and particularly as regarded the outlying areas—and their relations to the central authority. But all this had been fully inquired into and settled by the Select Committee, presided over by the present Home Secretary, which sat in 1891. It was the contention put forward by the local authorities outside the metropolis, during that inquiry, and on the contest of the Purchase Bills promoted by the Council in 1895, that the portion of

  467
  the works and a sufficient supply outside the metropolis should be handed over to the local authority. In fact, this was the only solution, because the physical conditions of the company's works lent themselves to the working out this conclusion. Five of the water companies drew water from the Thames, and three from other sources; but the system of each company was complete in itself. For instance, in the case of the Chelsea Water undertaking, the Purchase Bill of which undertaking was now under discussion, that undertaking had no outside area, and was not empowered to supply an outside area. Yet, could it be said that that undertaking was not complete. Each of the systems was complete. Each is physically independent of the other, both as regards supply and distribution. No one company does the work of distribution for or on behalf of another company. Each company has its own separate works, its own reservoirs, its own filter beds, its own pumping works—even its own internal system of distribution so as to admit of internal division into complete sectional systems. Each company has its own statutory and different standard of water tax, ranging from 7½ per cent. to 4 per cent. Each has its separate and varying obligations as regards height of supply. Each internal section of each company is as complete as any system supplying any provincial town. There was no difficulty at all in separating them, both as regarded the inside area and the area outside the county. The boundary lines or limits of distribution of each and every one of the companies were fixed without any relation to any supposed settlement of future populations, or to any special fact founded on their retention as water areas for all time. They were areas fixed as matter of accident. The local authorities had taken up that position, and had produced evidence to that effect in the inquiry in 1891, and it was now well established; so much so, that arrangements had been made as regarded the whole of
  468
  the water area south of the Thames. There was no physical connection as regarded engineering or anything else between the north and the south of the Thames. As regarded the whole of the southern area, which involved half the water questions of London, arrangements had been made, and if the local authorities were satisfied with the partition, it was clear that it could be carried out. If the inquiries and subjects were re-opened the purchase of these corporate undertakings would be postponed for an indefinite period. The subject had been thoroughly investigated, and there was no reason why the Bill before the House, the subject of those investigations, should not be read a Second time and sent to a Committee upstairs, and not postponed until the Royal Commission had satisfied themselves by further inquiry.
  MR. G. B. HUDSONremarked that there was already a great scarcity of water in Hertfordshire, and the people there regarded with the greatest apprehension the scheme of the London County Council to draw upon their supplies. The county he represented was now drawn upon for water chiefly by the New River Company and the East London Water Company. They, however, only supplied limited areas. The water from the chalk was of exceptional purity, and that was why the London County Council wanted it. The Royal Commission on the London Water Supply reported three years ago that 40 million gallons more daily might be taken from the wells in the Lea Valley. Within 12 months after that Report was published the East London Waterworks Company shut off their mains nightly to save a few million gallons daily, because they said the river Lea had failed to give an adequate supply. In the twenty-fifth Annual Report to the Local Government Board on the London Water Supply for 1895–6 it was stated that 20 million gallons daily had been drawn from the springs and wells in the Lea Valley. But if the London County Council obtained possession, with their professed policy of

  469
  giving up the Thames and Lea, they would draw 60 million gallons daily from Hertfordshire, and the county would become a desert and uninhabitable. [Laughter.] No company had a right to deprive them of the necessaries of life, or appropriate what did not belong to them, merely to swell their attenuated dividends. The water companies ought not to be allowed to exercise their common law rights as private individuals, but should obtain permission front Parliament each time they wished to sink fresh Wells. They would then know where they Were.[Laughter] At present they did not know where they were—[laughter]—as fresh wells were being sunk in secret on portions of land recently purchased by the companies in the Lea Valley. There was no guarantee in these Bills that more wells would not be sunk by the London County Council. He was grateful to the Government for opposing these Bills, and he hoped they would avert the danger the county of Hertford was in of a diminution of its water supply. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLwho was met with Ministerial cries of "Divide," said if hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches wrecked their opponents' Bills they would not close their mouths. [Opposition cheers.] The people of London, and especially East London, for a portion of which he was entitled to speak, would learn with bitter disappointment and no little indignation the statement the House had just heard. The President of the Local Government Board minimised the character and importance of the water famine in the East of London, and laid the blame on the London County Council. There had been two water famines in the East of London, One in 1895 and one in 1896. He would admit, for the purposes of argument, that the famine of 1895 was due to the action of the London County Council in opposing the Bill of the East London Company. But this only involved a delay of a year. [Renewed Ministerial cries of "Divide."] Hon. Members below the gangway opposite who interrupted him so rudely had probably been brought down in response to a circular which had been issued by the East London Water Company, who had spared no pains to pack the House in their own interests. [Ministerial
  470
  cries of "Oh!"] Letters had also been written, based on the circular, to Members from provincial cities, and to the Members from Manchester in particular, urging them to vote against these Bills, in order to deprive London of advantages which Manchester and other large cities enjoyed. [Cheers.] In 1896 the East London Company must have been in precisely the same position it would have been in if the London County Council had not interfered at all. Yet the water famine in East London in 1896 was worse than in 1895. The President of the Local Government Board said the Government had never committed themselves to the policy of purchase. The Colonial Secretary, at all events, committed himself to the general policy of purchase last year, and the only point on which he raised objection was the terms upon which the property of the water companies was to be acquired.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): That is not accurate. [Ministerial laughter.] I was then, and I am now, in favour of purchase as a principle, but in the case of the East London Company I raised objection to two things—first, to the purchase by the London County Council on different terms from any other representative body in the United Kingdom—["hear, hear!"]—and also to the way in which they proposed to deal with the outside districts. The case of London is exceptional altogether in that respect, and, although I am in favour of purchase as a principle, it may well be that it is impossible to apply the principle to London if you have to take into account outside districts.
  MR. PICKERSGILL, resuming, said the right hon. Gentleman had borne out the statement he made that he was in favour of the principle of purchase, and the only points on which he differed were the terms upon which the water Companies' property was to be acquired and the way in which the local authorities outside London were to be treated. These were exactly the questions which the Committee upstairs would be called upon to consider and decide. Whatever might be the case with the Government, the majority of London Members among their supporters were committed to the policy of purchase. Lord Onslow, who

  471
  was acting in concert with hon. Members opposite and was the Leader of the Moderate Party in London, at a meeting in the East of London said control was impracticable; purchase was the only possible plan. Then the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley had written letters in The Times and elsewhere, saying:—
  "I am convinced that it is impossible to devise any scheme of control which is at once effective and equitable."
  [Ministerial cheers.] At the meeting Lord Onslow attended a resolution was unanimously passed calling on the Government to introduce this Session a Bill for purchase. The Committee of the House last year also pronounced against the policy of control. The President of the Local Government Board said the policy of the Bill was a policy of severance. Certainly the Bill provided means by which the local authorities outside London might obtain control of their own water supply, and in that sense the policy of the Bill was a policy of severance. But so far as the area of the county of London was concerned, it was a policy of unity, and the London County Council, having acquired the property of these companies, would be able to use all the resources of various parts of London for the benefit of the whole. That would give what in the East End in 1895 and 1896 they felt so much the want of, the power to go to other parts of London and make the resources of water there available where it was short. Those who represented the people of London had great reason to complain of the action of the Government. They had retarded this question for years, and he agreed with the Member for Shoreditch that the ultimate result of their action would be to impose an additional burden which would be reckoned by millions of pounds on the ratepayers of London. [Cheers.]
  MR. LIONEL HOLLANDsaid it was perfectly true that many Members on the Government side were strongly in favour of the policy of purchase in preference to that of control. They stated this at the meeting to which the hon. Member who had just spoken had referred, but they never stated that they were in favour of a method of purchase, which must inevitably increase the
  472
  burden of the ratepayers of London. He did not object to these Bills because they contained the principle of purchase. With that principle he was in entire agreement. But he objected to the method by which that principle was to be applied. It would deprive the policy of purchase of the benefits and advantages which would otherwise attend it. These Bills did not propose to substitute one company for the existing companies, nor to consolidate their different under-takings, and thus obtain the advantages which might thereby accrue in the direction of economy. The Bill proposed to replace the existing eight authorities by six or seven new authorities, and to split up the present areas of supply, and to deprive the consumers, the ratepayers of London, of all the opportunities of future profits which would result from the natural growth of the population in the outside areas. He believed those future profits would amount in the early part of the coming century to something like half-a-million pounds a year. The policy of the Party opposite and of the London County Council was to buy the rights of service and to constitute the County Council the sole authority for the county of London, and then to introduce a fresh supply altogether from Wales. Not only were the ratepayers deprived of their probable future profits, but they were to purchase on the basis of value and to sell upon the basis of the quantity of water which the outside authorities were at present receiving. That was a basis which might be very detrimental financially to London. There was one other point still more detrimental to London, and that was that the authorities, such as those of Surrey and Essex, were not to be compelled to buy, but were to have an optional purchase of two years, so that if in the meantime the terms on which the London County Council took over the companies proved to be disadvantageous Surrey and Essex could cry off, and leave London to make the best of its bad bargain. It was absurd of hon. Members opposite to pretend that those on that side of the House who were in favour of the policy of purchase in any way resigned their principles because they refused to sanction agreements and Bills of a kind which most probably would result in great detriment to London. By the rejection of

  473
  these Bills the responsibility of the London County Council would be at an end, and the responsibility of the Government and of the President of the Local Government Board would begin. It was upon the advice of the Government that last year the House rejected the Transfer Bills which were introduced by the London County Council as inconsistent with the policy of the Measure which the Government had then introduced in another place; and they had the assurance of responsible Ministers that the rejection of those Bills would not result in any delay. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] That assurance was given probably, he thought, in the heat of debate, and without very careful consideration; but, at any rate, it had been renewed this year, and in a definite and unqualified form. They had the assurance in Her Majesty's Speech that a Water Bill would be introduced this Session, and by a Water Bill they did not understand such a small measure of control as had been suggested by the President of the Local Government Board—which he did not think would signify much to anyone in London—[ironical Opposition cheers]—but a Bill dealing in a final and complete manner with the whole water question. The policy of that Bill had as yet been enshrouded in mystery, so much so that those who were sceptical might almost doubt whether it had any existence, and that, perhaps, they should never discover. In view of the barren nature of the former assurances, he should like, before they went to a Division, another assurance from the Government. [Opposition cheers.] If it came to a question supporting the Second Reading of these Bills, or resigning themselves to a policy of inaction or one obviously inadequate, however much he might doubt the expediency of many of the provisions of these Bills, nevertheless so injurious would further delay be that, subject to the Instruction to the Committee, which, he understood, the promoters of the Bill might be willing to consent to—["hear, hear!"]—of the two evils he should vote for the Second Reading. [Opposition cheers.] He hoped the Government would be able to say that, as soon as possible after the Report of the Commission, they would not fail to introduce some legislation of a final and complete character on this question. He
  474
  hoped they would be able to give them such an assurance, not because they had found their assarances to be of very exceptional value—[ironical Opposition cheers]—but what they lacked in quality might, perhaps, be made up in quantity. [Opposition laughter.] He believed that, under the circumstances, the Government had chosen the wisest course, but if such an assurance could not be given, he would prefer not to join in the farce of adding one more Commission to the several Commissions which had already considered this question.
  MR. JOHN BURNScongratulated the hon. Member on representing East End opinion in regard to this matter. The hon. Member had been the first Member on the opposite side of the House to say that he was in favour of purchase under certain conditions, and the first to mention the word purchase as an alternative to the propositions put forward by the President of the Local Government Board. Moreover, he had transferred responsibility of any prospective drought or water famine in the East End of London from the shoulders of the County Council and hon. Members on that side of the House to the shoulders of the Government in general, and the President of the Local Government Board in particular. He believed at the next election that that view would be endorsed. He appealed to the hon. Member, whose candour was refreshing, to allow a Committee upstairs to determine the conditions of purchase. Such Committees were not generally in favour of confiscation, but had always been rather on the side of generous compensation. How could London go 40 miles for water and not make terms with the intervening authorities? And yet, if they did so, they were told that they had squared them, or make a corrupt bargain; and, if they did not, they were told that they were exclusive and arbitrary. Did the hon. Member for Chelsea think that if these Bills passed, after buying out the shareholders on the terms decided, the members of the London County Council would manage the concerns? They would do what the directors did now; they would take over the expert officers who now supplied the water companies, and he had no doubt those officers would be better pleased to work for the County Council. [Cries of

  475
  "No!"] If there was any doubt about that a 20 per cent. increase of salaries would remove it. [Laughter.] He knew what technical expert opinion in regard to water was. It could be tested in the committee rooms upstairs. [Laughter.] An expert who gave evidence on one side of a question would, for an increase in his fee, be as eloquent on the other side—[laughter]—and there was very little difference between those gentlemen and the officials of the water companies.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: And who would pay the difference? [Cries of "The ratepayers" and laughter.]
  MR. BURNSsaid the ratepayers would not pay the difference. It would be made up by the difference between the 3 per cent. at which the London County Council could borrow money, and the 10 per cent. dividend the water companies now paid. [Laughter.]
  MR. BANBURY: The companies raise their money at £2 15s. per cent. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BURNSsaid the London County Council acquired their money at a little over £2. The hon. Member for Chelsea had urged as an argument against the Bill that the London County Council was too partisan a body. The partisanship of the London County Council was not to be compared with the partisanship of the authorities of some of the provincial towns. He was also glad to say it was decreasing. The fact that the two parties in the Council were working unanimously over the question of the Town Hall showed the spirit that was coming over London, and no one could deny that the House of Commons was more reasonable now than it was three years ago towards the London County Council. But if the partisanship of the London County Council became so marked as to imperil London government and the water supply, the ratepayers would quickly step in and see that the partisanship should not go too far.[Ministerial cries of "Divide!"] He knew it was very difficult to stand between the House of Commons and its dinner hour; but in the interests of the water supply of five millions of people he was prepared to do it. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University had said that purchase could only be accomplished at the cost of doubling the debt of London, and
  476
  that probably the County Council would have to pay more for their money than they were paying now. The tendency of money, especially in connection with corporation stock, was to cheapen very fast indeed, because people with money to invest had found that speculation in the Argentine, Rhodesia, Italy, and other foreign countries was not so certain as investment in corporation stock; and the difficulty of investors generally was the difficulty of his own trade union, which was prepared to invest £100,000 at 2½ per cent., and was unable to get even that low rate of interest.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Put it in East Londons. [Laughter.]
  MR. BURNS: Not if I can help it. [Laughter.] Another point raised by the President of the Local Government Board was that the London County Council was responsible for the water famine of 1895 and 1896 in the East End of London. That was most unfair charge. But, even if the London County Council were responsible for that water famine, what had it to do with the question of the purchase of the water supply of London? That was an immediate question. He believed that if those Bills were not passed, they would not be able to fight a water famine in the future—a water famine not imposed by the niggardliness of nature, but due to the mismanagement of the present supply. Many speeches had been delivered against the Bill, but he thought there was none more curious than that of one of the Members for Hertford (Mr. Hudson). The hon. Gentleman said that if the Bill passed, there was a possibility of the London County Council extracting 60 million gallons of water from Hertford, in stead of 20 or 30 million gallons which the water companies now obtained from that county. But that was not an argument for passing the Bills, for the object of the Bills was to stop the water companies from draining Hertford of its water. It was evident that in 10, 15, or 20 years, after, probably, they had a series of water famines, and outbreaks of cholera, that the water supply of London must be taken out of the hands of monopolists, and they would have to go straight to Wales for a good and proper supply. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board

  477
  was in any way doubtful as to the feeling of East London on the question, he should consult the hon. Member for West Ham, and the two hon. Members for Hackney, and if the right hon. Gentleman were to take by ballot the votes of all the Members for East London, he ventured to say that the unanimous opinion would be that purchase was inevitable, if not immediate. It had been said that it was not fair or just, that, while the outside area of London was increasing in population, and the inside area was decreasing in population, the inside area should have to bear the cost of those Bills, But, if the London outside areas were increasing in population, the demand for water was increasing for public, sanitary, and personal purposes, and that surely was an argument in favour of the Bill. It had been urged that but a small majority of the County Council were in favour of the policy adopted by the Council in regard to these Bills, but if a majority of three was good enough to throw out a Government in the House of Commons, which controlled the administration of the entire kingdom, surely a majority of from seven to 40, in the London County Council for the last seven years, ought to be sufficient to carry the policy of the Council in regard to the water supply of London. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that a Royal Commission on the subject was wanted. There had been eight Royal Commissions already, as well as Committee after Committee, and certainly another Royal Commission on the subject was not required. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, stated that this question had become to some extent a political question, and that it was dangerous to give to the County Council the control of so many public services. But in the event of public services. But in the event of public services, either municipal or State, being inefficiently or improperly administered, the way to cure the evil was not to do an injustice to the community, but to place restrictions on that labour, that would keep it in its proper place. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said that this series of Bills was unprecedented, and that London would not make the profit that had been stated if she had the water supply in her own hands. If the right hon. Gentleman would examine the history of the water supply of this country, he would find that
  478
  800 local authorities had come to this House for the transfer of water supplies from private hands to public hands, and that, not in a single instance, had it been refused, and not in a single instance had it been given back again. It had been said that if they went to Wales for water, it would cost 40 or 50 millions sterling. He believed it would cost no more than 19 or 20 millions. But whether they went to Wales and spent 40 millions, or continued to derive their water from its present polluted catchment area, was a subject, not for the House, but for the ratepayers of the metropolis to decide. The Royal Commission, if appointed, would only hang up the question for five or seven years. It had already been discussed for five years in the House of Commons, and if the Bills were passed the transfers could not be actually made for 18 months or two years, and if they had a Royal Commission, and a General Election intervening, four or five years was a moderate estimate of the time that would be occupied with the question. The hon. Member for Uxbridge represented a riparian constituency. The hon. Gentleman took a great interest in the affairs of the River Thames. The hon. Gentleman was a representative of a riverside parish, so was he. The County Council wanted these Bills passed, not only for a better, purer, and cheaper water supply for the people of London, but also in the interests of the drainage of the river, and of the commerce of London. The abstraction by the water companies of 135 million gallons of water in July and August of last year—that was, of nearly half the natural flow over Teddington Weir—was killing the boat and pleasure traffic between Hammersmith and Teddington, and it had compelled the Conservancy to erect Richmond Lock Bridge. That lock was erected simply because Richmond, kew, and Kingston would have turned out every Conservative Member if it had not been erected. [Laughter.]
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: We erected the Richmond lock and weir contrary to our own wishes, upon the orders of this House, and the result has been that the scour of the water has been so very much diminished that the navigation has been greatly interfered with.
  MR. BURNSsaid that the hon. Member could tell that to the marines—

  479
  [much laughter]—but he would not tell it to the bargemen and lightermen.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the effect of Richmond Lock was not the question before the House.
  MR. BURNSsaid that be was asked by the representatives both of capital and labour to protest against the Thames being starved of its natural flow. The House would be taking on itself a tremendous responsibility by throwing out these Bills. It would not attempt such a course in regard to Manchester or Glasgow. It was simply because the London County Council had incurred unpopularity—[Ministerial cheers]—with vested interests—[Opposition cheers]—and with rich monopolists—[Opposition cheers]—an unpopularity that endeared it to the hearts of the disinterested and poorer citizens. Some day when, through the lack of County Council water supply, the West End of London was threatened with disease, and the convenience of the rich was jeopardised, the House of Commons would do for the London water supply what it had already done for its drainage 30 or 40 years ago. [Cheers and ironical cheers.] When another election came, and this question was raised, all the battalions of directors whom he saw opposite, all the monopolists who had not behaved as well as they might have done, would be relegated to the obscurity which they deserved. [Ironical cheers.] The water companies, as Punch had depicted them, had preferred the grasping of big dividends to the health and safety of the people of London; and when their day of reckoning came, let them not blame the County Council, but rather the President of the Local Government Board, who, instead of standing up for the best traditions of his Department, had preferred monopolist interests to the health and cleanliness of the people of London. [Cheers and ironical cheers.]
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. HARRY MARKSsaid that he had no complaint to make of the Government's severe criticisms of the County Council
  480
  Bills, but he did complain of the inadequate and unsatisfactory alternative offered to them by the Government. For many months there had been in the East End a firm belief that the Government did mean to do something comprehensive and effective in respect of the London water supply. What it now promised fell very far short of what people had been encouraged to expect. The Queen's Speech spoke of "a Bill to improve the arrangements for the water supply of the metropolis;" surely that was not the Bill of which the President of the Local Government Board had given an outline. Was the promise of a Royal Commission a fulfilment of the pledge given by the First Lord of the Treasury in August to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley? The right hon. Gentleman then said:—
  "I have to say that the Government are deeply sensible of the importance of the question to London generally, and to the East End in particular; and we strongly feel that the next Session ought not to pass without a solution of the question being arrived at."
  There had been various descriptions of Royal Commissions, but whatever else a Royal Commission might be, it was not a solution of the London water question. On the strength of that declaration and of the promise contained in Her Majesty's Speech, and of the utterances of the trusted Members of the Government on public platforms, the Unionist Members representing East London constituencies had pledged themselves that this Government did mean to deal effectively with the water question. They had pledged not only their own faith, but they had been foolish enough to pledge the faith of their leaders.
  "This meeting calls upon Her Majesty's Government, during the next Session of Parliament, to constitute an authority for the water supply representing the interests of the consumers, with powers of control and purchase."
  That was a resolution which was put at a meeting at which every Unionist Member for East London was present—a meeting called under the auspices of the London Municipal Society, to which the Moderate Party owed most of its successes on the County Council for the last two years. Similar resolutions had been passed in every East London constituency, and similar resolutions were

  481
  being passed that day in view of the Whitechapel bye-election. With so many promises, it was not unreasonable to look for more performance. But what was the position in which the Government left those who favoured purchase of the water companies? They must either vote for the Royal Commission, which was to inquire into a matter which had been inquired into for the past 30 years; or they must vote for these deplorably bad Bills of the London County Council, impracticable and unworkable from the beginning to the end. It was difficult to know which was the worse outlook. They were disappointed in the expectation they had formed that the Government would have given them a reasonable alternative to these impossible Bills. The outside areas were bribed by unfair treatment to withdraw their opposition to the County Council Scheme. Lord James of Hereford's proposed water trust of last Session quite unnecessarily gave a majority of Members to the County Council, and these outside areas, rather than be under the government of the County Council, knowing, as they did, how it used its power, had bought their release or had agreed to buy it whenever the time might come. The Government, with a full knowledge of the situation, left those Unionist Members who represented London constituencies, and who were pledged to water purchase, no alternative but either to support these Bills or to hang up this question indefinitely. That was a position which only needed to be stated to show in what a deplorable plight such a policy as this must land those who had foolishly, perhaps from inexperience, perhaps from excessive zeal, but certainly in good faith, placed, or misplaced, their confidence in the promises of the Government.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid that, as a London Member, he was in favour of purchase, but the Bills of the County Council were to purchase first, and then to sell nearly the whole of the water supply to other people. There should be one local authority for the entire area, and they would see how important that would become by-and-bye when they wanted a new supply. One authority would not only manage the present water supply, but arrange for a new one. Seven-eighths of the London Members sat on that side of the House, and
  482
  their opinion was against these Bills, and he thought that, as they had been elected since the County Council was elected, and on a larger poll, they could claim to represent a greater portion of the ratepayers and a greater feeling of the ratepayers on financial question, than the County Council.
  Question put. The House divided:—Ayes, 123; Noes 258.—(Division List, No. 92.)
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Second Reading put off for six months.

EAST LONDON WATER (PURCHASE) BILL (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
GRAND JUNCTION WATER (PURCHASE) BILL (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
KENT WATER (PURCHASE) BILL (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn
LAMBETH WATER (PURCHASE) BILL (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
NEW RIVER WATER (PURCHASE) BILL (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER (PURCHASE) BILL (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
WEST MIDDLESEX WATER (PURCHASE) BILL (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
LONDON WATER (PURCHASE) BILL (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
KENT WATER; BOARD BILL (BY ORDER).
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
QUESTION.

  ORDNANCE STORE DEPARTMENT.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to give any information concerning the consideration of the grievances felt by the five conductors of the Ordnance Store Department, who were selected and transferred from Army to Naval Service on 9th February last?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The case referred to by the hon. Member raises a question as to the scope of an Order in Council, with regard to rights and privileges reserved to these conductors on their transfer to the Naval service. They claim promotion in Army rank while in civil employment under the Admiralty. There is some difference of opinion as to how the Order in Council ought to be read. The matter is still under consideration.

  ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE (CANTEEN).
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Report of the Board of Visitors upon the Royal Military College, that the canteen of that institution was built out of canteen profits, and at no cost to the
  484
  taxpayer; and whether the Government will inquire into the matter with a view of taking more stringent steps to prevent the continuance of such a system in other military quarters?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The canteen at the Royal Military College was built many years ago, before the adoption there of the present regimental system of canteens. It was constructed by the riding master out of profits arising from the sale of beer; and it was erected without any cost to the taxpayer. The building is unsuited for its purpose; and a sum of £1,200 is taken in the Army Estimates for its replacement, No parallel case is known; and no buildings are now allowed to be erected for canteen purposes otherwise than by the War Department.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONasked whether in the new canteen of the Royal Military College there was to be no recreation room?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No; I understand that the new canteen when erected will contain a recreation room.

  SUNDAY LETTER DELIVERY (LUCAN, CO. DUBLIN).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there is no Sunday delivery of letters in Lucan, County Dublin; and is it proposed to continue that arrangement for so important a portion of Dublin County?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General is aware that there is no delivery in Lucan on Sunday morning, nor any mail arriving from Dublin. In accordance with the regulations affecting Sunday Posts, the question of establishing such a service can only be favourably considered on receipt of a Memorial signed by the receivers of not less than two-thirds of the correspondence for Lucan.

ASSIZE CIRCUITS (IRELAND).
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government is bound to

485
provide special trains to carry Her Majesty's Judges on circuit in Ireland; and can he state the approximate cost per Judge of those trains; is the amount charged on imperial or local taxes; and, if the latter, is it levied by presentment?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The Government are not bound to provide special trains for the conveyance of the Judges on circuit in Ireland, nor, as a matter of fact, are such facilities provided by Government. It is quite possible, of course, that railway companies occasionally do supply special trains to meet the convenience of the Judges, but if any extra charge is ever claimed it is defrayed solely by those who use the trains.

ENLISTMENT OF BOYS.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that James Thomas Nolan enlisted in the Connaught Regiment at Galway in October, 1896, being then but 17 years old; that, although his father enclosed a certificate to the Commanding Officer, demanding his discharge on the ground that he was under age, the Officer refused to discharge him without a payment of £10; and, was this charge in accordance with the Regulations; and, if not, will a refund be made to the boy's father?
MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: This recruit gave his age on enlistment as 19 years; and he had the full physical characteristics of that age. The General Officer Commanding—with whom the decision rested—therefore held him to serve; but he claimed his discharge under Section 81 of the Army Act, which involved the payment of what is known as smart money. The charge was strictly in accordance with the Regulations.
CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of applications which are made annually by, or on behalf of, young soldiers to be relieved of their engagements to serve on the ground that they had enlisted below the age of 18 years, proof being produced that the statement in this respect was correct; and whether the Secretary of State for War would be prepared, in order to put an end to the enlistment of
486
boys under 18, which now prevails to so great an extent, to require all recruiting officers in future to obtain certificates of birth of those applying to them to enlist?
MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: 402 applications by or on behalf of young soldiers to be released from their engagements were received in 1896; being 105 less than the number received in 1895. The question of requiring recruits to produce certificates of birth has frequently been considered, but the adoption of such a course has been found impracticable. The inspecting medical officers are required to assure themselves that recruits possess the physical qualities of the age they give. This as a rule is a sufficient safeguard; when subsequent questions arise, the birth certificate if obtainable, is called for.

ARMY PENSION (JOHN MULCAHY).
MR. J. J. SHEE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether application has recently been made by Private John Mulcahy, pensioner, late of the 41st Welsh Regiment, who is in receipt of a pension of 8d. per diem, and is now an invalid in Dungarvan Union Hospital, for admission to Chelsea Hospital, or an addition to his present pension; whether he is aware that John Mulcahy served 21 years and 135 days with the colours, of which 14 years were spent in foreign service, and that he received medal and clasp for services in the Crimean War; and whether, as he is now 62 years of age and suffering from chronic rheumatism, some additional provision will be made for him?
MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No application from John Mulcahy for admission to Chelsea Hospital has been received; but if made it could not be complied with, as he is ineligible. The statements in the Question as to Mulcahy's service are accurate in the main; but his pension was only eight-pence a day as he had no good conduct badges; and as he was in good health when discharged, and there is nothing to show that his present bad health is attributable to Army service, there are no grounds on which his pension could be increased under the warrants.

POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS (REPORT).
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can say whether the Report of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee will be accompanied by the decision of the Postmaster General upon its recommendations and a scheme for giving effect to them; and whether, having regard to the long period that has elapsed between the appointment of the Committee and the presentation of the Report and the delay in making its recomendations known, the revision following the Report will be ante-dated to the time when those recomendations were originally forwarded to the Treasury, as was done in the case of the Fawcett Revision of 1881, so that those affected will not suffer through the protracted delay?
MR. HANBURY: The Report of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee was received by the Postmaster General on the 21st December last. The Report has been laid on the Table of this House, with a copy of the Treasury letter conveying their decision on the recommendation of the Report. The period that elapsed between the appointment of the Committee and the presentation of the Report was occupied in receiving and considering the evidence which it was the desire of the staff to give. I am not prepared to admit, having regard to the elaborate nature of the inquiry, that the period was long, or that any delay has since occurred in considering the conclusions of the Committee. I can see no reason for antedating any changes which may be introduced in accordance with the Committee's recommendation.
SIR J. LENG: When will the Report be distributed?
MR. HANBURY: That depends upon the printers, but I should hope certainly on Monday.
MR. CHARLES SHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state definitely the date on which the Report of the Committee on the Post Office will be presented to the House?
MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member, will doubtless see that the Return has already been presented.

MONAGHAN ASSIZES (DIMINUTION OF CRIME).
MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that Judge Gibson was on Friday last at Monaghan presented with white gloves by the High Sheriff of the county on account of there being no criminal cases to be tried at the Assizes; (2) whether he is aware that County Monaghan was the only Ulster county without criminal cases at the late Winter Assizes, and that the County Court Judge of Monaghan was presented with white gloves at Castleblaney in January last owing to the crimeless state of the district; and (3) whether under these circumstances, he will have the police hut at Dromod, South Monaghan, removed?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The facts are correctly stated in the first and second paragraphs. As to the third paragraph, I have more than once explained to the hon. Member the circumstances which necessitated the establishment of this police station, and I have only to add that there is no intention at present to remove it. No charge to the locality is entailed by the maintenance of this station.

WARDEN ESTATE, CO. KERRY.
MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what was the total amount of arrears on the Warden estate at Sneem, in the County of Kerry, when the estate was purchased by its present owner; whether he is aware that the arrears were purchased for a sum insignificant in comparison with their nominal amount; that the present landlord is exacting the arrears in full, together with interest at the rate of four per cent.; that several evictions have taken place; and that the rates in the district are now nearly ten shillings in the pound on the poor law valuation; and whether the Government propose to take any action towards relieving a condition of things most dangerous to the peace of the country?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My information does not enable me to state

489
what was the total amount of arrears on this estate at the time it was purchased by the present owner, nor the sum paid for these arrears. I am informed, however, that the landlord has been collect- the arrears by easy instalments, and that he has not charged any interest on them. The rates in the district amount to nine shillings in the pound on the valuation—a sum which, I understand, is lower than before the present owner purchased the property. There have been several evictions on the estate since Mr. Warden came into possession, and I have no reason to believe that any of these evictions was a case of hardship. The tenants evicted owed from 2½ to 9 years' rent, and the last eviction was in June 1895, the tenant in this case owing 6 years' rent. There is nothing in the state of affairs in the district calling for the intervention of Government, and obviously the Government cannot interfere in the mangement of the estate. I desire to add that the information before me leads me to think that Mr. Warden is an excellent landlord, who is anxious for the welfare of the tenants holding under him, and spends his money freely in order to provide them with work, and so help them in a businesslike way out of their difficulties, which are, in considerable measure, due to the lax administration of the estate by its previous owners.

IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (RESIDUAL GRANT).
MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a considerable portion of the Residual School Grant due to Irish national teachers for the year 1896 is still unpaid, although it should have been paid in January; will he explain the cause of the delay, and take steps to insure that the teachers are promptly paid all sums due to to them?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The residual portion of the School Grant is payable in five instalments. Of these, four are paid quarterly, but there is no engagement or obligation on the part of the Commissioners of National Education to pay the fifth instalment, or outstanding balance, in the month of January. Payment of the balance could not be made until the average daily
490
attendance of pupils is first ascertained from the School Returns for the year ended 31st December, as the amount of the entire School Grant, and therefore also the amount of the balance, is proportional to the average daily attendance of pupils. In many cases the School Returns were not furnished in January. The balance will now be paid as promptly as possible.

NAVAL ENGINEER OFFICERS.
MR. PENN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could state to the House how many engineer officers have been added in the current year; how many of these officers passed through Keyham College, and how many were obtained from outside; and how many engineer officers it is proposed to add in the year 1897–98?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): Forty engineer officers have been added to the list in the current year. Of the 63 entries which resulted in this addition, 31 passed through Keyham, and 32 came from outside, the latter comprising 14 probationary assistant engineers and 18 assistant engineers for temporary service. It is proposed to add 30 engineer officers in 1897–98, and provision will also be made for the promotion of some engine-room artificers to warrant rank.

COLONIAL AND FOREIGN LETTERS (REPLY POSTAGE).
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has been informed that there is an urgent and increasing demand for some means of prepaying the postage on replies to letters of inquiry sent to British Colonies and Foreign Countries, and of remitting the price of a newspaper or other article of small cost; whether, seeing that, inland United Kingdom stamps call be obtained in small quantities at various post offices in the Colonies for transmission to England, he will consider the expediency of opening an office at St. Martin's-le-Grand, and in each of the great mercantile centres of the United Kingdom, at which Foreign and Colonial stamps shall be

491
sold to a limited amount for transmission to the Colonies and Foreign Countries, or received in exchange for stamps of the United Kingdom at a small profit in either case to the Post Office, with a view to facilitate epistolary communication, the ordering of samples, and the opening of commercial transactions between this country and the Colonies and Foreign Countries; and whether any solution of the difficulty alleged to exist in connection with the Institution of a common international stamp has yet been devised?
MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has not been informed, and is not aware that there is an urgent and increasing demand for some means of prepaying the postage on replies to letters of inquiry sent to British Colonies and Foreign Countries, and of remitting the price of a newspaper or other article of small cost. As I stated, in reply to a similar question asked by the hon. Member on the 22nd of August 1895, he does not feel that he would be justified in making arrangements for the sale of Colonial stamps, for which he believes that there is no effective demand here. The Postmaster General is not aware that any solution has yet been devised of the difficulty attending the institution of a common international stamp.

MONEY ORDERS (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can give any assurance that an endeavour will be made to mitigate the ill effects upon the system pursued by the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society of sending sick pay by money orders caused by the recent increase of commission on such orders?
MR. HANBURY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on the 23rd ult. to the hon. Members for South Somerset and the Leominster Division of Herefordshire, and to the Member for Walthamstow last Tuesday.

MARINE FORCE IN NAVAL BASES.
SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) what was the number of seamen quartered in barracks at the naval bases at home at
492
Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Chatham, including Sheerness, respectively on 1st instant; (2) what was the number of seamen on board sea-going ships in commission or in reserve at those ports respectively on the 1st inst.; (3) whether the admirals commanding in chief at each of these naval bases were in supreme command both of seamen in barracks and the seamen in the ships; (4) whether the seamen are changed from barracks to ships and ships to barracks according to the necessities of the Naval service and of the training of the seamen; and (5), whether he has been informed by his advisers that the requirements of the Naval service and the thorough efficiency of the seamen are fully provided for by the system of interchange from barracks to ships and ships to barracks at these naval bases and coaling ports at home?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The number of seamen in the divisions at the naval ports at home on the 1st of the month was:—Portsmouth, 2,710 (1,700 in gunnery and torpedo schools); Devonport, 2,268 (1,250 in gunnery and torpedo schools); Chatham (including Sheerness), 1,817 (600 in gunnery and torpedo schools). These numbers include men in depôts, gunnery and torpedo schools, and those employed as care and maintenance parties of ships in reserve and in tenders. The number of seamen in sea-going ships in commission at the same ports was:—Portsmouth, 1,319; Devonport, 136; Chatham (including Sheerness), 492. All these numbers vary from day to day, and those in ships in commission are entirely dependent upon the ships that happen to be at the port. For instance the Collingwood, Prince George, Blake, Melpomene, and Calliope happened to be at Portsmouth on that day, while at Devonport only the Algerine and Gossamer were in port. The answer to the third Question of the hon. and gallant Member is in the affirmative. There is no systematic exchange of men, as implied in the Question, from barracks to ships and vice versâ; seamen merely pass through the depôts in being changed from one ship's commission to another, training at the gunnery and torpedo schools in the interval. It is not considered that any systematic interchange as suggested in the Question would be of advantage to the Service.

WRECK (INDIAN TROOPSHIP "WARREN HASTINGS").
MR. JAMES ROCHE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can give, even approximately, the average length of service of the soldiers on board the Warren Hastings, the conspicuous steadiness and discipline of whom, under such trying circumstances, entirely contributed to the immunity from a grave loss of life when that ship was recently wrecked on the island of Réunion?
MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The average service of the soldiers on board the Warren Hastings was probably between four and five years, which is the average of all foreign battalions.
MR. P. J. POWERasked whether it was not a fact that most of the non-commissioned officers and rank and file of this regiment which displayed such marvellous discipline and steadiness on the occasion referred to, were Irishmen? [Laughter.]
MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid he had no information upon the point.

BOILER EXPLOSION (H.M.S "BLAKE").
MR. E. J. C. MORTON: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. HUDSON KEARLEY), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is possible to increase the pension of 3s. 6d. per week allowed to the widow, and 1s. 6d. for each child, of George Evill, stoker, who was killed by the explosion of a boiler on H.M.S. Blake; and whether, in view of the fact that the widow is in such a state of health as to be unable to do any work towards supporting herself and her two children, and that the coroner's jury gave a verdict that the disaster was occasioned by the negligence of the chief engineer, whom they found guilty of manslaughter, and, further, that the foreman, on behalf of the jury, stated in court that they unanimously decided to urge on the Admiralty their view that the widow has a very strong claim for special consideration, and hoped she would be provided for for life and her children looked after until they were old enough to secure livelihood, he will reconsider the case?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): In view of the
494
widow's state of health, the Admiralty have decided to increase the pension, together with the allowances to children, by a sum of 2s. 6d. a week. The increase is to take effect from the date of her husband's death.

ILLEGAL FISHING.
MR. J. W. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing that Clause 8 of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act 1889, prohibits the landing of fish caught by illegal methods at Scotch ports only, and that a foreign trawler recently found fishing illegally, landed the fish at an English port, Her Majesty's Government, will take steps to amend the law so as to extend the prohibition to any British port?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): An Amendment of the law on the lines desired affects England and English ports. It will be necessary for the hon. Member to approach the Board of Trade with reference to any legislation of this nature.

TELEGRAPH STATION (DRINAGH, CO. CORK.)
MR. J. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state if it is proposed to establish a telegraph station at Drinagh, County Cork?
MR. HANBURY: Inquiry has been made, from which it appears that the Postmaster General would not be justified in opening a telegraph office at Drinagh except under guarantee.

LETTER DELIVERY (LITTLEPORT CAMBRIDGESHIRE).
MR. C. T. GILES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why letters are not delivered at all at some houses at Littleport, in Cambridgeshire, although at a less distance from the post office than other houses which receive their letters twice a day?
MR. HANBURY: The official delivery of letters at Littleport was recently extended at the hon. Member's request.

495
It is not known that there are still houses at Littleport without a delivery, although nearer the post office than other houses receiving letters twice a day; but inquiry is being made, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

"LORD'S RENT" (ISLE OF MAN).
MR. J. A. WILLOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a large porportion of the revenue of the Isle of Man is collected in the name of "Lord's Rent" by one of the landlords in each parish, called the Moar, and compulsorily appointed by the Department of Woods and Forests; whether the Moar is supplied with a list of persons represented as liable for the Lord's Rent, many of whom have been dead for a century, while others cannot be traced, nor the land put against their names be distinguished; whether serious complaints of this state of things have from time to time reached the Department of Woods and Forests from Moars who are unable to collect Lord's Rent, and have in reply been warned that if they should, in the Insular Law Courts, successfully establish their freedom from liability, an appeal to the Privy Council would follow; and whether the Woods and Forests will now provide authentic collecting books for the use of the Moars, or take the collecting into their own hands?
MR. HANBURY: The amount of Lord's Rent, exclusive of rents of Abbey lands and Baronies, payable to the Crown in the Isle of Man, is £1,175 17s. 9d. It is collected in 17 distinct parishes, the largest amount in any parish being £113 18s. 1d., and the smallest £33 9s. 0½d. The Moar is not appointed either compulsorily or otherwise by the Department of Woods and Forests. He is selected in rotation by the Court Baron, called the Setting Quest, which consists exclusively of tenants of the Lord within the parish. The duty of filling the office, and performing the duties of the Moar, is an incident of tenure. It is the duty of the Moar on retiring from office to hand on to his successor a rental in a proper state to enable him to collect from the several lands in the parish the
496
Lord's Rent due from them. Successive Moars have been negligent in not keeping their rental up to date, and complaints have been made that it has been difficult to collect the rent. Moars who have refused to perform their duty have been informed that legal proceedings in the Insular Court would be taken to compel them, but there has been no necessity to give any warning in regard to an Appeal to the Privy Council. Landowners are not justified in holding land if they refuse to perform the duties arising from the tenure; they are bound to pay over to the Crown the full rent due from their respective parishes; and, although as an Act of Grace the Crown has made an allowance to the Moar in respect of the difficulty of collection, the Department cannot take the collecting into its own hands. Every assistance that the Seneschal can render to the Moars will, as hitherto, be freely given, but the Setting Quest cannot be relieved of its proper duty. Acting under the direction of the Commissioner of Woods, the Seneschal has devoted a great deal of time to assist the several Setting Quests in getting the rentals in proper order, and there is now only one district where any difficulty exists. That district includes the town of Douglas, and, in order to apply a remedy there, the Commissioner of Woods induced the Insular Authorities in 1895 to pass an Act providing for the redemption of the Lord's Rent on favourable conditions.

IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any improved arrangements have been made for the transit and delivery of the mails between Skibbereen and Crook-haven?
MR. HANBURY: I have already informed the hon. Member that the question of using the tramway between Skibbereen and Schull is under inquiry, and that when the report has been received and considered the result shall be communicated to him. These Postal questions often necessitate returns of the correspondence and the personal visit of one of the Surveying Staff, who may have many similar matters on hand to which

497
precedence must be given. In the present case negotiations with the Tramway Company may also be necessary. So that, in any event, some time may elapse before it may be possible to give a definite reply to the hon. Member.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in fixing the new mail time table as between Dublin and Cork, the long interval which now exists between the arrival of the mail at Kingstown and its dispatch for Cork will be put an end to, and the mail dispatched for Cork without any delay?
MR. HANBURY: Allowing for the time necessary for the journey from Kingstown to Kingsbridge, the interval between the arrival of the mail packet at Kingstown and the departure of the mail train from Kingsbridge to Cork affords a margin of about 20 minutes for irregularity. A margin is absolutely necessary to secure some degree of punctuality in the departure of the Dublin to Cork train, and 20 minutes has not proved in the past more than sufficient for the purpose. The Postmaster General therefore proposes to maintain this interval.

LAND SUB-COMMISSION (COUNTIES FERMANAGH AND MONAGHAN).
MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(l) if he will explain the cause of the delay in giving decisions in the land cases which were heard at Lisnaskea, county Fermanagh, on the 2nd of January last; (2) why the Sub-Commissioners have not as yet inspected the holdings of those tenants whose cases were heard at Clones, county Monaghan, on the 5th and 6th of February; (3) how many cases in the counties of Fermanagh and Monaghan in which the originating notices to have fair rents fixed were served before the 1st of last November have not as yet been listed for hearing; and when will there be another sitting of the Sub-Commissioners to hear these cases; and (4) whether it is intended to appoint additional Sub-Commissioners, so as to prevent accumulation of arrears of business and to dispose speedily of cases
498
in which notices to have fair rents fixed have been served?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The cases referred to in the first paragraph were heard on the 4th January, but the inspections were necessarily postponed for some weeks in consequence of the illness of one of the Assistant Commissioners. The inspections have since taken place and the decisions will soon be announced. The holdings in the Clones cases are now being inspected. There are in Fermanagh and Monaghan 86 cases pending, in which originating notices were lodged prior to the 1st November last. A Sub-Commission Court will commence its sittings for cases arising out of the Monaghan Union on the 16th inst., and this list, when disposed of, will probably be followed by a new list for Clones Union. It is proposed to appoint some additional Sub-Commissioners shortly.
MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether the Land Commission Department had been yet able to form any opinion as to the extent to which the delay which had arisen in fixing fair rents was due to the new schedule in the Act?
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that in the opinion of the Land Commissioners delay had been caused by the Schedule, but he was not able to indicate precisely the amount of the delay.

VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL (HALFTIME SCHOLARS).
MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if, for the purposes of the Voluntary Schools Bill, the attendance of half-time scholars will be computed as under Article 12 (b) of the Day School Code?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): Yes, Sir, unless hereafter the Education Department make fresh rules for computing average attendance for the purposes of this Bill.

EDUCATION CODE, 1897 (TEACHERS).
COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, under Article 71

499
of the Code of 1897, the words "after Jan. 1st 1898, the Department may refuse to recognise any teachers not so engaged," will apply to teachers engaged before that date?
SIR J. GORST: No, Sir.

DANISH TRAWLERS IN SCOTTISH WATERS.
MR. CHARLES H. WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, although the Moray Firth is closed against British fishing vessels, the foreign steam trawler Dania has recently landed for three voyages fish from the Moray Firth on the Hull market; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, with regard to the practice of foreign trawlers fishing within the area prohibited by the bye-laws of the Scotch Fishery Board, and landing the fish so caught at English ports, he will urge upon the Government the necessity of immediately amending the Law of England so as to prevent the continuance of a practice which places Scotch fishing interests at a disadvantage compared to those of a foreign nation?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am aware that it has been reported that the Dania landed at Hull 250 cwt. of fish, which were declared as having been caught on the deep sea fishing grounds, and that they were thought to have been taken within the prohibited area, but I have no knowledge as to a general practice of the kind by foreign trawlers. The legislation asked for by the hon. Gentleman raises many questions of a serious character, and, as at present advised, I do not think the facts are such as would justify us in undertaking it.

NAZIM PACHA.
MR. J. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State has yet received official information that Nazim Pacha, the Minister of Police during the massacres at Constantinople, has been appointed Governor General of the Province of Beyrout; whether this appointment has been made under the system of reformed administration guaranteed by the
500
Ottoman Porte; if the Secretary of State has not received official information, will he institute inquiries as to whether the appointment to this Governor Generalship of Nazim Pacha has been made, as positively stated in the Public Press; and whether, in the event of the appointment having been made, the Secretary of State will direct the British Ambassador at Constantinople to make a strong remonstrance on the subject, and to insist, in the interest of the lives of the Christian population, that Nazim Pacha's appointment be instantly cancelled?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): No official information has yet been received of this appointment, but inquiries will be made. Beyrout was not one of the six vilayets to which the scheme of reforms agreed upon in October, 1895, was to be applied.
MR. MACNEILLasked whether he was to understand that no inquiries had yet been made, seeing that he put a question upon the subject on Tuesday?
MR. CURZONsaid he did not know the exact moment a telegram had been or would be sent.

MUZZLING DOGS.
MR. H. C. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that a dog was killed by the police at Hendon on 4th March, and that, upon post-mortem by the County Veterinary Inspector, rabies was found to be markedly present; and whether further effort can be made to expedite the completion of arrangements for the muzzling order he has decided to issue?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend directs attention. Every possible effort is being made to expedite the completion of the arrangements we propose to make for the suppression of rabies.

DAUNT'S ROCK LIGHTSHIP.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any precedent exists for the holding in Dublin of and inquiry into the loss of a vessel where such vessel was

501
lost on some part of the Irish coast remote from Dublin; why the usual practice in such cases of holding the Inquiry in the locality of the wreck has been departed from in the case of the Puffin Inquiry, seeing that such inquiries have been repeatedly held at Cork in the case of wrecks near that port; whether it is usual for the next of kin of the parties lost in the wreck to be represented at the Inquiry; and, in view of the desirability of having them represented at the Puffin Inquiry, and the practical impossibility of this except at great expense if the sitting is at Dublin, the Board of Trade will direct the Inquiry to be adjourned to Cork?
MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir, in deciding where an Inquiry is to be held, the principal point for consideration is not where the accident happened, but where the owners and chief witnesses live and can most conveniently attend. Relations of persons who have lost their lives in shipping casualties are occasionally represented at inquiries. The Puffin, however, was owned in Dublin, where a large number of the witnesses resided, and I do not propose to make any change in the arrangements already made.
MR. MAURICE HEALYasked if it was not a fact that a large number of witnesses resided at Queenstown?
MR. RITCHIEsaid the object of the Inquiry was to ascertain what it was that caused the accident, and he was informed that the great majority, if not the whole, of those who could throw light upon that particular point resided in or near Dublin, and that it would be inconvenient to them if the Inquiry were held at Cork.
MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would see that a number of the survivors who resided at Queenstown were brought to Dublin?
MR. RITCHIEsaid that if there was anyone residing in Queenstown who desired to given evidence, and whose evidence was of such a nature that it ought to be given, there was, of course, full power to pay the whole of the expenses of bringing witnesses from Queenstown.

TRANSHIPMENT OF MAILS (KINGSTOWN AND HOLYHEAD).
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what the difficulty is in improving the system of transhipping the mails at Kingstown and Holyhead; what proposals on the subject have been made and considered; and whether the difficulty has arisen with the Railway Company, the Steam Packet Company or the Post Office?
MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member will find the whole matter to which his question relate set forth in the copy of correspondence between the Board of Trade, the Postmaster General and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on the 7th August 1890.
MR. MAURICE HEALYcalled the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that three times last year he said that the Post Office had the matter under consideration.
MR. HANBURYsaid the hon. Member was quite correct; but, the Post Office had not furnished them with information yet.
MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the London and North Western Railway Company emphatically contradicted the Post Office in alleging that the Railway Company were at fault.
MR. MAURICE HEALYasked if the hon. Gentleman could not get the materials to enable him to answer the Question.
MR. HANBURYsaid that if the hon. Member would put the Question down again, he would give full information.

COUNTY COURT JUDGES (IRELAND).
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to give a Return of the names and dates of appointment of persons, if any, who have been appointed County Court Judges in Ireland during the past fifty years, for counties or boroughs in which they had previously been Parliamentary candidates?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot see what useful purpose would be

503
served by such a Return, and I am unable, therefore, to agree to it.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Quarter Sessions must open in County Down about the end of the present month; whether an appointment of a County Court Judge in place of Judge Roche has yet been made, or has a locum tenens been appointed for the coming Sessions; and whether he has any objection to give the name of the person appointed?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The next Quarter Sessions for the County Down will open on the 31st instant, and it is probable a successor to Judge Roche will be appointed before that date. Until the appointment has been completed it would, as I have already stated, be irregular to announce the intention of Government.

LOAN FUND SOCIETIES (IRELAND).
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that a number of treasurers of loan fund societies, working under the Charitable Act, 6 and 7 Vic. cap. 91, in the counties of Donegal, Fermanagh, and Tyrone, admitted before the Loan Fund Commission, which sat last year, that they received a gratuity of £5 each from the funds of their respective societies; (2) whether it was pointed out to the said treasurers by the Commission that the receipt by them of such gratuities was illegal; and (3) whether the money so illegally advanced has since been repaid by the treasurers concerned; and, if not, what steps will be taken to compel the refunding of all such moneys so illegally advanced?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first two paragraphs. The amounts so advanced to treasurers have not been refunded, and the question as to the further steps to be taken in the matter is now under the consideration of the Loan Fund Board.

COLLIERY ACCIDENT (LLANSAMLET, GLAMORGAN).
Mr. DAVID RANDELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whe-
504
ther he is aware that on the 10th February last a workman named Jordan fell down the pumping shaft at Gwern Colliery, Llansamlet, and that his body has not been recovered; what attempts, if any, have been made to recover the body; and what further steps are proposed to be taken in the matter?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I have received a report from the Inspector of the District with regard to this accident. Efforts, he informs me, were made by grappling on the day of the accident and the three following days to recover the body. Subsequently, descents were made daily up till last Friday, to the surface of the water, and on one occasion a charge of dynamite was exploded in an adjoining shaft connected with the pumping shaft, in the hope of causing the body to rise. Descents will continue to be made for a few more weeks, but beyond this nothing, I am afraid, can be done.

CHECK WEIGHER (MINES REGULATION ACT, 1887).
MR. B. PICKARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received from Mr. Peter Muir, Miners' Agent, of Glasgow, a letter complaining of the action of the Hindsward Pit, Old Cumnock, belonging to William Baird and Co., Limited, as having unduly interfered with the appointment of a checkweigher; whether the men are within their right in taking a ballot in accordance with the Acts of 1887 and 1894; whether he is aware that the men did ballot for the appointment of a checkweigher: that intimation had been given to the manager to either attend himself or send someone on his behalf to see that the ballot was properly taken; that the manager was informed of the election by ballot of a checkweighman; and that when the person appointed presented himself for work the manager objected, and demanded the men to signify on the pit-head whether or not they wanted a checkweigher; whether the manager is acting within the law by thus interfering in the appointment of a checkweigher, and in preventing the checkweigher acting for

505
all the miners in the mine after a ballot has been taken; whether the manager is bound to provide reasonable shelter and proper facilities for the checkweigher so that he may take correctly the weight of the mineral gotten by the men; whether he will instruct Her Majesty's Inspector for that district to prosecute the manager for unduly interfering in the appointment by ballot of a checkweigher for this mine; and, whether he will take steps to enforce the weighing clauses of the Mines Acts in Scotland as they are carried out in England?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I recently received a letter from Mr. Muir on the matter referred to, and was in hopes, from the report which I called for from the Inspector, that the difficulties which had arisen had been amicably settled. These difficulties were, I understood, not in connection with the taking of the ballot or the appointment of the checkweigher, but with the mode in which the appointment should be communicaied to the manager and the persons for whom the checkweigher is to act. As the hon. Member is well aware, the law on these points, as also on the question whether the facilities which are to be afforded to a checkweigher include the provision of shelter, is doubtful, and I am not prepared, on the information before me, to express an opinion that the manager was acting illegally. I have sent for a further report as to how matters stand at present. I do not understand the distinction which the hon. Member appears to draw between the enforcement of the Act in Scotland and in England.

BILLS OF LADING.
MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Associated Chambers of Commerce at their meeting yesterday passed a resolution in favour of the Government introducing a Bill to amend the laws relating to bills of lading; and whether it is intended to bring in a Bill which will bring shipowners under the ordinary carriers' law?
MR. RITCHIE: I am aware of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers, and if it is brought before me formally it shall receive my careful
506
consideration. I am not, however, prepared at present to propose any legislation on the subject.

CHANNEL TRANSIT OF LIVE STOCK (CONSIGNMENT NOTES).
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the shipowners controlling the cross Channel transit of live stock compel consignors to sign consignment notes, which contract the carrying companies out of all liability, and whether the Government will take action to protect the shippers of live stock?
MR. LONG: I believe that the statement contained in the Question of the hon. Member is correct in some cases; while it would also appear that on lines where full carriers' risks are accepted no greater care has been secured. I am most anxious to do what I can to improve the conditions of the traffic in question, but I am by no means clear that this result would be attained if I were to take action in the direction indicated.

PRISON COMMISSIONERS.
MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether effect has been given to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Prisons that the Commissioners should meet frequently as a board; how many meetings were held during the year 1896; and will the Commissioners in their future annual Reports record the number of meetings held in each year?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Effect has been given to this recommendation, and the Commissioners when not absent on leave or visiting duty, meet frequently, in effect about once a fortnight. No object would I think be served by the publication of the Departmental details which the hon. Member desires and I do not propose to give them.

MUSSEL BEDS (BRITISH COASTS).
MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that a large number of line fishermen round the British coasts, and

507
especially the coast of Scotland, are mainly dependent for the pursual of their calling on a supply of mussels for bait; that, in consequence of the exhaustion of many of our home mussel beds, and the lack of culture of others, the supply of home mussels is both entirely inadequate and inferior in quality; and that the best mussels are being imported at great expense and inconvenience from Holland; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, with a view of remedying this, will institute an Inquiry into the causes of the deficiency of our home mussel beds, and the successful culture of mussels abroad?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said he was informed that the reports on the subject would shortly be published and circulated. After that the Government would consider what steps should be taken.

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY (IRELAND).
MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now say whether a Bill for the establishment of a Catholic University in Ireland will be introduced this Session by Her Majesty's Government?
MR. W. JOHNSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists throughout the country at the contemplated establishment of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland, and that it is likely to break up the Unionist Party? [Irish laughter.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am perfectly well aware that, as my hon. Friend has just said, many people have been alarmed at what they regard as really the proposals of the Government, but I hope they will not make up their minds as to what those proposals are until they see them. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the Question on the Paper, I do not see how it will be possible to deal, in the course of the present Session, with any of the problems connected with higher education in Ireland.

CRETE.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that the
508
Greek Vice Consul and all the Greek residents have been ordered to leave Canea; and, if so, for what reason, and under whose authority has this been done?
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Commander of the detachments landed in Canea from the Allied Fleets notified the Greek Vice Consul that he must leave Crete, and that until his departure he must consider himself a prisoner; whether the British Admiral in Cretan waters concurred in this action; and whether it was taken by the officer commanding the detachments landed as the representative of the Turkish Government and in accordance with Turkish law, international or municipal; and whether an Italian war vessel fired upon the Cretans surrounding Hierapetra?
MR. CURZON: We have received no information from Canea with regard to the incidents concerning the Greek Vice Consul, but have telegraphed for information. An Italian ship, which had been dispatched to the relief of the beleaguered Mussulmans at Hierapetra, was compelled to fire in order to drive back the insurgents and Greek troops who attacked the town on Saturday last.
MR. DILLON: I shall repeat the Question to-morrow. I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could state to the House who is in command of the mixed force landed at Selino; with what object it was landed; what instructions were given to the officer in command; and by whom were the instructions given?
MR. CURZON: The mixed force was landed at Selino for the purpose of relieving Candano, which is seven miles inland—an operation which was successfully performed. I cannot answer the other questions, which seem to me to be of minor importance.
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that the Ottoman soldiery in Crete rose on the 2nd of March in mutiny and murdered their commanding officer, that the Acting Governor, in reply to the protests of the Consuls on the subject of the pillage of houses in Halepa, a suburb of Canea, by Turkish troops, replied that

509
it could not be helped as the soldiers must pillage to live, it is still the intention of the Powers to insist on the withdrawal of Greek troops from Crete and the retention of Turkish troops in that island?
MR. CURZON: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. There has been no mutiny of the Ottoman soldiery in Crete but a mutiny of a detachment of Albanian Zaptiehs or police, stationed at Canea. I know nothing of the incident mentioned in the second part of the Question.
MR. MACNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman never read the Daily news?
MR. CURZON: No, Sir, I do not. [Laughter.]
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Afftairs (1) whether there are now some 30,000 Mussulman refugees, mostly women and children, at Candia, in great distress and threatened with famine; (2) whether the Foreign Consuls at Candia have proof that 400 Mussulmans have been massacred in the Sitia district, and that there are now wounded and mutilated Moslem women and children at Candia; and (3) what steps the Great Powers propose to take in order to restore the Cretan Mussulmans to their homes and land.
MR. CURZON: We have no definite information as to the number of Mussulman refugees at Candia, but Her Majesty's Consul telegraphed on the 5th inst. that there was scarcity of provisions there. He estimated those in want of relief in the island generally at from 25,000 to 30,000 people. The proportion at Candia can only be a very small fraction of that total. I cannot confirm either of the statements in the second paragraph. The restitution of the Mussulmans to their homes must depend upon the restoration of peace and order in the island.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what will be done with the Mussulman refugees from Kandamos and other places; and whether any provision can be made for their support until they can return to their homes? I should like to add a question, whether he has any informa-
510
tion that Sir Alfred Biliotti has effected the relief at Candano of Mussulmans after two visits at very great risk to himself?
MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir; that is the information we have received, which I have previously given, and which has appeared fn the Press. I should like to say in that connection that I do not think it would be possible to exaggerate the services which have been rendered by Her Majesty's Consul. There appears to be a consensus of opinion that it was to his personal bravery, and even heroism—for he undoubtedly risked his own life [cheers]—that the success of the operation is due. I hope I am justified in adding the congratulations of this House to those which the Government would desire to offer to Sir Alfred Biliotti for the services he has rendered, not merely to the Government, but to Crete and to the cause of humanity. ["Oh!" and cheers.]
MR. DILLON: On a point of order—["Oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to offer his own congratulations, but he is not entitled to offer the congratulations of the Members of this House who entirely disapprove of the whole action. ["Order, order!"]
MR. MACNEILL: And to make a speech about it. [Irish cheers.]
MR. T. M. HEALY: Is this House to be asked to make a grant—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The Question on the Paper is, whether any provision can be made for the Mussulman refugees from Candano. Is it proposed to ask the House for a grant for that purpose?
MR. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member was asking something about the Consul.
MR. T. M. HEALY: No, Sir; it arises out of the question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Is there to be a grant by this House in support of the Mussulmans which was refused in the case of the Christians in Armenia? [Cheers.]
MR. CURZON: I do not know what the hon. Member is referring to. I have not yet answered the question of the hon. Gentleman.
SIR E. ASHMEAD- BARTLETT: To put the matter right, I again ask the question.
MR. CURZON: We have not yet heard from the British Admiral or from Her Majesty's Consul on the subject. I shall be glad to communicate any information when we receive it.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the British Consul any authority to involve the taxpayers of this country in the cost of relieving these Mussulmans, when we did not relieve the Christians?
[No answer was given.]
SIR W. HARCOURT: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the fact, as stated in the Press, that the Greek Government, in addition to their formal reply to the Note of the Powers, have made a communication to Her Majesty's Government and the other Powers to the effect that Greece is prepared to recognise the temporary suzerainty of the Sultan, to withdraw their fleet from Crete, and place the Greek forces in that island under the control of the Powers for the restoration of order, stipulating that the Powers will ultimately leave to the Cretan people the decision of the question of autonomy or annexation to Greece, and whether such statement is in substance correct? ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. CURZON: When I answered the right hon. Gentleman's question yesterday afternoon at 5.30 no further communication or Note had been received from the Greek Government. About half an hour later such a Communication was made verbally at the Foreign Office by the Creek Chargé d'Affaires. It will be laid with the other Papers, but I am afraid that it will possibly delay their appearance till to-morrow. They would otherwise have been in the hands of hon. Members this afternoon. I may add that the nature of the communication is not quite accurately described in the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"]
SIR W. HARCOURT: I venture to urge on the right hon. Gentleman that it is of great importance that the attitude of Greece on this matter should be known. [Cheers.] Therefore, although there may be some small inaccuracies or divergences from the statement I have received, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to state whether or not in substance these proposals on the part of
512
the Greek Government are as I have stated? ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. CURZON: It is rather difficult to say exactly what "in substance" means; but I may perhaps put it in this way—that there are substantial inaccuracies in the statement. [Cries of "What are they?"] We should have been very glad to have laid the Creek communication before the House this evening if we could, but, of course, permission had to be asked from the Greek Chargé d' Affaires himself. A messenger was sent to his office with the object of securing that assent, but up to 8 o'clock he had not been found. That is the explanation of the delay. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his attention has been directed to the message which the British Admiral desired The Times Correspondent to telegraph to this country to the effect that the insurgents had never received the warning of the Admirals before the recent bombardment? ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. R. PIERPOINT: I also desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact, as stated in this morning's papers, that Rear Admiral Harris has ascertained from the insurgent chiefs at Akrotiri that the proclamation of the Powers forbidding the insurgents to attack Canea and the other towns, and the Admirals' offer to send doctors after the bombardment, had never been communicated to the insurgents, although the Greek Commodore Reineck had been intrusted by the Admiral with the two Notes, and had been requested to communicate them to the chiefs; and whether the English, French, and Italian Admirals were all convinced that the Notes had not been transmitted by Commodore Reineck? ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir, I have seen the statement in The times this morning, the substance of which is borne out by a telegram we have since received from the British Admiral this morning, to the effect that, in company with the French and Italian Admirals, he had landed at Akrotiri to interview the insurgent chiefs, and that the latter had denied having received the warning sent through the Greek Commodore, and also denied knowledge of the offer of medical assistance

513
which had been On three occasions tendered by the representatives of the Powers. ["Hear!"]
MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not the fact that these statements were made after the Greek Admiral had left the shores of Crete? ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. CURZON: Yes, because it was not until yesterday that the Admirals had the interview with the insurgent chiefs. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. T. M. HEALY: The Greek Admiral was away all the same. [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Greek Commodore had undertaken the transmission of this message?
MR. CURZON: I cannot say.
MR. DILLON: I presume the right hon. Gentleman will see that in future, at least, there is absolute certainty that the insurgents are Warned before fire is opened upon them.
[No answer was given.]
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Arising out of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, will the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs answer that part of the Question which referred to the Turkish suzerainty?
MR. CURZON: I think it would be unsafe for me to answer from memory. I have not a copy of the communication which the Greek Chargé d' Affaires made with me. It was sent off at once to the printers.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I gave the right hon. Gentleman early notice of this question—as early as 12 o'clock to-day. I am sorry to press him, but I regard it as a matter of vital importance that it should be known to Europe what are the conditions and the terms which Greece has proposed. [Cheers.]
MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the importance of this matter, the right hon. Gentleman will hold out any hope that the Greek Minister, who is known to be in close proximity to the House, will be found, and that he will be able to give us all answer on the adjournment of the House to-night? ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. CURZON: I really do not know that there is any very considerable difference, as far as hon. Members are concerned, between 12 o'clock to-night and the first thing to-morrow morning. [Cheers and laughter, and Opposition cries of "Oh!"]
SIR W. HARCOURT: But if given here to-night the information will be in the Press and given to the world to-morrow, while if it is kept back until 4 o'clock to-morrow it will be a very different thing indeed. ["Hear, hear!"] The mere fact that it has been sent to the printers does not prevent the right hon. Gentleman from getting the document back from them. [Cheers.]
MR. CURZON: There will not be the slightest objection to giving it if I am informed before midnight that the consent of the Greek Chargé d' Affaires has taken obtained. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. STEVENSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a few hours ago, when he was sending messengers to seek for the Greek Chargé d' Affaires, that Gentleman was in the Lobby of this House in search of the right hon. Gentleman? [Laughter.]
MR. PIERPOINT: Why did not the hon. Member tell the right hon. Gentleman?
MR. CURZON: I was not aware of the fact.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  [PROGRESS, 10TH MARCH.—EIGHTH DAY.]
  Clause 1,—

  AID GRANT TO VOLUNTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  "(1) For aiding Voluntary Schools there, shall be annually paid out of moneys provided by Parliament an aid grant, not exceeding in the aggregate five shillings per scholar for the whole number of scholars in those schools.
  "(2) The aid grant shall be distributed by the Education Department to such Voluntary Schools and in such manner and amounts as the

  515
  Department think best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency, due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions.
  "(3) If associations of schools are constituted in such manner in such areas and with such governing bodies representative of the managers as are approved by the Education Department, there shall be allotted to each association while so approved,

  "(a) a share of the aid grant, to be computed according to the number of scholars in the schools of the association at the rate of five shillings per scholar, or, if the Department fix different rates for town and country schools respectively (which they are hereby empowered to do), then at those rates; and

  "(b) a corresponding share of any sum which may be available out of the aid grant after distribution has been made to unassociated schools.

  "(4) The share so allotted to each such association shall be distributed as aforesaid by the Education Department after consulting the governing body of the association, and in accordance with any scheme prepared by that body which the Department for the time being approve.
  "(5) The Education Department may exclude a school from any share of the aid grant which it might otherwise receive if, in the opinion of the Department, it unreasonably refuses or fails to join such an association, but the refusal or failure shall not be deemed unreasonable if the majority of the schools in the association belong to a religious denomination to which the school in question does not itself belong.
  "(6) The Education Department may require as a condition of a school receiving a share of the aid grant that the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the school shall be annually audited in accordance with the regulations of the Department."
  "(7) The decision of the Education Department upon any question relating to the distribution or allotment of the aid grant, including the question whether an association is or is not in conformity with this Act, and whether a school is a town or a country school, shall be final."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANScalled on Mr. Lambert, in whose name stood the first Amendment upon the Paper. [Loud expressions of protest on the Opposition side of the House.]
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to move, Sir, "That you do report progress and ask leave to sit again." [Opposition cheers and Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I decline to put that Question. Mr. Lambert.
  MR. J. CALDWELLwho rose amid loud cries of "Order," said: On the point of order, Sir—
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I have already told the hon. Member that I decline to put that Question. Mr. Lambert.
  MR. CALDWELL: But on the point of order, Sir, is it not the usual practice, when the House has been kept sitting up to the dinner hour and the Chairman has taken the Chair, for the Chairman to go out for half an hour? [Cheers, and Ministerial cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The hon. Member is in error, for I myself remember an occasion when that practice did not obtain. [Cries of "Once!"] It is not an invariable practice. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CALDWELL: Is it not the fact?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I really cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to argue the point with me. I call upon Mr. Lambert.
  MR. DALZIEL: On the point of order, Sir, may I ask you whether there is any precedent, except one occasion, when it was by a general arrangement with the House to enable the House to rise early, for Members not being allowed to take their dinners? ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I have told the hon. Member that I myself remember an occasion of the kind. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DALZIEL: By special arrangement?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: No, by no arrangement whatever. Mr. Lambert.
  SIR W. HARCOURT, who rose amid loud Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!": I would ask you, Sir, whether it is not possible to consult the convenience of the House in this matter. [Cheers.] There are a great many hon. Members who, like myself, have been sitting here for many hours for the purpose of asking questions which have lasted an hour. Many hon. Members, like myself, have, consequently, been unable to obtain the ordinary refreshment which the common Rules of the House usually allow us to secure. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: There is no particular reason why the House should be adjourned for half an hour, and I may say that I believe that if I were to consult the general convenience, the House would decide in

  517
  favour of our proceeding. ["Hear, hear!"] I call upon Mr. Lambert.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether—
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! There is no question before the Committee. I call upon Mr. Lambert. ["Hear, hear!"] If the hon. Member does not rise I shall pass him over. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. G. LAMBERT: I beg to move "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I will put that Question at once, in order that the Committee may decide it.[Cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT, who rose amid loud Ministerial cries of "Order!" and "Oh!" and Opposition cheers, said,—But, Mr. Lowther, I also appeal to the House—
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! Under the Standing Order of the House, I am empowered, it I think fit, to put the Question at once, and that accordingly I do. [Cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT, who again rose amid loud Opposition cheers, and Ministerial cries of "Order!" and "Divide," said: Mr. Lowther, I appeal to the House—[Loud cries of "Order!" and an HON. MEMBER, "Monstrous!"]
  MR. DALZIEL: Order yourself. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!"]
  The Committee divided—Ayes, 88; Noes, 174.—(Division List, No. 93.)
  MR. DALZIEL: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether you would be willing to receive a proposition that do now leave the Chair for half-an-hour.[Ministerial cries of "No, no!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The Committee has just decided by two to one that it should proceed.
  MR. LAMBERTmoved, in Subsection (3), afrer the words "in such areas and with such," to insert the word "elective." He said that, although he was in a somewhat exhausted state—
  518
  [laughter]—he thought that the case for his Amendment would be more than sufficient to make up for his weakness. The First Lord of the Treasury said last night that many of the Amendments moved that many of the Amendments moved on the Oppsition side of the House were frivolous, and ought not to have been proposed. He belived the right hon. Gentleman did not read the newspapers, but he wished he had undergone the penance of reading the first few sentences of the leading article in The Times, in which it was said that the Amendments of the day before were not a waste of time, and had led to an interesting discussion, and that further information might well be asked for from the Government as to the formation of these associations. The Committee had decided that these associations should be formed for the purposes of the Bill, and that being so, it was essential that they should do their utmost to make them a success. Their formation was, as was admitted by the First Lord of the Treasury, somewhat of an experiment, and he thought there ought to be some elective element in them. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Education Bill last year, the First Lord of the Treasury Said:—
  "No principle seems to me more fundamental, or that we should strive more earnestly to carry out, than the principle which gives to those who have the general interests of any community, be it national or local, the whole control of the finances by which their schemes are supported."
  That was precisely the principle he wished to carry out—namely, that some kind of elective local authorities should be the bodies by which this money should be distributed. In his opinion, the associations would be more permanent, and would exercise greater influence if the members were elected that if they were merely co-opted or nominated. He would probably be told that these bodies would be governed by the Education Department, but how could that Department exercise any effective control over their constitution? The inspectors of the Department had no special qualifications to act as critics of the composition of these authorities. In the circumstances the Department would be almost compelled to approve of them. He held that it would be contrary to all precedent if an authority having to advise as to

  519
  the expenditure of public money were to contain no elective element. These bodies ought not to consist merely of co-opted or nominated irresponsible persons. The Department, he would point out, would not be able to disregard their advice, for, as the Vice President of the Council said last year, it was impossible for a central Department to discriminate between schools. Had any estimate been made of the cost of the staff of these advisory bodies?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that that point did not arise on the question whether they were to be elective or not.
  MR. LAMBERTcontended that if the associations were to discriminate between schools they ought to have the strength of elective bodies so that they might overbear greedy managers clamouring, without justification, for a share of the grant. If there should be any want of confidence among subscribers in the impartiality of the associations their contributions would diminish. The whole Wesleyan body and the teachers had opposed the plan of the Government. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would agree to the introduction of some elective representative of the parents or of the parish or district councils.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)congratulated the hon. Member on his having acquitted himself so well of his task in spite of the difficult circumstances under which he spoke—[laughter]—and to which he had alluded. There was, however, one deficiency in the hon. Member's speech. Although he expressed a general desire for election, he had not said whom he wanted to elect or on what principle the election ought to take place. The hon. Member expressed only an abstract view as to the proper method of constituting the advisory bodies, and beyond the fact that he wished the election to be an election of people who were not managers of schools—[Mr. LAMBERT: "I did not say that they should not be managers."] Well, he did not understand what was the hon. Member's plan.
  MR. LAMBERTexplained that what he had intended to say was that the parents should be represented, and also the local authorities, if that should be possible, but that the Government would doubtless
  520
  be the best judges of the way in which the elective element should be introduced.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYwas glad that the hon. Member should think that there was one matter connected with education on which the Government would be the best judges. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The hon. Member wanted the Committee to give an abstract vote on the subject of election, but he was very vague in his view of who should be the constituents of the body to be elected. He must oppose the introduction of the word "elective" upon this, among other grounds—that it would tie them down to some method of creating a representative advisory body consisting of certain individuals, who would vote under certain conditions at certain times and places, according to some of the methods with which the system of local government had made them familiar. In conformity with the general policy which he advocated the last time this subject was under discussion, he strongly deprecated the Committee declaring that those bodies should be elective. Representative bodies they must be; elective bodies he thought they ought not to be, or, at least, need not be. Of course, if the managers of schools were to be invited under this Bill to form themselves into associations, and desired to have some elective system by which their views should be represented on the association, he need hardly say that the Education Department, as far as the Government had any influence on it, would throw no objection in the way. But to render it absolutely necessary that all the forms of election were to be gone through before these representative bodies were brought into working order, appeared to him to be inimical to the smooth working of the scheme; and he should be sorry to see the Committee adopt it. It was possible, for example, that the schools represented would be of such a number that no election at all was necessary. A number of managers of each school might meet together and form an association; on the other hand, it might happen, without a formal election, that the managers of the various schools should signify to the Education Department that they were entirely satisfied with the representative body which should be created by some less formal methods. Why should they not carry

  521
  out that policy if they chose to do so? If the hon. Member, in addition to requiring that the association should consist of members elected as distinguished from members representative, should desire to have parents, ratepayers, local authorities, county councils, parish councils, district councils, and subscribers all represented, then, quite apart from the arguments he had adduced, he should offer the strongest resistance in his power to the suggestion he had made.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that he was surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill contained terms which were impossible of definition, which were much too wide, and which were not applicable to the purpose in view. It left these questions to the discretion of the Department, and he did not think that his hon. Friend was in the least bound to say what should be the constituent elements to elect these associations. If the term "elective" was inserted their desire was to see the associations representative—[The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: Of whom?"]—of those who were interested in these schools, and to have some element of election as their foundation. [Ironical laughter.] The associations, as they would be constituted, would have no element of popular strength or support, and the desire was to place them on a more popular basis than at present. As they were not allowed to define anything in the Bill, the Department should be left to decide, in regard to the different associations, on what particular elective basis they should be founded. They should not be mere clerical bodies, but they should look to the real interests of educational efficiency. He supported the Amendment.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTinsisted that the associations should not consist of one religious faith and one class. In many of the localities which would be affected by the Bill, the Dissenting bodies were in the great majority, but those who would manage this grant of money would undoubtedly be the class managing the Church schools. If the Government excluded one large portion of the community from a share in the Administration of the fund, universal dissatisfaction would be created, and in the end the Government would be the
  522
  sufferers. There would be no difficulty in providing means by which Nonconformists might be elected; the machinery could be easily provided by the Education Department. If that Department should be incapable of undertaking the duty of arranging such a simple piece of machinery, then the Local Government Board would come to their aid and would soon remove the difficulty, providing a scheme for the representation of all classes in the management of this educational endowment fund, or rather this Church schools endowment fund. He had not mentioned the county councils, the district councils, or parish councils for a few minutes, since he heard the Leader of the House refer to these bodies in a tone of horror and alarm. The right hon. Gentleman shrugged his shoulders at the mere mention of urban and rural district councils, but surely he should not be ashamed of the children of his own Party, those young representative bodies that were giving general satisfaction throughout the country, doing useful work in all economical manner. There was no cause for the alarm his manner and remarks seemed to convey. The chairman, vice-chairman, or other member of a parish council, would be a satisfactory nomination to join an association for the administration of these great sums of money. If there was one Amendment on the Paper which, from its reasonable character, should claim the favourable attention of the Government, it was this Amendment. If a minority must have any recognition at all, this was an occasion for it. If the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his refusal to accept the Amendment, then he thought they might once for all abandon all hope of inserting any Amendment in the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] No doubt that cheer represented the opinion of the Government. If the Government had made up their minds that there should be no Amendment, let them say so at once, and put the minority in the House out of their misery. [Laughter.] The minority offered no opposition to the Bill. [cries of "Oh, oh!"] Not a word had been said against the granting of money for purposes of education, they had only endeavoured to improve and strengthen the Measure, and they appealed for all classes to have a fair share and equal voice in the

  523
  management. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to refuse every Amendment, then let him get up and say it was no use proposing any Amendment for he would refuse them point-blank, or to listen to any argument, however reasonable. Then the Opposition might consider whether their time might be better occupied than in fighting in this forlorn hope. He again appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, were not all portions of the community equally entitled to representation on these associations with the Established Church people?
  MR. W. ALLANasked for a little light on a subject which appeared to him to be very dim. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether these associations were to be the expression of the opinions of the various religious denominations who would benefit by the combination? Would the associations consist of the freely-elected representatives of the religious denominations who would benefit by the grant? That was a point he would like cleared up, and upon this, yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman's answers seemed rather cloudy and involved.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: These bodies are to be the representatives of the managers.
  MR. ALLAN: Are they to be freely elected representatives of the denominations?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Of the existing managers of schools.
  MR. ALLANsaid that so far helped him over his difficulty. Then he turned to the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, one phrase of which he noted. The hon. Member abandoned all hope of amendment of the Bill, and asked, "Why go on?" He repeated that question. Why go on with Amendments if they were to waste time and make no progress? Personally he objected to sitting there day after day making no progress. ["Hear, hear!"] If no Amendment were to be accepted, why go on? Repeating the words of the hon. Member, the time of the House might be better occupied, and he was there for business, not for all talk and no work. He represented a Board School constituency, and in expectation that the Government would lay on the Table a Bill for helping necessitous Board Schools. He was there
  524
  to ask his Liberal and Radical friends to give every assistance towards getting that Bill through, and with that Bill the time of the House might be better occupied. ["Hear!"]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEShumbly echoed the appeal of the hon. Member to hon. Gentlemen on the Benches opposite to give up moving Amendments. The hon. Gentleman's appeal was founded on reason, and he could not help saying for his own part—though, of course, he did not know what the tactics should be of those who opposed a Bill—that there was great want of knowledge shown of the art of obstruction in the course now being pursued. It pained him to see Amendments moved which were in themselves incomprehensible, and supported by speeches which were incoherent. This Amendment was to render the representative body of managers, which were to be approved by the Education Department, elective. But elected by whom, or how? The Amendment was not only not sense, but it was not even suggestive, nor was it explained by any subsequent Amendment that he had discovered. The First Lord of the Treasury, speaking with his usual felicity and good humour, had, with his amiability, "filled the hungry with good things"—[laughter]—and he was grateful to him for having pointed out the very important difference there is in being elective and being representative. Some of the best and most useful institutions of the country were not elective, though representative. Take a jury, for instance, that was extremely representative, but it was not elective, it was representative of the whole community; and that was the great virtue of a jury, it was representative though not elective. The Sovereign was representative. A Judge was representative, the Speaker was elective, but the Chairman of Committees was representative. [Laughter.] Therefore he conceived the hon. Member who wished these bodies to be elective and did not wish them to be representative erred, for it was better they should be representative than elective. Of course, were these words introduced as proposed, and stood alone, the matter would not be altered one atom, or whether they had a body elected, chosen, or adopted in totality it certainly had to be subjected to the approval of the Education Department.

  525
  He would, therefore, point out to hon. Members opposite that not only was the Amendment as it stood inconsistent, and that it had been rendered incoherent by the speeches with which it had been advocated, but that if passed it would be useless for the purpose for which it was intended.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYobserved that the hon. Member for Lynn Regis had advanced great many propositions which could hardly be sustained as to what constituted a representative. He had said, for instance, that a Judge was representative, and he presumed so was a Bishop. [Opposition cheers.] But in his remonstrances against what he had called obstruction on the Opposition side of the House, the hon. Member seemed to have forgotten that this was a deliberative Assembly. When he taunted the Opposition with the prolongation of discussion on the various sections of the clause, the hon. Member seemed to have forgotten a Bill on which he himself had taken a very active part.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I did not in the least complain of the prolongation of discussion, but only of inartistic prolongation. [Laughter.]
  MR. J. MORLEYconfessed he did not know the distinction between artistic and inartistic prolongation, but was bound to say the hon. Member in the last Parliament gave them ample opportunities of distinguishing between artistic and inartistic—[laughter.]—on a memorable Bill in the last Parliament. [Cries of "Question!"] Hon. Gentleman opposite called "Question" and he quite understood why. Of course this was relevant, and therefore they were afraid to hear it. [Opposition cheers and cries of "Order!"] It was perfectly in order, otherwise the Chairman would have intervened.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Of course the discussion has gone a little way from the point of the Amendment, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to reply to the criticisms that have been made by the hon. Member. After that reply has been made I think the Committee should resume the Debate on the Amendment. [Laughter.]
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid he would in a sentence or two reply to the hon. Member for Lynn Regis. They had been six
  526
  or seven nights in Committee on this Bill, but on the Home Rule Bill the first clause alone occupied five nights. On the third clause two nights were expended upon a discussion to postpone the clause, and then eight days were devoted to the third clause itself, after which the closure was moved. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY:we have been nine nights on half a clause. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. J. MOBLEYsaid that of course the clauses of the Home Rule Bill were clauses, but this was a Bill put into a clause. [cheers.] There were seven Sub-sections, each of which, in a Bill framed upon the ordinary principles upon which Bills were presented to the House, would have been a separate clause by itself. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman was well aware of that, and it the Opposition had brought in a Bill framed in this manner he would have been the very first to protest. [Cheers.] The fourth clause of the Home Rule Bill took nine nights. ["Hear, hear!"] On the Parish Councils Bill six nights were devoted to the first clause. They had spent seven nights, it appeared, upon the first clause of the present Bill, and he submitted, when the hon. Member for Lynn Regis taxed the Opposition with undue prolongation of discussion, he had entirely forgotten the precedent of the conduct of his own Party, and also of his own personal conduct. [Cheers.]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not charge the right bon. Gentleman and his Party with undue prolongation. I charged them with foolish and inartistic prolongation. [Laughter.]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! I think it would be desirable now to leave this topic. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid he felt he had sufficiently disposed of the taunt of the hon. Member. ["Hear, hear!"] Upon the point of the Amendment he wished to ask the First Lord a rather simple but pretty obvious question. The right hon. Gentleman rather shifted his ground in his answer to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. He said that it would be very hard to tie down the associations by such rules as, for example, they should constitute themselves upon

  527
  an elective principle. But that argument involved a departure from the argument he had been using throughout these discussions—namely, that the Education Department would make its own regulations, and, therefore, the associations would only have a secondary voice in the matter. The Bill said that these bodies were to be representative of the managers, but the question was upon what principle this representation was to be decided. The right hon. Gentleman said that all the managers were not to be upon the association; but what did representation mean? A representative body must either be elective or selective. ["Hear, hear!"] They contended that the principle ought to be elective and not selective. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would kindly explain upon which principle the associations were to constitute themselves, and what was the principle upon which the Education Department was going to recommend the framing of this scheme.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid there were two possibilities raised by the rather vague Amendment before them. One was as to whether there should be an elective element in these associations, the election not being by the managers, but by somebody, be they parents or be they ratepayers, or other persons outside. To that possibility the Government entertained the strongest objection. The other question was: given the association was to represent only the managers, was that representation to be by election or not? His answer was quite plain: it might be by election or it might not necessarily be by election. As he understood the matter, the schools would be invited to form these associations, and they would, no doubt, suggest the manner in which the associations were to be formed. The Education Department would then have to judge whether, in their view, the association was representative of the managers, and, if they thought it was, no doubt they would assent to the association if in other respects it seemed suitable. [Cheers.]
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid these associations would simply be associations of Anglican clergy. [Ministerial cries of "No" and "Divide."]These men would elect themselves. The
  528
  controlling power would be the extreme Church party, not the moderate party; and these associations would have the power of penalising the schools which were conducted in a very moderate way at present, and to which Nonconformists did not object. He would like to give one or two questions from a catechism Which represented the views of the extreme party. [Cries of "Question."]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the only question now before the Committee was whether the governing, bodies of these associations were to be elected or not.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid he would, of course, obey that ruling. The only point he wished to bring out was that the tendency of these associations, composed of extreme Ritualists, would be gradually to stimulate the violent anti-Protestant teaching with a view of stamping out Dissent. As the Government refused to adopt any suggestion from that side of the House, it was a farce to carry on the discussion. [Cheers.]
  SIR FRANK LOCKWOODthought it was really time for some one to enter a protest against what he ventured to term the negative attitude which the Government had chosen to assume. [Cheers.] The First Lord of the Treasury had, no doubt in an amiable spirit, criticised the scheme of his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment; but what they had the right to have before them was the scheme of the Government. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the speeches made on that side of the House were an object lesson as to the grave difficulties with which the Government had to deal in the creation of these associations. Yes; but it was an object lesson for the Government, whose duty it was to have considered these difficulties before they embarked upon this Bill. [Cheers.] If the right hon. Gentleman would not tell them in distinct terms what the Education Department would do in connection with this matter when the Bill became law, he would venture to tell them why he did not do so. It was because the Education Department and those in charge of this Bill were at arm's length. [Cheers and Ministerial laughter.] He should be glad to hear from the Vice President of the Council or from the Attorney General—if the hon. and

  529
  learned Gentleman had really got any view upon the matter—what the Education Department anticipated would be the principles upon which those associations would be created. The Committee were told that the whole responsibility for the creation and constitution of those bodies would rest on the Education Department, and yet the responsible Minister for that Department sat dumb in his seat and gave no indication to the Committee of the principles that would guide the Department in the matter. [Cheers.]
  MR. R. W. PERKSsaid the question had been asked, what was the use of discussing the Bill in face of the manifest intention of the Government not to accept any Amendment? He could tell the hon. Member for Gates-head that one advantage of debating the Bill was that it enabled Members to declare the side on Which they ranged themselves in regard to the great question of Education—["hear, hear!"]—and another advantage was that it afforded opportunities to constituencies to communicate to their Members their assent to or their dissent from the votes given by those Members.[Cheers.] The question they had to consider was whether the managers, parents, and the scholars of these elementary schools should have some guarantee that these representative bodies should be elected. Yesterday, when the First Lord of the Treasury announced the compact which the Government had entered into with the Roman Catholic community, he stated, in response to the honourable Member for East Mayo, that it would be competent for the governing bodies of the different Churches outside the Church of England, to from one association for the schools of those bodies. The right hon. Gentleman had said, for instance, the Roman Catholic body might appoint one association for the whole 900 schools in connection with that Church. That association would be submitted to the Education Department for its approval. What had the Education Department to satisfy themselves about? Simply that the association was representative of the managers. The Department had not to satisfy itself at all as to whether it was an elective body. That would be a gross injustice in the case of some Roman Catholic schools. In the North of England there were several Roman Catholic schools to which from 40 to 50 Non-
  530
  conformist children were forced to go, and yet, in the governing body formed to control those Roman Catholic schools, there was no guarantee in the Bill that the elective principle would be adopted, and that the parents of those Nonconformist children would have a voice in the management of the Schools. Then there was the case of the Wesleyan Methodists, who had altogether 500 schools in this country. Those schools were controlled by the Wesleyan Methodist Conference, which was the chief governing body of that Church, assisted by the Wesleyan Education Committee. They would probably propose to form two associations. An association might be proposed for the acceptance of the Education Department which the Conference might say was representative of the managers. But the managers might take an entirely different view, and in the absence of the Amendment it would be left absolutely in the control of the Education Department to say whether these associations were representative of the managers or whether they were not. Take the county of Lincolnshire, a Division of which he represented. There were in that county upwards of 400 Church of England Schools. There was the strongest possible divergence of opinion on ecclesiastical questions in the county of Lincolnshire. Some clergy were extremely evangelical, others were just the opposite. Would there be one association or two associations for the county of Lincolnshire? The managers of those schools would have no assurance that they would be represented properly on the associations. That would materially affect some of the parishes in Lincolnshire. In many parishes there were 60, and in some 80, per cent. Nonconformist children attending the schools, and, in the case of one school of 122 children, there was not a single child of an Anglican Churchman at all in the whole school, although it was a school of the Church of England. That was not at all an isolated instance in the Division he represented. There were four or five Anglican schools with which he was acquainted in which not one child was the child of a member of the Church of England. There should therefore be some guarantee that the governing bodies should be elected and should be representative of the views of parents, children, and subscribers of the

  531
  schools. He should say that he did not entertain the gloomy views that had been expressed by the Member for the Flint Boroughs as to the future of Dissent in this country if the Bill were passed. The Dissenters of this country were strong enough to take care of themselves. He opposed the Bill because he believed it to be an unjust one, and not because he thought the Bill would do any harm to the Dissenters. At the next election they would be powerful enough to sweep this Measure straight from the Statutebook.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that this Amendment was very important for many reasons. Important functions were to be intrusted to these associations. They were to guide and advise the Department in the distribution of the grant. But if they were to be really representative bodies there must be some sort of election to them. The Bill left the manner of their formation absolutely vague; and in the present day it was a strong thing to say that some one should represent some one else without any sort of election. The three cases cited by the hon. Member for king's Lynn were not fortunate. The Judges represented no one, unless it were the Sovereign. Juries represented only themselves, because they had no responsibility but to themselves; and who was represented by the Chairman of Committees when the right hon. Gentleman occupied the Chair?
  MR. W. ALLANsaid that he wished to make a personal statement with regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Louth Division (Mr. Perks). The hon. Member had entirely mistaken what he said, which was simply an echo of the words of the hon. Member for Leicester. And as to the assent or dissent of his constituents, he thought that the hon. Member's remarks were quite uncalled for. He could not reconcile such a gross attack upon himself by the hon. Member with the vote which the hon. Member gave last year on the veto which the hon. Member gave last year on the Agricultural Rating Bill, whereby two millions were given to the landlords of this country.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that these discussions were of great use, in spite of what the hon. Member for Gateshead had said, because they were making it clearer to the country day by day what the Bill really was, and what the views of the Govern-
  532
  ment were as to the way in which their Bill was to be administered. The dissatisfaction with these proposals would be increased if these associations were not to be formed on representative principles. From the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury on the previous evening, it appeared that these associations would be formed on denominational lines, so that our national education would become more denominational than ever. The laity would accordingly require protection, and they could only get it by the adoption of the principle of representation. If that were refused, and this Measure were to be worked for ecclesiastical rather than educational purposes, the laity would be disgusted, and the cause of education would suffer.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid the positive and determined refusal of the Government to allow the smallest introduction of the elective principle into this clause made the arguments so often used, with absolute sincerity by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that parents ought to be allowed perfect freedom of choice as to the religious education their children received, are absolute and hollow mockery. From time to time they heard of Protestant children being driven into the Roman Catholic Schools, and he would ask hon. Gentleman opposite to realise how hard that hit the parents of the Protestant children. The action of the Government would tend to intensify this course, and he warned hon. Gentlemen opposite that if the persistence of the Government in refusing to introduce the elective principle into the clause was encouraged by them, they would receive an answer from their constituents Which would be a pleasant one for them or the Government.
  MR. ABEL THOMASand Mr. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomery)rose to continue the Debate, when
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 104.—(Division List, No. 94.)
  Question put acordingly, "That the word 'elective' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 266.—(Division List, No. 95.)
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSmoved in Subsection (3), after the word "bodies," to insert the words "consisting of a number of persons in equal proportion for each school in the association." He said that the object of the Amendment was to secure that, whatever the number of managers or children, there should be the same representation so as to secure the interests of a small necessitous school.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that the hon. Member suggested in his Amendment that the representation of small schools on the associations should be the same, and have the same weight as that of the large schools. He did not know that the suggestion in itself was a bad one, and, indeed, it might be a very good one. But at the same time he must strongly object to taking away from the Education Department control over this one matter when the rest were left to their discretion. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew that there were points on which the opinion of the managers of large schools, having a thousand children, ought to have no more weight than those of small schools having only 20 scholars. He, however, believed that the associations themselves would be able to contrive forms of self-government that would enable them to do their work efficiently and justly without any rule being laid down for them by that House. ["Hear, hear!"] He must therefore deprecate any attempt to lay down a rule of the character suggested by the Amendment. For the reasons he had given he felt himself bound to oppose the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid that the point Which the hon. Gentleman the mover of the Amendment (Mr. Evans) had made was that the Government had given the House no information whether the representation of the schools upon the associations was to be based on the number of children in the schools or on the population of the district. It was of the greatest importance to prevent the small schools being overborne by the larger schools. Unless provision were made to prevent that unfortunate result being brought about, the associations would be useless for any good purpose. He thought that House ought to lay down the prnciple once for all that the managers of the small schools should
  534
  have equal weight of representation upon the associations with those of the larger schools. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. C. HARRISONsaid although it was natural that objection should be taken to the Amendment, yet the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, on behalf of the Government, had assured the House the associations were advisory bodies only, and would have no powers, and would not in fact, manage or control the schools. Confined to the purpose of advising the Education Department which particular school was necessitous to justify its having a grant, the exercise of the advisory powers depended upon an accurate knowledge of the state of the school as regards educational efficiency and the sufficiency of the income of the particular school. On such points as these he could see no reason why one school should have an advantage over another when it came to a question of voting, and to protect the interests of the smaller schools the Amendment might be adopted.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided—Ayes, 92; Noes, 263.—(Division List, No. 96.)
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSmoved, in Subsection (3) to leave out the words "representative of the managers." He said it was incumbent on the Government to show that the governing bodies ought to be representative of the managers. For his part, he would much prefer to leave the matter to the Education Department. What was wanted was, that these governing bodies should take care that this aid grant should be used for increasing the efficiency of the schools; and they knew that some managers were not so careful of education as of some other matters, and if the bodies were to be representative of them, they would not command the confidence of the parents or the children. If the managers were representative of anybody else there would be good reasons for making the governing bodies representative of the managers; but in almost all cases the managers were not representative of anyone. If the matter were left to the Education Department they would see that people were put on these bodies who would look to the efficiency of the schools.
  THE FIRST LORD OF TREASURYsaid there had been two Divisions on Amendments which had been moved, and in the discussion of which the hon. Member had taken part. The first was to introduce the word "elective," and the second was to provide that every school in every association should have an equal right of representation. Now the hon. Member, with a happy versatility, had moved an Amendment that there should be no representation and no election at all—[laughter]—and that the whole thing should be done by the Education Department at its own sweet will. He had confidence in the Education Department, but he thought that the Committee ought not to omit the guidance given by the words "representative of the managers" of schools. The hon. Member and his friends had occupied all night in restricting the liberty of the Education Department, but now they wanted to turn the moderate liberty given to the Department into absolute licence. [Laughter.] The Committee had better pursue the middle course traced in the Bill; and he begged the hon. Member not to press the Amendment to a Division.
  MR. REGINALD MCKENNAasked what was to happen to a new school which joined the association? Was it to have representative managers on the association? How were they to be representative? Were they to be elected? What was to be the process in the formation of the associations?
  SIR W. HART DYKEsaid that the elasticity of the clause commended itself to him.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHmaintained that if those words were omitted the Bill would be more elastic than it was now. It was known, according to the authority of the Vice President of the Council, that this association area was to cover a million of inhabitants. If that were so, the managers of a school could not have more than one representative on the association at most. But managers would not go outside their own body for representatives, and the teaching profession of the country would be excluded from the associations, not to say anything of parents and the different public bodies.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent teachers from being elected.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman thought that the managers would go outside their own body to get a representative? He commended the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman as one that made the Bill shorter and not more understood—points in its favour both. [Laughter.] It would give a wider scope to the Education Department, and leave the Vice President of the Council a more unfettered discretion to carry out the vague and unknown purposes of the Bill.
  MR. ABEL THOMASsaid that he had had some experience of the Education Department, and believed that it could be trusted to act in the interest of education. According to the present wording of the sub-section there would be no representation on the association beyond the management concerned; but surely the proper course would be to have some representation beyond this in the administration of such large sums of money? He had sufficient faith in the Vice President of the Council to be sure that if he had the opportunity he would think it right to have on the associations a few persons interested in education from other than the managers' point of view. Many Members on the other side of the House would share that opinion; and to give authority to the Education Department would secure such representation.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDwished to be quite sure that one or two matters he considered of great importance would still be open after the Committee had voted on the present Amendment. There were two points in controversy here; one was whether teachers should have the opportunity of representation, and the other was whether a certain proportion of representation of laymen should be secured. After a decision on the present Amendment, would it be still open to submit propositions to add members representing different bodies on the associations?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid it would be still open to do so, provided such proposals were consistent with decisions already arrived at.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid in future it might be expected that there would be considerable development of public secondary education, and it was most important that there should be the most cordial

  537
  relations between the managers of elementary and secondary education. It this Amendment were accepted it would enable that to be done which in Wales had been done in connection with intermediate education. Elementary teachers had been placed upon the Boards which dealt with intermediate education. It would be possible to have intermediate teachers upon the associations with the managers of elementary school, if the proposal of his hon. Friend were adopted. He hoped the Committee would give the Education Department a sufficiently free hand, so that intermediate and elementary education might be co-ordinated in the manner he had suggested.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division:—Ayes, 261; Noes, 83.—(Division List, No. 97.)
  And, it being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
METROPOLITAN AND OTHER POLICE COURTS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [5th February] further adjourned till Thursday next.
BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
Second Reading, deferred till Monday next.
SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19th March.
LEASEHOLDERS (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) (No. 2) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
CORONERS INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading, deferred till Wednesday 24th March.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 25th March.
INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
SURVEYORS (COUNTY DUBLIN) BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.
PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read the Third time, and passed.
TENANT RIGHT IN TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19th March.
LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 (IRISH LAND COMMISSION RULES).
MR. JOHN DILLONmoved:—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to direct that Rules 130 and 133 and Forms 28, 29, and 30 of the Irish Land Commission be annulled."
The rules and forms which he desired to have annulled dealt with two separate and important questions. The first rule he would deal with was Rule 130. It had been for a long time the practice of the Land Commission in Ireland to insist by rule—for it was not laid down in any of the Land Acts—that a tenant whose holding was valued at over £10 a year should indorse on the back of the originating notice the particulars of the improvements in respect to which he desired to claim an allowance when the fair rent was fixed. That practice had been in force for a considerable number of years; but when the Land Act of 1896 was passed he and most Irish Members were under the impression that the first Sub-section of that Act would render it impossible for the Land Commission to continue that practice. The opening words of that sub-section were:—
"Where the Court fixes a fair rent for a holding, the Court shall ascertain, and record in the form of a schedule, unless both landlord and tenant shall otherwise request the following particulars."
And then followed the particulars. That sub-section, in his opinion, cast upon the Sub-Commissioners the duty of ascertaining the required particulars. There was no qualification in that subsection as to the improvements claimed by the tenant being indorsed on his
540
originating notice. It made it mandatory on the Commission to ascertain and record all improvements on the holding. In order to appreciate the full meaning of the statute it was necessary to remember the process of fixing a fair rent. First, two lay sub-commissioners went to the holding and took a careful record of improvements. Under the rule which he desired to have annulled, these sub-commissioners might, and often did, find improvements which according to the language of the statute ought to be held as the property of the tenant, and in respect of which no rent ought to be allowed. But if the tenant, who might be a poor ignorant man, had not indorsed his notice with the improvements, they were taken from him by a rule of the Court. It was not right for a court of law to frame rules which deprived a suitor of any property which it was the clear intention of the statute to give him. This rule ought not to have been renewed when the Land Commission recast their rules after the Act of last year. Those new rules were now published, though they had not yet been circulated to Members. They had, indeed, only just been laid on the Table in response to a question of his to the Attorney General for Ireland. According to the statute of 1881 they ought to have been laid on the Table within three weeks of the meeting of Parliament, but by some mistake of the Land Commission that had not been done.
MR. SPEAKER: I understand from the hon. Gentleman that these rules are not yet printed. I do not know how long they have to lie.
MR. T. M. HEALY: One hundred days. There is plenty of time.
MR. SPEAKER: If there is plenty of time, I would suggest to the hon. Member that it would be very inconvenient to the House to discuss the rules without their being printed. It is very analogous to the case of a Bill which has not been printed before it comes on for Second Reading. It is impossible for an hon. Member who has not seen, and had no opportunity of seeing, these rules to understand them or to see the bearing of each particular rule without reference to the context of the other rules, and therefore I suggest to the hon. Member that it is for the convenience of the House, as well as for himself, that he should postpone the further

541
discussion of this matter until the few days have elapsed in which the Rules may be in the hands of Members.
MR. DILLONsaid he might explain that the rules had been printed and were in circulation and for sale in Dublin for the last six weeks, and he submitted that it would be extremely hard if they should be deprived of the opportunity of moving this Motion because of the conduct of the Land Commission, who held back the rules which ought to have been laid on the Table and printed three or four weeks ago. He hoped to prove that no inconvenience could arise to hon. Members who took an interest in this matter, and who were acquainted with Irish land legislation. The rules against which he was moving were only two, and were extremely brief. With regard to Rule 130, he desired to see it annulled because in his judgment it was inconsistent with the wording of the first sub-section of the Act of 1896; because in his opinion, and in the opinion of many men skilled in the administration of the Act, it took away from the tenant a property which the Act and that House gave to him, and because he did not think it was consistent with the just administration of the law to frame rules which were calculated to defeat the plain object of the Legislature and the words of an Act of Parliament. There was another reason. A schedule of the improvements claimed was required from the tenant who served an originating notice, but if the landlord served an originating notice he understood he was not compelled to schedule the improvements he claimed. If that were true, could there be a more gross and palpable case of injustice than to put on the poor man, in order to save his property, a duty which they did not require the rich man to do when he came into Court under precisely similar circumstances? Turning to the second part of the Motion, Rule 133 and Forms 28, 29, and 30, which he wished to have annulled, had been drawn up under the direction of Section 1 of the Act of 1896. In that Act it was provided that the schedule should be in the form of the first schedule of the said Act "or any such other form as may be prescribed." Therefore, that gave to the Committee an absolute right as to the form of the schedule. They were not in the least bound to follow the schedule of the Act, and, by an Amendment intro-
542
duced into Section 1 by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, it was enacted that "nothing contained in the first schedule shall affect the construction of any other portion of the Act." That was inserted, he understood, from the fear that the Committee might think they were in any way bound by the wording of the schedule of the Act. Therefore, the Land Commission in framing the schedules were clearly and distinctly bound not to follow the schedule of the Act of 1896 if it was inconsistent with any other portion of the Act, and he held that the form of the schedule in the Act and, quite as much, the form of the schedules which he asked to be annulled, were plainly inconsistent with the wording of the first section of the Act, and that, therefore, the first section of the Act ought to override the schedules. The first sub-section directed the Commissioners to ascertain and record certain particulars. In ascertaining the fair rent they were not to ascertain the rent of the buildings separate from the land, nor the rent of the land as if it were situated in the planet Saturn, and then add on a number of preposterous imaginary values. They were directed to do as any ordinary valuer would do; they were to value the farm as a going concern and to set upon it a fair value, and ascertain what improvements were the property of the landlord. He held that the schedule which had been adopted by the Government was extremely inconsistent with the wording of the first section of the Statute. The schedule did not give to the tenant the benefits of the procedure or form which was provided for in Section 1 of the Act of 1896. He held, too, that the schedule was an ever-threatening danger. He was told that it, had already been applied under the Ulster Custom, but he believed that it would create the greatest alarm in Ulster. He held, furthermore, that the schedule would increase the delay and the block in the Land Courts. With the thousands of cases coming in, in spite of the new appointments, there was an immense block of business which would be greatly increased in the next few years, and this schedule made the work of reviewing the rack rents of 1882, 1883, and 1884, under which the Irish people were groaning five or six-fold more slow and laborious. He wanted to direct the attention of the House to a remarkable judgment delivered the other day in Dublin by that

543
member of the Commission who was the only one who had any practical experience of land-valuing. Here they had got five men sitting, with jurisdiction to fix fair rents, and three of them were barristers who had no more knowledge of land than he had of the Chinese language. Yet these men's chief business was the fixing of the value of land. Mr. Wrench, although for a long time agent on an estate, had no practical experience in the land valuation. Now, only one man who had any practical knowledge of the value of land was Mr. Commissioner O'Brien. No one had a longer or a more complete experience of the valuation of land than he had. The hon. Member then quoted extracts from the judgment of Mr. Commissioner O'Brien, as reported, he said, in The Irish Times of about a fortnight ago. It would be seen, therefore, that in his opinion this schedule added enormously to the labours of the Land Commission, and that it was inconsistent with the terms of the Act of last year, and also worked great injustice to the tenants. These were the grounds upon which he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to assent to this Motion. The tenants ought to be given the benefit of the Act of last year without any conditions or restrictions. ["Hear, hear!"] He begged to move the Motion that stood upon the Paper in his name. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. J. C. FLYNNsaid that he rose to second the Motion. It was most unfair to require the tenants to give these particulars. In many instances they would be absolutely unable to give them, and in those cases they would be unable to make out their cases before the Assistant Land Commissioners. There were many particulars which the tenants were asked to give which they could not possibly give in many instances. How could the tenants give the capital value of many of their improvements, such as the drainage of their holdings and the reclamation of the soil, in cases where mountain land had been turned into grazing land. It was most hard upon the poor tenants to exact these particulars from them, because, being uninstructed in such matters themselves, they would have to avail themselves of professional assistance at considerable cost. How could a rough unlettered tenant pretend to give the present value of drainage improve-
544
ments which he had effected three or four summers ago, or of those which had been effected years ago by their forefathers? There was another important point. Where the tenant served the notice he was bound to specify on that notice all the improvements on which he claimed, and even when the landlord served the notice he was bound to do so. That seemed to him altogether unjustifiable. Presumably when the landlord served a notice to fix a fair rent, he did so with the object of getting the rent raised. Surely, therefore, it was not fair to put the onus probandi on the tenant. He thought that point would commend itself to the common sense and sense of justice of hon. Members on the other side of the House, and he hoped the Motion would therefore be carried.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,)said that, as he understood it, the objection of the hon. Member to Rule 130 consisted in this, that the Act of last year introduced some different principles, and, therefore, the Rule was not applicable. The hon. Member who last addressed the House did not appear to him to have read the Rule or made himself familiar with its provisions, because he declared that under it an ignorant man would be required to put a capital value on his improvements.
MR. FLYNNsaid he meant to say that he would be bound to specify all the improvements on which he meant to rely.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Then the hon. Member did not mean what he said. But what was the injustice in requiring a tenant who wished to get his rent reduced, to state as far as he could, within his own knowledge or belief, the particular improvements on which he meant to rely? He could not conceive anything more just or reasonable. The practice had been followed since 1882 and was universal in Courts of Justice. Under the Act of 1896 the Commissioners had to make an inquiry in order to ascertain whether, in fixing a fair rent, a reduction ought to be made in respect of the tenant's improvements. In order to enable them to make that inquiry the tenant was required to tell the Court what the improvements were on which he meant to rely. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that the Act of 1896 had dispensed with the necessity for that inquiry, basing his

545
argument on the first portion of the 1st section of the Act. But that section enacted that the Court should ascertain and be supplied with information as to certain things, in the form of a schedule, among such things being the improvements made wholly or partially by the tenant, or at his cost, the nature and capital value thereof, the dates on which they were made, and the deductions from rent (if any) made on account thereof. How that absolved the tenant from giving all the aid in his power to enable the Court to get all necessary information passed his comprehension. Of course, if a tenant, having full knowledge of improvements that he had made, and of what he claimed, chose to refuse to give particulars, and thereby impeded the Court in arriving at a conclusion, his claim would very properly be disallowed. A litigant could not be excused from stating what his claim was. The obligation on the Court to ascertain the facts did not free the tenant from the obligation of informing the Court of the particulars of claim. No hardship was inflicted upon a tenant by requiring him to conform to the rules of the Act. He came now to Rule 133.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not explained why a similar obligation was not east on the landlord.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that since the passing of the Act now in force for 16 years, he did not think there had been more than a few cases in which the landlord asked to have a rent fixed. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Primâ facie the improvement belonged to the landlord, and the first valuation directed to be made was made on the assumption that the improvements were the landlord's. The first section of the Act provided, among other things, that all these matters were "to be ascertained" and set out in the prescribed schedule. The hon. Member had not pointed to a single item in the schedule ultimately adopted by the Commissioners which was not provided for in the Act. He challenged him to do so. The "pink paper" had been adopted as at schedule to the Act, and the Commissioners were bound under the terms of the Act to preserve as far as possible that schedule. The had simply recast the schedule, shortened and condensed it; but they had required nothing to be specified in the new
546
schedule which was not required in the "pink paper." He would not attempt at such an hour to trespass on the time of the House by going through the schedule point by point, section by section, but he assured the House that he had gone through the schedule most carefully, and could state with the utmost confidence that there was not a single requirement in the new schedule that could not be found in the schedule attached to the Act. What were the two objections taken to the schedule as framed by the Commissioners? They were founded on a judgment of Mr. Murrough O'Brien, and his objections might be divided into two heads. First, Mr. O'Brien said, that proximity should not be taken as a separate subject of valuation. But this was one of the things that the schedule attached to the Act required, and, therefore, he had no hesitation in saying, that had the Land Commissioners in framing the new schedule left out "proximity," as a matter upon which a separate value should be placed, they would have acted in direct contravention of a duty imposed upon them by an Act of Parliament. They had set out "proximity" as a circumstance upon which a value should be placed, and remoteness as a fact to be taken into account in reducing value. What were the other matters on which the hon. Member objected, founding his objections on the judgment of Mr. Murrough O'Brien, in which judgment Mr. O'Brien apparently did not confine himself to the proper duty of at judge—namely, to administer an Act, but went on to condemn its policy. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] The position of a judge did not confer the right to condemn the policy of that Act which Mr. O'Brien had chosen to assume. The second head of the objection was that, according to the requirements of the schedule framed by the Commissioners, valuers were required to value the land as distinct from the buildings upon it.
MR. T. M. HEALYbegged to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a point of order. Was it in order to state that a Commissioner, whose salary was a charge on the Consolidated Fund, acting judicially, exceeded his duty as a judge in delivering a judgment?
MR. SPEAKER: I do not quite know what is the position of Mr. O'Brien. I

547
understand he is not a Judge of the High Court. I do not think that in anything he has said the right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone beyond the proper limits of Debate.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDresumed his remarks on the objection to the valuation of buildings separately from land. The schedule, no doubt, required this separate valuation, and Mr. O'Brien said this should not be done, but that the buildings should go with the farm and should not be valued separately There were three or four answers to that. In the first place it had been the invariable practice of the Land Commission from 1882 until now; secondly, there had been no inconvenience experienced from it; and, thirdly, this was the principle of one of the best valuations ever made in Ireland. Griffiths' valuation, the Poor Law valuation conducted under Sir Richard Griffiths, was based on the principle of valuing land and buildings separately. The fourth answer was that Mr. Morrough O'Brien, in a case which attracted the most attention to the exercise of his powers as a land valuer, and for which he was greatly praised, namely Adams v. Dunseath, he himself had valued the land separately from the buildings. He failed to see, therefore, how a gentleman who in the most conspicuous case in which, perhaps, he was ever employed, valued land separately from buildings, could say that the Commissioners were open to his condemnation because they adopted the same course. ["Hear, hear!"] The schedule attached to the Act in its first part required that land should be valued separately from buildings, and the Commissioners were bound to carry that out. It provided for different qualities of land being valued according to their class and quality, entirely irrespective of the fact whether buildings were upon them or not. The Commissioners had no power to put aside the duties and obligations cast upon them by the statute. The hon. Member for East Mayo seemed to be under the impression that injustice might be done to the tenants by this mode of procedure. There was no well grounded apprehension whatever for anything of the kind. No valuer who knew his business would first value the whole farm with the buildings upon it as a going concern, and then in addition to that, value the buildings and add their value
548
to the value so found, so as to make the tenant pay twice. Mr. O'Brien himself did not do it, and no valuer knowing his business and acting with a proper sense of his duty would attempt to adopt such a principle. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. T. M. HEALYremarked that it was extremely kind of the hon. and learned Gentleman to make the defence he had done for the Land Commission, and it was in accordance with his well-known spirit of generosity, because if ever a man had been flouted by that body it was the hon. and learned Gentleman in the advice he gave to the House while the Land Act was passing through. His opinion as a high Law Officer was flouted by the Land Commission in a gross and irregular manner, and his opinion, though reversed and held to be bad, was upheld by the Court of Appeal. ["Hear, hear!"] The Attorney General must have felt the action of the Land Commission very keenly, and in coming forward to defend a body with regard to which he was sure he yielded to no man in his contempt, did a very generous act. [Laughter.] The duty was not fairly cast on the Attorney General to defend the Land Commission. He could imagine nothing more unfair than to cast on the Government of the day, which might be wholly opposed to the administration of Land Acts, or the policy which called them forth, the duty of defending rules which they might have never seen or been consulted about. However, the Attorney General, in the exercise of his generosity, had come forward as the defender of the Land Commission. It was said that the Land Commission were anxious to follow out in letter and in spirit the directions of Parliament. A body which neglected the first direction of Parliament deserved impeachment, because the House of Commons, being a High Inquisition, was entitled to know what this body was doing. There was in the forefront a statutory provision that any rules that the Commission made should be laid before Parliament, within three weeks after they were made if Parliament was sitting. Yet the Commission flouted, defied, and derided the law of Parliament, and it was said the interests of humble cotter tenants in Ireland were safe in its hands. This pinched the landlords as well as the tenants, and he waited to see what the Attorney General would say in that regard.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he had already, in answer to a question, stated that it was by a pure accident that these rules were not laid on the Table at the proper time, and was entirely due to the unfortunate illness of the officer responsible.
MR. T. M. HEALYremarked that it was said to have been by "a pure accident" that a policeman was shot in Manchester in 1867, but all the same three men were hanged for that pure accident. But here was the Land Commission, the officials of which received from £3,500 a year downwards—which had the most expensive staff in the world—formerly it was said it cost a sovereign to lend a tenant a sovereign, he supposed that was not the case now—and spent £150,000 or £200,000 in one way or another, which was supposed to "search the Scriptures" to see how they could benefit the Irish tenant, flying in the face of the House and neglecting to comply with the rules of Parliament, as to laying its rules on the Table at the proper time.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the question before the House was not whether the rules were laid on the Table at the proper time, but whether the specific rules in question should be annulled.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid his point was that the Government should under the circumstances give special time for the consideration of the rules, but he would obey the direction of the Speaker. According to the statement of the Attorney General, it was owing to the action of some disembodied Spirit, whose name did not even figure on the lips of the right hon. Gentleman, that this extraordinary defiance of Parliament had taken place, and they accepted that statement, in the words of Mr. Rhodes, with "unctuous rectitude." It was true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that the rule he mentioned had been since 1882 a rule of the Land Commission. That was exactly the point of the case. In 1882 the rule was made at the instance of the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman explained that there were no rules of this kind made in favour of or against landlords. The reason of the omission was that the rule was made in a hostile sense against the tenants by a hostile body—the landlords in the House of Lords—["hear, hear!"]—who let the landlords off scot free. He said that the landlords never brought any cases. He
550
(Mr. Healy) recollected that Lord Devon brought no less than 50 cases of applications to raise rents. Lord Longford, the Marquess of Headford, and others brought similar cases. He said frankly that he did not think it was any great hardship on the tenant that the landlord should not give notice of making improvements because they never made any. ["Hear, hear!"] He listened to the argument of the Attorney General, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman missed the point, which was that the rule was constitutional and statutable. Up to the passing of the Act of 1896 it was the same old rule that remained in existence. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been well advised if he had said the Debate could not go on, as he had not had sufficient notice, and that he would get the defence of the Land Commission and let the House decide later whether their reasons were right or wrong. That would have been a reasonable view for the right hon. Gentleman to have put forward, but that was not the view that he did present to the House. Accordingly, they had to consider this: Did the Act of 1896 make a difference? Would anyone say that if the House of Lords had carried an Amendment enjoining that the improvements should be recorded by the tenant, that that Amendment would not have had an effect? He had never made a complaint that the tenant should be compelled to give notice of his improvements in certain cases. It tended to make the tenant accurate in making up his case, and, above all, it tended to make the solicitor of the tenant accurate in presenting his case. He was glad to see the other day an action brought by a tenant against his solicitor because the solicitor neglected to make a schedule of the improvements, whereby the improvements were disallowed. Why did not that attorney, when he knew that the action was threatened, say to the Court, "It was my mistake," and apply to the Court for liberty notwithstanding to make proof of the improvements? He did not do so because he knew that the Land Commission, if the tenant had by any inadvertence failed to give notice of his improvements, would not allow fresh proof of the improvements to be given even though those improvements might be as obvious as the Clock Tower to anyone passing over Westminster Bridge. In

551
his opinion, the Act of 1896 had made a difference. The Land Commissioners were told by that Act that they must ascertain and make a record of the improvements. He did not deny that the Land Commission was entitled to the assistance of the parties in the case, but he said that where there was no real intention of flouting the rule the duty was cast on the Land Commission to ascertain the improvements for themselves. Why did the Land Commissioners go on the land? To use their eyes. If they saw bog on one side of a ditch, and reclaimed land on the other, the obvious conclusion was that there had been reclamation, and if the tenant failed to put down ten acres of bog reclaimed, was he to lose the benefit of those improvements? This schedule was put in by the House of Lords with the view of quieting the landlords in possession, and of providing that in 1897 the improvement should be earmarked for all time, so that it would no longer be possible to plead loose practice on behalf of the tenant. The 15 years' term from 1897 would be 1912. The Act enabled the tenant to go back to 1881; and in order that the tenant could not say in 1912 that he failed to claim in 1881 because he did not come in till 1882, and that he failed to claim in 1897 because he forgot to endorse his notice, the House of Lords said, "We will cast on the Land Commission the duty of ascertaining and recording all improvements." The Land Commission was a Court of inferior jurisdiction, and he was not at all sure that if the Commission were served with a mandamus and the case was heard by a fair Court of Queen's Bench, which did not always happen, they could not be compelled to do the duty. Therefore the Government had better not divide against the Motion. The landlords were asleep, naturally. If this were a question of Canon Gregg or of the Battle of the Boyne, they would be wide awake. The Government should ask the Commission what value they attached to these words in the Act of 1896. It was not a body for whose accuracy anyone need have any respect. The test of any tribunal was the legal opinion of it, and did anyone in Ireland respect the Irish Land Commission? There was no duty on the Government to defend these rules. The Commission had committed blunder after blunder, they were held in no degree of confidence or esteem either
552
by the landlords or the tenants. He thought this was a case for inquiry. The question of improvements went to the root of the whole question. It was one of enormous importance, and they should not be expected at that hour of the morning to come to a conclusion on the matter. For the purpose of enabling the Government to address to the Land Commission an inquiry on the point, he begged to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
MR. JAMES DALYseconded the Motion.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said the Government could not accept the Motion. The Speaker had suggested that the hon. Member for East Mayo should postpone the discussion until these rules had been printed, but as the hon. Member declined to accept that suggestion, and as the discussion had gone on for nearly two hours, he thought they must ask the House to come to a decision. The hon. Member for Louth had not raised any points which were not raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo. Those points were carefully examined and gone through by his right hon. Friend, and he thought the House would come to the conclusion that his answers were perfectly satisfactory. ["Hear, hear!"]
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
COLONEL WARINGsaid that though they would vote with the Government against the Motion of the hon. Member for East Mayo, they must not be understood as being satisfied with the schedule as it stood. They were of opinion that many of the particulars which the Act intended should be recorded in it were not so recorded, and they must not be understood as acquiescing in the schedule as giving all the information which they thought both landlord and tenant were entitled to.
Original Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 40; Noes, 101.—(Division List, No. 98.)
And, it being, after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'clock.